Chief Fire Officers Association - SE Region. MoU 2012 - 'Local Specific Arrangements'.

Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service did not have the information requested.

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service,

I am advised that the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Authority’s Property Services Manager on 16 April 2012 is still current.

Pages 42 –45 of the document describe 'Local Specific Arrangements' between fire authorities and water companies, covering the following details:

-- Notification of Proposed New Mains
-- New Hydrant Installation
-- Fire Hydrants Inspection and Testing
-- Fire Hydrants Maintenance and Repairs
-- Notification to Fire Authorities of Water Shutdowns
-- Workmanship and Materials
-- Charges
-- Local Liaison and Contacts
-- Disputes Procedure

As I understand it, the operational area of HFRS covers that of at least four Water Companies ... Bournemouth Water, Portsmouth Water, South East Water and Southern Water.

Please provide a copy of all such ‘Local Specific Arrangements’ between the Authority and a Water Company, from 2012 to present.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Whiteside

HFRS DP & FOI, Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Whiteside

 

Reference: Freedom of Information Request - FOI 104 16-17

 

Please find attached the acknowledgement of your recent Freedom of
Information request.

 

Regards

 

Assurance and Compliance Officer

Knowledge Management

Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service
Leigh Road
Eastleigh
Hampshire
SO50 9SJ

Tel:  023 8062 6850   

e-mail: [1][email address]

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Please visit [2]www.hantsfire.gov.uk/disclaimer to read our email policy

 

 

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/disclaimer

Stephen Whiteside

Dear HFRS DP & FOI,

Chief Fire Officers Association - SE Region. MoU 2012 - 'Local Specific Arrangements'.'
Your Ref FOI 104 16-17

By law, Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service should normally have responded promptly and by 2 February 2017 at the latest. Since my full response to Shantha Dickinson [see below] cannot be completed without this information, please provide copies of the Agreements requested as soon as possible.

Can I also take this opportunity to acknowledge receipt of the letter from Assistant Chief Officer Dickinson dated 26 January 2017, in response to my emails and letters to Chief Officer Curry and Councillor Chris Carter regarding [primarily] fire access to Medstead Farm, Four Marks, Alton.

Ms Dickinson’s letter refers to the Local Specific Agreements and tells us [amongst other things] that the fire access provided for the above site “… fulfils the functional requirements of allowing access AT ALL REASONABLE TIMES [my emphasis]." Since HFRS appear content with safe and reliable access to this estate at ONLY ‘reasonable times’, presumably the requirement for water supply for firefighting is similarly limited.

If the Local Specific Agreements requested fail to cover this issue, I would be grateful if as part of their response to this request HFRS could define what they consider to be ‘reasonable times’ for firefighting provision and confirm whether these are nationally or locally agreed standards.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside

HFRS DP & FOI, Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Whiteside

 

Reference: Freedom of Information 104 16-17

 

Please find attached our response to your request for information.

 

Regards,

 

 

Assurance and Compliance Officer

Knowledge Management

Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service
Leigh Road
Eastleigh
Hampshire
SO50 9SJ

Tel:  023 8062

e-mail: [1][email address]

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Please visit [2]www.hantsfire.gov.uk/disclaimer to read our email policy

 

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/disclaimer

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service,

Your Ref: FOI 104 16-17

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service's handling of my FOI request 'Chief Fire Officers Association - SE Region. MoU 2012 - 'Local Specific Arrangements'.'.

“AT ALL REASONABLE TIMES” - Fire Access to Medstead Farm, Four Marks

Thank you for your comments on this issue, but unfortunately they relate only to ‘acceptable’ RESPONSE times; that is access to an incident IN a reasonable time. What I am trying to ascertain is what HFRS considers to be a ‘reasonable time‘ [of day, week, month and/or year] FOR an emergency to occur on this estate, which is what I am led to believe is the ‘standard’ applied in undertaking a risk assessment of fire access to it.
I will seek clarification on this as part of a different FOI request and so there is no need to respond further on the issue here.

‘LOCAL SPECIFIC ARRANGEMENTS’

Your initial response tells me that “ … Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service (HFRS) does not have in place any ‘Local Specific Arrangements’ with water companies that provide water in Hampshire.”

Contrary to what you suggest, Service Order 7/3/4/4 [“the SO”] to which you direct me as your alternative document does NOT cover many of the areas detailed in the Memorandum of Understanding [MoU] and is clearly an INTERNAL policy document, rather than any sort of biparty agreement.

4.1 of the MoU states that “Arrangements in place between the Water Companies and the Fire Authorities ARE [my emphasis] as detailed in the accompanying appendices to this document. Where a Water Company and Fire Authority agree to have an arrangement which differs from those in the Appendices, this will be listed in the Local Specific Arrangements. It is expected that Water Companies and Fire Authorities work jointly to achieve mutually agreeable working arrangements.” Since the MoU is still current, there is clearly an EXPECTATION that there ARE ‘Local Specific Arrangements’ in place.

Appendix A(1) of SO tells us that “ARRANGEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE [my emphasis] for water companies to forward three copies of plans showing the proposed layout of new main and replacement schemes and all washout hydrants which they intend to provide.”

ACO Dickinson’s letter of 26 January 2017 tells me [with regard to Medstead Farm, Four Marks] that “ by agreement between the Fire Authority and the Water Company, washout hydrants are to be converted to fire hydrants in accordance the LOCAL SPECIFIC ARRANGEMENTS [my emphasis] …” This appears consistent with Appendix 2(2.8) of the MoU which states “By agreement between the Fire Authority and the Water Company a washout hydrant may be converted to a fire hydrant and the charges for necessary modifications and subsequent maintenance shall be in accordance with the rates in the Local Specific Arrangements.”

In the circumstances, I find it inconceivable that HFRS has NO Local Specific Arrangements in place.

---  Please provide me with a copy of the Local Specific Arrangements to which the MoU, SO and ACO refer [specifically those with South East Water] which should include, but not be restricted to a schedule of costs as set out at Appendix 14 of the MoU.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Whiteside

Stephen Whiteside

Dear HFRS DP & FOI,

Your Ref: FOI 104 16-17
Chief Fire Officers Association - SE Region. MoU 2012 - 'Local Specific Arrangements'.

Regulation 11(4) states that the Authority "... shall notify the applicant of its decision under paragraph (3) as soon as possible and no later than 40 working days after the date of receipt of the representations2.

That time limit has now been exceeded in this case. If I do not receive the outcome of your internal review by Friday, 12 May I will ask the ICO to investigate.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside

Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (FIRE SERVICES/WATER COMPANIES) AND LOCAL SPECIFIC ARRANGEMENTS

I have spent some considerable time establishing what arrangements were made to ensure an adequate provision of water supplies to fight fires within the Medstead Farm development, in Four Marks, Alton. In this case, only public intervention has highlighted issues that the parties needed to address to secure that water supply. I set out below what I consider to be important aspects of procedure for the Authority to review with the Water Companies.

BACKGROUND

Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service signed an agreement with the Water Companies serving the South of England in April 2012. The agreement is entitled:
“CFOA SOUTH EAST REGION MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.
THE INSTALLATION AND REPAIR OF FIRE HYDRANTS AND THE USE OF WATER FOR EXTINGUISHING FIRES OR PROTECTING LIFE AND PROPERTY IN THE EVENT OF FIRE"

Though not legally binding, the purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding (“the MoU”) is to form a common approach and a basis for establishing an efficient working relationship between Fire Authorities and Water Companies. A copy is currently available at the following address: http://www.rbfrs.co.uk/wp-content/upload...

The agreement makes clear that it does not replace or detract from the statutory duties of either party, as contained in the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 and the Water Industry Act 1991.

Briefly, the 2004 Act establishes, inter-alia, that:
38 (1) “A fire and rescue authority must take all reasonable measures for securing that an adequate supply of water will be available for the authority’s use in the event of fire”.
AND
39 (1) “A fire and rescue authority may enter into an agreement with a water undertaker for the purposes of section 38(1)”.

The MoU establishes protocols in relation to important matters, including:
--- Notification of Proposed New Mains
--- Installation of New Fire Hydrants
--- Fire Hydrant Inspections and Tests
--- Fire Hydrant Maintenance and Repairs
--- Charges

IN ADDITION, the MoU (p.42) provides a standard template entitled “LOCAL SPECIFIC ARRANGEMENTS”. As I understand it, this template is for use by a Water Company and Fire Authority to locally agree details that are either: reserved for such local agreement under the MoU; are at variance to the ‘default’ proposed in the MoU; or where the parties elect to augment the standard arrangements envisaged under the MoU. The template covers matters that include:
--- Hydrant spacing (in built up, rural and industrial areas)
--- Responsibilities for posts and plates (to show that a hydrant is designated a ‘Fire Hydrant’)
--- Testing frequency and responsibilities
--- Responsibilities in relation to repairs and related service agreements/charging

Apparently, senior management at HFRS believed such an agreement WAS in place when they wrote to me on 26 JANUARY 2017. ACO Dickinson advised [with regard to Medstead Farm] that “… by agreement between the Fire Authority and the Water Company, washout hydrants are to be converted to fire hydrants in accordance the LOCAL SPECIFIC ARRANGEMENTS [my emphasis] …”

However, this was effectively retracted by the Authority on 6 FEBRUARY, when the ‘Knowledge Management Team’ informed me that "...Currently Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service (HFRS) does not have in place any ‘Local Specific Arrangements’ with water companies that provide water in Hampshire”

THIS CREATES AN IMPRESSION THAT THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT MAY HAVE BEEN AN OVERSIGHT. CERTAINLY, THE OVERARCHING MoU IS DIFFICULT TO FULLY INTERPRET AND APPLY IN THE ABSENCE OF LOCAL SPECIFIC ARRANGEMENTS, AS EXPLAINED BELOW.

The overarching MoU provides that hydrant locations [and thus spacings] are supposed to be agreed in writing and in advance of the laying of the water main for a new development. The MoU provides a template for a standard letter (or email) of notification and states that:

“By agreement between the Fire Authority and the Water Company a washout hydrant may be converted to a fire hydrant and the charges for necessary modifications and subsequent maintenance shall be in accordance with the rates in the Local Specific Arrangements.” It also provides: “… responsibility for post and plating varies between the parties involved in this MOU these will be listed in the Local Specific Arrangements”.

It is unclear from what has been disclosed what maintenance and charging arrangements are in place (in this case or more generally) to post and plate hydrants (which is important to safeguard 24/7 access and dissuade unofficial uses) and to ensure that fire hydrants remain viable over time (e.g. maintained and tested).

However, it does appear that the joint working and effectiveness of arrangements between the Authority and the Water Companies would benefit from fundamental review as part of measures to “… improve our links with the water companies”, referred to by HFRS in their letter to me of 6 FEBRUARY 2017.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

The implementation of fire hydrants at Medstead Farm bears this out. As confirmed by South East Water, the situation in relation to this development appears to be as follows:
--- The Water Company initially notified, by email, West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service (WFRS) on 2nd JULY 2013
--- WFRS forwarded this to HFRS, as relevant Fire Authority
--- That email proposed a single Fire Hydrant
--- No response was received from HFRS, and so …
--- NO FIRE HYDRANTS were initially installed (although a number of ‘washout’ hydrants were installed)

The Water Company has recently confirmed: “On 17th January 2017, we received a request from the HFRS to install a fire hydrant along Lily Drive near Elm Tree Place and adopt two washout hydrants in Maple place and by Daisy Close as fire hydrants”.

I understand that these required facilities are now finally in place.

It seems clear that:
--- Fire Hydrants acceptable to HFRS [number/location] were ONLY implemented at Medstead Farm following public intervention (more than 3 1/2 years after the statutory consultation and post construction and occupation)
--- It would be prudent to ensure that no such errors or omissions have occurred in relation to other developments in East Hampshire
--- The operation of the MoU should be reviewed to prevent recurrence
--- All aspects of the MoU that refer to Local Specific Agreements to define or confirm responsibilities, should be reviewed to ensure the adequacy of arrangements in principle and in practice, including:
(references refer to MoU appendices)
--- Remedial Works (2.4)
--- Responsibility for post and plating (2.5)
--- Maintenance and related charging arrangements (2.6/2.8)
--- Inspection and testing (4.1)
--- Defect resolution (5.1/ 5.14/ 5.15 etc)
--- Water Shut Down procedures, including for high risk sites (6)

A Local Specific Arrangement (or similar) should be established as soon as possible, to codify these elements.

If members of the public have concerns regarding the provision of firefighting facilities on a development near them, I hope the above information may be helpful to any enquiries they may wish to make.

Complaints, Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Whiteside,

 

Our reference: FOI 56 16-17; FOI 113 16-17

 

Please see the attached correspondence.

 

Best regards,

 

Complaints Team

 

Knowledge Management Team

Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service

Leigh Road,

Eastleigh,

SO50 9JS

 

Tel: 02380 626850

Email: [1][email address]

Web: [2]www.hantsfire.co.uk

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.hantsfire.co.uk/

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Complaints,

You have, yet again, attached this response to the WRONG correspondence thread.

PLEASE RESEND to my request "EHDC planning apps 52501/001 and 52501/002 'Brislands Lane', Four Marks. - HFRS requirements" [Your Ref: FOI 56 16-17] which can be found at the following address:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/e...

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside