Agenda item

The Assistant Chief Fire Officer presented the report.

On 28 June 2021, the Fire Authority endorsed for public consultation (resolution 14-20/21 refers), a recommendation by the Performance Committee to remove attendance to Automatic Fire Alarms (AFA) at non-sleeping premises (unless presence of fire was confirmed) on the basis of a staged implementation over two years; during the day in year one and during the night from year two. 

The resulting consultation commenced on 12 August and concluded on 21 September 2021. It was noted that in accordance with committee terms of reference, the consultation outcomes and associated recommendations were considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting held 15 November 2021 where it was resolved (15-20/21 refers) to make recommendations to the Authority.  At its meeting on 13 December 2021 the Authority approved the recommendations (resolution 46-20/21 refers) with the launch of the new policy from 1 April 2022.

Prior to implementing the revised AFA policy (which aimed to reduce the volume of Unwanted Fire Signals) a significant amount of engagement was completed over a six-month period, with North West Fire Control (NWFC), Alarm Receiving Centres (ARC), members of the public, operational and fire protection staff, to ensure that the policy changes were understood by all concerned, and that they could adapt working practices and procedures to manage the change.

In addition to premises that contained sleeping risk, a number of other premises types were exempted from the policy due to the inherent risks posed and the consequences of a fire occurring, namely:

·         Single private domestic dwellings.

·         Sheltered accommodation.

·         Other residential premises such as hostels, hotels, student accommodation, care/nursing homes etc.

·         Registered Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) sites, and nuclear sites covered by the REPPIR legislation.

·         High rise buildings.

·         Hospitals.

·         Prison/Young Offenders’ institutions.

·         Police stations, military barracks.

·         Infant, primary, or secondary education premises.

·         Grade 1 or Grade 2* heritage premises.

The policy also permitted that non-sleeping premises, which would not normally receive an attendance during the above hours, be granted a fire alarm exemption, if they provided evidence that their premises had an Enhanced Reliability Alarm System^[1].  To date one property had requested a fire alarm exemption and provided the necessary documentation for this to be implemented.

Data Analysis (9-month review)

In April 2022 the revised AFA policy was introduced to non-sleeping premises types between the daytime period of 0800 to 1900. Since implementation, the Service had seen significant reductions (42.3% decrease on the previous 5?year average) in the overall number of AFA attendances to premises covered by the policy.  During the months of April 2022 to December 2022, 14.1% of the total initial AFA incidents occurred within daytime period which favourably compared against an average of 55.8% during the preceding 5 years.

Incidents at property types to which the new AFA policy applied, between the daytime period, had reduced 85.5% during the comparative first nine months of 2022/23, to the previous 5-year average.  The Assistant Chief Fire Officer commented that mobilisation to unwanted fire signal activations used a great deal of operational response resources and interrupted other business activity (such as: training, the delivery of Home Fire Safety Checks and Business Fire Safety Checks etc).  By reducing unwanted and unnecessary mobilisations would demonstrate to HMICFRS both improved efficiency and effectiveness.

The Assistant Chief Fire Officer drew Members attention to first paragraph on page 110 of the agenda pack“No incidents occurred during the 9-month period where the initial AFA daytime non-attendance, was subsequently followed up by a 999 call to a primary fire” which provided assurance to Members that the policy had been accurate and effective over the preceding period.

Retrospective Analysis (had the policy been applied 24/7 since April 2022)

From April 2022 to December 2022 there were a total of 740 AFA attendances with 104 during the day-time hours (subject to the new policy) and 636 during the night-time hours (1900 – 0800).  Through analysis of these attendances, it was possible, with a high-level of accuracy, to identify the premises which would and would not have resulted in an attendance had the new policy been applied 24 hours per day.

By discounting relevant premises there would have been c.109 night-time incidents attended and c.527 not attended - unless there was a confirmed fire. A reduction of 527 would have seen an 82.9% decrease in night-time attendances from April 2022 to December 2022. The 5-year average was 565 incidents occurring during night-time hours which would equate to an 80.70% decreasein night-time incidents.

For greater comparison, had the policy been applied 24 hours against a 5?year average of 1281 incidents it would equate to an 83.4% decrease in incident attendances to premises covered by this policy. 

Regional Approach

NWFC serves Cumbria, Greater Manchester, and Cheshire Fire and Rescue Services (FRS) and all have AFA policies which include a non-attendance option for certain premises via call challenge:

·         Greater Manchester FRS operate their non-attendance policy between 08:00 and 20:00.

·         Cumbria FRS and Cheshire FRS operate their non-attendance policy 24?hours per day.

·         The Authority’s initial decision was to approach implementation on the basis of daytime implementation in year 1 moving to proposed 24/7 application from year 2.

Future efficiencies

Members noted that in the HMICFRS inspection report dated 2019, the inspectors highlighted that:–

“[…] the service has not taken advantage of the call-challenging protocols which the other fire and rescue services that share the North-West Fire Control centre use. This means that Lancashire FRS may attend more false alarm calls than it needs to”.

The data demonstrated that the change to the AFA policy had resulted in a reduction in the number of mobilisations for LFRS and produced a reduction in UWFS incidents between the hours of 0800 and 1900.  These reductions represented tangible efficiencies in the use of resources and avoided unnecessary disruption to other aspects of service delivery activities.  Based on data held, it was estimated that in applying the policy over a 24-hour period it was highly likely to result in overall reduction of c.83.4% in mobilisations to AFA’s in these types of premises. 

The revised AFA policy did require premises to significantly adapt their policies and procedures to take ownership of the management of activations to their fire alarm system. The transitional nature in which the Service had implemented the policy change made the proposed expansion of the policy to 24-hour application realistic and manageable for those premises concerned.  Learning from the first 9-months of implementation had highlighted however, that despite extensive engagement and consultation having taken place, several organisations had not either fully understood, or properly considered the impacts of the change and were still caught unawares.  This underpinned the requirement for further extensive engagement over the coming months to support businesses, and those responsible for them, to be the best equipped to manage the impacts of this policy change.

The Assistant Chief Fire Officer highlighted the business risks outlined in the report.  He advised that, should the Service not act to continually refine the Automatic Fire Alarm and Unwanted Fire Signal Policy there was a high probability that the next HMICFRS inspection could see a deterioration in LFRS grades in the Efficiency pillar and in respect of Operational Response aspects.  In addition, it was acknowledged changing the policy inevitably increased responsibility and risk with businesses.  However, fire safety legislation was clear that the responsibility sat with the premises’ responsible person not the Fire Authority. Therefore, as previously undertaken for the implementation of changes to the Policy in the first year during the day, there would be further extensive engagement undertaken with commerce and owners of non-sleeping risk premises to inform of the new approach which would be applied overnight.

In response to a question raised by County Councillor Hennessy the Assistant Chief Fire Officer provided reassurance that there was no correlation that efficiencies gained through the adoption of the Policy change would directly lead to job losses and station closures as these were predicated via the emergency cover review process. He advised that the Service was getting busier (as demonstrated through the data presented to the Performance Committee) and as mentioned earlier, in the provision of support to other blue light services to deliver benefits to communities.  In addition, the adoption of the Automatic Fire Alarm policy would increase productivity to deliver broader activities known to be effective in reducing risk. 

In response to a further question from County Councillor Hennessy, the Assistant Chief Fire Officer provided reassurance that following this policy change the Service would undertake evaluation to understand whether the change had been positive or negative, reviewing and adjusting the policy as appropriate.

County Councillor O’Toole queried whether actuations at hospitals could be monitored and Chief Executives be contacted if there were too many false alarm calls.  In response, The Assistant Chief Fire Officer provided reassurance that any alarm actuations from exempt properties were monitored by Business Safety Advisors who had a systematic approach to engagement and support to businesses through continued dialogue with the aim of reducing activations (which could be due to nuisance activations, an incorrect system design, staff training requirement etc). It was recognised however, that it would not be possible to eradicate false alarm calls altogether.  In addition, Area Manager Matt Hamer advised that NHS Chief Executives had been contacted.  He confirmed that the Service had a dedicated Fire Safety Manager, as Hospitals’ lead who was currently in London meeting with National Fire Chiefs Council and the national NHS estates team to discuss aligning remediation fire safety work with general estates management.

Based on the detailed analysis set out in the report County Councillor O’Toole was pleased to move the proposal as recommended particularly, given HMICFRS inspection report (as detailed on page 111 of the agenda pack) had referred to LFRS not taking advantage of the call?challenging protocols which other members of North West Fire Control centre used. 

County Councillor Shedwick supported County Councillor O’Toole’s comments.  He thanked officers for the detailed report and research undertaken and based on the assurance there would be further extensive engagement he seconded the proposal as recommended.

Councillor Williams congratulated officers on a comprehensive report. He commented that although the benefits were obvious cost savings were not identified.  He was delighted that jobs were not at risk and that capacity would be generated for more prevention work.  He therefore endorsed the proposal.  County Councillor Rigby would also have liked to see the financial implications of the benefits from the change in policy.  In response the Deputy Chief Fire Officer advised that most of the efficiencies gained were non?cashable as the bulk of the incidents occurred in areas where the Service had wholetime fire crews, therefore capacity would be created for crews to undertake other prevention work.

Resolved:  That the Planning Committee noted the analysis provided and endorsed that the Service continue with the roll out of the revised Automatic Fire Alarm policy across the full 24?hour period.