The detention centre, near Oxford, houses up to 216 male detainees on a long-term basis pending the outcome of their immigration cases. It is operated by MITIE on behalf of the UK Border Agency.
The latest fire broke out on October 18, 2013, at 9 p.m.
Ten fire appliances tackled the blaze, the cause of which is still under investigation. It is reported that two persons were taken to hospital and around 150 detainees had to be relocated to other centres. No members of staff were injured.
One detainee contacted the police and media to complain about the way in which the evacuation was handled. His girlfriend told Corporate Watch that Emidio had been in the shower and did not hear the fire alarm. He was only told to evacuate after being spotted on CCTV but once outside the building he could see others inside the building unaware of the fire.
On June 14, 2008, there were a series of small fires at the centre. On that occasion the fires were set deliberately in protest at the way in which one resident had been treated. Millions of pounds’ worth of damage was caused to one of the accommodation blocks.
The Independent quotes Chief Fire Officer Dave Etheridge of Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service who said:
We formally wrote to the Home Office recommending the fitting of sprinklers due to the nature and behaviour of the occupants, plus the high probability of another similar incident.
The Home Office elected not to fit sprinklers during the refurbishment.
CFOA President, Paul Fuller, commented to the British Sprinkler Alliance:
The Oxfordshire crews and emergency service colleagues did a tremendous job at this incident and should be commended. However the extensive spread of the fire might have been halted before the lives of firefighters and the centre’s staff and residents were put at risk, had the Home Office listened to Oxfordshire Fire Service’s advice to fit sprinklers at the Campsfield Centre.
MITIE, which itself offers sprinkler installation as one of its specialist services, declined to comment to the Independent’s reporter on the lack of sprinklers in the building.
Unfortunately the reports are all too familiar. In February 2002 there was a fire during a disturbance at Yarl’s Wood detention centre.
The World Socialist Website reported on some of the troubles at the centre at the time of the GB pound 42 million fire. It quoted the Acting Deputy Chief Fire Officer with Bedfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, at the time, who said, “We were asked for our opinion at the end of 2000, early 2001 and it was our advice to have sprinklers in a building of this type.” Those sprinklers had apparently been priced by a supplier at GB pound 350,000, less than 1 percent of the cost of the building’s damage bill.
It is also reported that sprinklers were not fitted in any of the new detention centres built at the time or in any recently refurbished ones.
It appears that the lobby for mandatory sprinklers in higher risk new builds is gathering momentum. Essex Fire & Rescue Service recently wrote to MPs pressing them to support a campaign to have sprinklers installed in all new homes and high risk buildings such as schools.
The building regulations for England and Wales require sprinklers in high-rise buildings over 30 m in height, or warehouses exceeding 20,000 m3. But is there sufficient pressure for this to change particularly given the higher standards already in place in Scotland and Wales?
Surely detention centres and prisons are one environment where fire is predictable and where the cost of sprinklers is almost guaranteed to give a return on investment?
Related posts:
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.
I agree this is an environment where fires are predictable especially when they have been used by detainees as protest tactics in past. I would surely hope that the decision to forgo a sprinkler system was more fiscally motivated rather than out of malice. I wonder now in retrospect which will be more costly repairing the damage or the cost of the sprinkler system…
Well, usually it’s the cost of damage that exceeds the cost of sprinklers in the first place. I’m sure the decision not to install sprinklers will have been entirely fiscal. The Department of Justice, and other relevant Gov departmants have less money than ever. Sprinklers must have been too expensive at the time, a decision I’m sure they regret in hindsight.
@ JohnathonL
It astonished me that a place like that would not have sprinklers in the first place. I truly hope that decision wasn’t made out of malice as you said.
the problem is during bad economy/times everyone try to save money… and try to cut corners… this is the end result… sad… as human life have no price…
I would say it was a very bad decision not to install sprinklers. No one will ever know for sure if the fire was indeed inevitable due to this reason alone, but it could have been a major factor.
I share your sentiments, Stacey. It was a truly unfortunate situation and I am also hoping for the best. People can learn a thing or two from this and hopefully, future fires can be prevented after this occurrence.
What a highly emotive and unprofessional article. The continual “bashing” of the Home Office who cannot really reply does little to advance the cause of sprinklers and the obvious unchecked inaccuracies in the report regarding a lack of sprinklers in the estate, renders the remainder of the dialogue extremely suspect. The fire precautions in this building prevented serious injury or death which is all they had to do. The Fire Service may well want sprinklers in all building including these which is clearly a totally non-cost effective pipe dream. Why not have a go at schools which burn down with… Read more »
What a highly emotive and unprofessional article. The continual “bashing” of the Home Office who cannot really reply does little to advance the cause of sprinklers and the obvious unchecked inaccuracies in the report regarding a lack of sprinklers in the estate, renders the remainder of the dialogue extremely suspect. The fire precautions in this building prevented serious injury or death which is all they had to do. The Fire Service may well want sprinklers in all building including these which is clearly a totally non-cost effective pipe dream. Why not have a go at schools which burn down with… Read more »
Steady on Lancspete. I appreciate that sprinklers spark a bit of debate but I’m not quite sure why you’d suggest the content of the article is incorrect – ‘unchecked inaccuracies about sprinklers in the estate’? (nor why you’d say it twice?!)
The fire service have again written to local reporters in Oxford about the lack of them http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/NEWS/10770959._They_have_ignored_my_advice_but_must_instal_sprinklers_/ Do you have information which suggests they’re wrong? I haven’t found any myself.
As regards schools – in the country I live in sprinklers are more or less mandatory in new build schools. As you say, saves a fortune in the long run.
Claire,
does the Home Ofice have a position eithe ron this incident or the issue more widely? is it just down to costs?
thanks
Phil
Hi Phil,
The Independent report included this comment: A Home Office spokesman said it took detainees’ welfare seriously, adding: “We comply with all relevant fire safety legislation.”
Since our building standards in the UK are based on passive protection measures, there’s no reason to disbelieve the spokesperson. However, there’s got to be a strong argument for sprinklers in this type of building for property protection purposes even if you’re 100% sure about your life protection arrangements.
I have no idea on the current Home Office position on sprinklers – perhaps one of our readers can comment?
Claire
@ batye
You are right, and it is sad that cutting corners to save money often ends up costing human life.
@ ITs_Hazel
I too hope lessons were learned from this situation. In my opinion anywhere that houses people should make their safety top priority; no matter who those people are.
@STACEY ESTEY
thank you
I think this is a global problem
when big Co. forget about value of human life…
@ batye
Your right, it is a global problem. Too many times the rich just want to get richer…no matter the cost.
in Canada we do have this problem… and a lot of the times as long as they friends of the rulling party they crimes get under the carpet…