The fire safety industry and insurers have been told in no uncertain terms that it’s not up to central government to raise standards through additional regulation, as Ron Alalouff reports.
If people want higher standards of fire protection, industry rather than government should be driving that improvement, a senior government official told an audience of insurance industry representatives last week.
Speaking at the annual RISC Authority seminar, Brian Martin of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) quoted fire minister, Bob Neill:
“If you think that more fire protection would be good for UK business then you should be making your case to the business community, not the government.”
Just to emphasise how unlikely the prospects are for further fire safety regulation any time soon, Mr Martin outlined the government’s policy on regulation – as unveiled by the prime minster. One aspect of that policy is that any minister who wants to bring in a new regulation must first find an existing one to get rid of.
“No-one should underestimate how revolutionary this is,” said David Cameron, soon after taking office last May. “For a long time, the whole business of Whitehall has been about creating new regulations. This new rule completely blows that culture apart.”
In addition, the government is committed to reforming the planning system and reducing the total burden of regulation on the housing industry, said Mr Martin. Building regulations could be slimmed down, while at the same time delivering “even better standards of compliance” in the future.
Following a consultation exercise, DCLG published a document in December 2010 setting out its work to develop building regulations. The document’s executive summary states that “the programme will have a particular focus on deregulation and streamlining of the technical and procedural aspects of the regulations”.
While much of the document relates to other areas of the building regulations, a significant number of the 54 consultation responses relating to fire safety in part B called for regulation for greater use of sprinkler and water suppression systems, in both domestic and non-domestic premises. But the document says that no significant new evidence was produced which would alter the cost/benefit analysis used as a basis of the current approach, and so the department would not be considering further sprinkler regulation as part of this year’s work.
The document does mention the environmental aspects of fire, but says a more robust evidence base is needed to assess the impacts on the environment of fire and fire protection systems.
Mr Martin then turned to the review of the role of local acts of parliament providing for mandatory sprinklers for certain buildings. He said while sprinklers continue to play an important role in protecting people from fire, the government intended to remove duplicate and unnecessary provisions from primary legislation and an assorted collection of local acts to allow individuals, councils and businesses to get on with the job, without unnecessary government meddling.
Timber framed buildings
Moving on to timber framed buildings, Mr Martin pointed out that most of the high profile fires were in buildings under construction rather than completed ones. The government’s view was that although the latest statistics suggested that even completed timber framed buildings suffered greater fire damage than other types of construction, this has not resulted in a higher risk of injury. There was also a danger that concerns about timber frames under construction was getting mixed up with completed buildings.
Recently published new guidance on fire safety on construction sites from the Health and Safety Executive should make it clearer how to consider the safety of people on sites, he said. “The timber frame industry do now realise that they need to get their act together. I’m fairly confident that things are going in the right direction with that.” But he warned that the risk in timber frame construction should not be got out of proportion, as there was a real risk of “demonising” one alternative method of construction, without examining any risks in other methods.
Turning to fire risk assessments, Mr Martin said he welcomed the moves the fire industry was making to have a common competency standard, and said the approach tied in with the philosophy behind Lord Young’s report on health and safety regulation, Common Sense, Common Safety?
Download Brian Martin’s presentation
National building code?
Mike Wood, chair of the fire safety development group reporting into the government’s Fire Futures strategy, said he welcomed the review as a chance for industry and professionals to take ownership of the future direction of fire safety in a united way.
"For the first time, we are seeing a more unified approach to fire safety rather than a fragmented approach which can lead to in-fighting.”
But he said the industry needed to grasp this opportunity, so that the sector might be in a position to create what he described as a fire safety ‘national building code’.
“We don’t have a co-ordinated way of looking at changes in the built environment. Construction practice and technology is advancing rapidly, without any or with an inadequate analysis of the consequences for the fundamental robustness of buildings against fire. Mr Wood then presented a selection of ‘alternative’ methods of construction including the use of compacted straw and recycled newspaper, and a proposed modular high rise timber system of up to 20-storeys.
Download Mike Wood’s presentation
"New and extraordinary”
Modern methods of construction – including timber frame – was also covered by Jim Glockling, technical director at the Fire Protection Association. He warned against pursuing the ‘sustainability’ goal solely by increasing energy efficiency to the exclusion of fire safety considerations, and said that recent large construction site fires are a “new and extraordinary” phenomenon.
But some of the problems could also lie in completed buildings. Referring to a timber framed residential block in Manchester where the fire and rescue service had to return to several times because a fire was spreading unseen inside voids, he said if buildings are put together properly, that sort of fire should never happen. But if the standards are so high that they don’t reflect normal building practices, then the construction type itself may need to be looked at again.
But Dr Glockling believed the UK Timber Frame Association (UKTFA) was now putting its money where its mouth is, with its Site Safe scheme and efforts to ensure better fire stopping characteristics in buildings. UKTFA had also formed a joint working group with the Chief Fire Officers Association, which was examining these issues. In practice, however, that group may not consider the full range of risks and risk mitigation options, because some of these will curtail design options or negate the cost benefits of the construction method.
Dr Glockling warned that the proliferation of timber frame and modern methods of construction may radically alter the risk environment in the UK, but asked what impact analysis was done before the government decided we did not need the additional protections that other countries more experienced in these types of buildings – such as the United States – have found necessary.
“Approved Document B needs to respond to stop practices that invite error. It was developed for easy and forgiving masonry construction. With timber frame or modern methods of construction, the room for error is small, if not microscopic.”
Download Jim Glockling’s presentation
Fire engineering and business continuity
Peter Wilkinson of the Fire Protection Association started with a quotation attributed to Stelios Haji-Ioannou, the founder of EasyJet: “If you think risk management is expensive, try having an accident.”
Mr Wilkinson described the process being adopted by a newly formed BSI working group, of which he is chair, which is endeavouring to draft a new part to the suite of documents on fire safety engineering principles. When published, PD 7974-8 would specifically address reducing property loss, ensuring business continuity and providing resilience against the effects of fire. Without adequate end user and insurer inputs into the qualitative design review, insurers’ concerns about property protection and business continuity cannot be taken into account, he said.
Download Peter Wilkinson’s presentation
The audience also heard presentations from Lee Howell, chief fire officer of Devon & Somerset Fire and Rescue Service, on reducing arson; George Fordyce, head of engineering policy at NHBC on managing risk in non-conventional construction; and Dan Occhini of Kent Police on feedback on the development of the Risc Authority’s business continuity toolkit.
Jim Glocking. Can you please tell me where I might obtain copies of the presentations made at the RISCAuthority Seminar 2011?