Agenda item

The Assistant Chief Fire Officer presented an overview of the report.  The three main drivers in the report were:  i) to ensure the Service was effectively deploying resources (using the most qualified and knowledgeable inspectors) to review the most complex premises in Lancashire; ii) to make sure that as the delivery of services changed, those changes were integrated into the risk based inspection programme as appropriate; and iii) the Service, teams and individual officer targets were largely driven by the risk based inspection programme therefore targets needed to be realistic and achievable to ensure that the Service could effectively deliver against the requirements of Lancashire’s risk based inspection programme.

 

The Assistant chief Fire Officer introduced Area Manager Matt Hamer who presented the report.

 

Nationally, the terminology ‘Risk Based Inspection Programme’ (RBIP) was predominantly applied to a list of commercial premises which had undergone some form of scoring, triage or consideration by the Fire Safety Enforcing Authority to deem it warranting an audit by a competent Fire Safety Inspector (FSI). There was no one piece of guidance that Fire and Rescue Services (FRS) could use as the ‘how to’ for RBIP and there was no national scoring mechanism however, Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (LFRS) had led on this for several years and continued to shape national thinking.

 

LFRS existing ‘risk based’ methodology applied to circa 65k+ premises which, when additional criterion was applied, set an inspection target of the top c.7.4k premises over a 3-year period; equating to c.2.5k audits per annum.  This list of 7.4k premises was then referred to as the RBIP.

 

Issues with inspection programmes being discussed nationally included how best to discharge resources towards i) ‘assumed risk’ (derived from data) versus ii) ‘live risk’ (known risks) i.e. Business Fire Safety Check (BFSC) outcomes, complaints, local knowledge, district planning etc.  The changes within this proposal were developed with this in mind to afford LFRS the capacity to remain agile to both elements of risk. It was also noted that nationally, the application of a purely assumed weighting or score applied to a premises to determine its level of risk, would result in the same premises being audited time and again. For LFRS this would result in the top c.7.4k premises being audited repeatedly.

 

The existing weighting/scoring methodology had been strength tested by Lancaster University and was aligned to national guidance and best practice^[1].

 

The methodology was applied in such a way that focus was driven towards:

 

·           Occupant's sleep - those unfamiliar with the premises and unable to escape without significant assistance and pre-planning (e.g. Hospitals, Nursing & Care Homes) 

·           Occupants sleep - those unfamiliar with the premises (e.g. Hotels and Hostels) 

·           Occupants sleep - those familiar with the premises (e.g. blocks of flats) 

·           Occupants were awake - but unfamiliar with the premises (e.g. theatres, pubs, clubs) 

 

To undertake this work, LFRS Protection department currently had 41 roles with differing levels of responsibility for auditing premises, ranging from:

 

·           ‘Developing’ Business Safety Advisors (BSA) – no qualifications

·           BSA – Level 3 (L3) competent

·           ‘Developing’ Fire Safety Inspector – L3 competent, developing to Level 4 (L4).

·           Fire Safety Inspector – L4 competent.

·           Fire Safety Manager – developing towards Level 5 (L5) or L5 competent.

·           Fire Engineers – Level 6/7 competent or developing.

 

Aligned to each role, LFRS applied a Performance Framework which outlined the inspection targets for each role.

 

From 1 April 2022 to 31 December 2022, the department had undertaken 6,081 fire safety interventions ranging from audits, building regulation consultations, licensing applications and peak risk inspections out of hours with partner agencies. 

 

As the regulatory environment changed, the requirements placed upon Fire Safety Enforcing Authorities continued to emerge and grow.  The laying of new legislation and the creation of the Building Safety Regulator (lead by the Health and Safety Executive) were a few examples which created further demands on the Authority’s ability to inspect against existing practices.

 

LFRS inspection activity (against its own performance criteria) was reported to His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS), National Fire Chief Council (NFCC) Protection Policy Reform Unit (PPRU) and in turn the Home Office on a quarterly basis.

 

With a full complement of competent staff, the current workforce profile could complete c.3k inspections per annum.  However due to the demands of recruitment, limited training providers, time to attain competency, new legislation/directives etc. the current capacity could undertake c.1.9k.  Under the existing programme, focus was driven to the top c.7.4k premises with only inspections on these premises being reported upon. This resulted in a significant amount of work (c.40% of all inspection activity) being under-reported, purely by virtue of it not being deemed as ‘risk based’.  One area which highlighted this was the development of the Business Fire Safety Check (BFSC).  As operational crews identified ‘live risk’ which required follow up enforcement activity, the current reporting method did not reflect this work as those premises were not within the top 7.4k of premises within the RBIP.

 

Likewise, with improvements to strategic relationships with Local Authority Housing teams, Care Quality Commission and care commissioners, further referrals were drawing inspectors away from the top premises deemed as being the RBIP, therefore serving significantly to reducing ‘live’, known risk in other premises types.

 

With the current trend in new demands, along with the impacts on workforce planning, it was foreseen that LFRS current inspection methodology and performance criteria required redefining to ensure they remained cognisant of ‘live risk’, rather continuing to service residual or consequence risk and drift further from the present performance targets.

 

Summary of current issues:

 

·           Little scope within capacity, to action ‘risk’ outside the existing 7.4k RBIP premises.

·           Performance reporting was aligned only to the top 7.4k premises.

·           The existing methodology and direction would result in the same premises being audited time and again due to ‘residual risk’ or perceived ‘consequence’.

·           The requirement to audit these premises on a cyclical basis, resulted in other known-risk premises not being audited.

·           The target set for the 3-year period (c.7.4k) was being impacted by competency, staffing numbers and ‘other work’ which was not being reported or recognised as part of broader risk reduction.  As such we would always be under reporting our activity against our target.

·           If the existing methodology was applied to existing datasets the current approach would see the target number grow from 7.4k to an estimated 9k premises to audit in 3 years’ time, outstripping inspectors’ capacity.

·           Currently, capacity to achieve improved performance in other aspects of work was limited e.g. responding to Building Regulation consultations within the statutory 15?day timescale.

 

Forward Plan

 

It was not proposed that any significant change occurred to the existing RBIP weightings within the methodology.  This meant the underpinning (tested) methodology (as now considered by Members under appendix 1) remained, however, it was further strengthened by refining the data and defining more realistic and achievable targets.  In time, as systems improved, ‘previous outcome’ would be included as a weighting.  This would see premises with a history of poor or non-compliance being rated as higher risk, and it was in line with emerging guidance.

 

Following significant work with the premises dataset, moving forward the number of premises in Lancashire to which the Fire Safety Order applied could be greatly refined.  By aligning the premises type/use, with both the primary regulator and the competency of staff (in line with the Competency Framework for Fire Safety Regulators) it was possible to more accuracy define which premises LFRS was the primary regulator for; along with the level of intervention required.  This, in turn, provided a refined list of c.5k higher risk premises^[2] which LFRS inspectors should audit.  Using the refined dataset, this equated to c.3.7k of premises to be audited by a Level 4 qualified inspector and 1.3k of premises to be audited by a Level 3 qualified inspector. 

 

This methodology had been applied across the entire Lancashire commercial premises dataset (c.65k premises) and this new ethos effectively provided a risk-based list of commercial premises.  Importantly, it also provided improved granularity to enable the most appropriate fire safety intervention for that premises type to be provided, making the most efficient and effective use of resources and competency.  This, for example, may be the completion of a BFSC at a very low risk premises, or a Level 4 inspector at a higher risk premises.  The tiered intervention approach to the entire inspection programme would enable LFRS to remain ‘risk based’ and deploy resources across a range of premises types rather than simply focusing on the top 7.4k.

 

Over the coming months, the Protection department would complete the final elements of the transformation process which would include the proposed changes to the inspection programme.  This would also see the area-based teams reshaped to support the delivery of the inspection programme, the Building Safety Regulator and the ongoing delivery and development of the BFSC.

 

The ongoing development of the dataset would continue over many years as business as usual to ensure resources remained managed efficiently and effectively.

 

The redefined c.5k higher risk premises would be the key focus for Area-based teams in line with both the performance framework and competency, with a completion target of 36-48 months.

 

The proposed changes to both the inspection programme targets and performance framework would ensure LFRS remained well placed to meet its inspection programme over the 36–48-month period, whilst also ensuring that it was best placed to service a projected c.3k of BFSC follow on visits by inspecting officers, meet the statutory requirement for completion of Building Regulations submissions, and additionally continued the development of fire safety staff to achieve competence.  

 

Summary of Proposed Changes

 

·           Rename the ‘Risk Based Inspection Programme’ to the ‘Inspection Programme’ (IP) incorporating all c.65k commercial premises.

·           Apply a tiered fire safety intervention methodology to all commercial premises.

·           Define new performance target for the higher risk premises (c.5k over 36-48 months) to balance ‘known risk’ vs ‘unknown risk’.

·           Define new performance targets for each role.

·           Define the primary regulator for premises types.

·           Share LFRS dataset with local authorises (as primary regulator) to assist in their inspection programmes.

·           Redefine LFRS inspection programme to both HMICFRS and PPRU as ‘defined higher risk premises’.

·           Update LFRS recording system to better reflect its approach and enable better reporting into the Combined Fire Authority, HMICFRS and PPRU.

 

Benefits

 

Reframing our methodology and changing targets would:

·           Allow LFRS to apply a new policy to auditing frequency (up to 48 months for higher risk premises) and move away from current targets and align to more realistic figures which reflect all the risk-based work undertaken.

·           Apply the ‘risk based’ methodology to the 65k+ commercial premises however apply a tiered intervention approach (competency-based) i.e. BFSC, L3, L4, L5 inspections etc.

·           Clearly define LFRS inspection programme methodology to other regulators.

·           With current capacity (2k audits) LFRS would achieve or over-achieve its yearly performance target.

·           Create capacity within teams to undertake work in line with the local district planning i.e. peak risk inspections, inspections based upon local KPI issues, joint inspections.

·           Improve performance in terms of meeting the statutory requirements of Building Regulation consultations.

·           Be better prepared for future changes and/or direction from central Government e.g. a medium-rise risk review.

 

County Councillor Hennessy queried whether this work presented an income generation opportunity and would provide a better incentive for staff to be retained in the Service.  In response the Deputy Chief Fire Officer advised that over the last 10 years, some fire and rescue services had set up a commercial arm of the business but all had determined these were not viable as income generated did not cover costs.  In addition, there was the need to ensure there was no conflict of interest (where the regulator assessed itself).  LFRS was therefore creating opportunities for all staff at all levels to develop across an agreed pathway in this specialist subject. 

 

In response to a question from County Councillor Shedwick regarding the proposed changes  of ‘sharing LFRS data sets with local authorities to assist in their inspection programmes’, AM Hamer advised that the Service had a Manager that sat on the Housing Leads Forum.  It was recognised that the local authorities worked differently however, as this was a new initiative which would evolve, it also presented an opportunity to share best practice.

 

Resolved: That the Planning Committee noted the information provided and endorse to the Fire Authority that the Service refine the Fire Safety Inspection Programme.