The paper "The London Safety Plan 2010-2013 " is a good example of a management case study. The London Safety Plan 2010-2013 sets out priorities for the next three years. During this time, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority is anticipated to deliver the Mayor’ s priorities for an effective and efficient fire and rescue service for London at a period when the public sector is expecting to see considerable reductions in spending (Szerlagi, 2011). In order to achieve this, the authority considers partnering with the private sector and other public sectors in service delivery and make use of alternative and more innovative approaches.
Furthermore, in order to reduce fires and false alarms, which are deemed as the major challenging targets, the authority considers making best use of its employees and introducing novel working patterns which will also enable firefighters to perform an array of activities such as community fire safety work and training (London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, p. 7; TheBigRedGuide. com, 2011). It is, however, apparent that the London Safety Plan, which incorporates the Integrated Risk Management Plan has to conform to the Government guidelines for such plans.
In this case, this report will focus on how the plan conforms and does not conform to the government’ s guidelines-Civil Contingencies Act 2004: a short guide. Furthermore, the report will consider the Future Action Plans in terms of the risk analysis carried out within the plan. The Act, and accompanying regulations and non-legislative measures, will deliver a single framework for civil protection in the United Kingdom capable of meeting the challenges of the twenty-first century (Civil Contingencies Secretariat, p. 2). How the plan conforms and does not conform to the government's guidelines Part 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 centers on local arrangements for civil protection, setting up a statutory framework of the responsibilities and roles of the local responders (Civil Contingencies Secretariat, p.
2). Local responders in this aspect are grouped into two, category one responders who include the local authorities and emergency services who are at the center of emergency response; and category 2 responders including transport and utility organizations and Health and Safety Executive who are highly engaged in incidents which impact their sector, whilst they have reduced set of responsibilities (Civil Contingencies Secretariat, p.
2-4). Category 1 responders are necessitated by the Act to: evaluate the risk of emergencies taking place and employ this in informing contingency planning; set up emergency plans; establish Business Continuity Management deals; introduce arrangements to make sure that the public obtains information regarding civil protection concerns and uphold arrangements to inform, warn and advise the public in case of an emergency; Share information and co-operate with other responders to boost efficiency and co-ordination. (Civil Contingencies Secretariat, p. 3) The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority have various roles and responsibilities.
For instance, the authority has the responsibility of ensuring the strategic direction of the London Fire Brigade, and in addition, sets performance targets, priorities and determines policy (London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, p. 7). The authority also works closely with the Local Government and the Government Association and in London local government through London Councils in order to effectively perform its responsibility in national development in the United Kingdoms' fire and rescue service (London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, p.