EHJ July 2002, pages 212-213 Paul Beardsley and Roger Harris join the debate over the merits of using sprinkler systems in HMOs

It is extremely interesting to note the growing ground swell of opinion and support for the use of sprinklers in Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) for life protection (EHJ, April, page 108). However, without wishing to dampen the enthusiasm, and having great regard for the merits of such systems, we believe that a cautionary look at the facts and practical implications would be wise before we are carried away on a tide of positive opinion.

Statistics on fire deaths are factual and point the finger firmly at the dangers within HMOs. However, we should look at these statistics in the light of the detail involved. In our authority - Brighton and Hove City Council - there are between 18,000 and 20,000 HMOs. Of these, perhaps 5 per cent have been upgraded to the standards recommended by the Department of the Environment in DOE Circular 12/92. We know that Brighton and Hove has made greater inroads than most in inspecting the HMO housing stock, which begs the question: "Where are the injuries taking place?"

Are they in buildings that comply with current standards, or the 95 per cent remaining? And, therefore, are we already saving lives? It may well be that sprinklers will not make a jot of difference to the statistics and that it will take years to implement and quantify the results. We may already be achieving our objectives with automatic fire detection, fire doors and escapes.

Hotels have much in common with HMOs and are often converted buildings with a transient population. Since the Fire Precautions Act in 1971, they have been successfully dealt with by the precautions similar to those in HMOs. We do not hear fire brigades advocating retrospective fitting of sprinklers in these buildings with similar precautions to those in HMOs.

The Scottsdale report, so often quoted, must also be seen in perspective as it addresses new family dwellings and does not compare like for like - HMOs are generally older converted houses. We do accept the merit of the report, but feel that it must be kept in context and not adapted to fit where it may not suit the purpose.

It is suggested that the costs of installation of sprinklers can be compared with current requirement costs of fire warning systems. However, there must be some question on the delayed activation of sprinklers in slow build up fire where smoke is the first enemy to life, and early detection by automatic detection of smoke is essential to save lives. This does question the current interpretation of "adequate" in Housing Act terms. Should we be considering both systems in tandem? If so, costs will undoubtedly increase, and remember, someone has to pay.

There is a vast difference between the problems of installing sprinklers in a new building compared with those of installing in a fully occupied existing building, which may also be listed. The cost of implementation, let alone the technical cost, may be too restrictive.

The merits of sprinklers controlling fire in the early stages, reducing spread and minimising the spread of smoke, are beyond argument. Sprinklers may also have a bearing on reducing death in the room of origin (in the right circumstances). This is obviously reflected in the proposed housing health and safety rating system guidance.

Experience shows that the vast majority of fatalities occur in the room of origin. While it can be demonstrated that fire suppression in fast build up fires could save lives, there is still doubt on smoky slow fires. With the new sophisticated detection systems having lower false alarm rates, perhaps further reliance could be placed on early warning and specific sprinkler coverage by independent self-contained units fed from an individual limited pressurised cylinder. Such items are already available.

We were pleased to note in the article "Firewall" by June Douglas (EHJ, April, page 108) that she supports the recommended approach from fire safety departments, which leans heavily towards risk assessment by suitably and professionally qualified inspectors.

Indeed, sprinklers have already been advocated by our colleagues as an engineered solution in certain circumstances as a compensatory factor to achieve adequate fire precautions where the current standards would be almost impossible to achieve.

The favourable statistics relating to water damage and sprinkler failures or faults refer to existing systems, usually fitted in newer buildings or the type of building which are fairly well monitored and unlikely to suffer widespread vandalism. However, experience has shown that certain HMOs do have problems in this vein, such as a screwdriver pushed through a fire alarm panel and detector heads being removed. (People spending many fruitless hours in their room or building, or bearing a grudge against their landlord is not an uncommon situation).

These manifest themselves by the fault sound from the alarm panel and not by water coming through a ceiling. However, this is a minor observation and is not based on fact or statistics (which can only be collated once the systems are in common use). The above comments are not "anti sprinkler" but are intended to enhance the debate. We are keen to say that we believe no means should be discounted, but we must temper the tide of enthusiasm to ensure that any moves are indeed progress towards better protection and that they can be reasonably achieved both practically and without restrictive financial implications to those we serve. In considering change, we must take into account that the burden of finance will fall largely on a considerable proportion of the population. Although landlords would have to pay for the system they would inevitably seek to recoup their expenses from tenants. Currently, the financing of such improvements is frequently aided by discretionary grants from the local authority. These rarely cover total costs and the residue is always picked up by the occupants of such buildings in one way or another. In the future, changes in the housing finance system may well preclude or reduce any support from public funds at all.

Paul Beardsley and Roger Harris are qualified members of the Institution of Fire Engineers. They have been employed by Brighton and Hove CC to survey HMOs regarding means of escape in case of fire, and other fire precautions for 10 years.