People impact assessment

Our purpose is to protect and save, keeping the 1.8 million people who live here safe. We also protect 820,000 households, 74,000 businesses and a further 1.1 million visitors to our counties each year.

To assess the impact of the proposed options, we have carried out a People Impact Assessment and Equalities Risk and Benefit Assessment.

As a result of these assessments, we have made some changes to the proposed options, for instance adding an option to include 7-day a week night-time attendance at retail and public assembly premises, and introducing a 10% reinvestment to on-call firefighter training.

As part of the consultation, we ask about whether people feel they, or any community group, are impacted by the proposed options. We will review the assessments alongside what people have told us in the consultation.

Introduction

The People impact assessment is a live document that is reviewed and updated at various stages of the project.

Purpose: To assess the impact of changes in the response to automatic fire alarms (AFAs) on various stakeholders, including businesses, councils, and other organizations.

Overview: The assessment focuses on the current experiences, risks, and potential changes in the response to AFAs, as well as the impact of these changes on stakeholders.

Project scope

· In Scope: Changing attendance models to reduce automatic attendance where there is no known nighttime sleeping risk, investigating sub-division of residential alarms, and reviewing call challenge arrangements.

· Out of Scope: Non-attendance at domestic properties and changes to predetermined attendance for specific incident types or buildings with site-specific risk information.

Anticipated benefits

• Decrease in road risk, fuel consumption, and carbon footprint due to fewer mobilisations.
• Increase in wholetime capacity for training, prevention work, and availability for genuine incidents.
• Potential financial savings ranging from zero to £128,858 annually (depending on final option chosen)

Methodology

The project is taking a two-step approach to understanding the impact on people from the proposed changes in this project:

1. Pre-options engagement with various stakeholders identified within the stakeholder analysis.

2. Public consultation of the options.

Through the analysis of the engagement findings, and subsequently the public consultation, this document will contain the findings, and any actions required to change the project outputs or methods.

Stakeholder analysis

A full stakeholder analysis was undertaken at the start of the project and is outlined below:

Affected stakeholders:

• Public
• Businesses: Public and private sector organisations, potentially including all business types.
• Councils: Various councils at all levels involved in fire safety management and representing their local communities and businesses.
• Other: Retired fire service personnel, fire safety managers, fire service representative bodies.
• Internal stakeholders: Affected staff, wholetime and on-call firefighters, fire control, protection team, wider workforce, representative bodies, and Fire Authority members.

Impact analysis

The following points have been collated through multiple engagement events during the project and will be expanded to include the results from a public consultation.

Current Experience with AFAs:

• There have been mixed experiences with automated call-out systems.
• Stakeholders generally understand the need for change after sharing the scale of automatic fire alerts and the small number of genuine fires.
• Some businesses monitor alarms themselves and call the fire service as needed.
• Regular fire risk assessments and training are common practices.
• FBU members highlight the importance of responding to all fire signals and the potential reputational risks of not attending incidents.
• Internal stakeholders emphasize the importance of response plans, risk assessments, and the potential benefits of attending AFAs, such as site familiarisation and driver experience.

Stakeholder concerns

Businesses: Businesses have a high level of understanding about their fire safety responsibilities and have taken action to reduce unwanted alarm signals. There were concerns about the effectiveness of current AFA systems, the impact of false alarms, and the need for regular fire risk assessments.

Councils: Focus on compliance and safety, with some councils having automated systems monitored by the fire service.

Representative bodies: Emphasis on the duty to respond to fire signals, the importance of risk familiarisation, and concerns about the impact on public and crew safety if response protocols change. Some were supportive of changes from an efficiency point of view, but recognised the impact on some on-call firefighters from loss of earnings.

Internal stakeholders:

Mixed views on the benefits and frustrations of responding to false alarms, differing views on how attending false alarms impacts retention and morale of on-call firefighters, and the importance of maintaining response plans and risk assessments. Benefits of attending automatic fire signals include accruing driver hours, emergency response experience, and site familiarisation. There was a recognition of the impact on on-call firefighters’ primary employment and the road risk associated with blue light responses and responsible persons confirming emergencies.

Most stakeholders believe there would be some impact if the fire service's response to AFAs changes, with greater impact expected overnight.

Risks identified:

• Operational Risks: Potential delays in response times, especially during non-staffed hours.
• Safety Risks: Increased risk of fire spreading if AFAs are not responded to promptly and there actually is a fire. Concerns about the safety of sending untrained individuals to investigate alarms.
• Compliance Risks: Need for consistent adherence to fire safety regulations and regular audits.
• Internal Risks: Potential impact on on-call firefighter retention, the need for clear definitions and consistency in response protocols, and the importance of addressing the root causes of false alarms.

Potential changes:

• Reducing automatic call-out times to specific hours.
• Implementing a single pump response for lower-risk areas.
• Enhancing public messaging and education on fire safety.
• Engaging with businesses to reduce false alarms and reinforcing the role of responsible persons.
• Considering charging for false callouts and maintaining response to premises with Site Specific Risk Information.

Protected characteristics

A summary of the key impacts has been identified following the Equality Risks and Benefits Analysis (ERBA) process. This has been detailed in the ERBA document published separately.

Age: Potential impact on properties such as care homes and schools due to delayed response, but positive impact through earlier identification of unwanted fire signals.

Disability: Similar risks and benefits as age, with additional considerations for healthcare providers and community spaces.

Sex: There are some fire risk factors that are more prevalent in one sex over the other.

Sexual Orientation: No evidence of disproportionate impact on a specific sexual orientation.

Marriage and Civil Partnership: Potential negative impact on venues used for marriages and civil partnerships due to delayed response, but positive impact through earlier identification of unwanted fire signals.

Pregnancy and Maternity: Potential negative impact on properties such as hospitals and community spaces used by pregnant individuals and new parents due to delayed response, but positive impact through earlier identification of unwanted fire signals.

Race: Potential negative impact on properties with a high proportion of ethnic minority occupants due to communication challenges and delayed response, but positive impact through earlier identification of unwanted fire signals.

Religion and Belief: Potential negative impact on places of worship due to delayed response, but positive impact through earlier identification of unwanted fire signals.

Gender Reassignment: Potential negative impact on properties used by individuals undergoing gender reassignment due to delayed response, but positive impact through earlier identification of unwanted fire signals.

Other Characteristics: Considerations for socio-economic factors, drug and alcohol dependency, and safeguarding issues. There are also additional considerations to be made for rural areas.

Mitigation actions

The following actions have been identified for the project to consider when analysing the feedback and impacts.

Operational adjustments:

• Adjusting automated call-out times to when buildings are not staffed.
• Ensuring that fire service response is maintained for high-risk buildings.
• Defining sleeping risk for high-risk times of day.
• Maintaining pre-determined attendance.

Training and support:

• Providing additional training for staff on fire safety and emergency response.
• Continue with regular audits and inspections to ensure compliance with fire safety standards (Protection work).
• Training on-call staff in protection and prevention to support reduced mobilisations.
• Provide a portion of the savings to invest back into the above points.

Communication:

• Clear communication with stakeholders about changes in AFA response protocols.
• Public messaging to educate businesses and the community on the importance of fire safety and the costs associated with false alarms.
• Addressing concerns about the balance between cost savings and life safety.

Monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring methods:

• Regular audits and inspections to ensure compliance with new protocols.
• Surveys and feedback mechanisms to gather input from stakeholders.