Not enough properties protected by sprinklers

Too many buildings are being destroyed unnecessarily by fire because the protection offered by sprinkler systems is being ignored, it was claimed this week.

Norwich Union's property risk manager Allister Smith said stronger building regulations were needed, and in some cases the insurance industry needed to put up more of a united front when insisting on properties being adequately protected.

He told us: "We are seeing increasingly large fire losses, and current building regulations - under which sprinkler systems are not mandatory - are falling short of providing adequate property protection.

"If the Government acted on this anomaly, it would give the UK a better protected environment, save lives, reduce the cost of property damage and prevent the kind of post-fire disruption faced by surrounding communities and businesses."

Allister accepted that sprinkler systems could be expensive, but that any initial outlay could be recouped over the coming years as insurers offered a "substantial discount" whenever such systems were properly installed.

He added that firms ought to consider what price they would be willing to pay, to ensure their business did not suffer the kind of disaster they may never recover from.

'Wrong message'

Allister went on to highlight how some insurers appeared willing to take on property risks where sprinkler systems should be in place, but were not.

"The fact that sprinklers put out fires seems to be our industry's best kept secret, and insurers providing cover for significant property risks without insisting on a suitable fire protection system is sending the wrong message to UK businesses," he said.

Norwich Union's experience of fire related claims has often highlighted the value of sprinkler systems. For example, a furniture manufacturer it provides cover for, installed sprinklers on the insurer's insistence.

When a fire broke out, the blaze was contained and kept under control by two sprinkler heads. The outcome was a business interruption claim for £10,000.

The attending fire officer said that without the sprinkler protection the entire factory's buildings and contents could have been destroyed at a cost of approximately £14 million. In addition, the incident would have had a detrimental impact on the local community and jobs.

According to the British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association, losses from fires in buildings protected with sprinkler systems are estimated to be one tenth of those in similar unprotected buildings.

In buildings fully protected by sprinkler systems, 99% of fires were controlled by the sprinklers alone - in addition, 60% of fires were controlled by no more than four sprinkler heads.

What about home sprinkler systems?

Please comment on the above

 

Paul Coughlan

PSC