Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meetings of this Committee held on 6^th April 2010 and 11^th May 2010.

The Minutes of the meetings held on 6^th April 2010 and 11^th May 2010 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Andy Day confirmed that ‘Have Your Say’ was a police initiative and that the Public Involvement Board, which comprised a number of local public sector organisations, would assist in coordinating this activity to gain most benefit and avoid duplication of activity elsewhere.

To receive any Declarations of Interest from Members.

There were no declarations of interest received.

Purpose: To receive an update on activity identified at previous meetings.

The Committee reviewed the status of activities identified at previous meetings.  The Committee were content with progress and requested that in future, this item would contain only current and ongoing activities.

RESOLVED that in future, this item would contain only current and ongoing activities.

Purpose: To receive information to inform a policy recommendation regarding the installation of fire sprinklers in Council buildings.  Information to be received from:

a)     David Sharp (Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service)

b)     Sean Tye (Property Development Manager)

c)      Ian Priestley (Assurance Manager)

The Committee considered a report regarding Fire Sprinklers in Schools and Other Buildings presented to the Committee by Sean Tye (Property Development Manager).

Following questioning from the Committee, Sean Tye clarified that costs for installing fire sprinkler systems would vary according to the type and size of the system required.  Available indicative costs suggested that the cost of installing fire sprinkler systems in new buildings could account for between 2.3% and 15% of the total project cost.

The Committee requested information regarding dry sprinkler systems and were informed that dry systems worked by forcing an inert gas into the area thereby expelling all oxygen and extinguishing the fire.  They were more suited to use in unpopulated, smaller areas although they could be set up in a number of situations.  They have been found to cost approximately 35% more than wet systems although there were clear benefits in some settings, for example electrical rooms.

It was explained that the maintenance cost of any system depended on the size of the system and the components that required maintenance or servicing.  There was little available information to quantify these costs, but indications were that they could range from £500 to £5000 per annum.

It was further confirmed that the cost of fitting a system retrospectively to a building could not be defined as it would be dependent on a number of factors including size, construction material of the building and whether there was asbestos present, and the components required for the sprinkler system.

The Committee agreed not to consider developing a policy related to retrospective fitting of fire sprinklers.

David Sharp of the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service presented physical examples of two different types of sprinkler head for the Committee’s information.  He demonstrated one version, considered suitable for residential premises, where the fitting would be flush with the ceiling, descending and becoming visible only on activation.  The second version would be visible at all times.  Both versions would be suitable to be fitted with a dry system or a wet system.

He further stated that the normal life span of a sprinkler system was between 30 and 50 years and good maintenance would help to prolong this.

Ian Priestley (Assurance Manager) presented information to the Committee regarding insurance costs.  He explained that West Berkshire Council currently benefited from low premiums for buildings cover in exchange for a high excess level.  This has been determined by reference to the Council’s low level of fire risk, with three significant fires since 2003 totalling approximately £200k in repair costs.  No claims had been made to the Council’s insurers to date as all had been below the Council’s excess level.  It was recognised that sprinklers would have reduced the refurbishment costs of the fires that had occurred, however the low numbers of fires would not in themselves justify the cost of installation of sprinklers.

The Committee asked whether the insurance company had been approached to request a reduction in premiums.  Ian Priestley replied that negotiations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To review the work programme for 2010/11.

The Committee agreed the work programme and proposed to conclude their review into the need for a policy relating to fire sprinklers at the next meeting.  It was further agreed that the next item for consideration by the Committee would be crime statistics and that Thames Valley Police would be invited to the next meeting to provide an update.

Resolved that Thames Valley Police would be invited to the next meeting to provide information regarding crime statistics.