Chris, I'm sure the insurance industry are watching this very closely and will be updating their criteria for risk assessing. Will be interesting to follow through as to what the fire authorities disclose when the embers have died down!

Did catch end of radio news bulletin that said there would be an investigation about wisdom of siting such facilities i.e. metal recycling yards under motorway bridges. But maybe there is another question: Which was there first? Phil

I had to laugh at Phillip Hammond's reply to Andrew 'tabloid' Neil when cornered, when he promised a review of what sites are used for under motorways. Mmmm.... I doubt whether any of us will see the results of the review, as it's political spin and the Govt will hope everyone's forgotten about the fire after the royal wedding and more disturbing images from Libya! As for the FRA - I cannot see how any FRA would have prevented the damage to the bridge - especially if this proves to be arson. I for one would have considered motorway drivers and recorded them as relevant persons. However, other than good housekeeping - including care with the cylinders, I don't expect to have made any specific provision to safeguard those on the M1 above. If anything, those on the motorway are slightly better off that those living nearby if an acetylene bottle exploded. The damage to the bridge is perhaps not within the brief of the FRA which really focusses on life safety rather than 'building' protection. I would guess that insurance rates for properties with high fire loadings under such bridges will rocket as a result of this fire. Money grabbing insurance companies are bound to include premises within railway arches in this price hike.

Agreed, insurers won't be too bothered by the M1 incident because no claims are likely to arise from third parties. Highways Agency might have a claim for infrastructure repair costs if they can prove negligence, but since this fire looks to have been arson, that route may not be open to them. Road users, delayed by the fire certainly would not have a valid claim. Railways on the other hand are a different matter. Train operating companies and Network Rail can claim for lost profits from the line and operations on the line if it has to be shut following a fire. If negligence can be shown, these claims can be quite substantial.