This thesis looks into the assorted methods and systems that can be implemented in order to supply better fire opposition in listed edifices. The thesis undertakes several chief undertakings as a portion of understanding the assorted methods and systems that can be implemented in order to supply better fire opposition in listed edifices, including analysing assorted instance surveies of fires in listed edifices, in order to see what happened and how these fires could hold been prevented ; set abouting a Literature Review to better understand the intercessions presently used for supplying fire opposition in edifices ; set abouting an analysis of a instance survey of a listed edifices ( Duff House in Banff ) that have been subjected to fire opposition, in order to understand what was implemented and what worked in that peculiar edifice and why ; and analysing method statements for two suggested transitions of listed edifices in order to better understand the planning procedure and to understand the solutions suggested for bettering fire opposition in these two listed edifices.
Chapter 1: Introduction
This Chapter will supply a general overview of the subject of fire opposition in listed edifices and will supply a list of the purposes and aims of the thesis as a whole.
Section 1.1: Introduction
Fire is one of the main menaces to edifices, as it can do high degrees of harm in a short clip ( Pickard, 1994 ) . Fire protection is by and large used to forestall the eruption of fires in edifices and to forestall the spread of fire within a edifice if a fire breaks out ( Staniforth and Hayes, 1989 ) . Covering with fire protection in older edifices is debatable, nevertheless, as these edifices were non built with fire protection in head and can be hard to reconstitute, to be more fire cogent evidence, due to the edifice ‘s construction and the prevailing ordinances which frequently prevent the construction of listed edifices being changed in ways that are necessary to do them fire cogent evidence ( Taylor, 2004 ) . It is necessary, hence, to believe creatively about how to fire cogent evidence listed edifices and this thesis aims to sketch how this can be done and how this has been done, through the usage of several methodological analysiss, including instance surveies and a Literature Review.
Older edifices are normally classed as listed edifices, where listed edifice position means that the edifice so becomes capable to limitations on what alterations are allowed within the edifice, either to its construction or to its cloth, with the purpose of continuing its historical genuineness ( Pickard, 1994 ) . This evidently makes fire proofing the edifice more hard than for a non-listed edifice, due to the many limitations that are placed on the changes that can be made to the edifice ( W.R. Dunn & A ; Co. , 2002 ) . Listed edifice position means that non merely the external construction of the edifice, but besides its internal cloth, are capable to limitations on what alterations can be made, doing it really hard to integrate fire proofing in to the edifice ( Pickard, 1994 ) . Fire protection can, hence, be hard to implement within the context of a listed edifice, and it is necessary for designers to believe creatively, in coaction with edifice ordinances assessors and edifice environmentalists, in footings of how to implement fire protection in such edifices ( Wilson, 2006 ; Wahab, 2007 ) .Yet, listed edifices are exactly the edifices that need more protection, as they are by and large made with high per centums of lumber and other edifice stuffs that are vulnerable to fire, intending that these edifices by and large need high degrees of fire protection.
This job is non a fiddling 1 in the UK, with its many 1000s of listed edifices, any of which, if destroyed by fire, would intend the loss of a big portion of the UK ‘s cultural heritage ( Adams, 1997 ) . As such, despite the jobs that protecting listed edifices from fire can show, in footings of believing creatively around the rigorous edifice ordinances that apply to listed edifices, it is necessary to protect these edifices from fire, every bit far as possible, in footings of protecting the UK ‘s cultural heritage. This is peculiarly of import in visible radiation of the ruinous harm that fire can do in listed edifices, in position of the harm caused, in short clip periods, in high profile fires such as those at Windsor Castle, Hampton Court Palace or the Savoy Theatre, for illustration.
Fire opposition is the term used to depict the usage of intercessions ( such as edifice stuffs that are extremely fire resistant or particular doors and Windowss, for illustration ) in edifices that are aimed at cut downing or detaining the effects of a fire ( English Heritage, 2004 ) . These intercessions are all capable to public presentation testing andin situappraisal, harmonizing to the dictates of the prevailing edifice ordinances and the Fire Precautions Act ( Adams, 1997 ) . One major job with listed edifices is that, normally, the stuffs used within the cloth of the edifice do non run into prevalent fire opposition criterions and, hence, aside from the adjustment of extra intercessions such as compartmentations and/or sprinklers, for illustration, it is frequently necessary to upgrade the stuffs used in the edifice in order to run into the prevailing evaluations and criterions ( Pickard, 1994 ) . This, nevertheless, involves some via media, as there is a responsibility, in listed edifices, to continue the original construction and architecture of these edifices ( Adams, 1997 ; English Heritage, 2004 ) . The issue of fire opposition in listed edifices is, therefore, complex and merits an probe such as that proposed in this thesis.In drumhead, so, as Kidd ( 2003 ) argues, fire is the greatest individual menace to our reinforced heritage as it can, one time there is a fire within a listed edifice, haste through the edifice in a short clip, destructing the cloth of the edifice and all of the history contained therein: its primary impact is, hence, the possible loss of historical genuineness which is portion of the cultural heritage of the UK ( Kidd, 2003 ; Pickard, 1994 ) .
Whilst edifice environmentalists can mend the harm done, to some extent, animating transcripts of destroyed edifices, or parts of edifices, loss of the original parts of the edifice, or loss of the full edifice means portion of our cultural heritage is lost ( Kidd, 2003 ; Read and Morris, 1993 ) . It is clear, hence, in footings of fire protection, that all legal demands must be complied with, via run intoing the relevant statutory duties and covering with the recommendations of the local fire service, in an effort to keep the edifice fire free and to retain the cultural heritage the edifice represents ( Kidd, 2003 ; Clark, 2001 ) .As Kidd ( 1998 ) argues, attending was drawn to the complex issue of fire protection in listed edifices following the Hampton Court Palace fire, which led to the puting up of the UK Working Party on Fires in Historic Buildings.
This became all the more of import an issue following the Windsor Castle Fire, in which the ensuing jobs seem to hold been compounded because the processs followed by staff were non in conformity with the laid down processs, because asphyxiators failed to work and because the fire spread due to a deficiency of compartmentation, amongst other issues ( Kidd, 1998 ; Clark, 2001 ) .These issues, which sum to an overall deficiency of apprehension of the demand for fire protection for listed edifices, and a deficiency of apprehension of how best to fire cogent evidence listed edifices, have led to other, high profile, fires, such as the fires at York Minster and at Hampton Court Palace ( Kidd, 1998 ) . All of these fires highlight the demand for equal and appropriate fire safeguards in heritage edifices of all sizes and utilizations ( Kidd, 1998 ) and, as will be discussed in the following subdivision, it is the intent of this thesis to measure the presently available methods and systems for implementing better fire protection in listed edifices, in order that listed edifices, and the cultural heritage they contain, can be better protected, for this and future coevalss.
Section 1.2: Purposes and Aims
The chief purpose of this thesis is to look into the methods and systems that can be implemented in order to offer better degrees of fire opposition in listed edifices, with a position to bettering fire protection and diminishing the opportunities of listed edifices being damaged in whole, or in portion, by fire.
In order to carry through this chief purpose of the thesis, several aims will necessitate to be met, including:
- Undertaking an analysis of assorted instance surveies of fires that have occurred in listed edifices, including the fires at Weston Super Mare Pier, Windsor Castle and the Savoy Theatre.
- Undertaking a Literature Review in order to better understand the current solutions for supplying fire opposition in edifices
- Undertaking an analysis of instance surveies of listed edifices ( including Duff House in Banff ) that have been subjected to fire opposition, with a position to understanding what worked in that peculiar edifice and why
- Analyzing method statements for proposed fire opposition changes in listed edifices, the transition of Bishop Percy ‘s house in to residential homes and the transition of The Boardroom House on The Square, in Mere, Wiltshire, in order to supply a better apprehension of the planning application procedure and the possible solutions for fire opposition suggested in these two instance surveies.
The methodological analysiss that were used to run into these four aims are given in the following Chapter, Chapter 2, the Methodology subdivision.
Chapter 2: Methodology
This Chapter will sketch the methodological analysiss that were used in order to garner the information that forms the footing of this thesis, including a Literature Review and instance surveies.As has been argued in the Introduction to the thesis, fire protection is of import in listed edifices in footings of assisting to avoid fires in listed edifices and continuing the cultural heritage that listed edifices represent. Yet, this is no easy undertaking, given the rigidness of the edifice ordinances and the demand to do amendments to listed edifices within the model of the prevailing edifice ordinances, which, by and large, prevent any major alterations being made to the construction of listed edifices ( Adams, 1997 ) .
First, histories of assorted fires that have occurred in listed edifices were assessed, including the fires at Weston-Super-Mare Pier, Windsor Castle and the Savoy Theatre. This was undertaken with a position to increasing cognition of how fires can distribute within listed edifices and understanding the current usage of fire protection in listed edifices. In order to happen information on the fires that occurred in these three listed edifices, an cyberspace hunt was undertaken to be able to turn up relevant information. Where necessary, recommended books were sought from the library and read, with a position to understanding how the fire began, how the fire spread and what was recommended, as a consequence of the fire, in footings of better fire protection for these three listed edifices. The consequences of this analysis are presented in Chapter 3.
Following, in order to understand what solutions are available for supplying better fire opposition in listed edifices, a Literature Review was undertaken with the purpose of developing a better apprehension of the possible solutions for fire opposition in listed edifices. The Literature Review allows the assemblage of information from assorted beginnings, including relevant text editions, diary articles, magazine articles, the cyberspace and assorted organisations aimed at supplying information on fire opposition in listed edifices.In order to set about the Literature Review, foremost, the library ‘s on-line catalogue was searched with relevant key words ( such as ‘fire protection in listed edifices ‘ and ‘fire opposition in listed edifices ‘ , amongst others ) in order to happen relevant text editions. These were so searched and read where applicable, in order to supply a broader apprehension of the subject as a whole. This was so followed up with a similar hunt of the relevant online bibliographic databases, with the purpose of recovering relevant diary articles, the abstracts of which were so read in order to filtrate the most relevant articles for usage in the authorship of the Literature Review subdivision of the thesis. Around a twelve relevant articles were selected, as highlighted in the References subdivision and as discussed in the Literature Review chapter. Next, an on-line hunt was undertaken, utilizing Google, utilizing the same key word combinations, in order to happen any relevant, excess, information, from cardinal organisations working in this field, for illustration.
Based on this information selected through this Literature Review procedure, the Literature Review subdivision of the thesis was so written, utilizing the most relevant information found as the footing for a reappraisal subdivision, foregrounding the possible solutions for supplying fire opposition in listed edifices. The Literature Review is presented in Chapter 4 of the thesis.Following, in Chapter 5, instance surveies are presented of assorted listed edifices that have been subjected to fire opposition, including Duff House in Banff. The usage of instance surveies such as this allows the thesis to research, in more item, precisely how fire opposition has been implemented in some listed edifices, foregrounding the exact stairss taken to supply fire opposition in some listed edifices.
Finally, Chapter 6 will show the analysis of two method statements for two listed edifices: the transition of Bishop Percy ‘s house in to residential homes and the transition of The Boardroom House on The Square, in Mere, Wiltshire. As listed Building applications are submitted to be aftering governments as separate applications to ordinary planning applications, the method statements that are provided as portion of applications can be really utile in footings of explicating how, precisely, fire opposition is suggested in these peculiar edifices. This Chapter therefore non merely provides an chance for understanding the planning procedure a small better but besides for seeing, in item, what fire opposition steps were suggested in these method statements.
Chapter 3: Case surveies of fires in listed edifices
Section 3.1: Introduction
This Chapter will supply assorted instance surveies of fires that have occurred in listed edifices, including a treatment of the fires at Weston Super Mare Pier, Windsor Castle and the Savoy Theatre. The chief purpose of this Chapter is to see what happened during the fires and how these fires could hold been prevented.
2: Weston-super-Mare Pier
As discussed in Tibbetts ( 2008 ) , Weston-Super-Mare Pier, a Grade II listed Pier over one hundred old ages old, was engulfed by fire in July 2008. It is thought that the fire started in a staff canteen country, possibly from a pan of hot oil, although ulterior probes returned a finding of fact of ‘unknown cause ‘ ( BBC, 2008 ) . It is known that the fire dismay at the terminal of the Pier was triggered around seven hours before the fire services arrived to command the blazing ( BBC, 2008 ) , but that, as it was non an automatic dismay, and as no-one answered the exigency call from the fire dismay, the fire could non be contained when the fire services arrived and, finally, the fire consumed the whole Pier.It seems, hence, that the fire began as a consequence of human mistake, although this has non been confirmed, and that the oncoming of the fire was non noticed by fire services, or anyone else, as the fire dismay system in topographic point on the Pier was non working decently. There is, hence, a instance to be made, here, for the public-service corporation of automatic fire dismay systems, in concurrence with fire suppression system, which would hold ensured that the fire was instantly quashed. The mostly timber frame of the Pier did non assist, in that the fire, unnoticed at its induction, ran through the timber-framed construction, mostly without compartmentation, intending that the fire ‘s spread was intense and of high velocity. It is likely that the fire would non hold been stopped, given this, even if the fire services had arrived before ( BBC, 2008 ) .
All in all, so, the fire could hold been prevented, or at least better controlled, if better fire protection steps had been in topographic point. The usage of pans of oil in a decreased, timber-framed, infinite is non advisable and could hold been prevented if an equal and up-to-date fire safety manual had been in usage at the Pier. The dismay system in topographic point was, basically, useless and the fire could hold been noticed, and dealt with at a much earlier phase, if an automatic fire dismay system had been installed. This, coupled with an automatic fire suppression system, would hold gone some manner to containing, or decrease, the fire ‘s impact. It is clear, hence, that a series of mistakes contributed to this fire, all of which could hold been identified by a fire hazard appraisal and a more responsible attitude to fire protection.
Section 3.3: Windsor Castle
As Napier ( 2008 ) discusses, the fire at Windsor Castle started in the Queen ‘s Private Chapel and spread throughout the State Apartments, doing 1000000s of lbs in harm to these edifices.
It is thought that the fire started in the Queens Private Chapel, with the automatic fire dismay system alarming guards that a fire had broken out in that country ( BBC, 1992 ) . The fire rapidly spread to other countries of the Castle and spread back to the site of the beginning of the fire, as there was non sufficient compartmentation in the Castle to forestall the fire spreading ( BBC, 1992 ) . In add-on, there was no automatic fire suppression system, as it had been decided that its installing, and activation, could damage the of import historic insides ( Napier, 2008 ) .
As with the Weston-Super-Mare Pier fire, so, the Windsor Castle fire ended up being worse than it could hold been because the fire protection systems in topographic point were unequal one time faced with a existent fire. Adequate compartmentation would, for illustration, have stopped the spread of the fire, as would an automatic fire suppression system ( i.e. , a sprinkler system ) . That a Royal family did non hold these safeguards in topographic point, given that it is a depository of some of the UK ‘s most cherished pieces of art and heritage, is a farce: that this fire led to the issue of the alteration of fire protection in listed edifices being taken earnestly via paperss such as Sir Alan Bailey ‘s study in to the fire at Windsor Castle is, nevertheless, a Ag liner to this calamity.
4: The Savoy Theatre
The 1990 fire at the Savoy Theatre destroyed the whole inside of the theater ( a Grade II listed edifice ) , aided, it is thought, by the fire going through nothingnesss provided by the air canals and airing systems in topographic point in the theater. Adequate compartmentation of the theater and the Savoy Hotel fortunately led to the containment of the fire within the theater, intending that it did non distribute to the Hotel.In contrast to the two fires already looked at, at the Weston-Super-Mare Pier and Windsor Castle, fire protection systems, such as the compartmentation of the theater from the Hotel, meant that the fire was contained. Had better fire protection systems been in topographic point, such as doing the nothingnesss more fire resistant, nevertheless, it can be argued that the fire would non hold been so annihilating and that the non so much of the theater would hold been destroyed. The theatre therefore suffered because of unequal fire protection systems it had in topographic point ( i.
e. , no fire opposition in the nothingnesss and no automatic fire suppression system ) but the Hotel was saved from fire by the compartmentation of the Hotel from the Theatre. It seems, hence, that, as in the other two instance surveies, via medias were made, with respects to fire protection, possibly because of fiscal restrictions or possibly because of some other ground: it is clear, nevertheless, that fire does non understand restrictions placed on edifices by such via medias.
Section 3.5: Drumhead
In drumhead, this Chapter has reviewed three instance surveies of fires in three high profile listed edifices, demoing major weaknesss in fire protection in the three listed edifices. This information has been utile in footings of foregrounding the cardinal demand for equal fire protection, from fire hazard appraisal to the installing of appropriate fire protection methods.
These instance surveies have hence served to inform as to the holistic nature of fire protection in listed edifices: it is non something that can be attempted in isolation, and demands to get down with a hazard appraisal to truly understand the hazards that are present and how these can be dealt with. Once this hazard appraisal has been carried out, it is so up to the proprietors to make up one’s mind what degree of fire protection they will implement, whether this be merely guaranting human life is protected or guaranting entire protection for the full listed edifice. These issues, and others, will now be discussed in subsequent Chapters.
Chapter 4: Literature Reappraisal
Section 4.1: Introduction
This Chapter will supply an lineation of the intercessions that are presently used for supplying fire opposition in edifice, including a treatment of active and inactive fire protection methods and how, practically, the determinations are made as to which fire protection methods should be used, via fire hazard appraisals and in line with the predominating edifice ordinances which can do fire protection hard in listed edifices.
Section 4.2: Literature Reappraisal
As discussed in the Introduction, listed edifices were built without respect for fire protection or methods for forestalling the spread of fire: as such, many of these listed edifices are vulnerable to fire. Due to the priceless nature of these edifices, in footings of the UK ‘s cultural heritage, and following several high profile fires in listed buidings, it is being progressively recognized that listed edifices need better fire protection.
This needs to be implemented, nevertheless, with the model of the prevailing edifice ordinances, which, for listed edifices, can be rigorous, as they are aimed at continuing the genuineness of the cloth of listed edifices ( Adams, 1997 ) . This subdivision will look at the possible solutions suggested for implementing fire protection in listed edifices, via a reappraisal of the relevant literature.As Napier ( 2008 ) suggests, for illustration, utilizing hazard appraisals of the potency for fire and the most disposed fire safety steps, whilst non offering any existent fire oppositionper Se, can let fires to be detected quicker, intending that a ) the genuineness of listed edifices is non compromised, as their construction does non necessitate to be altered in order to set about a hazard appraisal and B ) that edifice ordinances are non compromised ( Adams, 1997 ) . These intercessions do non, nevertheless, as has been identified, supply any fire protection, instead merely an chance to avoid fires, every bit far as possible, and to place any fires every bit rapidly as possible, if a fire does interrupt out.As Napier ( 2008 ) argues, nevertheless, in order to non compromise the historic genuineness of the edifice, and in order to cut down costs and to remain in line with the predominating edifice ordinances, it is sometimes necessary to pull off the hazard, instead than do changes aimed at active fire protection ( Clark, 2001 ) . As Napier ( 2008 ) provinces, “ the manner the hazard has been handled can impact the ( Ir ) character ( of listed edifices ) ” : sometimes it is non necessary, or desired, to travel in to a edifice to implement active fire protection steps, such as compartmentation or adding sprinkler systems, and sometimes, hence, inactive protection steps are the most appropriate 1s to implement.As Napier ( 2008 ) discusses, prior to any plants get downing on a listed edifice, with respects to bettering fire protection via internal changes, betterments or alterations of usage, a fire hazard appraisal should be undertaken.
This should, ideally, exhaustively assess the undermentioned facets of the listed edifice: what the vulnerable elements of the edifice ‘s cloth are ; whether the bing layout of the edifice would let people to get away satisfactorily, in the event of a fire ; what are the agencies people could utilize to get away, in the event of a fire ; whether the current fire control, sensing, and dismay systems are working and are equal for the demands of the edifice ; whether a fire suppression system would be good if installed ; and what would the installing of a fire suppression system entail in footings of the necessary alterations to the edifice and whether these would be within the model of the prevailing edifice ordinances ( Napier, 2008 ) . Once this hazard appraisal has been undertaken, the designer has a better apprehension of where the edifice ‘s exposures lie, with regard to fire, and to guaranting the wellness and safety of its inhabitants/users and can, so, act to do the necessary betterments, within the model of the prevailing edifice ordinances ( Adams, 1997 ) .As Napier ( 2008 ) discusses, in add-on to the comprehensive hazard appraisal process, thorough checking of the edifice for combustible stuffs should besides be undertaken. Fires are most normally caused by human mistake, such as combustion tapers, or utilizing electrical devices unsuitably: as such, the reasonable usage of such devices, and instruction of the inhabitants/users of listed edifices could better fire direction in listed edifices, minimising the danger of fire interrupting out ( Napier, 2008 ; Forrest, 1996 ) . In add-on, the regular checking of electrical contraptions can besides minimise the incidence of eruptions of fire, as can the regular remotion of rubbish and the regular remotion of birds nests that might hold accumulated in the edifices pits and dust that might hold accumulated in floor and roof nothingnesss: taking all of these possible beginnings of fire and possible beginnings of fire extension can notably cut down the hazard of an eruption of fire ( Napier, 2008 ; Gibbon and Forbes, 2001 ) .As Napier ( 2008 ) argues, though, set abouting a comprehensive hazard appraisal and manually checking, and removing, for combustible stuffs within the cloth of the edifice will merely cut down the hazard of a fire interrupting out and will non assist if a fire does interrupt out.
Therefore, as Napier ( 2008 ) discusses, it is of import to look into the bing construction of a listed edifice in order to place all gaps, flukes and nothingnesss within the construction ( such a perpendicular canals for shrieking or ill-fitting doors ) that could supply possible paths for the spread of fire. Once such nothingnesss have been identified, these nothingnesss should, as portion of the recommendations of the hazard appraisal procedure, be closed with tight seals made with stuffs, such as mineral wool comforter, that provide fire opposition ( Napier, 2008 ; Gibbon and Forbes, 2001 ) .Fire interruptions should be checked, besides, and replaced or implemented where necessary: as Napier ( 2008 ) argues, although many edifices will hold bing compartmentation, which can assist to detain the spread of a fire, edifice ordinances for listed edifices might necessitate extra compartmentation, in state of affairss where a alteration of usage is being suggested, for illustration, or in footings of the hazard appraisal undertaken, which may hold suggested the demand for excess compartmentation, as a method for cut downing the hazard of a fire distributing once it has broken out. It is, at times, hence ineluctable that amendments and accommodations will necessitate to be made to listed edifices in footings of guaranting they are fire resistant ( Gibbon and Forbes, 2001 ) .As Napier ( 2008 ) acknowledges, nevertheless, bettering the fire opposition of a listed edifice can, and frequently does, impact on its character, particularly because listed edifices were by and large non built in the modern manner, non utilizing modern stuffs: alternatively of ceilings, for illustration, in some listed edifices, all that lies between the floors are floor boards, puting on floor joists.
This can supply chances for the spread of fire, and, in order to better the edifice ‘s fire opposition, several changes would be suggested, including underscoring the floor joists with gypsum board and adding a bed of mineral wool comforter ( Napier, 2008 ; Gibbons and Forbes, 2001 ) . This would, nevertheless, change the character of the ceiling and the floors and suggested changes such as this would, hence, need to be approved via the planning application for changes to the listed edifice, as laid out in the prevailing edifice ordinances. This will be discussed further in Chapters 5 and 6, which will look, in item, at instance surveies of how fire opposition has been implemented, or are suggested for execution, in several listed edifices.It is sufficient to state at this phase that implementing better fire opposition in listed edifices is a delicate, complex, affair, that needs to be decided on a individual footing, measuring the prevailing hazards and doing appraisals of how best to minimise the opportunity that these hazards cause a fire, within the model of keeping the unity and genuineness of the original construction and adjustments of the listed edifice.Historic paneled doors are another country of contention when believing about bettering fire opposition in listed edifices as these doors are normally constructed from hardwoods, with thin panels that pose huge hazards with respects to fire, as these doors do non supply the statutory 30 proceedingss of fire opposition ( Napier, 2008 ; English Heritage, 2004 ) .
There are several solutions to this job, the simplest being to suit some signifier of fire-retardant board over the door but, as this would alter the visual aspect of the door, this is non acceptable in footings of the prevailing edifice ordinances and would most probably be rejected in the planning application ( Napier, 2008 ; Adams, 1997 ) .Other solutions therefore need to be found, as discussed in Napier ( 2008 ) , including adding fire protection inside the wainscoted doors or doing new wainscoted doors from fire-retardant stuffs ( possibly thicker pieces of the original wood, for illustration, which would supply more proceedingss of fire opposition ) . Again, these illustrations show how complex and delicate providing improved fire opposition is in listed edifices: the possible solutions found, for the hazards identified, are more frequently than non a via media between the assorted parties involved in the planning application and the execution of the betterments, all of which takes topographic point within the model of commanding the costs involved.For this ground, so, many such undertakings prefer to implement more inactive fire protection systems, such as those mentioned antecedently: fire sensing systems, for illustration, with the warning and suppression systems being selected in order to minimise any alterations to the structure/fabric of the edifice ( Napier, 2008 ) . There are assorted inactive fire protection systems available, which cater to a scope of budgets and a scope of state of affairss, including: fume sensors which can be highly sensitive at observing fume in the air ; fire sensors which alert the presence of the fire ; and projected beam sensors that rely on breaks in an infra-red beam of visible radiation to trip the dismay ( Napier, 2008 ) . All of these can be fitted with ( relatively ) minimum cost and break to the cloth of the edifice, particularly as many of these sensors now have wireless capableness and so can be fitted without the demand to run wires through the walls of the edifice ( Napier, 2008 ; Clark, 2001 ) .In concurrence with fire sensing systems, such as those mentioned above, in order to halt the fire spreading, one time it has started, as portion of a inactive fire protection system, some signifier of fire suppression system needs to be installed.
Such fire suppression systems range from non-automatic or portable asphyxiators to sprinklers that are designed to supply localised suppression and to halt the spread of the fire ( Napier, 2008 ; BAFSA, 2002 ) . As Napier ( 2008 ) argues, there is a strong instance for utilizing fire suppression systems in vulnerable historic edifices, particularly as these systems can intend that less changes need to be made to the cloth of the edifice and as these systems can supply extra ‘back up ‘ protection to potentially vulnerable parts of the edifice ( such as a door that is non rather thick plenty to supply fire opposition, for illustration ) . The comparatively low cost of such systems is besides attractive in many instances.For this ground, The National Trust for Scotland installed a sprinkler system in many of their belongingss ( Napier, 2008 ) . This system was decided upon as it was the option that best allowed for the preservation of the construction of the edifices and was the most cost effectual option, in that its installing did non necessitate other betterments in fire opposition to be made ( Napier, 2008 ) . As Napier ( 2008 ) argues, fire protection in listed edifices Begins, basically, with assessing, and managing, beginnings of hazard and so, where necessary, supplying improvements/installing systems to guarantee that the fire opposition of the edifice is improved ( Clark, 2001 ) . This is normally undertaken on the footing of minimising the structural alterations to the edifice and minimising the cost, every bit far as possible, of set abouting major alterations to the construction of the edifice, because of the tight edifice ordinances regulating alterations to listed edifices and the normally tight budget for such plants ( Adams, 1997 ) .As has been seen, Napier ( 2008 ) favours inactive fire direction as compared to active fire protection steps.
Other writers, to be looked at in item subsequently, argue, nevertheless, that active fire protection steps are more utile and stand for more responsible ways of covering with the menace of fire, non merely in footings of conserving the UK ‘s cultural heritage, as embodied in our listed edifices, but besides in footings of salvaging human lives if fire did interrupt out in one of our listed edifices. PACE ( 2000 ) highlight the undermentioned list of hazards in the eruption of fire in a listed edifice, puting them in order of importance and proposing how hazard should be assessed in listed edifices: “ life safety ; loss of the edifice of portion of the edifice and its contents ; eventful losingss, such as gross losingss in listed edifices open to the populace ; national and strategic importance of the edifice ; and the scheduled or listed position of the edifice ” ( PACE, 2000 ) .Given this, so, although betterments in fire protection in listed edifices have to take topographic point within the prevailing edifice ordinances that apply to listed edifices, it is, when set abouting hazard appraisals, considered more of import to salvage human lives than to esteem the listed position of the edifice. For this ground, and every bit will be discussed now, it is preferred, in many instances, to implement active fire protection steps as portion of betterments in fire opposition in listed edifices, as it is felt that these supply better protection, overall, both for human life, for the edifice itself and for its listed position.
As Jackson and Passey ( 1998 ) argue, there are many options that the proprietors of listed edifices can utilize to run into fire safety demands, including active and inactive steps. These steps include such things as put ining fire sensing systems and fire dismay systems, supplying fire contending equipment ( such as fire asphyxiators ) , supplying fire suppression systems ( such as sprinklers ) and supplying fire opposition, through physically altering the construction of the listed edifice to do its constituent parts more fire resistant and more able to defy fire ( through compartmentation, for illustration ) ( Jackson and Passey, 1998 ; Clark, 2001 ) .Early warning of a fire can salvage lives and, for this ground, many inhabitants/owners of listed edifices install fire sensing systems, frequently in add-on to more active fire protection steps. Fire dismaies can, for illustration, watchful people to the presence of a fire and can warn them to evacuate the edifice but will make little to salvage the edifice in the event of a fire ( Jackson and Passey, 1998 ) . Coupled with a fire suppression system, such as sprinklers, nevertheless, the fire sensing and suppression system can be effectual in restricting the spread of the fire, particularly when the type of sprinkler is matched, efficaciously, to the peculiar layout of the edifice in inquiry ( Jackson and Passey, 1998 ) .
Using these methods in concurrence with other methods, such as compartmentation, which is aimed at spliting the edifice in to distinct, separately fire resistant, zones, can supply effectual fire protection, in footings of restricting the fire to a peculiar country of the edifice and, through this, halting the spread of the fire ( Jackson and Passey, 1998 ) . Compartmentation efficaciously seals off different zones of the edifice, leting subdivisions of the edifice to be protected from fire by stuffs that should, by jurisprudence, provide 30 proceedingss of fire protection ( Jackson and Passey, 1998 ) . Compartmentation can, nevertheless, mean that major alterations need to be made to the construction of the edifice, which, as has been discussed with mention to Napier ( 2008 ) is frequently non acceptable in footings of the prevailing edifice ordinances ( Adams, 1997 ) .For this ground, so, many proprietors of listed edifices, in concurrence with contrivers and designers, make up one’s mind to change the bing constructions to go more fire resistant. Flooring, for illustration, and doors, can be altered to go more fire resistant so that, in the event of a fire, a fire can be contained for longer and so the adjustments will non be so severely damaged and, hence, more easy repaired ( Jackson and Passey, 1998 ) . As Jackson and Passey ( 1998 ) discuss, it is possible to utilize a 4mm extremely protective membrane as a ceiling liner, which can readily be over-decorated with a conventional lining paper and emulsion pigment system, which can supply many more proceedingss of fire opposition than the original ceiling, without doing major alterations to the construction of the edifice.
The usage of a stuff such as this would, nevertheless, have to be signed off in the planning permission application as the usage of such stuffs could be argued to be in breach of the prevailing edifice ordinances. Sealing nothingnesss can besides supply an effectual manner of halting the spread of fire, without damaging the historical unity of the edifice, whilst supplying the footing for compartmentation. Sealing nothingnesss can supply high degrees of fire protection, particularly when used in concurrence with other fire protection steps, such as compartmentation of other countries of the edifice, fire sensing systems and fire suppression systems ( Jackson and Passey, 1998 ) . It is clear, so, that a combination of both active and inactive fire opposition mechanisms is normally necessary, and normally implemented, in order to supply optimum fire protection in listed edifices, particularly as this flexibleness allows the fire protection to be fitted to the peculiar fortunes, in footings of the edifice under consideration and the prevailing edifice ordinances. As Jackson and Passey ( 1998 ) province, “ the intelligent usage of modern stuffs in the full apprehension of their bounds of application can intend that fire protection is far easier to accomplish than in the past ” .
Yet, as Forrest ( 1996 ) argues, altering the character of a edifice to do it more fire resistant can travel against edifice ordinances, which can intend that inactive steps, such as hazard appraisals, can be more appropriate in certain instances. Generally, nevertheless, listed edifices which have a great trade of human thoroughfare, such as listed edifices that are unfastened to the populace ( such as Chatsworth House or any of the myriad of National Trust or English Heritage belongingss ) , are more likely to be capable to active fire protection steps, in order to protect human lives, whereas private listed abodes are more likely to use hazard appraisal steps with low-level inactive fire protection systems, such as fire sensing and fire suppression systems, in line with the demands of the insurance company. The existent suite of fire protection steps implemented therefore depends, really much, on the usage the edifice is subjected to, the prevailing edifice ordinances and the penchants of the proprietors of the edifice.Yet, as Forrest ( 1996 ) argues, many more persons can stop up holding a say in the fire protection steps implemented, particularly in public edifices, including fire protection officers ( who are chiefly concerned with guaranting that the necessary criterions are achieved in footings of supplying the necessary agencies of flight and fire combat equipment ) and edifice environmentalists ( who are concerned with continuing the cloth of the edifice, through seeking to avoid, where possible, invasion for the intents of bettering fire protection ) . As Forrest ( 1996 ) argues, nevertheless, the proprietor of the edifice is bound, chiefly, by their legal duties to do their edifice fire cogent evidence within the model of the prevailing edifice ordinances and relevant fire safety criterions.As Forrest ( 1996 ) discusses, the fire safety criterions that are set Forth in the current edifice ordinances apply to constructing work merely, but they can impact bing edifices on which ‘material changes ‘ have been undertaken, which by and large means anything that involves major alterations to the construction of the edifice, such as installing/improving compartmentation, for illustration ( Clark, 2001 ) . The criterions besides apply where there is a ‘material alteration of usage ‘ to a listed edifice, such as transitions or sub-divisions, for illustration ( Forrest, 1996 ) .
This can intend that proprietors of listed edifices are discouraged from set abouting fire protection betterments in their edifice, for fright of pulling high costs, in footings of guaranting that all stuffs used comply to predominating fire safety criterions and that any alterations undertaken to the construction of the edifice have been done in line with the predominating edifice ordinances ( which can be dearly-won in footings of using edifice environmentalists and specialised contractors ) . This, hence, elicits a quandary, in that listed edifices should be fire proofed, in footings of protecting the state ‘s heritage but that many private listed edifices are, by virtuousness of the proprietors seeking to salvage costs, non adequately protected against fire.For this ground, so, inactive fire protection steps are, once more, frequently preferred by private proprietors of listed edifices, with hazard appraisals being preferred, for illustration, to the usage of fire sensing systems and fire suppression systems ( Forrest, 1996 ) . A comprehensive fire safety reappraisal, as has been discussed, can take to potentially unsafe countries of the edifice being identified and these being addressed with a position to minimizing, every bit far as possible, the hazard of a fire interrupting out.
As Forrest ( 1996 ) provinces, “ … holding identified and quantified fire hazard, the footing of fire safety design must be defined, ever taking into history the demand to fulfill life safety issues, and to equilibrate belongings protection issues against physical invasion ” .
The key to fire protection in listed edifices is orienting solutions to the peculiar state of affairs: either inactive or active fire protection systems will work but necessitate to be good thought through and good fitted to the hazard appraisal conducted, in add-on to being fitted to the prevailing fire safety criterions and edifice ordinances.As Forrest ( 1996 ) argues, it may good be that a fire suppression system, such as a sprinkler system, is the best overall solution for fire protection in listed edifices, but this system is merely effectual if the clip between the sensing of the fire and the gap of the sprinkler system is really short. Once the best solution has been identified it, therefore, needs to be tailored to the exact state of affairs showing in order to guarantee that it will work optimally, in pattern, in that peculiar state of affairs. In add-on, it is non possible to supply cover solutions to fire protection in listed edifices: as Forrest ( 1996 ) provinces, “ as portion of the development of a fire program scheme for any historic or listed edifice, the definition of hazard, residents ‘ precedences and preservation issues are paramount. The fire scheme consists of assorted conducive elements including the natural or bing edifice characteristics and the grade to which more burdensome inactive upgrading can be offset by the debut of active protection steps ” .In drumhead, so, there are a assortment of steps that can be undertaken in order to supply fire opposition in listed edifices, all of which are based on presenting better fire protection to listed edifices.
These include, amongst others, hazard appraisals, fire sensing systems, fire suppression systems, compartmentation and doing bing structures/fittings more fire resistant. As has been made clear, the choice of the peculiar suite of fire protection steps will depend on many factors: the use of the edifice ( with edifices with high human thoroughfare being more likely to use more complex fire protection steps ) ; the prevailing edifice ordinances ; the existent physical layout, and status, of the edifice ; the sum of money available for the fire protection betterments ; and the conditions laid down by the insurance company for sing the edifice, amongst others. The solution that is found, for bettering fire protection in listed edifices, therefore really much depends on the person listed edifice: fire protection solutions need to be tailored to single listed edifices and can non be applied in a cover mode across all listed edifices. This will be highlighted in the following Chapter, which will supply a instance survey of an version of a listed edifice ( Duff House in Banff ) in order to better fire opposition.
Chapter 5: Case survey of an version of a listed edifice to better fire opposition: Duff House
Kidd ( 2003 ) presents information about a fire opposition appraisal made at Duff House in Banff. Duff House, constructed by William Adam in 1754, was neglected for much of the twentieth century until, in 1990, a partnership of local and national organisations was set up to renovate the edifice with a position to turning it in to a national art gallery.
As portion of this renovation, fire safeguards were analyzed in item in footings of guaranting that the House was protected, every bit far as possible, from fire, given its listed position, its new, highly valuable contents and the figure of visitants that were expected to go through through its doors once it opened as a museum ( Kidd, 2003 ) .As explained in Kidd ( 2003 ) , a fire hazard appraisal was undertaken on the edifice and it was recommended that the undermentioned alterations were made to the edifice: hazard decrease, and control, to minimise the possibility of a fire, including cleaning the roofs, guttering and under-flooring countries on a regular basis to take any built-up dust and/or other combustible affairs ; to upgrade the fire barriers in topographic point in the edifice in order to incorporate fire to its zone of beginning for at least 30 proceedingss ; to upgrade the flight routes to supply better flight possibilities for visitants in the event of a fire caparison visitants within the edifice ; t put in a fume sensing system, with air trying ; to put in a dry riser ; to put in an automatic sprinkler system linked to the fume sensing system ; and to supply greater security against possible incendiarism onslaughts ( Kidd, 2003 ) .Following screening of the recommendations of this fire hazard appraisal, nevertheless, there was some dissension as to what should go on amongst the partnership who intended to turn the House in to a national art gallery. The partnership decided there were three chief options: I ) to make nil and to go forth the house as an empty shell ; two ) to renovate the edifice as a gallery but supplying merely the minimal fire safety steps required by jurisprudence for life safety protection ; three ) to follow the decisions derived from the hazard appraisal and to implement all of the suggested safety steps in to the renovation of Duff House ( Kidd, 2003 ) .
It was decided that the last option would be followed with information from the hazard appraisal being used as a usher, and minimal impact on the interior architecture being caused, by the engagement of the local council, edifice environmentalists and designers. This coaction determined, for illustration, the type, pick and place of each sprinkler caput, guaranting that they were placed sympathetically in each of the suites and ensured that the compartmentation that was implemented was sympathetic to the original construction of the edifice ( Kidd, 2003 ) .Duff House was finally rebuilt, including all of the recommendations of the fire hazard appraisal, and is now a successful art gallery, pulling 1000s of visitants each twelvemonth. As Kidd ( 2003 ) argues, the application of modern fire protection technology, informed by the thorough and detailed hazard appraisal, means that non merely are the human visitants protected but besides the plants of art that the edifice houses, intending that no portion of the edifices use was compromised in footings of safety. The redevelopment was so successful that Duff House was awarded an international award in acknowledgment of its “ advanced fire protection steps ” ( Kidd, 2003 ) .The instance survey of Duff House merely goes to foreground how of import, and valuable, fire hazard appraisals can be, in footings of demoing what the hazards are, how to battle these and giving different options for the proprietors of listed edifices in footings of merely following with the relevant statutory demands or traveling above and beyond these to guarantee that non merely human life is safe but besides the cloth of the edifice and its contents.
It is clear from this analysis that fire protection in listed edifices is a complex affair, affecting many participants, each of whom comes from a different position, offers different point of views and different expertness and all of whom need to work together to guarantee that listing edifices are as fire resistant as they are decided they need to be.This instance survey besides highlights the fact that non all listed edifices require the same fire protection steps and that the existent fire protection measures that will be used is based on a figure of factors, including the usage the edifice will be put to, the volume of human thoroughfare and whether the proprietors wish to follow merely to the basic statutory demands of supplying life safety protection or whether they wish to, besides, protect the existent listed edifice and its contents. If the edifice is for public use, with a high volume of human thoroughfare but its proprietor was interested merely in guaranting life safety and non supplying comprehensive fire protection for the listed edifice, for illustration, so fire protection steps such as the installing of dismaies and equal fire flights would be sufficient to get a fire certification.
If the edifice is for public use, with a high volume of human thoroughfare and its proprietor was besides interested in guaranting life safety and supplying comprehensive fire protection for the listed edifice, nevertheless, a more comprehensive suite of fire protection steps would be included in the fire protection. For illustration, the stuffs would be made more immune, the edifice would be compartmentalized, fire dismay and sensing systems linked to fire suppression systems would be implemented, all with the purpose of non merely salvaging human lives, in the event of a fire, but besides salvaging every bit much of the listed edifice as possible in the event of a fire. The pick of fire bar steps is, therefore, really much dependant on the single fortunes of the edifice, in footings of its use and its proprietors dispositions for the degree of fire safety chosen.As Kidd ( 2003 ) argues, non all fire protection intercessions are every bit effectual methods of guaranting fire opposition, particularly for those intercessions that work in concert with each other. For illustration, a fire dismay system is no good at forestalling fire without a fire suppression system being linked up to it, otherwise, one time the fire was detected, there would be no manner to set the fire out, rendering the designation of the fire worthless. In add-on, the peculiar fire bar method put in topographic point should ever be ‘fit for intent ‘ so that they help with protecting the edifice from fire, within the remit of the extent of protection desired: a sprinkler system will non, for illustration, be every bit effectual as a whole system of compartmentation in footings of protecting the whole edifice from fire. If the proprietors of the edifice were, nevertheless, merely prepared to pay for a sprinkler system, and were merely required to suit a sprinkler system in footings of acquiring their fire certification for the peculiar intended use, so, in the event of a fire, the proprietors could non anticipate the sprinkler system to be every bit effectual as a compartmentation system would hold been in footings of insulating the fire to one peculiar country of the edifice.In drumhead, as has been highlighted in this instance survey, all fire protection systems are utile for the peculiar intent they are put: jobs arise when people expect fire protection intercessions to make more than their intended intent.
If, for illustration, the partnership responsible for the redevelopment of Duff House had non decided to implement the whole suite of recommended fire protection steps, so Duff House, and its contents, would hold been left vulnerable to fire. Fire protection merely works if the intercessions implemented are fit for the intent intended.
Chapter 6: Analysis of Method Statements
Section 6.1: Introduction
This Chapter will analyse method statements for two proposed transitions of two listed edifices, the transition of Bishop Perry ‘s House in to residential homes and the transition of The Boardroom House in The Square, Mere, Wiltshire, with a position to better understanding the planning procedure and to understand the solutions suggested for bettering fire opposition in these two listed edifices.
Section 6.2: The transition of Bishop Percy ‘s house in to residential homes
As highlighted in Balfours ( 2002 ) , a Fire Officer was involved in carry oning the fire hazard appraisal of Bishop Percy ‘s House, who suggested, amongst other things, that doors and door adjustments would necessitate to be changed in order to better their fire opposition and that the internal lumber construction should be painted with puffy hurting in order to supply extra fire opposition to this construction. However, all of these recommendations meant ample alterations to the internal constructions of the House, which, harmonizing to the dictates of the Building Regulations for listed edifices, would hold meant that the planning application would hold been turned down.
A Borough Conservation Officer was therefore enlisted to guarantee that the planning application went through and that the fire protection steps that could be implemented would be implemented ( Balfours, 2002 ) .Assorted fire protection steps were suggested in the concluding method statement, including: providing equal entree, at the rear of the House, for the fire service ; supplying an equal agencies of flight for the new occupants, in the event of a fire, with no changes to this flight one time the planning permission was granted ; supplying illuming on the fire escapes ; supplying fire flight marks within the freshly converted House ; and to shut any nothingnesss encountered during the transition of the House ( Balfours, 2002 ) .In add-on, fire warnings would necessitate to be included, in footings of both an automatic fire dismay system and a breakable glass fire dismay system ; life protection should be permitted, with fire asphyxiators and automatic fire dismaies being preferred to a sprinkler system ; fire combat equipment, such as a wall-mounted house reel, would besides necessitate to be provided, as would external fire water faucets and water-based asphyxiators, in a safe topographic point outside the edifice ( Balfours, 2002 ) . In add-on, a hot plants license was sought in the method statements for the transition of Bishop Perry ‘s House in to residential homes ( Balfours, 2002 ) .As is made clear in Balfours ( 2002 ) , the transition of two subdivisions of the house in to residential homes could compromise the architectural unity of the listed edifice and so, aside from the recommended alterations in footings of fire protection, which would alter the cloth of the edifice slightly, some uncertainty was cast over the feasibleness of the existent suggested work, in footings of the prevailing edifice ordinances.
By utilizing Document ‘B ‘ of the 2000 Building Regulations, nevertheless, it seems that the concerns were overcome, in concurrence with the Borough Conservation Officer, as it was suggested that the undermentioned fire protection steps should be implemented in to the undertaking in order to derive planning permission: the execution of a distinct modern radio automatic fire dismay system ; the add-on of 12.5mm gypsum board to the ceilings ; sealing doors with puffy sealer ; supplying new doors, where appropriate, with a one hr fire opposition capacity ; painting walls with puffy pigment ; halting all nothingnesss with appropriate stuffs, particularly those from bordering belongingss ; and supplying equal flight installations that are good sign-posted ( Balfours, 2002 ) .It was clear, from reading the method statements, that a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the fire protection demands of Bishop Percy ‘s House was undertaken by several independent people: Balfours, the fire protection officer and the Borough Conservation Officer in order to a ) provide a fire hazard appraisal of the belongings pre- and post-conversion and to b ) guarantee that the edifice was fire immune post-conversion and to c ) guarantee that the suggested fire protection intercessions were made in line with the predominating edifice ordinances. This collaborative attack ensured that the bulk of the suggestions of the fire officer, following his fire hazard appraisal, were made, within the bounds of the edifice ordinances, as guided by the Borough Conservation Officer. The instance survey hence highlights the collaborative nature of fire hazard appraisals and the ways in which via medias are reached, within the organic structure of method statements, in order to guarantee maximum fire protection within the bounds of the prevailing edifice ordinances.
Section 6.3: The transition of The Boardroom House on The Square, in Mere, Wiltshire
Salisbury Council ( 2008 ) provides a method statement for the proposed transition of The Boardroom House on The Square, in Mere, Wiltshire, foregrounding the desired alterations and the fire concerns identified through a fire hazard appraisal. As highlighted in the papers, turning the Boardroom House in to flats by horizontal subdivision leaves the edifice unfastened to a hazard of fire, as the floors will go party floors and, as such, will necessitate excess insularity ( Salisbury Council, 2008 ) .
In add-on, the roof was found to be vulnerable, as it was non found to be composed of the original constructions, possibly as a consequence of fixs following a fire in 1671, intending that the roof trusses need to be secured, and all nothingnesss sealed, in order to supply equal fire opposition ( Salisbury Council, 2008 ) .In add-on, it was found that the walls, mostly unchanged from their original province, needed picture with puffy pigment to do them fire resistant and that the floors needed extra joists to reenforce them and needed extra insularity to increase their fire opposition ( Salisbury Council, 2008 ) . The method statement, nevertheless, suggest that alternatively of mending the bing floors, the floors should be replaced: it is non celebrated whether this suggestion was accepted by the Council, given the predominating edifice ordinances and given the listed position of the edifice ( Salisbury Council, 2008 ) .The method statement for The Boardroom House on The Square, in Mere, Wiltshire is nowhere nigh every bit complete as the method statement for Bishop Perry ‘s House, but it was still clear to see from this method statement that a great figure of alterations would be need to do to The Boardroom House in footings of bettering its fire opposition, many of which, such as replacing floors and roof joists, were significant and, hence, were pending be aftering permission.
This method statement, likewise to that of the method statement for Bishop Perry ‘s House, highlights the complex nature of set abouting a fire hazard appraisal on a listed edifice, in footings of cognizing which parts of the edifice are original, which are non and what precisely can be done to guarantee a higher degree of fire opposition in the edifice. For this ground, Building Conservation Military officers are normally involved in the fire hazard appraisal and the development of the consequent fire protection program, as they are cognizant of both the demand to keep the unity of the edifice ‘s constructions, via their cognition of the edifice ordinances, and besides the demand to suit the suggested fire opposition steps. Building Conservation Officers are, therefore, an priceless member of the collaborative squad that is responsible for guaranting fire opposition in listed edifices.
Chapter 7: Decision
This thesis has looked at the methods and systems that can be implemented in order to offer better fire opposition in listed edifices, with a position to bettering fire protection and diminishing the opportunities of listed edifices being damaged in whole, or in portion, by fire.The thesis had several chief aims, one of which was to analyse assorted instance surveies of fires in listed edifices ( the Pier at Weston-Super-Mare, Windsor Castle and the Savoy Theatre ) in order to understand what happened in the fire and how these fires could hold been prevented, in footings of the installing of more appropriate fire protection systems. To this terminal, Chapter 3 reviewed three instance surveies of fires in three high profile listed edifices ( Weston-Super-Mare Pier, Windsor Castle and the Savoy Theatre ) , demoing major weaknesss in fire protection in each of the three listed edifices.The work presented in this Chapter highlighted the cardinal demand for equal fire protection, from fire hazard appraisal to the installing of appropriate fire protection methods.
The work presented in Chapter 3 therefore served to foreground the basically holistic nature of fire protection in listed edifices: fire protection is non something that can be attempted in isolation as it needs to get down with a comprehensive fire hazard appraisal that allows a thorough apprehension of the hazards that are present and how these hazards can best be dealt with. As discussed in Chapter 3, one time this fire hazard apprai