Car Park Fire Safety: Are We Solving the Wrong Problem?

It’s an acknowledgement, at last, that the fire exposure has changed, but while a stronger structure may stand for longer, that does nothing to stop a fire from spreading in the first place. That’s the issue the industry needs to question and answer.

Cars are bigger than they were a generation ago. Heavier with plastics and combustible materials, the modern car burns hotter and faster. This isn’t a discussion solely about electric vehicles, either. The old assumption that a car park fire would be limited to between one and three vehicles is no longer sound.

Modern fire loads mean that, once a fire takes hold, it’s far more likely the fire will spread to neighbouring vehicles. With more adjacent vehicles, that fire can keep spreading. As such, the window for intervention is narrowing.

This is where the proposal for an increase in fire resistance falls short. A more resilient structure is a worthwhile objective as it protects against building collapse and affords the Emergency Services more time to operate. However, if the fire can spread and the scale of that fire means firefighters cannot stop it, what will the extra time realise in terms of gain? It doesn’t address the fundamental challenge: ‘How do we stop the fire from spreading in the first place?’

Recent research commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive under the heading ‘Real Fires: Open-Sided Car Parks’ confirms what Fire and Rescue Services have been saying for some time now. Car park fires today develop faster, involve more vehicles and place greater demands on built environment structures than the scenarios for which our regulations were originally written. The blaze at the Luton Airport car park in 2023 and the Kings Dock car park fire in Liverpool at the end of 2017 are prime examples of the impact of spreading fires.

Not all equal

Perhaps an element missing in the discussion is that not all open-sided car parks are equal. A slightly odd thing to say, but some car parks form part of critical infrastructure or local community assets. If they’re lost or damaged such that their use is restricted, this in turn exerts an impact on other services.

Consider the aforementioned Terminal Car Park 2 fire at Luton Airport. People talk about the scale of the event: the damage in terms of the number of cars lost and the costs involved to rebuild the structure. However, the discussion focused around the impact on the airport due to lost revenue, trade and general disruption to passengers is missing.

Some commentators may view this as being outside of the scope of regulatory guidance. Others may read it as an indication that these impacts are limited. Many will be stunned to learn that the figure reproduced in the Annual Accounts of Luton Airport detailing insurance recoveries for business interruption due to the fire and the additional cost of working stands at a substantial £49 million. That’s not for the car park rebuild or the cars damaged. This is the impact on the business.

That’s not the end of the story, either, as the sum mentioned doesn’t include the entire timeframe through until the reopening of the rebuilt car park.

The fire at Addenbrooke’s Hospital car park in Cambridge on 13 December last year illustrates this potential infrastructure impact. Caused by a mechanical fault in a diesel vehicle, the blaze spread to 12 vehicles and forced the partial closure of Car Park 1, leaving 77 spaces out of use well into 2026 at what is one of the UK’s major hospital sites.

The fire itself was limited in scope, but required firefighters from several counties to attend to support the local Fire and Rescue Service in suppressing the blaze. It’s a telling example of how, in the absence of early suppression, even a relatively modest vehicle fire can serve to exert larger impacts and lasting consequences.

Case is clear

The case for early intervention is clear. Blocking fires from spreading using barriers may be an effective strategy for limiting those fires to a manageable number of cars, although car park users may dislike the solution.

A fire suppressed in its early stages, before it has the chance to spread beyond the vehicle of origin, avoids all of those consequences. Automatic fire suppression systems such as fire sprinklers have proven to do precisely that. Evidence from protected car parks in the UK highlights fires being contained at an early stage, which is in stark contrast to unprotected facilities where fire episodes have escalated rapidly and caused structural damage.

Increasing structural fire resistance isn’t the wrong answer, but it most certainly is the answer to an entirely different question. It leaves the question of what to do with the fire spread itself to be considered by the designers.

If we’re serious about tackling the growing fire risk in car parks, we need measures that address fire spread directly and consider the relative importance of these car parks to our infrastructure and local services. Fire sprinklers should be a fundamental element of that conversation and of any updated regulatory guidance.

Tom Roche is Secretary of the Business Sprinkler Alliance (www.business-sprinkler-alliance.org)