Latest figures show continuing County Council failure to protect West Sussex residents

More fire engines with no firefighters to crew them 

Someone recently asked for information on the availability of all retained (on-call) crewed fire engines. The data provided, in response to their freedom of information request, confirms that West Sussex County Council is seriously failing to crew fire engines properly.

In 2025, nearly 70% were unavailable more often than they were available. 

One was only available for the equivalent of 48 days!

The image illustrates shocking and inadequate availability

The exact availability figures released are shown on the left

In their continuing obsession with secrecy, they don't say which fire stations are affected. They also failed to provide data for the four fire engines that are crewed by on-call firefighters at night (Wholetime firefighters crew one fire engine at Burgess Hill, East Grinstead, Haywards Heath, and Shoreham, but only from 7 am to 7 pm).

Conservative spin

So what has the County Council done to improve this dire situation? In his report to this Friday's County Council meeting, Cabinet Member Duncan Crow says nothing about fixing the problems. He just claims that the new Community Risk Management Plan 2026 - 2030 will build on the "success" of the previous CRMP 2022 - 2026. 

That "success" is availability that is 10% worse now than in 2022! 

The "success" is also longer response times and extended target times, which are intended to hide the deteriorating situation from the public. This is not a plan to fix any problems, just a wish list that lacks sufficient funding to achieve any improvements. 

Conservative Failure

It is important to remember that the fundamental failure does not rest with those in the fire & rescue service, but with those in charge at West Sussex County Council - Conservative County Councillors. I acknowledge that before 2010, the service they provided could be considered adequate, but since then it has been a sad story of continuing decline, failure, and cover up.

Not only have they closed fire stations, and cut a quarter of frontline fire engines since 2010, there are now 228 fewer firefighters (full time equivalent) to protect West Sussex residents. Add in the County Council's increasing failure to crew the remaining fire engines, and it is inevitable that response times are getting worse, especially in rural areas. 

The only County Councillors who have consistently stood up for residents and the fire & rescue service have been Labour and Liberal Democrat County Councillors. 

With strong public support, the Labour and Liberal Democrat Councillors have made strenuous efforts to oppose cuts and to expose the council's failing management of the service. Yet the Conservatives just ignore genuine concerns about the increased risk to lives and property, and arrogantly continue failing to provide an effective fire & rescue service.

With May elections restored, the public will now have an opportunity to choose who they want to run their fire and rescue service for at least the next two years. 

Choose wisely on May 7th

Self deception or deceiving the public?

The response time deception

This week I watched Conservative Cabinet Members congratulating their colleague Duncan Crow on this annual report. Unfortunately, they glossed over matters that should be of real concern and misrepresented others.

Councillor Steve Waight made one pertinent comment:

"The public tell me the most important thing is when you phone them, they come."

However, he then spoilt it by claiming the targets that were being met were tough ones. 

The target for the first fire engine to arrive at critical fires in Hampshire & Isle of Wight within 8 minutes may be considered a tough one. 

The target of 10 minutes in Surrey may be considered a reasonable one. 

Yet, the Cabinet's target for two thirds of West Sussex of 14 minutes, and 12 minutes for the other third, are most definitely not tough targets. 

Especially so as the target allows them to take longer at 11% of critical fires.

The improved performance deception

I was astonished to hear Chief Fire Officer Sabrina Cohen-Hatton say that she had compared performance with several years ago and was 'absolutely delighted with the way the service has responded.'

I don't know what performance she compared, but it surely can't be to do with the public's primary expectation of a quick and effective response.

The County Council has reduced standard crewing on fire engines by 20%, which makes every crew less effective.

They have closed four fire stations and removed a quarter of frontline fire engines, which inevitably increases response times and reduces the service's effectiveness.

There are now 28% fewer firefighters in West Sussex, and the minimum number on duty in Crawley Borough has been cut by 60%.

Despite County Council claims that cuts would reduce fire deaths by diverting resources to prevention, they have increased.

Source: Home Office Fire & Rescue Service data

The shocking failure to ensure fire engines are crewed

During the day, two thirds of frontline fire engines depend on retained (on call) firefighters. At night, three quarters of frontline fire engines depend on them. Yet the latest figures show that they are unavailable more often than they are available.

Not only is this a serious County Council failure, they secretly dropped the availability target for fire engines crewed by retained firefighters from 88% to 75%.

Source - West Sussex County Council reports

Conservative failure, nationally and locally

The reduction in the service's effectiveness is the result of Conservative policies locally and nationally. With the general election this week there is a chance for people to show that they have had enough, but in West Sussex voters will need to vote tactically to defeat the Tories.

Unfortunately, the recommendations on tactical voting sites are very misleading, because they fail to take account of local differences. They rely on a small sample of national polling, no pollsters survey more than 0.1% of voters, and then try to model voting intentions at constituency level without examining local variations. Some do also look at local voting at previous general elections, but with the boundaries being changed, in some cases significantly, they are still unreliable.

I am not a member of any political party, but have followed politics locally for over 50 years. I have looked at the support shown for different political parties in recent local elections, and the performance of current candidates. My conclusion is that if you want to help remove Conservative MPs from West Sussex, then vote for the following candidates:

Definitely best tactical voting option

Chichester - Liberal Democrat

Crawley - Labour

East Worthing and Shoreham - Labour

Horsham - Liberal Democrat

Mid Sussex - Liberal Democrat

West Worthing - Labour

Less certain best tactical voting option

Arundel and South Downs - Green Party

Bognor Regis and Littlehampton - Labour

East Grinstead and Uckfield - Liberal Democrat

The most important thing is that you actually vote

People want change, but it won't happen unless people get out and vote. There are many excuses used by those who do not vote, but the reality is that they simply help those they complain about stay in power. 

The Reform UK Party deception

One final thought, please don't fall for the lies of the undemocratic and disruptive Reform Party. Not everyone who has fallen under their spell is a racist, xenophobe, Russian apologist, conspiracy theorist, or violent, but too many of their members and several candidates are. 

Not only is their 'contract' mostly unaffordable and unworkable, some of their candidates have some really odd views. Just one example, the Chichester Reform candidate told voters that people who do not run a business do not know what people need, and that policemen who are less than 6 feet tall are no good!

Cabinet Member Duncan Crow failing to properly protect West Sussex residents

Not responding to fires does not improve resilience

Once again, West Sussex County Council uses dishonest spin to try and cover up their failure to provide an effective fire & rescue service. There is no evidence that the latest policy of not attending automatic fire alarm calls in some premises will improve effectiveness and resilience. 

However, it will inevitably result in some fires, which have been detected by automatic fire alarms, not being attended until they have reached much more serious proportions. It also increases the risk to life of the public and firefighters.

The 'get out, stay out, get the fire brigade out' slogan of just a few years ago was developed after tragedies. Incidents where, instead of calling the fire service and evacuating when the fire alarm operated, people went to investigate and were overcome by a fire and subsequently died.

WSCC is encouraging people to take action that may result in their death

Ignoring the first call and allowing fires to develop to more serious proportions will also threaten neighbouring buildings and present a greater risk to firefighters, when they finally arrive. 

Other consequences of not attending automatic fire alarm calls include unsafe conditions not being identified, firefighters not being familiar with hazards in those buildings, and a drop in income for retained firefighters. 

With the recession, any reduction in income for retained firefighters is likely to result in more leaving the service. Not only a waste of the money invested in training them, but a further degradation of fire protection for residents.

They say this only applies to "retail or public assembly premises", which they describe as low risk, yet there have been fire deaths in such premises in the past. Lives may well be lost in the future as a direct result of this retrograde step. 

This policy is ill considered and will have serious repercussions. I wonder if Councillor Crow has considered how he would justify, in a Coroner's Court, his policy decision that resulted in the service not responding immediately to a fatal fire? I suspect he has not. 

Gambling that an automatic fire alarm call will be false, is gambling with lives 

The real reason West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service is less effective and resilient

Since 2010, West Sussex County Council has closed 4 fire stations and removed a quarter of frontline fire engines and crews. Despite previous assurances that this would improve the availability of the remaining fire engines, it has got progressively worse. 

At night, over three quarters of the County's fire engines depend on retained fire fighters who have to be called into their fire station when there is an emergency. The Council's original commitment, ten years ago, was that 88% of fire engines crewed by retained fire fighters would be available. When they failed to achieve that, instead of fixing the problem, they just dropped the commitment to 75%!

Disgracefully, they have failed to achieve that low standard every year since 2012/13. Latest figures show an obvious and worrying downward trend. 

(The two quarters above 70% in this chart result from pandemic measures that temporarily improved availability)

So, as the Cabinet Member responsible for the Council's legal duty to provide an effective fire & rescue service, what is Duncan Crow's response? Excuses, followed by more excuses. It is apparently everyone's fault except his! 

It is time for Councillor Crow to stop making excuses and provide West Sussex residents with more reliable protection

Incidents and fire deaths increasing

It is worth noting that the number of incidents attended by West Sussex firefighters is increasing. Not only is there a clear upward trend, but 2022-23 looks set to show a significant increase. Even before the spate of wildfires in the summer, the first quarter showed a 6% increase compared to the previous year. 

Desperation from the recession and ludicrously high energy prices are likely to drive people into using less safe ways of cooking, heating and lighting their homes. These invariably increase the number of fires in the home and will put lives in danger. 

There are already signs of increasing fire deaths, with full details suppressed by West Sussex County Council. The reports submitted to the Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee only show accidental fire deaths in the home, which gives a distorted impression.

Last year, the committee was only told of 2 accidental fire deaths in the home, yet the total of all fire deaths in West Sussex was 6 (Home Office figures). Worryingly, the first six months of this year has already seen 3 accidental fire deaths in the home.

In the three years before the Council's fire service cuts there were 8 fire deaths

In the most recent three years there have been 14 fire deaths

Personnel in West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service continue to do their utmost to protect everyone, despite real terms wage cuts and inadequate resources. It is not their fault that the service is less effective and resilient.

It is the County Council that is failing West Sussex residents

Consultation - West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service Community Risk Management Plan

Well I have submitted my response to the West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service consultation, which closes on Friday this week. The 'additional comments' (item 2) are reproduced below and if anyone wishes to include any of the text in their response, then please feel free to do so.

"This document does not meet the requirements of an Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP), and even fails to deliver as a Community Risk Management Plan. Much of the information in the document may be useful in a general information brochure, but the absence of key information on the outcomes of the last IRMP and plans for dealing with future risk makes this an inadequate IRMP.

Despite a statement that ‘Station Profile’ and ‘County Profile’ documents are produced each year and are available on the website, I have been unable to find them on the website. Even a search for them only resulted in ‘Sorry, no results were found’ being displayed.

The dubious selection of figures for fire deaths seems intended to disguise the failure to deliver on the 2010-15 IRMP’s statement that fire deaths would be reduced. The latest figures, that would show accidental dwelling fire fatalities for 2015/16, have been omitted and, oddly, figures for 2004/05 have been included. That is presumably to misrepresent the situation by starting the chart with a particularly high number of fire deaths.

According to Government figures, the actual deaths for the period of the last IRMP were 28, compared to the previous five years when there were just 13. So instead of a reduction they have more than doubled.

The 2010-15 IRMP also said that WSFRS would “look at new and creative options to maintain cover and continue to attract new retained recruits.” Not only has WSFRS failed to do this, but changes to contracts, training and management of Retained Duty System (RDS) personnel have made things worse.

Mysteriously, the retained appliance availability target of 88% in 2011/12 has been cut to 75%. Despite the serious implications, this has apparently been done without any consultation with either the public or with County Councillors. Yet even this reduced target is not being met and average availability has fallen from 87% in 2009/10 to 59% last year. Some stations have even dropped from 100% to just 30% availability during that period.

The failure to address this problem suggests that WSFRS is happy to allow the retained service to wither and die. This is evidenced by inadequate efforts to stop the decline and the repeated process of removing lower availability RDS crewed fire engines from service. Nine have been cut so far. Clues to the root causes of these failures may be shown in a recent national survey of RDS firefighters by the Retained Firefighters Union. The results showed that 69% did not feel their service was doing enough to resolve the problem, and 60% felt that they were undervalued by Principle Officers.

The only way WSFRS is going to properly tackle the RDS problem is by working with communities, County Councillors, Parish Councils, local business and community groups, partner agencies, the South Downs National Park Authority and others. Much is made of partnership working, yet on this critical problem WSFRS seems intent on avoiding the involvement of anyone that may be able to help find new and creative options.

Whilst the Crewing Optimisation Group may seem a useful interim solution to the RDS crewing difficulties, it is expensive as a long term solution and fails to cover all periods of RDS crew shortages. Operating it when there are 12 wholetime crews available, but not operating it when there are only 8 wholetime crews on duty suggests a lack of planning. Especially as there are times, during the periods that the Crewing Optimisation Group is not available, when RDS shortages are as bad as they are when the Crewing Optimisation Group is available.

There continues to be an inadequate assessment of risk and an even more inadequate provision for dealing with it. The last IRMP is claimed to have resulted in “a considerable reduction in the number of ‘Very High’ Critical Fire risk areas”, yet no evidence can be found to support this claim. It appears that this may not be an actual reduction of risk, but simply a slight drop in the number of calls received in some areas.

The risk to individual lives and property remains, and the risk of losing lives or property is actually greater in areas classed as ‘low risk’, because it takes longer to get firefighters to those areas. The risk to life is particularly high in respect of road traffic collisions, with the more serious ones tending to occur in rural areas. Not only are response times greater, but WSFRS is failing to meet target times for one in four incidents.

Neither is the provision matched to the risk or the volume of calls. Crawley continues to be the fire station area requiring the most fire & rescue service responses in the County. In addition, this document says that the population in that area is expected to increase by 25%. Yet, WSCC has cut the number of fire engines and crews in Crawley from five to two. There is a correlation between population and number of calls, yet this document has no proposals to deal with an inevitable increase in emergencies in the Crawley area. 

The document states, “We use analytical resources, such as computer modelling software, to help us predict risk and assess the likely impact of changes”. Unfortunately, history shows that the results of that modelling are ignored when it does not suit the Council’s political agenda. Modelling of proposed changes in 2010 was reported, as it showed no increase in deaths or property damage. Yet when modelling of the cuts in 2015 showed an increase in deaths and property damage, efforts were made to disguise and later discredit the modelling.

It is reassuring that WSFRS recognises the reduction in firefighter experience of real fires. However, extra training at the Fire Service College is not enough. The cut in wholetime firefighter numbers and the shortage of retained firefighters have made it difficult to maintain skills with continuation training, and at the same time maintain adequate fire cover. In house training facilities need to be improved and more firefighters must be employed to enable training facilities to be used without undermining fire cover.

The document includes the Sussex Control Centre (SCC) in the list of specialist teams in WSFRS, when in fact the SCC is operated by East Sussex Fire & Rescue Service (ESFRS). The Control function is effectively contracted out. No mention is made of the worrying fact that the combined mobilising system, that was fundamental to the improvement of the control function, is now three years overdue. ESFRS has refused to state how many times the combined mobilising system has failed acceptance tests and they have given no indication of when this problem will be resolved.

Other problems with the SCC are not mentioned, including the excessive amount of overtime required to maintain minimum staffing levels. In 2015/16, overtime was required on 425 shifts. Of particular concern is that, unlike the previous WSFRS Fire Control, the SCC does not record mobilising errors. If they are not recorded, then problems are not being identified and remedial action cannot be taken.

The document states that around half the incidents attended by WSFRS were false alarms. It is concerning that this number has been artificially increased by classifying attendance at some road traffic collisions as false alarms, simply because no action was required when the service arrived. To describe an actual road traffic collision that the service attended as a false alarm is misrepresenting the facts and the work of the service. Will attendance at actual fires that are out on arrival be the next to be misrepresented as false? 

The document states, “our change in operating model has not altered the emergency response standards we agreed with you in 2009”. Yet it fails to inform the public that those standards are not all being met and that the degree of failure has increased. In particular for both fire engines arriving at critical fires and for the first fire engine arriving at critical special services.

The addition of the High Volume Pumping Unit is to be welcomed, but it does not offset the loss of 11 fire engines. Storms and flooding primarily require a large number of standard fire engines to respond to the high volume of emergency calls received in a short space of time. WSFRS is now less well prepared to respond to the predicted increase in severe weather events and no improvements are planned.

The claim that this is a ‘Community Risk Management Plan’ is dubious. Despite fine claims about integration, this document has little or no mention of the smaller units now controlled by the Chief Fire Officer, the legislation covering their work, or any plans for their future work. These smaller departments seem to be completely overshadowed by the fire & rescue service and their effectiveness seems to have suffered as a result.

A recent example being the Council’s latest IT Strategy report. The Civil Contingencies Act and resilience are not mentioned, yet resilience of such a core facility, which is essential to all WSCC services, should be a key strategic objective. If the Council cannot meet their legal obligations on such a fundamental report, there is little hope of them setting an example to others.

Finally, the inadequacy of the consultation. There are just two sections on the ‘Plan’, one of which contains four questions designed to get a favourable response, and the other is simply blank for additional comments. Yet there are seven sections about the person submitting the response!

There are no questions about the public’s views on deteriorating fire engine availability, or on increasing failures to meet response times. Both are of significant concern to the public and they are entitled to be properly informed and invited to comment. They should also be asked if they consider £33.68 per person per year is sufficient to spend on their protection. I consider it inadequate and I am sure many others would agree.

Firefighters continue to do a superb job, but the decreasing support they receive from the County Council is a disgrace. The public also deserve a much more open, transparent and accountable fire & rescue service. This Community Risk Management Plan does little to meet those objectives. Sadly, it’s inadequacies will simply strengthen the Police & Crime Commissioner’s case to take control of the fire & rescue service."

A genuine consultation or more smoke and mirrors?

You may well see the latest West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service consultation as insincere and only intended to tick the ‘have you consulted’ box. You may also feel that commenting on it is a waste of time, because they will ignore responses.

You may well be right, but I would encourage people to respond to the consultation and to voice concerns about it being a sham, about the Community Risk Management Plan not meeting the requirements of an Integrated Risk Management Plan, about the so called 'plan' failing to give any real performance information, and about the suspicious selection of statistics that appear intended to deceive.

An IRMP should provide up to date risk information and a proper evaluation of previous service delivery. It should also show how they will mitigate the impact of risk on communities. This document does none of that. It simply describes the current fire & rescue service, with no indication of how they have performed or how they are going to address problems. In other words, it is a PR document, not a plan!

In the plan for 2010-15 they said they would reduce fire deaths, but fire deaths actually increased during the IRMP period.

To try and disguise this, they illogically decided to show figures for eleven previous years. A cynic might say they included 2004/05, as it was particularly high and would make later figures look better. It was not indicative and was actually higher than the four previous years. A cynic might also wonder why the 2015/16 figures were not shown. No doubt it was because there were accidental dwelling fire fatalities in 2015/16, which would not look as good as ending that part of the table with a ‘0’ figure for 2014/15.

They also said they would report on the cost of incidents to our community annually, and on the consequences of fire incident outcomes (types of fires and numbers of people injured), and response standards achieved quarterly, but they did not. They have also failed to report on these factors in this ‘plan’.

They said in 2010 that they would look at "new and creative options to maintain cover and continue to attract new retained recruits". They have failed miserably and things have got worse, as these official availability figures show:

Station	Fire Engine	2009/10	2015/16
Arundel	1	84%	66%
East Preston	1	100%	47%
East Wittering	1	89%	54%
Hurstpierpoint	1	90%	33%
Lancing	1	100%	30%
Petworth	1	98%	72%
Shoreham	1	100%	88%
Shoreham	2	87%	30%

In fact, every retained crewed fire engine, except one, has seen availability get worse during the period of the last IRMP. In the worst cases, even despite the new Crewing Optimisation Group, some fire engines are unavailable for periods equal to more than eight months of the year.

Remember also that the fire engines that were removed just over a year ago, were available between 75% and 100% of the time in 2009/10. So the wonderful table showing Fire Appliance and Specialist Vehicle Locations is itself misleading. It gives the impression that they are available resources, when often they are not.

They say “Our change in operating model has not altered the emergency response standards we agreed with you in 2009”. Yet they don’t confess that they fail to meet them more often as a result of the cuts, or as they like to spin them – “change in operating model”. More people in West Sussex are waiting longer for help to arrive and all the County Council does is try to hide the truth.

If this was commercial advertising it would be facing criticism and possibly action from Trading Standards, but of course with the Chief Fire Officer now in charge of Trading Standards that would never happen.

There is a section called "Progress since the last Risk Management Plan", yet very little of it relates to the previous IRMP. They claim "a considerable reduction in the number of ‘Very High’ Critical Fire risk areas", but offer no evidence to support that. Given their previous misuse of the term 'risk', when they actually mean frequency of calls, it may simply be a small drop in calls in those areas. The public not only remain at risk of death, injury or loss of property in those areas, but the increase in response times has increased that risk.

Finally, the nonsense about calling the IRMP a Community Risk Management Plan. This is supposedly because they created the Communities and Public Protection Directorate to also bring “Trading Standards, Community Professionals and Resilience and Emergencies colleagues” under the control of the Chief Fire Officer.

Yes, they tinkered with management structures and gave the Chief Fire Officer a fancy new title, presumably with extra pay, as part of council cuts (or as they spin it - reorganisation), but there has been no real change. The fire & rescue service has always worked closely with other council services and partners. The sham title is actually well exposed by the content of this ‘Community Risk Management Plan’, with virtually no mention of Trading Standards, Community Professionals and Resilience and Emergencies staff, or their work. 

Not only is this an inadequate plan and consultation, but it will yet again strengthen the Police and Crime Commissioner's case to take over the running of the Fire & Rescue Service. I don't want to see that happen, so it is frustrating to see West Sussex County Council and West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service again playing in to her hands.

The consultation is open until 5 August 2016, so please have your say.

Good and bad news from the County Council meeting

I had hoped to watch the live broadcast of the County Council meeting on Friday, but apparently there was a technical problem and they did not broadcast it. I have however had some feedback on the meeting from various people. 

I was particularly interested in the meeting as the agenda included a motion on keeping control of the Fire & Rescue Service and opposing government plans to pass control to the Police & Crime Commissioner. It appears that even the Conservative Councillors realise the proposals are ridiculous.

Councillors were also shown Midhurst’s new fire engine and the new 6x6 vehicle. No doubt they were told how wonderful the vehicles were and of course they would not know anything different, just that these were two shiny new vehicles. I am sure the Scania fire engine is fine, but I suspect it is the biggest fire engine ever allocated to Midhurst. The extra water and equipment will I am sure prove useful, but there are a lot of narrow roads on their patch, which may create problems. As for the 6x6, well for an ill-conceived, poorly planned vehicle that is unlikely to perform any of its various roles well, I am sure it looked clean.

Worryingly it seems that Cabinet Member David Barling thinks that availability in the Mid Sussex area is good. Councillor Andy Petch had submitted a request for some statistics about fire cover in his area. That ‘good’ availability only averages 94% for 3 of the 8 fire engines (one each at Burgess Hill, East Grinstead and Haywards Heath). For the other five fire engines the average is just 42%. So unlike other parts of West Sussex, not one with 100% availability. Goodness only knows how bad things would have to get for Mr Barling to think there was a problem.

It also appears that they could not answer some questions for lack of records and others took a very long time to compile. Bearing in mind that this was basic performance information, you have to ask if the Council is monitoring the fire & rescue service at all. One of the big issues recently has been fire engines being moved to other areas for standby, because of crewing problems. Clearly when they are retained (part-time) crewed pumps there is a significant cost, but they clearly do not monitor that cost, because they have no records of those standbys.

At the February meeting Councillors were told, in written answers, that availability and response time failures would be published monthly. They have not been and perhaps the answers, and non-answers, that Councillor Petch received gives a clue to their reluctance to publish them. Not only are the availability figures poor, but it seems that just in the Mid Sussex area over six months, there have been ten failures to meet the response times for critical fires and fifteen failures for critical special services. There have also been 35 requests for East Sussex appliances to attend incidents in Mid Sussex.

No wonder they don’t like people asking questions.

Incidentally, this is what they are replacing the Land Rover at Midhurst with. The Land Rover they use to go off road, to access narrow paths, to negotiate tight turns, to cross uneven ground, to cross light weight bridges etc. I cannot see this doing it anywhere near as well as the Land Rover or the Steyr Puch Super G's currently in service.

Cabinet Member Gambles with Lives of Vulnerable People

For those who did not see the County Council meeting today, there were some probing questions about WSFRS from County Councillors James Walsh and Andy Petch. Unsurprisingly the answers from Cabinet Member David Barling were inadequate and evasive. 

James Walsh pointed out that the Cabinet Member’s report claimed fire deaths had halved since the 1980s, when they are only down by a quarter (average down from 8 to 6 per year). Strangely, David Barling then rambled on saying that fire deaths were not increasing, but were falling. Of course James Walsh had not said they were increasing, he had just highlighted the Cabinet Member’s poor arithmetic. 

The report also claimed that Fire and Rescue’s prevention campaigns were responsible for the reduction, even though the main factors are social, technological and legal changes. Such things as reduced use of open fires, paraffin heaters, chip pans, smoking materials, better means of escape, better furniture and clothing regulations etc. have all had more effect on the number of fire deaths than prevention campaigns have. 

It seems that WSCC try to claim all the credit when there are any improvements, but deny any responsibility when things get worse. As they did when, against the national trend, fire deaths in West Sussex increased every year from 2008/09 to 2013/14. 

Both James Walsh and Andy Petch highlighted the appliance availability problem. Instead of the ‘30 pumps available on a regular basis’ promise, made during the cuts debate, numbers have been much lower, including as low as 16. Andy Petch also referred to the particular problems in Mid Sussex with, on occasions, only one of the eight fire engines having a crew.

David Barling claimed the average is 28 available, and is the same as it was before the cuts. So he has at least admitted that taking wholetime firefighters from wholetime stations to boost crewing at retained stations has had little or no effect. It has of course cut the crews on most wholetime crewed appliances from five to four, making the job more difficult and less safe for them. 

James Walsh also reminded the Cabinet Member that he had said in February that fire engine availability data would be published monthly. He asked why it had not been provided, but got no answer. 

The Cabinet Member’s report said that WSFRS has helped to protect thousands of vulnerable residents with Community Fire Link smoke detectors. Andy Petch pointed out that, even with those alarms, vulnerable residents are still more likely to need rescuing from fires. He asked for an assurance that at least nine firefighters on two pumps would be sent to such calls. He did not get it. 

It seems that David Barling would rather gamble by sending just one pump, hoping that the call is a false alarm. He rambled on about modern radios and said that the officer-in-charge can ask for help if he needs it when he gets there. Completely ignoring of course that this will increase the danger to vulnerable people and to firefighters. 

It is good to see some Councillors continuing to highlight the problems, even if David Barling continues to opt for the see no problem, hear no problem and speak no problem approach.

Appalling lack of fire cover in West Sussex

Latest News Release:

Recent fires in Crawley on Saturday (14 March) and Worthing on Tuesday (17 March) have exposed serious failures to ensure that fire engines in the County are properly crewed.

When called to a fire at Celandine Close in Crawley, only one fire engine at Crawley and one at Horsham had sufficient firefighters to crew them. When they arrived at the incident and requested help it had to come from Surrey. Two other fire engines at each of these stations were not crewed, and there were no fire engines crewed at East Grinstead, Haywards Heath or Turners Hill.

A spokesperson for the West Sussex Fire & Rescue Stop the Cuts group says, “Details show that if there had been a serious fire in a larger building in Crawley, those crewing shortages would have resulted in most of the fire engines coming from Surrey and East Sussex. Having to rely on fire engines from as far away as Brighton to get just ten fire engines to Crawley is unprecedented.”

At Worthing a disabled woman had to wait over nine minutes to be rescued when her home in Clifton Road caught fire, even though the fire station is only a mile away. One crew each from Worthing, Littlehampton and Shoreham were sent.

The spokesperson said, “Two of Worthing’s fire engines were at another incident, but more than one incident at the same time is not unusual. West Sussex County Council did not properly consider this when planning more cuts. It is also clear that there were crewing problems, as nearer fire engines from East Preston and Lancing were not sent”.

Cuts due to take effect in April will see another 5 fire engines, 21 wholetime firefighters and 15 retained firefighters removed from fire stations. The County Council has claimed that a new Crewing Optimisation Group of 16 wholetime firefighters will improve the crewing of retained fire engines. This has been described as an untested and inadequate attempt to cover up inadequate resources.

Tony Morris, who has a ‘Stop fire engine and firefighter cuts in West Sussex petition on the County Council e-petition website, said, “This new group will not work weekends, so would have been of no use at the Crawley incident as it was on a Saturday. Many people have seen through the County Council’s false improvement claims and, as well as over 1,600 signatures so far on the petition, many councils, organisations, firefighters and members of the public are strongly objecting to these cuts.”

He concluded, “These failures are just the few that we get to hear about. The frightening reality is that there are not enough firefighters to properly protect West Sussex now. These further cuts will put firefighters and the public at increased risk.” 

An open letter to County Councillors

Dear County Councillor,

 

At last week’s County Council meeting Cabinet Member David Barling helpfully pointed out that, “It is often about what they don’t tell you that you need to focus on”. He is quite correct that there were a number of extremely relevant things that you were not told.

 

You were told that the changes were developed by a professional team, but you were not told that they were only allowed to come up with changes that also saved £1.6 million pounds. So not the best protection for the people of West Sussex, not fit for the next decade, just the best they could come up with on an inadequate budget. You were also not told that hundreds of professional firefighters say it is wrong.

 

When Mr Barling mentioned fewer incidents, he did not tell you that the number of incidents has never been a key factor in determining the number or location of fire engines. When West Sussex had 6,000 incidents there were 45 fire engines, yet when there were over 15,000 incidents there were just 46 fire engines. When incidents dropped back to around 10,000, fire engines were cut to 40, and now that incidents are between 9 and 10,000, they will be cut to just 35. Ten less than when far fewer incidents were dealt with.

 

He did not mention that the key factor  in determining the number and location of fire engines  is response times. When fire engines were cut from 46 to 40, response times went up and West Sussex residents in desperate need now have to wait, on average, 30% longer for help to arrive than those in East Sussex. Further cuts will increase this significantly.

 

When Mr Barling said that there is a problem with keeping retained firefighters, he did not say that the Deputy Chief Fire Officer has stated this is not a problem. Lee Neale is on record as saying that the retained establishment is continuously monitored and maintained at the appropriate level. He has also said that WSFRS had twice as many applicants as retained firefighter vacancies.

 

You were not told that some people applying to be retained firefighters have been turned away, even when their local station has crewing problems. This is because the County Council has barred the service from recruiting enough firefighters to properly crew all stations. This has resulted in the ridiculous situation of some stations having 14 firefighters to crew one fire engine round the clock, whilst others have to struggle with just 7.

 

Mr Barling said that the fire engines being removed were used irregularly by retained firefighters. You were not told that this was because of inadequate crewing levels and that they were actually required much more frequently. Fire engines had to be called from other areas to cover for these crewing failures, which reduced cover in those areas and increased the response times significantly.

 

Mr Barling even added Horsham to the list, but did not tell you that this fire engine was crewed by wholetime firefighters and attended 626 incidents in 2013/14.

 

You were not told that experience has shown that when retained stations are cut from two to one fire engine, the availability of the remaining fire engine suffers. This is clearly evidenced by East Preston and Lancing, where the first fire engines were close to 100% availability, but are now only available for 56% and 73% respectively.

 

You were previously told that the new retained contract would improve firefighter and fire engine availability. You were not told that the contract was untested before being introduced and that it has actually resulted in a dramatic drop in availability.

 

You were not told that the new wholetime crewing system has not been trialled or tested and that there is no evidence to support the claim that this will not reduce performance.

 

Mr Barling said that the new ‘super-duper’ 4x4 vehicles will enable ‘our people’ to get off road, but he neglected to say that they already had 4x4 vehicles at those stations and could get off road now. He did not tell you that the so called ‘high tech equipment’ could not in any way replace a proper fire engine. He also neglected to say that a previous new ‘super-duper’ 4x4 vehicle, trialled at Midhurst in the 1970s, proved to be inadequate. There is no evidence that this will be any different.

 

Mr Barling said that the fire service had listened to the people of Littlehampton and were improving the service they receive (4 minute better response time at night). He did not mention that they did not listen to the people of Bosham, East Preston, Findon, Keymer and Lancing in 2010, and are not listening to the people of Crawley, Horsham, Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington now. All of whom have, or will have to wait longer for help to arrive on many occasions, both day and night.

 

When Mr Barling mentioned the Horsham fire engine being removed, he did not tell you that this will result in a 4 minute increase in response times in the area both day and night. Worse still, the second fire engine will often not respond at all. It will be crewed by retained firefighters who, in 2013/14, were only available for 52% of the time.

 

Mr Barling also rather bizarrely claimed that ‘every second, every minute’ the fire authority is moving fire engines around to areas of greatest need. Not only is that a gross exaggeration, but the movements that do take place are not to meet demand, but to areas where inadequate crewing has meant several fire engines are not available. Covering up failures instead of properly resourcing the service.

 

The most serious omission was that Mr Barling did not tell you that all the national and local evidence shows that these cuts will increase response times, increase deaths and increase property damage. Clearly an increased risk for the public and firefighters and certainly not a service fit for the next decade.

 

Some of you have opposed these cuts, but for those who have not, it really is time to put your residents’ safety before your party politics.

 

Yours sincerely,

Tony Morris 

West Sussex County Council cuts to the Fire & Rescue Service are unjustified and dangerous

Just a reminder about why the online petition is so important. 

Please also note that the Council say only signatures from people living, working or studying in West Sussex and showing a valid West Sussex post code will be counted. If you live outside the County please use your West Sussex work or study address and postcode. After signing, you have to confirm the link sent to you by email, so if you do not receive that email, please check your spam folder.

West Sussex County Council cuts to the Fire & Rescue Service are unjustified and dangerous

Relative changes since 1978, using the official figures for each year shown

This chart illustrates that, whilst fire deaths and incidents fluctuated, the number of fire engines to protect residents never fell below 45 until 2011. That is because 45 fire engines were the minimum necessary to reach any location quickly, as well as providing enough to deal with simultaneous incidents and with those requiring several fire engines.

Every Chief Fire Officer since 1948, when control of the fire service passed to West Sussex County Council, has considered that to be an absolute minimum. Every Chair and the Members of the relevant County Council committee have supported that from 1948 until 2010.

Political interests have now replaced proper risk assessment. Since 2010 three fire stations have been closed and six fire engines and their crews cut. Response times and fire deaths are increasing. In 2013/14 the availability of retained (part time) firefighters was 16% below standard, with some fire engines not crewed more often than they were crewed.

The professional case for those cuts was weak, and the professional case for a further cut of firefighters and another five fire engines is non-existent. The number of incidents is still well above 1970s and early 1980s figures, yet further cuts of fire engines and firefighters are planned.

Their claims that 'prevention is at the heart of everything we do', is just hot air designed to deflect attention from the frontline service cuts. Over 12,000 inspections in 1989, yet by 2012/13 that was down to just 1,400. With 34% of those inspections finding premises that were unsatisfactory, you have to wonder how many premises that were not inspected are also unsatisfactory.

There is no doubt that further cuts will increase response times, and that will result in more deaths, more injuries, and more property damage. That is not acceptable.

The following charts show the actual numbers for each of those years.