Agenda item

The GM provided members with information related to False Alarms over a 10-year timeframe and information on risk reduction measures taken by the Service.

LFRS Automatic Fire Alarm and Unwanted Fire Signal Journey

Prior to 2022, over a 5-year period, Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (LFRS) sent fire engines 32,685 times to premises after receiving an automatic signal from an automatic fire alarm.

It was noted that Automatic Fire Alarms (AFAs) provided an effective means of giving early warning of a potential fire within a premises and were especially effective and useful when the premises was unoccupied. However, these systems were not fool proof and the vast majority (99.13%) of actuations from these systems required no action by the fire service.

Automatic fire detection could be actuated by many common airborne materials, such as dust, insects, steam, aerosol products or by faults with the system. When an actuation of a fire alarm was automatically sent to the fire service (usually via an Alarm Receiving Centre), and the fire service mobilised their resources to the premises when they were not needed, this was deemed to be an unwanted fire signal (UwFS) which cost businesses time and money and diverted firefighters from genuine emergencies and other duties.

LFRS Phased Approach to AFA Policy Changes

In April 2022, Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (LFRS) changed how it responded to automatic fire alarms in non-sleeping risk premises, during the day between 8am and 7pm, seven days a week.

Since May 2023, LFRS no longer responded to automatic fire alarm activations, unless the Alarm Receiving Centre (ARC) confirmed that the premises provided sleeping accommodation.

LFRS continued to respond to confirmed fires and would always respond to automatic fire alarm calls 24 hours a day if:

·         A backup call was received through 999 reporting a fire or signs of fire (such as a smell of burning).

·         There had been a successful application to LFRS for a fire alarm exemption which had been granted.

Higher Risk Premises AFA Exceptions

These were noted as those which fell under the following categories: sleeping risk, single private domestic dwelling, sheltered accommodation, other residential premises such as hostel, hotel, student accommodation, care or nursing homes, registered Upper Tier Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) sites, nuclear sites covered by the Radiation Emergency Preparedness and Public Information (REPPIR) Regulations, high rise, hospitals, prison or young offenders' institutions, police station and military barracks, infant, primary and secondary education premises, Grade 1 and Grade 2 (star) heritage premises.

AFA Policy Change Progress

LFRS delivered a significant reduction in commercial premises AFAs which had generated:

·         Improved fire engine availability

·         Reduced the road risk proceeding to incidents under blue lights

·         Contributed to reducing carbon emissions 

·         Improved operational effectiveness and ensured crews could focus on higher risk interventions and safety critical training

·         Promoted improved fire safety arrangements for businesses

·         Implemented a call challenge policy at NWFC to triage risk more effectively

·         Joint prevention and protection interventions in response to unwanted fire signals.

Ongoing AFA Work:

There would be continued interventions in ‘high risk’ premises types and appropriate use of enforcement for premises which had repeat unwanted fire signals.

There would be continued work with responsible persons and partners (CQC, care and housing providers) to improve fire safety systems and promote awareness and continued campaigns and initiatives to target the most common AFA or UwFS causes such as cooking, inadequate detection systems, aerosols. In addition, work continued with NWFC and in terms of call challenge policies.

The Chair acknowledged the extensive support that was made available to the vulnerable and elderly to stay in their homes but asked if there was anything further that discharge services and care providers could do to work with the Service to enhance fire safety and fire prevention in the home to reduce the incidence of AFAs for this vulnerable cohort. The GM commented that fire prevention advice was already offered to care partners but was not necessarily effective in stopping AFAs. The caring provider’s approach in the event of an AFA would be to make relevant checks on the individual but, if there was no response, that would generate a 999 call. The Service would always respond to such incidents for our most vulnerable people.

County Councillor G Mirfin asked if there were any developments in smoke detection technology. The GM responded that there were development in terms of wireless equipmentbut that detection devices were generally doing the job they were designed for in dwellings. The GM shared a success story over the past five years in reducing UwFS following communications with Chief Executives to ask for their assistance.

County Councillor B Langford asked whether the installation of a camera live feed in the homes of vulnerable residents would be useful for telecare services to help identify whether a fire alarm was genuine. The ACFO commented that this would not necessarily identify a fire or issue in areas that the camera live feed did not cover and could also be an invasion of privacy under GDPR.

Resolved: - That the Committee noted the report.