Industrial Fire Statistics: The Numbers Don’t Lie

The latest statistics issued by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, covering the year ending March 2026, confirm what many practitioners in the sector have been observing on the ground. The total number of fires attended by Fire and Rescue Services in England rose by 5.8% on the previous year to reach a figure of 641,227. Building fires also increased in the same period by 3.1%. While fire-related fatalities have decreased by 9.3% to 254, they are now 7.2% higher than five years ago.

These are not numbers to be explained away by a hot summer or a statistical anomaly. The underlying figures represent a genuine upward trend in primary fires that result in fatalities we must investigate when it comes to the human cost of fire. A growing trend in fire attendance time is also not a good indicator as we’ve long demonstrated a strong link between that and arresting the growth of fire in many building types.

Within the overall picture, the industrial fire story is particularly troubling. The underlying data points to two fatalities and 135 casualties across 1,806 industrial fires in the period under examination. The casualty figure has nearly doubled since the previous year and is now at a level we’ve not seen since 2018.

It’s a figure that should give any commercial building owner pause for thought. These are not the spectacular, headline-consuming warehouse infernos that occasionally make the national news, yet the data highlights that, for industrial premises, this past financial year has been one of the toughest on record for recorded casualties.

The data should generate a pause to consider whether there’s a change or a trend here that needs attention. Many of the fires fall into the range of what the sector might once have called ‘routine incidents’. The fires we documented earlier this year in Sutton Bonington, Bradford and Widnes involving industrial waste, rubber and recycling material drew little national attention precisely because there were no fatalities. However, each required resources from multiple counties, displaced operations and left environmental questions that communities continued to live with long after the fire crews departed.

Cost behind the figures

The financial cost of those casualties is impossible to calculate, but the scale of physical damage gives some indication. The statistics don’t directly publish an average damage figure for industrial premises, but the underlying data shows that average fire damage area has also risen during the period to 150 m².

Remember that’s across 1,806 fires, in turn meaning the total damage to industrial fires across the period would be equivalent to somewhere in the region of 40 football pitches in terms of area.

Coupled with the casualty figures, there’s a pause to consider the total impact. The true cost of an industrial fire is rarely captured in a single number. There’s the physical damage, the loss of stock, the disruption, the impact on supply chains, the clean-up costs, the regulatory scrutiny that follows and, in some cases, the loss of the business altogether.

These costs sit alongside the human toll. Taken together, they paint a picture that should be making commercial building owners consider the potential impact of a fire and perhaps policy-makers to consider the economic impact.

The question that follows from the statistics is the one that never seems to be asked loudly enough: ‘Why are the figures rising?’ Industrial fire risk has not fundamentally changed. Buildings are better understood, fire regulations exist and the Fire and Rescue Service is well-trained.

What has changed is the scale and complexity of these industrial premises, driven by the growth of e-commerce, the expansion of waste and recycling operations and the increasing use of lithium-ion batteries across logistics and manufacturing spaces. The types of fuels have changed as we’ve moved to the use of more plastics in general handling and containers.

These are new and compounding risks being introduced into a stock of buildings that was never considered to accommodate them and, in many cases, still lacks the most effective tool available to contain their consequences.

Credible tool exists

The statistics tell us the challenge is rising. Attendance time on-site increasing towards ten minutes is coupled with concerns from the Fire and Rescue Service around available water supplies. These are not positive signals. We know that they have an impact on effective and prompt intervention to control a fire.

One potential solution is proven and available. For industrial premises, we know that sprinkler systems have been proven to contain, control or extinguish fires in 99% of cases when activated. They’ve demonstrated their ability to protect people. That’s why they’re used to protect high-rise living spaces.

Any fire stopped in minutes doesn’t burn for ten days, doesn’t generate thousands of litres of contaminated run-off and doesn’t end careers or companies. The gap between the potential outcomes is a policy choice. It’s one that the industry and Government need to confront with far more urgency than the current figures would seem to suggest.

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