Agenda item - REDUCING THE NUMBER OF UNWANTED FIRE ALARM SIGNALS THROUGH COLLABORATION

Agenda item

REDUCING THE NUMBER OF UNWANTED FIRE ALARM SIGNALS THROUGH COLLABORATION

Report of the Chief Fire Officer

Minutes:

Wayne Bowcock, Deputy Chief Fire Officer, presented the report which informs the Committee that during 2017, the Service responded more than 3,000 unwanted, automated fire detection alarms. The automated alarm systems in question are generally fitted to industrial units which are not connected to domestic/residential properties. These alarms are commercially maintained and are often triggered as a result of heat/ dust / by accident and without fire or smoke, or as a result of incorrect installation.

 

Unwanted alarm signals are most prevalent within the City area due to the density of industrial premises. Other Fire and Rescue Services across the country have reacted to these unwanted calls by requiring that the need to attend is confirmed in addition to an automated alarm, but NFRS had continued to respond without this confirmation.

 

The Service does not have any role in approving or recommending installations, maintenance and replacement of such alarms, and although Building Control does have limited involvement, only a ‘named responsible person’ is required for an automated alarm system to be connected (via Alarm Receiving Centres) to the emergency Services. There is currently no penalty for consistent unwanted alarms and therefore no deterrent to ensure that systems are correctly installed and maintained.

 

The National Fire Chief’s Council has issued guidance to try and reduce unnecessary call-outs to these alarms. The Regional Implementation Team has also issued guidance as three of the five services in the region have differing approaches. The amended policy complies with the guidance from both organisations and is proposed to be operated by Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Services, initially as a trial during which Fire Control Staff will continue to gather information on the alarm and ask further questions to challenge whether there is any evidence that an alarm has been appropriately activated. This may include requiring the ‘responsible person’ to attend the premises and confirm that the Service’s attendance is required.

 

The new approach will include the following changes from the current policy:

 

(i)  Move from call challenging between the hours of 07:00 and 18:00 to 24 hours, 7 days per week;

 

(ii)  Hotels will be call challenged during the day, but not during night time hours, 21:00 – 08:00;

 

(iii)  A standard level of attendance after call challenging to AFD calls of one appliance.

 

The several premises types which will be exempt from these changes and trial are listed within the report.

 

There are unlikely to be any direct savings as a result of this trial as the crews will be on duty anyway, but there are broader productivity implications regarding the ability to provide Home Safety Checks, the ability to respond to other incidents and fuel usage.

 

A member of the Committee expressed concern that the report did not provide comprehensive information on the number of appropriate automated alarms and call-outs during the period in question, there is no mention of the direct risk to citizens and what the implications may be if the Service does not respond when its attendance is necessary. In addition, the cost implications are purely notional and there is not enough information about the proposed call-challenge process.  Due to the risk factors and potential cost implications of a building and business lost through fire, NFRS should continue to dispatch at least one appliance to all call-outs, possibly with the exception of empty properties.

 

Members’ questions were responded to as follows:

 

(a)  it can very difficult to schedule safety engagement sessions with schools, and Home safety Checks with some individuals. Whilst responding to a call will take priority, it is not always possible to rearrange sessions which result in a lost opportunity for valuable preventative work;

 

(b)  the guidance by which the trial will operate has been provided at a National level following evidence provided by other Fire and Rescue Services showing a benefit as a result of call challenging. NFRS aim to move towards adopting the National guidance, whilst Leicestershire will participate in the trial except for one minor variation until  the trial results are available before considering their position;

 

(c)  Nationally, schools are not included on the exempt list as by their nature they are excellent at evacuating buildings and safety management when occupied;

 

(d)  the 3,000 unwanted alarms have consisted of malicious calls, calls of good intent and false alarms, of which NFRS attended nearly 1,000 routinely with 3 appliances whereas other Services only send one appliance;

 

(e)  if approved by this Committee and the Tri-Service Board, the trial could start within the next 6-8 weeks. A start date can be provided to members of the Committee.

 

The Chair acknowledged that there were risks but that broader consideration of the issue is required, including the requirement of a co-ordinated approach within the Tri-Service group. The trial should not be dismissed due to the hesitant approach of the Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service. However, with the majority of Committee members supporting a trial, it was agreed that further, more detailed information should be provided to members of the Committee when the outcome of the trial is reported to the committee six months after its implementation.

 

RESOLVED

 

(1)  to approve the participation of the Service in a joint ‘Unwanted Fire Alarm Response Trial’ with Derbyshire Fire and Rescue Service, for a period of 6 months subject to the agreement of the Tri-Service Board;

 

(2)  for a report providing the outcomes of the trial to be submitted to the Committee for consideration prior to the continuation or adoption of the proposed revised policy.

Supporting documents: