SCOTTISH FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE · In recognition of how UFAS frequencies fluctuate throughout the day, it is possible for some AFA systems to filter out false alarms during times

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

SDC/Report/UFASOptions Page 1 of 18 Version 1.1: 06/03/2018

Report No: C/SDC/18-18

Agenda Item: 14

Report to: SERVICE DELIVERY COMMITTEE

Meeting Date: 21 MARCH 2018

Report Title: UNWANTED FIRE ALARM SIGNALS (UFAS) RESPONSE OPTIONS

Report Classification:

FOR NOTING

Prepared by: David McCarrey, Fire Safety Enforcement National Co-Ordinator

Sponsored by: David McGown, Assistant Chief Officer, Director of Prevention and Protection

Presented by: David McGown, Assistant Chief Officer, Director of Prevention and Protection

Links to Strategy

Modernising Response

Governance Route for Report Meeting Date Comment

P & P Directorate Management Team 15 January 2018 For information

Chief Officers Business Brief 19 February 2018 For information

Senior Management Team 28 February 2018 For Information

Strategic Leadership Team 12 March 2018 Approved

Service Delivery Committee 21 March 2018 For Noting

1 Purpose

1.1 1.2

The purpose of this paper is to outline the future response options available to Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) with regards to Unwanted Fire Alarm System (UFAS) incidents It will provide background on current UFAS activity, research carried out into response options, the position of other UK FRS and highlight current good practice within SFRS

SCOTTISH FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE

Service Delivery Committee

Strategic Leadership Team - Performance



2 Background

2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3

Attendance at UFAS incidents continues to be a significant drain on SFRS resources. Time spent attending these incidents reduces the time available for other important activities such as community safety engagement work, training, operational intelligence gathering etc. In addition, the financial cost of responding to UFAS with multiple appliances is considerable, with the consequential impact on the environment and increased risk to other road users as multiple appliances respond under blue light conditions. The SFRS UFAS Policy and Procedure documents were drafted in the early days of the SFRS and outlined the Service’s current approach to UFAS, including response. While effective in establishing a common national approach, it is now necessary to conduct a review given the need to balance resource against risk, whilst taking cognisance of Her Majesty’s Fire Service Inspectorate report recommendations on Managing Automatic Fire Signals (2015). SFRS has 3 key challenges around UFAS activity which are: 1. Reducing the number of false alarm actuations in premises 2. Reducing the number of UFAS incidents the service receives and responds to. 3. Reducing the number of appliances attending UFAS incidents (under blue lights and at

normal road speed)

A key reason for adopting specific reduced response strategies is the continuing level of commitment attributed to UFAS incidents. This report will show that a previous general upwards trend is now beginning to show some successes around reduction due to measures implemented by SFRS such as the introduction of UFAS champions. Other drivers include the need to improve cost effectiveness and to release resources to undertake meaningful activities, including future activity related to service transformation and fire prevention work to reduce the number of fire casualties and fatalities.

3 Main Report and Discussion

3.1 3.1.1

Annual UFAS figs for SFRS (2013/14 - 2016/17 taken from IRS) Since its inception, the number of UFAS attended by SFRS has been increasing in line with a general UK trend, prompting many Services to review their response strategies. However, this year has seen a reduction in UFAS, compared to the same period last year. The most likely explanation is that Stage 1 UFAS interventions, local initiatives and engagement with dutyholders by UFAS Champions in each area, are beginning to have an impact. More detail of local good practice can be found later in this brief.



3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2

Breakdown by average time of occurrence (2013/14 – 2016/17) Because many UFAS are attributable to human actions, the vast majority of incidents are found to occur during working hours, from Monday to Friday. While some UK Services have adopted “blanket response” strategies which are insensitive to time or premises risk, others have response models which are time-based to match these periods of peak demand. In addition, some have models which reflect both time and premises factors (see Section 3.5 for more details on UK response models). A response strategy targeted at reducing mobilisations during working hours to match this peak in activity would have the most significant impact on UFAS activity without impacting significantly on risk. This is due to the level and alertness of the occupancy at that time and the opportunity for any actual fire incident to be detected. In recognition of how UFAS frequencies fluctuate throughout the day, it is possible for some AFA systems to filter out false alarms during times of peak activity, for example by programming them to turn off the smoke detection element in multi-sensors, or reduce the sensitivity of smoke detection at those times. Full detection is restored at night when the premises are unoccupied and the risk of UFAS is low. Some of these systems can effectively become manual systems during the day, relying on persons on the premises being alert to fire and raising the alarm by activating a manual call point. British Standard 5839 Part 1 (2017) provides further information. System filtering may be appropriate in some cases but not all. It should be subject to a robust fire safety risk assessment and involve consultation with SFRS Enforcement Officers and UFAS Champions, prior to any changes being made.

Top 10 Premises Types (2013/14 - 2016/17) Higher risk premises such as hospitals, care homes and other residential premises feature heavily in the top 10 for UFAS. However, non-residential premises such as offices, shops and educational premises are also significant UFAS contributors. This information has guided UFAS Champions towards engaging with stakeholders in these premises types. This analysis and the ‘premises type’ chart overleaf allow UFAS Champions to target top reporters and more closely investigate the root causes of alarm actuations. This work has led to successful demand reduction initiatives, examples of which are found in section 3.7.



3.3.3 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 3.5.1 3.6 3.6.1

If a reduced response strategy is adopted, it will therefore have more impact if all these premises types are covered by it. In addition to a reduced attendance at non-residential premises, some UK services have therefore chosen to reduce attendance at sleeping risks, such as hospitals and hotels, during the day (1 pump) but provide a greater response during sleeping hours (eg 2 pumps), when the risk to life is greater. A version of this time and risk strategy is also the favoured approach in the Mott McDonald study for Communities and Local Government.

Areas of Good Practice (UFAS initiatives) The Prevention and Protection Directorate have provided LSO teams across Scotland with an analytical mapping tool, supported by a new UFAS recording system (URS). This allows local managers and UFAS champions to analyse the local operational commitment around UFAS activity and put in place measures to engage with their top reporters and reduce demand. Two examples of good practice have been included within Appendix A and show how direct engagement with NHS (Lothian) and top UFAS reporters within Fife have shown reductions of 20% in UFAS activity. The directorate utilise every opportunity to share this good practice and look for evidence that any successful initiatives are being implemented across the country Other UK Response Models UFAS incidents are clearly a challenge for FRS across the UK and services have taken different approaches to these types of incidents. Some examples of response strategies and how they fit with SFRS examples are listed below. More detail on these strategies is contained within Appendix B.

1. Reducing the number of false alarm actuations in premises SFRS – Currently have UFAS champions in place within LSO areas to assist dutyholders with education around UFAS activity and Enforcement Officers for more technical matters. London FRS/West Yorkshire/Northumberland – All three services have either implemented or are in the process of implementing charging**



3.7 3.7.1 3.7.2 3.8 3.8.1 3.8.2 3.8.3 3.8.4 3.9 3.9.1 3.9.2 3.10 3.10.1 3.10.2 3.10.3 3.10.4 3.10.5

2. Reducing the numbers of UFAS incidents the service receives and responds to. SFRS – Currently has provided analytical tools for LSO areas, including a mapping tool and new UFAS recording system which allows local managers and UFAS champions to identify top UFAS reporters and implement local reduction strategies. The introduction of staff alarms (investigation periods prior to alarm sounding) are now being promoted across Scotland in line with the current British Standard. West Midlands FRS – Introduction of Business support vehicles, crewed by FSE staff and these are utilised to assist in the unnecessary mobilisation of operational crews.

3. Reducing the number of appliances attending UFAS incidents (under blue lights and at normal road speed SFRS – Currently implementing PDA reductions across Scotland to low risk premises identified by local managers. This means a reduction to a single appliance to an alarm actuation with no confirmed fire. SFRS also have a well-established call challenging procedure in place which reduces attending appliances in line with the current UFAS procedure. South Wales FRS – Single appliance during the day and a full PDA between 1800 -08:00 Essex FRS - No attendance to certain premises and separate arrangements for evening attendance. Northumberland FRS - No attendance during the day, full PDA at night Merseyside FRS – No attendance ( with specific exemptions) *It should be noted that current Scottish Legislation would require to be changed in order for SFRS to consider charging as an option. Detail is outlined below. In England, an amendment was made to the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 through the Localism Act which allowed charging. This charging is limited to non-domestic premises and can only be levied when an alarm system has ‘malfunctioned or been mis-installed’. In Scotland, the Scottish Government opened a consultation of the Fire Charging (Scotland) order 2005 and during their response to that consultation, rejected the idea of including charging for UFAS as part of that legislation and instead decided to approach UFAS through IRMP. This means that currently there is no legislative basis for SFRS to charge. Evaluation of Main Response Options A comprehensive research study was undertaken by Mott McDonald in 2008 for the Communities and Local Government department and provides an in-depth analysis, focussing on the costs and benefits, for a range of alternative response strategies to automatic fire alarm calls in non-domestic premises in England. It concluded that the best options were both time and risk variable. A summary of its findings is presented within Appendix C. Her Majesty’s Fire Service Inspectorate report into Managing Automatic Fire Alarms recommends that SFRS take cognisance of the report findings and move to a consistent PDA for UFAS calls These reports, in conjunction with the ongoing statistical analysis provided internally to LSO staff show peak times and premises types where UFAS activity occurs. The Service Delivery Committee are asked to consider this information and approve the move towards a time and risk based strategy. Any such strategy, in line with the HMFSI and Mott McDonald reports, would mean a consistent, reduced PDA to UFAS calls such as 1 appliance during daylight hours and 2 appliance to sleeping accommodation at night.



3.10.6 3.10.7

If approved then this will be planned, resourced, co-ordinated and managed as part of a cross directorate Service Transformation Programme project. Consideration is already being given to:

SFRS statutory responsibilities

Command and Control mobilising system specifications

Business and Premises engagement

Fire Sector Engagement

4 Key Strategic Implications

4.1 4.1.1

Financial Any proposed change to the future response model would deliver savings against the current delivery model.

4.2 4.2.1

Legal Not applicable.

4.3 4.3.1

Performance The new UFAS recording system will produce statistics on reductions in blue light journeys in advance of any strategic decision on future working.

4.4 4.4.1

Environmental & Sustainability Any reduction in blue light journeys or appliance movements will have a positive effect on SFRS’ environmental impact.

4.5 4.5.1

Workforce Any reduction in response to UFAS activity will allow for operational personnel to be available for other duties.

4.6 4.6.1

Health & Safety Not applicable.

4.7 4.7.1

Timing Any decision on future delivery will only be impacted on the time taken to implement changes within each Operational Control environment.

4.8 4.8.1

Equalities Not applicable.

4.9 4.9.1

Risk Any associated risks will be highlighted within P & P’s risk register.

4.10 4.10.1

Communications & Engagement Not applicable.

4.11 4.11.1

Training Not applicable.

5 Recommendation

5.1

It is recommended that the Service Delivery Committee consider the range of response options set out in the accompanying UFAS response options paper, noting that the two risk and time variable options have been shown to be the most effective in the cost benefit analysis.



6 Core Brief

6.1

Not applicable.

7 Appendices/Further Reading

7.1

Not applicable.



APPENDIX A

Areas of Good Practice (UFAS initiatives)

Take 5 (City of Edinburgh)

The initiative encourages all staff to "Take5" prior to undertaking work placed activity...e.g. Take 5 prior to cleaning a floor using a steam cleaner - 5 moments, seconds or minutes. Consider what you are about to do and how it will affect the fire alarm system.

What are they trying to achieve? City of Edinburgh P & P personnel identified NHS premises as top reporters in terms of UFAS activity and identified an opportunity to engage with large groups of full time, and agency staff at an early stage in their contracts Who was involved? City of Edinburgh P & P staff, NHS Lothian Estates Director, NHS Lothian Head of Fire Safety and NHS compliance officers. What did they do?

Working with NHS partners - Engaging with all staff groups throughout the 4 main

Edinburgh hospitals with days of action once a month initially - visiting known UFAS hotspots;

Working with NHS partners - Engaging with staff and induction training with Take5 input

embedded in to the training for all new staff

NHS partners - Promotion of Take5 on the bottom of the 29,000 wage slips 4 times a year

NHS partners - Promotion of Take5 on NHS intranet and in internal news feeds

Posters distributed to NHS premises by SFRS/NHS staff

Business cards given out to staff in UFAS hotspots and to induction staff by SFRS and

NHS staff

Twitter campaign involving @nhslothian, @scotfire_edin, @fire_scot with the hashtag

#Take5

What was the result?

The Take 5 initiative since its inception has shown a cumulative 20% reduction in UFAS calls to

SFRS over a full years reporting period



Fife UFAS plan

What are they trying to achieve?

Local P & P managers within Fife introduced a targeted and consistent approach to UFAS demand

reduction across top reporters.

Who was involved?

Local P & P Manager, Local UFAS Champion, Operational personnel, Enforcement Officer (FSEO

UFAS lead)

What did they do?

Appointment of UFAS Champion

Appointment of FSEO UFAS Lead

Training of Supervisory Managers with UFAS recognition and prevention tools

Advice given during engagement recorded on UFAS form

Duty holders UFAS form to be kept in Fire Folder for inspection by Incident Commanders

and alarm engineer

P&P Enforcement Officers to engage with duty holders where Incident Commander is

unable to determine cause and give advice

FSEO UFAS Lead to engage with every Duty Holder following a UFAS incident

P&P Enforcement Officers informal audit with premises Duty Holder before they reach

Stage 2 of UFAS Policy

Quarterly partnership meetings with high offending premises

Recommendation to Duty Holders with regards to multi sensor detectors by Enforcement

Officers where appropriate

Education to staff/students of high reporting premises

Engagement from Enforcement Officers to premises that were testing their system

Quality assurance audits of premises from Enforcement Officers who received advice from

Incident commanders as to remedial actions that Duty Holder will implement following the

advice (sample only)

UFAS forms changed to include a section for “Advice Given”

What was the result?

At the conclusion of Q3 2017/18 when compared to the same figures for 2016/17, UFAS figures

within FIFE have reduced by 20%.



Appendix B

Other UK response models

South Wales FRS reduce attendance during daytime hours which corresponds with a window of

increased false alarm activity. A single appliance is dispatched to every AFA and a full

attendance is made between 1800hrs and 0800hrs. Subsequent call questioning may result in

appliances being returned if a false alarm is confirmed or proceeding at normal road speed to

investigate.

Risks / Disadvantages:

Savings realised could be greater, as full attendance still mobilised during night time hours

Attendance is not matched to life risk. Life risk is generally lower at night when full PDA is

dispatched

Complex to implement

Benefits:

This approach may be more palatable to stakeholders rather than a blanket 24hrs approach

Savings will still be realised as most mobilisations are during daytime hours

Less FRS disruption during daytime hours, releasing capacity

Full attendance for evenings/weekends provides reassurance to dutyholders

Potential to complement this approach with non-attendance or single pump/normal road

speed attendance to confirmed false alarms

Essex FRS: do not mobilise to AFAs within places of entertainment / assembly, office, shop or

factory premises unless a phone call is received confirming a fire service attendance is required.

For periods out of normal business hours, arrangements need to be made for an employee or

company representative to attend the premises to ascertain if a fire service attendance is

required, and place a 999 call. Domestic premises are exempt.

Essex categorise premises into 3 groups:

Level 1 are sleeping risks and schools

Level 2 are higher risk premises eg COMAH sites, Grade 1/2 Heritage sites; premises

confirmed with coincidence AFD operation (aka double knock) facilities. Sleeping risks viz

hotels, hospitals, care homes, and schools receive a response.

Level 3: other premises

Level 1 & 2 – full PDA

Level 3 – call challenge; confirmation of fire call required to initiate full PDA

Unoccupied premises – crews wait 30 minutes then leave if no fire




Delay in mobilising FRS to a genuine fire while investigation takes place causes increased

property damage costs / increased life risk

DCLG report claims poor cost/benefit analysis for delayed mobilisation models (call

challenging)

Training required for investigation team

Dutyholder resistance to call challenging / non-attendance policy

Essex model may not impact on worst offenders, who will still receive a full PDA eg.

hospitals, university accommodation etc., so potential to release resource capacity is

diminished

Benefits:

Places more responsibility on dutyholders / managers to be accountable for UFAS

performance

Potential for significant savings from non-attendance

Potential to free up significant capacity

Essex model contains a “ premises risk” element, effectively excluding sleeping risks,

schools, COMAH sites etc

Northumberland FRS: No attendance to business, hospital and residential care premises

between 0800-1800hrs from Monday to Friday (peak UFAS times), unless backed up with a 999

call confirming a fire. One appliance is mobilised where a 999 back-up call from the premises is

unable to confirm the cause of alarm. No attendance, if no back up call received. All premises

between 1800 - 0800hrs, bank holidays and weekends receive a full PDA. Domestic premises

will always receive a full PDA.

Risks / Disadvantages and Benefits are similar to option 3.3.2 as this is a variation on the model

above, although this option may be more complex to implement. A full attendance at

nights/weekends may provide some reassurance to dutyholders. However, the reduction in

response during daytime coincides with periods of greater life risk.

Merseyside FRS phased in the implementation to allow responsible persons sufficient time to

address any necessary changes in the management of fire safety in their premises.

PHASE 1: From 1 November 2012 to 31 October 2013 MF&RS protocol: Between 7.30am and 7.30pm no longer send an emergency response to AFA actuations unless a back-up 999 call is received confirming that there is a fire. PHASE 2: From 1 November 2013 MF&RS protocol: The full protocol is applied regardless of the time of the day. All exempted premises will continue to receive a full emergency response to all actuations of their Automatic Fire Alarm systems. Exemptions apply to both Phase 1 and Phase 2:

All residential property - where the responsibility for the safety of the occupiers rests with

the individuals who reside there.

All Sheltered Housing, HiMO, and Multi-storey accommodation.

Double-knock Alarm Systems: British Standard for Fire Alarms BS 5839 part 1 coincidence

actuation systems, if installed, will generate a full attendance.



Sleeping Risk: All sleeping risk premises such as hospitals, care homes, hostels and hotels

will be exempt during night time hours only.

Exception exemptions: Any request for an exemption due to significant risks will be

considered by the Community Fire Protection exemption panel.


More complex to implement

May cause confusion moving from one model to another

Benefits:

Having a phased approach gives dutyholders time to adapt and may assuage any concerns

/ placate objectors

West Midlands introduced their first Business Support Vehicles (with blue lights) in February

2015 as part of efforts to stop fire appliances and crews being deployed unnecessarily. They

now have three in operation and give advice on the management and suitability of fire alarms,

leading to a reduction in Automatic Fire Alarm (AFA) calls. Where necessary, this may also

involve commencing enforcement of fire safety law. The vehicles are driven by Fire Safety

Inspecting Officers and operate 12 hours a day when false alarm calls are known to be most

frequent. The vehicles have come from various partnerships including with Jaguar Land Rover.

As of 1st June 2015, they also challenge all calls from Alarm Receiving Centres on a 24/7 basis,

but will automatically respond to hospitals, prisons and care line calls at all times. They

always attend premises that confirm that there is a fire via the 999 system.

There are some specific circumstances where an attendance will still be made:

• Lone workers – where we’re informed there’s only 1 member of staff on duty.

• ‘Break glass’ point broken

• Actuation of two detector heads (double knock)

• Report of smoke or fire

• Site Specific Information (SSI) listed against a premise – this is usually requested by our Fire

Safety team requiring an attendance for all calls for a specific reason.

Motorbikes have been used as an alternative method of response, particularly in busy urban

areas eg Merseyside FRS.


Capital costs of purchasing / equipping vehicles

Ongoing maintenance costs of vehicles

Impact on FSE workloads

Training implication for FSE officers (blue light driving)

Benefits:

Utilises an existing resource (FSE officers)

Releases operational crews from attending, creating daytime capacity

More specialist advice offered to stakeholders and follow up action tracked



London Fire Brigade (LFB): Under the existing rules, LFB are entitled to recover £326 (+VAT)

for attending persistent false alarm calls generated by automatic fire alarm systems and fire

detection systems. They will continue to attend where the cause of the alarm is unknown.

A charge will apply when:

• LFB attend the tenth false alarm at the same site within 12 months

• All subsequent false alarm call outs thereafter

This will not apply to domestic properties or care homes. LFB are reviewing their policy and

expect to reduce the opportunity for charging.

West Yorkshire FRS commenced charging in April 2014 to recover the costs associated with attending persistent false alarm calls generated by automatic fire alarm and fire detection systems. The Service will be recovering costs for the fourth false alarm attended within a twelve month period and for all subsequent false alarm call outs. This will not apply to domestic properties but will apply to properties where the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies to either all or part of the premises. Northumberland FRS are also looking to introduce a charging scheme with a threshold trigger of

the 4th UFAS incident in a year. This proposal has been out for consultation.


Requires new legislation to implement in Scotland

Reputational impact on Service

Governance arrangements required to manage income stream

Benefits:

Targets and encourages the worst offenders to take responsibility for UFAS

Source of revenue to offset costs of response



Appendix C

Summary of the ‘Costs and benefits of alternative responses to Automatic Fire Alarms: Fire Research Series 2/2008, CLG’

The analysis results suggest that a policy which corresponds to a one pump attendance at day time AFA calls with two pumps to night time sleeping risk and one pump to night time non-sleeping risk properties is the most favoured AFA response strategy for best achieving this balance.



This strategy yields a small increase in fire fatalities (0.7 per year) but the release of resources to undertake fire prevention work is estimated to prevent 3.7 fire fatalities per year. A more conservative strategy, in which the scope of buildings that are classified as high risk is widened (and in doing so yields a smaller fire fatality increase), predicts a slightly smaller overall benefit since comparatively fewer resources are released for fire prevention (opportunity) activities. Strategies which involve delays in a response being sent to a call (eg call challenging and responding only if a confirmation of a fire was received) were the least favoured strategies as the increases in property damage caused by fires due to the delay outweighed those benefits accrued in the reduced response and those arising from the reallocation of resources to fire prevention work. This conclusion would also apply to circumstances where a response was sent only after confirmation of a genuine fire following attendance of a fire service motorcycle. It is noted that, should campaigns intended to reduce AFA false alarm rates prove successful (84 per cent of questionnaire respondents stated that they had a strategy in place aimed at reducing the numbers of false alarm calls received), the more conservative strategy (where the definition of buildings classified as high risk is widened and hence receive the larger response) would become progressively more attractive than other options and the difference between this strategy and the less conservative strategy would become smaller. The results of this study therefore indicate that an AFA response strategy where response is matched to time of day and risk is likely to be the most efficient use of resources. This report has considered such strategies on a national basis and it is observed that the detailed consideration of time and risk policy development would be based at FRS level through consideration of local time and risk factors.

Blanket Policy 1 (BP1) – Non – Attendance, unless confirmed fire The key outcomes of the cost benefit assessment for this strategy are as follows: • £120 million per year increase in the overall economic cost of fire • Over £130 million per year increase in fire damage • Annual fatality rate increases by 4.2, casualties by 107 • 4.5 lives saved through HFRA. Blanket Policy 1 corresponds to a strategy of not responding to an AFA call until there is a confirmatory call. The model developed assumes that when the building is occupied there will be a five minute delay until confirmation of the fire. This allows for the call challenge to be made, the fire warden to identify where the fire is and investigate and then confirm the incident. If the building is unoccupied, a 22 minute delay is assumed as someone will have to be called in from home to check, or as the fire develops it will be spotted by someone outside the building. Twenty two minutes is the estimated mean difference between a fire discovered by a person and one discovered by an AFA from the estimated time of ignition. An estimate of the relative size of fires discovered by AFA and by person supported this estimate. UK Fire Statistics (ODPM, 2004) identifies that for approximately every real fire attended there is one false alarm with good intent (in 2004 there were 443,000 fires in the UK and 113,000 false alarms with good intent). It is therefore assumed in the analysis that an additional 20 per cent of AFA calls will be received as false alarms with good intent. The basis of this strategy is not to respond until a fire has been confirmed and while considerable benefit is accrued by the significant resources released to carry out HFRAs, there is a very significant additional direct cost from building damage and additional fatalities and injuries due primarily to the initial delay in deploying resources to the developing fire. This strategy is not favoured by the analysis as it leads to significantly increased economic costs and to a significant increase in fatality and injury



rates as a direct result of the fire. This strategy yields a net cost increase overall and is the least favoured outcome from the analysis.

Blanket Policy 2 – single appliance to all AFAs The key results for this strategy are as follows: • £12 million per year reduction in economic cost of fire • £3.84 million per year increase in fire property damage • Annual fatality rate increases by 1.9 • Four lives saved through HFRA. The second blanket policy despatches a single appliance in response to an AFA call. The model assumes that this appliance arrives after three minutes. All subsequent appliances are assumed to be delayed by five minutes compared to the base case and will only be despatched at the request of the fire fighters at the scene. This five minute delay from the base case consists of three minutes for first appliance to arrive plus two minutes for fire fighters to confirm a fire or otherwise and report back. Table 5.4: Comparison of response delays between base case and Blanket Blanket Policy 2 delivers a net cost saving due to the redeployment of significant resources to HFRAs. In fact it is the third highest ranked strategy from the analysis although it is noted that this strategy also yields the second highest increase in fire fatalities of all options assessed. Blanket Policy 3 – 2 appliances to all AFAs • £8.8 million per year reduction in the overall economic cost of fire • £1.5 million per year increase in fire damage • Negligible increase in fatality rate • 2 lives saved through HFRA. The final blanket policy assessed despatches two appliances to every AFA call. It is pessimistically assumed that no confirmation call or otherwise is received before the firefighters arrive at the scene. As for BP2 all subsequent appliances are assumed to be delayed by five minutes and will only be despatched at the request of the fire fighters at the scene. This policy results in a net benefit. The weight of response means that the increased societal risk is minimal. The increase to property damage is also limited and more than offset by the benefits accrued from additional HFRAs and reduction in road traffic collisions. However, the benefits realised by undertaking HFRAs are the lowest of the blanket policies assessed because there are fewer saved mobilisations compared to the other blanked policies which model a ‘lighter’ response. This policy is ranked fifth overall.



Time and Risk Policy 1 (T&R1) – 2 appliances for sleeping risks at night, otherwise 1

appliance for AFA calls

The key results from this strategy are: • £14 million per year reduction in the overall economic cost of fire • £3.7 million increase in fire damage • Annual fatality rate increases by 0.7 • 3.7 lives saved through HFRA. This policy is a variation of Blanket Policy 2. A single appliance is despatched during the day to any AFA however, at night two appliances are despatched to buildings with a sleeping risk. The benefit accrued by this policy is better than that achieved by BP2 and is better than any other strategy. Targeting sleeping risk results is a significant improvement of societal risk fatalities without a commensurate decrease in HFRA benefits and little change to the cost due to damage to property. Overall it delivers the greatest benefit, but at the cost of a 20 per cent increase in fire fatalities.

Time and Risk Policy 2 (T&R2) – 2 appliances for sleeping risks at night and high risk premises / 1 appliance for other AFA calls The key outcomes of the analysis for this response option are as follows: • £11.8 million per year reduction in the overall economic cost of fire • £2.9 million per year increase in fire damage • Annual fatality rate increases by 0.3 • 3 lives saved through HFRA. Time and Risk policy 2 has been developed to provide a robust response to high societal risk buildings while keeping the number of appliance being despatched as low as practicable. The response to normal risk AFAs is to despatch one appliance and for high risks is to despatch two appliances. In this particular strategy sleeping risk only attracts a two appliance response during the night; the assumption being that risks are highest when the building occupants are asleep. Shops and buildings open to the public will be responded to with two appliances during the day. The strategy always despatches two appliances in the event of an AFA call from hospitals and care homes because many of the occupants have limited mobility and are considered to be vulnerable in a fire incident. Overall this strategy is ranked third, with net benefits overall similar to BP2 (within £250k) but some £2.6 million less than T&R1. Targeting societal risks effectively limits the increase in fire fatalities but at the cost of less benefit being claimed for HFRAs. The overall benefit is less than BP2 and T&R1 but is it noted that the increase in fire fatalities is significantly smaller for this option than the two higher ranked options (0.3 compared to 1.9 and 0.7 respectively). Variable by Risk Policy 1 (R1) – 2 appliances for High Risk Premises / 1 appliance for Low Risk premises The key points arising from the assessment of this option are: • £10.7 million per year reduction in the overall economic cost of fire • £3.4 million per year increase in fire damage • Annual fatality rate increases by 0.7 • 3 lives per year saved through HFRA. This risk policy takes a blanket approach to high and low risk buildings. High risk buildings, defined as those with a sleeping risk, have a PDA of two appliances. Normal risk buildings on the other hand have one appliance despatched. This strategy is less effective than BP3 in controlling societal risk but gains from additional resources undertaking HFRAs and is ranked fourth overall.



Variable by Risk Policy 2 (R2) – 3 appliances for sleeping risks / 2 for other AFA calls The key results from the assessment of this strategy are as follows: • £4 million per year reduction in economic cost of fire • £1 million per year increase in fire damage • Negligible increase in fatality rate • 1 life per year saved through HFRA. This policy despatches three appliances to buildings with a sleeping risk and two appliances otherwise. In this case, while the cost increases from societal risk and fire damage are limited, smaller savings are made in resources compared to other options. As a result the benefit accrued is significantly reduced compared to all strategies bar BP1. Call Challenge – delayed Fire PDA response while investigation undertaken The key points from the analysis of this option are: • £950k per year increase in the overall economic cost of fire • £20 million per year increase in fire damage • Annual fatality rate increases by 0.8 • 4 lives saved through HFRA per year. The call challenge strategy assumes that on average response is delayed by one minute; during this minute the call centre challenges either the ARC or the occupants to confirm that there is a fire. If after this time there is no definitive response it is assumed that there is a fire. The model assumes that 1 in 4 false alarms are reported as a fire, as BP1, and a in a further 10 per cent no definitive response is received; for these cases it is assumed 3 pumps are despatched. While there is a significant benefit claimed for resources released to fire prevention activities, the gains are offset by increases in expected fatalities and property damage attributable to the delay in response to genuine fires. This strategy shows that even a small delay in response results in a significant increase in damage costs and fatalities. This option scores a net cost overall and is the second last ranked option by the analysis. This result emphasises that the overall cost of fires is particularly sensitive to delays in responding to a genuine fire by virtue of a revised AFA response strategy.

Risks Identified in reduced attendance and Mitigation Strategies

Increased risk of building damage - Encourage occupants to confirm fire and telephone the

FRS or ARC.

Negative impact on public or business confidence - Public consultation prior in introduction

of revised response strategies

Increased risk to occupants - Risk based response includes assessment of life risk

Increased risk to fire fighters from fire and difficulties in scene management - additional

dynamic risk assessment / training

Documents

SCOTTISH FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE · In recognition of how UFAS frequencies fluctuate throughout the day, it is possible for some AFA systems to filter out false alarms during times