Agenda item

(To receive a report from Ryan Stacey, Assistant Chief Fire Officer and Richard Blee, Group Manager Integrated Risk, which invites the Committee to consider and comment on the Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Community Risk Management Plan for 2024-2028, prior to a decision being taken by the Executive at its 6 February 2024 meeting)

The Committee considered a report from the Assistant Chief Fire Officer and the Group Manager Integrated Risk, which invited comments on the Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Community Risk Management Plan (CRMP) for 2024-2028, prior to a decision by the Executive at its 6 February 2024 meeting.

The Assistant Chief Fire Officer presented the report and made reference to the fact that the adoption and publication of an CRMP was a requirement of the Fire and Rescue National Framework for England 2018, and that it allowed the Service to focus its plans and resources based on a thorough assessment of the risks facing its communities.  It was noted that engagement feedback and internal review had provided a document that would take the service forward into 2028.  A copy of the proposed Community Risk Management Plan 2024-2028 was detailed in Appendix A (pages 33 to 49) to the Executive report for the Committee to consider.

During consideration of this item, the following comments were noted:

Community Risks

·       In relation to severe weather risks, it was clarified that in the Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP), the risk of wildfire and flooding were grouped together under severe weather events. However, in the Community Risk Management Plan (CRMP) these had been separated out to provide a greater emphasis on the different ways these two types of incidents would be dealt with and provide a greater focus on each one. It was confirmed that snow and tidal surge would fall under severe weather risks, and that LFR had a number of four-wheel drive vehicles to make sure it could respond in every area of the county;

·       Consideration was given to whether the level of wildfires had changed compared to when farmers used to burn crop stubble. It was confirmed that the legislation changed in the late 1990’s to prevent farmers from burning stubble and no analysis had been undertaken about the impact of stubble burning. The stubble was now being used for other things, in particular fuel for power stations, and steps were taken to safeguard stacks of stubble, as fires had occurred in those stacks. However, the biggest concern was standing crops as a fire could progress very quickly from one field to the next;

·       With regards to malicious attacks, the risk of these was derived from the national strategic risk register which was published and updated on an annual basis. It was confirmed that these sites had critical national infrastructure which had a heightened risk of a terror style of attack. Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue (LFR) worked with the Lincolnshire Resilience Forum to consider how to provide a multi-agency response. LFR would work with colleagues to make sure there were plans produced and then they would exercise those plans on a periodic basis to ensure that they were suitable and sufficient;

·       In response to a suggestion as to whether high rise buildings should be included as a risk, it was confirmed that these were now treated as a business-as-usual activity. There were circa 19 premises defined as high rise within the county, and there was a lot of work undertaken with the fire protection teams from a legislative fire safety perspective and with the response teams in terms of exercising the procedures at some of those high rise buildings, which had led to a change to some of the equipment carried to provide a safe method of escape from the building for members of the public; and

·       In relation to road traffic collision and road safety, LFR worked closely with the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership to understand where it could have an impact and develop a hierarchy of risk to engineer out the risk on the roads. Work was undertaken with the police around alcohol and drug driving, and in schools in terms of the impact of driving carelessly and negligently. With regards to the number of miles of road in Lincolnshire, which was stated as 4,200 miles in the CRMP, it was confirmed that this was an error and would be corrected to 5,500 miles.

Recruitment and Retention of Staff

·       With regards to recruiting and retaining staff, it was confirmed that LFR ran apprenticeships in various parts of the organisation which it was looking to expand. LFR accessed the apprenticeship levy to fund the education style apprenticeships and was looking to expand that for firefighters in the near future. LFR also worked closely with Lincolnshire County Council colleagues in relation to organising ‘have a go’ days across the county at divisional and fire station level. These were structured events that allowed people to try the fitness tests that they would be required to take when they joined LFR to give them an understanding as to whether they had the required fitness level. This also enabled LFR to give people fitness plans to help them improve in any areas they might be struggling in, and also gave the people the opportunity to try the equipment they would be using, should they be successful in the role;

·       Concerns were raised about only 0.89% of the LFR workforce being from BAME backgrounds, in comparison to 4.01% of the Lincolnshire population who were from BAME backgrounds. It was confirmed that this was difficult to meet as LFR was a small organisation of around 100 wholetime firefighters, so although four members of staff to meet that population figure of 4.01% sounded achievable, only one member of staff needed to leave and it would be below the population figure. There was a societal issue around the job of a firefighter being accessible to members of the BAME community. Work was ongoing to address this issue by working with this community and strengthening the ‘have a go’ days where specific elements of the community in Lincolnshire would be targeted. It was suggested that the percentages included in the CRMP were not helpful if they were affected so much by a small change in the number of BAME staff, and maybe the actual numbers would be more helpful to include;

·       In response to a suggestion to have a mini firefighter scheme in schools, it was highlighted that LFR did not want to create a parallel fire scheme and dilute the impact of the mini police scheme which was very successful. LFR did run a fire cadets scheme across a number of locations around the county and it was something that it was looking to expand. Consideration was being given to how to bridge the gap further from leaving the fire cadets scheme to joining the fire and rescue service as it was a successful scheme for recruitment; and

·       Concerns were raised about the impact on staff from dealing with difficult incidences and how they were supported. It was confirmed that there was a well embedded welfare team who were trained in counselling, and staff would be routinely and proactively offered welfare support. In addition, there would be a critical incident debrief with the crew which would give them the opportunity to talk about it. Additional controls were also put in place for on-call firefighters and flexible duty response officers to ensure that they received a welfare call and were offered mental health first aiders. There was also support through an informal network of peer support, occupational health, and access to counsellors trained to counsel for post-traumatic stress type incidents. There was also the opportunity to self-refer to the Council’s free counselling service.

Future Intentions

·       Consideration was given to the lack of future intentions in the CRMP, which other fire and rescue services had included in their versions. It was clarified that the proposed changes to Leverton fire station had not been included in the CRMP as it was proposed to build a like for like replacement as part of the capital estates programme. If it was proposed to change the use or location of Leverton fire station, then this would be subject to public consultation. Some fire and rescue services were considering amalgamating stations that were close to each other, but it was confirmed that this was not something LFR would be looking at doing in the next four years. A review might be undertaken in the next four years which would be subject to public consultation at that point.

Review of CRMP and Risk Analysis

·       In relation to the periodic review of the risk analysis throughout the life of the CRMP, it was confirmed that it was expected to be in two years from the date of publication, which would be the mid-point of the CRMP; and

·       The performance against the CRMP would be assessed by bringing an end of year review report to the Public Protection and Communities Scrutiny Committee in July each year, which would coincide with LFR’s statement of assurance. This would allow time to analyse what has been delivered and set out what has been achieved against the CRMP.

Funding

·       In response to a query regarding funding for the co-responding capability, it was confirmed that funding was secured for 2024/25 and not just 2024 as stated under the IRMP evaluation section of the report. It was confirmed that this would be amended.

The Chairman on behalf of the Committee extended his thanks to the Assistant Chief Fire Officer for his presentation.

RESOLVED

That unanimous support be given to the recommendations to the Executive as detailed on page 25 of the report pack and that the comments raised by the Committee be passed on to the Executive for consideration at its meeting on 6 February 2024.