Fire & Rescue Service "unaware" of vital safety information

Council's answer to safety question raises more concerns

The answer, given in response to a written question at last week's meeting of West Sussex County Council, is very concerning. The question was about firefighters, who are not fully trained, being sent to emergency calls. Something I posted about in February after being alerted to the problem by serving firefighters.

By referring to what should happen, the answer implies that it doesn't happen, but there is no absolute assurance that it never happens. The claim that every crew sent to West Sussex fires meet the core requirements for breathing apparatus (BA) is also misleading. 

To safely deploy breathing apparatus you need at least a crew of five - an officer in charge, driver/pump operator, two BA wearers, and a BA entry control officer. 

West Sussex County Council has cut standard crewing from 5 to 4. 

A crew of four has no one for BA entry control, so it can't be BA compliant.

For full deployment, to search for victims or for internal firefighting, at least nine firefighters are required. With inadequate standard crewing, that can result in deployment having to wait until three fire engines have arrived, often from three different towns.

Shocking admission that they are unaware of Health & Safety Executive (HSE) rulings

The claim, that no one in West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service knows about HSE action taken after failings in other fire & rescue services, is really disturbing. Understanding action taken by the HSE, often after fatalities in other fire & rescue services, is crucial to ensuring those failings are not repeated here. Prosecutions, enforcement action, and guidance from the HSE are essential wake up calls to all fire & rescue services. 

In the reply they use the word 'recent', which is worrying. Why put a time limit on the extent of their knowledge? Some of the lessons that underpin modern breathing apparatus procedures were learnt, after fatalities, over 70 years ago. The ones mentioned in the question are from less than 30 years ago.

The National Fire Chiefs Council has already tried to water down breathing apparatus safety procedures at high rise building fires. Not because they are unimportant, but because they were seen as inconvenient. So you have to wonder if this is less about being unaware, and more a case of convenient amnesia.

Knowledge and understanding of the circumstances surrounding every fire & rescue service failure, which contributed to the death of a member of the public or a firefighter, is vital in avoiding future tragedies. Lessons learnt the hard way must never be forgotten. 

If those responsible for today's procedures are unaware of previous tragic incidents, then they may water down or abandon measures introduced to prevent further tragedies. For their own protection, all firefighters also need to be aware. Understanding what triggered current procedures is essential to ensuring that they are not ignored.    

This claimed lack of knowledge, if true, indicates serious training omissions.  

The claim they don't put personnel at risk

They claim that they don't place personnel in a position where they are expected to act outside their competence. Not expecting it is not the same as ensuring it doesn't happen. They know very well that inadequate crewing often places personnel in a position where a moral imperative and peer pressure will result in some acting outside their competence or outside safe procedures. Firefighters want to save lives and property, so a lack of resources will inevitably tempt them to take shortcuts.  The HSE understands the moral pressure on firefighters to act, why does WSFRS not understand?

WSFRS task analysis shows that for most incident types you need at least a crew of 5. A crew of 4 is less safe and less effective.

Refusal to provide training information

Astonishingly, they also refused to provide councillors with a training breakdown, claiming there is no training backlog. Yet shortages of personnel who are competent to drive, act as officer in charge, or to wear breathing apparatus are often reported to councillors on the scrutiny committee as reasons for fire engines not being available! 

It is ludicrous to claim that there are no personnel waiting to qualify or re-qualify.

Conservative Cabinet Member's hypocrisy and deception

At Friday's County Council meeting, Cabinet Member Jeremy Hunt suggested that Chichester's MP, Jess Brown-Fuller, was "scaremongering" by referring to the council overspending, selling community assets and reducing essential local services. Yet all that is accurate. Incredibly, he then went on to confirm that there is an overspend! It appears he thinks that, because the overspend was not hidden, the MP should not mention it.

Conservative County Councillor Jeremy Hunt

Rather desperately he claimed that criticism of decisions, made by the council's Cabinet, is disrespectful to hard working council staff. Sadly, it has been a regular Conservative ploy to suggest that any criticism of them is criticism of staff, which of course it is not. 

He is disgruntled because Chichester's MP is very good at seeking out the truth by talking to those at the sharp end, instead of just listening to the spin from those determined to hide the truth. She recently highlighted the County Council's poor record of replacing older and less reliable fire engines and equipment. 

After it was publicised, the County Council suddenly found the money for 12 replacement fire engines.

False Conservative Claims

Jeremy Hunt has even had the arrogance to claim in his election leaflet that 'only the Conservatives can "successfully run the County Council". If he means run it into the ground, I might agree with him.

He also dishonestly claims that "only the Conservatives will protect Fire Stations." He and his Conservative colleagues have already closed four fire stations, cut a quarter of the county's fire engines, and with over 200 fewer firefighters are failing to crew those that remain.

Just look at what the Conservatives have done in the Chichester District Council area, with nearly 130,000 residents and 800 square kilometres to protect:

• One fire station closed
• Frontline fire engines cut from 9 to 6
• & only one of those fire engines is always crewed

Mr Hunt is probably not bothered, as that always crewed fire engine is the nearest to his Chichester home.

However, he should be more concerned, as it is not always there.

It is often away dealing with emergencies in other areas.

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

Firefighters can’t use vital lifesaving equipment

Disturbing reports that inexperienced firefighters are being sent to emergencies without being trained to use vital lifesaving equipment.

Breathing apparatus available, but firefighters not trained to use it

Breathing apparatus is essential protection for firefighters and is critical if victims are going to be rescued from smoke filled buildings. Yet crews are reportedly now being sent to building fires with firefighters who are not trained to use breathing apparatus.

Lives and jobs on the line

Imagine your child is trapped in a fire and the relief you feel when a fire engine arrives. Then imagine your horror when you are told those firefighters can’t go inside, and you have to wait for others to arrive. With lowered response standards, you may already have waited over 16 minutes for the first crew to arrive, so you will have an agonising wait for the fully trained crew to arrive.

However, self-respecting firefighters will be unlikely to tell you that. Instead, they will either attempt a rescue without breathing apparatus, or by using it in an unsafe manner. 

Not only risking their lives but risking disciplinary action that could cost them their jobs.  

Unsafe Practice

Sending fire engines with crews that cannot utilise breathing apparatus has previously been deemed an unsafe practice by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE). Following deaths, they issued an improvement notice to a fire service in Scotland that had a number of remote fire stations not equipped with breathing apparatus. Most were then upgraded with breathing apparatus, whilst the few that were not upgraded were only used for fires in the open, or road traffic collisions. They were no longer sent to building fires, as it was unsafe.

Road Traffic Collisions

Specialist rescue equipment carried, but firefighters can’t use it

It is also reported that inexperienced firefighters, who are not trained to use vital lifesaving rescue equipment, are being sent to road traffic collisions where people are trapped. The extra time lost whilst waiting for a trained crew from further away may turn a serious injury collision into a fatal one.  

 So why is the County Council being so irresponsible?

After cutting a quarter of the County’s fire crews and failing to ensure the remaining fire engines are always crewed, response times are increasing. It appears that this irresponsible move, which puts firefighters and the public in extra danger, and runs the risk of prosecution by the HSE, is primarily intended to tick the box for meeting the response time target.

West Sussex County Council is required to provide an effective fire & rescue service. That should be the best equipment, with fully trained firefighters capable of using it, arriving quickly. The council, under Cabinet Member Duncan Crow’s direction, is failing to do that and is putting lives in danger.

Firefighters take enough risks for us

Adding unsafe practices is cowardly and unacceptable

Cabinet Member's shameful denials

Shocking display by Councillor Duncan Crow at County Council meeting

Last week, he was rightly challenged by Labour and Liberal Democrat County Councillors on the lowering of response standards. Their questions were both perceptive and accurate, but his responses showed that he did not like the Council's deception being exposed.

Councillor Crow has become far too accustomed to his claims being blindly accepted by his Conservative colleagues. With those claims robustly challenged by Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors he was obviously flustered. He first claimed the lowering of standards was rationalisation, and then switched to claiming it was a simplification. Apparently he thinks people in West Sussex were too dim to understand the previous standards. 

Angrily, in response to a supplementary question from County Councillor Dr James Walsh, the Cabinet Member said, "shame you don't get it." 

The reality is that Dr Walsh does 'get it' and Councillor Crow doesn't like it 

The Real Simplification

The changes were prompted by a realisation that the response standard set by the County Council was showing up too many below standard response times. The cause of those failures was principally the council's removal of a quarter of frontline fire engines and their failure to ensure that there were always crews available for the remainder. A responsible solution would have been to take action to improve response times. 

The County Council's solution:

Change the response standard to a lower one that hides those failures

Where is the evidence?

The Cabinet Member claimed that people responded favourably to the consultation on response standards, yet the results of the consultation have not been published. Perhaps they did, as the consultation did not make clear that the changes would allow longer response times and would therefore be a lower standard. With so much spin from the Cabinet Member, people will be forgiven for doubting the accuracy of his claim.

The consultation response should be published

False claim that a fire engine will arrive within 16 minutes

When Councillor Caroline Baxter asked a question about response times, Councillor Crow falsely claimed that the new standard meant that wherever you are in the County, you could "expect a fire engine to come to you in an emergency within 16 minutes.” 

That is untrue, the new standard still allows fire engines to take more then 16 minutes to arrive at 10% of emergencies! The performance will still be deemed 'green' (satisfactory). Latest figures show that in the year to date the first fire engine took more than 16 minutes to arrive at:

9.54% of emergencies

In a full year that would be over 800 occasions when people in trouble had to wait over 16 minutes for any help to arrive

Firefighters always do their utmost to get to emergencies quickly, but their ability to do so is limited by the inadequate resources provided by the County Council.

Members of Parliament call for improvements

West Sussex MPs have also been highlighting the County Council's inadequate fire & rescue service provision. 

Unlike Conservative MPs, who have routinely accepted whatever the Conservative controlled County Council tells them, two Liberal Democrat MPs have taken the time to visit West Sussex fire stations and listen to firefighter concerns. 

John Milne, MP for Horsham, spent time at Horsham fire station and afterwards highlighted a number of issues, including the County Council's failure to recruit enough retained firefighters. 

Duncan Crow again disgraced himself by attacking Chichester's MP, Jess Brown-Fuller, after her visit to Chichester fire station. He attacked her in the press and then used a contrived question, from one of his Conservative colleagues, to try and discredit the MP's comments at the County Council meeting.

The MP correctly said that fire engines and equipment were out of date and in need of replacement. Duncan Crow falsely claimed that her statements were ‘not accurate’, ‘poorly informed’ and ‘baseless’. If he was more in touch with his responsibilities, then he would know that it is his claims that are ‘not accurate’, ‘poorly informed’ and ‘baseless’.

The County Council used to ensure that frontline fire engines were not more than 12 years old and special vehicles, dependent on type, were replaced between 15 and 20 years old. 

So what would the MP have seen at Chichester Fire Station (if they weren't away for repair!):

Fire engine 1 - 11 years old

Fire engine 2 - 16 years old

Special vehicle 1 - 16 years old

Special vehicle 2 - 25 years old

Special vehicle 3 - 30 years old 

Councillor Crow only has to read some of the County Council's own reports to know that Jess Brown-Fuller MP is correct.

Those reports state that "a well-managed replacement programme is essential as older vehicles require higher maintenance costs and present higher incidents of defects and failure rates." Yet, it is clear from a report this year that the replacement programme has not been managed well for the past seven years:

"The previous commitment to a rolling programme of three new appliance replacements per year stalled. There has therefore been a lag in replacements since 2018."

That has resulted in over 20 year old fire engines still being in frontline service. During the Cabinet Member's waffling reply he said, "we would never ever provide unsafe equipment for our firefighters." Yet in County Council reports supporting the lapsed 12 year replacement programme, it clearly said that it was necessary to reduce the risk of defects and failures. 

So, by neglecting the replacement programme, firefighters and the public have been exposed to an increased risk from fire engine and equipment defects and failures. 

If a fire engine pump fails, whilst supplying water to firefighters inside a building, their lives are in immediate danger. 

If a fire engine won't start when an emergency is received, valuable time is lost and lives and property are in greater danger.

Councillor Crow has been expecting firefighters to continue using less reliable and less safe equipment

 

Information Commissioner not fooled by County Council excuses

The Information Commissioner rejects 

West Sussex County Council's claims

Some may recall the refusal of my freedom of information request for details of incidents where the County Council's target response times were not met. Initially they claimed that "the information you seek would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual or the safety of any individual." 

The internal review upheld the refusal but then bizarrely claimed, "this Authority does not hold data relevant to your request." A dishonest claim when that core performance information is used in reports to Councillors and to Government. The Information Commissioner's report says:

The Council has been given 30 days to locate the information and to provide a fresh response. We will have to wait to see if they finally provide the information they hold or try some other excuse to conceal worrying performance information.

Poor performance is no excuse for unlawful secrecy

How bad is the performance?

Well, as they won't make it public it is not possible to be exact. However, for example, firefighters have reported it taking 25 minutes for the first fire engine to arrive at a critical fire in Rogate, because the nearest fire engines did not have firefighters to crew them.

I have also had reports of a critical fire in Wisborough Green, where four Horsham firefighters had to struggle until back up crews arrived from Dorking (18 miles), and Chichester (21 miles). Again, several nearer fire engines did not have firefighters available to crew them.

Now there may be other reasons for problems on that day, but with details kept secret there is no way of knowing.

The public deserve to know the truth

Ineffective Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee 

This committee should be asking for details of the worst failures and investigating why it has been kept from them. If they were scrutinising properly, they would be demanding the information from Cabinet Member Duncan Crow. They should also be asking why he is allowing legitimate freedom of information requests to be unlawfully rejected. 

When a Conservative controlled committee fails to properly scrutinise the worst effects of Conservative cuts to the fire & rescue service, the public are going to be suspicious. Those in the service can only do their best with the resources they have. By not investigating the Council's inadequate resourcing, which has resulted in a failure to provide an effective service, the scrutiny committee is neglecting their responsibilities.

Effective scrutiny of deteriorating performance is long overdue

Another unlawful Freedom of Information refusal by WSCC

A Mr Robert Dymond requested attendance details, times, and messages for the 2023 fires at the Angel Hotel in Midhurst and the Harvester in Littlehampton. All quite legitimate performance information that is provided on request by other fire & rescue services. With their casual disdain for the legislation and West Sussex residents, the County Council refused the request. The disingenuous grounds given for refusal were that the information is already available through the 'Request a Fire Report' process. 

Not only is the attendance detail requested not usually included in fire reports, but the County Council will only provide a fire report to the occupier, or someone connected to the occupier who has a legitimate interest (e.g. building owner, or insurer). I would be very surprised if Mr Dymond would meet that requirement for both incidents. I hope that he requests an internal review and, if that is unsatisfactory, he will submit a complaint to the Information Commissioner.

Once again, the County Council is illegally hiding performance data from the public

Consultation on a plan that is not a plan

Now I know it says it is a plan, but it is just a list of objectives with no plan on how to achieve them. Completely lacking in detail, unrealistic, and with no funding to make any improvements. At best it is a wish list, at worst it is just County Council spin.

Take 3.1, where they say they are going to enhance the availability of fire engines. There were similar claims, sorry objectives, in the two previous CRMPs, but availability has got steadily worse. They ask, "To what extent do you think the Service Delivery objectives outlined in this plan will improve WSFRS’s ability to respond to fires and emergencies quickly and effectively?" 

The only informed answer must be:

This 'plan' is meant to be West Sussex County Council telling Government how it will meet its legal obligation to provide an effective service. It is already providing a less effective and less safe service than it has ever done, and nothing in this document indicates that they will act to reverse the decline. Indeed, with some of the reviews mentioned, the County Council is likely to make West Sussex firefighters and residents even less safe and less well protected.

Should you complete the consultation? Yes, I think you should, the more people that tell the Council this plan is inadequate the better.

Consultation closing date - 22 September 2025

 

Whatever happened to the previous consultation about response standards?

This closed in February, but the outcome does not appear to have been published or even shown to the scrutiny committee. It was intended to deviously change the standards so that more failed response times would in future look like the standard was met, even though the actual times were the same. This chart shows how the last published response time failures would be reduced by the new 'standard'.

So, have consultation responses not been published because the public rejected the proposals?

As the wildfire threat increases, Cabinet Member admits Fire Service less effective

West Sussex is inadequately resourced for wildfires

The Chief Fire Officer has rightly warned of the increased risk of wildfires, but the County Council has left the service inadequately prepared and our countryside at risk.

Nearly all of the fire service's specialist off road vehicles, which are essential for tackling wildfires, are around 25 years old. Reliability is an increasing issue and, as they are built on a chassis that is no longer produced, spare parts are difficult to obtain. 

Wildfires often require large numbers of firefighters over long periods of time. The work is physically demanding and exhausting in hot weather, so fresh crews need to be brought in regularly. In addition, more firefighters need to be kept available to deal with other fires and emergencies.  

West Sussex only just managed to cope with the many wildfires during the drought of 1976. Yet at that time they had 46 frontline fire engines and crewing levels would see them providing a total of between 230 and 260 firefighters. 

Today there are just 35 fire engines, but crewing cuts would see them only providing 140 firefighters. However, as they are rarely all have crews, there can be as few as a dozen fire engines available, which would provide as few as 48 firefighters!

48 firefighters cannot do the work that used to require over 200 firefighters

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service less effective because of County Council cuts

Cabinet Member Duncan Crow, who is responsible for fire & rescue, recently wrote to County Councillors hoping to justify inaccurate comments he made at a County Council meeting. Incredibly, he blames the deteriorating performance on having fewer fire stations and fire engines. All the result of cuts made by the Conservative controlled County Council since 2010.

The council was warned that closing four fire stations and removing eleven frontline fire engines would seriously damage the service's effectiveness, but they blundered on. Latest figures for the most recent five years show that there has been a 37% increase in neighbouring fire & rescue services having to attend incidents in West Sussex. In the same period, the assistance given to them by West Sussex has fallen by 33%.

37% increase in other fire & rescue services attending West Sussex incidents 

= the County Council failing to properly protect residents

Sadly, Councillor Crow can't even get his facts right on this point. He says the criticism used data from 2004 when it very clearly stated that it was comparing the latest figures with 2018-19 figures. He cites three fire station closures when there were actually four, and he refers to 'retained appliances' no longer operating, when the eleven fire engines they cut included two that were crewed by wholetime firefighters. 

Councillor Crow continues to incorrectly claim that response times are improving. Home Office figures very clearly show that the trend is that they are getting worse.

Average response times to Primary Fires – Home Office data table FIRE1001

Councillor Crow claims that the retained crewing model dates from after the Second World War, but by then it had been in continuous operation for over 100 years. He blames the drop in retained firefighter availability on work and lifestyle changes, whilst ignoring the adverse impact that County Council decisions have had on recruitment and retention.

Councillor Crow cites changes following the pandemic, yet that has seen more people working from home, which should improve availability. Instead of making excuses, it is high time that Councillor Crow persuaded his Conservative colleagues to do more to improve availability. 

The County Council still refuses to adopt a policy of supporting staff to become retained firefighters by giving them time for training and response to emergencies. There are well over 5,000 people employed in other council departments, yet the council refuses to support them to become retained firefighters. 

Instead of leading by example, the County Council shamefully leaves it to other employers to make staff available to be retained firefighters. 

Another worrying Freedom of Information request refusal

Fantasy "parties with an intention to cause mischief"

WSFRS has just refused a request from a Charlie Healy for a copy of the risk assessment for the more compact fire engines introduced by the service.

The spurious grounds given for refusing this request - "that disclosure of the information you seek would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual or the safety of any individual."

I don't know which is more worrying with this latest refusal:

Is it that WSFRS has decided that, "likely to endanger the physical or mental health" etc., can be used as an opt out whenever they want to conceal things from the public?

Or, is it that the risk assessment for the 20 plate UHP pumping appliances reveals serious flaws or weaknesses that affect firefighter or public safety?

Or, is it that a proper risk assessment was not carried out and they do not want to admit that?

Creating imaginary "parties with an intention to cause mischief", is the stuff of conspiracy theorists. Especially when the information would be of no use to them if they really existed. This would be laughable were it not for the serious issue of a public body trying to evade their legal duty.

These refusals are not in the interest of the public or firefighters, so who are they trying to protect from scrutiny?

False claims and worsening response times

More false claims from Cabinet Member

Duncan Crow entertaining his Conservative colleagues

At Friday's full council meeting, Cabinet Member Duncan Crow again misled his fellow County Councillors several times. Sadly, he seemed more interested in getting a laugh from his Conservative colleagues than he was with accuracy. Here are some disturbing examples:

West Sussex residents deserve better

Especially if we have to put up with these County Councillors for seven years instead of four!

The consultation to lower West Sussex County Council's emergency response standards is still underway. Current standards allow lengthy response times, yet this proposal will allow even longer response times. However, more disturbing information has recently come to light.

Emergency Response Standard

failures no longer investigated

Whenever County Councillors have asked about failures to meet the response standards, they have always been assured that every such incident is investigated. However, Deputy Chief Fire Officer Matt Cook has now said that they no longer investigate every failure. 

It appears that this significant change in policy has been done in secret, with even the council's Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee kept in the dark. It is not known if Cabinet Member Duncan Crow knows about this change, if he approved it, or if he instructed the service to stop investigating these serious failures.

The only excuse offered for not investigating these failures is the claim that most result from reasons “beyond our control (such as heavy traffic, and long travel distance).” A nonsense excuse, as many fire & rescue services have used data on delays caused by heavy traffic and long travel distances to support the relocation of fire stations, or the provision of additional fire stations. 

Even West Sussex used data on failures to meet response standards to support the case for improvements. Wholetime crewing during the day was extended from five to seven days a week at Burgess Hill, East Grinstead, Haywards Heath and Shoreham just two years ago. 

Responsible fire authorities investigate all response standard failures

West Sussex County Council is not being responsible

Council failure, not firefighter failure

It is important to note that firefighters continue to do their utmost to get to emergencies quickly. Responsibility for these failures rests with the County Council, which has stripped the service of sufficient resources to meet the response standards. Frontline resources have been cut by a quarter and they are failing to ensure that the remainder are always available. That is why they cannot provide a speedy and effective response to every emergency.

Only the County Council's leadership has something to gain

from lowering standards and not investigating failures

Bizarre internal review response

The new information from DCFO Matt Cook emerged from his internal review response about their refusal to provide information about failures to meet the response standards. The same information was requested in 2018 and 2021 and was provided, but the request for the same information for the twelve months to the end of October last year was refused. 

He begins by supporting the dubious grounds for refusing to disclose the information that they confirmed they held. Ludicrously, he then concludes by claiming that they do not hold the information.

It would be quite irresponsible if the service did not have information on each incident that meets, and those that do not meet, the County Council's response standards. Without that information, they would be unable to provide key performance information to the Cabinet, and the Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee. Yet both received response standard information as recently as December 2024.

There is no justification for this refusal

A complaint has been submitted to the Information Commissioner

More evidence of the damaging effect of Council cuts

An examination of the latest figures shows that West Sussex assists the neighbouring fire & rescue services (East Sussex, Hampshire, Kent and Surrey) less often. Yet, they are calling on them for assistance much more often. Compared to five years ago, West Sussex has cut help to other fire & rescue services by a third, whilst assistance from them has had to increase by over 37%.

Clear evidence that West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service is under resourced

Don't help the County Council

cut emergency response standards

Reject the proposed changes

Reminder - The consultation closes on 27 February 2025.

West Sussex County Council cut standards to cover up deteriorating response times

Misleading consultation

Existing 8 to 14 minute response targets being 

replaced with a single 16 minute response target

It is very disappointing, but sadly not surprising, that this latest West Sussex consultation is misleading. Once again, the Conservative run County Council is attempting to deceive the public.

They refer to ‘current response standards’ but fail to show the times for response to critical fires. As those times are omitted, and it does not clearly explain that the 13 minute response standard for critical incidents does not apply to critical fires, the public may well be misled.

Average times will cover up response time failures

The change to average times is to help the County Council disguise the extent of response time failures. Nearly 80% of incidents occur in areas that have immediate response firefighters (i.e. on duty at the fire station), and they can attend incidents quickly. Using average figures helps conceal the worsening response times for the 20% of incidents in other, mostly rural, areas.

A significant increase in the response time criteria is a worrying lowering of standards

Cabinet Member Duncan Crow is attempting to renege on the County Council's existing response commitment. It already permits longer response times than in many other areas, and this will allow even longer response times. 

Many response times, which were previously graded as failures, will now be claimed as meeting the target. 

There were 486 response time failures in 2019/20 (WSCC has refused to provide more recent figures) and all were investigated. Had the proposed standards been applied to the actual response times in 2019/20, then there would have been a nearly two thirds reduction in those deemed to be failures. 

Not only is this covering up deteriorating performance, it will mean that no investigations will be carried out into most failures. Deterioration that is not the fault of firefighters, but the failure of the County Council to ensure enough fire appliances are always available. 

The consultation also incorrectly says: ‘You can also read more about national Emergency Response Standards on the Office For National Statistics’ website.(External link).’ 

There are no national Emergency Response Standards, and the website just shows performance data. Secondly, the website is not an ONS one, it is a Home Office website. 

This is not about 'greater transparency' 

It is about covering up excessive response times that put lives at risk

Poor performance prompts more spin and cover up

With elections next May, it seems that West Sussex County Council's leadership is desperate to cover up how their cuts have damaged the fire & rescue service's performance. 

Bogus grounds used to refuse Freedom of Information request

A recent request for copies of the service's 'Failure to meet response standard reports', covering the period from 1 November 2023 to 31 October 2024, has been refused. This is particularly suspicious, as the information was provided when the same reports were requested in 2018 and 2021. One can only assume that performance is now much worse.

The first bogus reason for refusal was that disclosure "would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual or the safety of any individual". With imagination worthy of a conspiracy theorist, they suggest that a person with malicious intent could use the data to delay the response to future incidents.

So, what is this information that was previously not valuable to a person with malicious intent, but now suddenly is? 

The information simply shows that at some past incidents the service failed to meet their response standard for reasons such as long travel distance, slow turnout, nearest station off the run, appliance did not book in, difficulty in locating the incident, nearest appliance attending another incident, and heavy traffic. 

All reasons that would be obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

Bizarre personal data refusal, when no personal data was requested

Presumably, in case the first reason does not pass the Information Commissioner's tests, they throw in the personal data exemption as a second reason for refusal. Yet no personal data was requested, and the information held, and previously provided, does not include personal data. 

The Council's leadership and the Chief Fire Officer regularly claim to be open and transparent, yet this demonstrates, once again, that they are not.

Complacent and ineffective Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee meeting 

This committee met at the beginning of the month and, sadly, scrutiny was inadequate. The Performance Report for quarter 2 of 2024/25 revealed further deterioration in the service's response to critical fires, but committee members voiced no concerns.

Critical Fires – First Appliance Attendance

The response target for critical fires across most of the County is a lengthy 14 minutes, yet this is failed on nearly 10% of occasions. The report said that 'performance often dips in quarter two', but no one asked the Chief Fire Officer why it was nearly 8% worse than the same quarter last year (it was 94.7% in quarter two last year, but was down to 86.9% this year).

Inadequate crewing on retained frontline fire engines

Councillor complacency on this crisis is astonishing. Not only was this the worst ever quarter two performance, it was the worst quarterly performance on record. With up to three quarters of the County's fire engines dependent on retained firefighters this continuing deterioration is putting lives and property at risk. Yet, instead of demanding action, Councillors just accept Cabinet Member Duncan Crow's lame excuses and move on to the next item. 

Source: WSCC reports 

(Note - the target was cut between 2013/14 and 2019/20 without consultation or explanation)

Councillors rightly praise staff in the fire & rescue service for their efforts, but fail to examine how decisions by the Council have contributed to this worrying decline. Not only has the County Council cut the number of retained firefighters they employ, their policies are having a negative effect on the recruitment and retention of retained firefighters.

The County Council could set an example to other employers by having a policy to positively support all County Council employees who wish to become retained firefighters, and a policy to release them from their primary employment for training and response to emergencies. Yet the Council has no such policy and selfishly expects other employers and the self employed to step up and do what they will not do.

Why are establishment and strength figures not published?

It is interesting that the report refers to the Retained Duty System being 14% below the ‘authorised establishment.’ Establishment figures are no longer published, so Councillors cannot properly scrutinise the service without updates on changes to the establishment and actual strength figures. 

Source: Home Office statistics

The retained firefighter strength in 2024 is two thirds lower than the Council's approved establishment in 2004! 

Lean or inadequately resourced?

During the meeting, Chief Fire Officer Sabrina Cohen-Hatton referred to the service being a lean one. An understatement if ever there was one. The County Council has cut the service to the bone, which leaves it struggling to cope with routine demand. It is no longer able to provide an effective service when there are more demanding incidents, or when several incidents occur at the same time. 

Instead of recognising that deteriorating performance is the result of Council cuts, Duncan Crow was more interested in boasting that the County Council's spend on the fire & rescue service is £6 less per head of population than the average in England. That missing £5 million has much to do with why there are not enough firefighters in West Sussex and, as a consequence, why response times have got worse.

The County Council is failing to properly protect residents