GSA blames its failure to protect the Mack on advice from fire and alarm firm

THE Glasgow School of Art has admitted a failure to provide adequate fire protection for the world-renowned Mackintosh Building in the wake of its 2014 fire and the devastation of a repeat blaze four years later.

But The Herald can reveal that it has blamed advice it received from Glasgowbased Arrest Fire and Security Ltd specialists over fire alarm and protection measures brought in for the national treasure and is currently suing the company for damages which could run into millions.

The GSA claims an effective protection system would have provided an earlier warning of the blaze to firefighters.

It says it is embroiled in a number of live court actions over the disastrous 2018 fire and that it is its insurers who are making the legal decisions.

Arrest has told The Herald it is “100%” contesting the GSA allegations, insisting that the company’s system installed while restoration works were being carried should not be blamed and that the school’s version of events was “incorrect”.

Alan Stewart, one of the directors of Arrest, said the company would be put out of business if the court found that the blame for what happened was on its shoulders – and that the costs ran into millions.

He said that, despite the dispute, Arrest still looks after “every single” GSA building for fire alarms.

In May 2014, the building was destroyed by a fire which also destroyed the iconic Mackintosh library. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) concluded that the 2014 fire broke out after flammable gases from a canister of expanding foam used in a student project were ignited after coming into contact with the hot surface of a projector.

Voids in the walls and old ventilation ducts allowed the fire to take hold and spread.

Four years later, another major blaze tore through the building – also causing major damage to neighbouring properties such as the O2 ABC venue.

The School of Art is currently in the throes of a damages action against Glasgow-based Arrest which installed temporary fire and security devices in the building before the fire in 2018.

Legal papers associated with the case, seen by The Herald, reveal that the GSA alleges Arrest was in breach of its “duty of care” over the design and installation of its fire alarm and protection systems, which it claimed were not effective.

It says that a more effective fire alarm and fire protection system would have meant the fire would have been detected earlier and would also have “reduced the potential spread”.

The GSA legal team added: “The property would then have suffered materially lesser damage as a result of the fire and damage to neighbouring properties would have been restricted (if not eliminated).”

Questions over how the Mack was protected from the fire were raised immediately after the 2014 blaze.

Paisley-based construction firm Taylor & Fraser Ltd was given a multi-works contract to prepare the Mack for the rebuild process, five months after the 2014 fire.

Taylor & Fraser says that at the end of 2014, it was given instructions by GSA to employ the Oakbank Trading Estate-based Arrest – which trades as Arrest 24:7 and was established in 1999 – to install a fire alarm system.

The GSA says Arrest’s proposal was for the design of a Category L automatic fire detection and alarm system.

There are five levels within this category, each offering a different level of fire protection, with L1 fire alarm systems offering the highest level of life protection.

GSA says Arrest proposed third level L3 protection which the school said did not allow for a level of cover that would serve to protect the fabric of the Mack. It adds that Arrest failed to consider and advise on the need for better protection, including a Category P1 system.

This would provide property protection in light of the Mack’s “iconic status as a heritage building”.

The main objective of a Category P1 fire alarm system is to provide the earliest possible warning of a fire to minimise the time between ignition and the arrival of firefighters.

A P1 system is designed to protect the whole building, whereas a P2 system is installed in defined parts of the building only. These defined parts of the building may be areas with an extraordinary high fire risk or hazard.

The GSA says in its claim: “A fire alarm designer and installer of ordinary competence would have identified the need for specification of at least P1 level.

“The property was a historic building, containing large numbers of exposed ducts and a lack of compartmentation.

“These factors [were] required to be taken into account by the defender in any fire alarm or fire protection design for the property.

“[Arrest], however, failed to consider, or design (or advise of the need to design) a system that included placing fire detectors in or around the ducts or advise that this would be prudent to do so.”

The GSA added: “But for [Arrest’s] breaches of duty the [GSA] would not suffer or have suffered such loss and damage.

“Had [Arrest] met its obligations, this would have given rise to a more effective fire alarm and fire protection system being in place in the property on June 15, 2018.

“This would, in turn, have meant that the fire which occurred would, at the least, have been detected at an earlier stage.

“It would also have reduced the potential spread of a fire of the nature that occurred.

“The property would then have suffered materially lesser damage as a result of the fire and damage to neighbouring properties would have been restricted (if not eliminated).

“In these circumstances, the defender is liable to the [GSA] in damages ... in reparation for the loss suffered by the [GSA] as a result of those breaches.” A Scottish Fire and Rescue Service investigation in the wake of the 2018 fire found that a fire warning system was fitted throughout the site, consisting of a fire alarm panel, break glass call points, sounders, and detection units for smoke and carbon monoxide, and that this “should have provided early warning in case of fire in unoccupied areas”.

It reveals that the first possible indication of fire in the vicinity was noticed one hour and 34 minutes before the first 999 call at 11.19pm on the day of the fire.

MSPS are known to have questioned whether the fire alarm system was operational on the night of the fire but the Scottish Parliament’s Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee, in its assessment, said it was “not in a position to determine whether it was switched on and fully operational”.

Kier Construction, which was awarded the original contract for the Mackintosh restoration project following a procurement process, said the alarm system was operational and had been tested.

The company has said that while the fire alarms were switched off at different stages to accommodate specific works, it could not say whether the alarm had been switched off on the day of the fire.

Mr Stewart of Arrest said: “You have to understand that there were two alarm systems to be installed – one for when the building was complete, and the sprinkler system was to be installed, and we were asked to put in a temporary fire alarm that could not meet British standards because there was no roof on the building.

“Most areas, if not all areas, had protection and detection within those areas. The fire alarm would never have triggered any sooner with any more detection.”