Posted By TBC
Who should insist on the installation of sprinkler systems in high risk situations. Should it be the Fire and Rescue Service, the insurers or someone else?

Posted By Phillip
Ultimately the house of lords.
Memory fails me on the details but there is a case of a logistics company vs a fire brigade arguing this one all the way up to the lords. The lords decided with the company who did not want to install the sprinklers. (Perhaps someone can post the details).

the new Approved Doc B does now stipulate sprinklers as a requirement for new builds over 20 000m2 - compare that with Europe where in some places the limit is 3000m2.

Posted By Crim
Sprinkler systems can make a difference both as an automatic fire fighting response and also in lowering insurance costs.

Insurers sometime require them, especially if USA based. I remember the House of Lords issue but not where the info is contained, as a result it is unlikely that a fire brigade will require.

I have had responsibility in the past for maintaining (inspection and testing) a sprinkler system in a large manufacturing facility and can recommend them.

Posted By Steve
It depends on what environment the sprinklers are protecting. In the case of one of our sites that use high voltage electrical and extremely hot processes, any water contact on this equipment could be more deadly than the fire it self. Our insurance company now seem to realise this and have stopped pushing for sprinklers, on the other side of the coin the reduced premium would be equal to a 100 year pay back period on the cost of installing a sprinkler system?

Posted By TBC
Great responses and an excellent link to the info of a previous posting I placed, but was rejected by the moderators. Nice one Peter.
Regards
TBC

Posted By TBC
Thanks for that Phillip.

Posted By David Bannister
Stupendous Man, my experience is not the same as yours.

In my previous life working for a major insurance broker I have personal knowledge of significant cost savings on property and business interruption insurance premiums brought about due to the installation of sprinklers, designed to the relevant codes, both with UK and USA insurers.

This is particularly the case for higher (fire) risk properties such as warehouses, plastics and wood working sites if they are single site companies.

For large organisations the addition of sprinklers to one of many other sites will probably not significantly affect the overall premium but will certainly influence the underwriters judgement on the overall risk profile and their desire to retain the business. In the current "soft" insurance market this may not be too relevant but when the cycle moves to a hard market it may mean the difference between acceptability and rejection.

As to their effectiveness, ask any insurer/fire brigade how many major fires have occurred in premises that have properly designed, installed and maintained sprinkler systems with a guaranteed water supply. The answers will be close to zero and fires that have occurred will have been controlled by 1 to 5 sprinkler heads operating.

Can they make a difference - in my opinion emphatically yes.

Posted By ivorfire
It is appreciated that this question was pitched at insurance and buildings angle. Please see second point and third points.

Firstly, I though it worth mentioning that "it can make a difference" for life safety as the sprinkler industry prides itself that no deaths have a occurred in the UK (if not world wide) in a sprinklered building.

Second point. As a fire safety officer / fire engineer sprinklers are an asset that are being used more and more because of the benefits of controlling a fire risk, (not extiguishment). At design stage, in this capacity, accepted fire safety control measures are often relaxed, traded off or reduced in lieu of sprinklers, on the basis of primarily keeping costs down for the industry / developers.

I find this methodology acceptable in some cases but would add that it is also not acceptable as in many cases major fires have occurred (property losses) when a sprinkler system is down for maintenance / offline for work etc.

With trades off that are "negotiated" at the design stages bewteen various enforcing agencies (fire service / building control bodies in conjunction with developers & architects) how does the insurance industry view this approach?
Is this some thing that is viewed on a case by case basis?

The following link is a document of intrest
http://www.northyorksfir...s/cfoa_guide_to_awss.pdf

Any fire engineered solution that encoporates a sprinkler system is reliable on a system of maintaining it working effectively and efficently. If this does not happen for what ever reason, the pendulum of risk now swings the other way; too very high? Again how doe sthe insurance industry view this?

Thirdly, as also a fire fighter I welcome sprinklers when working and controlling a fire and yes, some times things do go array during the organised chaosis of fire fighting and we can get caught out!

Just a couple points to promote discussion.
Ivorfire