The fire authority will lobby government in order to make it a legal requirement to fit sprinklers in “premises where the risk to life and loss of property from fire are most significant.” This would be in addition to those premises that according to building regulations already require sprinklers, such as high-rise buildings over 30m in height, or large warehouse buildings in excess of 20,000m 3.
Leading by example
East Sussex Fire Authority (ESFA) will also encourage the use of sprinklers in other buildings by promoting its benefits to building managers, owners, and developers. The authority has already committed to leading by example by pledging to install sprinklers in all newly built or refurbished authority premises.
In addition, councillors have already successfully petitioned Lewes District Council, which has agreed to install sprinklers in all new-build council properties. They are also considering installing sprinklers in refurbished homes owned by the council that are occupied by those with restricted mobility, though only “if finances allow.”
Chair of the ESFA, Phil Howson, said:
The greatest impact of installing fire sprinklers is likely to occur within particular properties such as schools, residential care homes, premises housing highly vulnerable residents, and certain large commercial premises.
The authority sets out specific ways in which it will assist designers, planners, and building managers in schools, residential care homes, domestic premises, and commercial and industrial premises. In addition, the authority explains how they will encourage developers to use sprinklers to allow them design freedoms from traditional fire safety building approaches. They write:
In today’s challenging built environment, there is a will and motivation to construct innovative buildings that often require design solutions that depart from traditional fire safety approved codes of practice. This approach allows stakeholders to demonstrate that sprinklers can offer an equivalent level of fire protection and life safety, resulting in greater freedom to fulfil their overall vision for such buildings.
The authority also recognizes that affordability is seen as one of the most widespread issues around sprinkler systems, and promises to support the development of new suppression systems to tackle this issue of cost.
Tragic outcome
In a statement, Lewes councillor Carolyn Lambert, who proposed that Lewes District Council join the fire authority in supporting the use of sprinklers, said:
As a member of the Fire Authority, I am very aware of the importance of fire prevention work. There have unfortunately been 8 fatal fires in Lewes District in the last 10 years, and in the majority of these cases, domestic sprinkler systems could have made a difference to the tragic outcome.
Download the Fire Safety in 2023 eBook, keeping you up to date with the biggest news and prosecution stories from around the industry. Chapters include important updates such as the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 and an overview of the new British Standard for the digital management of fire safety information.
Plus, we explore the growing risks of lithium-ion battery fires and hear from experts in disability evacuation and social housing.
It will be interseting to see the effect this will have on developments in this area. Housebuilding has apparently fallen in Wales, and the housbuilders say it is because of the impending law requiring sprinklers in residential buildings. Will East Sussex see a similar decline in investment and development? Is this driven, at all, by the need for the FA to cut costs – install sprinklers, so less need for standard PDA, so close stations or reduce watch strength? Lewes Council support looks a bit weak, where sprinklers will be installed “where finances allow”. Simplistically, either the buildings need them or… Read more »
I’m not familiar with the area or it’s building slow down but I’d be interested in hearing how sprinklers will allow builders to avoid older fire codes and if they will actually do so. I imagine that this will be a tangled mess of what can be done and there are going to be some tense inspections the first time someone ignores an old code because they are using sprinklers instead of an older fire containment method.
Frankly I agree with your point on Fire Authorities looking to cut costs by recommending sprinklers. Anything that can further reduce fires is good not just from a life-saving POV but from a fire service resources POV. Why don’t they just say so though? ‘We want to spend tax payer money less and more efficiently, help us.’ ?
The ‘design freedoms’ bit does interest me. Are you going to not have partition walls because you’ve got sprinklers instead? On paper, that might be OK, but as you say it would be ‘squeaky bum time’ for the building owners, as Fergie might say.