Was Detention Centre Fire Inevitable Without Sprinklers?

The Independent reports that the Home Office ignored a formal recommendation to fit sprinklers at Campsfield House, the location of a recent major fire.

Click here to view Figure 1.

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.

Previous

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.

Familiar story

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.

Compulsory prescription

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:

• Honduras Prison Fire 1 Year On