Agenda item

Background information updating Members on this subject has been included in the agenda.  A presentation on this subject will follow at the meeting.

Mr N. Moon, Chief Executive and Mr R. Church, Incident Management & Resilience Specialist of Applied Resilience (AR) presented an update on Heatwaves Preparedness to the Board.

The topics discussed included updates on Heatwaves at the Local Resilience Forum Level, Cools Hubs, Plans, Warning and Informing, Priority Services Register, Business Continuity Plans and Training.

Following the presentation, the Chairman of the Impact of Heatwaves Task Group, Councillor M. Marshall welcomed AR to the meeting and commenced proceedings.  Along with Members of the Board; the following considerations were raised:

• Updates at the Local Resilience Forum Level - During discussions in the Impact of Heatwaves Task Group sessions the establishment of Worcestershire Prepared (WP) had been discussed to review risks, however this was not mentioned in the presentation.  Was the work still ongoing? – Members were informed that the schemed was still being established, with the Terms of Reference still to be agreed.  A mascot was being designed to encourage the scheme as a whole for community resilience, not just specifically for the Impacts of Heatwaves.  It was also explained that AR were not leading on the scheme and the intention was for the group to carry out co-ordinated engagement for Heatwaves Preparedness.
• Was the operation of groups and agencies independent of LGR or would this also be reviewed? – The Board were informed that the partnership was formed by forty partners and would have significant implications.  The West Mercia Local Resilience Forum (LRF) had not discussed the implications of LGR specifically and were focusing mostly on the statutory responsibilities.  However, LRF would be keeping pace with developments and would be considering the necessary service provisions.  Members were also advised that LGR had been added as a specific risk to the LRF register.
• Cool Hubs - Why were Cool Hub provisions for designated facilities specifically chosen for Churches of England, could other places of worship be explored? – It was explained that the Diocese had been considered as there had been good engagement, however, part of Worcestershire Prepared was to engage with all areas. 
• How would the provision of Cool Hub facilities work for residents if availability was only for available during routine opening times? It was felt by Members that reliability of everyday Cool Hub venues was a necessity. – The Board were informed that opening times of venues were reliant and dependant on the severity of the civil emergency. 
• A specific list of the facilities participating in the Cool Hub provision were requested for Members’ consideration to also include venues which had air conditioning units present and those which did not. – It was agreed that this would be provided.
• Members requested Cool Hub provisions for the wider District should be explored to ensure adequate accessibility to all residents. - Members were informed that sourcing other venues was ongoing, including contacts with local parishes as a possible option.  Engagement would be encouraged with WP, including the relevant partners and with voluntary sectors and agencies.  Members were also advised that the provision for transporting vulnerable individuals to Cool Hub locations was also being considered.
• How would the provision of Cool Hubs be communicated to the public? – Engagement with the public and the use of facilities would be dependent on the scale of the overall adverse level response.  If there was an impending severe Heatwave Impact, the LGR would provide activate communications.
• Had equipment been procured for extra Cool Hub provision? – The Board were advised that the intension was only to provide facilities that were available within budget, however, if air conditioning units could be procured, other venues would be sourced.  Members were advised that libraries did include air conditioning units and churches did not, however the thickness of the buildings’ construction deemed them as an effective Cool Hub provision.
• It was suggested by a Member that sport centres and gym facilities could be explored as an option as the venues were equipped with air conditioning. – In response Members were advised that up front costings were difficult to request, as opposed to rest centres.  In response Members expressed the view that the suggested venues should be explored in further detail as a necessity for the local area.  In response Members were advised that if there was an adverse weather risk, that the venues were more likely to support the scheme, however, there had been challenges in the past, with some similar venues refusing to assist.
• Was there information available to manage reducing risk during heatwaves, for example, lighting fire for BBQs and if there was information available to encourage sensible behaviour for dog owners during the summer months. – Members were advised that fires were part of the national monitoring.  The Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service would also adapt their messaging of risk, depending on intelligence.  The scheme was also reliant on partnerships to push out messages.  The suggestion of sensible behaviour for dog owners would be fed back for the Worcestershire Prepared comms programme. 
• Business Continuity Plans - Could the Board be provided with progress on the Business Continuity Plans. -  AR were in the process of meeting with all Assistant Directors and their teams to discuss business continuity plans.  Members were also advised that keeping pace with the learning of cyber-attacks was an integral part of the plans.
• Priority Services Register - Was there progress to ensure the most vulnerable in the District were being included on the Priority Services Register and if figures could be provided? – The Board were advised that AR were not routinely provided with specific figures from utility services advising who had been put onto the register, however, AR were keen to promote the service and would review the suggestion further.
• Could WP consider managing their own Priority Services Register rather than relying on utility companies? – Members were informed that civil contingency plans could be reviewed if co-ordinated effectively, as an additional responsibility to be included in the BDC Adverse Weather Plan.
• Could the promotion and provision of the Priority Services Register (along with the relevant contact details) be included with the Council Tax bill distribution as a consideration? – It was agreed that this would be reviewed further and added to the list of requirements for the BDC Adverse Weather Plan.
• Plans - Could the Board be updated with progress of the BDC adverse weather plan. – The Board were informed that the plan was due for sign off and should be available by April, however, there was a need to review further Cool Hub provisions.  Members were also advised that the LRF Adverse Weather Plan would be ready by next year.
• Did WP provide support for all weather conditions and not just extreme weather? – The Board were advised that WP were set up to advise on all weather conditions.  There were also robust practices and training in place to assist Officers and Members for emergency planning.
• How would Members be informed of a severe weather warning, to ensure preparedness for residents. – Members were informed that included in the Council’s Adverse Weather Plan would be actions required to notify residents that the local area were moving to an adverse weather warning.  In response, Members expressed concerns that there seemed to be insufficient time to warn residents and requested a more robust approach.  In response it was explained that there were emergency operational steps outlined in the BDC Business Continuity Plan and that any warnings were dependant on the Meteorological Office triggering a response.
• Training - Training was requested for Members to ensure that robust provisions were in place to provide the necessary advice to residents in preparedness for a Heatwave.
• Warning and Informing - If a comprehensive list of campaigns could be circulated who warn and inform residents of adverse weather conditions. – It was agreed that clearer guidance could be collated and provided in a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) sheet, ahead of the BDC Adverse Weather Plan completion.  Members were also advised that an integral part of WP responsibilities was to co-ordinate residents to the relevant available necessary documentation.
• Did NHS Surgeries provide sufficient information to residents to promote extreme weather preparedness advice? – The Board were informed that NHS Surgeries had their own formal protocols for extreme weather condition provisions, with clear robust guidance provided and were also part of WP.

resolvedthat the Update on Heatwaves Preparedness be noted.</AI9>