- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@bournemouthecho
All the latest news and chat from the Echo
@bmthechosport
All the latest sport from the Echo team
- Find us on Facebook
Bournemouth Daily Echo
Like us on Facebook
Lytchett Minster School science block built 'too late' for sprinkler system (From Bournemouth Echo)
When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.
Lytchett Minster School science block built 'too late' for sprinkler system
11:00am Tuesday 8th January 2013 in News By Joanna Codd
Lytchett Minster School maths and science block
THE £12million maths and science block near the fire-wrecked creative arts building at Lytchett Minster School was built just too late to have sprinklers fitted, education chiefs have confirmed.
Dorset County Council’s cabinet agreed in 2008 that sprinkler systems would be installed in all its new school buildings, in accordance with government guidance issued by then South Dorset MP and Schools Minister Jim Knight.
But building work on the maths and science block started in 2006 and it opened in early 2009.
Mike Harries, head of property for Dorset County Council, said: “Expert independent advice was sought during the design of the building to assess the fire risks.
“These experts concluded that sprinklers were not required and instead recommended designing the building in such a way that reduced fire risks.”
Department for Education guidance states that all new schools will have sprinklers fitted, unless they have been assessed as low risk.
The £52million rebuild of Queen Elizabeth School in Wimborne, opened in December 2011, did include a sprinkler system, but Ashdown Technology College in Poole, is not having sprinklers installed as part of its £15million redevelopment.
Related links
Andrew Flockhart, strategic director at Borough of Poole, said: “The fire safety scheme for the new and refurbished accommodation at Ashdown was developed in full consultation with Dorset Fire and Rescue Service and has been agreed with them.
“The scheme has been integrated with the designs that are now being built on site.
“This includes provisions to contain any fire, such as fire-doors, fire escapes, alarms and appropriate fire fighting equipment.”
Lytchett Minster School is currently being cleared of debris before pupils return next week, but the first phase of demolition of the creative arts block is not due to start until January 14.
Meanwhile some 2,000 square feet of specialist teaching space is needed.
The school, county council and insurance company are assessing how much of the ruined building can be retained in the rebuild, which is expected to cost about £6million, plus contents.
“In terms of the arts block damaged by the fire over the Christmas period, the school is keen to rebuild it as close to its original form as possible, subject to modern building regulations,” said Mr Harries.
“As a foundation school, Lytchett Minster School will lead on this project and make the key decisions, including the possible provision of a sprinkler system.
“The school is looking to appoint a project manager to co-ordinate all aspects of the scheme. Dorset County Council will continue to support in an advisory role.”
Comments(19)
speedy231278
says...
11:22am Tue 8 Jan 13
Will these 'experts' be paying for the repair/rebuild?
CourtOffside
says...
11:25am Tue 8 Jan 13
Sprinklers wouldn't have done a thing in this fire, even if they had been fitted.
John T
says...
11:52am Tue 8 Jan 13
This statement suggests to me that Mr Harries is either attempting to absolve himself from blame for sprinklers not being fitted originally or that a pennywise, pound foolish attitude still persists.
Whoever makes the decision as to whether sprinklers are to be fitted in the rebuild would do well to remember that ' a successful man is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks others have thrown at him!'
Arjay
says...
12:29pm Tue 8 Jan 13
As we have been discussing in the comments on yesterday's article, it seems extraordinary that the complete failure of the fire alarm system(as the result of the lightning strike) was not reported to the monitoring station.
Or if it was, and was only seen as a low priority 'fault' alarm, then something is seriously wrong with the specifications for high value, public buildings....especia
lly those that are sometimes completely unmanned..
fairlylocal
says...
12:51pm Tue 8 Jan 13
The building was a goner from the second that bolt struck!
Can we please put this ridiculous story to bed now?!
Steve_Mac
says...
1:00pm Tue 8 Jan 13
Arjay
says...
1:13pm Tue 8 Jan 13
fairlylocal wrote:I think it's been fairly well established that sprinklers would not have helped much (if at all) in this case.
Why is this even a discussion? I've never seen an upward pointing sprinkler system in my life... The lightning hit at the very top of the roof (on the outside!)... sprinklers wouldn't have done own ounce of good here!
The building was a goner from the second that bolt struck!
Can we please put this ridiculous story to bed now?!
The fire brigade arriving in less than an hour may well have have made a difference...
Why would you want to put this story 'to bed' ?
If you're not interested in reading about, and/or discussing whether anything may be learnt from the errors made here, I can't see why you would bother to comment on this article?
It's not compulsory reading... there is a little button on your mouse - just click that, and you can maybe find something else that does interest you?...
DAISY3073
says...
3:53pm Tue 8 Jan 13
speedy231278 wrote:For goodness sake - read the article properly. The building that is being referred to as the £12M Maths and Science block is a totally separate building to the creative arts block which burned. The taxpayer will therefore not be "forking out £6M because of a penny pincher" as it's a totally different building which was built 9 years ago before the decision to add sprinklers to schools. I'm getting so bored of reading the comments of people about wasting a £12M rebuild cost when it's two totally different buildings built at different times. Also, as mentioned by others above, sprinklers do not point upwards so would not have solved the problem
Sprinklers have been around for probably longer than living memory. So, for the sake of saving a few grand on a £12M building because they could get away with it as presumably they were advisory rather than compulsory. Now, the taxpayers will be forking out £6M because of a penny pincher!
Telscombe Cliffy
says...
4:53pm Tue 8 Jan 13
fairlylocal
says...
7:56pm Tue 8 Jan 13
Arjay wrote:I am interested in reading about these stories... that's why I'm on my local newspaper's website!
fairlylocal wrote:I think it's been fairly well established that sprinklers would not have helped much (if at all) in this case.
Why is this even a discussion? I've never seen an upward pointing sprinkler system in my life... The lightning hit at the very top of the roof (on the outside!)... sprinklers wouldn't have done own ounce of good here!
The building was a goner from the second that bolt struck!
Can we please put this ridiculous story to bed now?!
The fire brigade arriving in less than an hour may well have have made a difference...
Why would you want to put this story 'to bed' ?
If you're not interested in reading about, and/or discussing whether anything may be learnt from the errors made here, I can't see why you would bother to comment on this article?
It's not compulsory reading... there is a little button on your mouse - just click that, and you can maybe find something else that does interest you?...
Learn from the errors? What errors? There were no errors... which is entirely my point of putting the story to bed! No sprinkler system in the world could have prevented this! There were no errors made!
Unless you're suggesting that the council should have foreseen that this lightning bolt was going to strick that place and that time? I mean, what kind of council are they if they can't even predict the future! Questions must be answered blah blah.
STudor
says...
8:49pm Tue 8 Jan 13
We have had two catastrophic fires under this head and two fire monitoring systems which have failed to give the fire brigade adequate time to respond. Can he be trusted with another multi million pound project?
Bournefre
says...
9:07pm Tue 8 Jan 13
This 'argument' that "sprinklers don't point up" is just ridiculous - a sprinkler system may not be able to divert a lightning strike in the same way as a lightning conductor, but can help to extinguish a fire which results from a lightning strike, which is why the building burned down; it wasn't instantly vapourised by a bolt of lightning.
Arjay
says...
9:31pm Tue 8 Jan 13
fairlylocal wrote:I think it may be a bit presumptuous of any of us to definitively say that there were 'no errors' in the response to the fire following this direct lightning strike...
Arjay wrote:I am interested in reading about these stories... that's why I'm on my local newspaper's website!
fairlylocal wrote:I think it's been fairly well established that sprinklers would not have helped much (if at all) in this case.
Why is this even a discussion? I've never seen an upward pointing sprinkler system in my life... The lightning hit at the very top of the roof (on the outside!)... sprinklers wouldn't have done own ounce of good here!
The building was a goner from the second that bolt struck!
Can we please put this ridiculous story to bed now?!
The fire brigade arriving in less than an hour may well have have made a difference...
Why would you want to put this story 'to bed' ?
If you're not interested in reading about, and/or discussing whether anything may be learnt from the errors made here, I can't see why you would bother to comment on this article?
It's not compulsory reading... there is a little button on your mouse - just click that, and you can maybe find something else that does interest you?...
Learn from the errors? What errors? There were no errors... which is entirely my point of putting the story to bed! No sprinkler system in the world could have prevented this! There were no errors made!
Unless you're suggesting that the council should have foreseen that this lightning bolt was going to strick that place and that time? I mean, what kind of council are they if they can't even predict the future! Questions must be answered blah blah.
It may well be that nothing could have prevented the total destruction of the building?
All I am suggesting is that the arrival of the fire service being delayed by something like an hour MAY have made a significant difference to the outcome?
It could well be that errors were made which caused such a long delay....and they might be addressed...
...nothing to do with 'predicting the future'??
alan mdransfield
says...
8:08am Wed 9 Jan 13
I doubt if the Fire Authority report will be available by then??!!.
This fire WAS and SHOULD have been prevented. Fire retardant insulation boards were NOT fitted and the photographs in the national press clearly supports this statement.No wonder the Fire Spread SO QUICKLY.
Who signed the school acceptance and building regulations, they MUST have know the Fire Insulation Boards were not installed.?
The steel girders in the school do not appear to have been fire boarded or intumiscent painted either?!
It is also asking for trouble by running the Lightning Protection Down Conductors (DC)INSIDE the buildings as clearly shown in the Press Photographs.If the DC's were run on the outside of the buildings as per SOP, the lighting strike would have been dissipated to ground as SOP as opposed to being directed to FLAMABLE materials,i.e wood and roofing felt.
I seriously doubt if the Lightning Protection was installed properly which unfortunately is Par the Course these days . It is only a matter of time before we have to use Body Bags on a Public Buildings that has not been Provisioned with adequate Lightning Protection.
All this talk about "water pressure" being the main reason for NOT installing sprinklers is CODSWOLLOP because a full and adequate sprinkler system will include a large water storage tank and pump.The storage tak could be filled by rainwater ,which, is environmentally friendly,hence, it would not rely on Mains Pressure.
Someone in previous posts claimed they have never seen a sprinkler pointing upwards. Believe me, it is not uncommon and it is possible.
The problem with this school is some Smart **** designer and builders "THINK" they are clever by their design&build ,which ,has been proven to be sub-standard.
The Dorest Fire Authority are on record that the School HAD been provisioned with an "ADEQUATE" Lightning Protection System.
I don't think so Tim.
I am currently awaiting an Upper Tribunal decision ref FOI data on 6 PFI schools in Exeter in which I am on record since 2005 that the Lighting Protection Systems are unsafe.
How many other schools Nationwide are TINDERBOXES awaiting a Lightning Strike.
There is NO DOUBT in my mind whatsoever that PA's are knowingly and wilfully circumventing Lightning Protection requirements SOLELY to cut costs.
Where are the HSE in all this matter, I have heard their name mentioned once since the fire.
If the HSE investigate this fire there is NO CHANCE they will concluded their investigation by Jan 14 unless it is is Jan 2014.
Why would you want to put this story to bed unless you had something to hide.
BTW
My local Authority,i.e Devon County Council and the HSE have imposed a lifetime ban against me for raising such Health &Safety issues.??!!
Never fear the Lib Dems are on the Ball and calling for an Inquiry.
BTW it was the Lib Dems who designed and built the 6 PFI school in Devon to the tune of £400.
alan mdransfield
says...
6:18pm Wed 9 Jan 13
Demolition work should not have started today because I doubt very much if they have appointed an CDM Coordinator,issued a F10 Certificate to the HSE,approved a demolition plan,approved an alternative design,issued a project agreement,completed insurance liability , etc.
Here we go again ,more haste less speed.
alan mdransfield
says...
6:20pm Wed 9 Jan 13
Demolition work should not have started today because I doubt very much if they have appointed an CDM Coordinator,issued a F10 Certificate to the HSE,approved a demolition plan,approved an alternative design,issued a project agreement,completed insurance liability , etc.
Here we go again ,more haste less speed.
alan mdransfield
says...
7:49am Sat 12 Jan 13
Don't they ever learn?
I wonder how many other Dorset schools don't have sprinklers OR Lightning Protection Systems??!!
Its only a matter of time before we use BODY BAGS and then, they might take such matters seriously.
If Dorset County Council is anything like Devon CC, then MOST Public Building have NOT been provisioned with any Lightning Protection Systems(LPS) which,is all well and good until Lightning Strikes?!
alan mdransfield
says...
8:00am Sat 19 Jan 13
It beggars belief they did not hold any LRA,hence, we must assume the remainder of the school has not been provisioned with any LRA,ditto for all other DCC owned schools or indeed any of their Public Buildings.
I would imagine the Public Liability insurance cover will be revoked in the absence of any LRA.
DCC are under the "delusion" that the FACT the schools was provisioned with Lightning Protection Systems, they were not compelled to provision any LRA.
I don't doubt for one moment that the school was provisioned with LPS because I have seen the photographs of the school which clearly shows the LPS in place.I question the QUALITY of the LPS system and the method installed??!!
I also question the ethics,morals and accountability of ALL the oversight authorities who decided NOT to conduct(please excuse the pun) the Lightning Risk Assessment as per BS-EN 62305-2008.
No doubt, this will be included in the Dorset Fire report
speedy231278 says...
11:20am Tue 8 Jan 13