What is the 11m trigger and why was it introduced?
The commercial market has always overshadowed the residential market for sprinklers, despite the reflective real-estate markets being the other way around. Fire sprinklers have been around since the early 1800s. Given the amount of electrical items which we now share our homes with, it’s arguable that this revision was long overdue. Arguably, it’s not just the trigger height which has changed, but the industry is now more readily prioritizing life-safety systems over property protection. So where is this going?
How the rest of the mainland UK is changing.
England, Scotland and Wales all have their own approaches to fire sprinklers. The policy in each country will have its own supporters and critics. While committing to sprinkler systems in even the smallest of dwellings (like Scotland and Wales) is admirable, it’s proving to be a logistical challenge. On the other hand, the English approach of simply lowering the trigger height may lack the aspiration of levelling up the industry to the standard which the world may have expected following the events at Grenfell.
So which approach, if any, is best? Scotland and Wales are experiencing firsthand just how challenging it can be to fit suitable pumps and tanks into these buildings. There can also be challenges finding accredited installers in more remote areas where work may not be regular enough for a local company to justify specialising. Yet, there’s a lot to be said for having a hard-and-fast rule. Wales’s rules such as ‘all residential and domestic new builds’ leave little room for misinterpretation. While England’s trigger height can surprise mid-sized developers who may end up with a sprinkler requirement that they hadn’t planned for. Things become even less clear when considering care homes, which also have their own standards and regulations to follow.
Was the 11m trigger a good idea?
It can be seen that there are benefits and challenges to the approaches taken by each country across the UK. We’ll all have our own opinions of which do or don’t work. Rather than push my opinion on others, I would rather suggest steps for moving forward. We’ll no doubt see further developments in each country. Rather than analyse backwards, let’s consider how to progress.
Responding as a developer:
- To avoid delays and wasted costs, speak with accredited mist and sprinkler installers at an early stage.
- To find the most viable option, consider alternative standards – BS EN 16925 (traditional sprinklers) or BS 8458 (mist). Although bear in mind that even the lowest-flow mist systems (6LPM) can require tanks due to their need to assume all nozzles in a room or 65m2 floor area are running at once. We run a CPD on this.
- To ensure a good standard of work, work only with independently accredited mist and sprinkler installers (FIRAS certify both).
Responding as a regulator:
- To increase protection, England could consider phasing the requirements so that the limit reduces over time to the point that all homes require them.
- To reduce challenges and increase accessibility, public infrastructure could be improved to provide sufficient infill without the need for a pump and tank at each property. The demand could be balanced to assume that not all properties will be on fire at once, just as installers assume that not all rooms will.
- To improve the standard of work, Scotland and Wales could review which areas are relying on non-accredited installers for certifying projects and focus support to those areas.
This is an extract from our online article of the same name. For the full commentary and other technical guidance (including CPDs) for projects involving fire sprinklers, please visit our online library at lifesaverengineering.com
