Westminster Fire Task Group - Westminster City Council

properties in conjunction with increases to over target first response times, indicate aserious problem with the proposals put forward by the London Safety Plan.Kensington & Chelsea Current Post LSP5 VarianceBrompton Ward 04:37 06:27 01:50Familiarisation visitsAn important concern raised at the Westminster Fire Task Group and the Central LondonForward Fire Scrutiny event was the impact of the proposals upon familiarisation visits tohigh-rise, high-density residential units. As seen in the Lakanal disaster, as reported by theBRE Trust on the 22 nd April, familiarisation visits can make a fundamental difference tohow a fire is tackled and thus lives which can be saved.Diagram 1.0 Building description of Lakanal House, SouthwarkAs reported recently by BBC News, fire brigade officers often do not have the capacity tomake familiarisation visits to high-risk, tall residential units. 3 It was also reported at the3 BBC News (April 2013) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-220182898

fire scrutiny events that there would not be additional capacity to undertake furtherfamiliarisation visits, except where targeted at particularly vulnerable residents. LFEPAshould seek to ensure that ‘maintaining the number of familiarisation visits’, if notincreasing the number of familiarisation visits ought to be a high priority for the FireBrigade, specifically in wards most affected by the proposals.Historic and Listing BuildingsAn important concern in Westminster (and Central London more generally), is the impactof the proposals upon historic and listed properties in the capital. English Heritage reportthat there are 2,316 historic properties of importance in Westminster alone, each withnational, and often international, significance.At the CLF event on the 22 nd April, whilst English Heritage were satisfied that listed status,condition and maintenance costs, or resale value, were not considerations of theconsultation, the organisation asked that the Fire Brigade should be mindful of ‘heritagerisks’ in the assessments – including preparatory arrangements for ensuring thatreasonable steps are taken to prevent or limit damage to property.Historic Royal Palaces and the Royal Household were also concerned about the nationalstandards of response being maintained and whether the proposed changes left sufficientresource for training and planning (such as familiarisation visits). The British Museumasked LFEPA to consider the visitor numbers within heritage attractions (often 30,000people within the Museum at any one time) as part of their consultation process.The Royal Household reported that there were a number of residual concerns about theproposals including the reduction of pre-determined attendances as the plan states thebrigade recognises “that because of their construction and layout, fires in these buildings canspread more quickly and frequently require significant damage control work”. The RoyalHousehold were also concerned as to how much longer it would take for the same amountof appliances to arrive as in their present numbers. Under the former national standardswhere areas were categorised by risk, it was recognised that the speed and weight of attackon a fire was crucial. Though additional fire safety measures have been put in place withinthese heritage buildings, this principle is still as relevant and important now as whennational standards were set.Furthermore, it is important to question how much longer it will take for reinforcingappliances to arrive at heritage / historic properties. Attendance times must not be lookedat in isolation, they must be looked at in conjunction with available resources. There mustbe sufficient resources to enable the fire to be attacked rapidly while at the same time9

understanding that the number of incidents dealt with by the fire service is down by a thirdover ten years and that the number of fires is at the lowest level since 1965. Equally thegroup acknowledges that nearly half of all incidents are now false alarms. However despitethe context of decreasing fires and fatalities in London, the Task Group strongly considersthat the reconfiguration of stations and appliances will impact on the residual andunanticipated fires and incidents which may occur within one of the most criticallysignificant areas of the country.We believe and propose that there is an alternative solution to the closure of stations(Westminster / Knightsbridge) and / or the removal of appliances at Chelsea. Inrelation to staffing of appliances, we consider that there is room for manoeuvre within theDraft London Safety Plan proposals. For example, there are currently 16 Fire Rescue Units(FRUs) across the whole of London, which has risen from 10 FRUs since 2005. The FRUsare currently an under-utilised facility for the London Fire Brigade and take resources fromthe service in relation to ‘permanent manning’ (where seven staff members are allocated toeach unit twenty-four hours a day in four shifts, fixing up to five hundred officers in Londonto these units around the clock).If the London Fire Brigade followed the example set by changes to the MassDecontamination Units (MDUs) in London for the equally under-utilised Fire Rescue Units,where the facilities had ‘alternate manning’ instead of ‘permanent manning,’ staffingresources would be saved. In using ‘alternate manning’ of the FRUs, staffing resourceswould be saved and reduce the need for 28 staff (each day) to be permanently allocated toeach of the 16 Fire Rescue Units.Through savings made on staffing costs it is considered that there would be sufficientresources to maintain a station at Westminster and / or Knightsbridge, or retain a secondappliance at Chelsea.Cost recovery, shut-in-lift policy and reducing false alarmsThe Task Group considers that the proposals put forward by LFEPA in relation to costrecovery,a new shut-in-lift policy and further methods to reduce false alarms are verywelcome. In Westminster, where some of these issues are most significant (e.g. the largenumber of hotels, offices, institutions such as hospitals (10) and universities (4)), it isessential that stakeholders are equally as responsible in relation to reducing the burden onthe fire service without compromising safety.11

The Fire Task Group recommends that theCabinet Member for Housing and Propertyshould encourage both CityWest andHousing Associations to use the Guild ofArchitectural Ironmongers device 4 to checkthe fire doors in their tall / high-riseresidential buildings.The Fire Task Group recommends to theChairman of the Adults, Health andCommunity Protection Committee tomonitor our local NHS hospital buildings toensure continued low levels of false alarmsin these types of premises.The Task Group heard evidence from theMonday 22 nd April Central London FireScrutiny event from the GOAI about thehigh percentage of incorrectly installedfire doors in tall / high rise residentialunits. Instead of withstanding fire for 30minutes, as standard, incorrectlyinstalled fire doors would resist fire for 5minutes. A device to check widths wouldallow doors to be checked for safety.The Task Group hard evidence from theBorough Commander at the first and lastmeeting of the Fire Task Group, thathospital buildings were the most likelyplaces to report false alarms whichrequired a callout from the London FireBrigade. Most Trusts have agreed to workwith the LFB to reduce unnecessarycallouts, but it was seen as important tocontinue to monitor performance.COUNCILLOR IAN ADAMS,CHAIRMAN, FIRE TASK GROUP4 Thought to be a ‘free device’13

APPENDIX A: Meetings of the Fire Task GroupDate What they did What we didMonday 21 stJanuaryCommissioner Dobson presentsthe DFLSP to the London Fire &Emergency Planning AuthorityMonday 21 stJanuaryWednesday 30 thJanuaryLondon Fire & EmergencyPlanning Authority voted not toaccept the plans outlined byCommissioner Ron Dobson.Boris Johnson overrules therejection of the DFLSPThursday 31 stJanuaryPolice & Fire Task Group (Meeting 1)Sam Kasmanli and Steve Chesson,Westminster Fire StationMonday 11 thFebruaryTuesday 26 th &Wednesday 27 thFebruaryMonday 4 thMarchMonday 22 ndAprilWednesday 8 thMayMonday 17 th JuneLondon Fire & EmergencyPlanning Authority voted not toaccept the plans outlined byCommissioner Ron Dobson.Appointments and UrgencyCommittee - agreed with theMayoral Directive to go out toconsultationCONSULTATION OPENS ON DFLSPCONSULTATION CLOSES ONDFLSP (updated)Police & Fire Task Group (Meeting 2)James Cleverly, Chairman of LFEPA,outlines plansCentral London Forward Fire ScrutinyDay of Evidence CollectionRita Dexter, all Central London BoroughCommanders and Senior OfficersPolice & Fire Task Group (Meeting 3)Archie Chandler, Borough Commanderfor Westminster14