FOIA2579.1 Date of Response

London Fire Brigade Headquarters 169 Union Street London SE1 0LL T 020 8555 1200 F 020 7960 3602 T extphone 020 7960 3629 london-fire.gov.uk

Freedom of Information request reference number: FOIA2579.1

Date of response: 10 February 2016

Request and response:

Any attachments mentioned within this response have been included at the end of this e-mai l

On 10 February you wrote to David Wyatt making an information request. You asked:

“… I understand that in between meetings of the LSP5 member working group, in response to questions from members, officers prepared numerous letters and reports. Could I ask you to provide copies of these, please, as I believe they will be of relevance to the information I sought below..”

So far concerns your phrase “…of relevance to the information I sought below…” we have looked for “letter and reports” which have some bearing on the way the Brigade did modelling to support the proposals in LSP5, and particularly whether we modelled “…to minimise the total number of incidents experiencing increased first and second appliance response times…” (your email of 4 January 2016).

In clarification of the material you wanted you said (your email of 12 February 2016) “…Essentially what I’m after, re LSP5, are the various letters and reports prepared by officers that provided information that members had requested or that officers thought would be useful in the light of the kinds of issues raised…”.

We have considered your request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In consultation with David Wyatt, we are able to provide the following information.

You may know that the Member-level LSP5 Member discussion group – which was an informal meeting of leading members – met on seven occasions between 31 July 2012 and 9 January 2013. The meeting received a series of papers, presentations or oral updates from officers on the matters related to the preparation and drafting of the draft Fifth London Safety Plan (LSP5). Matters considered at one meeting would often prompt the preparation of a paper, presentation or update to a subsequent meeting, as you would expect. Indeed, most of the papers submitted to the forum formed the basis of supporting documents published to support the draft LSP5 and the consultation process; the full set of supporting documents are still available on our website here.

In your email of 12 February, you did say you had checked the website but had not found what you were looking for. For the avoidance of doubt, I would point you to supporting document 20 Operational efficiency work. This was produced from two documents on operational efficiency work, submitted to the Forum, that underpinned the proposals eventually included in the draft LSP5. You can find the published document using this link and I have attached the original two papers.

In addition, we also produced LSP5 supporting document 11 on Fire service modelling which explains how the modelling is carried out. It is relatively comprehensive about the modelling and you can find this document on our website here.

In advance of the first meeting of the Forum, Rita Dexter and Sue Budden gave a presentations to leading Members separately for each party group. That presentation is attached (the date in the header reflects the date the PDF was created only). Various questions were raised by Members following the presentation, and

the first meeting (31 July 2012) of the Forum took a paper “LSP5 - responses to Member questions and requests” and a copy of that is attached. At the Forum meeting on 12 October 2012, the Commissioner did a presentation about operational efficiency savings, based on modelling, and a copy of that presentation is also attached.

The Deputy Commissioner met with members of the Labour Group on 12 December 2012 and provided answers to a series of questions in an email to Julian Pinhey on 15 January 2013; this email is attached. In the email, the Deputy Commissioner refers to a separate response to questions raised by Councillor Navin Shah; this email, dated 31 December 2012, is also attached (the email includes the main attachment which is a schedule of the issue and responses, but excludes copies of the draft LSP5 which were originally attached).

You will also be aware that senior officers and ORH did provide a briefing for the trades unions on ORH modelling on 26 November 2012; the slides produced by ORH Ltd, and used at the briefing, have been sent by separate email as they are large files.

We believe that these documents are ones that provide a response to your request about modelling undertaken in connection with LSP5 and the outcomes of that modelling in terms of operational efficiency savings considered. If you believe there are other documents which exist but we have not provided, if you provide more information, we can conduct further searches.

All LFEPA produced material is the copyright of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority unless stated otherwise, and usual copyright restrictions apply. Any information we provide to you in responding to a request for information, is still the copyright of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority unless stated otherwise. If you wish to copy any information we have provided, you may do so in any format for any non-commercial purpose provided that:

• it is reproduced accurately;

• it is not used in a misleading context;

• the source and copyright status of the material are acknowledged; and

• the material you produce is published or distributed without charge.

Material produced by any other organisation is the copyright of the organisation which produced it, unless stated otherwise. Applications for permission to reproduce material for any commercial purpose may be made to David Wyatt, Head of Information Management, LFEPA, 169 Union Street, London SE1 0LL. Permission is normally granted free of charge to educational organisations.

Re-use of Public Sector Information

You have a right to ask us if you can re-use information for which we hold the copyright. Your request must be in writing. If we agree in principle to the request, we would communicate to you the conditions for re-use and other licence terms within 20 working days. We issue licenses, which include the conditions for re-use, on a case by case basis. To request a licence to re-use our information, contact the Head of Information Management at the above address. This does not affect our copyright.

Report title LSP5 - responses to Member questions and requests

Meeting Date For LSP5 Discussion Forum 31 July 2012

Report by Document Number Deputy Commissioner 2 27 July 2012

Summary This paper provides Members with responses to various questions and requests for information following recent presentations to party groups.

Item 1A: Confirm what we count as part of our measurement of performance against the attendance time target. The standard (6 minutes for the 1st appliance, 8 minutes for the 2nd appliance) is measured from (a) the time an appliance is mobilised to (b) the time the appliance arrives at the incident scene. No special appliances (e.g. aerial appliances, fire rescue units) currently have published attendance times. The standard applies London- wide to any type of emergency incident.

The following criterion are used to calculate published attendance time performance:

1. Arrival times for all pumping appliances regardless of location of the appliance at time of mobilisation and will include appliances from other station grounds. 2. 1st appliance and 2nd appliance is determined by the order of arrival at the incident, i.e. the 1st appliance will be the first to arrive not necessarily the first to be mobilised. 3. Mobilisations included in the calculation are for: a. incidents in London only; b. London pumping appliances only; pumping appliances from neighbouring brigades that attend in London are not included; c. appliances on the initial mobilised attendance only (e.g. not reliefs, incident upgrades); and d. mobilisations where a time value is present in the data; sometimes ‘time arrived’ is missing due to a failure (human or technical) to record the time. 4. Mobilisations are excluded where: a. the incident is a ‘shut in lift’ release not attended as an emergency (i.e. not on ‘blue light’)) [4.8% of mobilisations]. b. the calculated attendance time is greater than 20 minutes (because this generally reflects a failure (human or technical) to record a time of arrival in a timely manner [1.8% of mobilisations]. c. the mobilisation is for incident stop code ‘FAT’ (Batch mobilised to flooding incidents) [0% of mobilisations in 2011/12].

Item 1B: What would be the impact of removing calls to AFAs from attendance time performance data? There is clear evidence that crews respond more quickly to some types of incidents than others, with average speeds to fires being quicker than those to special services such as people shut in lifts or lock outs. This, in effect, reflects local risk assessments by crews. When attendance time data was last reported to Members by incident type (in the Thematic Report 10 on appliance attendance times – November 2007), the speed of attendance to AFAs was some 18 seconds faster than to serious fires, and some 24 seconds faster than the overall 1st appliance average to all types of incidents. A review of data for 2011/12 shows that these differences are the same now, albeit that attendance times to all types of incidents are faster than they were five years ago.

A response to an AFA is effectively a ‘call to fire’ although only 2-3 per cent of attendances to a ‘fire alarm actuating’ turn out to be fires; the bulk are false alarms. This faster attendance time to an AFA call is a factor of geography more than anything else; there is a higher proportion of AFA calls in central/inner London where appliance cover (and attendance times) are better than in outer London. The impact of removing attendances to AFAs from the overall performance calculation for attendance times would be to worsen overall performance for 1st appliance (as 1 appliance is the standard attendance to AFAs). The impact, using data for 2011/12, is to increase 1st appliance attendance by 15 seconds (from 5:23 to 5:38).

Item 2: Do utilisation rates include attendance at AFAs and what is the proportion? The overall utilisation rate for pumping appliances (i.e. time spent engaged with emergency incidents) is 7.4 per cent; attending false alarms due to automatic fire alarms (AFAs) accounts for 1.6 per cent of this overall utilisation (i.e. 21.6 per cent of utilised time) .

Item 3: Confirm the proportion of mobilisations made from appliances out and about, rather than from their base station. 16 per cent of pumping appliance mobilisations were when the appliance was not at a station; these mobilisations are included in the calculation of attendance time performance.

Item 4: Provide operational leavers data, by grade. The number of uniformed operational leavers for the last five years is set out in the table below.

Role 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 Commissioner 1 0 0 0 0 Deputy Commissioner 0 0 1 0 0 Director (Operational) 0 0 0 0 1 Assistant Commissioner 1 1 2 1 0 Area Manager / DAC 1 5 5 2 6 Group Manager 5 10 13 12 15 Station Manager 16 14 16 14 14 Watch Manager B 25 34 42 34 39 Watch Manager A 23 26 33 28 34 Crew Manager 30 24 38 24 27 Firefighters 111 160 156 114 151 Trainee Firefighters 4 6 5 8 3 Total 217 280 311 237 290

Item 5: Would 21 days consultation meet the statutory consultation requirements for redundancies, given the numbers potentially involved?

The consultation period of 21 days is the internal period of consultation with trades unions on any proposal to make changes that have any impact on staff.

The length of the statutory minimum period depends on the number of redundancies that are proposed: • Between 20 and 99 redundancies, consultation must start at least 30 days before any dismissals take effect; and • 100 or more redundancies, the consultation must start at least 90 days before any dismissals take effect.

These thresholds refer to workplace and not to the employer but we have never sought to use our multiple workplaces to reduce consultation time. 2

Item 6:Provide data on incidents falling outside the 95% target (by borough).

Data for 2011/12 showing the number of incidents not receiving a first appliance in 12 minutes.

Borough Counting 1st Incidents not Percentage of Incidents not appliance receiving 1st incidents with receiving a attendances appliance a 1st 1st appliance to incidents response in appliance within 12 12 minutes within 12 minutes minutes Barking and Dagenham 2256 2193 97.2% 63 Barnet 3563 3398 95.4% 165 Bexley 2020 1952 96.6% 68 Brent 3016 2915 96.7% 101 Bromley 3065 2902 94.7% 163 Camden 5541 5445 98.3% 96 City of London 1195 1180 98.7% 15 Croydon 3895 3753 96.4% 142 Ealing 3445 3324 96.5% 121 Enfield 3403 3221 94.7% 182 Greenwich 3303 3204 97.0% 99 Hackney 3924 3854 98.2% 70 Hammersmith and Fulham 2888 2830 98.0% 58 Haringey 2858 2772 97.0% 86 Harrow 2090 2000 95.7% 90 Havering 2314 2260 97.7% 54 Hillingdon 3807 3579 94.0% 228 Hounslow 2494 2384 95.6% 110 Islington 3232 3172 98.1% 60 Kensington and Chelsea 3114 3068 98.5% 46 Kingston upon Thames 1823 1750 96.0% 73 Lambeth 4599 4523 98.3% 76 Lewisham 3572 3507 98.2% 65 Merton 1717 1661 96.7% 56 Newham 3470 3403 98.1% 67 Redbridge 2546 2460 96.6% 86 Richmond upon Thames 1664 1574 94.6% 90 Southwark 4885 4789 98.0% 96 Sutton 1714 1640 95.7% 74 Tower Hamlets 5142 5054 98.3% 88 Waltham Forest 2969 2867 96.6% 102 Wandsworth 3336 3290 98.6% 46 Westminster 7420 7275 98.0% 145

Item 7: Confirm if the statement “we could achieve the targets with 106/94” takes into account the 95% target.

Yes, it does. If the Brigade had 106 pumping appliances located at 94 stations, a 1st appliance would arrive at incidents within 10m 24s on 95 per cent of occasions and, therefore, within the 12 minute target.

Item 8: Should Firefighters be rotated between stations to increase exposure to different types of incident and workloads? What proportion of 'plain' firefighters are required compared to those firefighters where 'specialist' skill set is required?

182 out of 1276 station-based posts per watch – 14 per cent – are ‘plain’ firefighters, i.e. those with no additional/ specialist skills.

Item 9: When national standard attendance times were removed London adopted a single London-wide attendance standard regardless of incident type or location. What attendance standards do other Brigades have?

The government’s national recommended standards of fire cover (which covered both speed and weight of attack for fire incidents) were removed in 2005.

The Second London Safety Plan (LSP2), agreed and published in March 2005, was the first time LFEPA set its own specific London-wide attendance standards. These standards included a new standard for the 2nd appliance (not covered in the national recommended standards), as well as a 1st appliance standard that broadly reflected the prevailing performance for a 1st appliance to all types of incidents London-wide at the time.

Attendance standards were varied in the Third London Safety Plan 2008/2011 to move to average times for 1st and 2nd appliance, plus the attending 95 per cent of incidents within 12 minutes (1st appliance). This change was made so that our performance was easier for the public to understand.

In preparation for LSP5 we have updated some previous work to look at the attendance standards and performance of other Brigades. The aim of this work has been to list and analyse targets set and standards achieved by FRSs across England. We have done this mainly via web searches and looking at FRS Annual Reports, IRMPs, etc.

This work has revealed a number of issues: Incomplete information Often out-of-date information Different methods for measuring attendance times and different risk categories

These issues make comparison with LFB’s standards more difficult.

The outcome of this work is shown on the following pages.

Has the FRS adopted locally defined attendance standards?

Number of responses % of responses Yes 41 89% No - retained old ‘national’ standards 0 0% Under review 0 0% No published information 5 11% Total responses 46 100%

What type of targets have been set?

Number of Responses % of Responses Average targets 0 0% Percentile targets 37 80% Percentile & average targets 4 9% Not published 5 11% Total responses 46 100%

Has a separate road traffic collision (RTC) target been set?

Number of Responses % of Responses Yes 23 56% No 18 44% Total responses 41 100%

How many targets have been defined?

Number of responses % of responses 1 target 3 7% 2 targets 3 7% 3 targets 10 24% 4 targets 6 15% 5 targets 7 17% 6 targets 3 7% 7 targets 3 7% 8 or more targets 6 15% Total responses 41 100%

How many targets have been met?

Number of responses % of responses No targets met 9 22% Some targets met 17 41% All targets met 5 12% Not published 10 24% Total responses 41 100%

Metropolitan FRS comparison

Retained Total Number Risk- Separate Old Number of Target 1st/2nd Type of FRS based RTC National of Targets Achievement Appliance? Targets Targets target? Standards? Targets Met London No 3 3 All 1st and 2nd No Both No Not Manchester No 5 Not published 1st only Yes Percentile Yes published 1st/ 2 (2 Merseyside No 7 Some supporting/ Yes Percentile Yes published) full West Midlands ...... Not West Yorkshire No 5 Not published 1st only Yes Percentile No published Tyne and Wear ...... South Yorkshire No 1 0 None 1st only No Percentile No

Attendance times around London

Item 10: Provide details of any polling/opinion work.

[Document attached]

LONDON FIRE BRIGADE

LONDON BUS 14/06/2012

Prepared for TNS Mercury 6 More London Place SE1 2QY

Prepared by: TNS Omnibus 222 Gray’s Inn Road London WC1X 8HB

Agency contact: Akram Abu-Oun Tel: +44 (0)20 7160 5559 Web: www.tns-ri.co.uk/omnibus

Methodology

This study was conducted in London via LondonBus, an Internet omnibus survey.

1. SAMPLE SIZE A sample of 1022 London Borough adults aged 16+ were interviewed. 2. INTERVIEWING Interviewing was conducted by online self-completion from 14th – 19th June 2012. 3. WEIGHTING The sample has been weighted to represent the adult population of London aged 16+. 4. LOW BASES Where unweighted base figures are less than 100, data should be treated cautiously, as large margins of error are possible. 5. ABBREVIATIONS USED - = 0% * = less than 0.5% 6. TERMS OF CONTRACT "No press release or publication of the findings of this survey shall be made without the advance approval of TNS. Such approval will normally only be refused on grounds of inaccuracy or misrepresentation". 7. TECHNICAL INFORMATION Further methodological information can be made available on request V5 Updated – 15/04/11 Page 1

Page Table Title Base Description Base 1 1 Q1. Do you or does anyone in your household work for the London Fire Brigade? Base: All LB respondents 1022

2 2 Q2. If cuts in your local area meant that some of the following facilities had to be closed Base: All LB respondents 978 and you had the choice, which three would be your top priorities to be saved?

3 3 Q3. Please select the things you would do, if any, if you knew there were fewer firefighters Base: All LB respondents 978 and fire engines in your area:

4 4 Q4. Do you have a working smoke alarm in your home? Base: All LB respondents 978

5 5 Q5. How often do you test your smoke alarm? Base: All respondents that have a 791 working smoke alarm at home

6 6 Q6. If cuts had to be made to the fire services, which one of these options would you Base: All LB respondents 978 prefer?

7 7 Q7. Which of these, if any, do you think is a good use of firefighters' time to respond to? Base: All LB respondents 978

8 8 Q8. do you think that the service should be reduced in line with new demand? Base: All LB respondents 978

9 9 Classification Base: All respondents 1022 Table 1 Page 1 London Bus London Fire Brigade - (S5100 - 231424) Q1. Do you or does anyone in your household work for the London Fire Brigade? Base: All LB respondents

DO YOU HAVE A WORKING SMOKE ALARM IN YOUR SEX AGE WORK SOCIAL GRADE HOME? Not Total Male Female 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Working working ABC1 C2DE Unweighted base 1022 491 531 139 243 217 161 165 97 637 385 645 377 791 158 Weighted base 1022 494 528 153 245 215 153 160 95 626 396 603 419 788 159

Yes 32 26 26 21 1-26 30 2 15 17 - - 3% 5% 1% 2% 8% 3% 1% - 1% 5% 1% 2% 4% - - No 976 459 517 146 221 206 152 158 93 585 391 583 393 788 159 96% 93% 98% 95% 90% 96% 99% 99% 98% 93% 99% 97% 94% 100% 100% Don't know 14 8 55 12-33 12 2 5 9 - - 1% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% - 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% - -

Fieldwork : 14/06/2012 - 19/06/2012 (W Week 24.4) Table 2 Page 2 London Bus London Fire Brigade - (S5100 - 231424) Q2. If cuts in your local area meant that some of the following facilities had to be closed and you had the choice, which three would be your top priorities to be saved? Base: All LB respondents

DO YOU HAVE A WORKING SMOKE ALARM IN YOUR SEX AGE WORK SOCIAL GRADE HOME? Not Total Male Female 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Working working ABC1 C2DE Unweighted base 978 458 520 133 220 208 159 163 95 597 381 624 354 791 158 Weighted base 976 459 517 146 221 206 152 158 93 585 391 583 393 788 159

Hospital 688 321 367 100 147 147 112 115 69 418 271 422 267 554 114 71% 70% 71% 68% 67% 71% 74% 72% 74% 71% 69% 72% 68% 70% 72% Police station 492 233 258 76 112 96 75 86 47 288 204 285 207 407 70 50% 51% 50% 52% 51% 47% 49% 54% 51% 49% 52% 49% 53% 52% 44% Fire station 427 169 258 59 72 92 79 71 54 249 177 254 173 361 57 44% 37% 50% 40% 32% 45% 52% 45% 58% 43% 45% 44% 44% 46% 36% Doctor's surgery 336 162 174 51 62 65 60 63 36 190 146 222 114 258 62 34% 35% 34% 35% 28% 32% 40% 40% 38% 33% 37% 38% 29% 33% 39% Primary schools 233 99 134 34 73 59 23 34 11 155 78 143 90 189 41 24% 22% 26% 23% 33% 29% 15% 21% 11% 27% 20% 25% 23% 24% 26% Post office 194 107 87 23 46 38 23 38 25 106 87 103 91 155 35 20% 23% 17% 16% 21% 19% 15% 24% 27% 18% 22% 18% 23% 20% 22% Secondary schools 183 91 92 35 45 44 26 22 11 115 68 108 75 152 29 19% 20% 18% 24% 20% 21% 17% 14% 12% 20% 17% 18% 19% 19% 18% Library 163 80 83 23 42 37 25 23 12 99 64 98 65 125 29 17% 17% 16% 16% 19% 18% 17% 15% 13% 17% 16% 17% 17% 16% 18% Local museums and 107 60 47 18 34 19 17 12 8 65 43 63 45 83 19 galleries 11% 13% 9% 13% 15% 9% 11% 7% 9% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 12% Sports ground or leisure 106 54 52 20 32 19 15 13 7 69 37 53 53 81 21 centre 11% 12% 10% 13% 14% 9% 10% 8% 8% 12% 9% 9% 14% 10% 13%

Fieldwork : 14/06/2012 - 19/06/2012 (W Week 24.4) Table 3 Page 3 London Bus London Fire Brigade - (S5100 - 231424) Q3. Please select the things you would do, if any, if you knew there were fewer firefighters and fire engines in your area: Base: All LB respondents

Check your fire alarm 508 222 285 91 119 122 61 67 48 310 197 307 201 444 49 more often 52% 48% 55% 62% 54% 59% 40% 42% 52% 53% 50% 53% 51% 56% 31% Check appliances are 463 202 261 72 95 110 61 73 52 279 184 279 184 381 72 switched off before you 47% 44% 50% 49% 43% 54% 40% 46% 56% 48% 47% 48% 47% 48% 45% go to bed Be more likely to make 427 170 257 52 89 112 61 67 45 250 177 259 168 365 52 an escape plan so you 44% 37% 50% 36% 40% 55% 40% 42% 49% 43% 45% 44% 43% 46% 32% and your family know how to escape from a fire in your home Take more care when 423 191 232 72 107 94 49 55 45 258 165 253 171 350 64 cooking 43% 42% 45% 49% 48% 46% 32% 35% 48% 44% 42% 43% 43% 44% 40% Take more care with 349 147 202 59 90 88 43 42 27 218 131 210 139 287 53 candles 36% 32% 39% 40% 41% 43% 28% 27% 29% 37% 33% 36% 35% 36% 34% None of the above 253 138 116 30 50 47 48 54 24 152 101 156 97 194 49 26% 30% 22% 21% 23% 23% 31% 34% 26% 26% 26% 27% 25% 25% 31%

Fieldwork : 14/06/2012 - 19/06/2012 (W Week 24.4) Table 4 Page 4 London Bus London Fire Brigade - (S5100 - 231424) Q4. Do you have a working smoke alarm in your home? Base: All LB respondents

Yes 788 358 430 114 168 167 120 134 85 462 326 479 309 788 - 81% 78% 83% 78% 76% 81% 79% 85% 91% 79% 83% 82% 79% 100% - No 159 85 74 25 41 34 30 23 6 109 50 88 71 - 159 16% 19% 14% 17% 19% 17% 20% 15% 6% 19% 13% 15% 18% - 100% Don't know 30 16 14 8 12 3124 14 16 17 12 - - 3% 3% 3% 5% 6% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2% 4% 3% 3% - -

Fieldwork : 14/06/2012 - 19/06/2012 (W Week 24.4) Table 5 Page 5 London Bus London Fire Brigade - (S5100 - 231424) Q5. How often do you test your smoke alarm? Base: All respondents that have a working smoke alarm at home

DO YOU HAVE A WORKING SMOKE ALARM IN YOUR SEX AGE WORK SOCIAL GRADE HOME? Not Total Male Female 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Working working ABC1 C2DE Unweighted base 791 359 432 104 168 169 126 138 86 473 318 512 279 791 - Weighted base 788 358 430 114 168 167 120 134 85 462 326 479 309 788 -

Once a week or more 78 39 39 14 14 21 118 11 40 38 39 39 78 - 10% 11% 9% 12% 8% 12% 7% 8% 13% 9% 12% 8% 13% 10% - Between once a week and 148 74 74 15 26 29 21 31 25 84 64 80 68 148 - once a month 19% 21% 17% 13% 16% 17% 18% 23% 29% 18% 20% 17% 22% 19% - Between once a month and 215 90 125 26 43 47 35 42 22 135 80 147 68 215 - once every six months 27% 25% 29% 23% 26% 28% 29% 31% 26% 29% 25% 31% 22% 27% - Between once every six 166 82 83 23 28 32 34 34 14 99 67 100 66 166 - months and once a year 21% 23% 19% 21% 17% 19% 28% 25% 17% 21% 20% 21% 21% 21% - Less often than once a 81 39 42 13 26 17 12 76 51 30 50 30 81 - year 10% 11% 10% 11% 16% 10% 10% 4% 8% 11% 9% 11% 10% 10% - I don't test it 100 33 66 24 30 21 10 10 5 53 46 63 37 100 - 13% 9% 15% 21% 18% 12% 8% 8% 6% 12% 14% 13% 12% 13% -

Fieldwork : 14/06/2012 - 19/06/2012 (W Week 24.4) Table 6 Page 6 London Bus London Fire Brigade - (S5100 - 231424) Q6. If cuts had to be made to the fire services, which one of these options would you prefer? Base: All LB respondents

Fewer fire stations but 735 335 400 113 162 149 125 111 74 434 302 435 300 605 108 keep the numbers of 75% 73% 77% 77% 73% 73% 83% 70% 80% 74% 77% 75% 76% 77% 68% firefighters and fire engines the same Fewer fire engines but 241 124 117 33 59 56 26 47 19 151 90 148 93 183 51 keep the numbers of 25% 27% 23% 23% 27% 27% 17% 30% 20% 26% 23% 25% 24% 23% 32% firefighters and fire stations the same

Fieldwork : 14/06/2012 - 19/06/2012 (W Week 24.4) Table 7 Page 7 London Bus London Fire Brigade - (S5100 - 231424) Q7. Which of these, if any, do you think is a good use of firefighters' time to respond to? Base: All LB respondents

Fires in people's homes 874 394 480 120 179 188 146 151 90 520 354 544 330 719 130 90% 86% 93% 82% 81% 91% 96% 95% 97% 89% 90% 93% 84% 91% 82% Fires in other 815 374 440 112 162 177 141 142 80 485 329 511 304 674 120 buildings, like offices 83% 82% 85% 77% 73% 86% 93% 90% 86% 83% 84% 88% 77% 86% 76% Fires in vehicles 771 349 421 109 158 165 134 130 74 455 315 483 288 633 117 79% 76% 81% 75% 72% 80% 88% 82% 79% 78% 81% 83% 73% 80% 74% Other emergencies where 750 335 414 103 148 159 129 133 78 434 315 467 283 630 104 people's lives were at 77% 73% 80% 70% 67% 77% 85% 84% 84% 74% 81% 80% 72% 80% 65% risk Responding to road 664 305 359 71 116 147 130 131 70 387 277 410 254 554 95 traffic accidents 68% 67% 69% 49% 52% 72% 86% 82% 75% 66% 71% 70% 65% 70% 60% People shut in lifts 473 202 270 67 94 109 80 80 43 290 183 305 168 397 65 48% 44% 52% 46% 42% 53% 53% 50% 46% 50% 47% 52% 43% 50% 41% Domestic flooding 449 209 240 58 88 88 80 86 50 264 185 286 162 363 71 46% 45% 46% 40% 40% 43% 53% 54% 53% 45% 47% 49% 41% 46% 45% Repeated automated 315 145 170 52 67 72 51 43 30 186 129 179 137 263 44 alarms in public 32% 32% 33% 36% 30% 35% 34% 27% 32% 32% 33% 31% 35% 33% 28% buildings such as hospitals Incidents involving 232 91 141 27 46 47 40 47 24 134 98 142 90 197 29 working animals 24% 20% 27% 18% 21% 23% 26% 30% 26% 23% 25% 24% 23% 25% 18% Repeated automated 176 89 87 35 42 46 23 18 12 106 70 104 72 141 30 alarms in commercial 18% 19% 17% 24% 19% 22% 15% 11% 12% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 19% buildings Incidents involving 125 49 76 14 26 26 21 25 12 78 47 86 40 107 17 small animals 13% 11% 15% 10% 12% 13% 14% 16% 13% 13% 12% 15% 10% 14% 10% People locked out of 93 43 50 12 24 27 10 15 4 59 34 55 38 74 14 their homes 10% 9% 10% 8% 11% 13% 7% 10% 4% 10% 9% 9% 10% 9% 9% None of the above 34 19 16 10 10 1436 21 13 8 26 22 11 4% 4% 3% 7% 4% 3% 2% 3% 1% 4% 3% 1% 7% 3% 7%

Fieldwork : 14/06/2012 - 19/06/2012 (W Week 24.4) Table 8 Page 8 London Bus London Fire Brigade - (S5100 - 231424) Q8. do you think that the service should be reduced in line with new demand? Base: All LB respondents

Yes - resources 185 108 77 34 56 47 20 13 15 125 61 115 70 151 26 available should be 19% 24% 15% 23% 25% 23% 13% 8% 17% 21% 15% 20% 18% 19% 16% directly related to the number of emergencies Yes - resources should 181 77 104 31 46 37 20 30 17 113 68 128 53 145 30 be reduced in part, but 19% 17% 20% 21% 21% 18% 13% 19% 18% 19% 17% 22% 14% 18% 19% not directly in proportion to the reduction in demand No - the fire brigade 478 217 262 51 92 97 92 93 53 265 214 279 200 394 73 acts like an insurance 49% 47% 51% 35% 42% 47% 61% 59% 57% 45% 55% 48% 51% 50% 46% service and should stay the same, just in case demand increases I don't mind either way 36 18 19 8 28945 23 13 14 22 27 9 4% 4% 4% 6% 2% 2% 6% 5% 2% 4% 3% 2% 6% 3% 6% I don't know 95 40 56 22 22 21 11 14 6 59 36 47 48 70 21 10% 9% 11% 15% 10% 10% 7% 9% 6% 10% 9% 8% 12% 9% 13%

Fieldwork : 14/06/2012 - 19/06/2012 (W Week 24.4) Table 9 Page 9 London Bus London Fire Brigade - (S5100 - 231424) Classification Base: All respondents

Sex Male 494 494 69- 124 110 73 67 50 329 164 274 219 358 85 48% 100% - 45% 51% 51% 47% 42% 53% 53% 42% 46% 52% 45% 54% Female 528 - 528 84 121 105 80 93 45 297 231 328 200 430 74 52% - 100% 55% 49% 49% 53% 58% 47% 47% 58% 54% 48% 55% 46% Age 16-24 153 69 84 153 ----- 67 86 69 85 114 25 15% 14% 16% 100% ----- 11% 22% 11% 20% 14% 16% 25-34 245 124 121 - 245 ---- 201 44 150 95 168 41 24% 25% 23% - 100% ---- 32% 11% 25% 23% 21% 26% 35-44 215 110 105 - 215- --- 172 43 135 79 167 34 21% 22% 20% - - 100% --- 27% 11% 22% 19% 21% 22% 45-54 153 73 80 - 153-- -- 103 50 88 65 120 30 15% 15% 15% - -- 100% -- 17% 13% 15% 16% 15% 19% 55-64 160 67 93 - 160--- - 72 88 105 55 134 23 16% 14% 18% - --- 100% - 12% 22% 17% 13% 17% 15% 65+ 95 50 45 - 95---- 10 85 56 39 85 6 9% 10% 9% - ---- 100% 2% 21% 9% 9% 11% 3% Work Working 626 329 297 67 201 172 103 72 10 626 431- 195 462 109 61% 67% 56% 44% 82% 80% 67% 45% 11% 100% - 72% 47% 59% 69% Not working 396 164 231 86 44 43 50 88 85 - 396 172 224 326 50 39% 33% 44% 56% 18% 20% 33% 55% 89% - 100% 28% 53% 41% 31% SOCIAL GRADE ABC1 603 274 328 69 150 135 88 105 56 431 172 603 - 479 88 59% 56% 62% 45% 61% 63% 57% 65% 59% 69% 43% 100% - 61% 55% C2DE 419 219 200 85 95 79 65 55 39 195 224 - 419 309 71 41% 44% 38% 55% 39% 37% 43% 35% 41% 31% 57% - 100% 39% 45%

Fieldwork : 14/06/2012 - 19/06/2012 (W Week 24.4) LB 231424 WK24.4 London Fire Brigade Section.Doc

LONDON BUS CAWI QUESTIONNAIRE

CLIENT Job number 260112425 OMNIBUS Job number 231424 WK24 WK24.4 Name of survey London Fire Brigade Author Akram Abu-Oun 020 7160 5559 Running with LU tracker Yes

Expected final sample size c. 1000

Sample description All adults 16+ in London Boroughs

IF NOT RUNNING WITH LU TRACKER Age Standard FoC SPECIFY WHAT DEMOGRAPHICS ARE REQUIRED: Gender Standard FoC Delete the demos not required Borough (see standard question Standard FoC in questionnaire)

Social Grade Standard FoC

Working status Standard FoC

Parents/Kids in HH Standard FoC

Grocery shopper status Standard FoC

Ethnicity (see standard question Standard FoC in questionnaire)

Occupational screener (see £120 standard question in questionnaire)

Impairment (see standard £120 question in questionnaire)

Postcode (see standard question FoC in questionnaire)

Page 1 of 7

LB 231424 WK24.4 London Fire Brigade Section.Doc

DP: SHOW THIS QUESTION INSTEAD OF OUR STANDARD REGION QUESTION

Base: All respondents BOROUGH Please indicate which London Borough you live in. If you do not live in a London Borough, please select “None of these”? Please pick one option only.

Barking & Dagenham 1 Barnet 2 Bexley 3 Brent 4 Bromley 5 Camden 6 City of London 7 City of Westminster 8 Croydon 9 Ealing 10 Enfield 11 Greenwich 12 Hackney 13 Hammersmith & Fulham 14 Haringey 15 Harrow 16 Havering 17 Hillingdon 18 Hounslow 19 Islington 20 Kensington & Chelsea 21 Kingston-upon-Thames 22 Lambeth 23 Lewisham 24 Merton 25 Newham 26 Redbridge 27 Richmond-upon-Thames 28 Southwark 29 Sutton 30 Tower Hamlets 31 Waltham Forest 32 Wandsworth 33 None of these 34 - CLOSE

Page 2 of 7

LB 231424 WK24.4 London Fire Brigade Section.Doc

Base: All LB respondents POSTCODE Please type in the Post Code of your home in (PULL THROUGH RESPONSE FROM Q2, THE BOROUGH QUESTION). This will be one or two letters followed by two or three numbers followed by two letters, e.g. B1 1JY, EH9 2HL, SW14 8DF. DP: INSERT LOGIC CHECK SAME AS GB BUS PLEASE

Refuse 99

ASK Q1 IF RESPONDENT LIVES IN ANY LONDON BOROUGH (ANY CODE 1-33 AT S1) OTHERS GO TO NEXT SECTION

Page 3 of 7

LB 231424 WK24.4 London Fire Brigade Section.Doc Changing the subject…….

Base: All LB respondents Q1 Do you or does anyone in your household work for the London Fire Brigade?

Please pick one option only

Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know 3

DP: IF NO ONE IN THE HOUSEHOLD WORKS FOR THE LONDON FIRE BRIGADE (Q1 CODE 2) ASK Q2 OTHERS SKIP TO NEXT SECTION

. Base: All LB respondents Q2 The current Government is reducing public spending. Decisions are being made at many levels about exactly where these cuts will fall. If cuts in your local area meant that some of the following facilities had to be closed and you had the choice, which three would be your top priorities to be saved? Please pick your top 3 priorities to be saved. DP: RESPONDENT MUST SELECT 3 OPTIONS, SHOW ERROR MESSAGE IF MORE OR LESS THAN 3 OPTIONS SELECTED.

DP: ROTATE LIST ON SCREEN

Hospital 1 Library 2 Primary schools 3 Secondary schools 4 Local museums and galleries 5 Police station 6 Post office 7 Sports ground or leisure centre 8 Fire station 9 Doctor’s surgery 10

Page 4 of 7

LB 231424 WK24.4 London Fire Brigade Section.Doc Base: All LB respondents Q3 Please select the things you would do, if any, if you knew there were fewer firefighters and fire engines in your area: Please pick as many options as apply

Check your fire alarm more often 1 Take more care when cooking 2 Take more care with candles 3 Check appliances are switched off 4 before you go to bed Be more likely to make an escape plan 5 so you and your family know how to escape from a fire in your home None of the above 6 – FIX/SINGLE

Base: All LB respondents Q4 Do you have a working smoke alarm in your home? Please pick one option only

Yes 1 No 2 Don’t know 3

DP: IF HAVE A SMOKE ALARM AT HOME (Q3 CODE 1) ASK Q5 OTHERS SKIP TO Q6

Base: All respondents that have a working smoke alarm at home Q5 How often do you test your smoke alarm? Please pick one option only

Once a week or more 1 Between once a week and once a 2 month Between once a month and once every 3 six months Between once every six months and 4 once a year Less often than once a year 5 I don’t test it 6

Page 5 of 7

LB 231424 WK24.4 London Fire Brigade Section.Doc DP: ASK ALL LB RESPONDENTS

Base: All LB respondents Q6 If cuts had to be made to the fire services, which one of these options would you prefer? Please pick one option only

Fewer fire stations but keep the numbers of firefighters and fire engines 1 the same Fewer fire engines but keep the numbers of firefighters and fire stations 2 the same

Base: All LB respondents Q7 Which of these, if any, do you think is a good use of firefighters’ time to respond to? Please pick as many options as apply DP: RANDOMISE LIST ON SCREEN

Fires in people’s homes 1 Fires in other buildings, like offices 2 Fires in vehicles 3 Responding to road traffic accidents 4 Other emergencies where people’s lives 5 were at risk Repeated automated alarms in 6 commercial buildings Repeated automated alarms in public 7 buildings such as hospitals People shut in lifts 8 Domestic flooding 9 People locked out of their homes 10 Incidents involving small animals 11 Incidents involving working animals 12 None of the above 13 – FIX/SINGLE

Page 6 of 7

LB 231424 WK24.4 London Fire Brigade Section.Doc Base: All LB respondents Q8 Considering that the number of emergencies that the fire brigade attends has reduced by a third in the last 10 years, and the number of stations, firefighters and fire engines available has stayed the same, do you think that the service should be reduced in line with new demand? Please pick one option only

Yes – resources available should be 1 directly related to the number of emergencies Yes - resources should be reduced in 2 part, but not directly in proportion to the reduction in demand No – the fire brigade acts like an 3 insurance service and should stay the same, just in case demand increases I don’t mind either way 4 I don’t know 5

-END-

Page 7 of 7

Report title Redesigning emergency cover for London – update

Meeting Date Member Discussion Forum 31 October 2012

Non Public Protect – Policy

Introduction 1. The report provided to the last LSP5 Discussion Group (and subsequently to the trades unions) set out the outcomes of a detailed piece of work which has examined options for savings based upon response time modelling considerations. The report explained that the modelling work has been informed by:  Modelling constraints – the “not close” stations; stations capacity constraints; etc;  Service objectives, notably the need to minimise aggregate London-wide 1st and 2nd appliance response times to serious incidents (i.e. those incidents requiring two or more appliances, excluding false alarms);  Rules, introduced to minimise unacceptable modelling outcomes, particularly at borough level.

2. The report to members also stated that: The modelling work is not complete and should not be taken as representing final proposals. In particular, the sensitivity analysis that officers routinely undertake to test the robustness of particular proposals has not yet been fully completed and may produce further important data (and changes to detail). Also not yet fully taken into account are some very specific factors such as:  the need to find new locations for any special appliances that would be displaced by closures;  the potential loss of officer call-out bases;  the effect on any sitting tenants;  the impact on site sharing arrangements (i.e. with the LAS): and  any professional judgement about the overall quantum of resource it is prudent to maintain to provide the resilience that the Brigade needs to maintain to ensure that it can effectively respond to major incidents.

3. This report updates Members on work undertaken since the last meeting of the Discussion Group. Revision 4. A summary of the main features of the work presented in the last report might be helpful.

5. In the case of a £25m target, the work had identified 34 different potential configurations of stations and appliances, ranging from 143 appliances at 112 stations to 159 appliances and 80 stations. In these configurations, the average London-wide 1st response times ranged from 5:24 (143 appliances at 112 stations) to 6:02 (159 appliances at 80 stations). The standards for average 2nd response (8 mins) and the 95th percentile were comfortably met for all options

6. In order to reduce the number of configurations, seven different performance impacts were identified, which were:  average 1st response time to all incidents (target is 6 minutes).  average 2nd response time to all incidents (target is 8 Minutes).  1st appliance performance at 95th percentile (target is 95 per cent within 12 minutes).  appliance utilisation impacts (how busy the appliance is attending incidents).  the number of boroughs that would achieve the 1st and 2nd appliance target.  the combined 1st and 2nd appliance performance (average).  the number of boroughs achieving 1st appliance performance within the 95th percentile.

7. This led to the identification of the deployment options of 152 appliances at 95 stations and 153 appliances at 93 stations as providing the strongest levels of performance, at borough level. However, because the performance impacts for the option of 154 appliances at 91 stations were also very strong and taking into account the benefits of larger stations, the work to look at actual deployment impacts proceeded on the basis of further examination of 152 appliances at 95 stations and 154 appliances at 91 stations.

8. Both approaches generated a combination of performance improvements and performance deterioration. London-wide average performance remained well within the targets for 1st and 2nd appliance response. However, a number of boroughs whose performance is already outside target deteriorated further (Bromley; Barnet, Hillingdon; Hounslow and Kingston). In other boroughs, performance deteriorated from within target to outside target.

9. The deterioration in borough performance occurred (in both options) because the approach focussed on minimising the average aggregate London-wide response times for 1st and 2nd appliance response to serious incidents. Consequently we took action to make borough outcomes more acceptable, and so at this stage, additional objectives (“or rules) were applied to the study results. These were that:

 Boroughs already outside target performance should not deteriorate further; and  Aim to avoid performance going from within target to outside target, where it was apparent that this was a likely risk.

10. Taking these into account, the study produced revised deployment proposals as set out in Appendix 1 for 152 appliances at 95 stations and Appendix 2 for 154 appliances at 91 stations. As can be seen, the effect of these proposals is to bring more boroughs within the two attendance targets. In fact, more boroughs come within target performance than is currently the case based on existing resources and deployments.

11. The performance results for 152 appliances at 95 stations are very good. London-wide average 1st appliance performance deteriorates by only 21 seconds, but remains within target; and London-wide 2nd appliance performance deteriorates by only 11 seconds. Of the existing performance scores outside target, 11 of the 12 get better. The two new adverse results (involving performance outside target) are in Ealing, where 1st appliance response goes from within target (5:41) to outside target at 6:13 and in Hillingdon, where 1st appliance performance goes from 6:13 to 6:16. 12. Routine performance monitoring (outside of this study) has highlighted that the Boroughs of Barnet, Bromley, Enfield, Harrow, Hillingdon, Kingston, Richmond and Sutton have all, during the 5 years 2007/8-2011/12, failed against the 1st performance target. Within these proposals, Barnet, Bromley, Enfield, Harrow, Kingston, Richmond and Sutton would all improve, with Kingston, Richmond and Sutton coming within or at target performance. Hillingdon is the only non-improver, and gets worse by 3 seconds.

13. Looking at 2nd appliance performance, the consistent under-performers have been Barnet; Bromley; Harrow and Richmond. All would now be within target performance,

14. The results for 154 appliances at 91 stations are also very good, but only eight of the 12 out of target borough performance results are improved and 5 new adverse borough impact results are produced, including a deterioration of 1st appliance response in Haringey to 7 minutes (1 minute outside target). First appliance response at 7 minutes would be an unacceptable performance outcome and so this configuration has not been developed any further.

Clarifications 15. Feedback on the last report has highlighted that it is not immediately obvious why some actions taken in LSP2 are seen to be “undone” in these latest response time modelling options. The significant explanatory factor in response to the proposition that the LSP2 and LSP5 proposals are incongruent is that demand levels are dramatically different to those which underpinned LSP2.

16. LSP2 spanned three years from April 2005 to March 2008. It was written in autumn of 2004 and was therefore based on data up to March 2004.

17. 2003 was the fifth busiest year LFB had ever had. In the three year period to the end of 2003 LFB had an average of more than 181,000 incidents each year. In 2011 – the most recent years data for the context of LSP5 – shows there were just over 115,000 incidents with a three year average of around 125,000 incidents; a reduction on the 2003 average of nearly a third (31 per cent).

All incidents attended Fires False Alarms Special Services LSP 2 Context LSP 5 Context 200,000

180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000

No ofincidents 80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

18. Incident demand has reduced by similar levels in both inner and outer London. The only notable difference is in Special Service incidents where demand has reduced by 31 per cent in inner London compared with 8 per cent in outer London (this is largely due to the effect of the shut-in-lift policy). 19. In 2003/04 there were around 122,000 first pump mobilisations and around 32,000 second pump mobilisations to serious incidents (i.e. incidents excluding AFA’s). This compares to 69,000 first pump mobilisations (a 43 per cent reduction) and around 22,000 second pump mobilisations (a 30 per cent reduction) in 2011/12. Comparing inner and outer London, first pump mobilisations reduced by similar amounts between 2003/04 and 2011/12 (44 and 43 per cent respectively), whereas for second pump mobilisations inner London reduced by 33 per cent and outer London reduced by 26 per cent.

20. Officers have also been asked:  Does the modelling take into account the impact of very large and/or extended duration incidents? The answer is that it does. Because the modelling is based upon the incident demand represented in the “electronic London fire brigade”, it does take into account that incident demand is unpredictable and can be dramatic. The model represents the way in which resources are consumed in reality and takes that into account when it is looking for the best deployments to achieve optimum performance. What the modelling does not do is to make any professional judgement about the overall quantum of resource required to provide the resilience that the Brigade needs to ensure that it can effectively model respond to major incidents. This is explored a some further details below.

 What about the impact of Strategic Resource? Again, the model takes this into account. Because it is based upon real incident demand, the model recognises that around 27 appliances are usually removed from front line service in order to release those crews for training and community safety activity.

21. Members will know that the utilisation of pumping appliances (time spent) at emergency incidents is low at 7.4 per cent overall; the busiest appliance at Soho is utilised some 16.5 per cent of the time. It is possible to look at utilisation on an hour by hour basis across a period of time taking account of those appliances at incidents, those unavailable (off-the-run) and those available at stations. There are series of charts at appendix 3 which look at utilisation in July 2005 (London bombings on 7 July), 2009, 2010 and 2011:  Appendix 3A – July 2005 (London bombings on 7 July): The appliances involved in the London bombings (shown in red on the chart) can be seen compared to the appliances needed for the 20 pump fire at Staples Corner, NW2 on 16 July 2005 (which is the peak visible in the chart).  Appendix 3B – August 2011: Shows the period of the civil disturbances in more detail.

Introducing new considerations 22. At the last meeting of the Discussion Group, the Commissioner confirmed that, despite the generally very positive performance benefits, some of the modelling proposals would be likely to be very controversial. In particular, some of the redistributive effects may be too much too fast, particularly in some places, where the un-moderated proposals would be experienced as too extreme. This seems to be borne out by the output of the polling work which appears elsewhere on the agenda for the meeting of the Discussion Group, where it is clear that rational arguments are unlikely to outweigh emotion and localism.

23. Members know that the Brigade does not organise emergency cover on a borough-wide basis; it does so on a London-wide basis. But it is understandable that Borough Councils, residents and businesses see these issues in terms of the places for which they are responsible and in which they live and work.

24. At this stage, the following seem likely to be particularly problematic areas, which will need to be addressed either by a more persuasive business case; or by a replacement proposition. They include:

 In the Borough of Islington, 2 of 4 appliances would be removed and 2 of 3 of the stations would close. Viewed at borough level, this is capable of being presented as the largest contraction in provision, by far;

 In the Borough of Tower Hamlets, 4 of the 9 appliances would be removed and 2 of the 6 stations would close. Whilst not quite as dramatic as the contraction in Islington, it would be likely to feel as disproportionate and unjustified;

 In Waltham Forest, 3 of 8 appliances would be removed, from Leyton, Chingford and Leytonstone. Although the decision was taken as part of LSP2 in March 2005, the redeployment of a second appliance to Walthamstow was actually achieved only last year;

 In Southwark, 3 of 6 appliances would be removed and 2 of 4 stations would close. As in Islington and Tower Hamlets, this will be experienced as a dramatic contraction and it would be under consideration in parallel with the Lakanal inquest. It is not expected that LFB operational response resource issues will be part of the Lakanal narrative, but nevertheless it is likely to be very difficult to have these two things proceeding in parallel;

 In Kensington and Chelsea, 2 of 4 stations would close and 2 of 6 appliances would be removed. It is a further example of a proposal that will feel disproportionate.

25. There may be other examples that are more obvious to Members and it would be helpful to be aware of these. In the meanwhile, officers have begun to examine the list above (and an equivalent “practicalities” list) and some remedies may be available. For example, we could proceed with a proposal to close Bow fire station, which is in the middle of a geographical area of densely packed emergency cover, but Whitechapel could remain open, but reduced to a 1-appliance station. This also means that cover will remain at a high level whilst the neighbouring Shadwell appliance is relocated whilst it is rebuilt. However, as with all potential remedies, it would also mean that a potential beneficiary elsewhere in London would not be able to progress. For example, proposals to add a second appliance in Purley or Orpington would be much less likely.

26. An example of a revision based upon practicalities is that the modelling proposal to close Acton and add a pumping appliance to Chiswick would not proceed. Acton fire station also hosts the LAS and single person quarters and both of these could be protected if Acton remains open. The additional benefit of not proceeding with the modelling proposal is that the adverse impact seen on first appliance attendance response performance in Ealing would be very likely to be avoided.

27. Work to examine the likely problem areas that are apparent to officers will continue and, in due course, will form part of a package of proposals for public consultation. The Mayor’s letter this week in respect of the budget means that it will be around mid-December when a focussed financial target will emerge and officers will now work on the production of proposals in a timescale which responds to that.

28. If there are contributions that members wish to make to the issues which need to be addressed in the next phase of work, these would be welcome. Appendix 1 £25M Option 1 – modelled 152 appliances at 95 stations with borough rules

£25M - Option 1 Current position Change 152 Appliances 169 -17 95 Stations 112 -17 43 1-App Stations 55 -12 52 2-App Stations 57 -5 Adjusted Average Base Borough rules Station

Base modelled Borough 1st to All 2nd to All 1st to All 2nd to All Acton 1 0 Closure Belsize 1 0 Closure London-wide 5:20 6:22 5:41 6:33 Bow 2 0 Closure Barking and Dagenham 5:30 5:40 5:30 5:40 Chingford 2 1 Loses pump Barnet 6:14 8:23 6:06 7:31 Chiswick 1 2 Pump Added Bexley 5:40 6:15 5:40 6:16 Clapham 2 0 Closure Brent 5:52 6:31 5:50 6:21 Clerkenwell 1 0 Closure Bromley 6:16 8:20 6:11 7:30 Downham 1 0 Closure Camden 4:41 6:00 5:18 5:56 5:04 5:58 5:43 7:19 East Greenwich 1 2 Pump Added City of London Croydon 5:23 6:46 5:21 6:18 Euston 1 2 Pump Added Ealing 5:41 6:28 6:13 6:36 Hayes 2 1 Loses pump Enfield 6:25 6:55 6:23 6:37 Hendon 1 2 Pump Added Greenwich 5:28 7:01 5:53 6:51 Islington 1 0 Closure Hackney 4:45 5:08 5:20 5:53 Kensington 1 0 Closure Hammersmith and Fulham 5:13 6:21 5:18 6:26 Kingsland 2 0 Closure Haringey 5:40 5:51 5:40 5:50 Knightsbridge 1 0 Closure Harrow 6:17 8:26 6:09 7:34 Leyton 2 1 Loses pump Havering 5:40 7:10 5:40 7:10 Leytonstone 2 1 Loses pump Hillingdon 6:13 7:19 6:16 7:41 New Cross 1 0 Closure Hounslow 6:05 6:53 6:04 6:32 Orpington 1 2 Pump Added Islington 4:43 5:12 5:54 6:15 Peckham 2 0 Closure Kensington and Chelsea 4:39 5:42 5:47 6:16 Purley 1 2 Pump Added Kingston upon Thames 5:56 8:32 5:55 8:31 Silvertown 1 0 Closure Lambeth 4:33 4:56 5:09 5:44 Southgate 1 2 Pump Added Lewisham 4:47 6:03 5:18 6:16 Southwark 1 0 Closure Merton 5:46 7:42 5:46 7:42 Stanmore 1 2 Pump Added Newham 5:11 5:48 5:28 5:57 Twickenham 1 2 Pump Added Redbridge 5:36 6:54 5:37 7:02 Westminster 1 0 Closure Richmond upon Thames 6:07 9:02 6:00 7:40 Whitechapel 2 0 Closure Southwark 4:43 5:24 5:41 6:18 Woolwich 1 0 Closure Sutton 5:56 7:15 5:56 7:11 Tower Hamlets 4:32 5:24 5:12 6:34 Waltham Forest 5:31 6:53 5:35 7:40 Wandsworth 5:18 6:11 5:27 6:27 Westminster 5:08 5:55 5:49 6:15

Within Target (Out of 33) 26 28 26 32 Within Target (Out of 66) 54 58 NOTE: These deployments are not presented in any priority order for implementation Appendix 2 £25M Option 2 – modelled 154 appliances at 91 stations with borough rules

£25M - Option 2 Current position Change 154 Appliances 169 -15 91 Stations 112 -21 41 1-App Stations 55 -14 50 2-App Stations 57 -7 Adjusted Average Base Borough rules Station

Base modelled Borough 1st to All 2nd to All 1st to All 2nd to All Acton 1 0 Closure Belsize 1 0 Closure London-wide 5:20 6:22 5:50 6:35 Bethnal Green 1 0 Closure Barking and Dagenham 5:30 5:40 5:30 5:40 Chiswick 1 2 Pump Added Barnet 6:14 8:23 6:06 7:32 Clapham 2 0 Closure Bexley 5:40 6:15 5:40 6:16 Clerkenwell 1 0 Closure Brent 5:52 6:31 5:50 6:21 Deptford 1 0 Closure Bromley 6:16 8:20 6:14 7:51 Downham 1 0 Closure Camden 4:41 6:00 6:11 6:59 East Greenwich 1 2 Pump Added City of London 5:04 5:58 5:44 7:21 Croydon 5:23 6:46 5:58 6:32 Euston 1 2 Pump Added Ealing 5:41 6:28 6:12 6:35 Greenwich 1 2 Pump Added Enfield 6:25 6:55 6:26 6:48 Hendon 1 2 Pump Added Greenwich 5:28 7:01 5:52 6:41 Islington 1 0 Closure Hackney 4:45 5:08 5:24 5:56 Kensington 1 0 Closure Hammersmith and Fulham 5:13 6:21 5:18 6:26 Kentish Town 2 0 Closure Haringey 5:40 5:51 7:00 6:55 Kingsland 2 0 Closure Harrow 6:17 8:26 6:09 7:34 Knightsbridge 1 0 Closure Havering 5:40 7:10 5:40 7:10 Leytonstone 2 1 Loses pump Hillingdon 6:13 7:19 6:13 7:19 Millwall 1 2 Pump Added Hounslow 6:05 6:53 6:03 6:30 New Cross 1 2 Pump Added Islington 4:43 5:12 6:07 6:38 Orpington 1 2 Pump Added Kensington and Chelsea 4:39 5:42 5:47 6:16 Peckham 2 0 Closure Kingston upon Thames 5:56 8:32 5:55 8:32 Poplar 2 0 Closure Lambeth 4:33 4:56 5:09 5:44 Purley 1 2 Pump Added Lewisham 4:47 6:03 5:32 6:00 Richmond 1 2 Pump Added Merton 5:46 7:42 5:46 7:42 Shadwell 1 2 Pump Added Newham 5:11 5:48 5:28 5:59 Silvertown 1 0 Closure Redbridge 5:36 6:54 5:37 7:01 Southgate 1 2 Pump Added Richmond upon Thames 6:07 9:02 5:55 6:35 Southwark 1 0 Closure Southwark 4:43 5:24 5:28 5:57 Stanmore 1 2 Pump Added Sutton 5:56 7:15 5:56 7:12 Tottenham 2 0 Closure Tower Hamlets 4:32 5:24 5:49 6:08 Twickenham 1 2 Pump Added Waltham Forest 5:31 6:53 5:29 6:34 Westminster 1 0 Closure Wandsworth 5:18 6:11 5:27 6:27 Whitechapel 2 0 Closure Westminster 5:08 5:55 5:50 6:17 Woodside 1 0 Closure Woolwich 1 0 Closure Within Target (Out of 33) 26 28 23 32 Within Target (Out of 66) 54 55 NOTE: These deployments are not presented in any priority order for implementation

Appendix 3 Pumping appliance utilisation by day/hour

Appendix 3A – July 2005 Appendix 3E – August 2011

Appendix 3A Pump Usage: 01 - 24 July 2005

In Use Bomb Inc Other Off The Run

160

140

120

100

01/07/2005 02/07/2005 03/07/2005 04/07/2005 05/07/2005 06/07/2005 07/07/2005 08/07/2005 09/07/2005 10/07/2005 11/07/2005 12/07/2005 13/07/2005 14/07/2005 15/07/2005 16/07/2005 17/07/2005 18/07/2005 19/07/2005 20/07/2005 21/07/2005 22/07/2005 23/07/2005 24/07/2005 25/07/2005

Appendix 3B Pump Usage during Civil Disturbance: 04 Aug 2011 - 10 Aug 2011 Normal Attendance FMP Off The Run

160

140

120

100 6 Aug 2011 7 Aug 2011 8 Aug 2011 9 Aug 2011

00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00

08/03/2016

Potential operational reductions October 2012

Ron Dobson | Commissioner for Fire & Emergency Planning

Modelling work

• Electronic London Fire Brigade • Simulates appliance attendances at incidents in different locations to show workload and performance impacts

1 08/03/2016

Service and modelling drivers

• Get fastest 1st/2nd appliance response • 2-appliance stations more efficient • Safe systems of work for firefighters • At least one station in each borough • Extend potential for alternate crewing • Reducing estate costs

Estate considerations

• Past/future capital investment • The PFI programme • Lambeth fire station redevelopment • Difficult to relocate functions • Only existing locations/no new locations • Station capacity constraints

2 08/03/2016

Modelling illustrations

• To date, modelling has provided illustrations • Savings between £7.3M and £45M illustrated with different station and appliances reductions • Work shared with LFEPA Members and with the trades unions and staff • Illustrations covered in the media

Modelling matrix of options

• Matrix of deployments showing savings from different combinations of stations, appliances and performance • Financial targets set at £25M, £50M, £75M • At each level potential configurations of stations and appliances identified, e.g. 34 configurations to save £25M

3 08/03/2016

Judging the modelled options

• London-wide average 1st/2nd appliance response (6 and 8 min targets); 1st within 12 mins (95%) • How busy appliances are (utilisation) • Boroughs achieving 1st/2nd pump target, plus 95% with 12 minutes

£25m options

• Options developed to optimise London-wide performance at £25M, varied between… • 143 appliances at 112 stations... and • 159 appliances at 80 stations • Options which gave best performance… • 152 appliances at 95 stations • 154 appliances at 91 stations

4 08/03/2016

152 appliances at 95 stations

• 17 stations close (16 1-appliance, 1 2-appliance) • 17 fewer appliances • 10 stations reduce from 2 to 1 appliance • 11 stations increase from 1 to 2 appliances • Bromley, Hillingdon, Hounslow and Kingston outside target and deteriorate

154 appliances at 91 stations

• 21 stations close (20 1-appliance; 1 2-appliance) • 15 fewer appliances • 5 stations reduce from 2 to 1 appliance • 12 stations increase from 1 to 2 appliances • Barnet, Bromley, Hounslow and Kingston outside target and deteriorate

5 08/03/2016

Optimising borough performance

• Both £25M options focussed on optimising London-wide performance • Borough performance not driver at this stage • New rules for borough performance… • Boroughs outside target not deteriorate • Boroughs within target not move outside • Brings more boroughs within target

152/95 – revised option

• 17 stations close (12 1-appliance, 5 2-appliance) • 17 fewer appliances overall • 4 stations reduce from 2 to 1 appliance • 9 stations increase from 1 to 2 appliances • Boroughs meeting the targets increase

6 08/03/2016

154/91 – revised option

• 21 stations close (14 fewer 1-appliance, 7 fewer 2-appliance) • 15 fewer appliances overall • 1 station reduces from 2 to 1 appliance • 14 stations increase from 1 to 2 appliances • Borough performance better

The preferred option

• 152 appliances at 95 station, with borough rules • 1st at 5:41; 2nd at 6:33 – still within targets • 26 boroughs meet 1st pump target (26 now) • 32 boroughs meet 2nd pump target (28 now) • Best improvements in Barnet, Bromley, Harrow and Richmond; Ealing moves outside 1st appliance target to 6:13

7 08/03/2016

152/95 deployment changes

1-pump stations 2-pump stations Stations getting Stations losing closing closing extra appliance an appliance Acton; Bow ; Chiswick; Chingford; Belsize; Clapham; East Greenwich; Hayes; Clerkenwell; Kingsland; Euston; Leyton; Downham; Peckham; Hendon; Leytonstone; Islington; Whitechapel Orpington; Kensington; Purley; Knightsbridge; Southgate; New Cross; Stanmore; Silvertown; Twickenham Southwark; Westminster; Woolwich

Reaching £25M savings

• The preferred option (152/95) has been modelled for implementation in £5M steps • £10M and £15M positions illustrated

8 08/03/2016

162/106 changes (£10M saving)

1-pump stations 2-pump stations Stations getting Stations losing closing closing extra appliance an appliance Belsize; - Acton; Bow; Islington; East Greenwich; Bromley; Kensington; Euston; Chingford; Knightsbridge; Hendon; Clapham; Silvertown; Orpington; Hayes; Westminster Purley; Leytonstone; Southgate; Old Kent Road; Stanmore; Peckham; Twickenham Shoreditch; Whitechapel

158/103 changes (£15M saving)

1-pump stations 2-pump stations Stations getting Stations losing closing closing extra appliance an appliance Belsize; - Acton; Bow; Islington; East Greenwich; Bromley; Kensington; Euston; Chingford; Knightsbridge; Hendon; Clapham; New Cross; Orpington; Hayes; Silvertown; Purley; Leyton; Southwark; Southgate; Leytonstone; Westminster; Stanmore; Peckham; Woolwich Twickenham Shoreditch; Sidcup; Whitechapel

9 08/03/2016

£25m to £50M options

• No certainty on financial target • Most changes at £25M replicated up to £50M • But a closed station at £25M may reopen at £40M • Borough rules work up to £40M (except for Haringey)

£25M to £50M optimum

£25M saving 152/95 Closes 17 stations, removes 17 appliances

£30M saving 147/94 Closes 18 stations, removes 22 appliances

£35M saving 142/94 Closes 18 stations, removes 27 appliances

£40M saving 137/94 Closes 18 stations, removes 32 appliances

£50M saving 128/91 Closes 21 stations, removes 41 appliances

10 08/03/2016

A redistributive effect working

• Currently low utilisation (7.4% of time at incidents) and falling incident numbers • Significantly overlapping cover in Central London • More equity achieved by shifting resources to outer London • Maps show areas that can be covered by more than one appliance – now and after £25M option

11 08/03/2016

Modelling £75M

• Range of options between … • 98 appliances/98 stations and • 118 appliances/59 stations • London-wide standards not met at 89 stations and fewer • Best option 102 appliances/90 stations 6:00 1st appliance and 7:59 2nd appliance

Report title Operational reductions

Meeting Date Member Discussion Forum 15 October 2012

Non Public Protect–Policy

This paper has been prepared for an initial discussion with Group Leaders at the LSP5 Discussion Group meeting on 15 October 2012. It has been prepared before the latest expected budget guidance from the Mayor has been received. As such, it discusses what might need to happen at a range of different budget scenarios.

At a range of budget savings levels, both the likely performance impacts and the deployment changes that might occur are set out; Members will see that at many levels, including up to £25m, it is feasible to make savings and at the same time produce better emergency cover in boroughs that have not been meeting the targets set by the Authority.

These are not final proposals, but while we wait for the Mayor’s latest budget guidance, Members need to be able to consider the approach I would take to a requirement to reduce the budget.

Many of the things set out in this paper are speculative. They are set out because Members need to be aware of worst case scenarios. I know that there is intense interest in the question of how many stations and appliances might be affected and which ones, but at this stage, for the reasons explained in the paper, it is impossible to be certain. It very much depends on the confirmed saving target.

This work has not been shared with senior managers or staff. I would like to have the opportunity to do so, before there is any media speculation. It would be helpful if we could all agree an approach to that, at today’s meeting.

Report title London Safety Plan 5 (LSP5) – potential operational savings

Meeting Date For LSP5 Discussion Forum 15 October 2012

PROTECT – POLICY (NOT FOR PUBLICATION)

Background 1. The budget projections for 2013/14 and beyond create a necessity to consider operational reductions. A risk is that the debate about the impact of the savings reflects an out of date view of the Brigade and of London as a place.

2. Fire cover in London remains heavily influenced by historic considerations, many of which sprung from wartime experience, but which continued until 2004 to influence the Government’s requirements for how fire cover should be provided. Multiple fires in packed areas spread quickly, utilising large numbers of appliances in central locations, hence densely packed fire stations, particularly in central London. Rapid fire spread was likely because the construction of buildings was not as modern as it is now, when fire risks are considered from an early stage.

3. Lots of things have changed since then. Even though London is still densely packed, work on fire engineering and regulatory fire safety has meant that it is rare for fires to move from one building to another. In effect fire “separation” has meant exactly that – reducing the risk of another great fire of London and the need for multiple fire appliances. Brigades were hidebound by the 1947 Act and the recommended national standards of fire cover to make changes in cover to reflect the change, until 2004. Integrated Risk Management Plans (particularly LSP2) started the adjustment of cover but much more can be done now. The low levels of utilisation of fire appliances reinforce what we know has changed. Specifically: • The number of incidents attended are over one third lower (35 per cent) than 10 years ago; some stations have seen the number of call-outs drop by two-thirds • 24 fire stations attend two incidents or fewer a day • False alarms make up nearly half (48 per cent) of all the calls attended • Fires (at 27,000 in 2011) are lower than at any time in the last 40 years • Fewer people die in fires - 56 in 2011 compared to an average of nearly 80 a year for the ten years 1991 to 2001 • Fire appliances are used on average at just over 7 per cent of the time to attend emergency incidents; the busiest appliance (at Soho) is occupied just under 17 per cent of the time

Page 1 of 33

• The average firefighter is getting less real experience of dealing with incidents attending 195 incidents a year; of those, 101 will be false alarms with only 17 dwelling fires (of which only 8 a year will be the more significant incidents). A number of firefighters attend 10 or fewer fires a year

4. However, although the risk of fast spreading fires and of domestic fire deaths and injuries has greatly diminished, it has been replaced by “new risk”, which is now a very prominent aspect of the Brigade’s work; an outcome of new risk is that the Brigade is much more complex than the old model of 1 or 2 appliance stations. This is also reflected in the dominant role London plays in the UK’s fire and rescue national resilience arrangements; London hosts: • 4 of 26 of the Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) teams across the seven metropolitan fire services (15 per cent) • 6 of the 14 High Volume Pumps (HVPs) across the seven metropolitan fire services (43 per cent) • 10 of 19 Incident Response Units (IRUs) across the seven metropolitan fire services (53 per cent) • 3 of 8 Detection, Identifications and Monitoring vehicles (DIMs) across the seven metropolitan fire services (25 per cent)

5. In 2001, the Brigade’s 112 land based fire stations1, were mostly categorised as either a station with a single appliance or a station with two appliances. Since then, the number of different types or combinations of types of stations has grown to over 20. This includes an expansion in vehicles, equipment, specialist roles and personally held skills. They now comprise: • 28 single appliance stations; • 34 two appliance stations; and • 51 stations with a pump and/or pump ladder and one or more special appliances (i.e. an aerial; a fire rescue unit; a high volume pump; an incident response unit; a scientific support unit; a bulk foam unit; a hose layer lorry; and/or an urban search and rescue attribute2

6. This is important because at 51 stations pumping appliances now operate alongside or in conjunction with special appliances, which in some cases include alternate crewing and this makes considerations about reductions more complicated. It is also important because it reminds us that 51 stations are accommodating appliances beyond pumps and many have had building related adaptations to accommodate that.

The cost of different models of fire cover 7. Each year, we spend around £270m on station-based emergency response. Of that, £229m is spent on firefighters’ salaries and allowances; £21m is spent on the upkeep and running of fire stations; and £20m is spent on equipment, including fire engines.

8. The importance of this is that, if we need to make savings, it is the cost of the people which is the biggest portion of spend, by far. However, the way we use our fire stations can also impact on staff costs, because, in some instances, we can provide a cheaper service from one location with multiple appliances than we can by spreading those same appliances more thinly.

9. For example, the cost of operational salaries at a single appliance station is £1.24 million a year, with another £62k to £108k for overtime and allowances. Running costs are in a range between £66-208k per annum, with property rates in a range from £7k per annum (Dockhead) and £331k (Paddington). The average is about £36k per annum. Operational salaries at a 2-appliance station are £2,127k a year with between £112k and £131k for overtime and allowances. But Lambeth (business rates £125k a year) and Shoreditch (business rates 80k per annum) apart, the running costs are generally less than double, being in a range between £118k to £299 a year.

1 London Fire Brigade also operates a river service, which is a station in its own right 2 An attribute is a brigade term used to describe a particular capability

Page 2 of 33

10. In another way of looking at it, in Ealing, there are 7 pumping appliances across four fire stations, (3 of which have 2 pumping appliances and 1 a single pumping appliance). The cost of providing those seven appliances is £7,624k for the people and £1,123k in non-staff costs. In Greenwich, there are also 7 pumping appliances, but arranged across six stations (5 single appliance stations and one 2-appliance station). The cost of providing those seven pumping appliances is £8,337k for the people and £1,350k in non-staff costs. A difference of £940k a year.

11. As can be seen from the above figures, 2-appliance stations are more cash efficient, in both operational staffing and non staff revenue terms. An illustration of this is in the comparison of two possible approaches to reducing by 30 appliances. If they are removed only from single appliance stations, £45m would be saved. In contrast, 30 appliances removed only from two appliance stations saves only £30m. They are also more operationally efficient in terms of better training opportunities, reduced standbys, better CFS events; easier staff management and less need for as many senior managers.

12. Always to be set against those financial considerations and appropriately weighted, are attendance time considerations. The effect of closing 30 one-appliance stations (therefore giving a deployment of 139 appliances at 82 stations) would be to increase average 1st appliance response times by 35 seconds and average 2nd appliance response times by 19 seconds. Comparatively, the impact of removing 30 second appliances from two-appliance stations (therefore giving a deployment of 139 appliances at 112 stations) would be to increase average 1st appliance response times by 5 seconds and average 2nd appliance response times by 39 seconds. The Brigade is currently 1½ minutes within the second appliance target, so there is more leeway with regards this target. But it is also important to be aware that the local borough impacts are generally greater when closing 30 one-appliance stations compared to withdrawing single appliances from 30 two-appliance stations. But there is a huge amount in the detail. There are thousands of combinations available when considering how to shrink from 169 appliances at 112 stations.

13. At stations where there are also special appliances, the numbers work out differently and, for example, a fire station that contains two pumping appliances and a fire rescue unit (FRU) needs 8 additional people on each watch. But if we put that same FRU at a fire station that has only one pumping appliance, the watch needs only a further 7people and the effect of that is that the FRU costs four people less each year. That is a saving of £171,628 each year.

Attendance standards 14. There is no national machinery which captures and publishes data about attendance targets and performance, but the information which is available suggests that London Fire Brigade provides the fastest response times in the country to incidents. Many other brigades have longer targets and they have also introduced divisions between types of incident, such as “life-threatening”; serious incidents; etc, only some of which are intended to receive their fastest response. See Appendix 1 for further details of targets for neighbouring brigades. The London targets are: • Average arrival time: 6 minutes for the 1st appliance • Average arrival time: 8minutes for the 2nd appliance • Incidents with a 1st appliance arrival time of 12 minutes or less: 95 per cent

15. The factors which influence the time it takes to respond to incidents include: • Call handling times (but which is not part of the attendance measurement) • Crew turnout times • Station locations • Distance to travel • Traffic conditions (i.e. traffic volume, congestion, road works, traffic calming measures, poor parking, etc.); and • The availability of appliances (which in turn is influenced by the number of incidents and by the time spent on other activities, including operational training, community safety work, etc.).

Page 3 of 33

16. Since 2005, a number of changes have improved attendance times: • In the London Borough of Havering, a new fire station; • 10 fire appliances have been moved from 2 appliance stations to other stations in order to improve the speed at which second appliances arrive at those incidents which need two or more appliances; • Reductions in demand, including changes in policy as regards people shut in lifts, etc; • An increased emphasis on topography and knowledge of the station ground; and • Managerial action to ensure that fire crews turn out more quickly from their fire stations.

17. Arriving quickly and being able to deploy resources rapidly at incidents makes a significant contribution to the protection of those involved in an incident and to the protection of firefighters themselves. However, there are some complex issues to confront. In particular, the balance between the desire for speed with the fact that in some places in London, incident demand is low or very low.

18. As an example, there are measures that could be taken to improve attendance times in the boroughs of Camden and Harrow. At the moment, Harrow has worse attendance times than Camden, but Camden generates more emergencies. So should we make the improvement in Camden, who already have the better service, because the improvement would benefit more calls, or should we make the improvement in Harrow, where fewer calls would receive a better service? Since 2004, the Authority’s policy has been that all places in London should receive the same standard, so that a fire in a flat in Surbiton should receive the same quality of response as the equivalent flat in Westminster. We have not wholly achieved that objective, but it is what we have aspired to and have taken some action to achieve in practice.

Modelling exemplifications and options 19. In the work addressed by this paper, officers have looked at the number and location of fire stations; fire appliances and special appliances. The modelling work is not complete and should not be taken as representing final proposals. In particular, the sensitivity analysis that officers routinely undertake to test the robustness of particular proposals has not yet been fully completed and may produce further important data (and changes to detail). Also not yet fully taken into account are some very specific factors such as:

• The need to find new locations for any special appliances that would be displaced by closures;

• the potential loss of officer call-out bases;

• the effect on sitting tenant; and

• the impact on site sharing arrangements (i.e. with the LAS).

20. The detailed modelling work is undertaken by our partners, ORH, who we have worked with since the introduction of IRMP in 2004 and whose modelling work underpinned the changes agreed in LSP2. ORH have built a model of emergency cover across London, based on the current deployment of 169 appliances across 112 land stations. In other words, they have built a “computerised London Fire Brigade”. Their ‘optimisation’ modelling finds the best locations for appliances and stations reflecting different parameters and rules we provide. Their computerised ‘simulation’ model is used to assess the workload and performance impact of any change in appliance/station deployments on attendance times and resource use. The Brigade provides scenarios and parameters – in this work, reduction scenarios and specific constraints/assumptions – and they are able to model the best deployments and consequences and impact of those deployments. The models are updated annually with more recent incident data and mobilising protocols and validated against actual appliance performance.

21. The optimisation modelling work focuses on serious, not all, incidents (i.e. those requiring two or more appliances and which are not false alarms). However, the ‘simulation’ model tells us the impact on

Page 4 of 33

attendances for all incidents. This approach tests options without unduly weighting the importance of, say, AFA calls, but it “compensates” for that exclusion when it identifies the impact for all attendances.

22. Each set of proposals are based on a quantitative understanding of the relationship between locations, appliances, incidents and attendance time performance. There will be factors outside the scope of the model that have to be considered separately in interpreting the modelling outputs.

23. In looking at questions about how to approach the need to find operational reductions, officers started with service-driven parameters. These were:

• The need to minimise aggregate London-wide 1st and 2nd appliance response times to serious incidents (i.e. those incidents requiring two or more appliances, excluding false alarms), based on the current estate; • In the light of the financial considerations above, to favour, where possible, think about favouring the retention of two appliance stations above one appliance stations. The effect of this is to make firefighters and appliances relatively more important than buildings; • Safe systems of work for firefighters; • The desirability of retaining at least one station in every borough; • That alternate crewing had demonstrated effectiveness where it has been introduced and that there is potential to extend this way of working; and • The possibility of reducing estate costs (and achieving capital receipts to re-invest in the remaining estate). 24. Officers also needed to take into account the range of issues associated with the current estate. As is known, it is not generally flexible stock and the introduction of so many new special appliances has been (and some cases continues to be) a challenge. Some 40 per cent of the stations are more than 60 years old; 34 per cent are listed or locally listed and/or in a conservation area and 18 of these are Grade II listed. In general, it is an expensive estate to maintain. Accordingly, in thinking about the issues addressed in this paper, officers took into account:

• That some stations have received substantial levels of recent investment, or are shortly due to receive such investment; • That some stations are in the PFI programme; • That Lambeth fire station is an integral part of the redevelopment plan for the site; and • That some stations provide multiple or difficult to relocate functions. For example, at Barking fire station, in addition to the pumping appliances, we also have a Command Unit; a Bulk Foam Unit; a Hose Layer Lorry; an HR advisor; the Borough Commander; an office for the firefighters charity and the protective equipment group.

25. The effect of this consideration was that officers identified 28 fire stations which, in the modelling, we identified as “protected” i.e. no closure proposals were to be generated. However, they could go from two appliances to one, or from one appliance to two. (In LSP5, it might usefully be said that (eight of the nine) PFI stations have been “future-proofed” in terms of their physical capacity and are each capable of taking further appliances. If a need for savings persists well into the future, consolidating resources in these new parts of the estate might become more important).

26. The 28 stations concerned, together with the reasons for being included in the “protected” list are detailed at Appendix 2.

27. Only existing station locations were considered (i.e. new locations were not identified). Additionally, the modelling took into account the physical capacity of the station to take an additional pumping appliance

Page 5 of 33

so that we did not generate proposals that could not physically be achieved without incurring additional capital costs for buildings works. In the case of Heathrow fire station, the modelling constrained the station to a single fire appliance, because the future of the current Heathrow site is not secure.

28. As a result of modelling work and for the purpose of preliminary discussion, a range of modelling exemplifications were produced. These are at Appendix 3. They illustrate some of the different approaches to the issues and some of their headline impacts and benefits.

29. For structuring the subsequent modelling process, ORH generated a matrix of costed deployment combinations. For all of these combinations, it is possible to calculate the approximate level of savings (compared to the current deployment) and then to consider the relationships between stations, appliances and performance. Specific impacts (i.e. close X station; redeploy Y appliance, etc.) were not examined at this stage. An extract from the modelling options matrix is at Appendix 4.

30. For each of the combinations shown in the Appendix 4 matrix there are thousands of possible combinations (e.g. deploying 130 appliances to 84 stations, saving £50m, can be achieved in 2.25 x 1050 different ways from the current 169 appliances at 112 stations configuration). ORH employed sophisticated optimisation techniques to find the best configuration – i.e. the minimum impact of 1st and 2nd appliance response times – for each of the combinations in the matrix. This approach ensured that for each level of savings the configurations put forward for further assessment were optimal in terms of providing emergency cover to London.

31. In order to be able to narrow the focus and generate specific propositions, officers set financial savings targets. Initially, these were set at £25m, £50m and £75m (although at more detailed stages this was refined to only the £25m and £50m options, there being no currently known need to seriously plan for savings at £75m). For each of these two financial targets, all potential configurations of appliances and stations. The results summarised the best configurations of appliances and stations for each of the matrix combinations that gave the required level of savings. Again, specific impacts (i.e. close X station; redeploy Y appliance, etc.) were not examined at this stage.

32. Although the modelling was about delivering the savings in a way that maintained the best London-wide attendance time performance, alongside the removal of appliances and stations, the opportunity is also taken to redeploy appliances to stations to further mitigate or improve the impacts on attendance performance.

Modelling £25m for optimum London-wide performance 33. In the case of the £25m target, 34 options were summarised (ranging from 143 appliances at 112 stations to 159 appliances and 80 stations). The summary identified seven different performance impacts, which were: • average 1st response time to all incidents (target is 6 minutes). • average 2nd response time to all incidents (target is 8 Minutes). • 1st appliance performance at 95th percentile (target is 95 per cent within 12 minutes). • appliance utilisation impacts (how busy the appliance is attending incidents). • the number of boroughs that would achieve the 1st and 2nd appliance target. • the combined 1st and 2nd appliance performance (average). • the number of boroughs achieving 1st appliance performance within the 95th percentile. 34. For each option, the optimisation model then identified the best configuration of appliances and stations, applying the operational objective to minimise aggregate London-wide 1st and 2nd appliance response times to serious incidents. This led to the identification of results, reported in terms of the performance criteria described above. The modelling also ensured that a station could not be identified for closure at, for example, £10m and then be –re-opened at £25m. At this stage, specific deployment options were still not identified or under consideration.

Page 6 of 33

35. For the £25m savings options, the average 1st response times ranged from 5:24 (143 appliances at 112 stations) to 6:02 (159 appliances at 80 stations). The standards for average 2nd response and the 95th percentile were comfortably met for all options. In considering the “borough score3” and the combination of 1st and 2nd average response times, the deployment options of 152 appliances at 95 stations and 153 appliances at 93 stations were identified in the ORH modelling as providing the strongest levels of performance. However, because the performance impacts for the option of 154 appliances at 91 stations were also very strong and taking into account the benefits of larger stations, the work to look at actual deployment impacts proceeded on the basis of further examination of 152 appliances at 95 stations and 154 appliances at 91 stations.

152/95 in detail

36. The key features of this option are:

38 Stations are impacted 16 1-appliance stations close 1 2-appliance stations close 10 Stations lose a pumping appliance 11 Stations gain a pumping appliance 17 Appliances fewer (net)

37. Based on the objective of minimising London-wide 1st and 2nd appliance response times to serious incidents, the modelling produces deployment proposals as set out in Appendix 5, which also includes the impact of the proposals on attendance performance, including at borough level. As can be seen: • London-wide average performance remains well within the targets for 1st and 2nd appliance response. However, • A number of boroughs whose performance is already outside target deteriorate further (see Bromley; Hillingdon; Hounslow and Kingston). In other boroughs, performance deteriorates from within target to outside target.

154/91in detail

38. The key features of this option are:

38 Stations are impacted 20 1-appliance stations close 1 2-appliance stations close 5 Stations lose a pumping appliance 12 Stations gain a pumping appliance 15 Appliances fewer (net)

39. Based on the objective of minimising London-wide 1st and 2nd appliance response times to serious incidents, the modelling produces deployment proposals as set out in Appendix 6, which also includes the impact of the proposals on attendance performance, including at borough level. As can be seen:

• London-wide average performance remains well within the targets for 1st and 2nd appliance response. However,

3 A measurement of the number of boroughs that would achieve the first and second appliance targets; 33 targets for each target, so 66 targets in total.

Page 7 of 33

• A number of boroughs whose performance is already outside target deteriorate further (see Barnet, Bromley; Hounslow and Kingston). In other boroughs, performance deteriorates from within target to outside target.

Optimising borough performance at £25m

40. The deterioration in borough performance seen in the examples above occurs (in both options) because the optimisation approach focusses on minimising the average aggregate London-wide response times for 1st and 2nd appliance response to serious incidents. Although the borough score is known, the improvement of scores at a borough level is not a driver in the optimisation. Consequently we took action to make borough outcomes more acceptable, and so at this stage, additional objectives were applied to the modelling results. These were that:

• Boroughs already outside target performance should not deteriorate further; and • Aim to avoid performance going from within target to outside target, where it was apparent that this was a likely risk.

152/95 with borough rules

41. The key features of this option are:

30 Stations are impacted 12 1-appliance stations close 5 2-appliance stations close 4 Stations lose a pumping appliance 9 Stations gain a pumping appliance 17 Appliances fewer (net)

42. Taking this new objective into account, the modelling produces revised deployment proposals as set out in Appendix 7 for 152 appliances at 95 stations and Appendix 8 for 154 appliances at 91 stations. The effect of the revised closures and redeployments would be to reduce the headcount on fire stations by 468 and 488 respectively. As can be seen, the effect of these proposals is to bring more boroughs within the two attendance targets. In fact, more boroughs come within target performance than is currently the case based on existing resources and deployments.

43. The performance results for 152 appliances at 95 stations are very good. London-wide average 1st appliance performance deteriorates by only 21 seconds, but remains within target; and London-wide 2nd appliance performance deteriorates by only 11 seconds. Of the existing performance scores outside target, 11 of the 12 get better. The two new adverse results (involving performance outside target) are in Ealing, where 1st appliance response goes from within target (5:41) to outside target at 6:13 and in Hillingdon, where 1st appliance performance goes from 6:13 to 6:16.

44. Normal reporting (i.e. performance reporting outside of this modelling work) has highlighted that the Boroughs of Barnet, Bromley, Enfield, Harrow, Hillingdon, Kingston, Richmond and Sutton have all, during the 5 years 2007/8-2011/12 failed against the 1st performance target. Within these proposals, Barnet, Bromley, Enfield, Harrow, Kingston, Richmond and Sutton would all improve, with Kingston, Richmond and Sutton coming within or at target performance. Hillingdon is the only non-improver, and gets worse by 3 seconds.

45. Looking at 2nd appliance performance, the consistent under-performers have been Barnet; Bromley; Harrow and Richmond. All would now be within target performance,

Page 8 of 33

154/91 with borough rules

46. The key features of this option are:

36 Stations are impacted 14 1-appliance stations close 7 2-appliance stations close 1 Station loses a pumping appliance 14 Stations gain a pumping appliance 15 Appliances fewer (net)

47. The results for 154 appliances at 91 stations are also very good, but only eight of the 12 out of target borough performance results are improved and 5 new adverse borough impact results are produced, including a deterioration of 1st appliance response in Haringey to 7 minutes (1 minute outside target).

48. These results suggest 152 appliances at 95 stations has more positive outcomes and so it is this package that has been further developed and is suggested as the most positive scenario for presentation in the next draft London Safety Plan and for public consultation.

Modelling between £25- £50m 49. Given the continuing lack of certainty about the eventual financial targets for 2013/14 and beyond, modelling has also looked at stages of savings above £25m. The significant headlines of reductions at £30m, £35m and £40m are summarised below and the summary and further detail are produced for savings at £50m.

50. The first important thing to highlight is that, to a significant extent, the options which present themselves at £25m are also a feature of the options above £25m, but it is important to be clear that there can be variations. Stations which close, or reduce or gain an appliance at one saving target may be treated differently at a different financial target. These changes in status do not always present themselves in a convenient order; so a station that closes in a package aimed at saving one amount might re-open at a different amount. For example, in the modelling work which is the subject of this paper, the additional appliance allocated to Twickenham, when the aim is to save £25m is removed at a savings package targeted at £30m. More problematic than that, Downham would close at £25m and £30m, but would not at £35m, or beyond. This is a function of the optimising approach. Firm financial targets for each year are the only effective way of managing the risk that changes in one year might transpire not to have been optimum in years that follow.

51. The second issue to highlight is that the rules which worked well to generate proposals at £25m work less well at £30m and beyond. In particular, they begin to generate a very unsatisfactory effect in the borough of Haringey, where 1st appliance response rises to 7 minutes or more. This is an unacceptable outcome and officers are examining ways to design it out.

52. In terms of the scale and substance of changes at £30m, £35m, £40m and £50m, the modelling suggests that the optimum combinations of stations and appliances are very likely to be in the order of: £25m saving 152/95 Closes 17 stations and reduces appliances by 17 £30m saving 147/94 Closes 18 stations and reduces appliances by 22 £35m saving 142/94 Closes 18 stations and reduces appliances by 27 £40m saving 137/94 Closes 18 stations and reduces appliances by 32 £50m saving 128/91 Closes 21 stations and reduces appliances by 41.

Page 9 of 33

53. At £30m, the average 1st appliance response times would be close to 5:44 (147 appliances at 94 stations) and 2nd appliance response times would be close to 6:39. Based on the current modelling (which we expect to revise in order to deal with the unacceptable impact in Haringey), Haringey’s 1st appliance response would be close to 7:00; Ealing’s would move from inside target (5:41) to outside target (6:13); and Enfield and Hillingdon would each get worse by 1 and 3 seconds respectively. However, there would also be some improvements, in Harrow; Bromley and Barnet. London-wide, 55 of the 66 targets would be met (against 54 now).

54. At £35m, the average 1st appliance response times would be close to 5:45 (142 appliances at 94 stations) and 2nd appliance response times would be close to 6:46. Based on the current modelling, Haringey’s 1st appliance response would be close to 7:00; Ealing’s would move from inside target (5:41) to outside target (6:13); and Enfield and Hillingdon would each get worse by 4 and 3 seconds respectively. Bromley’s 2nd appliance performance would get worse by 3 seconds. However, there would also be some improvements, In Harrow; Bromley (1st appliance only) and Barnet. London-wide, 53 of the 66 targets would be met (against 54 now).

55. At £40m, the average 1st appliance response times would be close to 5:48 (137 appliances at 94 stations) and 2nd appliance response times would be close to 6:54. Based on the current modelling, Haringey’s 1st appliance response would be close to 7:00; Camden would move from inside target (4:41) to outside target (6:11); Islington would move from inside target (4:43) to outside target at 6:07; Enfield and Hillingdon would each get worse by 4 seconds each. Bromley’s 2nd appliance performance would get worse by 3 seconds. However, there would also be some very small improvements. In Harrow and Barnet. London-wide, 51 of the 66 targets would be met (against 54 now

56. At £50m, the processes at £25m were replicated. 46 options were summarised (ranging from 117 appliances at 112 stations to 139 appliances at 70 stations). The summary identified the seven different performance impacts (see paragraph 33).

57. For each option, the optimisation model then identified the best configuration of appliances and stations (i.e. the exact deployment of 139 appliances at 70 stations in the last option), applying the operational objective to minimise aggregate London-wide 1st and 2nd appliance response times to serious incidents. This led to the identification of results, reported in terms of the performance criteria described above. At this stage, specific deployment options were still not identified or under consideration.

58. The average 1st response times ranged from 5:33 (117 appliances at 112 stations) to 6:17 (139 appliances at 70 stations), with the attendance standard no longer achieved when the number of stations went below 79. The average 2nd response times ranged from 6:40 (at 138 appliances at 71 stations) to 7:42 (117 appliances at112 stations) – always within the target. The “borough score” was between 41 and 47 . From these options, officers selected two for further exploration and these were 128 appliances at 91 stations and 133 appliances at 81 stations. These are set out in appendix 9 and appendix 10 respectively.

£50M option – 128/91

59. The key features of this option are:

47 Stations are impacted 19 1-appliance stations close 2 2-appliance stations close 22 Stations lose a pumping appliance 4 Stations gain a pumping appliance 41 Appliances fewer (net)

Page 10 of 33

60. Based on the objective of minimising London-wide 1st and 2nd appliance response times to serious incidents, the modelling produces deployment proposals as set out in Appendix 9, which also includes the impact of the proposals on attendance performance, including at borough level. As can be seen:

• London-wide average performance remains within the targets for 1st and 2nd appliance response. However,

• A number of boroughs whose performance is already outside target deteriorate further (see Barnet, Bromley; Enfield, Hillingdon; Hounslow, Kingston, Richmond and Sutton). In other boroughs, performance deteriorates from within target to outside target.

£50M option – 133/81

61. The key features of this option are:

43 Stations are impacted 25 1-appliance stations close 6 2-appliance stations close 5 Stations lose a pumping appliance 7 Stations gain a pumping appliance 36 Appliances fewer (net)

62. Based on the objective of minimising London-wide 1st and 2nd appliance response times to serious incidents, the modelling produces deployment proposals as set out in Appendix 10, which also includes the impact of the proposals on attendance performance, including at borough level. As can be seen:

• London-wide average performance remains within the targets for 1st and 2nd appliance response. However, • A number of boroughs whose performance is already outside target deteriorate further (see Barnet, Bromley; Enfield, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kingston, Richmond and Waltham Forest). In other boroughs, performance deteriorates from within target to outside target.

Modelling £75m 63. In the work so far described, the effect of the constraints and rules that have been introduced have been largely successful. But at this level of savings, this ceases to be the case. Appendix 11 illustrates the potential impact of savings at £75m. Average 1st response times range from 5:52 (98 appliances at 98 stations) to 6:49 (118 appliances at 59 stations), with the attendance standard no longer achieved when the number of stations is 91 or fewer. The average 2nd response times range from 7:11 (at 117 appliances at 62 stations) to 8:08 (99 appliances at 96 stations); the 8 minute attendance target is met for all options with 102 or more appliances. At this level of savings, there are only two options where both the 1st and 2nd response standards are met across London. The configurations at which both targets are just being achieved are 102 appliances at either 90 or 91 stations.

64. In this part of the paper, modelling work is concluded.

Night time reductions 65. Officers have not undertaken any work to specifically examine night time only reductions in provision. However, it is known that 58 per cent of incident demand falls within the day shift and only 42 per cent

Page 11 of 33

during the night shift4. This is a reflection of the now longer day shift, which has changed the distribution of activity between day and night demand.

66. In the past when this issue has been discussed with members, a powerful argument against different levels of provision day and night has been the impact upon firefighters. All are conditioned to the 2/2/4 system and different levels of day and night provision would require contractual or new recruitment changes to enable more firefighters to be available at some times (i.e. days) than others.

67. If Members are prepared to contemplate the introduction of new shift patterns, potentially running alongside the majority continuing as they are now, variable patterns of cover and staffing could be explored, although not in time for proposals to be made in LSP5. Although other brigades have more diverse patterns of cover and shift patterns, none face the challenges of being the capital City with the risk profile that matches that; none rely upon large portions of the workforce living so far from their place of work as is the case in London; and none have the same breadth of capability as London, which does mitigate against very localised shift management systems and arrangements.

68. Nevertheless, members may feel that it would be appropriate for LSP5 to acknowledge that, in the longer term, there is a good business reason for having more cover available during the day than the night and in the future, especially if there are areas of deficiency in cover, day-only stations may be appropriate. On the face of it, such stations are also more likely to be compatible with sites shared with other services.

Special appliances/alternate crewing 69. There are a number of alternate crewing arrangements in place within the Brigade5 which have resulted in a more efficient use of resources. They have been introduced where demand for special appliances (those which are not pumping appliances) is low but where those special appliances are still required to ensure the Brigade is well placed to manage the range of operational scenarios in which firefighters might be expected to operate.

70. The Brigade also operates shared crewing, which is a different form of alternate crewing. Definitions of alternate crewing and shared crewing are set out in Appendix 12 to this paper.

Alternate crewing of an aerial appliance against a pumping appliance

71. The Brigade has 11 aerial appliances at 11 stations. At ten of these stations the aerial appliance is located with a minimum of two other vehicles (one or more pumping appliances and/or other special appliances) and at one location the aerial is located with a single pumping appliance.

72. Alternate crewing of an aerial appliance against a pumping appliance would mean that the crew would normally be assigned to ride the pumping appliance at the station where both the pumping appliance and aerial appliance are located. If alternate crewing was in operation, if the aerial appliance were required to be mobilised, the pumping appliance would no longer be available for mobilising and the designated crew members from the pumping appliance would crew the aerial appliance and respond to the mobilising order. However, it is not unusual for both the pumping appliance and the aerial to be mobilised from the same station at the same time. The introduction of alternate crewing would mean that this was no longer possible; the pumping appliance would be mobilised from that station, but the aerial would have to be mobilised from the nearest alternative aerial station (or the other way round).

73. In 2011, there were 3845 aerial mobilisations. Of these, 1321 (34 per cent) were occasions where the aerial appliance and pumping appliance from the same station were mobilised together as part of the Pre- Determined Attendance (PDA) for that incident.

4 Day shift is 10½ hours 0930 to 2000 hours (44 per cent of 24 period); night shift is 13½ hours 2000 hours to 0930 hours (56 per cent of 24 hour period) 5 Alternately crewed vehicles comprise: Three bulk foam units (BFU) and 4 hose layer lorries (HLL) at the four Incident Support Centres; seven Incident Response Units (IRU) and one mass decontamination resilience vehicle (MDRV).

Page 12 of 33

74. However, a mobilisation does not mean that the aerial appliance was actually deployed at the incident concerned. With that in mind, a review of the utilisation rates of aerials has been underway for the past year. Early indications suggest where an aerial appliance has been mobilised, they have on average been used at the incident on fewer than 25 per cent of occasions, and one has been used at only 12 per cent of the incidents to which it has been mobilised.

75. Further analysis of this data is required but it does suggest that there is a case for reviewing the inclusion of aerials in Pre-Determined Attendances (PDAs). This review would reduce the number of mobilisations across the aerial fleet and may also lead to a reasonable conclusion that there is a case for alternate crewing of some of the aerials.

76. As explained earlier, the particular configuration of pumping and special appliances at each station has an impact on the effect of alternate crewing. In relation to stations with aerial appliances, in seven instances the current configuration is two pumping appliances and an aerial. In those instances, the staffing and financial effect of implementing alternate crewing would be to save one crew manager and two firefighters on each watch, generating savings of approximately £531k, per station, per annum.

77. Accordingly, it is proposed that the aerial appliances are placed on request only. This would mean that an aerial will only be mobilised when required for use at an incident. Subject to a further review of the outcomes of this change, consideration could then be given to whether11 aerials are actually needed and to the possibility of alternately crewing a number of aerial appliances.

Incident Response Units (IRUs)

78. A review of the IRU fleet was carried out for the fourth London Safety Plan and the decision taken to increase the alternately crewed number of IRUs from six to seven and place a further vehicle in training, leaving two of the ten IRUs permanently crewed.

79. Between April 2011 and March 2012, 18 IRUs were mobilised to eight incidents; three IRUs were not mobilised to any incidents during the year. All of the mobilisations were to utilise the associated forklift truck to assist in delivering or retrieving lighting units. This is in line with previous experience.

80. Officers are confident that alternately crewing the last two IRUs would not have a detrimental impact on service provision and that the national response time commitments of two hours could be maintained (these vehicles form part of the national resilience resource). The government’s National Resilience Assurance Team (NRAT) would need to be consulted on these proposals for this reason.

81. Alternately crewing the remaining two permanently crewed IRUs (Kingsland and Wimbledon6) would realise a year on year saving of £514,884 and a reduction of 12 posts (8 posts at Kingsland, 4 at Wimbledon, in the light of the different configuration of appliances at these stations).

82. The mobilising system currently always mobilises one of the two permanently crewed vehicles (Kingsland & Wimbledon), even in scenarios where there may be a nearer alternately crewed vehicle. This change would allow for a more efficient use of resources, mobilisation of the nearest appropriate resource and reduce vehicle travel distances.

Scientific Support Units (SSU)

83. There are two permanently crewed SSUs based at Poplar and Hammersmith. The units provide hazardous materials and environmental protection officers (HMEPOs), and scientific advisors (SAs), with a secure, clean and analytical facility which enables them to carry out on-scene analysis of unknown substances and hazardous materials.

6 If the IRU and aerial appliance at Wimbledon were both alternately crewed, then the reduction in the number of posts would be different and would not be the sum of the reductions for those appliances separately.

Page 13 of 33

84. The SSUs carry a wide range of Detection, Identification and Monitoring (DIM) equipment and have the facility for a broadband internet connection, satellite TV and a range of other communications systems.

85. These vehicles need two additional firefighter posts on each watch at the stations where they are located to support permanent crewing arrangements but when mobilised, do so with one firefighter. Their role is to drive the SSU to the incident so that it can be used by the Scientific Adviser on-site.

86. Between April 2011 and March 2012 SSUs were mobilised to 184 incidents. Experience suggests that if these vehicles were mobilised on request only (i.e. not on PDAs) then mobilisations would be minimal.

87. Alternately crewing the SSUs would realise a year on year saving of £686,512 and result in a reduction of 16 posts.

Shared crewing of the USAR Prime Movers

88. The Brigade maintains four national resilience Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) units. Each of these comprises three prime movers and a set of five modules, as described below:

Module 1 Structural Collapse Module 2 Major Transport Module 3 USAR Support to Module 1 Module 4 Multi Purpose Vehicle Module 5 Timber

89. With the exception of Heston, there are USAR units located at each Technical Rescue Centre (Battersea, Croydon, East Ham, and Edmonton). Each of these four centres has at least one pumping appliance and a Fire Rescue Unit in addition to the USAR units and their establishment attracts an additional two firefighter posts per watch to facilitate permanent crewing of the USAR prime movers.

90. When a USAR attendance is required, modules 1 and 4 are deployed as an initial attendance. If other USAR modules are required, either or both drivers, as necessary, return to the station to collect them.

91. The proposal is to delete the additional firefighter posts and for the prime movers to be shared crewed with the crew for the pumping appliance. This would mean when the USAR unit is mobilised, the prime movers will be driven to the incident along with the pumping appliance from that station. As a result of the Technical Centres project in the fourth London Safety Plan, many of the pumping appliance crew at the USAR stations are now also USAR trained, and in these cases, they will be available to operate the equipment when they arrive at the incident if they are required.

92. This would reduce the establishment by 32 firefighter posts across the 4 USAR unit locations, saving £1,373,024.

93. The combined savings from the alternate crewing proposals outlined above would be £2,574,240 a year and is summarised in Appendix 13.

94. In this paper and at this time there are no proposals that affect the number or crewing of the largest single category of special appliances, which is the 16 Fire Rescue Units. However, both of these things should be examined in more detail in the future.

Reducing the establishment 95. The number of firefighter posts affected in these options could be up to 528 (at £25m) and1048 at £50m. Officers have begun to think about how we could quickly give effect to reductions of that order.

96. The current leaver rate for operational staff averages 262 pa over the last five years. The modelling on leaver rates operates using a tolerance level of 10 per cent and for the last two years the actual rate has

Page 14 of 33

been at the higher end, which suggests staff are tending to retire earlier. In the event that leaver rates were at the highest end of the model then 883 firefighters might be expected to leave between 2013- 2016. The current voluntary redundancy trawl also has the potential to increase that number, although at this stage it is impossible to anticipate what interest there may be from station based staff.

97. There are also factors outside the Authority’s control which have the potential to impact on leaver rates, most notably revisions to the firefighter pension schemes and the cost of membership, particularly for officers. The decision on employee contribution rates from 1 April 2012 has meant that the 3.2 per cent increase is now back loaded to 2013 and 2014 which will impact during the plan’s lifetime. Unless there is a change which reduces the overall impact of the increases, there is every likelihood of an acceleration in retirements over the next two financial years.

98. There are two other potential changes to the Firefighter pension schemes which could incentivise early retirements, but both have significant costs attached.

99. The Government undertook a statutory consultation last year which proposed that FRSs were given discretion to agree to increase the proportion of pension that could be commuted (taken as a lump sum for staff aged 50 and over with 25 but less than 30 years service. Currently the former group can commute up to 12.5 per cent, whilst the latter can commute up to 25 per cent. The proposed discretion would allow such employees to commute up to the full 25 per cent, but FRSs would have to bear the cost. This discretion was not supported by the Authority as it was a direct movement of pension fund costs onto FRSs, and it was also very expensive for senior staff (in excess of £0.2M for an AC). Nevertheless this is a discretion that may be available within the current financial year.

100. The Government is also considering carrying out a statutory consultation on a proposal to introduce a compensation scheme along the same lines as exists in Local Government which would allow FRSs to make redundancy payments over and above the statutory minimum. This again could act as an incentive to staff to leave to enable the reductions to be made voluntarily.

101. Provided that reductions were spread out over the three years then it is feasible that they would be able to be made through natural wastage and the temporary cessation of recruitment. The incentives set out above may assist that process and would certainly be required if the numbers were needed over a shorter period without the need to make firefighters compulsorily redundant on statutory minimum terms.

Conclusions 102. At this time, it seems possible that there might be some changes to the financial savings targets previously set out. In the meanwhile, proposals to meet a range of scenarios have been examined and are set out in this paper. As explained, as the size of the financial target grows, the proposals are largely but not completely consistent. Firm financial targets for each year are the only effective way of managing the risk that changes in one year might transpire not to have been optimum in years that follow.

103. Specifically, the performance effects of reductions at targeted at saving £25m, £30m, £35m, £40m and £50m are explained and the deployment proposals targeted at saving £25m have been largely set out, (i.e. redeployment of special appliances and re-allocation of attributes). These are summarised, together with an early assessment of the other-revenue savings that might accompany them (e.g. overtime, allowances and property), in Appendix 14. In total, they amount to £24,830,195. The deployment proposals at £50m are also identified (Appendices 9 & 10) but detailed work to look at the consequential changes have not been identified at this stage.

104. Reducing the Brigade by 17 stations would be difficult, as would reducing the number of station-based staff by 528. The Brigade makes a highly significant contribution to public safety in London, including the perception of safety. In polling conducted in June 2012, respondents listed fire stations as third behind hospitals and police stations (and above GP surgeries, primary schools, post offices, libraries and sports and leisure centres) as priorities to be saved from closure. When asked to choose, firefighters and fire engines were prioritised above fire stations. Even though the performance impacts of the proposals at

Page 15 of 33

£25m are capable of being presented as entirely reasonable, individual boroughs (and MPs) will no doubt adopt a position of opposition; indeed, this has already commenced.

105. This package of work means that, at this stage, officers have identified specific proposals for savings from stations to the value of £27,404,615 (including the proposals for alternate crewing). Over and above this and outside of this process, officers have undertaken a review of the requirements for the senior officers rota and this has identified the potential to reduce the number of officers, up to 28. In addition, up to £1.3m in officer costs might flow from the savings identified in the proposals in this report, through reductions in the number of Station Managers and potentially through reducing the number of Borough Commanders.

106. The timetable for giving effect to these changes, if they are agreed by the Authority, is such that the station savings would not achieve a full year financial effect. When members have expressed a view about the way forward, practical planning work can commence. During that phase, we will also be better informed about the likely level of interest in voluntary redundancy/early retirement and will be able to take this into account.

107. Members will also wish to receive advice about the impact of this level of savings upon the ability to undertake community safety work and this work has now commenced. As members know, fire stations have consistently exceeded the community safety (and home fire safety visit) targets and so the maintenance of current targets is a possibility. But we need to do the detailed work to confirm this (or not).

Page 16 of 33

Appendix 1 Attendance times in neighbouring counties

Page 17 of 33

Appendix 2

Protected stations (no closure proposal)

call sign Station PFIstation (minimum) RescueCentre Large/usefulsite £1mlastin 3years 10lessor old years Recent/plannedinvestment - F43 Barking H27 Battersea H31 Croydon F41 Dagenham E34 Dockhead F44 East Ham A34 Edmonton G36 Hammersmith F57 Harold Hill G21 Harrow G38 Heston A31 Holloway H41 Kingston H22 Lambeth E21 Lewisham F30 Leytonstone F23 Millwall H36 Mitcham E35 Old Kent Road E41 Orpington A21 Paddington F45 Plaistow H29 Purley F25 Shadwell F21 Stratford F36 Walthamstow G30 Wembley H25 West Norwood

Page 18 of 33

Appendix 3

Modelling exemplifications

Note: the post reductions shown are watch-based staff at fire stations

Page 19 of 33

Appendix 4 Modelling options matrix (extract)

Page 20 of 33

Appendix 5 £25M Option 1 – 152 appliances at 95 stations

£25M - Option 1 Current position Change 152 Appliances 169 -17 95 Stations 112 -17

38 1-App Stations 55 -17 57 2-App Stations 57 0 Average Base Modelled Station Modelled Base Borough 1st to All 2nd to All 1st to All 2nd to All Acton 1 2 Pump added Belsize 1 0 Closes London-wide 5:20 6:22 5:38 6:30 Biggin Hill 1 0 Closes Barking and Dagenham 5:30 5:40 5:31 5:43 Bow 2 1 Loses pump Barnet 6:14 8:23 6:06 7:31 Bromley 2 1 Loses pump Bexley 5:40 6:15 5:43 7:10 Chingford 2 1 Loses pump Brent 5:52 6:31 6:12 6:29 Chiswick 1 0 Closes Bromley 6:16 8:20 6:32 8:25 Clapham 2 1 Loses pump Camden 4:41 6:00 5:03 5:43 Clerkenwell 1 2 Pump added City of London 5:04 5:58 5:13 6:22 East Greenwich 1 2 Pump added Croydon 5:23 6:46 5:21 6:21 Euston 1 2 Pump added Ealing 5:41 6:28 5:44 6:08 Fulham 1 0 Closes Enfield 6:25 6:55 6:23 6:37 Hainault 1 0 Closes Greenwich 5:28 7:01 6:02 7:01 Hayes 2 1 Loses pump Hackney 4:45 5:08 5:05 5:25 Hendon 1 2 Pump added Hammersmith and Fulham 5:13 6:21 6:19 6:48 Islington 1 0 Closes Haringey 5:40 5:51 5:40 5:50 Kensington 1 0 Closes Harrow 6:17 8:26 6:10 7:34 Kingston 2 1 Loses pump Havering 5:40 7:10 6:20 7:24 Knightsbridge 1 0 Closes Hillingdon 6:13 7:19 6:16 7:41 Lee Green 1 0 Closes Hounslow 6:05 6:53 6:29 6:55 Leyton 2 1 Loses pump Islington 4:43 5:12 5:34 5:56 Leytonstone 2 1 Loses pump Kensington and Chelsea 4:39 5:42 5:53 6:31 New Cross 1 0 Closes Kingston upon Thames 5:56 8:32 5:59 8:58 Orpington 1 2 Pump added Lambeth 4:33 4:56 4:40 5:24 Park Royal 1 0 Closes Lewisham 4:47 6:03 5:06 6:20 Purley 1 2 Pump added Merton 5:46 7:42 5:46 7:42 Richmond 1 2 Pump added Newham 5:11 5:48 5:27 5:56 Shoreditch 2 0 Closes Redbridge 5:36 6:54 6:16 7:10 Sidcup 2 1 Loses pump Richmond upon Thames 6:07 9:02 5:57 6:59 Silvertown 1 0 Closes Southwark 4:43 5:24 5:12 5:39 Southgate 1 2 Pump added Sutton 5:56 7:15 5:56 7:11 Southwark 1 0 Closes Tower Hamlets 4:32 5:24 4:37 5:59 Stanmore 1 2 Pump added Waltham Forest 5:31 6:53 5:35 7:40 Twickenham 1 2 Pump added Wandsworth 5:18 6:11 5:21 6:21 Wennington 1 0 Closes Westminster 5:08 5:55 5:47 6:14 Westminster 1 0 Closes Whitechapel 2 1 Loses pump Within Target (Out of 33) 26 28 22 31 Woolwich 1 0 Closes Within Target (Out of 66) 54 53

NOTE: These deployments are not presented in any priority order for implementation

Page 21 of 33

Appendix 6 £25M Option 2 – modelled 154 appliances at 91 stations

£25M - Option 2 Current position Change 154 Appliances 169 -15 91 Stations 112 -21

28 1-App Stations 55 -27 63 2-App Stations 57 6

Average Base Modelled Station Modelled Base Borough 1st to All 2nd to All 1st to All 2nd to All Acton 1 2 Pump added Belsize 1 0 Closes London-wide 5:20 6:22 5:42 6:26 Bexley 1 0 Closes Barking and Dagenham 5:30 5:40 5:31 5:43 Biggin Hill 1 0 Closes Barnet 6:14 8:23 6:37 7:55 Chingford 2 1 Loses pump Bexley 5:40 6:15 6:40 6:47 Chiswick 1 0 Closes Brent 5:52 6:31 6:13 6:30 Clapham 2 1 Loses pump Bromley 6:16 8:20 6:31 7:34 Clerkenwell 1 2 Pump added Camden 4:41 6:00 5:03 5:43 Deptford 1 0 Closes City of London 5:04 5:58 5:13 6:22 Downham 1 0 Closes Croydon 5:23 6:46 5:21 6:21 East Greenwich 1 2 Pump added Ealing 5:41 6:28 5:44 6:08 Eltham 1 0 Closes Enfield 6:25 6:55 6:23 6:37 Euston 1 2 Pump added Greenwich 5:28 7:01 6:16 6:55 Fulham 1 0 Closes Hackney 4:45 5:08 5:04 5:23 Greenwich 1 2 Pump added Hammersmith and Fulham 5:13 6:21 6:19 6:48 Hainault 1 0 Closes Haringey 5:40 5:51 5:40 5:50 Hendon 1 2 Pump added Harrow 6:17 8:26 6:12 7:44 Islington 1 0 Closes Havering 5:40 7:10 6:20 7:24 Kensington 1 0 Closes Hillingdon 6:13 7:19 6:13 7:19 Kingston 2 1 Loses pump Hounslow 6:05 6:53 6:29 6:54 Knightsbridge 1 0 Closes Islington 4:43 5:12 5:34 5:56 Leytonstone 2 1 Loses pump Kensington and Chelsea 4:39 5:42 5:53 6:31 Mill Hill 1 0 Closes Kingston upon Thames 5:56 8:32 5:59 8:58 New Cross 1 0 Closes Lambeth 4:33 4:56 4:40 5:24 Orpington 1 2 Pump added Lewisham 4:47 6:03 5:44 6:13 Park Royal 1 0 Closes Merton 5:46 7:42 5:46 7:42 Purley 1 2 Pump added Newham 5:11 5:48 5:27 5:55 Richmond 1 2 Pump added Redbridge 5:36 6:54 6:16 7:10 Shoreditch 2 0 Closes Richmond upon Thames 6:07 9:02 5:57 6:59 Southgate 1 2 Pump added Southwark 4:43 5:24 5:16 5:47 Southwark 1 0 Closes Sutton 5:56 7:15 5:56 7:11 Stanmore 1 2 Pump added Tower Hamlets 4:32 5:24 4:35 5:43 Twickenham 1 2 Pump added Waltham Forest 5:31 6:53 5:32 7:09 Wennington 1 0 Closes Wandsworth 5:18 6:11 5:2121 6:21 32 Westminster 1 0 Closes Westminster 5:08 5:55 5:47 6:1453 Whitechapel 2 1 Loses pump Woolwich 1 0 Closes Within Target (Out of 33) 26 28 21 32 Within Target (Out of 66) 54 53

NOTE: These deployments are not presented in any priority order for implementation

Page 22 of 33

Appendix 7 £25M Option 1 – modelled 152 appliances at 95 stations with borough rules

£25M - Option 1 Current position Change 152 Appliances 169 -17 95 Stations 112 -17 43 1-App Stations 55 -12 52 2-App Stations 57 -5 Adjusted Average Base Borough rules Station

Base modelled Borough 1st to All 2nd to All 1st to All 2nd to All Acton 1 0 Closure Belsize 1 0 Closure London-wide 5:20 6:22 5:41 6:33 Bow 2 0 Closure Barking and Dagenham 5:30 5:40 5:30 5:40 Chingford 2 1 Loses pump Barnet 6:14 8:23 6:06 7:31 Chiswick 1 2 Pump Added Bexley 5:40 6:15 5:40 6:16 Clapham 2 0 Closure Brent 5:52 6:31 5:50 6:21 Clerkenwell 1 0 Closure Bromley 6:16 8:20 6:11 7:30 Downham 1 0 Closure Camden 4:41 6:00 5:18 5:56 City of London 5:04 5:58 5:43 7:19 East Greenwich 1 2 Pump Added Croydon 5:23 6:46 5:21 6:18 Euston 1 2 Pump Added Ealing 5:41 6:28 6:13 6:36 Hayes 2 1 Loses pump Enfield 6:25 6:55 6:23 6:37 Hendon 1 2 Pump Added Greenwich 5:28 7:01 5:53 6:51 Islington 1 0 Closure Hackney 4:45 5:08 5:20 5:53 Kensington 1 0 Closure Hammersmith and Fulham 5:13 6:21 5:18 6:26 Kingsland 2 0 Closure Haringey 5:40 5:51 5:40 5:50 Knightsbridge 1 0 Closure Harrow 6:17 8:26 6:09 7:34 Leyton 2 1 Loses pump Havering 5:40 7:10 5:40 7:10 Leytonstone 2 1 Loses pump Hillingdon 6:13 7:19 6:16 7:41 New Cross 1 0 Closure Hounslow 6:05 6:53 6:04 6:32 Orpington 1 2 Pump Added Islington 4:43 5:12 5:54 6:15 Peckham 2 0 Closure Kensington and Chelsea 4:39 5:42 5:47 6:16 Purley 1 2 Pump Added Kingston upon Thames 5:56 8:32 5:55 8:31 Silvertown 1 0 Closure Lambeth 4:33 4:56 5:09 5:44 Southgate 1 2 Pump Added Lewisham 4:47 6:03 5:18 6:16 Southwark 1 0 Closure Merton 5:46 7:42 5:46 7:42 Stanmore 1 2 Pump Added Newham 5:11 5:48 5:28 5:57 Twickenham 1 2 Pump Added Redbridge 5:36 6:54 5:37 7:02 Westminster 1 0 Closure Richmond upon Thames 6:07 9:02 6:00 7:40 Whitechapel 2 0 Closure Southwark 4:43 5:24 5:41 6:18 Woolwich 1 0 Closure Sutton 5:56 7:15 5:56 7:11 Tower Hamlets 4:32 5:24 5:12 6:34 Waltham Forest 5:31 6:53 5:35 7:40 Wandsworth 5:18 6:11 5:27 6:27 Westminster 5:08 5:55 5:49 6:15

Within Target (Out of 33) 26 28 26 32 Within Target (Out of 66) 54 58 NOTE: These deployments are not presented in any priority order for implementation

Page 23 of 33

Appendix 8 £25M Option 2 – modelled 154 appliances at 91 stations with borough rules

£25M - Option 2 Current position Change 154 Appliances 169 -15 91 Stations 112 -21 41 1-App Stations 55 -14 50 2-App Stations 57 -7 Adjusted Average Base Borough rules Station

Page 24 of 33

Appendix 9 £50M Option 1 – modelled 128 appliances at 91 stations

£50M Option 1 Current position Change 128 Appliances 169 -41 91 Stations 112 -21 54 1-App Stations 55 -1 37 2-App Stations 57 -20 128 Appliances Station Modelled Average Base

Base at 91 Stations Acton 1 2 Pump added Belsize 1 0 Closes Borough 1st to All 2nd to All 1st to All 2nd to All Biggin Hill 1 0 Closes London-wide 5:20 6:22 5:49 7:03 Bow 2 1 Loses pump Barking and Dagenham 5:30 5:40 5:32 5:50 Bromley 2 1 Loses pump Barnet 6:14 8:23 6:44 8:45 Chingford 2 1 Loses pump Bexley 5:40 6:15 5:48 7:52 Chiswick 1 0 Closes Brent 5:52 6:31 6:14 6:35 Clapham 2 1 Loses pump Bromley 6:16 8:20 6:35 8:49 Deptford 1 0 Closes Camden 4:41 6:00 5:19 7:03 Downham 1 0 Closes City of London 5:04 5:58 5:30 6:55 Ealing 2 1 Loses pump Croydon 5:23 6:46 5:23 6:50 Erith 2 1 Loses pump Ealing 5:41 6:28 5:49 6:53 Finchley 2 1 Loses pump Enfield 6:25 6:55 6:27 7:02 Fulham 1 0 Closes Greenwich 5:28 7:01 5:42 7:27 Hainault 1 0 Closes Hackney 4:45 5:08 4:53 5:44 Hayes 2 1 Loses pump Hammersmith and Fulham 5:13 6:21 6:21 6:55 Hendon 1 2 Pump added Haringey 5:40 5:51 5:46 6:43 Islington 1 0 Closes Harrow 6:17 8:26 6:13 7:44 Kensington 1 0 Closes Havering 5:40 7:10 6:26 8:09 Kentish Town 2 1 Loses pump Hillingdon 6:13 7:19 6:17 7:42 Kingsland 2 1 Loses pump Hounslow 6:05 6:53 6:36 7:10 Kingston 2 1 Loses pump Islington 4:43 5:12 5:27 6:31 Knightsbridge 1 0 Closes Kensington and Chelsea 4:39 5:42 6:02 7:39 Lee Green 1 0 Closes Kingston upon Thames 5:56 8:32 6:03 9:05 Leyton 2 1 Loses pump 4:33 4:56 4:42 5:32 Leytonstone 2 1 Loses pump Lambeth 4:47 6:03 6:03 6:49 Mill Hill 1 0 Closes Lewisham 5:46 7:42 5:48 7:50 New Cross 1 0 Closes Merton 5:11 5:48 5:33 6:59 North Kensington 2 1 Loses pump Newham Orpington 1 2 Pump added Redbridge 5:36 6:54 6:17 7:15 Park Royal 1 0 Closes Richmond upon Thames 6:07 9:02 8:29 9:55 Peckham 2 0 Closes Southwark 4:43 5:24 5:46 6:27 Plaistow 2 1 Loses pump Sutton 5:56 7:15 6:07 9:06 Poplar 2 1 Loses pump Tower Hamlets 4:32 5:24 4:57 6:38 Romford 2 1 Loses pump Waltham Forest 5:31 6:53 5:37 7:45 Shoreditch 2 1 Loses pump Wandsworth 5:18 6:11 5:22 6:22 Sidcup 2 1 Loses pump Westminster 5:08 5:55 5:52 6:32 Silvertown 1 0 Closes Southwark 1 0 Closes Within Target (Out of 33) 26 28 18 27 Stanmore 1 2 Pump added Stratford 2 1 Loses pump Within Target (Out of 66) 54 45 Sutton 2 1 Loses pump Tottenham 2 1 Loses pump Twickenham 1 0 Closes Wennington 1 0 Closes Westminster 1 0 Closes Whitechapel 2 0 Closes NOTE: These deployments are not presented in any priority order for implementation

Page 25 of 33

Appendix 10 £50M Option 2 – modelled 138 appliances at 81 stations

£50M Option 2 Current position Change 133 Appliances 169 -36 81 Stations 112 -31 29 1-App Stations 55 -26 52 2-App Stations 57 -26

133 Appliances at 81 Station Modelled Average Base

Base Stations Acton 1 2 Pump added Borough 1st to All 2nd to All 1st to All 2nd to All Belsize 1 0 Closes London-wide 5:20 6:22 5:58 6:48 Bexley 1 0 Closes Barking and Dagenham 5:30 5:40 5:33 5:52 Biggin Hill 1 0 Closes Barnet 6:14 8:23 6:44 8:45 Bow 2 1 Loses pump Bexley 5:40 6:15 6:40 6:48 Bromley 2 1 Loses pump Brent 5:52 6:31 6:13 6:30 Chingford 2 0 Closes Bromley 6:16 8:20 6:38 8:46 Camden 4:41 6:00 5:18 5:57 Chiswick 1 0 Closes City of London 5:04 5:58 5:43 7:19 Clapham 2 0 Closes Croydon 5:23 6:46 5:23 6:50 Clerkenwell 1 0 Closes Ealing 5:41 6:28 5:44 6:08 Deptford 1 0 Closes Enfield 6:25 6:55 6:28 7:04 Downham 1 0 Closes Greenwich 5:28 7:01 6:52 7:31 East Greenwich 1 2 Pump added Hackney 4:45 5:08 5:19 5:47 Eltham 1 0 Closes Hammersmith and Fulham 5:13 6:21 6:19 6:48 Euston 1 2 Pump added Haringey 5:40 5:51 5:41 5:54 Finchley 2 1 Loses pump Harrow 6:17 8:26 6:13 7:44 Fulham 1 0 Closes Havering 5:40 7:10 7:43 8:33 Greenwich 1 0 Closes Hillingdon 6:13 7:19 6:17 7:42 Hainault 1 0 Closes Hounslow 6:05 6:53 6:36 7:08 Islington 4:43 5:12 5:54 6:15 Hendon 1 2 Pump added Kensington and Chelsea 4:39 5:42 5:54 6:33 Hornchurch 1 0 Closes Kingston upon Thames 5:56 8:32 6:02 9:04 Islington 1 0 Closes Lambeth 4:33 4:56 5:10 5:45 Kensington 1 0 Closes Lewisham 4:47 6:03 6:24 6:29 Kingsland 2 0 Closes Merton 5:46 7:42 5:47 7:43 Kingston 2 1 Loses pump Newham 5:11 5:48 5:27 5:55 Knightsbridge 1 0 Closes Redbridge 5:36 6:54 6:17 7:15 Lee Green 1 0 Closes Richmond upon Thames 6:07 9:02 8:28 9:55 Lewisham 1 2 Pump added Southwark 4:43 5:24 5:47 6:29 Leyton 2 0 Closes Sutton 5:56 7:15 5:56 7:15 Mill Hill 1 0 Closes Tower Hamlets 4:32 5:24 4:53 6:17 New Cross 1 0 Closes Waltham Forest 5:31 6:53 7:05 7:52 Wandsworth 5:18 6:11 5:29 6:32 Orpington 1 2 Pump added Westminster 5:08 5:55 5:49 6:16 Park Royal 1 0 Closes Peckham 2 0 Closes Within Target (Out of 33) 26 28 17 28 Romford 2 1 Loses pump Within Target (Out of 66) 54 45 Silvertown 1 0 Closes Southwark 1 0 Closes Stanmore 1 2 Pump added Twickenham 1 0 Closes Wennington 1 0 Closes Westminster 1 0 Closes Whitechapel 2 0 Closes Woolwich 1 0 Closes

NOTE: These deployments are not presented in any priority order for implementation

Page 26 of 33

Appendix 11 £75 modelled options

Borough Score Borough Score 1-Appliance 2-Appliance Average Average 1st Appliance 1st and 2nd Option Pumps Stations Utilisation (Avg) (1st and 2nd (1st 95th %ile; Stations Stations 1st to All 2nd to All 95th Percentile Average Avg; Max = 66) Max = 33) 98at98 98 98 98 0 05:52 08:07 10:44 11.5% 33 06:59 29 98at97 98 97 96 1 05:53 08:07 10:48 11.5% 32 07:00 29 99at97 99 97 95 2 05:53 08:07 10:48 11.4% 32 07:00 29 99at96 99 96 93 3 05:54 08:08 10:50 11.4% 31 07:01 29 100at95 100 95 90 5 05:55 08:05 10:54 11.3% 31 07:00 29 100at94 100 94 88 6 05:58 08:07 10:59 11.4% 32 07:03 28 101at93 101 93 85 8 05:59 08:03 10:57 11.2% 30 07:01 29 101at92 101 92 83 9 05:59 08:02 10:58 11.2% 30 07:01 29 102at91 102 91 80 11 06:00 08:00 10:58 11.1% 31 07:00 29 102at90 102 90 78 12 06:00 07:59 10:59 11.1% 30 07:00 29 103at89 103 89 75 14 06:01 07:57 10:59 11.0% 30 06:59 29 103at88 103 88 73 15 06:03 07:56 11:07 11.0% 30 07:00 28 104at87 104 87 70 17 06:04 07:53 11:04 10.9% 33 06:58 29 104at86 104 86 68 18 06:06 07:55 11:08 10.9% 31 07:00 28 105at85 105 85 65 20 06:07 07:53 11:09 10.8% 32 07:00 29 105at84 105 84 63 21 06:07 07:48 11:09 10.8% 32 06:58 28 106at83 106 83 60 23 06:09 07:49 11:14 10.7% 31 06:59 28 106at82 106 82 58 24 06:10 07:43 11:11 10.7% 32 06:56 28 107at81 107 81 55 26 06:11 07:42 11:13 10.6% 32 06:56 28 107at80 107 80 53 27 06:12 07:42 11:16 10.6% 32 06:57 27 108at79 108 79 50 29 06:13 07:38 11:23 10.5% 31 06:55 26 108at78 108 78 48 30 06:13 07:38 11:22 10.5% 32 06:56 27 109at77 109 77 45 32 06:16 07:33 11:24 10.4% 32 06:55 26 109at76 109 76 43 33 06:15 07:33 11:19 10.4% 35 06:54 25 110at75 110 75 40 35 06:17 07:28 11:23 10.3% 34 06:52 25 110at74 110 74 38 36 06:18 07:31 11:29 10.3% 31 06:55 26 111at73 111 73 35 38 06:18 07:25 11:25 10.2% 33 06:51 25 111at72 111 72 33 39 06:20 07:26 11:29 10.2% 34 06:53 25 112at71 112 71 30 41 06:22 07:22 11:33 10.1% 34 06:52 24 112at70 112 70 28 42 06:23 07:21 11:35 10.2% 33 06:52 24 113at69 113 69 25 44 06:23 07:18 11:34 10.1% 34 06:50 24 113at68 113 68 23 45 06:24 07:19 11:36 10.1% 34 06:51 23 114at67 114 67 20 47 06:31 07:21 11:44 10.0% 33 06:56 22 114at66 114 66 18 48 06:32 07:20 11:45 10.0% 33 06:56 22 115at65 115 65 15 50 06:34 07:18 11:51 10.0% 33 06:56 21 115at64 115 64 13 51 06:32 07:13 12:04 9.9% 33 06:53 22 116at64 116 64 12 52 06:32 07:12 12:04 9.8% 33 06:52 22 116at63 116 63 10 53 06:39 07:16 12:05 9.9% 34 06:58 20 117at62 117 62 7 55 06:36 07:11 12:11 9.8% 34 06:54 20 117at61 117 61 5 56 06:43 07:15 12:15 9.8% 33 06:59 20 118at60 118 60 2 58 06:46 07:15 12:29 9.8% 33 07:01 19 118at59 118 59 0 59 06:49 07:18 12:32 9.8% 32 07:03 19

Page 27 of 33

Appendix 12 Other types of appliance crewing

Alternate crewing This is where two appliances share the crew needed to mobilise the vehicles, but there is usually only sufficient crew for one of the vehicles to be mobilised at a time. This means that once one vehicle has been mobilised, the other vehicle becomes unavailable for use.

Example: the fourth London Safety Plan introduced alternate crewing of Hose Layers (HL) against Pump Ladders (PL) at Incident Support Centres. When the PL is mobilised, the HL is unavailable for immediate mobilising, as the crew will be on the PL. Conversely, if the HL is mobilised first, then the PL will come “off the run” instead. Only one person is needed to crew the HL, so if there are enough crew on duty at the time the HL is mobilised, the PL can remain available for mobilising.

Shared crewing Shared crewing is where a pumping appliance and a special appliance share the crew that is needed to operate them. Normally, when the PL is mobilised, the special appliance becomes unavailable for use. However, with shared crewing, when the special appliance is mobilised, both the PL and the special appliance attend the incident together. This is because the special requires a full crew to become operational and the PL is used to transport the crew needed.

Example: The Brigade currently shared crews High Volume Pumps (HVP) with Pump Ladders (PLs). When an HVP is required, a driver from the PL drives the HVP, and the remaining crew follow the HVP to the incident on the PL. Once in attendance the crews from both vehicles are used to deploy the capabilities of the HVP.

Page 28 of 33

Appendix 13 Savings attributable to alternate crewing proposals

Staffing Staff revenue Station Alternate crew impact savings Battersea Prime mover -8 £ 343,256 Croydon Prime mover -8 £ 343,256 East Ham Prime mover -8 £ 343,256 Edmonton Prime mover -8 £ 343,256 Hammersmith SSU -8 £ 343,256 Poplar SSU -8 £ 343,256 Wimbledon IRU -4 £ 171,628 Kingsland/Plaistow IRU -8 £ 343,256 Totals -60 £2,574,420

Page 29 of 33

Appendix 14 Specific deployment changes arising from £25m option – 152/95

Borough Station Proposal Property assessment (for closure stations Staffing Staff revenue Other revenue only) impact savings savings Barnet Hendon 1 to 2 20 -£ 885,520 -£ 85,450 Bromley Orpington 1 to 2 20 -£ 885,520 -£ 85,450 Camden Belsize Close Belsize opened in 1915 and is grade II listed and in -28 £1,241,916 £ 185,333 a conservation area. In the AMP, it has a “fitness for purpose” score of 58/100;a condition score of 71/100and is identified as a high value site Euston 1 to 2 24 -£ 1,045,908 -£ 85,450 Croydon Purley 1 to 2 20 -£ 885,520 -£ 85,450 Ealing Acton Close Acton opened in 1938 and is locally listed. In the -28 £1,241,916 £ 249,937 AMP, it has a “fitness for purpose” score of71/100; a condition score of75/100and is identified as a medium value site Enfield Southgate 1 to 2 20 -£ 885,520 -£ 85,450 Greenwich Woolwich Close Woolwich opened in 1887 and is grade II listed. In -28 £1,241,916 £ 205,790 the AMP, it has a “fitness for purpose” score of 61/100; a condition score of 49/100and is identified as a high value site East Greenwich 1 to 2 20 -£ 885,520 -£ 85,450 Hackney Kingsland Close Kingsland opened in 1977 and is housing a pump, -56 £2,470,692 £ 271,734 a pump ladder and an incident response unit. In the AMP, it has a “fitness for purpose” score of 78/100 Harrow Stanmore 1 to 2 20 -£ 885,520 -£ 85,450 Hillingdon Hayes 2 to 1 -20 £ 885,520 £ 85,450 Chiswick 1 to 2 20 -£ 885,520 -£ 85,450 Islington Clerkenwell Close Clerkenwell opened in 1872 and is grade II listed -56 £2,470,692 £ 416,826 and in a conservation area; currently housing a pump ladder and a Fire Rescue Unit Islington Close Islington opened in 1993; it is in a conservation -28 £1,241,916 £ 189,634 area; in addition to a pump ladder, it also houses a command unit. In the AMP, it has a “fitness for purpose” score of 96/100; a condition score of 68/100and is identified as a medium value site

Page 30 of 33

Borough Station Proposal Property assessment (for closure stations Staffing Staff revenue Other revenue only) impact savings savings Kensington & Chelsea Kensington Close Kensington opened in 1904 and is grade II listed -28 £1,241,916 £ 223,746 and in a conservation area. In the AMP, it has a “fitness for purpose” score of 66/100; a condition score of 71/100 Knightsbridge Close Knightsbridge opened in 1900 and is in a -28 £1,241,916 £ 219,972 conservation area. In the AMP, it has a “fitness for purpose” score of 53/100; a condition score of 47/100and is identified as a high value site Lambeth Clapham Close Clapham opened in 1963; it is in a conservation -60 £2,658,460 £ 467,930 area, currently housing a pump, a pump ladder and an aerial appliance. In the AMP, it has a “fitness for purpose” score of 79/100; a condition score of 63/100and is identified as a high value site Lewisham Downham Close Downham opened in 1994; it does not have a very -28 £1,241,916 £ 180,310 small footprint, but it has only a single bay. In the AMP, it has a “fitness for purpose” score of 89/100; a condition score of 69/100 New Cross Close New Cross opened in 1894 and is in a -28 £1,241,916 £ 234,756 conservation area. In the AMP, it has a “fitness for purpose” score of 56/100; a condition score of 52/100 Newham Silvertown Close Silvertown opened in 1968.In the AMP, it has a -28 £1,241,916 £ 201,507 “fitness for purpose” score of 78/100; a condition score of 79/100 Richmond Twickenham 1 to 2 20 -£ 885,520 -£ 85,450 Southwark Peckham Close Peckham opened in 1991. In the AMP, it has a -48 £2,127,436 £ 343,674 “fitness for purpose” score of 89/100; a condition score of 71/100 Southwark Close Southwark opened in 1878 and is grade II listed. In -28 £1,241,916 £ 291,642 the AMP, it has a “fitness for purpose” score of 60/100; a condition score of 79/100and is identified as a high value site

Page 31 of 33

Borough Station Proposal Property assessment (for closure stations Staffing Staff revenue Other revenue only) impact savings savings Tower Hamlets Bow Close Bow opened in 1974.In the AMP, it has a “fitness -48 £2,127,436 £ 302,955 for purpose” score of 89/100; a condition score of 51/100and is identified as a medium value site Whitechapel Close Whitechapel opened in 1930. In the AMP, it has a -48 £2,127,436 £ 254,969 “fitness for purpose” score of 53/100; a condition score of 65/100and is identified as a medium value site Waltham Forest Chingford 2 to 1 -20 £ 885,520 £ 85,450 Leyton 2 to 1 -20 £ 885,520 £ 85,450 Leytonstone 2 to 1 -20 £ 885,520 £ 85,450 Westminster Westminster Close Westminster opened in 1906 and is grade II listed -28 £1,241,916 £ 232,697 and in a conservation area. In the AMP, it has a “fitness for purpose” score of 63/100; a condition score of 61/100and is identified as a medium value site Yet to be identified Takes Fire Rescue Unit 32 -£ 1,389,164* -£ 98,447* from Clerkenwell Yet to be identified Takes aerial appliance 12 -£ 531,024* -£66,098* from Clapham

Yet to be identified Takes Incident Response 8 -£ 343,256* -£32,852* Unit from Kingsland Yet to be identified Takes Command Unit - - - from Islington - 468 £20,791,796 £3,848,765 £24,640,561

Notes: 1) Other revenue costs/savings include allowances, overtime, property costs and travel. 2) For station closures, the full budgeted cost of the station is given plus the property related expenditure attributable to that station (including energy, business rates, etc.) but also an element of responsive and planned maintenance in 2011/12. Where such expenditure in 2011/12 was exceptional, this may overstate the true share of such costs attributable to the closed station. 3) Where stations move for 1 to 2 appliances (and 2 to 1), an allowance of £10k has been removed from other revenue costs to reflect that business rates would not change as a result. 4) These figures assume no change to current vacancy or development margins. It may be necessary to reduce both margins if overall staff numbers reduce. 5) If total number of stations and appliances falls, other costs (e.g. overtime, fuel) at the remaining stations may increase.

Page 32 of 33

6) Other considerations (e.g. presence of secure tenants, use for officer call-out bases) may impact on the ability to close and/or dispose of a station.

* Estimated costs. The exact sums will depend on the precise redeployment locations.

Page 33 of 33 07/03/2016

Budget issues for 2012-13 and beyond

Director of Finance and Contractual Services

2011/12 Budget Net revenue expenditure of £409.400m spent on

 112 Fire stations plus the river station, 5,772 firefighters  1,052 staff providing support and non emergency services  108 control room staff  Pensions to 7,700 firefighter pensioners  Bulk of spending (80%) is on employees  Final outturn underspend of £3.6m  General Reserve of £11.2m

1 07/03/2016

2012/13 Budget • Savings target of £20.5m • Gap caused by £20m rebalancing of precept, largely funded by reserves in 2011/12 • In year savings made during 2011/12 of £9,159k • Plus savings in respect of: • Staff £2,722k • Property costs £2,392k • Buy out of Terms and Conditions £1,362k • Insurance Company Income £710k • 12 operational posts • 40 FRS posts • Further use of £30m from reserves.

Mayors Budget Guidance for 2013/14 • Savings requirement of £29.5m in 2013/14, £35.3m in 2014/15 • Commitment to reduce GLA precept by 10% by 2016/17 • Shared services targets within and in addition to the savings target for each functional body • No use of reserves to be assumed other than for redundancy costs or invest to save purposes • Grant settlement not known until late November/early December • Full final budget submission to be submitted to the Mayor on 19 November

2 07/03/2016

Grant funding assumptions

• CSR - 25% cut to fire grant over next 4 years, ‘backloaded’ to 2013/14 and 2014/15 • Change in formula – London gained • Lobbying since last review to include population density • Average FRA reduction is 6.5% for first 2 years, so 18.5% remaining • LFEPA reduction 3.1% for first 2 years • Mayor’s target based upon assumption that remaining reductions in line with current formula • Impact of Local Government Resource Review unknown. • Capital funding also unknown.

LFEPA’s Financial Position • Significant reduction in underspend • Significant reduction in reserves • Assume GLA will correct balance of funding in current year • Focus of savings to date (£53m since 09/10) ‘non-front line’ • Additional medium term pressures • Funding the capital programme • Pay inflation? • Implementing change - time, cost and IR issues

3 07/03/2016

Fixed costs/costs that have a minimum level

• Determined by both past and future decisions • Employer’s Pension Contributions £37.7m • Pensions Injury Awards £19.0m • Debt charges £11.0m • Contracts: • Fleet and equipment £14.8m • Training £17.8m • Radio and Telecommunications £2.3m • Computing Maintenance and Licenses £4.7m • Rent and Rates £14.1m • Running a fire brigade £?m

Longer term financial context

• Focus to date on last 2 years of spending review • Sir Jeremy Heywood: cuts may last until 2020 • Funding may not return for some years • Need to make permanent sustainable reductions

4 07/03/2016 •

Budget Process

• Officer savings proposals • Additional information to inform member scrutiny

Questions

• What are your views on a voluntary redundancy trawl? • Do you support early consultation with affected staff?

Presentation for members Potential operational reductions

Deputy Commissioner, Rita Dexter

5 07/03/2016

• So far, no political group (or individual politician) has asked for proposals to be prepared, nor involved in their development • The work so far has been entirely officer-led • The type of work involved is undertaken most years

Service demand context: • Over 12 years, fires have fallen from 48000pa to 27000pa • Special services have reduced from 44000pa to 32000pa • Our main special services are lift releases; effecting entry; flooding • Utilisation rates are very low (7.5%). So firefighters individually get less and less experience

6 07/03/2016

• In 2012/13, we plan to spend around

£270m on fire-station based operational response • In contrast to the wider Brigade picture, 98.15 per cent will be spent on operational staff

• Operational change options tend to be largely dominated by attendance time considerations • Our approach to attendance standards has been policy-led (equity across London) • But equity is difficult to achieve across the board, based on existing locations. But more one appliance stations would be expensive and produce more “less busy/experienced” firefighters

7 07/03/2016

• For each of the last five years, the following boroughs have failed against the first appliance standard: o Hillingdon, Enfield, Bromley, Richmond • And the following boroughs have failed against the second appliance standard: o Harrow, Richmond, Barnet, Bromley

• Taking a different kind of view, Bromley, Enfield, Hillingdon and Richmond also fail to meet the 95 per cent in 12 minutes target. But in Hillingdon, this represented about 225 incidents in 2011/12, but only 89 in Richmond • This exemplifies the problem with equity. It involves using resources for low demand

8 07/03/2016

• If front line savings need to be made, members have complicated choices • One appliance stations are an expensive way of providing the service • Ealing and Greenwich each have 7 pumping appliances. In Greenwich, it costs some £940k pa more, because it is delivered mostly from 1-appliance stations

• Modelling suggests that 106 pumping appliances at 94 stations could deliver London-wide performance that conforms to the standard

9 07/03/2016

• The level of projected savings has forced us to look at operational savings options • “Old style fire cover reviews” focussed on only one dimension – fire cover • In this work, we have brought together attendance times; the cost of different ways of providing the service; estate issues; and wider ‘resilience’ concerns

28 “not close” stations: • Stations that have received substantial levels of recent investment, or are due to receive investment • Nine stations in the PFI programme • Stations that provide multiple/difficult to relocate functions. For example, some special appliances are especially heavy and need to be in places where the yard will support their weight

10 07/03/2016

• Tactical work designed to meet known and imminent budget pressures, involving: o Just removals (appliances and/or stations) o Removals combined with redeployments and alternate crewing

V • Deploying optimally

£ million Remove 30 appliances, 30 in the order of 'least value', 30 only from 1-appliance stations £45.0

Remove 30 appliances, 30 in the order of 'least value', 0 only from 2-appliance stations £30.8

Remove 30 appliances, 30 in the order of 'least value', 13 from any station £37.0

0 Pumps removed Keep 169 appliances, 15 based at a fewer number of stations Stations closed £7.3

Close eight 1- appliance stations, in order 0 of 'least value' and alternately crew the 8 released appliance at an FRU station £11.6

Remove 30 appliances, from any station, 22 in order of 'least value', and alternately 13 crew 8 of these appliances at FRU station £37.0

11 Remove 30 appliances, 30 in the order of 'least value', 30 07/03/2016 only from 1-appliance stations £45.0

Remove 30 appliances, 30 in the order of 'least value', 0 only from 2-appliance stations £30.8

Remove 30 appliances, 30 in the order of 'least value', 13 from any station £37.0

0 Keep 169 appliances, based at a fewer number of stations 15 £7.3 £ million Close eight 1- appliance stations, in order 0 of 'least value' and alternately crew the 8 released appliance at an FRU station £11.6 Pumps removed

Stations closed Remove 30 appliances, from any station, 22 in order of 'least value', and alternately 13 crew 8 of these appliances at FRU station £37.0

Deploying optimally: • The “optimal strategy” works on the basis that it identifies the very best combinations of appliances and stations needed to achieve the response time targets set by the Authority. It also identifies the cost saving associated with each reduction (station and/or appliance) that might be made • The proposals in this modelling minimise the risk that tactical, financially-driven decisions in the next two years might transpire not to be the best ones if the need for savings continues beyond that period

12 07/03/2016

Best Average Response Times to Achieve X Savings

1-App Stations 2-App Stations Avg 1st Avg 2nd Aggregate 09:00 120 Service demand context: 08:00 • Over 12 years, fires have fallen from 48000pa to 27000pa 100 07:00 • Special services have reduced from 44000pa to 32000pa 06:00 80 • Our main special services are lift releases; effecting entry; 05:00 flooding 60 04:00

• Utilisation rates are very low (approximately 8% of their NumberStationsof 03:00 time is spent at incidents). So firefighters individually get40

02:00 Average Average Response Timesto AllIncidents(mm:ss) less and less experience 20 01:00

00:00 0 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Savings (£m)

More alternate crewing: we have achieved good savings without service detriment by the introduction of limited alternate crewing • Some aerial stations? (£500k pa per station) • The two remaining whole time crewed Incident Response Units (£518k pa saving) • The Scientific Support Units (£686k pa saving) • The USAR prime mover modules (£1.3m pa saving)

13 07/03/2016

Questions

• Do members agree that officers should aim to identify savings that enable the current attendance targets to be maintained, London- wide? • Do members agree with the identification of “not close” stations? • Do members agree that the use of more alternate crewing is preferable to reducing pumping appliances? • Do members agree that LSP5 should be prepared on the basis of the long term strategy modelling? • If members prefer the tactical approach, do you agree that a strategy to prioritise two appliance stations is preferable?