Fire precautions: Fire certificate

Appellant tenant applying to fire officer for fire certificate - officer inspecting premises - officer serving notice under section 5(4) of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 setting out steps to be taken to bring premises up to standard - notice requiring provision of sprinkler system - whether notice validCity Logistics Ltd v Northamptonshire County Fire Officer: Court of Appeal: Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Justice Chadwick, Lord Justice Rix:25 July 2001In 1998 a large modern warehouse at Brackmills, Northampton, was completed.

The developers had obtained a building regulations certificate from the building authority, Northampton Borough Council.

The appellant was the tenant of the warehouse under a 25-year full repairing and insuring lease.On 15 September 1998 the appellant applied to the respondent for a fire certificate, indicating that: the building would be used for distribution and warehousing; about 30 people would work there; and, there would be 46 portable fire extinguishers throughout the building but no other means of fighting fire.

The respondent inspected the building and then served a notice on the appellant under section 5(4) of the Fire Precautions Act 1971, advising the appellant that the fire precautions in the premises were not considered to be adequate for the issue of a fire certificate, and setting out steps to be taken to bring the premises up to standard.

The controversial step was the installation of a sprinkler system, conforming to British Standard 5306 part 2, throughout the factory and warehouse area, which it was claimed would cost at least 500,000.

The appellant appealed against the notice.

The magistrates dismissed the appeal.

The appellant then appealed to the Crown Court pursuant to section 27(1) of the Act, and that appeal was allowed.

The respondent appealed to the High Court by way of case stated and the judge allowed the appeal.

The appellant appealed.Held: The appeal was allowed.The 1971 Act was concerned with the protection of persons in premises in the event of a fire.

It was not concerned with the protection of property, the safety of firemen or the safety of others who might be nearby.

When inspecting a property pursuant to section 5, the fire authority should look for the provision of, and availability of, means of escape in case of fire.

Section 5(3)(c) does not require the fire authority to be satisfied in relation to means of fighting fire unrelated to escape.

In that context, it could not be accepted that section 5(3)(c) of the Act enabled a fire authority to use section 5(4) to require the provision of fire sprinklers to fight fire when that step was not reasonably necessary to facilitate the escape of those who might be at risk.Elizabeth Appleby QC and Hugh Richards (instructed by Myers Cowley, of Hemel Hempstead) for the appellant; James Goudie QC and Witold Pawlak (instructed by the solicitor to Northamptonshire County Council) for the respondent; Timothy Corner (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the intervening party, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.