THE NUMBERS DON’T LIE: WHY INDUSTRIAL FIRE STATISTICS DEMAND A RESPONSE
Tom Roche, Secretary, Business Sprinkler Alliance
Every year the government publishes its fire statistics, and every year those of us in the fire safety sector read them with a mixture of curiosity and concern. Curiosity, because they represent an account of where we stand, providing data to help define a picture that is sadly lacking in many countries; concern, because what they increasingly show is a picture of elements moving in the wrong direction, particularly when it comes to industrial premises, and the response has not kept pace.
The latest release from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, covering the year ending March 2026, confirms what many in the sector have been observing on the ground. Total fires attended by fire and rescue services in England rose by 5.8% on the previous year to 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.1 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 that 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 have 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. The casualty figure has nearly doubled since the previous year and now at a level we have not seen since 2018. It is a figure that should give any commercial building owner pause. 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 for recorded casualties.
The data should generate a pause to consider whether there is 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 at Sutton Bonington, Bradford and Widnes, involving industrial waste, rubber and recycling material, drew little national attention precisely because there were no fatalities. Yet each required resources from multiple counties, displaced operations and left environmental questions that communities continued to live with long after the crews departed.
The 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 do not 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 is across 1,806 fires meaning the total damage to industrial fires across the period would be equivalent to 40 football pitches in area.
Coupled with the casualty figures, there is a pause to consider the total impact. The true cost of an industrial fire is rarely captured in a single number. There is 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, and 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.
So, the question that follows from the statistics is the one that never seems to get asked loudly enough: why is this going up? Industrial fire risk has not fundamentally changed. Buildings are better understood, fire regulations exist, the fire 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. The types of fuels have changed as we have 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.
A credible tool already exists
The statistics tell us the challenge is rising. Attendance time increasing towards 10 minutes coupled with concerns from the fire service around available water supplies2 are not positive signals. We know that they have an impact on effective and prompt intervention to control a fire. A potential helping 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 activated3. They have demonstrated their ability to protect people – that is why they are used to protect high rise living spaces. A fire stopped in minutes does not burn for 10 days, does not generate thousands of litres of contaminated run-off, and does not end careers or companies. The gap between the potential outcomes is a policy choice, and it is one that the industry and government need to confront with more urgency than the current figures suggest.
3Efficiency and Effectiveness of Sprinkler Systems in the United Kingdom: An Analysis from Fire Service Data – Optimal Economics May 2017