April 2002, pages 108-109 A growing number of local authorities are starting to consider the use of sprinkler systems as a way of reducing fire deaths in HMOs. Jane Douglas reports

It is widely accepted that a staggering 34.8 per cent of all fire deaths occur in Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs), and there is mounting pressure from a number of quarters to evaluate the use of residential sprinkler systems in these high risk dwellings.¹

Following a successful bid to the National Assembly for Wales, Wrexham Council is making 100 per cent grants available for residential sprinkler systems to be installed in HMOs. While the proportion of funding provided to HMO landlords will be kept under review, the council, along with a growing number of other local authorities, is keen to promote the advantages of sprinklers and encourage their adoption as a practical solution to some of the problems associated with traditional fire safety methods.

The proposal was well received at the council's newly established Landlord's Forum, and within two weeks 30 properties were lined up for the installation of a residential sprinkler system.

HMOs over three storeys high are at greatest risk, with statistics showing that while only 16 per cent of HMO occupants live in an HMO over three floors, they account for 50 per cent of fire deaths in HMOs.² Wrexham Council has relatively few HMOs - around 250 - however, the council is convinced by the merits of sprinkler systems and considers their application in HMOs as particularly cost-effective.

The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) guidance (version 1), published by the DETR in June 2000, includes sprinklers as an option for multi-occupancy buildings. While this does not mean that they would be mandatory in HMOs, it does indicate that where the risk is justified and where occupants are vulnerable, sprinklers may well be appropriate. Version 2 (proposed) of the HHSRS may also make reference to the particular circumstances where sprinklers need to be considered in HMOs, which is likely to depend on the development of a British Standards for sprinkler systems.

General information on the use of fire sprinklers is contained in the British Standard BS5306: part 2, but in January 2000, agreement was reached on a new standard for the design, installation and maintenance of residential fire sprinkler systems. The standard was designated and released as a Draft for Development (DD252.2000) and will be reviewed not later than two years from the date of publication (April 2000).

It is clear that the disadvantaged, a high proportion of which are HMO residents, create a high risk group in terms of fire death and injury. According to Sir George Pigott, secretary general of the Residential Sprinkler Association, there are more fires in residential properties in the UK than burglaries, yet the Government spends more than £100m to combat burglary, but only £5m on fire safety issues. Worryingly, Britain is second from bottom in Europe with regard to the percentage of GDP spent on fire safety.

The Scottsdale Report (1985 - 1995), evaluated all sprinkler systems in Arizona, US, (which had been compulsorily installed in all new single family, multi-occupied and commercial buildings since 1985) and found that there were no deaths from fire. The evaluation also revealed an 80 per cent reduction in injuries, a 90 per cent reduction in water usage, an 80 per cent reduction in property damage and a 95 per cent reduction in environmental damage.³

It has been known for many years that efforts to estimate where fires may start do not provide a rational approach to fire protection. With widespread vandalism and arson, often linked to the haphazard lifestyle of many HMO occupants, and the changing nature of fire loads, there is an even greater incentive to plan for fire safety for the whole building.

According to the Fire Service College, Moreton-in-Marsh, in recent years serious fires have disclosed conditions and areas representing previously unrecognised gaps in the prevailing knowledge of how fires spread. One major area of concern, attributable to many of the fire fatalities, is the speed at which smoke and deadly gases can travel through buildings.

This problem is aggravated and at least attributable, in part, to the practice of occupants wedging open fire doors, especially to the kitchen (in which a fire is more than four times as likely to occur). In conventional fire safety systems, the protection of the escape route is severely reduced by this commonplace habit.

The reason residential fire sprinklers are so effective is that they react to fire very much faster than conventional passive and active systems. They control a fire at a much earlier stage in its development, when it is still quite small, thus minimising damage and utilising very little water to control the fire. Sprinklers operate automatically over a fire, attacking it before it grows to a dangerous size, while simultaneously sounding an alarm. The sprinkler actually suppresses a fire so that it will not spread beyond the area of origin.

Experience has also shown that buildings with sprinkler systems, which have been involved in a fire, can be reoccupied soon after due to reduced fire damage. The sprinkler system works on a diffuse dispersal of water which has a high degree of wall and door wetting, designed to control and contain a fire rather than to instantly extinguish it. This also has the effect of damping down the spread of smoke and particulates. The water spray will cool the smoke, reduce its buoyancy and prevent excessive smoke build-up.

Due to the removal of a significant proportion of large smoke particles and poisonous gases, there is higher chance of the occupier surviving the effects of the fire in the room of origin. Additionally, by removing the larger particles from any smoke present, in the majority of cases there is improved visibility for escape, search and rescue. However, controversial questions arise around the issue of relaxing the means of escape from fire and other fire precautions. Basically, how far dare we relax other passive fire safety precautions from a legal point of view?

The widespread opinion emerging from Fire Safety Departments in England and Wales is that each individual HMO requires risk assessing. If established and existing fire standards are to be relaxed, this should follow professional and "common sense" judgement and flexibility, rather than a prescriptive and rigid approach.The guidance on HMO standards (1999) states that the generally accepted principle within the Government is that health and safety standards should be goal-based and related to risk, and that the cost and practicality of different options must be considered.⁴

In the February 2002 issue of Fire magazine⁵, a Hertfordshire partnership scheme which has been piloting residential sprinklers in HMOs suggested that unless specific risks need addressing, passive half-hour fire resistance in HMOs may not be required, such as fire doors and fire resistant walls and ceilings. They recommend that a risk assessment is carried out on each individual property in order to determine the exact precautions needed.

The suggested measures for means of escape from fire and other fire precautions, suggested in the technical appendix of Home Office Circular 12/92 (Standards of Fitness) are based on the principle that all occupants of an HMO should be able to leave the premises safely in the event of a fire.⁶ It specifically states, with regard to fire precautions, that if fire detection is considered necessary in larger properties, then systems should be of the automatic type (and should comply with the recommendations in the appropriate British Standard).

In the context of the overall fire safety standards required by a local authority, the guidance says that they should "avoid specifying works which go beyond what is adequate", and that a degree of flexibility should be exercised in balancing the relationship between means of escape and other fire precautions. However, concern has also been expressed about the need for early warning smoke detection in individual bedrooms where sleeping occupants need to be warned about a fire breaking so that they can evacuate the room before the temperature reaches an intolerable level and safe exit is compromised. Reports of water damage from fires in buildings with sprinklers are often exaggerated. Only the sprinklers over a fire open, all the others stay shut. Indeed, according to the British Automatic Sprinkler Association Ltd (BASA), firemen often use 10,000 times more water from hoses, to put out a fire, as a sprinkler system.

Sprinklers must be located with consideration for obstructions. If a sprinkler does not have a direct line of sight into each area of a room, then it is not covering every area. Similarly if any ceiling protrusion is close to a sprinkler it may obstruct the flow of water.

Jane Douglas is an independent environmental health consultant and can be contacted by e-mail at: jane.douglas@wrexham.gov.uk

References

1. Home Office Statistical Bulletin Summary Fire Statistics, United Kingdom, 1997.
2. Wright, M. Fire Risks in Houses in Multiple Occupation: Research Report ENTEC
3. Automatic Sprinklers, Rural/Metro Fire Department, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1997.
4. Home Office - Houses in multiple occupation: Guidance on standards, June 1999.
5. Robinson, D. "Pilot pioneers - sprinklers in HMOs", Fire, February 2002.
6. "Guidance to local authorities on standards of fitness under section 352 of the Housing Act 1985" Circular No, 12/92.