making London a safer city 26 th September 2007 Introduction Nick Collins, Assistant Commissioner Risk London Fire Brigade

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007 Risk and resource modelling Response cover ORH Modelling Risk analysis iRAT Future risk Current risk Sensitivity analysis Appliance deployments Dynamic cover Flexible working Estate strategy Strategic resource Borough planning Prioritisation Resource allocation Risk forecasting Targeting

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007 ORH Support ‘FSM’ - Fire Service Simulation Model ‘OGRE’ – Optimising by Genetic Resource Evolution Simulating Response and Optimising Range

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007 Initial London Safety Plan Objectives Improve London wide cover Fixed fire station locations Focus on second appliance response Transparent and justifiable proposals

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007 Cover changes Close a central London fire station Redeploy 10 second fire appliances

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007 Manchester Square Closure of Manchester Square has the following impact on response performance in Period 5: 1 st and 2 nd appliance average response times for Westminster increase by 0.4 minutes The percentage of incidents reached by the first appliance within 5 minutes decreases by 6.4% in Westminster and by 0.3% London-wide The number of incidents reached by the second appliance within 8 minutes decreases from 98.3% to 93.0% in Westminster and by 0.2% London-wide Westminster remains one of the highest performing boroughs

making London a safer city 26 th September Appliance moves from: Acton Bethnal Green Clerkenwell Dockhead Euston Greenwich Islington Kensington Knightsbridge Westminster

making London a safer city 26 th September Appliance moves to: Addington Chingford Finchley Heston Hillingdon Leyton Northolt Sidcup Sutton Walthamstow

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007 Summary of benefits Second Response 8-Minute Percentile Impact Period LFB (Number of second appliance responses brought within 8 minutes per year) Borough Variance Number of Boroughs below average Number of Boroughs improving (net) Aggregate Borough Impact 1 ( ) +3.7% (110) -1.7%3 less14 – 3 = 11149% 2 ( ) +4.2% (67) -1.9%1 less13 – 3 = 10171% 3 ( ) +3.2% (111) -1.5%4 less14 – 6 = 8139% 4 ( ) +4.0% (226) -1.3%2 less14 – 7 = 7139% 5 ( ) +3.7% (295) -1.7%3 less = 10140% 6 ( ) +4.0% (268) -1.5%3 less16 – 6 = 10139%

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007 Sub-region impact of proposed redeployments 2 nd Appliance 8-minute Response Time Percentage – All Periods  All four ‘below average’ sub-regions improve significantly  Central London still significantly above average  Range between sub-regions reduced from 43% to 35%

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007 ORH/LF/2/4 Presentation Life risk results Using five-year IRIS data, it was found that the +/-10 appliance redeployment proposal improves second appliance range cover at 8 minutes for: * fatalities by 5.7% (9 per year) * injuries by 4.0% (127 per year) * rescues by 3.2% (72 per year) * releases by 2.3% (673 per year) Fatalities, Injuries, Rescues And Releases

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007ORH/LF/11 ORH Modelling Work Moving forward RangeResponse RisksIncidents Flexible Working Strategic Resource Estate Strategy Dynamic Cover Analysis Modelling Validation Sensitivity Analysis Night Day Standby Tool What? Where? Backup Tool

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007ORH/LF/11 ORH Modelling Work Flexible working and shift systems Modelling to determine the positive benefits of more appliances in the day alongside any negative impacts of fewer appliances at night

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007ORH/LF/11 ORH Modelling Work Potential changes

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007ORH/LF/11 ORH Modelling Work Flexible working Options considered for deploying fewer appliances at night and more in the day Outcomes in terms of response cover are good – second appliance attendance improvements can be targeted to below average boroughs Differences between 8- and 12-hour systems with different start/finish times exemplified

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007ORH/LF/11 ORH Modelling Work Estates Strategy Modelling to inform decisions on the future configuration of fire stations

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007ORH/LF/11 ORH Modelling Work Station locations Iterative Optimisation Modelling: Confirm station deployments to stay and find best new stations Best Theoretical Configuration Best Practical Configuration Five years’ incident data Current Configuration (‘168/111’) Validated Current Model Close, Open and RelocateCurrent Station Plans Growth Options Rules check Fix some (eg, Millwall) OGRE: find best FSM: test configuration

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007ORH/LF/11 ORH Modelling Work Stage 1– West London

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007 Best theoretical configuration 75.0%  80.0% London-wide 25 boroughs , 7 boroughs  & 1 borough = No boroughs and no sub-regions ‘break rules’ 6 sub-regions  & 0 sub-regions   94.2%  96.8% London-wide  20 boroughs , 7 boroughs  & 6 boroughs =  No boroughs and no sub-regions ‘break rules’  5 sub-regions  & 1 sub-region = 86 of the existing stations are in the right place 25 new station locations identified 1st in 5 2 nd in 8

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007ORH/LF/11 ORH Modelling Work Strategic resource and standby Modelling to determine the impact of releasing appliance crews for strategic resource and the best arrangements for compensating standby movements

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007ORH/LF/11 ORH Modelling Work Example standby – Group D (PM)

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007ORH/LF/11 ORH Modelling Work Dynamic Cover Modelling to determine the best deployment of available appliances

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007ORH/LF/11 ORH Modelling Work Dynamic cover – objective Definition: Dynamic cover can be defined as the process of relocating available fire appliances, in response to levels of appliance unavailability (degradation), to maintain appropriate standards of risk and response cover across London. Objective: What is the optimum distribution of appliances in an area when appliance availability is low and/or workload is high?

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007 DYNAMIC COVER MODEL DYNAMIC COVER MODEL ORH/LF/11 ORH Modelling Work

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007 iRAT in use

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007

making London a safer city 26 th September 2007 What will work? Group E - “Young, single and mostly well- educated, these people are cosmopolitan in tastes and liberal in attitudes” Key Features - Young singles, few children; Full time students/Professionals; Open-minded Receptive to - Internet; Leaflets, Posters; Telephone advice lines; Magazines, Broadsheets Group F - “People who are struggling to achieve rewards and are mostly reliant on the council for accommodation and benefits” Key Features - Families, many young children; Low incomes; Heavy watchers of TV Receptive to - TV; Telemarketing; Leaflets, Posters; Red top newspapers