Memorandum submitted by West Midlands
Fire and Rescue Service
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 As a metropolitan fire and rescue service
deeply concerned about fire safety in schools, we welcome the
Committee's decision to undertake an inquiry into Sustainable
Schools. We are submitting evidence following an invitation from
the Committee Chair Barry Sheerman MP to address the specific
issue of fire safety and fire suppression in schools in the context
of the Inquiry.
1.2 The success of the Building Schools
for the Future (BSF) Programme is directly linked to this issue
of fire safety. Every year around 2,000 schools in Britain are
damaged by fire. For a school to be environmentally, economically
and socially sustainable, any risk of potential structural damage
must be minimised. Working towards guaranteeing the longevity
of the school building will ensure that the premises can "meet
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs."
1.3 In order to minimise the risks posed
by fire, we are in favour of the mandatory fitting of automatic
fire control equipment in all new build and refurbished schools.
There are economic, social and environmental arguments in favour
of the mandatory installation of sprinkler systems to ensure the
sustainability of educational premises.
2. THE CURRENT
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY SITUATION
2.1 Currently there is no legislative requirement
for the mandatory fitting of sprinklers in school buildings and
there are no plans to make their fitting mandatory.
2.2 All school buildings must comply with
Approved Document B (Fire Safety) of the Building Regulations.
These regulations, which are the responsibility of the Department
for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), do not require schools
to install sprinkler systems, but do not preclude local Authorities
from doing so.
2.3 The installation of sprinklers is similarly
dealt with in Building Bulletin 100, Designing and Managing Against
the Risk of Fire in Schools. This is non-statutory guidance published
by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES).
2.4 As both the DfES and the DCLG (formerly
ODPM) are involved in the fire regulations and guidance relating
to schools, there has been some confusion as to which department
has the lead on developing Building Bulletin 100. However, former
Fire and Rescue Services Minister, Jim Fitzpatrick MP, recently
clarified the situation:
"The Department for Education and Skills
is in the lead in considering Building Bulletin 100 and a revision
of the provision of sprinklers in schools. Its consultation will
conclude later this year, and we are looking forward to that to
find out whether we can move forward on this very important issue."
Jim Fitzpatrick MP, Fire and Rescue Service Minister,
response to Oral Question, (Hansard, Column 106,19 April
2006)
2.5 After many months of indicating that
a reviewed version of Building Bulletin 100 would be published,
a draft version of the guidance finally underwent consultation,
which closed on 18 November 2005.
2.6 The version of the guidance that was
put out for consultation did not recommend the installation of
sprinklers in all schools, and stated that a risk assessment should
be undertaken before any decision was made:
"There is obviously a cost implication up
to 5% of a building contract whether for new build or to upgrade
existing buildings. Some school owners may decide that this is
a worthwhile expenditure based on a risk assessment in their buildings
in their area. Where the risk analysis highlights the fact that
an ignition is probable, possibly as a result of location, the
existence of certain processes or other socio-economic factors,
then the fitting of automatic fire suppression systems will need
serious consideration."
NB: We estimate that the cost of installing
sprinkler protection to a new school is as little as 1.8% of the
total building cost. See section three.
2.7 The DfES has yet to publish an analysis
of responses to the consultation, or a revised version of the
guidance. However, Schools Minister Jim Knight MP recently indicated
that the analysis had been completed and would be published "shortly",
whilst the Department hopes to publish the final, revised version
of the guidance before the end of the year. (Hansard, Column
1214W, 14 June 2006).
2.8 Since the consultation concluded, the
DfES has continued to indicate its support for using risk assessment
and cost benefit analysis to determine whether to install sprinklers
in schools. For example, Schools Minister, Jim Knight MP, gave
the following response to a Written Question from Joan Walley
MP:
"We work closely with colleagues in the
new Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and,
liaising with them, we produced new draft guidance on fire safety—Building
Bulletin (BB) 100, "Designing and Managing Against the Risk
of Fire in Schools". It stresses the value of using risk
assessments to determine what sort of fire detection and alarm
systems should be used in each school, and whether or not sprinklers
should be installed. While saying that a building designed in
accordance with the guidance in Approved Document B (Fire Safety),
which accompanies the Building Regulations, will achieve a satisfactory
standard of life safety, it also suggests ways of improving property
protection." (Hansard, Column 910, 16 May 2006)
2.9 However, risk assessment or cost benefit
analysis only predict the damage that would be caused by school
fires in terms of the cost of material damage and the cost of
the fire and rescue service attending the fire. They do not reflect
the damage and disruption suffered by a local community in the
aftermath of a school fire, seriously underestimating the total
cost and can therefore never be accurate.
3. THE ECONOMIC
CASE FOR
THE MANDATORY
FITTING OF
SPRINKLERS
3.1 The Government is investing £2.2
billion in the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme
and over the next 10-15 years there will be further funds invested
in this programme to upgrade or replace all secondary schools.
3.2 Since the year 2000, over £500
million has been lost in school fire costs alone, nearly a quarter
of the Government's start up funding. This is because sprinkler
suppression systems are not a requirement of school building programmes
despite being recognised as one of the most effective means of
combating the risk of fire.
3.3 The BSF programme will, at the present
rate, continue to lose a minimum of £100 million in fire
losses per year at 2003 prices, if there is no requirement to
fit sprinklers.
3.4 Exact figures on the cost of fires to
schools are difficult to ascertain. It is estimated, based on
insurance claims, that the cost to schools in England and Wales
stands at £100 million per year. The total year on year loss,
if school fires continue to rise at the present rate, up until
2016 is estimated at 3 billion. However, the true cost is likely
to be significantly higher as insurance costs cannot reflect the
level of disruption, social impact, environmental damage or the
effect on learning that a fire causes.
3.5 If sprinkler systems were a requirement
of the BSF programme, there would be a return on the Government's
initial investment in the programme in 10 years time. As more
schools are fitted with suppression systems this gain will increase,
as the amount of losses attributed to fire will decrease year
on year.
3.6 The cost of installing sprinkler protection
to a new school is as little as 1.8% of the total building cost
and it is estimated that even a retrofitted system will pay for
itself in savings from fire damage within eight to 10 years. (The
cost of installing a sprinkler system is roughly equivalent to
carpeting the same building.)
3.7 Furthermore, many insurers offer discounts
for sprinkler protected school properties. These discounts are
typically around 15% of the building and contents premium and
would greatly assist in recouping the cost of installing a sprinkler
system.
4. THE SOCIAL
AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CASE FOR
THE MANDATORY
FITTING OF
SPRINKLERS
4.1 The economic loss does not take into
account the effects on the environment due to pollutants from
fire, smoke and water run off, or the social loss to local communities.
This is particularly significant as the BSF programme aims to
make school buildings more community friendly with extended opening
hours for community activities to take place in them.
4.2 Sprinklers reduce building damage and
have the potential to increase the lifespan of a building. Fire
statistics from the USA indicate a 90% reduction in fire damage
costs where sprinklers are in place. Buildings that have a fire
are usually uninhabitable afterwards and may have to be demolished.
However, a sprinkler protected room can usually be back in use
within a few hours and the rest of the building is usually unaffected.
4.3 The provision of sprinkler systems in
a building allows greater flexibility in the building design with
the effect of reducing costs. Sprinklers can save on building
costs because under the building regulations larger compartment
sizes may be constructed. Reduced boundary and extended travel
distance to fire exits are allowed. A reduction in structural
fire protection is also possible.
4.4 Sprinklers help to protect the environment
by controlling a fire in its early stages, preventing airborne
pollution and water run-off.
4.5 Sprinklers save water. Statistics show
that the widespread use of sprinklers could save up to 96% of
the 5.6 billion litres of water used annually in the UK to fight
large fires.
5. CASE STUDY—SCHOOL
FIRE AT
A WEST
MIDLANDS SCHOOL
5.1 In May 1999 West Midlands Fire Service
was called to attend a school fire. The severity of the fire was
such that it took 100 firefighters over 22 hours to control.
— 40,000-50,000 litres of water were
used to douse the flames.
— 100-199 sq metres of school property
were damaged.
— The fire caused over £80,000
worth of material damage.
The fire caused the whole school to be closed
for several days and resulted in severe disruption for students
and the wider community.
5.2 If the school had installed sprinklers,
the fire would have been controlled immediately and no significant
damage would have occurred.
5.3 After the fire, Wormald Fire Systems
were invited to provide a quotation for installing a sprinkler
system throughout the school.
5.4 They indicated that the cost of retro-fitting
the system would be £31,071 if installation took place during
school holidays.
5.5 The maintenance costs, once the system
had been installed, were estimated at just £140 per annum.
This is much lower than typical annual maintenance of passive
fire protection measures such as fire doors and escape routes.
6. CONCLUSION
6.1 It is our contention that a sine
qua non of Sustainable Schools must be their ability to survive
physical external threats such as fire and that the installation
of sprinkler systems is the most cost effective way of achieving
this. The Select Committee Report should advocate Government action
to mandate the progressive fitting of sprinklers in school buildings.
6.2 New measures are required to reduce
the risk of fires in educational buildings and to reduce the level
of damage caused. DCLG figures show that school fires cost the
economy £52 million in 2004 (Hansard, Column 1218,
14 June 2006). This figure does not reflect the disruption, loss
of schoolwork, decline in educational attainment and damage to
the local community that can result from school fires.
6.3 The West Midlands Fire Service believes
that the Government should require the mandatory fitting of sprinklers
in all new-build and refurbished schools, and should ensure that
the revised version of Building Bulletin 100 recommends the use
of sprinklers.
6.4 We appreciate that it is not realistic
for every school to be retro-fitted with immediate effect. However,
it should be mandatory to install sprinklers in all new-build
schools under the BSF programme. Educational premises undergoing
refurbishment should also be obliged to retrofit. Other schools
should be encouraged to consider the installation of a sprinkler
system at the earliest opportunity.
6.5 We should be happy to elaborate further
on this issue and provide any additional information that the
Committee would find helpful.
June 2006
| 
