Anti-fire cuts petition nears 10,000 signatories, and LDB join forces with housing providers to tackle high-rise fires better. All this and more in our weekly round-up.
Over 9,500 people have now put pen to paper on a petition protesting against cuts proposed to services run by the London Fire Brigade.
As part of austerity measures being implemented throughout the country, the London Fire Authority has been asked to find GB pound 45 million worth of savings.
Proposals have pinpointed the closure of ten fire stations in London alongside the loss of 550 fire-fighter positions and 19 fire engines.
London Assembly member John Biggs believes that the cuts pose a threat to public safety.
The Chief Fire Officers Association (CFOA) and the Fire Service Youth Training Association (FSYTA) are supporting the launch of the Step Up To Serve campaign, which aims to double the number of young people engaged in positive social action to over 50% by 2020.
The FSYTA Fire Cadets are part of Youth United, a network of voluntary youth organisations. Youth United has pledged to establish an additional 40,000 places in groups including Fire Cadets by 2022.
The London Fire Brigade has joined forces with housing providers in nine London Boroughs as part of its ongoing drive to improve emergency response to fires in the capital’s high rise buildings.
The six-month pilot is scheduled to run in Camden, Croydon, Hackney, Hounslow, Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, and Wandsworth.
The trial itself will see 150 “premises information plates” fixed to the outside of residential, high-rise tower blocks. These plates will contain essential information about a given building, including the number of floors and height of the building, the number and location of staircases, the position of fire hydrants and the number and location of dry risers which connect hoses to the water supply.
Ultimately, the plates are designed to assist firefighters when they first arrive on scene after a fire has broken out.
The debate surrounding the efficacy of sprinkler use tends to hang on one thing: cost.
Yes, sprinklers work. They are a proven technology when it comes to battling fire, but the stumbling block remains whether they’re worth the investment given that other fireproofing means tending towards greater cost efficiencies will often do a job that’s more than good enough to allow people to evacuate a building in safety.
Do you have a sprinkler system installed? Has it helped reduce your insurance premiums? If so, then let us know.
Maintaining special relationships with manufacturers can be of benefit to installers if those working relationships are carefully planned. So says Stefan Hay, head of the Fire and Security Association, in his latest blog for IFSECGlobal.
Hay comments:
It’s a tough world out there for installers, particularly those operating at the smaller end of the market. The constant need to balance the books while training to new standards and keeping up with the latest technology and equipment — not to mention getting the actual work done — means that many have their hands full when it comes to keeping on top of business demands.
To help reduce these demands on their time, some installers have chosen the partnering route and are looking to build exclusive links with manufacturers and suppliers.
The $64,000 question… Is this a good idea? The answer really depends on what you’re looking for from your business. Is it full independence and flexibility, or easier access to projects and training?
2023 Fire Safety eBook – Grab your free copy!
Download the Fire Safety in 2023 eBook, keeping you up to date with the biggest news and prosecution stories from around the industry. Chapters include important updates such as the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 and an overview of the new British Standard for the digital management of fire safety information.
Plus, we explore the growing risks of lithium-ion battery fires and hear from experts in disability evacuation and social housing.
Wow! 10 fire stations and 550 jobs is a big blow. I can’t imagine how such cuts wouldn’t be a threat to public safety. These cuts are sure to increase response times leading to greater loss in the case of a fire or other emergency.
same here…. I do think public safety would get affected one way or other… it sad… to know this happening…
@ batye
I meant to say the changes would DECREASE response time…LOL.
I don’t think a lot of people really consider the reprucussions when all they are worried about is saving the bottom dollar….
@STACEY ESTEY it would be funny, but it realy sad… as you could not get more with less… or improve it… how I see it…