Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Performance and Service...

EAST AYRSHIRE COUNCIL

POLICE AND FIRE AND RESCUE COMMITTEE – 1st March 2016

Scottish Fire and Rescue Service performance and service updates

Report by Area Manager Jim Scott

PURPOSE

1. To advise members of the Police & Fire and Rescue Committee as to progress against East Ayrshire’s local fire and rescue plan 2014 - 2017 and to provide committee members with other key fire and rescue updates

BACKGROUND

2. On the 1st April 2013, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service was formally established and as part of its statutory duties, the Service developed its three year Strategic Plan. Following a consultation process, the Strategic Plan was approved by Roseanna Cunningham MSP, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs on 1 October 2013 and was laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service under Section 41A(8)(b) of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 as amended by the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 in October 2013.

2.1 To enable the new Service to determine its local key priorities, a three year local fire and rescue

plan for East Ayrshire was developed and approved by East Ayrshire Council for the period 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2017 and is now subject to monitoring and reporting through East Ayrshire Council’s Police & Fire and Rescue Committee.

CURRENT POSITION – PERFORMANCE SUMMARY 4. Review of operational responses within East Ayrshire during the period from 1st April 2015 to

31st December 2015 identified no change in operational activity levels across the local authority area in comparison to the previous year. Review of the preceding three years average in respect of current activity levels within East Ayrshire indicated a 1% increase in overall operational activity at the end of the third quarter review period. In reviewing operational activity on a broad level, false alarms accounted for 54% of all activity within East Ayrshire, with fire related activity and special service activity accounting for 36% and 10% respectively.

4.1 For the period 1st April 2015 – 31st March 2016, new targets have been developed to monitor

the priorities within the local fire and rescue plan which has now entered its second year. The basis of these targets have been defined using operational activity data to define three-year average figures and utilising the principles of the Fire Framework for Scotland document which sets out the key performance indicators for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

4.2 Utilising the defined approach in Section 4.1, performance during the nine-month review period

was measured across six indicators in accordance with the current local fire and rescue plan priorities. Review of performance against these indicators identified one indicator has seen a reduction but not attained its required target and five indicators are currently adrift of their three- year average target as a result of increased activity.

4.3 It should be noted that three indicators have seen a reduction in activity from the previous year,

namely accidental dwelling fires (14%), fire casualties (10%) and unwanted fire alarm signals (10%)

CURRENT POSITION – SCOTTISH FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE UPDATES

5. The Service is currently adopting a new Strategic Leadership Team (SLT) structure following

the retirals of three Assistant Chief Officers. Responsibility for Service Delivery across Scotland is now conferred to the Deputy Chief Officer Alex Clark. Assistant Chief Officers Lewis Ramsay and Robert Scott have now taken up the roles of Directors of Response & Resilience and Prevention & Protection respectively. As a result of this restructure the Director of Strategic Planning, Performance and Communications role is subject to a current selection process. With a reduced SLT structure, a selection process was concluded on 29th January 2016 to appoint Deputy Assistant Chief Officers to support the revised SLT structure with successful applicants now taking up their respective posts.

5.1 As of the 1st February 2016, all Scottish Fire and Rescue Service National Headquarters

functions transferred from Whitefriars Cresecent, Perth to Westburn Drive, Cambuslang and is now co-located alongside the Service’s National Training Centre.

5.2 In October 2015 a report entitled “Managing Automatic Fire Signals” was laid before the Scottish

Parliament by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service under section 43C(5) of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005. The purpose of the inspection was to consider in detail the policies and procedures which the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is using to manage and respond to calls generated by automatic systems and, in particular:

To examine how the SFRS is working with building owners, occupiers, and alarm receiving centre operators to reduce false alarm calls;

To assess the extent to which the SFRS is balancing the risks and benefits of how it attends calls generated by automatic systems;

To examine how the SFRS determines the speed and weight of response to automatic fire calls and how, and to what extent, the Service varies pre-determined attendance as a result of experience, time of day, or any other relevant factor.

The Service is currently reviewing the recommendations made within the report in conjunction with the continuous development of Service policy and procedures in respect of Unwanted Fire Alarm Signals.

CONCLUSIONS 6. Fire and Rescue Service activity is subject to regular monitoring and review and the local fire

and rescue plan targets identified within the report forms part of this monitoring process. Members of the Police & Fire and Rescue Committee will be kept up to date as to progress against the Local Fire and Rescue Plan and to any future Fire and Rescue Service updates as they arise.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 7. Nil LEGAL/POLICY/COMMUNITY PLANNING/ HUMAN RESOURCES/RISK/EQUALITIES

IMPACT IMPLICATIONS 8. Nil

RECOMMENDATIONS

9. It is proposed that members of the Police and Fire Committee…

i. Note the content of the performance summary and associated report for the period 1st April 2015 to 31st December 2015.

ii. Note the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service updates in respect of the Strategic Leadership Team and the location of the National Headquarters.

iii. Note the publication of the “Managing Automatic Fire Signals” report by Her Majesty’s Fire

Service Inspectorate

Area Manager Jim Scott Local Senior Officer East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire Scottish Fire and Rescue Service

For further information please contact Area Manager Jim Scott 01294 607000

Scottish Fire and Rescue Service | Local Fire and Rescue Plan Progress Report for East Ayrshire 0

East Ayrshire Performance Report

1st April 2015 – 31st December 2015


East Ayrshire Performance Report

1st April 2015 to 31st December 2015

Table of Contents

Key Points At A Glance 2

Local Fire and Rescue Service Plan Priorities 3

Reduction of Accidental Dwelling Fires by 10% each year 4

Reduction in Fire Casualties and Fire Fatalities by 5% each year 4

Reduction in Casualties From Non-Fire Emergencies by 5% each year 6

Reduction of Deliberate Fire Setting by 5% each year 7

Reduction of Fires in Non-Domestic Property by 5% each year 8

Reduction of Unwanted Fire Alarm Signals by 5% each year 9

Response and Resilience Update 10

Prevention and Protection Update 14

Glossary of Terms 16


Key Points at a glance

During the reporting period we:

Attended a total of 1738 calls for assistance across East Ayrshire, which included

945 false alarms calls of which 424 were found to be Unwanted Fire Alarm Signals (UFAS).

627 fire related incidents, a decrease of 1% when compared to the three-year average.

166 non-fire related emergencies (special services).

Of the 1738 incidents the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service tended to 81 casualties. Of the total

number casualties recorded, 19 were fire related, 14 of these as a result of accidental dwelling fires.

Conducted 1041 Home Fire Safety Visits, at which we fitted or replaced 403 smoke detectors within

domestic premises. Of the total number of visits conducted, 195 were to properties classed as high

risk on the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s Community Safety Engagement Toolkit (CSET) recording

system.

Carried out 111 fire safety audits within non domestic premises to verify fire safety standards and

compliance with Part 3 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005.

Recruited Retained Duty System (RDS) firefighters for Cumnock and Stewarton


About the statistics within this report

The activity totals and other statistics quoted within this report are published in the interests of

transparency and openness. They are provisional in nature and subject to change as a result of ongoing

quality assurance and review. Because all statistics quoted are provisional there may be a difference in the

period totals quoted in our reports after local publication which result from revisions or additions to the

data in our systems. The Scottish Government publishes official statistics each year which allow for

comparisons to be made over longer periods of time.

Local Fire and Rescue Service Plan Priorities

The Local Fire and Rescue Service Plan has been developed to set out the priorities and objectives within East Ayrshire for 2014 – 2017 and allows our local authority partners to scrutinise the performance outcomes of these priorities. We will continue to work closely with our partners in East Ayrshire to ensure we are all “Working Together for a Safer Scotland” through targeting risks to our communities at a local level. The plan has been developed to complement key partnership activity embedded within East Ayrshire’s Single Outcome Agreement (SOA) and associated thematic plans. Through partnership working we will seek to deliver continuous improvement in our performance and effective service delivery in our area of operations. The current Local Fire and Rescue Plan for East Ayrshire has identified six areas for demand reduction and is subject to regular monitoring and reporting through the Police & Fire and Rescue Committee. A summary of current activity is detailed below with further detail and analysis contained within this performance report.

RAG Status

Accidental Dwelling

Fires

Fire Casualties

& Fatalities

Casualties Non-Fire

Emergencies

Deliberate Fires

Non Domestic

Fires

Unwanted Fire Alarm

Signals

Ward 1 - Annick 11 1 7 21 4 20

Ward 2 – Kilmarnock North 6 3 2 40 1 25

Ward 3 – Kilmarnock West and Crosshouse 7 3 5 50 11 121

Ward 4 – Kilmarnock East and Hurlford 5 1 8 64 4 40

Ward 5 – Kilmarnock South 7 1 2 24 1 24

Ward 6 – Irvine Valley 11 4 21 32 9 46

Ward 7 - Ballochmyle 6 1 6 97 4 64

Ward 8 – Cumnock and New Cumnock 8 2 7 71 5 51

Ward 9 – Doon Valley 10 3 4 75 5 33

Total Incidents 71 19 62 474 44 424

3 Year Average 75 16 53 498 39 442

Key to Performance Summary

Activity level is achieving the required reduction target

Activity level has reduced but is currently not achieving the required reduction target


Incidents 3yr Average Annual Current Incidents 3 yr Average

2011/12 76 - 86 65 14 -

2012/13 69 - 9 -

2013/14 71 72 13 12

2014/15 83 74 8 10

2015/16 71 75 RAG Status 1.4% 10 10

Deliberate Dwelling FiresAccidental Dwelling Fires 2015/16 Targets

Targets calculated based

on preceding three year

average

Reduction of Accidental Dwelling Fires by 10% each year

Activity level has increased and is currently not achieving the required reduction target

Year To Date ward average for East Ayrshire - 8 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Ward 1 - Annick 18 11 10 10 11

Ward 2 – Kilmarnock North 7 4 8 12 6

Ward 3 – Kilmarnock West and Crosshouse 12 10 7 12 7

Ward 4 – Kilmarnock East and Hurlford 6 9 7 11 5

Ward 5 – Kilmarnock South 7 5 5 6 7

Ward 6 – Irvine Valley 5 7 13 9 11

Ward 7 - Ballochmyle 9 7 8 6 6

Ward 8 – Cumnock and New Cumnock 8 12 6 9 8

Ward 9 – Doon Valley 4 4 7 8 10

Analysis:

Accidental dwelling fires have

decreased by 14% from last

year’s corresponding figure

56% of all accidental dwelling

fires were attributed to

cooking

68% of all accidental dwelling

fires were extinguished by

smothering or removal

80% of properties involved in

fire were fitted with

automatic detection

Where fitted, automatic

detection raised the alarm on

68% of incidents arising

20% of calls were made by a

linked alarm

33% of incidents identified

distraction as the most

common human contributory

factor

17% of accidental dwelling

fires identified alcohol or

other substances as a

contributory factor


Casualties 3 Yr Ave Annual Current Injuries 3 yr Average

2011/12 11 - 13 10 11 -

2012/13 3 - 3 -

2013/14 9 8 7 7

2014/15 21 11 17 9

2015/16 19 16 RAG Status 45.5% 14 13

ADFs Casualties & FatalsFire Casualties and Fire Fatalities 2015/16 Targets



average

Reduction in Fire Casualties and Fire Fatalities by 5% each year

YTD ward ave. for East Ayrshire - 2 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

Ward 1 - Annick 2 0 0 0 1









Analysis

Fire casualties have decreased by

10 % from last year’s

corresponding review period but

have increased by 45.5% from

the three-year average

74% of fire casualties have arisen

from accidental dwelling fires

58% of persons were given first

aid at the scene and did not

require to attend hospital

The majority (53%) of recorded

casualties were female

Persons aged 50 – 59 was the

most common age group for fire

related injuries

63% of non-fatal fire casualties

did not require to be rescued by

the Fire and Rescue Service

Kitchen fires accounted for the

majority (50%) of resultant

casualties


Analysis

Casualties from special

service incidents have

increased by 21% based on

the 3-year average

Road Traffic Collisions

(RTCs) accounted for 81%

of all special service

casualties

11% of incidents which

SFRS recorded casualties

were as a result of assisting

other agencies/partners

such as forcing entry into

premises or for medical

emergencies

The majority (65%) of

recorded casualties were

male

Persons aged 40 – 49 was

the most common age

group for non-fire related

injuries

Majority of injuries (77%)

were not deemed to be

serious

Casualties 3 Yr Ave Annual Current Fatal Non-Fatal

2011/12 44 - 64 48 4 40

2012/13 51 - 3 48

2013/14 47 47 4 43

2014/15 49 49 4 45

2015/16 62 53 RAG Status 8.2% 0 62



average

Non Fire Emergency Casualties 2015/16 Targets Injury Classification

Reduction in Casualties From Non-Fire Emergencies by 5% each year


Ward 1 - Annick 1 2 4 10 7










Analysis

Deliberate fire raising has

decreased by 1.8% compared

to the corresponding 3-year

average and has increased by

25% from the corresponding

period last year.

Fires involving dwelling

properties accounted for

20% of all deliberate primary

fires

89% of all deliberate fires

were classified as secondary

fires

54% of all secondary fires

were attributed to fires

involving rubbish / refuse

Secondary fire raising

accounted for nearly 1 in 4 of

all operational responses

across East Ayrshire

All Incidents 3yr Average Annual Current Primary Secondary

2011/12 598 - 596 447 76 522

2012/13 502 - 55 447

2013/14 640 580 53 587

2014/15 380 507 33 347

2015/16 474 498 RAG Status -1.8% 51 423

All Deliberate Fires 2015/16 Targets



average

Incident Classification

Reduction of Deliberate Fire Setting by 5% each year


Ward 1 - Annick 23 22 34 17 21








Ward 9 – Doon Valley 105 68 173 72 75


Analysis

Activity levels in non-

domestic fires has seen an

increase of 5.4% in the 3-

year average

In terms of year on

activity, non- domestic

fires have increased by

29% from last year

Non-domestic fires

accounted for 2.5% of all

operational activity

61% of all non-domestic

incidents were accidental

in origin

Private garages and sheds

were the most common

type of non-domestic

incident accounting for

25% of non-domestic

incidents

Incidents 3yr Average Annual Current Deliberate Accidental

2011/12 54 - 42 32 27 27

2012/13 39 - 19 20

2013/14 38 44 14 24

2014/15 34 37 13 21

2015/16 44 39 RAG Status 5.4% 17 27



average

Incident ClassificationNon Domestic Fire Fires 2015/16 Targets

Reduction of Fires in Non-Domestic Property by 5% each year


Ward 1 - Annick 3 1 6 2 4










Incidents 3yr Average Annual Current Incidents 3yr Average

2011/12 537 - 550 413 1014 -

2012/13 414 - 860 -

2013/14 432 461 996 957

2014/15 469 438 1061 972

2015/16 424 442 RAG Status 0.9% 945 1001

2015/16 Targets



average

All False AlarmsUFAS

Reduction of Unwanted Fire Alarm Signals by 5% each year


Ward 1 - Annick 12 8 13 14 20










0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

All Incidents

False Alarms

Fires

SpecialService

Response and Resilience Update

East Ayrshire Operational Summary

Review of operational responses across East Ayrshire at the Quarter 3 review period identified no overall change in activity levels across the local authority area from the corresponding review period 1st April 2014 to 31st December 2014. In terms of the rolling three-year average, activity levels have increased by 1% overall. Mobilisations to all false alarms accounted for 54% of operational activity with fires and special services accounting for 36% and 10% respectively.

YTD False

Alarms

All

Fires

Special

Service

All

Incidents

Analysis

In terms of total operational

activity UFAS incidents

accounted for 24% of all

mobilisations

Unwanted fire alarm signals

(UFAS) have increased by

0.9% on the preceding 3-year

average, and decreased by

10% on the corresponding

previous year

Unwanted fire alarm signals

accounted for 45% of all false

alarms attended by the Fire

and Rescue Service

The top five premises type

generated 46% of all UFAS

incidents in East Ayrshire

Just over one third of all

UFAS incidents were

attributed to persons having

caused the activation of the

fire alarm system.


2009/10 983 918 207 2108

2010/11 1062 1093 199 2354

2011/12 1014 770 192 1976

2012/13 860 644 168 1672

2013/14 996 814 145 1955

2014/15 1061 536 145 1742

2015/16 945 627 166 1738

Top 15 Incident Types by % of Total Incidents

False Alarm (UFAS) 24.37%

False Alarm (Dwelling) 17.01%

Refuse Fire 13.56%

False Alarm (Good Intent) 12.07%

Outdoor Fire 11.95%

Dwelling Fire 4.66%

Special Service - RTC 2.76%

Other Building Fire 2.59%

Special Service - No action (not false alarm) 1.84%

Vehicle Fire 1.72%

Special Service - Flooding 1.15%

Special Service - Effecting entry/exit 1.09%

Other Primary Fire 1.03%

False Alarm (Malicious) 0.80%

Special Service - Assist other agencies 0.75%


Civil Contingencies

To support operational preparedness within East Ayrshire, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s

Ayrshire Civil Contingencies team have been engaged in a range of activities which have included;

Workshops to complete the Ayrshire Local Resilience Partnership input to the national community risk register

Pan Ayrshire Events Group which focuses on public safety at events – chaired by SFRS; current business includes chairing the planning group for table top exercise for Rod Stewart Concert at Rugby Park. This will be held in late May.

Pan Ayrshire Metal Thefts Group led by Police Scotland

West of Scotland Regional Resilience Partnership Training and Exercising Group

Ayrshire Local Resilience Partnership Severe Weather Plan. Lessons learned from Storm Frank being incorporated into plan production

Supported the Ayrshire Local Resilience Partnership to host 3 strategic resilience workshops for Local Authority executive teams

Liaison with Scottish Ambulance Service to allow First Responders to use Stewarton Community Fire Station for a rest and welfare station whilst on out duties

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service now has its Civil Contingencies Officer formally embedded within the Ayrshire Civil Contingencies team, working one day per week from the ACCT offices in Prestwick. This supports both Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Ayrshire Local Resilience Partnership priorities and continues to enhance working relationships within the partnership. Retained Resilience

Station

Mon - Fri (08:00 - 18:00)

Mon - Thu (18:00 - 08:00)

Weekend (Fri 18:00 - Mon 08:00)

Total Personnel Contracts

Dalmellington 97.78% 99.76% 98.17% 98.58% 11 950%

New Cumnock 77.27% 99.79% 96.69% 91.96% 11 1050%

Cumnock - 1 99.91% 99.97% 100% 99.96% 23 1950%

Cumnock - 2 95.28% 99.74% 98.02% 97.78% - -

Muirkirk 69.13% 99.77% 99.33% 90.51% 9 850%

Mauchline 74.08% 97.83% 87.17% 86.82% 9 725%

Newmilns 71.69% 98.20% 89.82% 87.22% 8 625%

Stewarton 92.82% 99.61% 91.63% 96.86% 11 975

Ayrshire 86.01% 98.66% 94.69% 93.43%

As part of its ongoing commitment to maintain operational resilience in those areas served by Retained Duty System (RDS) personnel, the Service was able to successfully recruit and train new firefighters during Quarter 3 for Cumnock and Stewarton with the new trainees taking up their positions following the completion of their Task and Task Management Training Course in December 2015. The Service’s first recruitment campaign for 2016 commenced on 1st February 2016 resulting in nine firefighter vacancies being advertised for Dalmellington, Muirkirk, Mauchline and Newmilns.


Training and Development All Scottish Fire and Rescue Service training within East, North and South Ayrshire is delivered to meet the requirements of an annual Training and Employee Development (TED) training plan. This TED plan is developed in line with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s Learning and Development Strategy, to support the Area in achieving the priorities of the three Local Fire and Rescue Plans relating to East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire and in turn the priorities of the Service’s Strategic Plan. A training needs analysis (TNA) for the Ayrshire area was carried out in order to identify compulsory training requirements, skills gaps and risk based training needs and therefore the overall training and development requirements of the Area. Based on the identified training and development requirements a Priority Planner was developed. This informs the Area’s annual TED plan and an activity planner which records the training activities to be delivered and the Area TED team’s responsibilities. This allows training to be delivered in line with the requirements of the Area whilst taking into account the capacity of the Area TED team. Utilising this process, training related events that took place during the third quarter (Q3) of 2015-16 included the following: New Breathing Apparatus Set Training During Q3, a national ‘Breathing Apparatus Set Project’ was completed. Prior to the introduction of this new set the Dräger PSS 7000 SCBA, there were 4 different Breathing Apparatus sets in use across the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and 8 independent service contracts in use. In line with the reform of the Scottish Service a decision was taken to have one Breathing Apparatus set and one maintenance contract across the service. The project required all operational personnel to receive technical and practical training relating to the new Breathing Apparatus set prior to them being utilised operationally. This saw the Area TED team delivering this training to 450 operational personnel across the 3 local authority areas. Breathing Apparatus Procedural Refresher Training Quarter 3 also saw the beginning of the delivery of a Breathing Apparatus training refresher programme that is being delivered locally to all 22 RDS stations and 3 Volunteer units across the 3 local authority areas by the Area TED Team. This training consists of 2 technical sessions and 2 practical sessions being delivered to each of our RDS and Volunteer personnel. During Q3, 115 personnel started the programme with 72 completing it. This training will continue throughout Q4 with completion anticipated for Q1 16-17. Practical Exercises The Area TED team delivered practical water and flood training consolidation exercises to all 22 Retained Duty System stations and 3 Volunteer units across the 3 local authority areas during Q3. This training is in line with the SFRS Maintenance Phase Development Plan which is a national training programme designed around firefighter development modules that each Firefighter is required to complete in order to maintain core skills competence.


Prevention and Protection Update

Home Fire Safety Visits

During the period 1st April 2015 – 31st December 2015, Scottish Fire and Rescue Service personnel have conducted a total of 1041 Home Fire Safety Visits, with 19% of these visits provided to those considered to be at a high risk from fire. During this reporting period we have fitted 403 battery smoke detectors to domestic premises. As part of the home fire safety visit programme, the Service has developed its Post Domestic Incident Response (PDIR) policy. This policy is utilised to engage with those communities following a domestic incident to encourage the uptake of a free home fire safety visit. In the review period, 193 (19%) of the visits conducted during the review period were as a result of the PDIR approach.

Community Safety Engagement & Partnership Working

In addition to the promotion of its domestic safety programme, during the Quarter 3 review period, the Service progressed its ‘Winter Campaign’ which had a particular focus on:

Ensuring the safety and welfare on vulnerable persons within the community

Kitchen/cooking fire safety

Highlighting the link between the consumption of alcohol and fire in the home

Raising awareness of the risks of counterfeit cigarettes as smoking is still regarded as a key factor in fires and injuries occurring within the home

In terms of other prevention and protection activity, personnel within East Ayrshire have delivered a range of other community safety activities including;

Fire safety talks and road safety awareness to Hillside School Cumnock and Catrine Nursery along with other local primary schools with a focus on the seasonal safety message.

Fire safety awareness talks to local groups including, Talk to Ticker heart group supported by NHS.

We have run an awareness day to engage with the third sector to look at how we integrate our services within our local communities.

FSET training to Sheltered housing wardens/staff and Housing Staff to support referral pathways

FSET training to Housing staff and follow up support for referral pathways

Worked with Ayr College to engage with local youth groups and build up partnership working pan Ayrshire.

Sheltered Housing initiative carried out across East Ayrshire in Sheltered Housing premises.

Home Fire Safety Visits High Risk Medium

Risk

Low Risk Total Visits

Ward 1 – Annick 18 31 37 86

Ward 2 – Kilmarnock North 15 46 41 102

Ward 3 – Kilmarnock West and Crosshouse 27 85 104 216

Ward 4 – Kilmarnock East and Hurlford 30 67 69 166

Ward 5 – Kilmarnock South 23 60 70 153

Ward 6 – Irvine Valley 17 26 43 86

Ward 7 – Ballochmyle 22 29 27 78

Ward 8 – Cumnock and New Cumnock 23 31 21 75

Ward 9 – Doon Valley 20 24 35 79

East Ayrshire Totals 195 399 447 1041


Fire Safety Enforcement

As an enforcing authority in respect of Part 3 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, the Scottish Fire and

Rescue Service conducts a programme of fire safety audits to verify duty holders’ compliance with Part 3

of the Act. During the review period, enforcement and auditing officers’ conduct 111 fire safety audits,

27 of these incidents following an incident within premises to which the Act applies.

As a result of these audits, 10 notifications of deficiencies were issued to duty holders requiring

improvements to their fire safety arrangements in order to ensure compliance with 88 audits identifying

areas for improvement. During the Quarter 3 review period, Fire Safety Enforcement Officers issued one

Prohibition Notice due to significant issues being identified during the course of an audit.


Glossary of Terms

Term What it means

ADFs

Accidental Dwelling Fires

CSET Community Safety Engagement Toolkit is an internal IT system used to record home fire safety visits and community safety activities

FSET Fire Safety Experiential Training is a bespoke training programme developed by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service in Ayrshire and delivered to community planning partners to raise awareness of fire safety within the domestic environment

HFSV Home Fire Safety Visit

PDIR Post Domestic Incident Response, a term used by Prevention and Protection Directorate to indicate actions taken following attendance at a fire or other incident in the home. PDIRs include amongst things the offer of a free follow-up home fire safety visit

Primary Fires These include all fires in buildings, vehicles and outdoor structures or any fire involving casualties, rescues or fires attended by five or more appliances

RDS Retained Duty System. Professional on call firefighters who may have other primary employment responsibilities outside the Fire and Rescue Service but respond to emergency calls within their local area as and when required

RTC Road Traffic Collision

Secondary Fires These are the majority of outdoor fires including grassland and refuse fires unless they involve casualties or rescues, property loss or fire or more appliances attend. They include fires in single derelict buildings

Special Service Calls to incidents which are not fires or false alarms such as RTCs, rescues, flooding, incidents involving hazardous materials or the provision of assistance to other agencies

UFAS Unwanted Fire Alarm Signals. When an automatic fire detection and alarm system is activated as a result of anything other than an actual fire, the activation is classed as a false alarm. If an attendance is made to such an event by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, then the event is recorded as an UFAS incident

2

HM Fire Service Inspectorate

Managing Automatic Fire Signals

Integrity, Objectivity, and Fairness.

To Contact UsTelephone +44 (0) 131 244 3275Email [email protected] www.gov.scot/fireinspectorate

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Board, Strategic Leadership Team and those members of staff who provided us with information and contributed constructively to interviews. We also thank industry representative members of the SFRS Business Engagement Forum who provided us with considered and detailed comments.

The Inspection team members were:

Steven Torrie QFSMPaul ConsidineGraeme FraserBrian McKenzie

Kirsty Bosley, Principal Analyst, Justice Analytical Services, provided the team with analytical support and Tracey McKenzie, SFRS Control Manager, provided technical support to the team.

A Quality Assurance Panel helped us by challenging a draft of the report. The team was:

Peter Holland CBE, Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser for EnglandDes Tidbury QFSM, Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser to the Welsh GovernmentMark McCabe, Audit Scotland

All the members of the inspection team contributed to the development of this report and the quality assurance panel provided a professional challenge to the contents, assumptions and conclusions made. However, the Chief Inspector takes sole responsibility for the report, its contents and conclusions.

Laid before the Scottish Parliament by HM Chief Inspector of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service under section 43C(5) of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005 October 2015 SG/2015/125

01

Contents1_Introduction and background 02

2_About the inspection 04

3_Discussion 05

4_Conclusions and recommendations 14

Glossary and abbreviations 15


02 Managing Automatic Fire Signals

1_Introduction and backgroundIn this report we discuss how the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) manages calls originating from automatic fire alarm (AFA) systems by, for example, working with companies and occupiers to reduce the number of actuations or calls made to the Service. These calls pose a particular challenge1 as it is well-documented both in the UK and overseas that between 95 and 98% of such calls are false alarms – nearly 25,000, in buildings other than in dwellings, in Scotland in 2013-14. We also look at associated policies relating to the number of fire appliances sent to a call and whether or not they travel under ‘blue light’ conditions (which is sometimes referred to as the ‘speed and weight of response’).

We use the term ‘automatic fire signal’ to discuss our area of interest – recognising that a number of related or alternative terms are also used – and ‘unwanted fire alarm signal’ (UFAS) to refer to the 98% of such calls that are false alarms in Scotland.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service inherited a range of policies from its predecessor organisations relating to how automatic fire signals are managed and responded to. The variation in policy which the Service inherited was particularly large so, as a consequence, the Service has had a major challenge in introducing consistency and ensuring that an appropriate response is made to calls, particularly from high risk premises. To add to this challenge, we understand that the Service inherited specific response arrangements which did not obviously follow on from individual premises’ risk assessments.

In recognition of the scale of this work, we start by commending the Service for the progress it has made to this point and offer the following comments and recommendations as a contribution to the continuous improvement of policy and practice.

Comments and recommendations1. We support the Service’s ambition to drive down the receipt of unwanted calls and note

the pro-active steps promoted with the introduction of the SFRS Unwanted Fire Alarm Signals (UFAS) Incident Policy and Procedure. The aims and aspirations of the policy are laudable. However, we are not confident that the policy, as it is currently set out and is being implemented, will deliver any significant reduction in calls received or responded to, or ‘blue light’ journeys made, within a reasonable timescale.

2. We have studied the policy and procedure documents and although the intent is clear, we found it difficult to understand the detail. Our interviews with staff in a number of locations suggests that different interpretations have been, and are, taking place. We think that the suite of policy and procedure documents is unnecessarily complex and recommend a significant simplification in the next iteration. Within this report, we offer some suggestions as to how policy and procedures might be simplified whilst still achieving the intended aims.

1 The nature and scale of the challenge was highlighted most recently by the Auditor General for Scotland in her May 2015 report The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service http://www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/central/2015/nr_150521_fire_rescue.pdf

03

3. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service policy allows for a reduced attendance to AFA calls in some circumstances, but not where the call has been received through an alarm receiving centre. We recommend that a consistent PDA2 should be planned for calls originating from automatic fire signals where the cause of actuation is unknown, regardless of how that call is transmitted to the SFRS.

4. We welcome the partnership research project which the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service announced in November 2014 and we welcome the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service undertaking an impact assessment of its policy changes in tandem with this work which should add greatly to learning from experience. The issue of unwanted fire alarm signals is not a problem that the Service can solve in isolation. The fact that the Service has engaged so widely with stakeholders is to be commended. We believe that the Fire Sector has a role to play in respect to finding technical solutions to this long standing issue.

5. AFA systems offer potential benefits providing an early alarm of fire, but this needs to be balanced against the low probability that an AFA call is an actual emergency incident, and the risks and costs associated with responding. These risks have been weighed up in published research sponsored by the UK Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), and an internal report to the SFRS by Mott MacDonald. Both of those documents suggest that, for many premises, risk is optimally balanced against benefit by a single vehicle response to AFA calls, with two vehicles being dispatched to calls involving a sleeping risk. We recommend that the SFRS reflects on these reports and the risk/benefit balance suggested in them; and, if it intends to continue to take a different approach, it should explain why.

6. To support ongoing improvements in the management of automatic fire signals, and allow for the success of the UFAS policy and procedures to be measured, we recommend that the Board and Strategic Leadership Team of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service consider numerical targets for a reduction in calls responded to which have been received from automatic systems, and the number of ‘blue light’ journeys made by fire appliances to automatic fire signals.

2 PDA = pre-determined attendance: SFRS computerised control systems automatically nominate how many fire appliances are sent when a fire call is received, based on Service policy on the nature of the call and the nature of the premises involved.



2_About the inspectionHer Majesty’s Fire Service Inspectorate in Scotland is a body that operates within, but independently of, the Scottish Government. Inspectors have the scrutiny powers specified in section 43B of the 2005 Act. These include inquiring into the state and efficiency of SFRS, its compliance with Best Value, and the manner in which it is carrying out its functions.

The purpose of this inspection is:

To consider in detail the policies and procedures which the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is using to manage and respond to calls generated by automatic systems and, in particular:

■■ To examine how the SFRS is working with building owners, occupiers, and alarm receiving centre operators to reduce false alarm calls;

■■ To assess the extent to which the SFRS is balancing the risks and benefits of how it attends calls generated by automatic systems;

■■ To examine how the SFRS determines the speed and weight of response to automatic fire calls and how, and to what extent, the Service varies pre-determined attendance as a result of experience, time of day, or any other relevant factor.

An inquiry by the Inspectorate can be self-directed or can be subject to direction by Scottish Ministers. This inquiry into the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is self-directed by the Chief Inspector. The decision to carry out this inspection was intelligence-led, influenced by the significant proportion of SFRS workload that automatic calls represent, and our interest in the risks associated with this area.

MethodologyThis inspection has largely been carried out on the basis of a desk top data review, complemented by a number of face-to-face interviews with SFRS staff who are responsible for the development of the new policy and its implementation.

We also met with members of the SFRS Board to better understand their involvement with the introduction of the new policy, and with service delivery staff responsible for putting it into practice, and made contact with members of the SFRS Business Engagement Forum to seek comment and feedback.

05

3_DiscussionMany of the fire warning systems fitted in buildings incorporate automatic fire detection. A fire warning system with automatic fire detection can provide an early warning of fire and enhance the safety of building occupants. There is also benefit for property owners in that automatically detected fires tend to be discovered early, and for the fire and rescue service they generally require less effort to extinguish.

However, the large majority of automatic fire alarm calls received by the Service are false alarms. There are so many false alarm calls from AFA systems that responding to them is a major draw on SFRS resources (albeit that, overall, operational response is a reducing part of fire and rescue service work and for wholetime staff in particular it draws on a low percentage of their capacity). These calls represent a cost to both the public and private purse, have an impact on the environment, divert SFRS resources away from attending actual incidents and from undertaking other work, and introduce risks to firefighters and the general public due to increased fire appliance journeys. ‘Blue light’ fire appliance journeys can and do lead to vehicle accidents and the injury and death of firefighters and members of the public.

Research, analysis and policies which are designed to reduce calls received and adjust the speed and weight of response to these calls are not new. Amongst the range of guidance available is the Communities and Local Government publication Costs and benefits of alternative responses to Automatic Fire Alarms, published in 20083; a January 2015 report4 by the Welsh Government encouraging action, and 2014 guidance produced by the Chief Fire Officers’ Association5 which, amongst other things, draws attention to changes to the law in England and Wales which allow for charges to be levied, under certain circumstances, where false alarm calls have been received as a result of automatic equipment actuating.

The scale of the problemAn analysis of Scottish incident data over the last five years has shown that only around 2 per cent of calls initiated by Automatic Fire Alarms are to an actual fire related event. These figures are consistent with experience across the UK and Australasia.

Provisional figures for 2013-146 indicate that SFRS responded to 47,187 fire related false alarms and three quarters of these false alarms were ‘due to apparatus’7 calls. The majority of these, 24,527, occurred in premises classed as ‘other buildings’, i.e. not dwellings. This represents a slight reduction on the previous year’s figure of 24,641. In total, false alarms account for 56 per cent of all incidents attended by the Service.

3 Costs and benefits of alternative responses to Automatic Fire Alarms: Fire Research Series 2/2008, CLG ISBN: 978-1-8511-2922-5

4 http://gov.wales/topics/people-and-communities/communities/safety/fire/?lang=en

5 CFOA Guidance for the Reduction of False Alarms & Unwanted Fire Signals, 2014. http://www.cfoa.org.uk/10863

6 Fire and Rescue Statistics, Scotland, 2013-14, Scottish Government

7 Due to Apparatus – is the category used in the Scottish Government statistical bulletin for calls initiated by fire alarm and fire fighting equipment operating (including accidental initiation by a person)



Figure 1 illustrates the trend of number of incidents over recent years which, amongst other things, shows the level of false alarms remaining reasonably constant whilst other levels of FRS operational activity have been reducing significantly.

Figure 1 Breakdown of incidents attended by Scottish Fire and Rescue Services, 2009-10 to 2013-14

The role of Alarm Receiving CentresFire warning systems are often connected to an Alarm Receiving Centre (ARC). An ARC is a commercially operated centre which monitors the receipt of alarm signals so that a subsequent call is then made by the ARC to the fire and rescue service on system actuation.

An alternative, less common system is for the automatic fire alarm to make a 999 call by the use of an auto-dialler, which plays a recorded message when the call is answered advising of an alarm actuation at the location in question.

The use of a direct link or an ARC connection is a standard for new hospitals and certain residential care buildings to comply with building regulations. Scottish Government fire safety guidance8 identifies the benefit of an ARC connection for existing care homes with high or medium dependency residents.

In non-domestic premises where there is no link to an ARC, the fire routine for the premises normally relies on someone making a 999 phone call from the premises involved.

The quality of the information available to fire service Operations Control staff is clearly very important in determining an appropriate response, and that quality can vary whether the call comes from someone on the premises or via an ARC or auto-dialler. Although logic dictates that someone within the premises is more likely to have knowledge of the circumstances of the alarm actuation, there is not an absolute distinction between the two methods. Given this, we believe that there is a conflict of logic between two elements of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service policy which respectively say:

8 Practical Fire Safety Guidance for Care Homes, Scottish Government, 2014 http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2014/03/1383

07

■■ An automatic fire alarm call received via an ARC (or auto-dialler) attracts a ‘full fire PDA’; and

■■ A call received via a person calling from the premises where an automatic alarm has actuated who cannot confirm whether or not there is actually a fire results in the PDA less one fire appliance being mobilised.

We recommend that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service addresses this conflict as part of its routine review of policy.

Later in this section of the report, we suggest a simpler way of categorising automatic fire signal calls for the purpose of determining an appropriate level of response.

Action to reduce the problem of unwanted fire alarm signalsBroadly speaking, there are two areas where action can be taken by the fire and rescue service to address the burden and manage the risk imposed by unwanted calls:

■■ by engaging with building occupiers and owners to help and encourage them to reduce the number of false actuations in their premises

■■ by modifying the resources that SFRS sends in response to a call originating from an automatic system.

The eight predecessor services in Scotland took varying approaches, particularly to the question of what resources should be sent to a call resulting from the actuation of an AFA. For example, Fife Fire and Rescue Service sent a single appliance, at normal road speeds, to such a call where there was no information to confirm the presence of a fire and there was no sleeping risk. Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue Service also sent a single appliance, but under ‘blue light’ conditions. By contrast, Central Scotland Fire and Rescue responded to AFA calls in the same way as though an actual fire had been reported. Similar variations exist more broadly across the UK. One example of an innovative approach to modifying attendance which we highlight here is West Midlands Fire Service’s recent introduction of three dedicated business support vehicles9.

The SFRS introduced a single, national policy in December 2014, which addresses both engagement with building occupiers, and the resources that are sent to a call. As stated above, if a call is received from a premises where an alarm is sounding, but the caller cannot say if there is a fire or not, one appliance is deducted from the response that would have been sent to a confirmed fire, but with a minimum response of two appliances to a premises with a sleeping risk and one to all other types of premises. If a call to an AFA actuating is received through an ARC, the SFRS responds in the same way as though there was a confirmed fire.

We think that the SFRS policy is unnecessarily complex and could be simplified. We also believe that there should be more discussion on the risks and benefits of various levels of response, noting that the new policy involves a greater number of appliances being sent to a call originating from an AFA in those areas where there had previously been a reduced attendance. Both of these things are discussed later in this report.

9 https://www.wmfs.net/content/vehicles-alarming-success



Engagement with building occupiersConsistent with good fire safety management, fire warning systems require a suitable system of regular checks and periodic servicing in order to maintain performance. Installed systems and equipment are the subject of a British Standard which contains recommendations in respect of maintenance and testing of systems. Persons who are responsible for the operation of buildings and facilities should be ensuring that the number of false alarm actuations are minimised, thereby avoiding unnecessary costs through lost production or disruption to business functions. There is also a significant role for the fire protection industry in ensuring that fire warning systems provide good and reliable warning of fire.

The false alarm rate for any particular premises will be influenced by a number of factors, including the building size and the number of detectors or call points associated with the system and the activities carried out within the premises. To assist in determining what may be considered a reasonable level of false alarms, British Standard 5839 Part 1:2013 Fire detection and fire alarm systems for buildings provides recommended thresholds for acceptable false alarm rates in non-domestic situations.

Whilst it is recognised that the total elimination of false alarms is impossible, there will be premises where occupiers are either unable or are unwilling to tackle the problem with their alarm systems or might simply lack the knowledge to do anything. The SFRS recognises that it has a role where it can assist these persons by advising and motivating them to improve performance; with the potential of ultimately escalating to enforcement action in the worst cases.

Many fire alarm problems can be resolved by either improved management of the building, or the use of technology or adaptation of the system. The Fire Protection Association (FPA) estimates anecdotally that modern technology could reduce unwanted signals by 80%10 (detector heads can be re-sited, replaced or smoke detectors replaced by more discerning multi-sensor detectors).

One early SFRS-led initiative has been a decision by some business partners to supply covers for break-glass call points which have been deployed in premises where malicious or accidental actuation has been relatively common. To date, we have heard anecdotally that this change is having a positive effect but we have not yet seen any analysis of the impact of this initiative.

The SFRS UFAS policy describes the procedures for local monitoring of the number of UFAS calls from premises and contains stage thresholds, detailed below, which will trigger specific actions.

10 http://tinyurl.com/qj5jgdf

09

■■ At every alarm call attended by the SFRS the incident commander investigates the circumstances of the alarm actuation and leaves a form which contains advice for the premises occupier.

■■ If five or more attendances to a premises are made within a three month period, a follow up ‘stage 2’ letter is sent to the dutyholder. The letter provides details of the attendances made and offers sources of advice to assist the dutyholder in remedying the matter. The letter also informs the dutyholder of possible further action should the problem persist.

■■ If 10 or more attendances are made within a six month period then a ‘stage 3’ threshold is triggered. An SFRS Prevention & Protection manager will be directed to carry out a thorough investigation of the circumstances and a fire safety audit may be carried out by an SFRS enforcement officer. The results of this will inform any further fire safety enabling or enforcement activity to be taken.

■■ ‘Stage 4’ interventions are for premises which exceed a threshold of 20 or more UFAS within a nine month period. Premises within this category may then be subject to a staged PDA which would involve the initial dispatch of one pumping appliance at normal road speed.

Overall, it was unclear to us to what extent the policy of engagement with building occupiers was having an effect. Although we acknowledge that the sample of SFRS staff we spoke to was limited, we were not made aware of any positive outcomes which had come from a premises being subject to specific ‘stage 2’ or ‘stage 3’ interventions. And our understanding is that no premises has been subject to a ‘stage 4’ PDA reduction.

While we strongly support the notion of targeted intervention to reduce the numbers of UFAS at source, this relies on a consistent and rigorous application of the policy. We understand that the SFRS Prevention and Protection Directorate has commissioned a review of the policy implementation and we welcome that initiative. We suggest that the review should specifically involve a collation of information on all stage 2, 3 and 4 interventions that are taking place nationally, and cross-reference that with incident data from those premises to evidence whether UFAS, or ‘blue light’ journeys in response to them, are actually reducing.

The SFRS policy, as currently set out, poses an issue for larger complex multi-building premises such as hospitals. Some locations of this nature will have a number of different AFA systems: hospital sites are typically made up of a number of individual buildings or self-contained units, often with their own fire alarm system. The policy does not explain how this premises type will be treated, leaving open the possibility that calls from different systems would be aggregated for the purpose of the policy. We suggest that the policy should be explicit about how systems on multi-building sites will be treated and whether calls from them would be aggregated or not.



Modifying responseThe concept of modifying response to an AFA call – that is, sending fewer appliances than to a confirmed fire, or sending some or all of those appliances without blue lights – is based on the idea that the risks and benefits of operational response need to be balanced. Many fire and rescue service staff can give examples of AFA calls that turned out to be fires – and where the AFA actuation led to a speedier intervention by the fire and rescue service. But equally, examples can be given of fire and rescue service staff, and members of the public, being injured or killed in the course of fire service response to AFA calls that turned out to be false alarms. We think that it is incumbent on the SFRS to take some steps to quantify the benefits that are gained from responding to AFAs, and also the risks involved in doing so.

This then provides a basis on which an informed judgement can be made about whether, given that nationally there is a 98% probability that an AFA call is a false alarm, fewer fire engines could be sent to an AFA call – or some of the appliances sent could travel at normal road speed – without unreasonably increasing the risk to occupiers of buildings with AFA systems.

It is clear to us that the introduction of a single, national policy has resulted in significant increases in ‘blue light’ journeys across the country.

Using data supplied to us by SFRS, we have extrapolated that over the course of the first 12 months of the new policy (assuming that nothing else changes) the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service will cause an increase of around 10,000 ‘blue light’ vehicle journeys across the country. We predict that the City of Edinburgh will experience over 5,000 extra journeys per year, which is equivalent to a 110% increase in journeys made in response to AFA calls in the capital city. This increase, arising from a standardisation of response policy across Scotland, has come about as a result of a conscious policy decision – and we cannot see at what point in the process the additional risk from these extra journeys has been weighed against the expected gain from them. Some illustrations of these changes are presented in an appendix to this report.

It is self-evident that changes on this scale will increase the likelihood of accidents and injuries and will have an impact across the range of consequences we have mentioned earlier.

We know that the introduction of the strategy was expected to produce an initial increase in vehicle journeys with subsequent decrease as the impact of the policy occurs. However we think that the complexity of managing and implementing the policy is such that a significant reduction in journeys is unlikely in any reasonable timescale.

The response part of the SFRS policy is complicated and in one respect the logic behind it is not clear. In respect of AFAs we can identify three scenarios:

1. a call is received where no-one can say if the actuation is a false alarm or not (this is the case whether the call is from an ARC, the call is from an auto-dialler, or the call is from someone at the premises who cannot say what the cause of actuation is);

2. someone at the premises has identified that it is definitely a false alarm and they know the cause of actuation, and passes this information to the SFRS;

3. someone has identified that there is smoke or fire at the premises and passes this information to the SFRS.

11

A consistent policy will take into account that in (1) there is an overall probability there is no fire11, but there is need to make sure, in (2) it is established that there is no fire and in (3), that there is (probably) a fire. A reduced PDA might apply to (1), a limited or nil response to (2) and a full PDA to (3). The SFRS policy is more complex than that without any obvious justification for why that is so.

The response part of the policy does take risk into account, in providing that the PDA for sleeping risk should not be less than two appliances. As a stand-alone proposition that is not unreasonable. However we do not see any detailed discussion of the risk or justification of sending PDAs of more than two appliances to an alarm call (SFRS data shows more than 4000 calls where 3 or more appliances were mobilised to UFAS calls in 2014-15), or of sending the PDA (or part of it) under blue lights as opposed to normal road speed.

Research has been carried out to assess what the optimum response to an AFA call would be, bearing in mind a) the possibility that the call is a real fire b) the probability that it is not c) the cost of sending appliances to calls, in both money and lost opportunity to do other work. The UK Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) published a substantial report in 200812; and the SFRS commissioned consulting firm Mott MacDonald to prepare a report13 for it on the same subject.

Both reports concluded that the risks and benefits of responding to AFA calls were best balanced by sending a single appliance, under blue lights, during the day, and sending two appliances under blue lights to sleeping risks (such as care homes, hotels, etc.) at night. We understand that these conclusions involved an element of judgement and may not represent the only answer to the question. But both reports, including the one commissioned for the SFRS, came to the same conclusion. It is unclear, on a reading of the SFRS policy and procedure documents, why those differ from the conclusions in the reports.

Taking account of the DCLG and Mott MacDonald reports, and all of the background information available to the SFRS, it seems to us that there is very good evidence which would support a reduced or single pump pre-determined attendance to many automatic fire signals, but with an acknowledgement of the risks posed by sleeping, care and other premises and with appropriate adjustments based on risk assessment for high risk premises. We encourage the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to take this into consideration.

11 Keeping in mind that for an individual premises with a very good record, actuation might indicate a probability that there is a fire – but that is still subject to confirmation

12 See Costs and benefits of alternative responses to Automatic Fire Alarms, DCLG 2008

13 Unpublished



Examples from elsewhereThere is no single standard AFA policy across the fire services in other parts of the UK. The policies range from not attending at all, unless there is confirmation from the premises that there is a fire, to responses similar to those of SFRS. However, legislation14 has been introduced in England and Wales which allows the FRS to charge for attendance at AFA calls (an option not open to SFRS) under certain circumstances. There is no data as yet on whether the introduction of the ability to charge in England and Wales has had an impact on the scale of the problem. Alongside this, there are examples of parties working together to address problems as demonstrated in the case study below.

There has been good work done in call reduction strategies. The Fifth London Safety Plan 2013 - 2016 demonstrates that appropriate interventions can dramatically cut false alarms in hospitals. The following is a quote from the Plan:

Through successful alarm management processes, some hospital sites have made impressive reductions in unwanted calls. An example of this is St Mary’s Hospital (Westminster), which is part of the Imperial College Healthcare Trust, where AFA calls have reduced from more than 100 in 2009/10 and 2010/11 to only 2 in 2011/12. Other hospitals owned by the trust – which includes Charing Cross Hospital and Hammersmith Hospital – also have very low numbers of AFA calls.

And other major fire services worldwide have taken steps to modify the way in which they respond to automatic fire alarm calls:

FDNY modified response policy Starting in 2010, the Fire Department of New York introduced a policy whereby not all appliances responding to certain lower-risk calls – including automatic fire alarms – would use lights and sirens.

Although the same number of appliances would attend as before – up to five in the case of large buildings – only two would use lights and sirens. The early results of this policy showed a 19% reduction in vehicle accidents in financial year 2012 (source: FDNY annual report, 2012).

The implication of this policy is that vehicle accidents can be reduced and public safety enhanced, if not all appliances responding to lower-risk calls use lights and sirens when doing so.

14 Localism Act 2011

13

ResearchIn November 2014 SFRS commenced a multi-agency partnership study within the City of Glasgow area into the causes and frequency of false alarms from fire alarm systems in buildings. The outcomes from the study are expected to result in proposed solutions, for a number of stakeholders, being developed to prevent recurrences in the future. The project is unique in involving two SFRS Enforcement Officers to work alongside a fire alarm industry expert to gather live intelligence on incidents. Early findings from the study indicate that duty holders implementing some simple solutions, such as fitting call point covers to protect manual ‘break-glass’ call points from accidental damage and using key switches to turn off alarm signaling during regular weekly system testing, can lead to a significant drop in false alarms. The full results of the study will be analysed by the Building Research Establishment and should provide a valuable source of information to enable SFRS to engage with duty holders and the fire protection industry to further tackle the problem of UFAS calls.

In commenting on a draft of this report, the SFRS shared its view that the results to date of the Glasgow City study provided evidence that collaborative engagement was the key to driving down UFAS, and the associated blue light journeys, over time. We have not been provided with detailed results of the Glasgow City study, but this feedback is consistent with the statistics we publish in the appendix. In principle, we agree that prevention should underpin any UFAS management strategy, and a concentrated focus of the sort being trialled in Glasgow City is a good approach to prevention. We observe, however, that the project has had two SFRS staff and a fire alarm industry expert assigned to it. If the SFRS intends to rely on the same approach to reduce UFAS country-wide, then it will need to provide similar resources to tackle the problem in locations outside Glasgow City. We have not been told what resources the SFRS intends to make available, and so we cannot be confident that good results in Glasgow will be replicated elsewhere.

Policy change – an operational or a strategic decision?As part of this inspection, we have given some consideration to SFRS Board involvement with the development and monitoring of the relevant policy. In part, we were using this as a practical exercise to think about the distinction between operational matters (which in general would be for the Chief Officer and the Strategic Leadership Team (SLT) and strategic matters (which fall within the remit of the Board). To that end, we spoke to two Board members to explore their individual awareness of relevant policy. Drawing on that and our broader knowledge we make the following observations:

■■ It seems to us that the UFAS policy is a good example of something which straddles both operational and strategic issues. For example, detailed risk assessment of emergency response and practical engagement with building occupiers look like matters for the Chief Officer and Local Senior Officers. For the Board, the fact that receiving and attending AFA calls with the associated road risks, financial, environmental and opportunity costs represents a very significant proportion of SFRS work, means that the Board does have a legitimate interest in risk/benefit assessments and what account has been taken of any UK FRS learning.

■■ We are not suggesting that the weight and type of response to an AFA call, at a detailed, operational level, is a matter for the Board to determine. But in the context we have described here, we think that there are clear strategic elements to the policy and that this subject should continue to be of interest to the Board such that, for example, they might want to consider agreeing some targets for reduction of UFAS and ‘blue light’ journeys in response, with the SLT.



4_Conclusions and recommendationsOverall, we welcome and support the specific attention that the SFRS has given to the issue of AFAs and UFAS through the implementation of its policy.

We do not think that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service policy, in its current form, sufficiently and explicitly takes into account the risks and benefits of attending calls generated by automatic systems.

We think that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has good engagement with the fire sector and business at a strategic level through its Business Engagement Forum – it is less clear that engagement with building occupiers at operational level has had any early effect.

We think that the procedures which allow for variation in speed and weight of response to AFA calls are unnecessarily complicated and do not take account of previous learning, experience and research. Partly because of the complexity of the policy and partly because its implementation requires a lot of time and effort, we do not think that the very significant increase in ‘blue light’ journeys which has occurred can be reversed, or improved on, in a reasonable timescale.

Arising out of this we make the following recommendations:

1. We think that the suite of policy and procedure documents is unnecessarily complex and recommend a significant simplification in the next iteration.

2. We recommend that a consistent PDA should be planned for calls originating from automatic fire signals where the cause of actuation is unknown, regardless of how that call is transmitted to the SFRS.

3. We recommend that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service should reflect on the reports by Mott MacDonald and DCLG on speed and weight of response to AFA calls referenced in this report, and if it intends to continue to take a different approach, it should explain why.

4. We recommend that the Board and Strategic Leadership Team of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service consider numerical targets for a reduction in calls responded to which have been received from automatic systems, and the number of ‘blue light’ journeys made by fire appliances to automatic fire signals.

15

Glossary and abbreviationsAn explanation of abbreviations used in this report can be found in the table below.

AFA Automatic Fire Alarm: a system which gives an alarm of fire without requiring human intervention. Can also refer to the alarm of fire itself when it has been given.

AFD Automatic Fire Detection [equipment]ARC Alarm Receiving Centre: an organisation that receives signals from

AFAs and then places a 999 call to the fire and rescue service.BS British Standard(D)CLG The Department for Communities and Local GovernmentFRS Fire and rescue servicePDA Pre-determined attendance: SFRS computerised control systems

automatically nominate how many fire appliances are sent to a fire call, based on Service policy on the nature of the call and the nature of the premises involved.

Predecessor organisations

The 8 fire and rescue services in Scotland, and the Scottish Fire Services College, that were combined into SFRS.

Senior leadership The term we use to describe the Board and Strategic Leadership Team acting together to provide governance and management of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

SFRS Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.SLT Strategic Leadership Team. The most senior operational leadership

group within SFRS.UFAS Unwanted Fire Alarm Signal: an alarm of fire sent from AFA/AFD

equipment which, on investigation, was not caused by an emergency situation.

2005 Act The Fire (Scotland) Act 2005.



Appendix – some illustrations of changes to ‘blue light’ journeys made in response to AFA callsNote: the new SFRS UFAS policy came into effect in December 2014

0.00

3.00

Vehi

cles

per

inci

dent

Average vehicles per incident Number of vehicle movements

Tota

l veh

icle

mov

emen

ts

Edinburgh City

1,000

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

3.00

Vehi

cles

per

inci

dent


Tota

l veh

icle

mov

emen

ts

Aberdeen City

300

50

100

150

200

2502.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

17

0.00

3.00

Vehi

cles

per

inci

dent


Tota

l veh

icle

mov

emen

ts

Dundee City

300

50

100

150

200

2502.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00

3.00

Vehi

cles

per

inci

dent


Tota

l veh

icle

mov

emen

ts

Glasgow City

1,600

200

400

600

800

1,200

1,400

1,000

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Performance and Service...

Documents

Transcript of Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Performance and Service...