Agenda item

The report explains the current procedure for attending Automatic Fire Alarms and explores changes that Surrey Fire and Rescue Service will propose to Cabinet.

Witnesses:

Iain Houseman, Area Commander, Prevention and Protection

Sally Wilson, Service Improvement Manager

Declarations of Interest:

None

Key points of discussion:

1. Officers introduced the report by informing the Board that the purpose of the paper was to explain the current procedure for attending incidents notified through Automatic Fire Alarms and explore changes that Surrey Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) were proposing. Officers highlighted that the Service was attending a high number of false alarms, and the proposals set out in the paper were around responding differently to cut out attending so many non-emergencies which effectively would make savings and increase safety for SFRS staff and crew.

2. The Board were advised that the current position to responding to automatic fire alarms was based on policy set in 2008. This entailed, the Service always responding on blue lights to “Level One” premises which were domestic premises, hospitals, care homes and prisons. “Level Two” premises required a call challenge, however if there was no confirmation call the Service would respond and make an attendance, which would operate between 0700 and 1900. With “Level Three” attendance, the Service would not respond unless a call was received confirming any signs of fire, which if there was the Service would respond in an emergency way.
   
   
3. A Member queried whether the service charged for frequent calls out to false automatic fire alarms. Officers clarified that the Service did not charge but under the Localism Act 2011, there were legislative mechanisms the Service had available to enforce conformity to health and safety standards.  As the burden of proof lay with the Service to prove fault with the property owners, it was very difficult to ensure a penalty charge could be successfully made. It was commented that resources required also would be higher than the charge received.

4. One Member suggested a list should be created, noting premises that were reported to have frequent false automatic fire alarms, and for this list be made available to insurance providers. Officers responded that these steps would not be necessary and may breach other legislation, however the Service had legal powers to enforce commercial premises which had repeated call outs for false alarms to conform and rectify their alarm system.

5. The Board also noted that the Service could penalise businesses for frequent false alarms by issuing notices to enforce the business owner to rectify the problem or in extreme cases to restrict that business from operating.

6. In addition the Service held a statutory duty to provide guidance and information to commercial premises with regards to their automatic fire alarm. With regards to residential premises the officer highlighted that these would be fulfilled by the Initial Premises Survey (IPS) and Safe and Well Visit (S&W) programme. From the 1/12/16 all incidents would receive either an IPS or a S&W visit where residents would be visited to ensure they knew how to operate their alarms properly and also give valuable guidance towards their health and safety.

7. There was a discussion around the requirement of fire alarms and Officers outlined that all commercial buildings and new builds, under legislation, would have to be fitted with an automatic fire alarm to validate their insurance policy. Officers outlined the onus was on the business owner to resolve any defective alarm.

8. Officers offered a report that could be provided in 12 months to detail the follow up on the advice been given to the commercial and domestic premises.

9. When looking at the proposed changes to the Policy, one Member was concerned with the premises listed as Level Two which required a call challenge for attendance. Officers assured, the default position would remain to always respond when a confirmation call was not received or the call did not provide sufficient information, based on the Service’s risk assessment criteria. To keep resources available for confirmed emergencies, SFRS resources may attend under non-emergency conditions.

10. Officers highlighted some key factors why the Service needed to review the current process and endorse a new policy. It was explained to the Board that on average the Service was taking over 3000 calls a year with regards to automatic fire alarms, which takes resources away from other emergencies. Over 47,000 houses will be built by 2030 and will be fitted with automatic fire alarms, therefore the demand will increase. It was explained that similar proposals were already in force in other regions, five other Fire Services operate under similar policies and were running successfully.

11. Members noted neighbouring authorities who have implemented new policies and procedures had significantly reduced emergency response attendances on automatic fire alarms, requiring a confirmation call before a response is sent. (see Page 53 of the agenda pack).
    
    
12. The report proposed the implementation of the new policy to take effect in early 2017 but Officers assured the Board it will develop over a series of 3 phases to allow the Service to review the results of each phase and give businesses and residents the chance to understand change their procedures in line with advice from the service.
    
    
13. Officers advised Members that phase one of the policy proposed non-attendance to all calls for assistance to automatic fire alarm systems at lower risk commercial premises during the day, however at night these premises would undergo a call challenge, to determine if there is enough information to warrant an attendance.

14. It was further highlighted that, during phase one, the following premises would receive automatic attendance; critical national infrastructure, major heritage, control of major accident hazard sites, health care, residential care, residential multi occupied dwellings and residential individual dwellings.

15. After six months and review of phase one, Members noted phase two would follow which will attract call challenge during the day time as well as at night for the lower risk commercial premises outlined in phase one.

16. Following the outcome of review of phase 2, the application of phase 3 proposes all premises, at all times will attract a call challenge to establish if sufficient intelligence can be gained to mobilise the appropriate response.

17. The Board were informed that the implementation of the new procedures could reduce an estimate of 3000 calls a year.

18. The Chairman mentioned that there was no reference to out of county call outs in the report and asked how the Service would respond to these calls going forward. Officers assured the Board that neighbouring counties would be receiving written notice of the new policy and figures could be provided to show a true representation of statistics.

19. It was noted that resources were being used to attend false automatic fire alarms, when it could be preserved for real emergencies. A Member indicated a charge should be imposed on false alarm call outs. Officers explained that in this instance the service could issue notices for improvement and where notices were not complied with, businesses could be summoned to court.

20. A Member expressed concern with the Service being spread thinly throughout the county by removing the second pump and becoming vulnerable. Officers explained that the Service has modified their footprint and reduced their travel time by changing the locations of fire stations, increasing their ability to respond in a quicker time.

21. A Member shared the view that a recommendation should be created to pursue an avenue for income in this area regarding false call outs. The Officer explained the purpose of the paper was to reduce call outs, as well as improving the safety of staff and residents.

Recommendations:

•       The Board supports Surrey Fire and Rescue Services’ proposed policy changes to how it responds to automatic fire alarms.

•       The Board recommends that Cabinet approves the policy changes on 13 December 2016.

•       The Board requests a report on findings from each Phase of the change to the response policy, including usage of the enforcement legislation available and attendances over county borders.