Fire insurance and the ‘sustainable building’ 135
fire protection. They understand that the discourse of sustainability, in the
hands of developers, reinforces the hegemony of the fire safety standards prescribed in the BCA. Thus in the example of protecting atria and other open
spaces, developers promoted introducing sprinklers as a key component of
the building’s fire safety system. But the sprinklers they settle on are not just
any sprinklers: they are sprinklers made more consistent with sustainability
because they are sourced with grey water and driven by pumps that optimise
water usage through vaporising sprays. The fire services object that these
may accumulate chemical deposits sufficient to render them ineffective, and
question whether the sprinklers will be powerful enough to douse the incipient fire fast enough before it spreads in a building that has abandoned compartmentation and other trusted passive fire protection measures. In sum,
the fire services are concerned that this form of sustainability may impair
their ability to carry out their statutory obligations to protect life, property,
and the environment – and to carry them out safely.
Conclusions
While it may appear that bipartisan support for the significance of sustainability will lead to a generally accepted, environmentally sustainable regime
of fire prevention, this seems to be something a long way off. Expert comments such as ‘[c]onstructing a building to be more sustainable can sometimes mean making the building less fire safe while making a building more
fire safe sometimes requires the building to be less sustainable’ (Carter 2011,
p. 7), show the grounds for ongoing conflict. But as this chapter has argued,
even such cautious comments seem to accept the concept of sustainability
itself. They take for granted the existence of a uniform conception of sustainability: precisely that which has been shown to be misleading. A critical
examination of the concept and its employment reveals a much more complex and insoluble problem than these comments otherwise suggest.
The persistence of conflicting conceptions of sustainability suggests
there is unlikely to be any technological resolution to the struggle because
the divide is not just about technological possibilities. It is a political and
economic conflict over contradictory fire safety objectives that have long
fractured fire prevention. Even so, it may be supposed that the Grenfell
disaster has changed things, not only because governments often have had
to contribute to the cost of replacing flammable cladding in thousands of
buildings. The human cost of the Grenfell tragedy might be seen to trump
the economisation of fire safety. And to this development seemingly hostile to developers may be added the influence granted to insurers by their
willingness to increase premiums or refuse insurance for buildings that
do not satisfy their sustainability standards. Historically this has been a
powerful force for change. However, despite their use for well over a century and a half, the coercive potential of premiums has never ended the
struggle with developers, owners, and governments. There are limits to the
fire protection. They understand that the discourse of sustainability, in the
hands of developers, reinforces the hegemony of the fire safety standards prescribed in the BCA. Thus in the example of protecting atria and other open
spaces, developers promoted introducing sprinklers as a key component of
the building’s fire safety system. But the sprinklers they settle on are not just
any sprinklers: they are sprinklers made more consistent with sustainability
because they are sourced with grey water and driven by pumps that optimise
water usage through vaporising sprays. The fire services object that these
may accumulate chemical deposits sufficient to render them ineffective, and
question whether the sprinklers will be powerful enough to douse the incipient fire fast enough before it spreads in a building that has abandoned compartmentation and other trusted passive fire protection measures. In sum,
the fire services are concerned that this form of sustainability may impair
their ability to carry out their statutory obligations to protect life, property,
and the environment – and to carry them out safely.
Conclusions
While it may appear that bipartisan support for the significance of sustainability will lead to a generally accepted, environmentally sustainable regime
of fire prevention, this seems to be something a long way off. Expert comments such as ‘[c]onstructing a building to be more sustainable can sometimes mean making the building less fire safe while making a building more
fire safe sometimes requires the building to be less sustainable’ (Carter 2011,
p. 7), show the grounds for ongoing conflict. But as this chapter has argued,
even such cautious comments seem to accept the concept of sustainability
itself. They take for granted the existence of a uniform conception of sustainability: precisely that which has been shown to be misleading. A critical
examination of the concept and its employment reveals a much more complex and insoluble problem than these comments otherwise suggest.
The persistence of conflicting conceptions of sustainability suggests
there is unlikely to be any technological resolution to the struggle because
the divide is not just about technological possibilities. It is a political and
economic conflict over contradictory fire safety objectives that have long
fractured fire prevention. Even so, it may be supposed that the Grenfell
disaster has changed things, not only because governments often have had
to contribute to the cost of replacing flammable cladding in thousands of
buildings. The human cost of the Grenfell tragedy might be seen to trump
the economisation of fire safety. And to this development seemingly hostile to developers may be added the influence granted to insurers by their
willingness to increase premiums or refuse insurance for buildings that
do not satisfy their sustainability standards. Historically this has been a
powerful force for change. However, despite their use for well over a century and a half, the coercive potential of premiums has never ended the
struggle with developers, owners, and governments. There are limits to the