Showing posts with label Midhurst. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Midhurst. Show all posts

Wednesday, 23 March 2016

Was County Council Leader really ignorant?

This news release was issued today: 

West Sussex County Council Leader Louise Goldsmith last night failed to properly answer questions on the Council’s double-dealing over Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service’s cuts.

At the Chichester South CLC meeting, retired firefighter Tony Morris referred to Councillor Goldsmith’s previous insistence that West Sussex would not make any comment on the Hampshire cuts. Yet the Hampshire Fire Authority consultation report clearly shows that, not only did West Sussex comment, they actually endorsed the cuts.

Mr Morris asked if the meeting had been deliberately misled in September, or had the Chief Fire Officer ignored Councillor Goldsmith’s policies and instructions. Councillor Goldsmith’s dismissive response was, “at the time we weren’t going to respond, but we did and we are where we are with that”.

The West Sussex submission expressed concerns about increased response times and a less effective response in parts of West Sussex, west of Chichester and Midhurst. Mr Morris also asked, “what action are Councillors going to take to fill the gap in West Sussex fire cover that the Hampshire cuts will now create?”

In her reply Councillor Goldsmith ignored that question. It was only after County Councillor Sandra James criticised the Leader for not giving a proper answer that Councillor Goldsmith agreed that a letter would be sent to Mr Morris.

After the meeting, Tony Morris said, “Councillor Goldsmith’s response was unconvincing. I cannot accept that she was ignorant of her Chief Fire Officer’s support for the Hampshire cuts. Especially as, shortly after she insisted they would not comment, a West Sussex officer was sent on a six month secondment to help Hampshire promote their cuts. It is also extremely worrying that the Chief Fire Officer seems more concerned with supporting a colleague in another County, than he is about protecting the residents of West Sussex.”

Wednesday, 2 March 2016

Can we believe anything that the Fire & Rescue Services and Fire Authority Members say?

Warning that lives could be put at risk amid cuts to firefighters on county border

A fire crew demonstates the use of new equipment

A fire crew demonstrates the use of new equipment (The News)

First we have Louise Goldsmith, Leader of the West Sussex Fire Authority, saying that West Sussex would not comment on the Hampshire proposals, 'because we just don't do that'. Within weeks a West Sussex officer is seconded to Hampshire and is actively supporting their cuts at public meetings. Then West Sussex not only formally comment on the proposals, but supports them.

This was done even though, in their comments, they said that they were concerned about reductions in the attendance from Hampshire, and about INCREASED response times in West Sussex. Now we have Gary Towson, who is not a spokesman for West Sussex firefighters, but a spokesman for West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service, miraculously claiming that response times will improve!

It seems that instead of reflecting West Sussex concerns, Mr Towson is speaking on behalf of the Hampshire Fire Authority. I would urge him not to repeat the deception being perpetrated by Hampshire. You cannot legitimately compare the current response times for a properly equipped fire engine and four firefighters, with the response time for a poorly equipped, converted van and just two firefighters. Two firefighters who cannot carry out rescues and will struggle to tackle anything more than a dustbin fire.

As for the Hampshire Fire and Rescue spokeswoman's comments, the technology is not new and is only of limited value. It may look good at carefully staged demonstrations, but many real fires require adequate numbers of firefighters, not gimmicks. There are even four firefighters shown in the demonstration photograph, who are actively engaged in firefighting or providing safety cover! 

The concept is untried, untested and unsafe! Response times have already increased and the Hampshire cuts will see further significant increases for an effective response in both Hampshire and West Sussex.


Monday, 22 February 2016

Comments sent to West Sussex Town and Parish Councils affected by the Hampshire fire cuts:

I know that many of you are concerned about the proposed Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service cuts and the effect that will have on response times in your areas. Some of you were at the Chichester South CLC meeting, when Louise Goldsmith (County Council Leader) emphatically said that West Sussex would not comment on those proposals. Sadly, a Hampshire Fire Authority report now reveals that, not only did West Sussex County Council comment, they actually endorsed the cuts.

I am sure you will also be concerned to hear that, following the consultation, the Hampshire cuts on the West Sussex border are unchanged. Instead of ten Hampshire fire engines close to West Sussex, there will only be three. The others are to be replaced with an Intermediate Vehicle and six First Response Vehicles, all of which will carry less equipment, water and firefighters. This comes after West Sussex closed Bosham fire station five years ago, and removed second fire engines from Midhurst and Petworth last year.

Hampshire concealed the figures for incidents they attend in West Sussex, and they have grossly exaggerated the benefits of new technology. The only information released about the new vehicles is that they will be smaller and will often respond with just two firefighters, instead of at least four. This is a large scale and dangerous experiment, which is not supported by evidence or trials. Protection for West Sussex residents near the Hampshire border will be significantly reduced.

Instead of West Sussex County Council offering realistic funding for the incident responses provided by Hampshire, they actually seconded an officer to Hampshire to help with the cuts. Active support for cuts, even though they admitted they were concerned about increased response times in West Sussex.


I am sure that you will feel let down, especially after Louise Goldsmith’s pronouncement about not getting involved with another authority’s business. You may wish to ask her how she will plug the gap when Hampshire make their cuts. Their Fire Authority meets on Wednesday to rubber stamp the plans.


Tuesday, 16 February 2016

Final Hampshire proposals will seriously affect West Sussex fire cover

I must first apologise for the lack of posts on this blog. Things have been going on in the background, but health issues and other demands have limited my computer time.

I have just seen the final Hampshire proposals and it seems no notice has been taken of concerns and views expressed by West Sussex residents. The proposals go to the Fire Authority meeting on 24 February. As they will affect West Sussex they are:

Emsworth - Downgraded to a First response vehicle. Firefighters cut from 12 to 9.

Grayshott - Downgraded to a First response vehicle. Firefighters cut from 12 to 8.

Havant - Downgraded to an Enhanced Vehicle and a First response vehicle (Wholetime shift strength cut from 7 to 4, and RDS cut from 12 to 10).

Horndean - Downgraded to an Intermediate vehicle. Firefighters cut from 12 to 11.

Liphook - Downgraded to a First response vehicle. Firefighters cut from 12 to 9.

Petersfield - Downgraded to an Enhanced Vehicle and a First response vehicle. Firefighters cut from 20 to 15.

Waterlooville - Downgraded to an Enhanced Vehicle and a First response vehicle. Firefighters cut from 20 to 14.

In summary – 10 Pumps cut to just 3, with 1 Intermediate vehicle and 6 First response vehicles. 

Currently crewed by 40 to 60 firefighters. In future crewed by 26 to 47 firefighters.

Despite the West Sussex County Council Leader Louise Goldsmith saying that they would not comment on the proposals, as "we just don't do that", they did submit a response to the consultation supporting the Hampshire proposals!

Thursday, 17 September 2015

Serious Fire Highlights Loss of Fire Engines

Last night’s serious fire in Bognor Regis is an important reminder of the need for adequate resources. The fire needed eleven standard fire engines from Bognor Regis (2), Chichester (2), Littlehampton (2), East Preston, Arundel, Havant (Hampshire), Worthing and Midhurst

The 1978 Woolworth store fire in Bognor Regis required 32 standard fire engines to contain and extinguish it, and it provides an interesting comparison when you compare resources available then and now.


Removed since 1978 have been the Hydraulic Platform from Chichester, and fire engines from Bognor Regis (3rd), Bosham (station closed), East Preston (2nd), Midhurst (2nd), Petworth (2nd), Storrington (2nd), Lancing (2nd), Findon (station closed), Keymer (station closed), Horley (both fire engines removed), and Crawley (3rd).

Hampshire fire engines involved at the Woolworth incident, or standing by for other calls at West Sussex stations, were Emsworth, Cosham x 2, Havant x 2, Waterlooville, Petersfield, Fareham, and Portchester. Drastic cuts are of course now planned for these stations.

The Fire & Rescue Service keep using a recent drop in incidents to falsely justify cuts, so when thinking about resources that have been removed, it is worth remembering that in 1978 there were just 5,654 incidents in West Sussex. In 2013-14 there were 9,337 incidents, which is 40% more. Resources were not improved when calls increased, they have just been progressively cut.







Tuesday, 15 September 2015

Hampshire Fire Cuts Threaten West Sussex Residents

This photo is a stark reminder of why we need a speedy response by full crews on proper fire engines. 



A news release has now been issued:

Fire service cuts campaigners are warning that West Sussex residents, who live near the Hampshire border, will face increased dangers from an inadequate fire service response. West Sussex County Council pay Hampshire Fire Authority to deal with emergencies in that area, because their fire stations are nearer. Hampshire Fire Authority now say they plan to remove SEVEN of the NINE fire engines nearest to the West Sussex border and replace them with inadequate vehicles.

Two of those vehicles will be ‘Intermediate Vehicles’, which are small Fire Engines carrying less water, less equipment and less firefighters. The other five will only be ‘First Response Vehicles’, which carry even less water, less equipment and less firefighters. Instead of four to six firefighters on a proper fire engine, these will respond with as few as two firefighters.

Speaking for campaigners, retired firefighter Tony Morris said, “That may be OK for a dustbin fire, but for building fires these inadequate crews will only be able to watch and wait for help to arrive on proper fire engines. Many residents, in an area that includes Southbourne, West Marden, South Harting, Rogate, Milland and Linchmere, will be left with a second or third class service from Hampshire”.

Mr Morris urged people to respond to the Hampshire consultation, which is due to start on 14 September. He said, “This is a double blow for residents in this area after Bosham fire station was closed and second fire engines were removed from Midhurst and Petworth. Hampshire fire engines often provide support in the Midhurst, Chichester and Manhood areas, so proper resources will take longer to arrive there too. West Sussex County Council must also tell residents how they will properly protect people living in these areas, if Hampshire make these cuts”.

Commenting on Hampshire Fire Authority claims that “the safety of the public and our firefighters remains our absolute priority”, Mr Morris said, “It is rather like listening to ‘Del Boy’ on his market stall describing inferior goods as the ‘bees knees’. The difference of course is that one may see you waste your money on faulty goods, the other may cost you your home, your business, or your life.”

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Stop the Cuts

Friday, 17 April 2015

West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service Stop the Cuts April 2015 Update

Cuts Implemented

It was no joke on April 1st when 5 fire engines, 21 Full-time firefighters and 15 Part-time firefighters were removed from fire stations.

Initial indications are, as predicted, that some responses are taking much longer than before. Fire engines are also now being regularly sent out with just four firefighters on them, instead of five.

This limits the actions that the crew can take when they arrive. It also means firefighters may be forced to take greater risks, or leave the public in danger until reinforcements arrive. Training is also limited with only four firefighters on duty.


The Council’s own prediction is that an extra life will be lost every other year, and there will be an extra £80,000 property damage each year as a result of these cuts.

False Council Claims



You may have read claims in local papers that the service “won’t be downgraded in any way”. That is a dishonest claim, especially when their own predictions were for more deaths and property damage as a result.

Claims that the resources required “will be sent out” is very misleading. They may be sent, but they will often have to travel further, take longer to arrive and expose the public and firefighters to greater danger.

Petition Update

Nearly 2,000 people have signed the ‘Stop fire engine and firefighter cuts in West Sussex’ petition, with more names on petition forms waiting to be returned and counted.

We are very grateful to those who have worked hard collecting names. It is very clear that not only are people appalled by the cuts, many were totally unaware that they were being implemented.

If you still have completed, or partially completed, petition forms please return them (to arrive no later than 24th April) to: “Fire Cuts Petition, 48 Little Breach, Chichester, PO19 5TY.”

Names can still be added via the internet on the WSCC Epetition page - “Stop fire engine and firefighter cuts in West Sussex” 

Delays at Horsham Fire



Had this fire been before the cuts, two fire engines would have arrived in around five minutes.

However, one of them was removed on 1st April, so a second fire engine had to come from Crawley. This took three times longer to arrive. 

Worthing Full-time Crews Moved from the Town

The number of times full-time crews have been sent out of the town to cover crew shortages at other stations has increased. That leaves Worthing reliant on their part-time crew and on firefighters from other stations, which takes longer.

In March a disabled Worthing woman had to wait 9 minutes for rescue after Worthing’s full-time crews had been sent to cover rural areas. Worthing’s part-time crew and crews from Littlehampton and Shoreham were sent to the fire. 

New Group Won’t Meet Crewing Need at Part-time Stations

The claim is that they will be used, “as and when they are needed”. However the reality is that these firefighters, who were removed from busy fire stations, only work daytimes, Monday to Friday. Weekend and night-time needs are ignored.

Last weekend, despite frantic attempts to persuade part-time firefighters to work overtime, only 19 of the 35 fire engines were available for long periods. It is clear evidence of the woeful and ongoing failure of the County Council and Fire Service management to provide enough firefighters to protect the people of West Sussex.

No fire engines were crewed at Arundel, East Preston, East Wittering, Haywards Heath, Hurstpierpoint, Lancing, Partridge Green, Shoreham, Steyning and Turners Hill.

In addition, the second fire engines at Bognor Regis, Burgess Hill and East Grinstead were without crews. Not forgetting of course that, since 2010, a total of eleven fire engines, that could have been available, have been removed by the County Council.

 No Improvement at Petworth



More false claims in this article, which said “We are posting six whole-time firefighters in Petworth, working Monday to Friday.”

This has not happened and, since the cuts took effect, Petworth’s only remaining proper fire engine has been without a crew during the day, Monday to Friday!

The Water Carrier, which is not new, has been moved from Littlehampton where crewing was not a problem. However, Petworth has crewing difficulties, so there is no guarantee that the Water Carrier, one of only two in the County, will be available when required.

It is also now further away from the areas it is most used in, so will take longer to get to many calls. If they can crew it, there will often not be enough firefighters left to crew their fire engine, so residents will have to wait for help from other towns.

Missing 4x4 Vehicles

For nearly a year County Councillors have been claiming that new 4x4 vehicles would mitigate the effects of removing fire engines from Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington, that they would be in place in 2015, and even that they were being trialled.

Yet a Freedom of Information reply last month revealed this was untrue. They were not being trialled, no decision had been made on the vehicles to be bought, and there is no business case to support their purchase.

New 4x4s are being ‘spun’ as some great improvement, when in fact it is nothing more than part of the normal vehicle replacement programme.

The official response from WSFRS said no decision had been made on where the new 4x4s would go and the first could not be delivered before 2016. They also keep adding to the equipment load, which could see the 4x4s too big to access areas the current 4x4s can or, if the vehicles are small, they may be overloaded. 

 Crawley & Gatwick

Crawley has been particularly badly hit by cuts. From four full-time and one part-time crewed fire engines in 2010, the Borough now only has two full-time crewed fire engines. This is the worst ratio of fire engines to population and to incidents attended of any area in West Sussex.

This also has serious consequences for the response to any aircraft accident at Gatwick. Crawley can no longer crew both fire engines and the specialist rescue vehicle and new procedures mean that, if an accident occurred, a recue vehicle would have to travel from Worthing.

Crewing failures during a recent fire highlighted this vulnerability when only 6 of the nearest 22 West Sussex fire engines were available. Had this been a large fire in Crawley, and ten fire engines had been needed, most would have come from Surrey and East Sussex, including two from Brighton.


The Political View

This group has no political agenda and our only concern is public safety. However, it has become very clear that the cuts are political.

Independent, Labour, Liberal Democrat, and UKIP County Councillors have all seen the dangers of these cuts, but Conservative Councillors have steadfastly stuck to the party line and cut frontline services.

Local MPs have taken no action to ensure we are protected and Government Ministers have steadfastly refused to do their primary duty and protect lives

Parliamentary Candidates in the May General Election have stated their support for the fight against these cuts, including Green Party, Labour, Liberal Democrat, Patria, UKIP & Independent candidates, but no Conservatives.

"It is the job of politicians to serve the public they represent. I believe that forcing swinging cuts on an emergency service is contrary to this." - Jasper Richmond
Green Party candidate for Chichester 

I agree with your concerns and support you all whole heartedly.” - Hazel Thorpe
Liberal Democrat candidate for Worthing West.

Sussex Police Cuts

After a public meeting with the Chief Constable and the Police & Crime Commissioner, we were struck by how different the approach taken by the Police was, compared to that taken by the County Council on fire service cuts. In particular, they were very open and honest about the effect of the cuts.

The P&CC said her residents came before her political party policy, and she had already given the public the option to increase tax to protect services. The Chief Constable said how emergency response would be protected, with the same number of officers. It would even be improved by providing new technology to avoid the need to return to police stations to complete paperwork.

This contrasts starkly with West Sussex County Council’s approach of hiding details of the worst effects, making false claims, holding a sham consultation that had no alternatives, and ignoring all concerns and views. 

Manhood Peninsula Left With No Fire Engine

Once again, on the 7th April, Selsey had the only fire engine available on the Manhood Peninsula, but the part-time firefighters were called in and sent to Midhurst to protect the Midhurst and Petworth areas. This was done despite a full-time and part-time crew being available at both Chichester and Bognor Regis.

Usually, professional Control Room Staff would move a fire engine from a station that had two available, so that they maintain the best distribution of fire engines for a speedy response. However, WSFRS have ignored best practice and told them not to, so that the full-time crews can do other, non-emergency response work!

Part-time Firefighter Comment -  “My boss doesn’t object when I am called away for local fires, but he is not happy when I leave work to sit at another fire station for hours on end.”

Firefighter Comments

Serving firefighters fear for their jobs if they comment on the cuts publicly. Among the comments made to this group in confidence are:

“Morale within the ranks is shockingly poor.”

“They keep talking about prevention being important, but they have just cut hundreds of hours from our prevention work”.

“Saying we were consulted is a joke. They didn't listen, my shift system has been changed and child care now costs me more. It’s worse for others, some have been moved and others have had their pay cut.”

"Bosses are claiming things are good but they are not"

“We are being forced to ride with crews of only four, which means we can’t do all the jobs needed at shouts, unless we take more risks”. (Note - Shouts are a fire service term for incidents)

County Council Dirty Tricks

There have been disgraceful attempts to suggest this group has provided inaccurate and false information, and that some people have ‘other agendas’.

Most of the information used by this group has come from the County Council or from Government Departments. We have provided it in good faith and are not responsible if the Council and Government figures differ. Other information has come from the media, or from firefighters and has been checked wherever possible. In fact we have heard some quite serious allegations, but have not repeated them as they have been uncorroborated.

We are, however, aware of false and inaccurate information being given to the public, the media, to MPs and to County Councillors by WSCC and WSFRS. Examples include figures for fire deaths provided to County Councillors being different to those provided under a Freedom of Information request, and claims that fire engines were being moved when they are actually being cut. Despite claims from the Leader of the Council that the Council is open and transparent, we have encountered a reluctance to provide information and even had Freedom of Information requests refused on technicalities.

As for other agendas, that is simply a lie. All those associated with this group have genuine concerns for public safety. For many that is based on years of experience as firefighters, both full-time and part-time in West Sussex. We are not ‘butterfly’ officers flitting from service to service to further our careers. Most of us have lived and worked in West Sussex for many years, we know the risks, we know the people and we know how damaging these cuts will be.

Those on the group who have not been in the fire service are concerned citizens who, like many West Sussex residents, have seen through the spin and are not prepared to stand idly by and watch a once fine Fire & Rescue Service downgraded for political reasons.

Public and Former Firefighter Comments

“Cutting the fire service is ridiculous, is the Council stupid?”

“I knew nothing about taking our fire engine away.”

“It is disgraceful that cuts are being made at ground floor, but I still see new officer cars that could be a lot smaller and more cost effective.”

“I am just sick of officers giving the public a load of BS.”

“There is a dire need for a review of the existing availability system which appears to work against having pumps on the run.” (Fire engines available)

“Our firefighters are wonderful”

“Why should I get a worse service, just because I live in the country?”

“That is stupid, we need our fire engines."

Media Indifference

We have been asked why we do not get the media to correct the Council’s spin and "get the truth out there". The simple answer is we have been, but for whatever reasons a number of press releases and letters have not been used. We understand the media have many pressures and conflicting priorities, especially the local press, but firefighters and others concerned about the cuts have said that the reporting seems unbalanced.

Whilst claims from the County Council have had wide coverage, with few if any probing questions from the media, views of those opposed to the cuts have had only limited coverage. The Council has also been given a right of reply to all of our statements, but we have not been asked for our views on their claims.

Among press releases issued by the group are:

·  Appalling lack of fire cover in West Sussex - Recent fires in Crawley and Worthing expose serious failures to properly crew fire engines in the County.

·  False 4x4 claims - Claims by the Fire & Rescue Service, following the recent Ambersham Common fire, are “window dressing to cover up cuts”.

·  Fire proves that West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service has been downgraded & firefighters are incensed by false claims from senior officers about cuts that took effect on the 1st April.

There have been some notable exceptions, and we are grateful to those in the media who have tried to report both sides of the debate on these dangerous cuts. All we can do is assure those who are concerned that we have engaged, and will continue to engage, with the media. We will provide the information, but can only hope that they will help to ensure that the public learn the truth.

Major Fires




There has been a lot of hype from the County Council about fewer fires and that we are all safer.

The reality is that, despite some improvements, many fires, crashes and other incidents still occur. Even well maintained fire stations can catch fire, as happened at Arundel.

Only this week ten fire engines were needed at a major fire in Chichester. This highlights the need for adequate resources. The cuts have seriously reduced the service’s ability to respond to large incidents, to storms & floods, to simultaneous incidents, as well as increasing the response time to many incidents.

Real Deterioration in the Protection of West Sussex Residents

These are screen shots from the Fire Service Crew Availability System, sent to us by concerned insiders. Standard Fire Engines are shown with a ‘P’ in their identification. Green if crewed (eg 42P2) and black if not (eg 60P1).

Before the cuts

You will notice that the five fire engines being removed in April were crewed and available on the evening of 31st March.

Yes, there were occasions that four of them could not be crewed, but when they were they helped save lives and property. Now they are unavailable permanently.

The fifth one, removed from Horsham, was actually busy and attended over 600 calls in 2013/14. The part-time crew that will now take their place are often not available (Only 52% available in 2013/14).


After the cuts

Despite assurances that there would be little or no effect, this sample screen shot for the evening of 4th April shows how much worse things are now.


Five fewer fire engines to be crewed and ten of those left were without crews.



2010 – 46 fire engines

2015 – 35 fire engines

Firefighter Comment: “Senior Managers are ignoring Standard Operating Procedures that are meant to keep us safe”



Join the discussion on Facebook: West Sussex Fire & Rescue Stop the Cuts

Freedom of Information Requests at: WhatDoTheyKnow

Friday, 6 March 2015

WSCC Cabinet Member Deception Continues

Senior County Councillors have repeatedly said that they would mitigate the effects of removing fire engines from Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington by providing new 4x4 vehicles. Now, following a Freedom of Information request, it appears this information was at best misleading and at worst deceitful.

At the October County Council meeting both former Cabinet Member Lionel Barnard and his former Deputy Jim Rae insisted that Councillors need not worry as the 4x4s would be uprated. Councillors were told that the Chief Fire Officer and the Cabinet Member had given undertakings that the 4x4s at Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington would be upgraded.

New Cabinet Member David Barling told Councillors at the February meeting that the ‘super-duper new 4x4 vehicles' were being trialled and will be put in place. He also advised Councillors to focus ‘on what they don’t tell you’. Very apt in this case as the FOI has revealed that:
  • The vehicles are not being trialled. So far officers have only visited other brigades to view their 4x4s.
  • No reports have been submitted on these visits.
  • They do not know what vehicle they will be buying.
  • No decision has been made on which stations will receive them, although they do say the first is ‘likely to go to Midhurst’.
  • The first one will not arrive until 2016.
  • They have not yet prepared a business case for these ‘super-duper new 4x4 vehicles' that Councillors claimed would ‘be in place’.

The full reply and an outline functional requirement can be viewed on the WhatDoTheyKnow website.

Thursday, 19 February 2015

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 

Saturday, 7 February 2015

A brief reminder of the damaging cuts that this petition is aimed at stopping

1. Removing five fire engines from Crawley, Horsham, Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington. It is this that will cost an extra loss of life every other year and an extra £80,000 of property damage every year.

2. Cutting the number of firefighters on every wholetime station, which will seriously reduce their ability to maintain proper crews of five firefighters on fire engines. This will mean that some fire engines will either be unavailable, or will be left with inadequate crews of only four. The number of extra deaths and property damage from this is not known, as WSFRS failed to assess or model this cut.

Anyone who does not understand why crews of four put firefighters and the public at risk should read the FBU Response to Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Services ‘IRMP Proposals for Change’. WSFRS has not complied with national guidance, or Health & Safety risk assessment requirements.

Previous cuts have resulted in the lowest number of fire engines and crews to protect West Sussex since 1939! Fire deaths are increasing in West Sussex, whilst they have been falling nationally. West Sussex has beaten every other fire service in the southeast, including London, by being the worst for deaths per head of population for each of the last two years.

Firefighters need the support of the County Council to reduce these appalling figures, not cuts. Cutting fire engines and firefighters will just make things worse.

Please sign the “Stop fire engine and firefighter cuts in West Sussex” petition. Find it online by searching for ‘West Sussex Epetitions’, and tell your friends, families and work colleagues.

Thursday, 5 February 2015

Some coverage with a news item and a letter in the "Chichester Observer". 








































The WSFRS response would be laughable if this was not so serious. 

‘The number of fatalities remains low’ – well that’s OK then, we don’t care about a few deaths.

‘Widely consulted on’ – a sham consultation that hid key facts, pretended everything would be rosy, and offered no alternatives.

‘Scrutinised and debated in full’ – the Councillor who “went through the proposals with a fine tooth comb” wrongly thought only 3 extra deaths were predicted, when it was actually 56. No proper debate or vote.

‘Deliberately taking figures out of context and making misleading claims’ – pot calling kettle black, except that, despite trotting this out every time, they have never substantiated their allegations.

‘Continue to show a long-term downward trend’ – 2009/10 UP, 2010/11 UP, 2011/12 UP, 2012/13 UP, 2013/14 UP – who are they trying to kid.

Adapting to meet future need - CUTS