Heights of Confusion: One Rule for One, and One for Another

This informal CPD article, ‘Heights of Confusion: One Rule for One, and One for Another’ was provided by Tom Roche, Secretary of the Business Sprinkler Alliance (BSA), established in 2010 as an alliance of fire safety professionals working to protect UK plc against fire.

Heights of Confusion: One Rule for One, and One for Another

When a fire tore through the Cube high-rise student accommodation at Bolton University in 2019, all 217 students were able to escape or assisted to safety. Thankfully there were no casualties but it was a stark reminder that our 11-metre sprinkler threshold for high-rise residential buildings does not directly apply to student accommodation. The requirement also does not apply to care homes.

Following the destructive fire at the Cube, the vice-chancellor of Bolton University estimated spending between £1-1.25 million on the immediate response to the fire to rehouse students evacuated from the building and replace necessary possessions lost in the fire. Whether this cost was met by the government or the university, UK plc will have been impacted. The vice-chancellor also stated at the time that the fire damage costs will be met by insurers, but insurance never covers all costs.

The fire brought into sharp focus the destructive impact of fire, challenges with regulatory guidance, the hidden costs of such incidents and begs the question how can its impact be averted?

A ‘compliant’ building is not a resilient building

The Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham said the fire was a ‘near miss’ and was right to highlight the need to reflect on this event. Comments from those involved in the development of this building highlighted the Cube’s compliance with Building Regulations. This would puzzle many given the outcome. However, this mismatch between expectation and outcome delivered by Building Regulation is not uncommon. 

Many building owners believe that if they build to regulation they are creating a resilient building – this is not the case, they are simply creating a compliant building where the requirement is for life safety, not one that is protected from disproportionate damage. According to research carried out by YouGov for the Business Sprinkler Alliance, nearly seven out of 10 (72%) businesses are unaware that current building regulations in the UK do not adequately prevent and protect buildings against the devastating effects of fire.

11 metre requirement threshold

When you look at the devastating fire that tore through this high-rise student accommodation in Bolton, many will find it hard to realise why the new height requirement for the provision of sprinklers does not apply to student accommodation such as this. The 11-metre requirement also does not apply to care homes, therefore fires such as the one that ravaged the Beechmere Extra Care facility in Cheshire in August 2019 are not covered.

Whilst thankfully all 150 staff and elderly residents were evacuated safely from the Beechmere Extra Care facility in Crewe, the building contained no sprinklers. If the incident commander had not overruled the ‘stay-put’ policy and ordered a full and immediate evacuation of the 150 residents, the outcome of this fire may have had very different consequences. Technically, the building should have had a stronger compartmentation strategy but clearly it didn’t.

The regulatory system and other building types are not covered by the change to sprinkler requirements. The risk of fire is not confined to certain height thresholds or because we use different terms for similar premises. Furthermore, the regulations are based on historical data despite buildings today being substantially different from their predecessors in terms of materials, construction and use.

Sprinklers can ensure resilience

The BSA believes that sprinkler systems should be considered more readily as a viable option right across the built environment whether it is a hospital, school, retail or leisure facility, or commercial and industrial building.

Fires such as these highlight the rationale for greater consideration of property protection alongside life safety as a reasonable outcome. An expectation to limit disproportionate damage alongside ensuring life safety could result in more buildings being designed to be resilient, using combinations of passive and active fire safety measures.

We hope this article was helpful. For more information from Business Sprinkler Alliance (BSA), please visit their CPD Member Directory page. Alternatively, you can go to the CPD Industry Hubs for more articles, courses and events relevant to your Continuing Professional Development requirements.