Parliamentary Candidate Formally Responds to Fire Service Proposals

2.06.00pm GMT Fri 27th Nov 2009

Parlimentary Candidate Nigel Rock

Nigel Rock has submitted his response to the Fire Service consultation, and the proposals to close Kenilworth and Fenny Compton fire stations. The Lib Dems oppose these closures. Nigel is the only Parliamentary Candidate to have attended all four consultation meetings in the constituency- at Fenny Compton, Kenilworth, Southam and Kineton. New Fire Service Chief Officer Graeme Smith has personally acknowledged the detailed input from Nigel Rock. Chief Officer Smith said "You make some helpful points. I have put your comments and proposals into the formal process for consideration."

Nigel's full comments are below:

**************************************************************************************************************************

Please accept this as my response to the consultation entitled "A Fitter Stronger Fire and Rescue Service".

I have attended consultation meetings at Fenny Compton, Kenilworth, Southam and Kineton. I found that the format of the consultation document was inappropriate for expressing my views and therefore I make the following comments. The Chief Fire Officer confirmed the acceptability of this type of submission at the various meetings I have attended. It is worth noting that as a Chartered Engineer of 25 years standing, I have had professional experience in risk and hazard analysis in various situations including safety and disaster management.

The consultation document has been broken down into eight sections:

1 DUTY SYSTEM

2 FALSE ALARMS

3 SMOKE DETECTORS

4 HOT FIRES TRAINING

5 SICKNESS MANAGEMENT

6 FLOOD RESPONSE

7 ROAD TRAFFIC COLLISION UNIT

8 SMALL FIRES UNIT

Generally speaking, actions proposed under the separate headings (described as steps) have little interaction with one another and it does not seem that one step necessarily follows another, so it is reasonable to express views under each heading.

The main matter of contention in the proposed changes, is the closure of a number of fire stations staffed by retained firefighters. I object to this proposal. The other items are probably acceptable to various degrees, although there are many technical or management issues that it would be unreasonable for the public to have detailed knowledge about.

Accordingly, my principal concern is the proposals to close fire stations across the County. My outline knowledge is confined to those in the south of the County and in detail specifically those at Kenilworth and Fenny Compton. These proposals are wholly inappropriate and would increase the risk to the communities that they serve. I also believe the proposals would have a "knock-on effect" to adjoining areas which would have to extend cover.

1 DUTY SYSTEM

It has taken a series of enquiries from me to bring about the release of documents upon which the closure proposals were based. The release of those documents reveals is that the risk assessment process is quite inadequate. The recently DNV report makes clear the superficial nature of the assessment. The latest response to my Freedom of Information request reveals that no individual risk assessment has been carried out to evaluate the closure of specific stations. I would have expected that a risk scenarios for each of the stations nominated for closure would have been postulated and then assessed for severity and probability, together with ameliorating factors. Composing a risk matrix from this data is standard practice for assessing hazard and risk. It now seems that no such analysis has been made. For example, Kenilworth would rely on service from Leamington or from West Midlands. There is only one direct route crossing the A46 and if this was blocked by fallen trees adjacent to the intersection, Kenilworth would be cut off from a rapid response from the south. From the various consultation meetings it further seems that extra reliance placed on adjacent fire services (West Midlands in the case of Kenilworth and Oxfordshire in the case of Fenny Compton) has not been investigated to any significant degree with those authorities. Most members of the public would consider it inconceivable that a principal Warwickshire town such as Kenilworth should be without its own centrally located fire station.

Turning to Fenny Compton, this is a very rural area and a number of fire stations in adjoining areas have already been lost in successive closure rounds. The mapping data provided by the County Council clearly shows that there is a response time "desert" surrounding Fenny Compton. At the Fenny Compton meeting, a number of risk scenarios were outlined by members of the audience including risks from the ammunition depot at Kineton, the restricted rural roads, dependence on firefighters from Oxfordshire and the risks to a farming community such as dealing with livestock in emergencies.

The movement of resources from reaction to prevention is a principle to be supported, but only with the proviso that risk is properly managed and exhaustively tested in an analytical framework. This has not happened.

The calculation taken on "an average basis" of 18 seconds across the County, disguises and distorts what would occur to the response time in the areas presently served by the stations proposed for closure. I had hoped this data would be aducced in response to my Freedom of Information. Surprisingly, this seems not to be available. In view of the lack of this data, I can only conclude that the response time in the (predominantly rural) areas served by the stations nominated for closure will increase by something like 3.5 minutes rather than 18 seconds *. Given that these areas are generally the ones already at the upper limit of response time this is quite unacceptable.

2 FALSE ALARMS

It seems the management of false alarms can be improved by confirmation calls to reduce the incidence of false alarms. Adjoining fire authorities seem to successfully use this approach.

3 SMOKE DETECTORS

Improvement in the take-up rate for smoke detectors would clearly be beneficial although prior to the consultation meetings the fire authority were apparently unaware of the efforts of their own volunteer fire service personnel that had already taken place. The anticipated financial outlay associated with this activity does not seem to have been informed by any objective assessment of how many properties are already protected due to this past activity. It is also unclear why fully trained firefighters are the primary resource for giving such advice - it would seem more cost-effective to train other public service personnel (e.g. police PCSO, building control, or indeed specifically trained fire advice persons).

5 SICKNESS MANAGEMENT

It is inappropriate to the public to be required to comment on the detail of this management issue.

6 FLOOD RESPONSE

With the increased incidence of severe flooding and flash storms this is clearly an important area. I support improved resourcing and that this matter is kept under review. However, I would have reservations about the "all the eggs in one basket" approach indicated by providing a single rescue boat in one location. An agile response in times of disaster is required which would appear to mandate a distributed location for this resource.

7 ROAD TRAFFIC COLLISION UNIT

The county has a significant mileage of motorways and trunk routes and RTAs present a continuing challenge to the service. Specific provision for these incidents would therefore seem appropriate, with the proviso that this should not detract from any type of local coverage.

8 SMALL FIRES UNIT

This would also seem a worthwhile initiative, albeit one that is targeted at certain communities within the county.

In summary, there appears to be no rational case for the loss of fire stations as proposed and certainly the fire service has provided no detailed objective analysis to support the elimination of these individual stations. By the nature of emergencies, these can arise anywhere and at any time and a distributed, agile and flexible response to such incidents should be provided. Providing resources for preventative work should not and must not increase the risk to communities.

• Based on assumptions in the absence of provided data. County average assumed calculated from 13620 calls with 18s added = 4086 minutes. Rural station average (excl Bedworth) 1229 calls from those nominated for closure = 4086min/1229 =3.32min.