Agenda item

Guide time: 1.15 – 2.00pm

RESOLVED that: the Panel notes the overview of priorities and activity in Northamptonshire.

The PFCC introduced the report. The Assistant Chief Fire Officer – Community Risk and the Fire Protection Manager went on to present an overview of priorities, activity and challenges in Northamptonshire, highlighting the following points:

·         Fires in the home had an effect on the household concerned but also on the local community and economy.

·         Residential fires could occur anywhere and at any time of day. In practice, they were most likely to occur in urban areas, which had a higher population density and more business premises; during the evening; and in the kitchen.

·         Northamptonshire Fire & Rescue Service (NFRS) had adopted a Prevention Strategy that set out priorities designed to reduce the risks from fire in residential properties identified in its Community Risk Management Plan (CRMP). A person-centred approach was taken to judging risks.

·         NFRS used a tiered approach consisting of a universal offer, targeted activity and specialist support to get most benefit from overall resources. Targeted activity could be delivered by regular personnel as well as specialists: for example, all stations had targets relating to fire safety visits. The PFCC had invested in specialist prevention activity and there was good evidence that this helped to change public behaviour to support safety.

·         37% of home safety visits (HSVs) were carried out by specialist support officers. 76% of HSVs involved people in the high or very high risk customer profile. NFRS had needed to change its approach to HSVs during the COVID-19 pandemic but had still done in-person visits in high risk cases.

·         NFRS did well at getting referrals from partners for HSVs.

·         NFRS carried out outreach and prevention activity in the surrounding area following a serious fire. This approach helped to make contact with people who might not engage in normal circumstances. 

·         NFRS aimed to carry out around 5,000 HSVs per year. It was now carrying out around 4,500 following the pandemic.   

·         There were significant fire risks connected with houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) due to the way that these properties were used. HMOs represented 5% of houses but accounted for 34% of fire deaths and 40% of fires. There were over 2,000 HMOs in Northamptonshire, both licensed and un-licensed. The establishment of HMOs in the county was slowing.

·         Local housing authorities were primarily responsible for enforcing legislation relating to HMOs. NFRS had a more specific role in reducing fire risks, although it worked closely with local authority housing teams as part of this.

·         NFRS operated a risk-based inspection programme of HMOs that prioritised overall capacity to have the most impact. 1,721 premises in the county were currently identified as higher risk. This included any premises previously subject to enforcement action and new HMOs identified each year.

·         NFRS had developed a training package for regular crews during the pandemic assisting them to carry out checks on HMOs that had been visited in the past. This approach also took advantage of local fire crews’ existing connection with the surrounding community.

·         The legislative requirements relating to fire safety in HMOs only applied to communal areas. This brought home the need for NFRS to engage and work with members of the public in carrying out its role.

[Councillor Strachan entered the meeting during the preceding discussion].

The Panel considered the report and presentation. The Assistant Chief Fire Officer – Community Risk and the Fire Protection Manager provided additional information in response to points raised by Panel members during the course of discussion as follows: 

·         If NFRS identified a significant fire risk when inspecting an HMO it was able to issue an immediate prohibition notice on the property. The occupants would be required to leave. NFRS had arrangements in place with local authorities to accommodate any people displaced from an HMO in this way.

·         NFRS was able to give out free smoke alarms to owner-occupiers when it carried out HSVs. Landlords were responsible for providing working smoke alarms in rented properties at the point when they were let. Local authorities enforced this requirement.

·         NFRS worked with landlords who approached it for advice and also attended local landlords forum meetings. This relationship led good landlords to provide intelligence about bad ones. NFRS made use of intelligence from local crews and partner agencies as well as running media campaigns to encourage members of the public to report bad landlords. NFRS was happy to receive intelligence from local councillors.

·         Residents were permitted to use gas cookers in HMOs or flats. The gas supply to a building was more of a risk factor than the actual cooker.

·         Liquid petroleum gas (LPG) was used safely to power many houses in the county. NFRS did horizon scanning to identify new fire risks. This could help to show if there was an issue with LPG being used unsafely in the home. 

·         NFRS was able to investigate the person responsible for an HMO, whether this was the owner, an agent or someone else with control over the property.

·         The transfer of responsibility for the governance of NFRS to the PFCC had given it access to a bigger communications team. This put NFRS in a better position to run media and social media campaigns on issues such as home fire safety.

The PFCC made the following points during the course of discussion:

·         NFRS was held to account by the PFCC on behalf of Northamptonshire residents. This included for its performance and how well resources were used for home fire safety as for other functions. 

·         All residents were encouraged to check that the smoke alarms in their homes.

·         Public bodies sharing information relating to home fire safety only benefit members of the public.

Panel members made the following points during the course of discussion:

·         The approach taken in Northamptonshire was impressive. HMOs could have a significant impact on the surrounding area.

·         It was questioned how NFRS dealt with landlords who could not be contacted.

·         Bad landlords should be encouraged to see how their tenants were living.

·         NFRS had previously made good use of social media to provide information on issues like fire safety and water safety. This was a very helpful, interactive approach.

RESOLVED that: the Panel notes the overview of priorities and activity in Northamptonshire.