Performance Committee
Wednesday, 3 December 2025, at 10.00 amin the Main Conference Room, Service Headquarters, Fulwood.
Minutes
Present: |
|
|
|
|
Councillors
|
|
|
S Asghar
|
|
|
M Clifford
|
|
|
G Mirfin
|
|
|
A Riggott
|
|
|
S Sidat MBE
|
|
|
J Tetlow (Vice-Chair)
|
|
|
E Worthington (Chair)
|
|
Officers |
|
|
|
S Healey, Deputy Chief Fire Officer (LFRS) S Pink, Assistant Chief Fire Officer (LFRS) E Sandiford, Director of People and Development (LFRS) S Collinson, Head of Media and Communications (LFRS) M Hamer, Area Manager, Prevention and Protection (LFRS) P Jones, Area Manager - Head of Service Delivery (LFRS) K Matthews, North West Fire Control D Howell, Deputy Monitoring Officer (LFRS) P Slee, Prevention Support Officer (LFRS) S Hunter, Democratic Services Manager (LFRS) L Barr, Member Services Officer (LFRS) |
|
|
In attendance
|
|
|
|
K Wilkie, Fire Brigades Union
|
|
14-25/26 |
Apologies For Absence
|
|
|
Apologies were received from County Councillors A Blake and M Ritson, and Councillor J Hugo.
|
|
15-25/26 |
Disclosure of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests
|
|
|
County Councillor M Clifford declared a non-pecuniary interest in Cuerden Valley Park as Director due to it being mentioned and discussed in the Flooding Data Report and Water Safety Presentation.
|
|
16-25/26 |
Minutes of Previous Meeting
|
|
|
Resolved: - That the Minutes of the last meeting held on the 03 September 2025 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to County Councillor A Blake’s apologies being noted.
|
|
17-25/26 |
Q2 Performance Management Information
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
The Chair reminded Members of the importance of political neutrality within the Performance Committee meetings to ensure a cohesive approach for the benefit of the Service and the residents of Lancashire.
The Assistant Chief Fire Officer (ACFO) presented a comprehensive report to the Performance Committee. This was the 2nd quarterly report for 2025/26 as detailed in the Community Risk Management Plan 2022-2027.
In quarter 2, three Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), 1.2.3 Staff Absence Greenbook, 2.3.1 ADF – Harm to People: Casualties, and 2.9 Business Fire Safety Checks were shown in positive exception and two KPIs were shown in negative exception. These were 1.2.1 Staff Wholetime Absence Wholetime (WT), and 2.5 ABF (Non-Commercial Premises).
Members examined each indicator in turn focusing on those KPIs in exception as follows:
KPI 1 – Valuing our people so that they can focus on making Lancashire safer
1.1 Overall Staff Engagement
Members received an update on how staff were engaged during the period.
Between July and September 2025, 33 station visits were carried out by Principal Officers and Area Managers as part of the service-wide engagement programme.
Forty-two wellbeing interactions were undertaken ranging from workshops with crews to wellbeing support dog interactions.
Staff consultation began in September with wholetime firefighters on efficiency plans to optimise crewing through changes to crewing levels and improved rota management. All wholetime units provided feedback to shape the plans.
The Service engaged with staff over several topics relating to fleet and equipment including trials to test several breathing apparatus sets, looking at functionality, communications, and telemetry as part of a regional procurement exercise. Engagement workshops also took place with operational stakeholders relating to the Service’s Masterplan for the Leadership and Development Centre, and a survey was conducted on videos used in internal communications.
The latest staff survey was launched on 2 July 2025 and ran for eight and a half weeks until 29 August 2025. An independent research service coordinated the survey. It was delivered online and via paper copies which were sent to all stations.
The survey was supported by 51 visits to on-call and wholetime crews on station by the Communications Team. Three focus groups with on-call staff, wholetime supervisory managers, and support staff were also held to gain qualitative feedback to complement the survey data. In total, 511 responses to the survey were received (equating to 44% of staff).
The responses reflected good representation across different roles, ranks, and geographical areas of the Service.
The engagement index was calculated based on five questions that measured pride, advocacy, attachment, inspiration, and motivation; factors that were understood to be important features shared by staff who were engaged with the organisation.
For each respondent, an engagement score was calculated as the average score across the five questions, where strongly disagree was equivalent to 0, disagree was equivalent to 25, neither agree nor disagree was equivalent to 50, agree was equivalent to 75 and strongly agree was equivalent to 100. The engagement index was then calculated as the average engagement score in the organisation. This approach meant that a score of 100 was equivalent to all respondents saying strongly agree to all five engagement questions, while a score of 0 was equivalent to all respondents saying strongly disagree to all five engagement questions.
The 2025 index score was 69%, down from 74% in 2023. The score varied significantly by staff group; for wholetime firefighters the score was 53%, and for both on-call firefighters and service support staff, it was 81%.
The survey results highlighted areas of success as well as areas for development and the feedback would be considered by the Service and used to inform current and future planning. Feedback would also be provided to staff to demonstrate that views had been listened to in terms of action taken as a result.
1.2.1 Staff Absence Wholetime
This indicator measured the cumulative number of shifts (days) lost due to sickness for all wholetime staff divided by the total average headcount strength. This followed the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) reporting methodology.
Annual Standard: Not more than 8 shifts lost. Annual Shifts Lost ÷ 4 quarters = 2
Quarter shifts lost: 2.414 Cumulative total number of shifts lost: 4.396
The negative exception report was due to the number of shifts lost through absence per employee being below the Service target for quarter 2.
The element of that section of the report referred to sickness absence rates for the period 01 April 2025 to 30 September 2025.
The agreed target performance level was 4 shifts lost per employee per year for wholetime staff, which equated to a target of 4.00 shifts lost per employee per year for quarters 1 and 2. The actual shifts lost for the period for that group of staff was 4.396, which was 0.396 shifts above target. During the same period of the previous year, 4.093 shifts were lost which was an increase of 0.303 shifts lost per wholetime employee compared to the same period of the previous year.
A total of 3,960 wholetime absence shifts lost = 4.396 against a target of 4.00.
The number of cases of long-term absence which spanned over the total of the 3 months remained at 4 cases in Q2. The absence reasons were:
One Hundred and ninety-two shifts were lost during quarter 2 as a result of the above four cases of long-term absence. This was in comparison to 204 shifts which were lost during the same quarter of 2024-25. Those cases accounted for 0.26 shifts lost per person over the quarter.
There were 34 cases of long-term absence which were recorded within the 3 months:
vomiting, diarrhoea)
There were 125 shifts lost which related to Respiratory related absences including Coronavirus absence. This was compared to 6 shifts lost in the same quarter of 2024-25.
The Service had an Absence Management Policy which detailed its approach to how it would manage absence to ensure that staff time was managed effectively, but also members of staff were supported back to work or exited from the Service in a compassionate way.
The Human Resources (HR) system ITrent automatically generated monthly reports to line managers and HR Business Partners in relation to employees and the periods and reasons for absence, which were closely monitored. Where employees were absent due to a mental health or stress related condition, they were referred to the Occupational Health Unit (OHU) as early as possible. Employees returning to work had a return-to-work interview and stress risk assessment, or individual health risk assessments were completed where required.
The Service had several support mechanisms available to support individuals to return to work or be exited as appropriate which included guidance from Occupational Health, access to Trauma Risk Management (TRiM), access to the Employee Assistance Programme (EAP), and the Firefighters Charity.
Where an employee did not return to work in a timely manner, an absence review meeting would take place with the employee, the line manager, and a representative from Human Resources. The meetings were aimed at identifying support to return an individual back to work which could include modified duties for a period, redeployment, but ultimately could result in dismissal, or permanent ill health retirement from the Service.
The Absence Management Policy detailed when a formal review of an employee’s performance levels would normally take place. In terms of short-term absence, a formal review would take place where an employee had 3 or more periods of absence in 6 months, or an employee had 14 days absent. In terms of long-term absence, a formal review would normally take place at 3, 6, 9 and 11 months.
A key challenge for supporting operational staff return to work was that the threshold for fitness and return to work for operational firefighters was higher than in other occupations due to their hazardous working conditions.
In response to a question from the Chair regarding any correlation between mental health absences and trauma from attending operational incidents, the ACFO explained that mental health illnesses could be for work-related or external reasons, however, all employees could receive psychological support from Occupational Health. A proactive approach was used to support operational employees back to work such as modified duties or redeployment. The DCFO advised that there was a programme to support those with PTSD with their mental health, such as Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) and International Search and Rescue (ISAR), who dealt with devastating and traumatic incidents at home and overseas.
County Councillor A Riggott stated that a breakdown of the mental health illnesses into external and work-related would be useful to enable Members to scrutinise them from a different viewpoint. The DoPD advised that she could look into how the cases were recorded to provide some further information. The DCFO added that the Service differentiated between work-related and external pressures in mental health cases as discussed in the Health and Safety Committee.
1.2.2 Staff Absence On-Call (OC)
This indicator measured the percentage of contracted hours lost due to sickness for all on-call contracted staff.
Annual Standard: No more than 2.5% lost as a % of available hours of cover.
Cumulative on-call absence (as a % of available hours cover) at the end of the quarter, 1.41%.
1.2.3 Staff Absence Greenbook
The ACFO explained that Grey book referred to operational staff and Green book referred to support staff who were generally non-operational. There were some dual contract green book staff who provided on-call cover whilst fulfilling their green book role.
This indicator measured the cumulative number of shifts (days) lost due to sickness for all green book support staff divided by the average strength.
Annual Standard: Not more than 8 shifts lost. Annual Shifts Lost ÷ 4 quarters: 2
Quarter shifts lost: 1.276 Cumulative shifts lost: 3.124
The positive exception report was due to the number of shifts lost through absence per employee being below the Service target for quarter 2.
The agreed target performance level was 8 shifts lost per employee per year for Green Book staff, which equated to a target of 4.00 shifts lost per employee per year for quarters 1 and 2. The actual shifts lost for the period for this group was 3.12, which was 0.88 below target. During the same period of the previous year, 2.93 shifts were lost which was an increase of 0.19 shifts lost per green book employee compared to the same period last year.
During the period, April – September 2025, absence statistics showed non-uniformed personnel absence above target for the quarter with 1.28 shifts lost in the quarter against a target of 2.00 shifts lost.
806 non-uniformed absence shifts lost = 3.12 against a target of 4.00 during quarters 1 and 2. There were no cases of long-term absence which spanned over the total of the 3 months.
The number of long-term absence cases recorded in the quarter increased from 8 in Q1 to 10 in Q2:
Other – 1 case)
During the quarter, 230 shifts were lost as a result of the 10 cases of long-term absences, this was in comparison to 185 shifts lost during the same quarter of 2024-25. These cases accounted for 0.60 shifts lost per person over the quarter.
Respiratory related absences accounted for 21 lost shifts, which included Coronavirus absence. This was compared to 27 shifts lost in the same quarter of 2024-25.
The Service had an Absence Management Policy which detailed its approach to how it would manage absence to ensure that staff time was managed effectively, but also members of staff were supported back to work or exited from the Service in a compassionate way.
The Human Resources (HR) system ITrent automatically generated monthly reports to line managers and HR Business Partners in relation to employees and the periods and reasons for absence which were closely monitored. Where employees were absent due to a mental health or stress related condition, they were referred to the Occupational Health Unit (OHU) as early as possible. Employees that returned to work had a return-to-work interview and stress risk assessment, or individual health risk assessments were completed where required.
The Service had several support mechanisms available to support individuals to return to work or be exited as appropriate which included guidance from Occupational Health, access to Trauma Risk Management (TRiM), access to an Employee Assistance Programme and the Firefighters Charity.
Where an employee did not return to work in a timely manner, an absence review meeting would take place with the employee, the line manager, and a representative from Human Resources. The meetings were aimed at identifying support to return an individual back to work which could include modified duties for a period, redeployment, but ultimately could result in dismissal or permanent ill health retirement from the Service.
The Absence Management Policy details when a formal review of an employee’s performance levels would normally take place. In terms of short-term absence, a formal review would take place where an employee had 3 or more periods of absence in 6 months, or an employee had 14 days absent. In terms of long-term absence, a formal review would normally take place at 3, 6, 9, and 11 months.
1.3.1 Workforce Diversity
This indicator measured diversity as a percentage.
Combined diversity percentage of grey book (operational) and green book (support) staff. The percentages outside of the brackets represented the current quarter, with the percentage within the brackets illustrating the same quarter of the previous year:
Gender: Female 22%(23%) Male 78%(77%) Ethnicity: BME 4%(4%) White 91%(91%) Not stated 5%(5%) Sexual Orientation: LGBT 5%(5%) Heterosexual 61%(61%) Not stated 34%(34%) Disability: Disability 3%(3%) No disability 94%(94%) Not stated 3%(3%)
Diversity percentage by Grey Book Staff and Green Book Staff. Counts included double counts if the member of staff was dual contracted between Grey and Green Book.
Separate diversity percentage of grey book (operational) and green book (support) staff:
Gender: Female Grey book 11% Green book 61% Male Grey book 89% Green book 39%
Ethnicity: BME Grey book 3% Green book 6% White Grey book 92% Green book 85% Not stated Grey book 5% Green book 9%
Sexual Orientation: LGBT Grey book 5% Green book 3% Heterosexual Grey book 60% Green book 67% Not stated Grey book 35% Green book 30%
Disability: Disability Grey book 3% Green book 5% No disability Grey book 94% Green book 89% Not stated Grey book 3% Green book 6%
1.3.2 Workforce Diversity Recruited
This new indicator measured workforce diversity recruited as a percentage.
Combined diversity percentage of grey book (operational) and green book (support) staff. The percentages outside of the brackets represented the current quarter, with the percentage within the brackets illustrating the same quarter of the previous year:
Gender: Female 31%(59%) Male 69%(41%) Ethnicity: BME 0%(6%) White 83%(68%) Not Stated 17%(26%) Sexual Orientation: LGBT 3%(6%) Heterosexual 80%(79%) Not stated 17%(15%) Disability: Disability 0%(6%) No disability 89%(91%) Not stated 11%(3%)
During quarter 2, there were a total of 7 new entrants.
It was noted that a further breakdown of the data would not be provided as it may enable the identification of individuals, due to the small numbers of persons recruited during certain periods.
1.4 Staff Accidents
This indicator measured the number of accidents which occurred to staff members at work within the quarter: Wholetime, On-Call and Greenbook.
Total number of staff accidents, 14 for quarter 2; year to date 23; previous year to date 29. Quarterly activity increased 75.00% (6 incidents) over the same quarter of the previous year. Year to date activity decreased 20.69% (6 incidents over the same period of the previous year.
KPI 2 - Preventing, fires and other emergencies from happening and Protecting people and property when fires happen
2.1 Risk Map Score
This indicator measured the fire risk in each Super Output Area (SOA), of which there were 941. Risk was determined using fire activity over the previous 3 fiscal years along with a range of demographic data, such as population and deprivation. The County risk map score was updated annually and presented to the Performance Committee in the quarter 1 reporting period.
Annual Standard: To reduce the risk in Lancashire – an annual reduction in the County risk map score.
(Dwelling Fires ÷ Total Dwellings) + (Dwelling Fire Casualties ÷ Resident Population x 4) + Building Fire + (IMD x 2) = Risk Score.
The current score was 30,532 and the previous year’s score was 30,750 which meant that the fire risk continued to reduce.
2.2 Overall Activity
This indicator measured the number of incidents that LFRS attended with one or more pumping appliances. Incidents attended included fires, special service calls, false alarms and collaborative work undertaken with other emergency services i.e.: missing person searches on behalf of the Lancashire Constabulary (LanCon) and gaining entry incidents at the request of the North West Ambulance Service (NWAS).
Incidents attended, year to date 9,696; previous year to date 8,669. Quarterly activity increased 5.12% over the same quarter of the previous year.
In quarter 2, the Service attended 4,621 incidents. The report presented a chart which represented the count and percentage that each activity had contributed to the overall quarter’s activity:
2.3 Accidental Dwelling Fires (ADF)
This indicator reported the number of primary fires where a dwelling had been affected, and the cause of the fire had been recorded as 'Accidental' or 'Not known'.
Members noted that a primary fire was one involving property (excluding derelict property) or any fires involving casualties, rescues or any fire attended by 5 or more pumping appliances.
Accidental Dwelling Fires, 169 in quarter 2; year to date 364; previous year to date 329. Quarterly activity increased 3.68% over the same quarter of the previous year.
2.3.1 ADF – Harm to people: Casualties
This indicator reported the number of fire related fatalities, slight and serious injuries at primary fires where a dwelling had been affected and the cause of fire had been recorded as ‘Accidental or Not known.’
A slight injury was defined as; a person attending hospital as an outpatient (not precautionary check). A serious injury was defined as; at least an overnight stay in hospital as an in-patient.
Fatal 0 in quarter 2; year to date 1; previous year to date 5 Injuries appear Serious 2 in quarter 2; year to date 3; previous year to date 15 Injuries appear Slight 3 in quarter 2; year to date 11; previous year to date 2
The positive exception report was due to the number of Accidental Dwelling Fire casualties meeting the lower control limit during the month of August.
During the month of August 2025, there were no recorded ADF casualties, and the overall quarter recorded just five casualties. Whilst the Accidental Dwelling Fire KPI 1.3 showed similar activity levels to quarter 2 of the previous year, the resultant casualties were half of those recorded during the same quarter.
The actions taken to reduce Accidental Dwelling Fires naturally affected the likelihood of a casualty arising, as such, the activities undertaken to reduce KPI 2.3 were applicable to this KPI also.
2.3.2 ADF – Harm to property: Extent of damage (fire severity)
This indicator reported the number of primary fires where a dwelling had been affected, and the cause of fire had been recorded as ‘'Accidental' or 'Not known'.
Extent of fire, heat and smoke damage was recorded at the time the ‘stop’ message was sent and included all damage types.
The table in the report showed a breakdown of fire severity with a directional indicator that compared:
Current quarter, combined percentage of 85% against same quarter of the previous year, combined percentage of 85%.
Combined quarterly percentage remained static compared to the same quarter of the previous year.
2.4 Accidental Building Fires (ABF) (Commercial Premises)
This indicator reported the number of primary fires where a building had been affected (which was other than a dwelling or a private building associated with a dwelling), and the cause of fire had been recorded as ‘'Accidental' or 'Not known'.
ABF (Commercial Premises), 58 in quarter 2; year to date 115; previous year to date 131. Quarterly activity decreased 1.69% over the same quarter of the previous year.
2.4.1 ABF (Commercial Premises) – Harm to property: Extent of damage (fire severity)
This indicator reported the number of primary fires where a building had been affected (which was other than a dwelling or a private building associated with a dwelling), and the cause of fire had been recorded as ‘'Accidental' or 'Not known'.
Extent of fire, heat and smoke damage was recorded at the time the ‘stop’ message was sent and included all damage types.
The table in the report showed a breakdown of fire severity with a directional indicator that compared:
Combined quarterly percentage had therefore decreased 5.49% over the same quarter of the previous year.
2.5 Accidental Building Fires (Non-Commercial Premises)
This indicator reported the number of primary fires where a private garage, private shed, private greenhouse, private summerhouse, or other private non-residential building had been affected, and the cause of fire had been recorded as ‘Accidental’ or ‘Not known.’
ABF (Non-Commercial Premises), 39 in quarter 2; year to date 78; previous year to date 42. Quarterly activity increased 85.71% over the same quarter of the previous year.
The negative exception report was due to the number of accidental non-commercial building fires being above the upper control limit during August of quarter 2.
A high number of accidental fires involving private garden sheds were responsible for breaching the upper control limits in August. Of the 20 incidents, there were 11 garden shed fires, 4 private garages, and 5 other private non-residential buildings.
Fires involving garden sheds had since reduced, with only 2 fires recorded in the following month of September. Due to the nature of the construction, the majority of the sheds resulted in the extent of damage affecting the whole building. The most common causes of ignition were spread from a secondary fire due to the burning of garden or household waste, and discarded cigarettes.
Activity levels in September had now returned to below the previous three-year average.
Above average temperatures in August coincided with the school holidays and there had been a large increase in domestic accidental building fires, primarily garden sheds.
The main reason for this was the lifestyle changes during periods of hot weather, school holidays, and spending more time outdoors, with activities using hot processes, such as barbeques, along with burning away of weeds and having fires to discard of garden waste and other waste.
The Key actions taken across all districts that saw an increase were:
2.5.1 ABF (Non-Commercial premises: Private garages and sheds) – Harm to property: Extent of damage (fire severity)
This indicator reported the number of primary fires where a private garage, private shed, private greenhouse, private summerhouse, or other private non-residential building had been affected, and the cause of fire had been recorded as ‘Accidental’ or ‘Not known.’
Extent of fire, heat and smoke damage was recorded at the time the ‘stop’ message was sent and included all damage types.
The table in the report showed a breakdown of fire severity with a directional indicator that compared:
Combined quarterly activity had therefore increased 10.99% over the same quarter of the previous year.
2.6 Deliberate Fires Total: Specific performance measure of deliberate fires
This indicator provided an overall measure of primary and secondary fires where the cause of fire had been recorded as deliberate.
Deliberate Fires – 542 in quarter 2; year to date 1,406; previous year to date 1,033. Quarterly activity remained static against the same quarter of the previous year.
2.6.1 Deliberate Fires – Dwellings
This indicator reported the number of primary fires where a dwelling had been affected, and the cause of fire had been recorded as deliberate.
Deliberate Fires – Dwellings, 16 in quarter 2, year to date 35; previous year to date 42. Quarterly activity decreased 5.88% over the same quarter of the previous year.
2.6.2 Deliberate Fires - Commercial Premises
This indicator reported the number of primary fires where the property type was a building, other than a dwelling or a private building associated with a dwelling, and the cause of fire had been recorded as deliberate.
Deliberate Fires – Commercial Premises, 39 in quarter 2; year to date 79; previous year to date 71.
Quarterly activity increased 77.27% over the same quarter of the previous year.
A second incident activity line was shown on the graph which excluded Crown premises which fell outside of the Service’s legislative jurisdiction.
2.6.3 Deliberate Fires – Other (rubbish, grassland, vehicles etc).
This indicator reported the number of primary and secondary fires where the property type was other than a building, except where the building was recorded as derelict, and the cause of fire had been recorded as deliberate.
The majority of deliberate fires were outdoor secondary fires and included grassland and refuse fires. Derelict vehicle fires were also included under secondary fires.
Deliberate Fires – Other, 487 in quarter 2; year to date 1,292; previous year to date 920. Quarterly activity decreased 3.18% over the same quarter of the previous year.
2.7 Home Fire Safety Checks
This indicator reported the percentage of completed Home Fire Safety Checks (HFSC), excluding refusals, carried out where the risk score had been determined to be high.
An improvement was shown if:
HFSCs completed, 6,171 in quarter 2; year to date 12,137; previous year to date 12,233. Quarterly activity decreased 2.9% against the same quarter of the previous year.
HFSCs with high-risk outcomes, Quarter 2, 52%; previous year Quarter 2, 52%.
High risk outcomes remained static against the same quarter of the previous year.
Members noted that the slight decrease in the number of HFSCs completed correlated with the busy period for firefighters during July and August which decreased prevention activities.
2.8 Numbers of prevention activities such as Childsafe, wasted lives etc
Members received an update on the number of sessions delivered against the following prevention activities during the quarter:
ChildSafe, 55 sessions delivered to 1,468 students; RoadSense, 50 sessions delivered to 1,449 students; SENDSafe, 6 sessions delivered to 144 students; Wasted Lives, 9 sessions delivered to 2,148 students; Biker Down, 5 sessions delivered to 96 attendees; FIRES, 79 referrals opened prior to Q2 and carried over. 42 referrals received in Q2. 75 referrals closed in Q2. 46 referrals carried to 2025-26, Q3; Partner Training (including care providers), 28 sessions delivered to 243 delegates;
Specific Education packages – delivered Water Safety, BrightSparx, ASB, Deliberate Fire Setting etc (Covers key stages 2, 3 and 4).
Arson Threat Referrals – 218.
2.9 Business Fire Safety Checks
This indicator reported the number of Business Fire Safety Check (BFSC’s) completed and whether the result was satisfactory or unsatisfactory. If the result of a BFSC was unsatisfactory, fire safety advice would be provided to help the business comply with The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. If critical fire safety issues were identified, then a business safety advisor would conduct a follow-up intervention.
A +/-10% tolerance was applied to the completed BFSCs and the year to date (YTD) BFSCs, against both the quarterly and YTD targets. When both counts were outside of the 10% tolerance, they would be deemed in exception which enabled local delivery to flex with the needs of their district plan over the quarters.
BFSCs completed, 753 in quarter 2; Cumulative 1,522; YTD target, 1,250; previous YTD 943.
Cumulative YTD BFSCs being satisfactory, 1,368. Top 5 completed satisfactory premise types (Shops 472, Offices 217, Factories/Warehouses 199, Other Workplaces 166, Other Public Premises 97).
Cumulative YTD BFSCs being unsatisfactory, 154. Top 5 completed unsatisfactory premise types (Shops 61, Other Workplaces 25, Factories/Warehouses 18, Flats = <3 10, Licensed Premises 8).
The positive exception report was due to the number of completed Business Fire Safety Checks (BFSCs) being greater than 10% of the quarterly target, and the cumulative year to date target.
Service delivery personnel had carried out BFSCs in their respective districts over the last 2 years, and BFSC work was now embedded into business-as-usual activity. The KPI dashboard and District Intel Profiles were used to identify and target both the business types and business locations for that activity.
The ACFO highlighted that the Service undertook proactive prevention work given that if a business ceased trading due to a fire, resuming business was difficult which affected local economy and employment.
County Councillor G Mirfin queried whether Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) were classed as a business, and the difference between HFSCs and BFSCs in rented accommodation. Area Manager, Matt Hamer explained that HFSCs were conducted in flats and BFSCs were undertaken in communal areas of HMOs. Community Fire Safety Practitioners were trained to conduct HFSCs whilst also identifying any fire safety non-compliance issues in communal areas. Members were advised that Local Authorities also had responsibility in joint legislative spaces and the Service worked closely with housing teams to receive referrals to ensure fire safety. Staff were trained to deal with opportunistic landlords/residents and use enforcement action as needed or transfer the issue to the Local Authority.
In response to a request from County Councillor G Mirfin to include safety checks in HMOs within the report, Area Manager Matt Hamer advised that some properties that would classify as a HMO were not registered as such with the Local Authority who were custodians of that data. However, information for safety checks in known HMOs could be brought to a future meeting for that premises type. The current data would be included in the ‘flats’ premises types.
County Councillor G Mirfin commented that rigorous regulatory regime was important and that, due to costs, it was dissuading some landlords from continuing with HMOs and they were converting their properties back to residential or Bed & Breakfast accommodation. Area Manager, Matt Hamer stated that the Service worked closely with Local Authorities and Housing Authorities and was aware that some hotels and Air B&Bs could inadvertently become HMOs through the process of long term lets, however, in regulatory terms, it could be difficult to categorise. Some Local Authorities and Housing Authorities were taking the route of selective licensing for HMOs and were supported by Fire Inspectors and Prevention staff from the Service.
County Councillor A Riggott requested that a presentation be given to a future Committee meeting regarding HMOs and the work of the Service in that area as it would be useful for Members.
In response to a question by the Chair, Area Manager, Matt Hamer explained that social housing came under the remit of Local Authority housing. Under the smoke alarm and carbon monoxide alarm regulations, the responsibility to have those fitted was incumbent upon the landlord, and under legislation, it was the Local Authority’s responsibility to enforce it. When the Service entered a rented property, staff would ensure alarms were fitted so as not to leave residents at risk and would seek to refer to the Local Authority. In most social housing, alarms were mains powered, however in battery powered alarms, the responsibility for changing batteries rested with the tenant
2.9.1 Fire Safety Activity (including Business Fire Safety Checks)
This indicator reported the number of Fire Safety Enforcement inspections carried out within the period which resulted in supporting businesses to improve and become compliant with fire safety regulations or where formal action of enforcement and prosecution had been taken for those that failed to comply.
An improvement was shown if the percentage of audits that required formal activity was greater than the comparable quarter of the previous year.
Total Fire Safety Enforcement Inspections, Quarter 2, 442; Formal Activity in Quarter 2, 7%, same quarter of the previous year 6%. Quarterly activity increased 1% against the same quarter of the previous year.
Members noted the cumulative number of Fire Safety inspections undertaken for 2025/26 was 844.
2.10 Building Regulation Consultations (BRC) (number and completed on time)
Where the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applied to premises (or would apply following building work) the building control body must consult with LFRS for comments / advice regarding fire safety. LFRS should make any comments in writing within 15 working days from receiving a BRC.
This indicator provided Members with information on the number of building regulations consultations received during the period together with improvement actions.
In Quarter 2, Building Regulation Consultations received 289, of which 275 were completed within the timeframe (LFRS should make comments in writing within 15 working days of receiving a BRC).
KPI 3 - Responding to fire and other emergencies quickly
3.1 Critical Fire Response – 1st Fire Engine Attendance
This indicator reported the ‘Time of Call’ (TOC) and ‘Time in Attendance’ (TIA) of the first fire engine arriving at the incident in less than the relevant response standard.
The response standards included call handling and fire engine response time for the first fire engine attending a critical fire, as follows: -
The response standards were determined by the risk map score and subsequent risk grade for the location of the fire.
Standards were achieved when the time between the ‘Time of Call’ (TOC) and ‘Time in Attendance’ (TIA) of the first fire engine arriving at the incident, averaged over the quarter, was less than the relevant response standard. Expressed in minutes & seconds.
Critical Fire Response – 1st Fire Engine Attendance, Quarter 2, Very High 05:00 min; High 06:38 min, Medium 07:07 min, Low 09:21 min.
Q2 overall 08:02 min. Year to date overall 07:49 min. Previous year to date overall 07:41 min.
The ACFO asked Members to note that the Service had maintained its critical fire response through a quarterly rise in incidents of 5.12% in the long period of hot weather as this related to the Dynamic Resource Management report in the agenda pack.
County Councillor G Mirfin queried how the winter weather affected response times in respect of snow and ice etc, and asked if the data could be broken down into months. The DCFO advised that the data could be subdivided into months as that data set was available and was provided to the government. Drivers of appliances would always travel to incidents as safely as possible and any difference in times for months was very slight. LFRS was still one of the best Services in the country for overall response times and standards.
In response to a question from County Councillor J Tetlow regarding the Service’s ability to grit in icy conditions, Area Manager, Phil Jones stated that bags of grit were carried on some appliances, some had 4x4 capabilities, winter tyres were used and there was grit available on stations, however, the Highways Department were usually called to assist with winter conditions.
3.2 Critical Special Service Response – 1st Fire Engine Attendance
This indicator reported the ‘Time of Call’ (TOC) and ‘Time in Attendance’ (TIA) of the first fire engine arriving at the incident in less than the relevant response standard.
The response standard included how long it took the first fire engine to respond to critical special service (non-fire) incidents where there was a risk to life such as road traffic collisions, rescues, and hazardous materials incidents. For these critical special service call incidents there was a single response standard of 13 minutes (which measured call handling time and fire engine response time).
Critical Special Service Response – 1st Fire Engine Attendance, 08:47 min in quarter 2; year to date 08:42 min; previous year to date 08:29 min.
3.3 Total Fire Engine Availability
This indicator measured the availability of the 1st fire engine at each of the 39 fire stations. It was measured as the percentage of time the 1st fire engine was available to respond compared to the total time in the period.
Standard: to be in attendance within response standard target on 90% of occasions.
Total Fire Engine Availability, 88.58% in quarter 2; year to date 88.95%; previous year to date 86.52%.
Quarterly availability increased 2.44% over the same quarter of the previous year.
KPI 4 - Delivering value for money in how we use our resources
4.1 Progress Against Allocated Budget
Members received an update on spend against the approved budget for the year.
The annual budget for 2025/26 was set at £77.5 million. The spend of £37.6 million was broadly in line with allocated budget at the end of quarter 2 with a small overspend of £0.2 million; £0.1 million on each pay and non-pay. In the main, the pay overspend reflected the higher than budgeted pay awards of 3.2% for all staff compared to the 3% budgeted and the non-pay overspend was the result of inflationary pressure.
Looking ahead to the latter half of the year, inflationary pressures were likely to continue and the budgeted savings of £0.5 million from the new Dynamic Resource Management Policy were on target to be delivered.
The annual revised capital budget for 2025/26 was £12.7 million and spend at the end of September was £2.3 million. Slippage of £0.1 million had been identified.
Quarter 2 variance 0.26% (Revenue budget variance).
4.2 Partnership Collaboration
Under the Policing and Crime Act 2017, blue light services were under a formal duty to collaborate to improve efficiency, effectiveness and deliver improved outcomes.
Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (LFRS), Lancashire Constabulary and North West Ambulance Service had met at both tactical and strategic levels and had agreed and signed a strategic statement of intent which contained the following aims:
The chair of both the Strategic and Tactical Blue Light Collaboration Boards had transferred to Lancashire Constabulary until 2026. Several workstreams were ongoing with subgroups for Leadership Development, Health & Wellbeing, Estates and Co-location, and Community First Responder.
Leadership Development Lancashire Fire and Rescue service (LFRS), Lancashire Police (LanCon), and North West Ambulance Service (NWAS) continued to seek efficiencies and foster professional relationships across Blue Light Services.
Over the last 12 months, each Service had hosted a Leadership Event, which covered 3 shared themes identified using insights from each organisation. The first session, hosted by LFRS, saw 60 attendees from all three Services, including Area Managers, Group Managers, Heads of Service, and aspiring leaders. The session titled “Nourish to Flourish”, focused on self-care for effective leadership. The second session addressed media handling for Blue Light leaders. The final leadership event was held by LanCon and focussed on generational differences.
The group was exploring an ‘Outside-In’ Leadership program and the creation of a cross-coaching network for shared learning, potentially including a coaching exchange initiative.
Health and Wellbeing A new collaborative group was formed earlier this year, bring together Health and Wellbeing leads from all 3 Services. The group’s goal was to understand and align the health and wellbeing offerings across Blue Light’s organisations, exploring joint opportunities to support staff.
The group’s initial step was to share policies and procedures for best practice and learning. NWAS had delivered menopause awareness sessions, and LFRS had developed a workshop to raise awareness of suicide from a responder’s perspective, elements of which could be shared across all Services.
Estates and Co-location The estates and co-location initiative between LFRS, NWAS, and LanCon aimed to identify opportunities for shared sites enhancing collaboration and value for money. Successful co-location at Lancaster, St Annes, Darwen, Preston, and other Fire Stations had improved operational efficiency and fostered stronger inter-service relationships, ultimately benefiting Lancashire communities.
An updated Blue Light Collaboration Project Initiation Document had provided direction for the Estates and Co-location sub- group, which was exploring further collaboration. Quarterly meetings between Heads of Estates from LFRS, NWAS, and LanCon had shown that benefits extended beyond site sharing. The project’s objectives, principles, and expected benefits had been updated. The group was also considering system knowledge exchange, shared procurement specifications, and joint supplier frameworks.
Community First Responder A cost-benefit analysis by the New Economy showed that Emergency Medical Response (EMR) yielded a return of £4.41 for every £1 invested. In areas with EMR co-responding, firefighters were dispatched alongside ambulance services for suspected cardiac arrests, with the first to arrive providing life-saving care. This parallel response increased the likelihood of timely intervention and supported ambulance crews in advanced clinical work.
While this model had been successful in parts of the UK. The South Western Ambulance Service Foundation Trust was phasing out fire EMR in favour of strengthening its volunteer CFR scheme, a decision met with disappointment by FRS’ involved in EMR.
In Lancashire, the CFR workstream enabled LFRS staff volunteers to respond to life-threatening emergencies from their workplace. Since 2023, over 200 incidents had been attended, with LFRS staff providing life-saving interventions before ambulance arrival.
The operational model had three phases: · Phase 1: Green book staff respond voluntarily while on duty. · Phase 2: Flexi Duty Officers (FDOs) respond while on duty. · Phase 3: On Call staff respond within their communities. This phase was being developed with NWAS, and stations had been identified in the communities where NWAS required most support.
4.3 Overall User Satisfaction
People surveyed included those who had experienced an accidental dwelling fire, a commercial fire, or a special service incident that the Service attended. The standard was achieved if the percentage of satisfied responses was greater than the standard.
Annual Standard: 97.50%
In quarter 2, 52 people had been surveyed and the number satisfied with the service was 50. The running total number of people surveyed was 3,998 with 3,943 of those people being satisfied with the Service; 98.62% against a standard of 97.50%; a variance of 1.12%.
Resolved: - That the Performance Committee noted and endorsed the Quarter 2 Measuring Progress report, including three positive and two negative exceptions.
|
|
18-25/26 |
Flooding Data Report
|
|
|
The report was produced in response to a Member request and summarised special service incidents related to flooding incidents recorded by Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (LFRS), between 1 April 2014 and 31 March 2025. The Analysis covered flooding due to surface water, rising river levels, high tide, or reservoir, and the recorded causes (heavy rainfall, obstruction/blockage, structural failure). Incidents involving burst pipes etc., were excluded. Fiscal years were used to align with seasonal effects and included the most recent 2025 data.
Area Manager, Phil Jones explained that there had been 881 flood related incidents over the ten-year period. Activity peaked in 2015/16 due to storm Desmond and Eva, both of which occurred in December 2015, with activity generally trending downward since then. The most recent year recorded 67 incidents, equating to 74.1% fewer incidents than the 259 recorded in 2015/16, and 31.5% fewer incidents than the ten-year average.
Over the first half of the analysis period, activity typically followed an alternating peak and through pattern, however, activity over the most recent 2 years had been static.
Overall, the winter months accounted for 41.7%, autumn 31.1%, summer 24.1%, with the lowest activity months being the spring season at 3.2%. However, incidents occurred most frequently in the individual months of December (26.1%) and November (18.8%), which combined, accounted for 44.9% of activity.
Whilst the source of a flooding incident may be due to surface water for example, the actual cause of the incident may be due to an event such as heavy rainfall, obstruction or blockage, or structural failure. For instance, the large-scale flooding seen in the village of St Michaels on Wyre during Storm Desmond in December 2015 was due to rising river levels and a structural failure i.e. embankment. Structural failure was a relatively rare event and accounted for just 1.1% of the 881 incidents. Overall, heavy rainfall accounted for 90.60% of the causes, with an obstruction or blockage accounting for just 7.5%. An obstruction or blockage could be caused by drainage issues (blocked roadside drains, culvert etc).
Over the last 10-year period, Lancaster district accounted for the largest number of flooding incidents, recording 190 (21.6% of the total). This was quite distantly followed by West Lancashire with 90 (10.2%) and 87 occurring in Wyre (9.9%). The top four districts Lancaster, West Lancashire, Wyre, and Rossendale accounted for almost 50% of the incidents. Lancaster districts accounted for the largest amount of surface water, rising river levels, and high tide incidents. The high tide incidents were mainly around the Glasson Docks area. There were five reservoir incidents within Chorley district which were from the area north of Anglezarke reservoir.
There were large variations of activity with each district between the years. Lancaster recorded almost 50% (93 incidents) of its activity in 2015/16, with another peak in 2017/18 accounting for an additional 32%. All districts but three had a decreasing trend, with only Blackburn with Darwen, Chorley, and Fylde recording a small increasing trend. During the most recent year, only West Lancashire had recorded a notably greater number of incidents with 17. These were almost exclusively heavy rainfall related.
Flooding events could quickly affect many properties over a wide area and in certain circumstances, spate conditions were declared. These conditions were when many calls were received simultaneously for incidents not at the same address. This meant that affected property counts could be recorded as estimates, or there was a single record for the original location/property, but the actual number affected was far greater. This could involve a large number of properties in which the counts were only captured within free text narrative. However, overall, there had been 8,708 recorded properties affected by flood water entry. This included three separate incidents in 2017/18 in which a count of 500 properties at each incident were recorded.
Spate conditions would affect the recording of casualties, rescues, and evacuations, as these could sometimes be estimates, especially when large numbers of people were not directly evacuated by the Fire Service. There was an incident type which might be used as an alternate to, but related to flooding, such as a rescue or evacuation from water. These were where people had been rescued/assisted by the Fire Service from a vehicle or a location/property surrounded by water. An example would be when a vehicle had entered floodwater and become stranded. Over the ten-year period, there had been 115 such rescues/evacuations. There was a tragic incident in the previous year in the Pendle District when a car became stuck in a ford and the individual died, sadly. Safety messages were distributed through the Communications department as soon as flood warnings were released.
In response to a question from the Chair in relation to the volume of surface water floods related to blocked gullies, Area Manager, Phil Jones explained that leaves could cause drain blockages which had a negative impact on the amount of surface water in wet conditions, however, Local Authorities were responding quickly to clear culverts.
County Councillor Tetlow asked why Lancaster had experienced significantly more floods than other areas. Area Manager, Phil Jones advised that, over the past 10 years, Storms Desmond and Eva had occurred which had flooded Lancaster City Centre which was close to the River Lune. Area Manager, Matt Hamer added that one of the key issues in the north of the county was that during rainfall, it bore the consequence of the water overflow from Cumbria which then had a negative impact on water levels when it met the River Lune. Links through the Community Safety Partnership helped with preventative methods when heavy rainfall was expected. The DCFO explained the brunt of the responsibility for flood defence was with the Environment Agency which was investing heavily in flood control. Climate change and developments on flood plains could also have increased flood risk.
The ACFO explained that, thanks to North West Fire Control (NWFC) that also covered Cumbria & Cheshire, LFRS was informed when river levels were rising. Notifications around severe weather enabled the Service to send pre-emptive warning and informing messages for Lancashire residents, and in some cases, evacuations from homes. Area Manager, Phil Jones added that the assistance provided to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) by providing boats etc. was at its own cost as there was no statutory requirement.
Area Manager, Matt Hamer explained that the Service worked with Planning Departments on applications for new developments as every house built prevented approx. 100,000 litres of water from being soaked up by soil. As the population of Lancashire grew, it was possible that the amount of surface water would increase.
The Chair queried and Area Manager, Phil Jones replied that, outside of Lancaster, West Lancashire had seen the largest increase in flood related incidents in the past 10 years. The DCFO highlighted the map on Page 87 of the agenda pack which displayed the largest areas of flooding which were Lancaster (River Lune in the red and yellow area), and West Lancashire. Area Manager, Phil Jones advised that through the Local Resilience Forum (LRF) and the Environment Agency (EA), each district had a flood plan and locally, the Service had a Climate Change Operation Response Plan (CCORP) which included a number of rapid catchment areas where flooding was likely. Station Managers, Groups Managers, and the Fire Safety Manager in the Protection department had preventative response plans that they would implement in the event of an Amber Flood Warning.
County Councillor M Clifford stated that he was the Director of Cuerden Valley Park which housed a Victorian reservoir and asked for further information on the structural failing of a reservoir in the chart of Page 83 of the agenda pack. Area Manager Phil Jones advised that there were 5 reservoir incidents in Chorley and 1 in Blackpool, however he was not aware of any significant flooding incidents caused by the structural failing of a reservoir. He added that he would gather and provide the information to the Member outside of the meeting. The DCFO explained that LFRS did not have legislative responsibility for reservoirs as it was placed with the Local Authority and EA. He advised that reservoir failure was high on the LRF risk register within the county.
County Councillor A Riggott referenced a flooding incident in Chorley where the West Coast Mainline was impassable with water and asked who had the responsibility to close the roads in those instances and how that was managed. Area Manager, Phil Jones confirmed that, under the Fire and Rescue Act, LFRS could legally close roads and redirect traffic when they were in attendance at an incident until the Local Authority Highways arrived to block roads.
County Councillor G Mirfin commented that the report was excellent and should be promoted to the public and press as it contained many important messages. In particular the report highlighted the ‘Rescue’ aspect of the Service. When in London lobbying the Fire Minister, Members also raised the need for DEFRA and the EA to provide Fire and Rescue Services with funding in recognition of the work they conduct on their behalf. In terms of flooding data, he stated that it may be useful to conduct a re-map of data to show how many properties were affected by flood per district. Despite the fact that the Ribble Valley had fewer properties and was not as densely populated as other areas in Lancashire, the last two major flood impacted 175 properties which was significant.
Area Manager, Phil Jones advised that Flood Groups seemed to end during the Covid-19 pandemic, and it was important that they were reinstated where possible as the public could prepare for floods in advance. LFRS were happy to be involved with Flood Groups. The ACFO added that when recruiting for On-Call firefighters, Fire Stations worked with local Flood Groups to recruit flood volunteers who were likely to be deployed in harsh weather conditions to protect vulnerable properties. County Councillor A Riggott suggested that information about Flood Groups and how they work be circulated to new Members.
Resolved :- That the Performance Committee noted the analysis of flood-related demand and the continued importance of effective planning, preparedness, and response to severe weather events impacting on communities.
|
|
19-25/26 |
Water Safety Presentation
|
|
|
Area Manager, Matt Hamer introduced Prevention Support Officer (PSO), Paul Slee to Members. He explained that Paul worked in the Central Prevention Team, designed education packages and was the driving catalyst behind the Lancashire Water Safety Partnership.
Prevention Support Officer, Paul Slee provided members with a presentation regarding Water Safety in Lancashire.
Members were advised that water incidents attended* by Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service over the past 5 years (01/01/2020 – 30/09/2025) included: - · Total number of water incidents attended (non-suicide related) - 283 (2025 – 38 up to 30th September). · Number of casualties rescued from water (inc. fatalities) – 322 (53% were male, 25% female, and 22% were no gender recorded. Where gender was recorded 68% were male and 32% were female). · Suicide attempts at water locations – 39 incidents (14% of total number of incidents). · Fatalities – 34 (85% male, 12% female, 3% not known – in line with UK data). · Suicide fatalities – 5 (100% male) (15% total number of suicide attempts – half of UK percentage).
*It was noted by Members that this did not include coastal incidents.
The districts of Lancaster (almost 25% of the total), Preston, Blackburn with Darwen and Burnley had seen the highest concentration of LFRS attended water incidents. Just over 50% of the water related incidents for October 2024 – September 2025 were linked to flooding in the winter months, mainly in January 2025 all of which were vehicle related. This could be attributed to people trapped on top of vehicles. The busiest months for water related incidents were June, July, and August, although, many incidents still occurred in winter related to ice and driving in darkness.
Members noted that the permeability of soil types across the county could influence the volume of flooding.
The Eastern Area had experienced the most water related fatalities, followed by Southern, Pennine, and Northern (though the latter only included one District – Lancaster). Most fatalities noted on the map in the agenda pack were around rivers in the county. The current year (2025), as confirmed by the Met Office, had the warmest Spring on record and the driest summer on record, which contributed to a high number of fatalities across the country.
An LFRS Incidents – yearly break down was presented to Members.
LFRS Incidents and Fatalities by known age were shown in the slide pack. The top three in all categories were young males, who tended to be risk takers, and young people on holiday. The UK fatalities were also linked to 50–70-year-olds. Some of those figures could be higher as ages weren’t always captured and individuals would be described as middle-aged or elderly. Young males and middle-aged people were the target group for the Service.
Targeting Water Safety Prevention Work (LFRS data 01 January 2020 – 30 September 2025: - · Highest Incident Districts - Lancaster (24% of total), Burnley (10%), Preston (10%), BwD (8%). · Highest Fatality Districts - Lancaster, Burnley, BwD, West Lancs. · Highest Fatality Districts in proportion to number of incidents there - Hyndburn, West Lancs, Rossendale, Fylde. · UK Fatalities (National WAter Incident Database (WAID) 2024) - 84% males. · Lancashire Fatalities - 85% male, 12% female, 3% not known. · Lancashire Casualties rescued from water by recorded gender (inc. fatalities) - 68% male, 32% - female.
The new LFRS Incident Dashboard allowed quick view, as well as more detailed analysis to aid prevention work.
The target audience related to both age groups and activities and could be explained through key themes which also took their guidance through national messaging. These were:- · Activities in water. · Activities near water. · (almost 40% of people who lose their lives to accidental drowning did not intend to enter the water in the first place i.e. walking on ice or jogging near water). · Away from home. · In an emergency - who to call and what to do.
The Service were supporting national water safety campaigns which linked to the LFRS campaign and local risk reduction objectives in conjunction with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), Royal Life Saving Society (RLSS), National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC), and the National Water Safety Forum (NWSF).
The Service delivered the KS3/4 Water Safety Package to schools in high-risk localities as an in-person session, schools in lower risk localities, and offered to all high schools in Lancashire. The figures for 2025 showed that there were approximately 17,000 learners from 43 schools (at least 8,000 in-person, 9,000 virtual). The total engagement, which was education specific and community engagement, as recorded as approximately 26,000). The Service also worked with partners through multi agency collaboration which included: training/demonstration awareness events; engaging with people at known or perceived high-risk sites; and helping install Water Safety Boards (WSB).
The Prevention Support Team at LFRS were responsible for the Water Safety Board initiative and worked closely with landowners, North West Fire Control (NWFC) and other key partners. WSBs had been install at recognised high-risk locations in collaboration with landowners, including United Utilities, Canal and River Trust, Cuerden Valley Park Trust, District Councils, and Local Clubs. WSBs worked by providing clear instructions advising what to do in an emergency. Each WSB had a unique location reference code linked to Fire Control mobilising Action Plan and Risk Information on Fire Appliance Computers. A throwline and whistle were in a locked canister, and the lock combination was provided by Fire Control on dialling 999. The boards were designed with a consistent look but could be tailored according to location and situation. The boards had warnings to raise awareness of the location dangers and included a damage reporting number so any issues could be addressed promptly. Members were informed that Landowners decided if they wanted to install WSBs at areas of risk and it was their responsibility to fund, site, and maintain them with the support of LFRS. In certain circumstances, throwlines might not be the most effective, such as in fast-moving water. However, water safety guidance was provided, with location details displayed on the board, and the provided float could, when used together, help save a life.
Regarding education ambitions, the Service was considering developing online options so that teachers etc. could download resources for different age groups providing lesson plans and activities for class/community groups with a variety of outcomes. The Service also hoped to encourage a team of Water Safety Ambassadors, possibly from Cadets/High Schools to help monitor “where the kids play” – which could highlight potential spots for education as well as raising the profile in the community of education about water safety in the KS3 and KS4 environs. There were links into Water Safety in the National Curriculum for KS2 in schools swimming and KS3 and 4 for Personal Social Health Education (PSHE) and the knowledge of the water safety code (which was a new element included in the current year). Further resources would be produced for particular times in the calendar to highlight specific risk e.g. holidays/beach (spring/summer). Freshers’ Week (autumn), Ice and Flooding (winter/spring) so this could be delivered working with Service partner educators.
Following each education session (inc. Water Safety) the teacher/lead adult was given a QR code and asked to use it to access the Education Webform which compiled the results automatically. After each Year 2 (Fire Safety) and Year 6 session (Road Safety), the children were given a ‘Factsheet’ which was, in effect, a letter home to tell parents/carers what they did in the session. On each form there was also a QR code for the children to complete with their parents/carers to help the Service get an indication of what they learnt/remembered from the session.
The Lancashire Water Safety Partnership (LWSP), with LFRS taking the lead, was established in 2022 to bring together key stakeholders to help shape, develop and promote water safety across the whole of Lancashire. The aims of the Lancs WSP: Reduce the number of drownings in Lancashire; Enhance the safety of residents and visitors around water when they are in Lancashire; and enhance the safety of residents of Lancashire around water wherever they are. These aims were achieved by effective use of data, sharing learning, and working together.
The way forward for the LWSP would be to continue to support landowners who wished to install Water Safety Boards at identified risk locations, either historical or perceived. It would continue to promote joint Comms, messaging, and activity regarding water (and similar, such as ice and flooding) risk at appropriate times of the year. The LWSP would also improve the data collection and analysis of water related incidents by gathering more accurate information where it was available and permissible to do. It would involve close cooperation from those agencies that attended and reported on incidents such as the Police, RNLI, and Coastguard as well as the Coroner’s office for fatalities. This should enable improved targeting for prevention.
Members were informed that two initiatives took place over the summer. One of the initiatives was the displaying of water safety and wildfire messages on digital screens at EG garage forecourts across Lancashire. The Service was won runner up at the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) Prevention Awards for the water safety initiative and won the award for Addressing Health Inequalities in the BME community for work on the Regional Council of Mosques and Madrassa Water Safety Initiative. The initiative had since been shared with mosque councils across Greater Manchester, Cumbria, Bolton, and West Yorkshire which was benefited the Service when people from those areas travelled into Lancashire. PSO Paul Slee stressed that innovative ideas for initiatives were in development.
Members congratulated the Service and officers on the awards and for their excellent work.
In response to a question from the Chair regarding the right course of action for people to take if they were trapped on top of their vehicle in water, the ACFO explained that people did not realise that flood water could easily lift vehicles and the roof a vehicle was not the safest place to be with swift moving water. PSO Paul Slee added that those with electric vehicles were sometimes unable to get out of their car due to water causing an electrical fault. The best course of action was not entering the water and find an alternative route. Some areas prone to flooding which posed a danger to motorists were flagged with warning signs.
County Councillor A Riggott stated that his perception was that water safety concerns were primarily seen during the summer months, although he felt it was an issue year-round and there did not seem to be coordinated messages with the Fire Service and Local Authorities being promoted to residents. PSO Paul Slee explained that the media would highlight high profile cases which would then gain momentum on social media and influence what the public saw. The ACFO advise that sadly, there had been losses of life in the last few years due to children playing on the ice. The Service used an underwater drone which was effective in searching in water searches. Campaigns were pushed out to the public although they were not always promoted through the press. PSO Paul Slee added that data collected from previous incidents helped inform future safety messaging, and that there had been a major push on ice safety in the previous year.
The Chair inquired about the number of WSBs (Water Safety Boards) situated in Lancashire. PSO Paul Slee responded that there were 26 positioned near bodies of water in the area, with an additional 5 or 6 expected to be installed. The Chair then requested, and it was agreed, that the locations of the WSBs would be shared with Members for promotion to residents.
County Councillor A Riggott asked if WSBs were the recommended approach for water emergencies instead of lifebuoy rings that were used by management groups at retention ponds in Buckshaw Village. PSO Paul Slee advised that nationally and from the perspective of the Service, it was suggested to transition away from lifebuoy rings as they were difficult to use effectively and to use WSBs as they were more practical.
County Councillor A Riggott suggested engaging with stakeholders to list a ‘What 3 Words’ location reference code on water safety aids in local areas. PSO Paul Slee advised that ‘What 3 Words’ covered 3 metres squared and had to be checked to ensure the words were appropriate and easy to read so the location may possibly need to be adjusted where necessary.
In response to a question from County Councillor J Tetlow as to the contents of the WSB, PSO Paul Slee clarified that the box contained a 20-metre throw line bag that was not attached to anything, a whistle and it was anticipated a blanket may be included. Some WSBs were located a very short distance from the risk area where they could be seen by the public so an attached throwline would not be suitable.
Resolved: - That the content of the presentation be noted.
|
|
20-25/26 |
North West Fire Control Q2 Performance Presentation
|
|
|
The Chair welcomed Kellie Matthews, Senior Operations Manager, North West Fire Control (NWFC) thanked the Members that visited NWFC in October. The Members were given valuable information, had a demonstration of operations at the centre, and staff appreciated them taking time to visit.
Members were provided with a presentation detailing the performance of NWFC during quarter 2 (July – September 2025). Members noted that the full report to accompany the presentation would be circulated outside of the meeting.
Calls for LFRS equated to 25% of the total calls for all 4 services (LFRS, Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service, Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service, and Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service).
Q2 Performance Report Highlights · Average mobilisation time to fire related incidents 85 seconds · Significant improvement in emergency call answer time (2.2 seconds) · Absence at lowest level in 3 years · Increase in Control Room competency levels · Workforce investment improving retention with zero leavers reported in Q2 · Increase year on year in participating and facilitating exercises
Number of Emergency Calls
NWFC received 34,471 emergency calls in quarter 2 compared to 32,373 for the same quarter of 2024/25 which represented a year-on-year increase. There had been an increase to the average call duration to 132 seconds with an average mobilisation time to fire related incidents of 85 seconds. There had also been a decrease in emergency call volumes from Q1 to Q2 2025.
Incoming Admin Calls
NWFC had received a decrease in the number of incoming admin calls compared to Q1. Continuous monitoring had taken place throughout 2025/2026 to monitor the greater time commitment on dealing with incoming admin calls and the impact on Control Room Operator Availability.
Admin calls included crews and officers contacting NWFC for either guidance, or to offer advice such as notification of missing equipment, defective resources, liaising with NWFC regarding exercises or resources availability.
Outgoing Admin Calls
There had been a decrease in calls from Q1 to Q2 reflective of the decrease in emergency calls but there had been an increase in the volume of calls year on year. There would be a spike in the number of calls as the number of incidents spiked. The call duration remained consistent.
Incoming Requests to Speak
Incoming requests to speak were when crews had been mobilised to an incident and were communicating with Control Room Operators to share information regarding an incident or to request additional resources. NWFC had received 38,281 transmissions with an average duration for each Request to Speak of 69 seconds. This was equivalent to 733 Control Room Officer hours workload in Q2 and 1/3 of the Control Room, Work activity for Q2. Fire and Rescue Services confirmed that there had been an increase in information passed via radio which had been reflective of operational requirements. NWFC would continue to monitor this. These figures did not include outgoing requests to speak.
Average Time to Answer Emergency Calls
The average time to answer emergency calls was 6.7 seconds which was the best performance since Q1 2024/25, despite a year-on-year increase in emergency calls. The current target was 5 seconds which NWFC was aiming to achieve. Within the last year, a number of new staff members had been recruited and were in training to gain competency levels which would improve call answer times.
Call Challenge Non-Mobilisation
These were any calls where Control Room Operators (CRO) asked additional questions provided by Fire and Rescue Services in order to determine if a response was required.
In quarter 2, 48% of incidents (11799) resulted in no mobilisation following ECM call challenge which avoided unnecessary appliance deployment and helped protect frontline availability for other emergencies. It also allowed increased capacity for operational fire crews to complete additional work. Examples of these incident types were Automatic Fire Alarms (AFA), animal rescues, and the North West Ambulance (NWAS) gaining entry. AFA and NWAS Gaining Entry related to 98% of the incidents. There was no direct financial saving, however, the operational value was equivalent to £653k+. Where needed, calls could be signposted to other, relevant agencies.
Shifts Covered
No shifts had fallen below critical or essential staffing thresholds during the quarter. This was consistent with previous year on year figures that highlighted trends over summer periods where annual leave blocked overlap and less staff availability for resilience. In terms of competency, 70% of CROs were rated “proficient level”. Performance Management with mentoring staff was currently underway as a priority to support development through competency stages.
Skill Level of Supervisors
The competency levels of supervisors remained high and stable. There was a decrease which was apportioned to the appointment of the Head of Operations and secondments of two development opportunities from Control to Operations Managers in the Organisational Improvement Team. Succession planning discussions were in place throughout the appraisal process to support staffing projections to maintain skills sets.
Absence
Staff absences were at the lowest year on year average over the last 3 years at 2.67 shifts lost per person which was an improvement from Q2 of the previous year. Mental health remained at 42% of the overall absence. Business Support identified the increase and were looking into it with continued staff wellbeing support being a high priority. Support in place for staff included Health Assured, Occupational Health, online support, counselling support, TRiM, and the support of the Fire and Rescue Services. A Wellbeing Team had recently been established who supported teams in Great Manchester following the recent Synagogue incident and another incident where firefighters were injured.
Mobilising Enquiries
There were only 3 NWFC attributed causes on Q1. There were 22 enquiries which was an average of 1 incident per 11,490 calls which was 0.01% and high reliability. Continuous learning was embedded through investigations and debriefs. All training was aligned to national operational guidance.
Exercises and Debriefs
There was an increase in participation and facilitated exercise from previous Q1. There had been an increase in participation and facilitated exercises year on year and there was continued support with debriefs. There had been simulated incidents and high-rise evacuations exercises which would be managed as if they were live incidents utilising crews and resources. Those exercises were really beneficial to support learning and the gaining of experience of operators. It also helped to develop ways of working which were fed back to Governance groups at NWFC and the FRSs.
In response to a question from the Chair regarding the length of time NWFC had worked with LFRS and the annual cost to LFRS of providing the service, K Matthews confirmed that LFRS had worked with NWFC for 12 years and she would find out the cost to LFRS and circulate the response. The cost was apportioned to each FRS based on operational activity. The DCFO advised that LFRS made up approx. 25%, Manchester approx. 50%, Cheshire approx. 15%, and Cumbria approx. 10%.
The Chair asked if the information in the presentation could be broken down from the North West to Lancashire. K Matthews replied that there would be difficulties with the call volumes as the majority were from mobile phones or agencies outside of the region and the data was based on incoming calls, however, incident data could be provided. She was happy to take forward any suggestions and provide an appendix to the report. Additionally, for future meetings, information could be provided which linked into items on the agenda. NWFC also informed LFRS of any valuable information from the other FRSs that could have an impact or affect resources.
The DCFO clarified that the background to NWFC came from the termination of an expensive government-led regional control project. An incentive was offered to Fire and Rescue Services (FRSs) in the region to collaborate. The government was subsidising the NWFC building in Warrington until 2032. Each of the four FRSs had achieved efficiencies through collaboration, which was acknowledged by HMICFRS as a model of good practice.
K Matthews highlighted that NWFC recently hosted HMICFRS as part of Cheshire’s inspection and were scheduled for Manchester in September. The Inspectors had commended how the operators worked and how efficiently they adapted to the demands of incidents which was unique to the North West. NWFC was pleased with the positive feedback.
The Chair thanked K Matthews for her informative presentation.
Resolved:- That the content of the presentation be noted.
|
|
21-25/26 |
Dynamic Resource Management
|
|
|
The report provided an overview of Dynamic Resource Management (DRM) that had recently been implemented within Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (LFRS).
LFRS had robust systems in place to monitor, manage, and dynamically deploy fire engines and firefighters to respond to emergencies across Lancashire. There were 58 fire engines and a number of specialist appliances in the county, however some were often unavailable due to many reasons: ongoing incidents; training; maintenance, leave or sickness absence; unavailability of on-call staff; and other operational reasons.
When there was a crewing shortage, steps were taken to keep a fire engine or specialist appliance available, by bringing in firefighters from other stations (this was called detaching) or on overtime. With improved technology and access to more comprehensive data, the Service now had a greater understanding of fire risk across Lancashire. As a result, that approach had been changed to ensure sufficient resources were available in the areas that needed them and reduce unnecessary overtime.
Firefighters who crewed a second fire engine could be detached to maintain the availability of a first fire engine somewhere else, making that fire engine temporarily unavailable. This only occurred when the first fire engine was available as well as other fire engines in the area and this ensured that the Service maintained a balanced level of fire cover across the county.
Dynamic resource management had introduced smarter and more efficient deployment of firefighters based on county-wide risk and was used for advance planning. There were 39 fire stations across Lancashire: 22 of these had at least one wholetime crewed fire engine and 17 had at least one on-call fire engine. Additional wholetime, day-crewed or on-call fire engines were also available at some of those stations which meant they had two fire engines.
There were four fire stations with two wholetime crewed fire engines in the county: Blackburn, Blackpool, Burnley, and Preston. All four also had other fire stations close by, with additional fire engines ready to respond. Previous policy was that when one of the two fire engines at the four stations with two wholetime engines was unavailable due to training or maintenance, it was not replaced or backfilled. However, if one was unavailable due to a crewing shortage (for example, due to leave or sickness) it was kept available by bringing in firefighters from other stations (this was called detached duties), or on overtime once detached duty options had been exhausted.
On 1 July 2025, the Service changed this approach to ensure sufficient resources were available to cover all risk areas across the county, using the latest technology and data. This provides the most effective and efficient use of resources for all communities across Lancashire. On some occasions, this also reduces costs through overtime requirements. For example, firefighters at the four stations which had two wholetime fire engines could be detached, making the second engine temporarily unavailable, to maintain availability of a first fire engine somewhere else in the county. This was a methodical and strategic decision that ensure that the Service maintained a balanced, risk-based level of fire cover across the whole of Lancashire.
Before detaching firefighters from a station with two fire engines and making one temporarily unavailable, the first fire engine must be available as well as other fire engines in the area. The Service ensured a fire engine was available at every wholetime station in the county as a minimum. Detachments were always used where possible before overtime, although overtime was still required on some occasions.
Dynamic resource management was underpinned by a Dynamic Cover Tool (DCT) which continuously assessed community risk and fire engine availability in real-time. This software provided officers and control room operators at North West Fire Control (NWFC) with visual data in real-time to make decisions on how best to deploy resources. The Service could see at any given time where live incidents were located, which fire engines were attending, which fire engines were available, and which were temporarily offline for training, maintenance, or crewing.
The position changed all the time as incidents occurred and crews attended, so the DCT enabled us to respond quickly to a changing picture of risk and demand, positioning firefighters and fire engines in precisely the locations they were needed. This model of ‘dynamic cover’ had replaced a static model of pre-arranged fire engine moves which did not take live incidents and availability of other resources into account. It allowed us to respond flexibly to changing circumstances while continuing to meet response standards.
LFRS’ response standards were among the fastest in the country for building fires and critical special service calls. The Service had robust, data intelligent systems in place to monitor, manage, and dynamically deploy fire engines and firefighters to respond to emergencies across Lancashire.
The Service’s mobilising systems know the exact location of every fire engine, based on automatic vehicle locations systems, so that the nearest and quickest fire engine was sent to all critical incidents. LFRS were committed to ensuring that every community in Lancashire received a fast and effective emergency response.
LFRS had undertaken a three-month initial evaluation of DRM, with the full evaluation in Appendix 1. Since 1 July 2025, DRM had been used a total of 124 times in quarter 2 (Q2). This represented that DRM had been enacted 17% of available shifts across the four stations. Critical fire response times at DRM stations had increased by 6 seconds in Q2 2025 compared with Q2 in 2024, whereas response times across all stations over the same period had increased by 20 seconds, highlighting that DRM had not had detrimental impacts on response times.
Critical special service call response times at DRM stations had increased by 52 seconds in Q2 2025 compared with Q2 2024, whereas response times across all stations over the same period had increased by 11 seconds. Whilst this was a higher increase than overall, response times remained substantially under the 13-minute average response time target, and Key Performance Indicator demonstrated that performance levels continued to be met since the introduction of DRM.
The average number of Wholetime fire engines available had reduced by one from 1 July 2025, which has been offset by an increase in On-Call fire engine availability over the same period. Combined availability had resulted in LFRS maintaining an average of 48 fire engines available at any one time since DRM had been instigated, which was higher than the average availability over the same period last year.
The total cost of overtime shifts across Q2 2025 was £24,166. For the same period in 2024, the overtime bill was £289,342, this equated to a saving of £265,175. This figure includes on-costs (such as national insurance) and was for overtime shifts directly related to maintaining fire engine availability. To enable direct comparison, one pay figure had been used (2025), therefore the 2024 cost would be slightly over reported. The numbers of detachments in Q2 2025 rose by 19% from 1197 in 2024, to 1420 in 2025. In Q2 2025 the cost of detachments was £11,200, in 2024 the cost of detachments in Q2 was £10,000 (equivalent including pay rise), representing a 12% increase in 2025.
Enacting DRM and temporarily removing a resource from a two-pump station for a shift was anticipated to reduce the available time to complete prevention and protection activity. Overall, LFRS operational crews carried out 20% less Business Fire Safety Checks (BFSC) in Q2 2025 compared with Q2 2024, and 14% less Home Fire Safety Checks (HFSC) over the same period. Stations where DRM occurred had experienced a similar drop in Business Fire Safety Check (BFSC) numbers but a higher drop in Home Fire Safety Check (HFSC) numbers (-28%).
It was also anticipated that enacting DRM would impact the activity at neighbouring stations due to an increase in mobilisations. Whilst mobilisation numbers had increased for some surrounding fire engines, activity levels remained within tolerable levels, and most were within standard deviation. We had also seen a similar drop in BFSC and HFSC at those neighbouring stations aligned to increased operational activity.
DRM had provided efficiency savings whilst maintaining excellent operational response performance within the standards set by Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
The Chair asked a question regarding the impact on the Service provided by reducing overtime. The ACFO explained that the Service had not observed a significant impact on response times as it was approx. 20 seconds across the whole of the county. Resources were placed in areas of risk.
In response to a question from County Councillor J Tetlow, it was noted that whilst Trade Unions had raised some concerns over some aspects of the DRM, they also acknowledged the need for the Service to make efficiencies. The Service assured that the efficiencies could be managed through the DRM, ensuring that standards were maintained in a way that was proportionate to risk.
County Councillor J Tetlow recognised the savings made thus far.
Resolved:- That the Performance Committee noted the report and evaluation.
|
|
22-25/26 |
England and Lancashire Fire & Rescue Service Incident Statistics 2015-2025
|
|
|
The report provided a comparative analysis of Fire and Rescue incident statistics for Lancashire and England, covering the period from July 2015 to June 2025.
Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (LFRS) attended a total of 18,114 incidents in the year ending June 2025, a 7.1% increase from the previous year (16,910 incidents) and a 33.8% increase over ten years. England saw a 5.7% increase over one year and a 25.0% increase over ten years.
Incident Types (2025):- - Fires: 30.4% of Lancashire’s incidents (higher than England’s 26.4%). - False Alarms: 40.3% in Lancashire (slightly above England’s 39.8%). - Non-Fire Incidents: 29.2% in Lancashire (below England’s 33.8%).
Over the decade, Lancashire’s fires as a proportion of incidents fell from 37.1% to 30.4%, while false alarms dropped from 44.7% to 40. Non-fire incidents rose sharply, from 18.2% to 29.2%.
The dry summer of 2025 led to an increase in secondary fires in both Lancashire and England.
Lancashire attended 5,515 fires in 2025, up 33.6% from the previous year. Primary fires increased slightly year-on-year but decreased over ten years. Secondary fires saw a significant rise (58.9% over one year, 30.3% over ten years).
The numbers of false alarms had decreased in Lancashire over the past two years, from 8,774 in 2023 to 7,308 in 2025. Despite fluctuations, false alarms remained a substantial part of activity.
Non-fire incidents had grown steadily, with an 18.8% increase over five years and a 114.2% increase over ten years.
Lancashire’s incident profile broadly mirrored national trends, with some local differences, particularly a lower proportion of non-fire incidents compared to England. The increase in secondary fires during dry periods highlighted the impact of weather on operational demand. The shift in incident types over time suggested evolving challenges for resource allocation and community risk management.
County Councillor G Mirfin inquired about the role of weather forecasting in relation to operational demand and expressed scepticism over the accuracy of some weather warnings. The ACFO explained that when extreme weather was expected, early warnings were shared through various partners, including the Lancashire Resilience Forum (LRF), local wildfire Tactical Advisers, and national resilience networks. A score was generated based on the information received, which then helped determine the Service’s operational status. Additionally, the DCFO advised that the Service received timely updates from the Met Office which enabled preparation for response. It was highlighted that many incidents were influenced by weather and climate conditions.
Resolved:- That the Performance Committee noted the comparative report as a benchmark of incident response activity for the ten-year period July 2015 to June 2025.
|
|
23-25/26 |
Date of Next Meeting
|
|
|
The next meeting of the Committee would be held on 11 March 2026 at 1000 hours in the Main Conference Room at Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service Headquarters, Fulwood.
Further meeting dates were noted for 08 July 2026 and agreed for 09 September 2026.
|