For construction developers and estate owners the decision on whether to install fire sprinklers in new builds is largely taken on the basis of affordable cost unless there are third party pressures from mandatory legislation, insurers and finance houses that force them into provision. It is the same situation in the residential sector and both sectors often argue that cheaper alternative forms of fire safety provision such as smoke alarms and portable fire extinguishers are adequate to satisfy any fire safety issues raised by a formal RRO risk assessment.
This is to miss the point entirely. In the first place the cost of installing fire sprinklers will be offset by design and build efficiencies allowed under building regulations in other passive and active fire safety measures. Typical of these are fewer escape routes and longer evacuation travel distances to fire exit points. Larger fire compartments, reductions in number of fire doors, less use of fire retardant materials and so on, all of which save considerable sums of real cash.
Two other key issues to factor into the equation are the significant reductions in collateral damage and clean up costs post fire in a sprinklered building where in many cases the business is back in operation the next day, and the impact on the life safety of the occupants. Whereas there have been no reported deaths directly due to fire when fire sprinklers were fitted it was recently reported that of the 340 people killed in UK property fires in 2010 as many as 153 were killed in premises with working smoke alarms.
And that sobering fact highlights the crucial argument that only fire sprinklers detect a fire, sound the alarm, extinguish or control the fire and if you wish call the fire brigade into the bargain. And that's 24/7 each and every day of the year whether the premises are occupied or not.
