Agenda item

The Deputy Chief Fire Officer introduced the report.  He drew Members attention to the overall activity breakdown detailed earlier on the agenda which showed that 51% of incidents were due to automatic fire alarm activations.  He advised that if attendance was discounted for support given to Police and North West Ambulance Service colleagues (for gaining entry, support to missing persons searches and other activities) the overall activity breakdown to automatic fire alarm activations would increase to around 54% and it was known from statistical analysis that around 99% of those activations would be false alarm calls.  He also took the opportunity to re-emphasize the inspectorate scrutiny in this area. 

 

Members received a presentation from Area Manager Jon Charters and Area Manager Mark Hutton that provided an overview of the current policy pertaining to Automatic Fire Alarm (AFA) actuations (in particular, those categorised as Unwanted Fire Signals) and proposals for policy change.

 

The presentation focussed on system-based actuations and attendances made where the Service could work with premises owners to eradicate and reduce actuations as opposed to well-intended actuations from people who reasonably believed there was a fire and activated the fire alarm system or malicious calls (which represented a small proportion of calls and were dealt with very differently). 

 

The current AFA policy had been in place since April 2016.  It i) set out the impact and risks associated with Unwanted Fire Signals (UWFS); ii) defined what constituted an UWFS; iii) defined the role of Alarm Receiving Centres (ARCs); iv) defined the call handling role within North West Fire Control; v) confirmed the information gathering role of Operational Crews; vi) correctly categorised the incident and populated the Incident Recording System; vii) confirmed that Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (LFRS) did not reset Fire Alarms; viii) set trigger points for Fire Protection staff intervention; and ix) set out a proportionate enforcement route which started with the provision of business support and escalated to formal enforcement action to resolve unsatisfactory premises.

 

It was noted that LFRS continued to attend much higher volumes of AFA actuations than many other fire and rescue services, as noted by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services during its first inspection.  In 2020, LFRS attended 4,851 AFA’s of which 63% were in sleeping risk premises and 37% in non-sleeping risk premises.

 

At the present time, LFRS was distinctly out of step with the approaches currently being employed by the other Services operating within North West Fire Control, who had taken a risk-based approach to reducing mobilisations to AFA’s, typically framed around building types and/or time of day or night.

 

LFRS’ current approach posed a number of challenges to the Service:

 

•   Diverted essential resources from actual emergencies;

•   Created risk to crew and public whilst responding;

•   Disrupted Community and Business Safety activities;

•   Created disruption for businesses employing on-call firefighters;

•   Reduced operational training time and impacted upon planned exercises;

•   Created environmental impact;

•   Constituted a draw upon public finances; and

•   Caused call handling delays in NWFC impacting Service performance levels.

 

The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) published guidance to assist fire and rescue services in reducing the risks created by Unwanted Fire Signals citing options such as: i) undertaking call challenge in control rooms (NWFC did this); ii) ensuring Fire Alarm Monitoring Organisations undertake call-back (NWFC also did this); and iii) sending reduced or no attendance under risk based and defined conditions (LFRS partially did this).  The NFCC also endorsed: i) setting reasonable expectations for UWFS (LFRS applied these;) ii) providing Business Advice to continually nudge compliance (LFRS did this); iii) using Fire Safety Enforcement to secure compliance (LFRS did this); and iv) exercising capability to raise charges (LFRS did not do this).

 

The present approach to management of AFA’s combined Business Safety advice and legal enforcement measures (under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.  Business Safety Advisors delivered engagement / education and dealt with poor AFA performance using a series of triggers, which aimed to help premises owners and operators to comply.  Where business safety advice was not followed the case was escalated and a full Fire Safety Audit undertaken and Fire Safety Order legal powers used. (Enforcement Notices issued to secure compliance, if for example, the Fire Alarm was deemed not suitable.)  To withstand legal scrutiny / appeal, LFRS had to demonstrate the fire alarm system generating the AFA was poorly installed, defective or poorly managed against criteria in British Standard, BS5839:1.

 

These approaches to supporting premises owners to comply would continue.  However, a number of improvement options existed which could fundamentally reduce fire appliance mobilisations, thereby alleviating Service wide impacts, providing increased operational efficiency and better value for money.

 

Subsequent to the detail on the AFA policy being provided at the last Performance Committee, work had been undertaken to explore policies of other Services both within the North West region and beyond, to examine the differing approaches, benefits, and risks, in order to shape LFRS’ proposals for change.

 

Members considered the 3 options presented which sought to derive maximum Service benefit, optimise performance whilst encompassing a carefully risk-based approach:

 

IMPROVEMENT OPTION 1: REMOVE ATTENDANCE TO AFA AT NON-SLEEPING PREMISES

 

Performance Benefits:

·         Would immediately realise c.40% reduction in attendances to AFA’s;

·         Aligned LFRS to other FRS in NW Fire Control;

·         Improved NWFC call handling process and associated KPI;

·         Improved availability and speed of response to real emergencies;

·         Introduction could be staged i.e. during the day in year 1 and during the night from year 2.

 

Resource Implications:

·         Public Consultation.

 

Risks: 

·         In 2019, there were 1,841 AFA in non-sleeping risks, 4 of which were found to be fires on arrival (0.2%). 

 

A comparison of incidents over a 3-year period was provided which compared LFRS’ current approach with the approach taken by Cheshire FRS who used this policy for apparatus incidents in non-sleeping premises.  If LFRS had applied the same policy, there would have been faster call handling times and would have potentially seen an average reduction across the period of 38.7%.

 

IMPROVEMENT OPTION 2: IMPLEMENT A CHARGING POLICY

 

Performance Benefits:

·         Likely to realise a small % reduction in attendances; 

·         Could generate up to £80k in cost recovery charges.

 

Resource Implications:

·         Public Consultation;

·         Inspecting Officer time / costs (gathering sufficient evidence to withstand potential appeal);

·         Administration costs (raising charges and tracking payments / non-payments).

 

Risks:

·         Potential reputational damage (£60k of charges would arise from NHS premises);

·         Inspecting Officer time / costs (gathering sufficient evidence to withstand potential appeal);

·         Administration costs (raising charges and tracking payments / non-payments).

 

The 46 Fire and Rescue Services nationally had been contacted in relation to their charging policies of which 17 had responded.  All had non-attendance policies for non-sleeping risk premises, 5 had charging policies (which were used in the extreme and had been put on hold during the covid pandemic) and 1 had a non-attendance policy for non-sleeping risk and also reduced attendance to sleeping risk premises if charges were raised. 

 

If LFRS had applied the London Fire Brigade policy of charging for the tenth and any additional AFA in non-sleeping risk properties, based upon the results of the latest 2020 count; this would have resulted in raising circa £9,000 in cost recovery charges from 7 premises.

 

If LFRS had applied the London Fire Brigade policy of charging for the tenth and any additional AFA in sleeping risk properties, based upon the results of the latest 2020 count; this would have resulted in raising circa £70,000 in cost recovery charges from 9 premises (£60k of which would be from hospitals).

 

IMPROVEMENT OPTION 3: INTRODUCE A DOMESTIC FALSE ALARM POLICY

 

This would be a very different type of policy as AFA’s from domestic dwellings were predominantly generated from Telecare systems incorporating smoke alarms.  Numbers of actuations were increasing year on year and so the policy would focus on close collaboration with Lancashire’s Social Care Providers.

 

The Objective:

To reduce UWFS and simultaneously reduce risk to vulnerable persons who relied on Telecare systems for their safety.  Focus would be on poor installations and improvements that reduce UWFS but didn’t increase risk to the occupier/s.

 

Should LFRS adopt this policy it would be one of the first Fire and Rescue Services in the country to take this approach and recognise this was an emerging issue.

 

The Chairman confirmed that the Committee recommendations would be brought to a future Authority meeting therefore there would be the option for further debate. 

 

The Chairman PROPOSED that a recommendation be made to the Authority to adopt option 1; to remove attendance to Automatic Fire Alarms at Non-Sleeping premises staged over 2 years; to be introduced during the day in year 1 and during the night from year 2.  He did not believe the Committee should recommend option 2 to be pursued because of the suggestion that it might affect other blue light services and he asked that further work be undertaken on option 3 to bring a report to a future meeting.

 

Councillor smith SECONDED the motion.

 

The Chairman called a vote on this motion.  It was noted that County Councillor Lorraine Beavers was not present in the meeting at this time.  The remaining Councillors all voted in favour therefore the decision was CARRIED unanimously.

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee recommend to the Authority the adoption of option 1; to remove attendance to Automatic Fire Alarms at Non-Sleeping premises staged over 2 years; to be introduced during the day in year 1 and during the night from year 2; option 2 should not be pursued because this might affect other blue light services and that further work be undertaken on option 3 to bring a report to a future meeting.