BFRS concludes that such fuel fires could have been prevented from spreading as far as they did if a sprinkler system had been installed in the car park. Research by the Building Research establishment shows that the use of sprinkler systems typically results in “property losses (that) are 95% less than those from an uncontrolled fire.”

The lack of a sprinkler system in the Terminal 2 car park is symbolic of the need to update fire and building safety regulations for car parks and public buildings in general. For starters, sprinklers are still not mandatory in the UK’s multi-storey car parks, despite their proven effectiveness; BFRS fire chief Andy Hopkinson said the organization “will support the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) in pushing for a change in national guidance and legislation to make provision of automatic water suppression systems, such as sprinklers, a requirement in multi-storey car parks.

However, several oversights were also made on the part of the firefighters themselves. Following the Kings Dock fire in Liverpool in 2017, which saw up to 1,150 vehicles catch fire, a Merseyside Fire and Rescue report recommended an increased level of brigade presence at multi-car park fires. floors due to the spread of fires. quickly due to the proximity of the cars to each other.

However, the BFRS had not updated a pre-determined assistance (PDA – the agreed number of resources to be mobilized in the event of a certain type of fire), in line with what had been suggested by the Merseyside Brigade . Although this has now been put in place for Luton Terminal 1 and 2 car parks, an updated PDA has yet to be agreed for the rest of Bedfordshire’s multi-storey car parks.

Additionally, the government’s Approved Document B (the document that describes fire safety in public buildings) states that “Where the car park is well ventilated, there is a low probability of fire spreading from one floor to the next. ‘other’ – which was disproved by not only the example of Kings Dock, but also the fire at Luton Airport. The BFRS report describes the document as “requiring revision” and “based on outdated research into older vehicles”.

Want the latest automotive news in your inbox? Subscribe to the free Auto Express newsletter by email…