London Borough of Hounslow The Civic Centre Lampton Road Hounslow TW3 4DN Committee Services If you require further information about this agenda please contact: Mike Smith on 020 8583 2069 or at mike.smith@hounslow.gov.uk. OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE A meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will be held in the Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow on Thursday, 22 May 2003 at 7:30 pm MEMBERSHIP Councillor Lamey - Chair Councillors Barwood, Bath, Carey, Carman, Edwards, Morgan-Watts and Virk. and Virk.

AGENDA PART I - ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION WHILE THE PRESS AND PUBLIC ARE IN ATTENDANCE

1. Apologies for absence, declarations of interest or any other communications from Members

2. Election of Vice-Chair 3. Minutes of the meeting held on 22 April 2003 - for confirmation (Pages 1 - 8) 4. Minutes of the reconvened meeting held on 28 April 2003 - for confirmation (Pages 9 - 12) 5. Appointment of Chairs of Overview and Scrutiny Panels 6. Presentation on Emergency Planning (Pages 13 - 38) 7. Urgent Business

Any business which the Chair agrees to accept on grounds of urgency. DECLARING INTERESTS Committee members are reminded that if they have a personal interest in any matter being discussed at the meeting they must declare the interest and if the interest is also a prejudicial interest then they may not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter. M.J. SMITH DISTRIBUTION: Council Members Chief Officers Public Press Assistant Chief Executive (Legal)

1

At a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on Tuesday, 22 April 2003 at 6:00 pm at Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow. Present: Councillor Lamey (Chair) Councillors Barwood, Bath, Bowen, Carey, Carman, Chopra, Edwards, Gray, Kirton, Morgan-Watts and Vaught.. Apologies for Absence There were no apologies for absence.

18. Minutes of the meeting held on 31 March 2003

The minutes of the meeting held on 31 March 2003 were confirmed.

19. Leader's Question Time

Councillor John Chatt, Leader of the Council, was present to answer Members questions about key achievements over the past municipal year. A list of questions was divided up amongst all the Members present at the meeting.

a) Update on issues raised at the meeting held on 2 June 2002 i) When we last met, you agreed to provide a report on the Executive’s ‘Away

Days’ to this Committee. We are disappointed not to have yet received this report. When can we expect this? Councillor Chatt felt that the Committee had received a report because the main core of the work had been shown in the Executive’s Business Plan. Further information from the away days was being collated and analysed and this would be provided in a report to the Committee. There had been two away days with the Corporate Management Team and two with the Executive, which were held in Feltham. Reports on issues discussed by the Executive at the awaydays would be available to the public. The Committee felt that they should have received separate reports about away days and it was agreed that they would receive these in future.

ii) It is coming to the end of the municipal year and we wanted to invite you back to hear about your key achievements throughout the year. Could you outline what you feel have been your key achievements in this municipal year?

Agenda Item 3

1

2

Councillor Chatt felt that the Budget process had been a key achievement and that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had played a major role. He felt that the first year of the Executive had been a success. The achievements had been recognised by the Comprehensive Performance Assessment and the challenge would be to improve the results from fair to good. The ALMO had been a great success and their two star achievement in the Audit Commissions report had contributed to the Councils overall score. The framework used and the monitoring process in the Business Plan had helped to improve the way the Council was run. The results of the residents survey for 2002/2003 had been received and had indicated that the overall view of the public was that the Council was well run. Councillor Lamey pointed out that the Executive had been in existence since 1999, although this had been the first year that it had met in public.

iii) Do you envisage a time when the Council Tax will be below the rate of inflation and will plans to lower the level of spending be implemented earlier?

It was anticipated that there would be a medium term financial strategy for next year. This year had seen a mix of high Council Tax and medium savings to services. Financial indicators from the Government were likely to be the same, which would cause difficulties in making savings. Part of the Budget was to modernise and to reduce costs and overheads in order to save money.

iv) In June both you and this Committee were in agreement that the budget setting and review process should start early. Can you tell us, if the Executive Budget Sub Group continues to meet and what are the priorities in preparation for the next financial year?

The timing for the Scrutiny process for the Budget had been late this year and officers had not provided enough information in time for decisions to be made. Every effort would be made this year to obtain the necessary information from officers and the Government before the Budget was decided. The Executive Budget Sub Group had not been disbanded and a meeting would be held shortly to discuss the Business Plan. The process had commenced straight after the Budget and the Borough Treasurer had attended the last away day. The Budget was viewed as an on-going task and information would be provided to Scrutiny as soon as possible. The Budget Plan had indicated Scrutiny’s wish to be more involved and this had been taken on board with a view to working closer together earlier. Members of the Committee felt that they had not been given the

2

3

opportunity to scrutinise the Executive Budget Report. Councillor Chatt explained that his understanding was that this had been a joint exercise and the report had been the conclusions from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Executive. He added that there had been little change to the suggestions made by the Scrutiny Committee.

v) We also spoke in June about the New Constitution and the decision making

process. From your point of view how do you feel the decision making process has worked? Also, do you consider that the Executive has made best use of scrutiny in the decision making process?

Councillor Chatt acknowledged that the Executive had been slow to respond to the report and advised that information for the scrutiny process would be provided to the Committee from the Executive Budget Panel. Councillor Lamey suggested that the Executive and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee both produce one report, which would then be worked on by the Budget Sub-Panel.

vi) We would like to see the policy framework in advance for the decisions that the Executive is making. Could you tell us what the policy framework was in the context of the Budget.

Last year had been a mix of an increase in Council Tax and savings in services. The process had started with a need to make £4.7m savings, which the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Budget Panel had investigated and concluded similar ideas for savings. The policy framework had been around related issues and problems, for example, obtaining information from the Government, the rate support grant, one-off payments and match funding. There was an expectation in the Business Plans medium term financial strategy to reduce savings, including Council Tax, in subsequent years. Officers had been asked to monitor savings made against the cost of modernising, which was a process agreed in the Business Plan.

vii) Overview and Scrutiny is an evolving process. What is your understanding of this process?

Councillor Chatt felt that it was a very good process, which analysed the way the Council was run and organised and the efficiency and effectiveness of the Executive. It could look at outside bodies, for example, the health and voluntary sector, in a way that the Executive could not. A research report had been received from the Cardiff Business School, which praised the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Councillor Morgan-Watts felt that some scrutiny panels should be taking the lead and should have the opportunity to add their input to documents prepared by officers and the Executive. Councillor Chatt re-iterated that this was the first official year for the Executive and dealing with a large volume of reports was something that they were adjusting to. He felt that scrutiny panels had a choice in the work that they wanted to be involved in.

3

4

b) General Questions

i) We are interested in whether you feel significant progress has been

achieved at the Waterman’s Arts Centre since the recovery programme was put in place?(Councillor Carey declared an interest).

The Waterman’s Arts Centre had been funded by S.106 monies and was resourced by the London Borough of Hounslow and the Arts Council. The success of the centre had fluctuated over the years. The Arts Council was continuing to make funds available and the centre had a Business Plan to look at ways to make improvements. Members were concerned that the centre had been closed over Easter and had not produced a pantomime that year. It was felt that there should be more community involvement and Councillor Chatt was asked to pass on the Committees concerns to the centre. Councillor Chatt advised that he would ask the Management Committee at the Watermans to provide progress reports to the Area Committee. ii) The Health and Social Care Act has placed additional statutory legal

responsibilities on the Scrutiny function. Some councils have provided scrutiny with additional staff to work solely on Health Scrutiny in order to effectively support scrutiny Councillors. We are concerned that our team are expected to meet the extra requirement within the existing staff resources. Can we seek a guarantee from you as to how you will find additional capacity for the Scrutiny Team and that you will lobby central Government to provide additional funds for this?

There was not time for Councillor Chatt to give his response to the above question at the meeting and it was therefore, agreed that he would provide his response to the Health and Social Care Panel with a copy to Councillor Lamey. Other questions that the Committee had wanted to ask were provided to Councillor Chatt for a future response.

20. John Aird House - Call In of Executive Decision

Councillor Carey gave his apologies and left the meeting at this point and Councillors Fisher and Thompson joined the meeting. Councillor Lamey explained that this was a Council meeting, which was taking place in public as opposed to a public meeting. The reason for the call-in was to allow the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to examine the reasons that the Executive took into account when making their decision to agree the proposed closure of John Aird House. The Committee did not have the power to over-turn the Executive’s decision, but could return it to the Executive for re-consideration. There were no declarations from the Councillors present of instruction by the Party Whip.

4

5

The call-in had been requested by Councillors Fisher, Thompson and Morgan-Watts for the following reasons:

1. That insufficient consideration was given to the likely effects of closure of John Aird House, as outlined in the Jollie report and elsewhere.

2. That the decision was to be challenged with a request for a Judicial Review

which, even in the event of being unsuccessful, was likely to cost the local authority in the region of £50,000.

Councillor Lamey invited the three Councillors who had requested the call-in to give their reasons. Councillor Thompson felt that the Best Value Review for Older People report had not shown many benefits in the closure of John Aird House, but had shown potential risks. He had not feel that the affects that the closure would have on the residents had been taken into account in particular, the possible risk of a resident dying as mentioned in the Jollie report. Councillor Fisher felt that it was clear from the report that the residents were happy at the Home, would be very unhappy about moving and their families were opposed to the closure. Councillor Morgan-Watts stated that this was the first time that he was aware of a decision being made that could potentially lead to a death. He felt that, under these circumstances, another option should be taken. Councillor Vaught added her concerns over the decrease in places available to older people for residential care if the Home were to close. Councillor Lal stated that the total exclusion of the risk of death to residents being transferred could not be denied, but measures would be put in place to enable the risk to be minimised. Detailed independent assessments would be carried out on all residents and a protocol had been established for the risk management associated with the transfer of elderly residents, incorporating issues raised in the Jollie report. Delegated authority would be given to key members to enable them to temporarily halt the process of moving a resident if there were any concerns about their health. Sue Spurlock, Acting Assistant Director of Social Services, stated that an independent assessment would be made of individual residents at the Home. A small steering group would be set up to oversee the process and advice would be sought from nurses and consultants. It was anticipated that preparations would take approximately six months and that older residents would be transferred before winter. Detailed assessments would not be carried out, however, until the decision had been made to proceed with the closure. Councillor Lal had stated that all of the information that had been made available had shown that there was a declining need for residential care and that there appeared to be a greater reliance on nursing care in the Borough. He wanted an environment to be created where older people could live in their own homes, which consultations had

5

6

shown was what they wanted. The Best Value Review had indicated the route that should be taken for the care of older people and this would mean the reconfiguration of resources to provide beds where they were needed. Councillor Bath raised concerns over the Council’s position if further evidence became available about the risk of causing premature death by transferring elderly residents. Councillor Lal stated that all of the research available would be incorporated into the individual risk assessments. Terry Welsh, Deputy Borough Solicitor, advised that the risk would depend on the circumstances of the individual person and that, even when taking the greatest of care, there would always be a potential risk with frail elderly people. Members were concerned about the speed at which the decision was being made and felt that the residents and their families would be happy for the Council to take the time it needed to consider everything. Councillor Lal agreed and added that the time taken for consultation was extensive and had been extended. Councillor Edwards raised the following questions: Parts of the Technical Services report clearly referred to the National Care

Standards. What were the grounds for the use of these standards, which were held in abeyance?

What was the evidence that the demand for residential care had declined? What was the basis for the individual inspectors report if the National Care

Standards Commission had not visited the Home? How did the cost of establishing emergency care facilities compare with the

cost of maintenance work to the Home? What were the reasons for the Executive rejecting the other available options

for the Home? What was the extent of the consultations that had been carried out?

Councillor Lal stated that the initial driver leading to the closure of the Home was the implications from the National Care Standards and the recommendations from the Best Value Review for longer-term proposals to re-shape residential care services. Technical Services had produced a report about the fabric of the building and the work required to bring it up to standard. The standards used were a diluted version of the National Care Standards. Councillor Lal stated that the building required work regardless of the National Care Standards. John Aird House had been short-listed from the list of four residential homes because it did not lend itself to improvement with the resources available. Evidence of the decline in need for residential care had been provided orally by officers and had been implicit in the documents. Access to residential care would still be available in the other homes. Councillor Lal stated that the National Care Standards Commission had visited the Home in January 2003 and had not yet produced a report of their findings. Members felt that this was unacceptable. They felt that the report could provide additional information that would justify the reconsideration of the decision made by the Executive.

6

7

Some of the other homes would specialise in dementia care and the costs for establishing this service was approximately £120,000. The managed closure option was the option that had been selected because, based on all of the evidence available at the time, it was felt that this was possibly the only option. Councillor Lal stated that numerous consultations had taken place during the Best Value Review in 2001 and these had been targeted at gatherings of large numbers of elderly people at organised events. The conclusions drawn from the information was that elderly people would like to be more independent and services were being re-configured to meet that demand. Sue Spurlock advised that Technical Services had been asked to produce their report alongside the four options for the four homes. It had been recommended that the best possible standards should be applied for the Investment (long-term) Option and the minimum amount of work to keep open to the other 3 options. Councillor Vaught noted that the figure for the cost of the Status Quo option was £92,000 over 5-8 years. She felt that this time span was not realistic and it was agreed that figures would be provided for this option over a longer length of time. Councillor Chopra asked the following questions: Were individual residents consulted? Would residents be given a choice about the place they would be transferred

to? What assurances were there over the future care and jobs for staff?

Councillor Lal stated that the last consultation activity included the appointment of an independent advocate to assist residents, in particular those without relatives. Residents views about moving in groups or with members of staff would be taken into account and this would be incorporated into the protocol. There would be no redundancies as a result of the closure of the Home. In response to a question from Councillor Thompson, Councillor Lal advised that all necessary precautions would be taken in the transfer of residents and that key members of staff would be given delegated authority to cancel or postpone the relocation at any stage in the proceedings if they had any doubts over the risk to the resident. The transfer would then be re-arranged for a date when the resident could be moved. Councillor Edwards queried the qualification of the Director of Social Services in their role as joint author of the report. Councillor Lal explained that the Executive had requested the Director of Social Services involvement to be open and impartial and that another independent report had been commissioned. Councillor Edwards felt that the decision to choose the Managed Closure option had been made without any investigation of the cost of building a dementia facility. He questioned the arrangement for funds available for the maintenance of Council stock.

7

8

Councillor Lal stated that the costs for refurbishment works were included in the report by Technical Services. Maintenance work had been carried out to the Home in the past, but he did not have details. The cost for dementia care facilities was approximately £120,000 and the remaining homes would specialise in certain aspects of this facility. There were no plans to sell the building, but it was hoped that the site would be used in the future for very sheltered accommodation. It was proposed by Councillor Morgan-Watts and seconded by Councillor Bath to adjourn the meeting to allow for additional information and evidence to be submitted, including the report by the National Care Standards Commission. At this point, the meeting was adjourned, to be reconvened on 28 April 2003.

The meeting finished at 9:12 pm.

8

1

At a reconvened meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on Monday, 28 April 2003 at 6pm (previous meeting – 22 April 2003) at Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow. Present: Councillor Lamey (Chair) Councillors Bartholomew, Barwood, Bath, Bowen, Carman, Chatt, Chopra, Edwards, Fisher, Kirton, Morgan-Watts, Muston, Smart, Thompson and Vaught.. Apologies for Absence Councillors Carey.

21. Exclusion of the Press and Public

Resolved:

That the public and press be asked to leave the meeting during discussion of the following item because confidential information as defined in paragraph a), Sub-Section 3, Section 100 a) of the Local Government Act 1972 is likely to be made known.

22. National Care Standards Commission - Draft Report

Resolved:

It was agreed that the National Care Standards Commission Draft Report had not provided any significant additional information for consideration by the Committee.

23. Re-admission of the Press and Public

On conclusion of the confidential item for discussion, the press and public were re-admitted.

24. Call In of Executive Decision - John Aird House

Sue Spurlock, Acting Director of Social Services, advised that registration of the Home with the National Care Standards Commission would depend on the compliance with the standards set out in their report and, if the Home were to remain open, they would have six months to implement these. The Technical Services report had been commissioned to meet the 1984 Homes Act standards.

Agenda Item 4

9

2

The proposed closure of John Aird House had been to move away from residential to other forms of care as recommended in the Best Value Review and not to save money. The need for traditional residential care had fallen from 146 in 2001 to 118 in 2002 and this trend was evident both locally and nationally. In an analysis of patients at West Middlesex Hospital, it had been found that there had been no permanent vacancies at the Home since August 2002 and no waiting list for places had developed. John Aird House was not registered to care for people who required nursing or dementia care. There were approximately 30 people currently unable to leave hospital because there was nowhere appropriate for them to go. Fines could be levied at Social Services in January 2004 if they could not ensure that the hospital system was effective. In response to a question from Councillor Barwood, Sue Spurlock advised that it was thought that residents were given the impression that they could stay at the Home for as long as the Home could provide the care they needed, although she acknowledged that families may have assumed that there relatives would be able to stay at the Home for good. It was unlikely that residents or their families would have been warned that the Home might close, as this situation did not occur often. Sue Spurlock did not have the figures for the reasons why residents had moved in the past, but thought that it would have been a mix between dying and admission to hospital or dementia units. In response to a question, Sue Spurlock reported that there had been no specific consultation with people in Brentford, but that these proposals had been included in the Best Value consultation amongst a wider group of people. There were eighteen permanent residents on 18 April and one of these was planning to move. The spare capacity was currently being used for residential respite care. Councillor Bath asked if the decision to limit consultation had been a policy decision or an officer decision. Sue Spurlock was unsure but felt that it had been appropriate to discuss the issue with those involved in the closure. A multi-disciplinary assessment would be carried out on each of the residents prior to transfer. Discussions were taking place to involve a lead nurse from the Primary Care Trust to assist in the process. Councillor Morgan-Watts asked how many of the current seventeen residents could be moved without cause for concern. Sue Spurlock advised that it would depend on the risk assessments, which would not be carried out until the final decision had been made. There was current information, however, on the needs of the residents, which had been gained from the regular reviews that had been carried out and it was thought the remaining residents were less frail than those who had moved on. Councillor Fisher stated that she had visited John Aird House and spoken to the residents and the manager. None of the residents she had spoken to had wanted to leave the Home and the manager had said that there were currently twenty eight residents at the Home and not eighteen, as previously stated by Sue Spurlock. Sue Spurlock replied that there were eighteen permanent residents and ten temporary residential respite clients.

10

3

Councillor Edwards suggested that Option 3, the run down option, could be economic if the spare capacity was used for respite care. Sue Spurlock replied that this had not been put forward as an option and that respite care needed to be flexible to allow people to stay in the areas where they lived. She did not feel that there would be the demand to run a home for respite care. She agreed that if the 3rd Option had been chosen the spare capacity would have been used for respite care. In response to a question from Councillor Kirton, Sue Spurlock advised that she did not have figures to support the decline in demand for residential care in Brentford and Isleworth, but that there was a decline in Hounslow and nationally. Jan Robson, Head of Technical Services, advised that she could only provide technical information about the Home from the time that Property Services merged with the Housing Dept in late 1996. She stated that individual departments had control of their own maintenance budgets and that the balance of the sum allocated was £500k-£700k per year for all non-housing buildings. This was insufficient to sustain a reasonable level of maintenance. There was a formal tendering process for works. 4-5 large building companies would be approached to provide estimates and recent estimates for similar works had been used to provide the costs of work needed at the Home. Works carried out at the Home during the last 4 years had included replacement windows, roof repairs, lift repairs, redecoration works and most recently, investigatory work for underpinning. The plant had been serviced on a regular basis. Social Services had commissioned an external consultant to produce a report detailing the requirements necessary to meet the standards. Sue Spurlock and the Consultant had briefed Technical Services to explore the four options and to go through the repair standards in full. The details in the Technical Services report were from the National Care Standards. The estimates in the report had been based on the life cycles of longer-term elements, for example, windows and recent surveys for shorter-term elements. The estimates had allowed for inflation. Councillor Lamey pointed out that the only immediate requirement appeared to be the underpinning. Jan Robson replied that the edges of the ground beams were falling away and the foundations were rotating. The flat part of the roof would require repair sooner than the pitched elevations and some investment would be needed to keep the building running. Sunita Sharma, Head of Scrutiny and Performance, reminded the Committee of the reasons for the call-in and the Chair’s decision to focus on the first reason, which was that insufficient consideration was given to the likely effects of closure on residents of John Aird House, as outlined in the Jollie report and elsewhere. Councillor Thompson felt that, despite the amount of evidence provided, there was no clear case to support the closure of the Home. It appeared that the National Care Standards, which were in abeyance, had driven the case.

11

4

Resolved:

It was agreed that the Executive be asked to reconsider their decision for the planned closure of John Aird House and recommended Option 3 – the ‘run down’ option, as described in the Best Value Review of Services to Older People report.

The meeting finished at 7:30 pm.

12

Emer

genc

y Pl

anni

ng P

rese

ntat

ion

to O

verv

iew

& S

crut

iny

Com

mitt

ee22

ndM

ay 2

003

Dav

id K

erry

Emer

genc

y Pl

anni

ng M

anag

erSt

reet

Man

agem

ent &

Pu

blic

Pro

tect

ion

Agenda Item 6

13

Scop

e of

Pre

sent

atio

n

Hou

nslo

w C

ounc

il’s E

mer

genc

y Pl

anni

ngPa

rtner

sLo

ndon

Res

ilienc

e Fo

rum

Civ

il C

ontin

genc

ies

Bill

Secu

rity

Issu

esSA

RS

14

Def

initi

on o

f a M

ajor

Em

erge

ncy

“Any

eve

nt (h

appe

ning

with

or w

ithou

t war

ning

) ca

usin

g or

thre

aten

ing

deat

h or

inju

ry, d

amag

e to

pro

perty

or t

o th

e en

viro

nmen

t or d

isru

ptio

n to

the

com

mun

ity, w

hich

bec

ause

of t

he s

cale

of

its

effe

cts

cann

ot b

e de

alt w

ith b

y th

e em

erge

ncy

serv

ices

and

loca

l aut

horit

ies

as

part

of th

eir d

ay to

day

ser

vice

s.”

15

Emer

genc

ies

we

may

dea

l with

Expl

osio

n (te

rroris

t, ga

s or

oth

er)

Evac

uatio

nM

ajor

Fire

s C

olla

pse

of S

truct

ures

(b

uild

ings

, brid

ges)

Floo

ding

Seve

re W

eath

erEs

cape

of D

ange

rous

Su

bsta

nces

Trai

n an

d Ai

rcra

ft C

rash

esR

oad

Traf

fic A

ccid

ents

Legi

onna

ires

Dis

ease

Food

Saf

ety

Foot

& M

outh

Fuel

Cris

isTe

rroris

m

16

Wha

t we

can

prov

ide

Liai

son

Offi

cer a

t the

sc

ene

Boro

ugh

Emer

genc

y C

ontro

l Cen

treC

o-or

dina

tion

of

Dep

artm

enta

l and

co

ntra

ctor

’s re

spon

ses

Co-

ordi

natio

n of

vo

lunt

ary

orga

nisa

tions

Emer

genc

y R

est

Cen

tres

Fam

ily &

Rel

ativ

es

Rec

eptio

n C

entre

sSu

rviv

or R

ecep

tion

Cen

tres

Tem

pora

ry M

ortu

ary

17

Wha

t we

can

prov

ide

Stru

ctur

al E

ngin

eers

and

te

chni

cal s

uppo

rtEn

viro

nmen

tal H

ealth

m

anag

emen

tLo

ng-te

rm m

anag

emen

t fo

r the

rest

orat

ion

of

norm

ality

Reh

abilit

atio

n of

the

Com

mun

itySo

cial

Ser

vice

sEm

erge

ncy

Hou

sing

Info

rmat

ion

serv

ices

18

Our

resp

onse

tim

es

Offi

ce H

ours

Con

trol C

entre

ope

n w

ithin

5 m

ins

Liai

son

Offi

cer t

o sc

ene

–30

to 6

0 m

ins

Emer

genc

y R

est C

entre

op

ened

–15

to 3

0 m

ins

Out

of H

ours

Con

trol C

entre

Ope

n –

1 to

2 h

ours

Cou

ncil

Liai

son

Offi

cer t

o sc

ene

–1t

o 2

hour

s.Em

erge

ncy

Res

t Cen

tre

open

ed –

30 to

90

min

s.

19

Emer

genc

ies

we

have

dea

lt w

ith

Evac

uatio

ns b

ecau

se o

f fir

es, g

as le

aks,

rive

r flo

odin

g, b

urst

wat

er

mai

ns, s

uspe

ct v

ehic

le

bom

bsM

utua

l aid

sup

port

to

othe

r loc

al a

utho

ritie

sSe

vere

Wea

ther

& F

lood

W

arni

ngs

Emer

genc

y R

est C

entre

fo

r stra

nded

pas

seng

ers

follo

win

g 9/

11 a

ttack

s in

U

SC

o-or

dina

tion

of

evac

uatio

n &

supp

ort

plan

for r

esid

ents

of

Ivyb

ridge

Est

ate

over

C

hris

tmas

& N

ew Y

ear

2002

20

Hou

nslo

w C

ounc

ilEm

erge

ncy

Plan

ning

Tea

m

Dav

id K

erry

Emer

genc

y Pl

anni

ng M

anag

erJo

seph

McF

arla

ndEm

erge

ncy

Plan

ning

Offi

cer

(Tra

inin

g &

Proj

ects

)

Rog

er F

renc

hH

ead

of E

nviro

nmen

tal S

afet

ySM

&PP

/ Pub

lic P

rote

ctio

n D

ivis

ion

Andy

Fie

ldin

gAs

sist

ant D

irect

or S

M&P

P / P

ublic

Pro

tect

ion

Sure

sh K

amat

hH

ead

of S

treet

Man

agem

ent &

Pub

lic P

rote

ctio

n

Mar

k G

ilks

Chi

ef E

xecu

tive

21

Emer

genc

y Pl

anni

ng U

nit

Prep

ares

cor

pora

te M

ajor

Inci

dent

Ar

rang

emen

ts to

dea

l with

larg

e-sc

ale

inci

dent

sAs

sist

s C

ounc

il D

epar

tmen

ts in

pre

parin

g th

eir

emer

genc

y pl

ans

Stag

es tr

aini

ng a

nd e

xerc

ises

for t

hose

pla

ns

and

arra

ngem

ents

22

Emer

genc

y Pl

anni

ng U

nit

Liai

son

with

em

erge

ncy

serv

ices

and

oth

er

emer

genc

y re

spon

se a

genc

ies

Partn

ersh

ip w

orki

ng w

ith o

ther

loca

l aut

horit

ies

Link

s in

with

Lon

don-

wid

e an

d na

tiona

l st

rate

gic

emer

genc

y pl

anni

ng th

at a

ffect

s H

ouns

low

Wor

ks w

ith L

ondo

n R

esilie

nce

Foru

m a

nd

Team

23

Part

ners

Loca

l Em

erge

ncy

Serv

ices

and

PC

TH

eath

row

Joi

nt C

risis

Pla

nnin

g G

roup

Nor

th W

est L

ondo

n Em

erge

ncy

Plan

ning

G

roup

Lond

on L

ocal

Aut

horit

ies

Emer

genc

y Pl

anni

ng

Gro

upLo

ndon

Res

ilienc

e Fo

rum

24

Nor

th W

est L

ondo

n M

utua

l Aid

Gro

up

Stan

dard

ised

Em

erge

ncy

Con

trol S

yste

m

with

in N

orth

Wes

t Mut

ual A

id G

roup

Dev

elop

men

t of G

roup

-bas

ed tr

aini

ngSh

ared

reso

urce

s un

der M

utua

l Aid

Agr

eem

ent

(san

dbag

s, b

eds,

bla

nket

s, tr

ansp

ort,

pers

onne

l, em

erge

ncy

cont

rol c

entre

s)

25

Lond

on L

ocal

Aut

horit

ies

Emer

genc

y Pl

anni

ng G

roup

All 3

2 lo

cal b

orou

ghs,

Cor

pora

tion

of L

ondo

n,

and

Lond

on F

ire &

Em

erge

ncy

Plan

ning

Au

thor

ityD

eals

with

stra

tegi

c pa

n-Lo

ndon

em

erge

ncy

plan

ning

, pro

mot

ing

a co

nsis

tent

app

roac

h fro

m a

ll of

Lon

don’

s lo

cal a

utho

ritie

sPr

ovid

es re

pres

enta

tives

on

all L

ondo

n R

esilie

nce

Foru

m s

ub-c

omm

ittee

s an

d w

orki

ng g

roup

s

26

Cha

nges

sin

ce S

epte

mbe

r 11t

h

Lond

on n

ow a

targ

et fo

r sui

cide

bom

bers

Incr

ease

d th

reat

of C

hem

ical

, Bio

logi

cal,

Rad

iolo

gica

l and

Nuc

lear

terro

rism

, lea

ding

to..

New

‘cat

astro

phic

’ lev

el o

f dis

aste

rIn

crea

se o

f em

erge

ncy

plan

ning

at n

atio

nal,

regi

onal

and

loca

l lev

el

27

Lond

on R

esili

ence

For

um

Cha

ired

by N

ick

Ray

nsfo

rd M

P, M

inis

ter f

or

Lond

on R

esilie

nce

Staf

fed

by c

ivil

serv

ants

from

OD

PM (b

ased

at

GO

L) a

nd s

econ

dees

from

em

erge

ncy

serv

ices

, util

ities

and

ALG

Foru

m h

as re

ps fr

om E

mer

genc

y Se

rvic

es,

Util

ities

, Tra

nspo

rt, G

LA, A

LG, L

GA,

En

v. A

genc

y, L

ocal

Aut

horit

ies

and

Gov

ernm

ent D

epar

tmen

ts

28

LRT

Stru

ctur

e

Civ

il C

ontin

genc

ies

Com

mitt

eeLo

ndon

Res

ilienc

e Fo

rum

Sub-

Com

mitt

ees

(Com

mun

icat

ion,

Blu

e Li

ght,

Tran

spor

t, H

ealth

, U

tiliti

es, L

ocal

Aut

horit

ies,

Bus

ines

s C

omm

unity

)W

orki

ng G

roup

s(R

ubbl

e, T

empo

rary

Mor

tuar

y,

Evac

uatio

n)

29

Loca

l Aut

horit

ies

Emer

genc

y Pl

anni

ng S

ub-C

omm

ittee

5 LA

Chi

ef E

xecu

tives

5 LA

Em

erge

ncy

Plan

ning

Offi

cers

Cha

ir of

the

Lond

on L

ocal

Aut

horit

ies

Emer

genc

y Pl

anni

ng G

roup

Lond

on R

esilie

nce

Team

Blue

Lig

ht S

ub-C

omm

ittee

Rep

Secr

etar

iat b

y AL

G

30

LAEP

SC T

erm

s of

Ref

eren

ce

To p

rom

ote

fully

inte

grat

ed c

ross

age

ncy

wor

king

To e

nsur

e fu

ll in

tera

ctio

n be

twee

n pl

ans

and

orga

nisa

tions

To e

stab

lish

and

mai

ntai

n ef

fect

ive

inte

r age

ncy

com

mun

icat

ion

To p

rovi

de a

foru

m to

dis

cuss

, eva

luat

e an

d re

com

men

d im

prov

emen

ts to

the

exis

ting

proc

edur

esTo

pro

pose

way

s of

resp

ondi

ng to

ope

ratio

nal

situ

atio

nsTo

pro

mot

e pa

n Lo

ndon

trai

ning

an

d ex

erci

sing

31

LAEP

SC C

urre

nt W

ork

Rev

iew

of M

utua

l Aid

Arra

ngem

ents

Dev

elop

men

t of L

ocal

Aut

horit

y ‘G

old’

, in

clud

ing

test

ing

and

exer

cise

Mod

el R

esol

utio

n be

ing

prep

ared

for e

ach

auth

ority

to p

rovi

de L

A G

old

with

aut

horit

y to

ac

t on

beha

lf of

all

auth

oriti

es

32

Emer

genc

y Pl

anni

ng R

evie

w

Failu

re o

f cen

tral g

over

nmen

t arra

ngem

ents

to

deal

with

Fue

l Cris

is, F

lood

ing

and

Foot

&

Mou

th in

200

1G

over

nmen

t now

reco

gnis

es th

at e

xist

ing

emer

genc

y pl

anni

ng le

gisl

atio

n (C

ivil

Def

ence

Ac

t 194

8) n

o lo

nger

ade

quat

eR

egio

nal c

apac

ity n

eede

d to

sup

port

loca

l ef

fort

Audi

t and

insp

ectio

n on

pro

gres

s

33

Civ

il C

ontin

genc

ies

Bill

New

dut

y on

loca

l aut

horit

ies

and

othe

r em

erge

ncy

resp

onde

rs to

mak

e em

erge

ncy

plan

s, a

nd to

exe

rcis

e th

emLA

’s m

ay b

e re

quire

d to

pro

duce

and

pub

lish

Com

mun

ity R

isk

Asse

ssm

ent R

egis

ters

Dire

ct C

ivil

Def

ence

Gra

nt w

ill go

, and

will

be

subs

umed

into

the

RSG

thro

ugh

the

SSA

34

(Pos

sibl

e) B

ill T

imet

able

Dra

ft co

nsul

tatio

n fro

m C

ivil

Con

tinge

ncie

s Se

cret

aria

t by

late

Jun

e fo

r 3 m

onth

sR

esul

ts b

y en

d O

ctob

erQ

ueen

s Sp

eech

in N

ovem

ber

Enac

tmen

t Deb

ates

in D

ecem

ber o

r Jan

uary

In s

tatu

te A

pril

2004

35

Impl

icat

ions

for H

ouns

low

Cou

ncil

Loca

l aut

horit

ies

likel

y to

be

give

n a

com

mun

ity

lead

ersh

ip ro

leLA

s m

ay b

e re

quire

d to

pro

duce

and

pub

lish

Com

mun

ity R

isk

Asse

ssm

ent R

egis

ters

A w

ider

role

for L

As in

pro

vidi

ng in

form

atio

n an

d ad

vice

to th

e pu

blic

A ro

le in

pro

mot

ing

the

valu

e of

Bus

ines

s C

ontin

uity

Pla

nnin

g to

loca

l bu

sine

sses

36

Secu

rity

Issu

es

Al-Q

aeda

Dis

side

nt Ir

ish

Terro

rists

No

know

n sp

ecifi

c th

reat

to U

KC

ontin

uing

nee

d fo

r pub

lic v

igila

nce

30 y

ears

of e

xper

ienc

e in

Lon

don

37

Seve

re A

cute

Res

pira

tory

Sy

ndro

me

(SA

RS)

Cur

rent

ly 4

pro

babl

e ca

ses,

with

one

con

firm

ed

case

No

case

s in

Hou

nslo

wH

ouns

low

PC

T ha

ve d

isse

min

ated

all

info

rmat

ion

from

DoH

& P

HLS

to G

Ps a

bout

re

cogn

ition

of p

ossi

ble

SAR

S ca

ses

and

hom

e qu

aran

tine

if re

quire

d

38