I was asked today to give a view on an existing FRA regarding some of the recommendations from the assessor.
There were 2 areas I felt the assessor had been overzealous with and would like opinions as to whether my view is justified.
I should point out that the school is a primary school, 40 years old, has approx. 400 pupils, a special needs group and 50 members of staff. Is mainly ground floor with one 1st floor area on a single block.

1 The assessor has recommended a full retro fit sprinkler system covering the entire school. I have suggested that in a new build or full refurbishment then sprinklers could be designed in but the cost of retro fitting outweighs the benefit in a school with no history of fires in the last 10 years.

2 A Lightning protection system, I am not sure if this is a requirement, or a nicety. I have asked the school to contact their LEA for a policy. My gut view is that its a nicety and that if the school can afford to install a system then it might help reduce their insurance costs, but there will be some on-going maintenance costs.

Any thoughts, comments or facts would be welcome.

http://www.education.gov.../fire-safety-for-schools has some stuff about sprinklers in schools - new schools should normally have them, which rather suggests that there's not an expectation to retrofit (this page would say so if there was, surely?).

Having dealt with a number of schools during my "LA life" & now giving advice as a consultant, I would agree with your comments about retrofitting sprinklers.

The issue of lighting conductors is an interesting one as the recommendations in BS 6651 are that risk assessments should be carried out if certain criteria are met, i.e. where a large number of people congregate or where there are essential public services - I would suggest that a school meets both of these.

The risk assessment will then establish if such devices are then actually required in that specific school, given its location; lightning strike history of the area, etc.

To add a little to the debate, Essex County Fire and Rescue have launched a recent campaign to have sprinklers fitted to all new schools built in the County. Interestingly enough they have also set up a £250K fund to retrofit sprinklers in “high life risk premises.”

The Chief Fire officer has also written to MPs seeking support for all new domestic dwellings and other high risk premises (which I understand includes schools) whether new or existing, to have sprinklers fitted.

This campaign follows devastating school fire a little earlier this year in my home town where the school was completely lost despite best efforts of 50+ fire-fighters and a “make pumps 10”, luckily the children (all infant age) were on holiday at the time although they were only a few days away from return. I understand the cause was contractors undertaking hot work on the roof.

Now let’s play devil’s advocate and retrofit a sprinkler system in a school, during the school holidays an arson attempt is made (not an unknown event) or contractors working on the roof set fire to it. Rather than losing the entire school the system kicks in and only a small proportion is lost. Was the retro fitting of the sprinkler system cost effective? Discuss.

Like Zyggy and having spent some years in the public sector dealing with schools I have to agree with him on the matter of lightning conductors.

Ray,

Seems to me both you and Essex FB are looking at this wrong. You should be looking at fire prevention not mitigation after a fire has started.

The school would not have burned down if there had been adequate contractor control by the client and contractors were managing hot work properly.
I saw that report about the primary school and was dumbfounded.
When will LAs face up to their responsibilities like we have to in the private sector ?

Sorry about the slight hijack.

Walker,

No need to be sorry, I don’t see it as a highjack. It’s a legitimate point of view although I am not sure I agree that I and ECFRS are “looking at it wrong” and I did say “let’s play devil’s advocate.”

Clearly fire prevention is and always will be the primary concern, “prevention better than cure” and all that. With a son who is a full time fire-fighter I would prefer that he didn’t have to go into burning buildings. To be fair to ECFRS (along with all the other fire services) fire prevention forms a very substantial part of their job. I also believe the CFO’s rationale is if a sprinkler system puts any fire out at a very early stage that is all part of fire prevention (or at least fire prevention spread).

Surely the reality is that despite what is done by the client and any contractor there will always be the human factor or “sods law” that oft times comes into play and fitting sprinklers will be simply another control measure to control any fire before it gets too big. If the school had been occupied by pupils at the time then the fitting of sprinklers may well have helped with giving additional time for any evacuation and would have probably prevented the complete loss of the building.

In the current climate of more and more financial cutbacks in the public sector retro fitting sprinklers is unlikely to be a starter although there is an argument that had they been fitted in that particular instance substantial costs (and expense to the council tax payers of Essex) would not have been incurred in providing temporary accommodation and rebuilding costs along with severe disruption to pupils/parents and staff.

Totally agree. My point was that the risk assessor should be making recomendations based on risk not cost. It's down to the holders of the purse as to whether or not they follow the recomendations, do something different or do nothing at all.