GREATER MANCHESTER FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY
AUDIT, SCRUTINY & STANDARDS COMMITTEE
29 NOVEMBER 2012
Subject: AUDIT PLAN, PROTECTION SERVICES
Report of the County Fire Officer & Chief Executive
Report Author: Peter O’Reilly, Director of Prevention and Protection
Tel: 0161 608 4004, Email: [email protected]
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
The purpose of this report is to inform Members of the
approach to performance management and audit that has
been established by the Prevention and Protection
Directorate, to provide assurance regarding the quality and
outcomes of our protection activities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.
The Prevention and Protection Directorate have had an audit procedure,
of fire safety enforcement activities, in place from 2009. This report
outlines the Directorate’s current system for performance management
and audit, identifies the audit plan for 2012/13, highlights performance to
date and presents the outcomes of audits of protection activities this year.
Also highlighted are the improvements in performance compared to last
year and the assurance that can be taken from the outcomes of audits of
Protection Teams. Finally, the report recommends expanding the current
system to audit all elements of the Prevention and Protection Directorate.
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
2.
The training and audit function of the Protection department is comprised
of a Station Manager and two Watch Managers. This team has been
conducting audits of our Protection Teams since 2009. A copy of the
Directorate’s audit procedures is attached as Appendix A. The Key Lines
of Enquiry (KLOE’s) associated with these audits are shown in Appendix 2
of the Audit Procedures.
3.
In 2010 the department introduced a new performance management
framework that has been developing ever since. The combination of audit
and performance management ensures that our approach to protection
activities aligns to GMFRS’ Development and Delivery Goals, and
therefore satisfies our corporate plan.
4.
In addition to audit of Protection Teams, the work of Protection Officers is
subject to periodic quality assurance checks through their line managers
and, independently, quality assurance checks through the use of
questionnaires distributed by the Contact Centre and collated by Opinion
Research Services (ORS).
CURRENT POSITION
5.
Annually the audit and training team set out the audit plan for the year.
This outlines which four Area Protection Teams will be audited during the
next twelve months. A copy of the plan is attached at Appendix B.
6.
Every audit results in a full audit report and, where appropriate, an action
plan to deliver improvements. Improvements can relate to local issues
specific to the team being audited, or to central policy and guidance.
Delivery against any action plan is monitored by the Protection Service
Support Manager. A sample audit report is attached at Appendix E.
7.
For 2012/2013, two Area Protection Teams have been audited (Salford
and Trafford, and Stockport and Tameside). Below are some examples of
issues and best practice identified during recent audits:
There is well established, effective and efficient partnership working,
contributing to reduction in risk, but this is reactive and can be
formalised through MOU’s etc.
Multi-agency meetings are held on a monthly basis which include LA
Housing, responsible authorities, GMP (as and when required), safety
advisory group, which included recently the Olympic venues for
auditing.
Greater liaison with stakeholders in residential (HMO) premises to
reduce risk. Joint visits with housing undertaken when required.
There appeared to be some confusion as to the legislative
requirements of our role inspecting premises as comments made for
levels of responsibility included: ‘any premises over 4 floors, which is
an HMO’s is our responsibility as we have signed up to an agreement
through LACORS’ This requires clarification with the Protection
Officers through their 1-2-1’s.
8.
Issues found when undertaking the audits are placed onto an Audit Issues
log. Responsible Persons are nominated to address the issues, and these
issues are discussed at line managers’ meetings within the Directorate
(see Appendix C).
9.
Monthly performance management reports are produced based on
corporate and local Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Fire Protection
Managers are performance managed on a monthly basis by the Protection
Service Delivery Manager and by the Director, and Head of Protection, at
the Directorate quarterly planning and performance meetings. Corporate
KPIs relating to Protection are reported through the Leadership Team,
Corporate Leadership Team and the Fire Authority on a quarterly basis.
Performance to the end of quarter two is shown at Appendix D.
10.
The work of each Fire Protection Officer is audited annually by their line
manager. Electronic records of each of these audits are hosted centrally
and are examined to identify Service wide issues, and trends, by the audit
and training team.
11.
For 2012/13 there have been 32 line manager audits of Fire Protection
Officers’ work. Out of the 32 individual audits completed, the findings are
extremely positive in terms of professionalism. The results from personnel
also demonstrate that the training, support and development they receive
is suitable and sufficient for their role.
OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES
12.
Since the initial Audits were programmed in 2009/10, the Directorate has
undergone a comprehensive restructure, providing significant savings and
rebalancing the remaining resources between protection and prevention
services. The restructure allowed for key prevention specialists to enter
the organisation and develop strategies and target resources for the
benefit of the communities we serve. The Prevention teams are now well
established, and a new Prevention Strategy has been approved. It is
therefore appropriate that consideration be given to extending the current
system for assurance to all elements that make up the Directorate.
PREFERRED OPTION
13.
Similar to the audit process for Protection teams; the Prevention teams,
Health and Safety, Fire Investigation, CYP and Volunteers will soon be
subject to a new audit process. Findings will be reviewed to ensure that
all areas function in an effective and efficient manner to provide Public
Value and satisfy corporate expectations. Future reports to Members will
include outcomes from these audits together with recommendations for
improvements. KLOE’s for each area are currently being developed.
CONSULTATION
14.
Consultation on the developing GMFRS Peer Review Process was
undertaken with the Operational Assurance department. The P&P
Directorate audit process was benchmarked against associated
procedures to ensure that the systems align with corporate goals.
RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS
15.
Audits will be completed by existing ILM qualified auditors.
RECOMMENDATION
16.
Members are recommended to note the contents of this report, and
support the expansion of audit to cover all elements of the Prevention and
Protection Directorate.
STEVE McGUIRK
COUNTY FIRE OFFICER
& CHIEF EXECUTIVE
There are no background papers to this report within the meaning of Section
100D of the Local Government Act 1972.
S. McGuirk
(Proper Officer)
13.11.12
APPENDIX A
Greater Manchester Fire and
Rescue Service
Protection & Prevention
Directorate
Audit Procedures
Issue: 1.3
November 2012
Document Version Control
Issue No
Date
1.0
01/04/2011
1.1
17/10/2011
1.2
01/09/2012
1.3
01/11/2012
Contents Page
Section
Title
1 INTRODUCTION
2
Scope
3
Audit Process
4
Approach to Performance and Audit
QUANTITATIVE AUDIT - ORGANISING
5
Limitations of Quantitative Audit
6
Qualitative Audit Parameters
QUALITATIVE AUDIT- PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING
7
Qualitative Audit Preparation
8
Preparation Phase
9
Investigation Phase
10
The Area Audit
REVIEWING PERFORMANCE
11
After the Qualitative Audit
APPENDICES
App. 1
Control Documents for Fire Safety Enforcement
App. 2
Area Protection Key Lines of Enquiry
App. 3
Audit Programme for Protection Teams
Page
1
INTRODUCTION
Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority have a legal responsibility to
ensure that an effective Fire and Rescue Service is provided in its area. As
one element of an overall assurance system, the Protection and Prevention
Directorate maintains an Audit process to monitor the positive impact of Fire
Safety Enforcement activities thus ensuring that:
Each Protection Team is working effectively in accordance with Service
Policies and procedures and is delivering against its team plan.
This is in support of our corporate purpose, which is:
‘To protect and improve the quality of life of the people in Greater
Manchester’
and in particular our key aim of ‘Protection’ which states that:
‘We will influence and regulate the built environment to protect people,
property and the environment from harm’.
Our approach to audit is based on the principles of continuous improvement
and learning from experience. To achieve this we use performance standards,
indicators and targets, focused on outcomes, which are already an integral
part of the service.
In 2010 Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) modified the already
established local government peer review process in order to meet the
specific needs of the Fire and Rescue Service. The resulting process uses the
Operational Assessment toolkit as its basis. The Operational Assessment
toolkit was originally developed by the Chief Fire and Rescue Advisor (CFRA)
and CFOA as part of the introduction of a performance framework for fire and
rescue services. This performance framework placed a strong focus on
internal peer review.
A peer review allows a team of people who understand the pressures and
challenges of running a local authority FRS to review the practices of a FRS in
a challenging but supportive way. This “critical friend” process facilitates a
constructive discussion of strengths and weaknesses and provides
recommendations of how improvements can be made. Our audit process
mirrors this approach.
2
Scope
The audit process covers all the activities undertaken by Area Protection
Teams. It does not cover the work undertaken by the FSHQ Protection
management team.
3
The Audit Process
The audit process covers three key areas and questions are asked in relation
to economy, efficiency and effectiveness, such as:
Economy
Are we working to the corporate plan whilst maintaining the required
quality?
Are we achieving Value for Money?
Where can we save money and share best practice?
Efficiency
Do we even need this process?
Can we complete the tasks under audit in a smarter way?
Have we eliminated all the waste we can?
Could we do this differently?
Effectiveness
Do we know what our customers’ expectations are?
Are we meeting their expectations consistently?
Are we positioned to meet our customers’ future needs?
4
Approach to Performance and Audit
Area Protection Teams;
Each month the performance of all Area Protection Teams is
quantitatively measured against a number of Performance
Indicators;
Every 18 months each Area Protection Team is subject to a full
qualitative audit.
The process for managing Area Protection Team performance is:
Reports are produced on the first of the month through our
performance reporting system, CorVu including the following areas
o Measures published within the Area Prevention and
Protection Team Plans
o Service Delivery Goals
Fire Protection Managers comment on the reports in relation to their
team’s performance.
The Group Manager Protection Service Delivery discusses and
challenges performance with each Fire Protection Manager.
This performance is considered at the quarterly Prevention and
Protection Planning and Performance meeting and is fed into the
quarterly performance reports to LT, CLT and Authority
5
Limitations of Quantitative Performance Management
In the Protection Performance Management process, a distinction is drawn
between performance measures and standards:
Performance measures can be considered to be the number of times
an activity is completed. Targets can be set for performance
measures taking into account the level of current, and future,
resources.
Performance standards are based upon the time taken to complete
an activity. By definition, targets are always set that, irrespective of
resources, relate to the percentage of times the standard was met
e.g. respond to a fire safety complaint within 24 hours on 100% of
occasions.
Quantitative performance management does not measure quality, or whether
or not policies and procedures are being adhered to. For a more complete
measure of performance Protection draws upon qualitative audit.
Unless data is entered onto the central database in a timely and accurate
manner, by Area Protection staff, the reports arising are liable to offer an
incomplete picture of performance. Inevitably, activity undertaken in one
month may not be entered until the following month.
6
Qualitative Audit Parameters
The purpose of the qualitative audit is to determine how well an Area
Protection Team is contributing to the reduction in risk within its own
geographical area. The audit refers to local and national guidance and
procedures set out in Appendix 1.
A qualitative audit is undertaken by the Protection Audit Team. The Protection
Audit Team members may be drawn from a number of different post holders
and therefore personnel may vary. The Protection Teams qualitative audit is
conducted using a Business Audit approach. That is; the team will, on behalf
of the Head of Protection, consider the performance of the Area Protection
Team, in terms of its effectiveness, efficiency and economy.
One Area Protection Team (APT) audit is undertaken each quarter, usually
timed to take place in the middle of the quarter – each APT therefore receives
one qualitative audit every 18 months.
7
Qualitative Audit Preparation
Prior to April each year, the Protection audit team, in consultation with the
Area Fire Protection Managers, schedule the qualitative audits for the coming
year.
At least five weeks before the audit, the Protection audit team is selected and
a lead auditor appointed. The lead auditor meets the Head of Protection to
choose which key work activities will be audited. The selection is based upon
the list of prescribed Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOE’s) found at Appendix B.
Once the work activities have been selected, and at least one month prior to
audit, the Protection audit team contacts the Fire Protection Manager to
mutually agree the ‘Audit Programme’ – an example is given at Appendix 3.
At the same time as preparing the audit programme, information considered
necessary for the audit is gathered. The audit team then prepare ‘checklists’.
These checklists are a set of questions designed to explore the relevant
KLOE’s and allow a score to be derived for each audited work activity. These
are included in Appendix 2 below.
The basic process for the P&P function is based on the requirements from the
lead auditor or Head of Protection. The process falls into the phases as
shown below.
8
Preparation phase
Pre-audit activities include:
Establish the Audit criteria
Nominate the audit team
Obtain documents/information required for planning
Establish the audit trail
Develop the audit programme
Inform the auditee and confirm dates
Brief the audit team
Prepare checklists
Prepare for the opening meeting
9
Investigation Phase
The audit investigation involves the gathering of evidence about adherence to
processes, performance and outcomes. This section deals with the activities
from the opening meeting, which marks the start of this process.
Activities during the investigation stage include:
The opening meeting
Audit interviews
Document sampling
Audit team meetings
Closing meeting.
10
The Area Audit
At the start of the audit an opening meeting is held with the Fire Protection
Manager. The meeting gives the audit team the opportunity to confirm the
purpose and scope for the audit and those that will be interviewed. The
agenda for the opening meeting is prepared by the lead auditor. Once the
opening meeting is concluded, the audit team start the process of identifying
and evaluating audit evidence in the investigation phase.
Any issues identified during the investigation phase are not rectified by the
auditors, but are brought to the attention of the team being audited to enable
that team to respond with suitable explanation. The audit team will also
determine the scale of the issue through the scoring mechanism set out in
Appendix 2.
During the course of the audit, the audit team will construct observation
reports. An observation report consists of a simple statement of facts
pertaining to the criteria that has not been fulfilled, or the area of good
practice and the actual or potential consequences.
Once the investigation phase of the audit has been concluded, a closing
meeting is held with the FPM. The closing meeting is conducted to a preprepared agenda set by the lead auditor. The observation reports are
communicated to the auditee(s) and a verbal summary statement is made
consisting of the main conclusions.
11
After the Qualitative Audit
The Audit team present a written summary to the Head of Protection and the
Protection Group Managers within 7 days of the conclusion of the closing
meeting. This is followed by the full written report within 14 days.
Following the publication of the full qualitative audit report, the Protection audit
team meet the FSHQ Protection management team to elaborate on, and
clarify, any areas of the report as required. The management team then
include any ‘Areas for Consideration’ from the audit, as deemed necessary by
them, on an ‘Audit Actions Log’. This log comprises a list of tasks for
nominated staff, with timescales, to progress the issues arising from the audit.
The person(s) responsible for completing individual actions on the log
depends upon whether an issue relates to improvement in the Area Protection
Team, or development of Service policies or processes. In the case of the
former, the Fire Protection Manager is likely to be delegated the task and in
the case of the latter, it is likely to be staff from FSHQ.
Any proposed corrective action should seek to tackle the root cause of any
issue; consequently it is part of the audit team’s role to assist in any proposal
to address audit outcomes. The Protection Service Support Manager also
ensures that the progress of any action is monitored – monthly meetings are
scheduled to review the ‘Audit Actions Log’. Evaluation of effectiveness of
action taken may involve interviewing staff or re-auditing the processes
involved.
Records of all qualitative audits are kept at FSHQ. The day to day
responsibility for the records is that of the Protection Training, Development &
Audit manager.
APPENDIX 1
Control documents for Protection & Prevention Directorate
RR(FS)O Guidance Note No.1
RR(FS)O Guidance Note No.2
CFOA Circular 2008/1016 Revised Fire Safety Audit and Information
Gathering Form
Enforcement Management Model
Enforcement Concordat
BIS Regulator’s Compliance Code
GMFRS Protection Policy
GMFRS Protection Procedure
GMFRS Protection Guidance
GMFRS Flexible Working Policy
South East Training 2010 www.businessprocessauditing.co.uk
GMFRS Prevention Policies and Guidance
APPENDIX 2
Area Protection Key Lines of Enquiry (KLOE’s)
1. Alignment of Protection activity to Community Risk (including Area
Action Plans)
2. Fire Safety Order Compliance Audit Process
3. Prosecution procedures
4. Prohibition Notices
5. Enforcement Notices
6. Action Plans
7. Statutory Building Consultations
8. UwFS reduction
9. Liaison with external partners
10. Licensing
11. Response-Protection interface
12. Liaising with internal stakeholders
13. Post Fire action
14. Mobile Working – to be developed
4 -Significant Strength
3 - Strengths Outweigh
Weaknesses
2 - Improvement
Opportunities
1 - Significant Improvement
Opportunities
All staff are working in accordance with Service
Policy and Procedure as well as national service and
technical standards. There is a high level of
efficiency and/or effectiveness.
There may be minor errors in complying with Service
or technical standards. Activities are predominantly
carried out effectively and efficiently.
Errors, acts or omissions were identified resulting in
some lack of effectiveness and/or efficiency.
Significant errors, acts or omissions were identified
that have significantly affected performance.
Alignment of Protection activity to Community Risk (including Area Action
Plans)
1. How well is the Area Protection Team targeting its activity towards
4 3 2
the highest risk premises?
1.1 Does the APT effectively identify and prioritise risk?
1.2 Does the APT align its activities proportionally to risk?
1.3 Has the APT developed effective working relationships
the organisation to assist in risk reduction?
inside of
1.4 Has the APT developed effective working relationships outside of
the organisation to assist in risk reduction?
1.5 Does the APT monitor the effectiveness of its enforcement
activities?
General Comments
1
Fire Safety Order Compliance Audit Process
2. How well does the Area Protection Team undertake
Compliance monitoring inspections?
2.1 Are parts A & C of the standard audit process completed
correctly?
2.2 Do staff audit fully against all relevant articles of the Fire
Safety Order?
2.3 Is the use of the Enforcement Management Model, and any
deviation from it, appropriate?
General Comments
4
3 2 1
Prosecution procedures
3. How proficient is the Area Protection Team undertaking Prosecution
activity?
3.1 Is there a sound understanding of Service Policy and Procedures?
3.2 Do staff undertake initial evidence gathering in line with good
practice?
3.3 Are prosecution cases progressed at an appropriate pace?
3.4 Is the time spent on prosecutions reasonable?
General Comments
4
3
2
1
Prohibition Notices
4. How well is the Area Protection Team enforcing the RR(Fire Safety)
Order 2005 under Article 31?
4.1 Does the APT issue Prohibition Notices in appropriate
circumstances?
4.2 Are Prohibition Notices issued according to Service Procedure?
4.3 Does the APT monitor the currency of Prohibition Notices?
General Comments
4
3
2
1
Enforcement Notices
5. How well is the Area Protection Team enforcing the RR(Fire Safety)
Order 2005 under Article 30?
5.1 Does the Team issue Enforcement Notices in appropriate
circumstances?
5.2 Are Enforcement Notices issued according to Service Procedure?
5.3 Is the time spent on Enforcement Notice activity appropriate?
General Comments
4
3
2
1
Action Plans
6. How well is the Area Protection Team enforcing the RR(Fire Safety)
Order 2005 by the utilisation of Agreed Action Plans?
6.1 Does the Team issue Agreed Action Plans in appropriate
circumstances?
6.2 Are Action Plans issued according to Service Procedure?
6.3 Is the time spent on Action Plan activity appropriate?
General Comments
4
3
2
1
Statutory Building Consultations
7. How well does the Area Protection Team deal with statutory
consultations in relation to building structures?
7.1 Are received plans adequately prioritised?
7.2 Is the team effective at dealing with submissions within standard
timescales?
7.3 Is an appropriate amount of time given to statutory building
consultations?
7.4 Are skill levels adequate to give advice in relation to building
construction and alterations?
General Comments
4
3
2
1
UwFS reduction
8. How well does the Area Protection Team contribute to the limiting
the occurrence of UwFS in its area?
8.1 Is limiting the incidence of UwFS an intrinsic part of the Area
Protection Team’s activity?
8.2 Is there effective liaison with other staff within the Service to limit
UwFS?
8.3 Do Protection staff fully engage with those who have responsibility
for fire alarm systems, to minimise UwFS?
General Comments
4
3
2
1
Liaison with external partners
9. How well does partnership work contribute to risk reduction in the
Area?
9.1 Is an efficient use of time spent on liaising with external partners?
9.2 Is liaison with external partners effective at reducing risk?
9.3 Are there adequate levels of information and data sharing between
the Area team and external partners?
General Comments
4
3
2
1
Licensing
10. How well does the Area Protection Team reduce risk in licensed
premises?
10.1 Do staff fully understand their responsibilities with regards to the
Licensing Act 2003?
10.2 Are Licensing applications dealt with in a timely fashion in line
with statutory and Service time standards?
10.3 Is the team proactively promoting Public Safety in licensed
premises on behalf of the Fire Authority?
10.4 Does the APT deal effectively with Temporary Event Notices?
General Comments
4
3
2
1
Response – Protection interface
11. How well is the Area Protection Team working in partnership with
Response staff?
11.1 Does the APT fully utilise Response staff in Protection activity?
11.2 Has the APT got a robust process for monitoring the quality of the
Protection activity undertaken by Response staff?
11.3 Does the APT effectively engage with Response staff to reduce
risk to firefighters?
General Comments
4
3
2
1
Liaising with internal stakeholders
12. How well does the Area Team work with staff from outside
Protection to reduce risk?
12.1 Is there a strong relationship with the Borough Management
Team?
12.2 Is there an effective relationship with Prevention staff?
12.3 Are support staff fully utilised to promote efficiency?
General Comments
4
3
2
1
Post Fire Action
13. How well does the Area Protection Team undertake Post Fire
Action?
13.1 Does the APT effectively monitor fire incidence?
13.2 Is Post Fire Action dealt with at the appropriate staff level?
13.3 Is the action of Protection staff appropriate?
13.4 Is there a process in place to identify trends?
General Comments
4
3
2
1
Mobile Working
14. To be Developed
X.1
X.2
X.3
X.4
X.5
General Comments
4
3
2
1
APPENDIX 3
Audit Programme- Protection Teams
Location
<Insert Area Protection Team>
Purpose
To consider the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of the FS
Cluster activities.
Key Lines of
Enquiry
Date
To evaluate compliance with:
a)
CFPG policies
b)
national standards – EMM / RCC / EC
c)
internal standards – time standards etc
d)
regulating legislation – RRFSO, GM Act and Building Act
1. Insert
2. Insert
3. Insert
XX/XX/20XX and XX/XX/20XX
Date
Times
08.30-8.45 Opening meeting with Team Manager
Area 1
08.45 – 10.45 meeting with Team Manager to discuss
management of the FS Cluster activities
11.15 – 12.15 meeting with FPO to discuss FSO activity
12.30 -13.00 lunch
13.15 - 14.15 meeting with FPO to discuss FSO activity
14.45-15.45 meeting with FPO to discuss FSO activity
Date
08.30 – 09.30 meeting with FPO to discuss FSO activity
Area 2
10.00 -11.00 meeting with FPO to discuss FSO activity
Area
11.30 – 12.30 meeting with FPO to discuss FSO activity
12.30 -13.00 lunch
13.00 – 15.30 Review Auditor 1 and Auditor 2
15.30 – 16.30 Closing meeting with Team Manager
Names of audit
team
Insert
Insert
APPENDIX B
2012
M
T
W T
F
S
S
M
T
W T
F
S
S
M
T
W T
F
S
S
M
T
W T
F
S
S
M
T
W T
F
S
S
M
T
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
27
28
29
27
28
29
30
31
January
1
Man
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
February
R
March
F
26
Q
4
M
1
April
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
26
27
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
May
Sto/
Tam
R
June
M
25
28
29
30
29
30
1
2
3
I F
28
Q
1
S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Sal/
Tra
24
25
26
27
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
July
August
28
29
29
30
30
31
R I F
September
25
26
27
28
Q
2
M
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
S
Bol/
Wig
November
1
December
27
S
1
October
I
2
3
4
R
24
30
I F
27
28
29
30
31
Q
3
M
Key: BOX = Audit 2 days, 14 days to report R = Report Meeting
29
F = GM/SM Meet M = All Meet (Agecroft in March, all others Phoenix Room)
I = Issues log
S = Audit Schedule Confirmed
APPENDIX C
Qualitative Audit Issues Log
Action
65
Produce clear enforcement guidance for
commercial premises that have inadequate
separation to the living accommodation above,
such as many Chinese Takeaways.
KLOE APT
Origin of Responsi
issue
ble
74
75
76
77
78
82
Response staff.
Consider introducing the more responsive
UwFS triggers utilised in Manchester rather than
the current triggers cited in Service Policy.
Consider how interventions taken to reduce
UwFS should be recorded on the FS database.
Analyses of UwFS to determine whether the
issues are behavioural or technical and thereby
reconsider the tactics employed.
Consideration should be given to redefining the
role of Prevention, Response and Borough staff
in relation to UwFS.
Direction is to be given to ensuring that all
FPO’s proactively engaged with building
supervisors and designers to reduce the
potential for UwFS.
Consider ensuring that the new FS database is
able to record Post Fire Action interventions and
eliminate the need to record locally.
04/10/2012
Next Deadline
Comments
1
2
2011/09
Mark
O'Meara
01/01/2013
BM to task MoM
with producing
appropriate
guidance to APT's
on reducing the
risk in mixed
residential/comme
rcial
11
1
2011/06
Paul
Starling
31/05/2011
TC to review
process.
8
3
2012/01
Lee
Coleman
31/05/2011
UwFS policy
requires review.
Awaiting CFOA
national guidance.
8
3
2012/01
Paul
Vester
31/05/2011
8
3
2012/01
8
3
2012/01
8
3
2012/01
13
3
2012/01
Introducie a standard quality assurance process
62 for monitoring the Protection activity of
Meeting last updated
Raise this need in
spec for new Service
database
31/05/2011
UwFS
officer
31/05/2011
UwFS policy
requires review.
Awaiting CFOA
national guidance.
31/05/2011
Paul
Vester
31/03/ 2012
Raise this need in
spec for new Service
database
APPENDIX D
UPDATE ON PROTECTION PERFORMANCE
Protection teams have undertaken a total of 3,004 audits and inspections to date
against a target of 4,590. The audits include 2,484 audits and 520 inspections. This
equates to an increase of 5% when compared to the same period last year. Overall
performance is 33% below target primarily due to 10 vacancies within the protection
teams and also the training and development of the 4 new starters.
Fire Protection teams have identified 891 regulated premises exhibiting some nonconformity to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety Order). In addition, the teams have
issued 219 enforcement notices against the backdrop of 2,484 audits which equates to
9% of audits resulting in formal enforcement activity and further action. This shows that
the Protection team is effectively targeting and inspecting higher risk premises through
intelligence led processes.
Through the audit process, inspecting officers have identified 16 premises with
breaches serious enough that it was necessary to serve prohibition notices, essentially
restricting all or part of specific premises. During the first six months of 2012/13, the
Protection teams have commenced and subsequently concluded 10 prosecutions which
have resulted in 11 convictions.