The County Council election matters for West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service

These elections are about local services

They are not about national issues

There are those who will try to persuade you that voting for their Political Party's candidates will change what is happening in Westminster and Downing Street. It won't, but it will determine not only who is running our fire & rescue service for the next two years, but how it will be set up to cover the whole of Sussex in the years to follow.  

On May 7th we will have the chance to vote for those candidates we trust to support our fire & rescue service, and will work to keep us all safe. It is very clear that the Conservatives have, since 2010, let our fire & rescue service deteriorate to the sorry state it is in today. 

We need County Councillors who will run 

West Sussex County Council properly 

So, who should we vote for?

Well, I see no possibility of Conservative candidates undoing the damage their party has done to our fire & rescue service. Damage that has resulted in substantially longer response times, seriously reduced service resilience, and inadequate protection for residents. 

Many county councillors are not seeking re-election, but these are the Conservatives who are. They are also ones who previously voted for cuts to the fire & rescue service, and  don't deserve to be re-elected:

Richard Burrett (Pound Hill)

Michael Cloake (Durrington & Salvington)

Janet Duncton (Petworth)

Jeremy Hunt (Chichester North)

Amanda Jupp (Billingshurst)

Bob Lanzer (Maidenbower & Worth)

Simon Oakley (Chichester East)

Ashvin Patel (Bognor Regis West & Aldwick)

Bryan Turner (Broadwater)

The Conservatives have not supported firefighters or the safety of our communities

Who voted to stop damaging fire & rescue service cuts?

The Labour and Liberal Democrat county councillors voted against the cuts and have shown strong support for our fire & rescue service, so I believe their candidates will continue to fight for improvements to public safety. It is interesting to note that we now have two former county councillors, one Labour and one Liberal Democrat, who supported the fire & rescue service, and are now Members of Parliament.  

These are the county councillors from those parties who are standing and who voted against fire & rescue service cuts. They deserve to be re-elected:

Chris Oxlade (Bewbush & Ifield West)

Robin Rogers (Worthing West)

James Walsh (Littlehampton East)

Labour and Liberal Democrat county councillors support our fire & rescue service

Candidates from other political parties

Past conversations with Green Party members indicate that they understand the dangers posed by an inadequately resourced fire & rescue service, so I believe that their candidates will support the service. If they are the candidate in your area that is most likely to keep a Conservative from being elected, it may well be worth lending the Green Party your vote.

Now what about Reform candidates? Well, the only Reform county councillors on West Sussex County Council, who were elected as Conservatives and then defected, have done nothing to support our fire & rescue service. Like the party's leadership, who are almost all ex-Conservatives, I only see hard line Conservative policies under a new label. That will inevitably result in more cuts to the fire & rescue service, and even worse attacks on firefighter pay and conditions.

Since the election was announced, I have only heard from the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and Reform. I know there are a Green Party and a Labour candidate standing locally, but I suspect their efforts are focussed on other areas. However, the contact I have received so far is quite revealing.

Reform being unwilling to name their candidate in their leaflets, or tell me anything about them, and their failure to mention anything about West Sussex County Council is quite disturbing. It indicates that they don't understand the problems at the council, which means they won't have any solutions. It also shows they have no real interest in what happens to our fire & rescue service. 

Not telling voters who their candidate is suggests that they would rather we didn't know about their candidate's past, their views, their ability, or perhaps the lack of it. 

Who you choose to vote for is entirely a matter for you, but if you want an effective fire & rescue service, I would urge you to choose someone who has the best chance of defeating the Conservative and Reform candidates. 

That may mean not voting for your usual choice or may mean voting differently to how you would vote in a General Election, but getting the right candidates elected has never been more important for our fire & rescue service.

Support the future of our fire & rescue service by choosing your County Councillor wisely on May 7

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

Cuts and fire death concerns

Fair Pay

It is good news that firefighters and their employers have reached agreement on pay and avoided a strike. Both sides have been pragmatic, with the employers offering more than many other public sector employers, and firefighters accepting an offer that is less than would cover their inflation losses.

However, the Government has not given fire & rescue authorities additional funding to cover the cost. At the recent Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee it became apparent that the County Council has not set aside enough to cover the pay rise. Cabinet Member Duncan Crow said it will be challenging and Chairman Kevin Boram said the budget is tight.

I sincerely hope that Councillors listen to Chief Fire Officer Sabrina Cohen-Hatton, who reminded them that the service was 'lean'. 

The cuts in 2010 did leave the service lean, but the additional cuts in 2014 left it far too lean. Further cuts would seriously damage the service's response capability, and jeopardise improvements made since 2018, when HM Inspectors rated the service 'Inadequate', or 'Requiring Improvement' in every category. Inadequate funding played a significant part in those dreadful judgments.

County Councillors must fund the pay rise without further endangering West Sussex residents

Fire deaths

The County Council, in 2010 and 2014, falsely claimed that closing fire stations and cutting a quarter of frontline fire crews were 'improvements'. Despite having no evidence to support the claim, they assured residents that increased prevention work would save more lives. Despite a modest reduction in the number of fires in the last five years, the number of fire deaths has increased alarmingly.

Source Home Office Fire & Rescue Service statistics

With such concerning evidence, it was disturbing to hear the Chief Fire Officer, at a previous Select Committee meeting, incorrectly claim that the committee was informed of all fire deaths. The only fire deaths reported in the quarterly committee reports are those that occur in the home (dwellings), and where the fire was caused accidentally.

If the Chief Fire Officer did not intentionally mislead the committee, why did she get this very important detail wrong? Excluding fire deaths in other buildings, in road vehicles, in other outdoor locations, and in dwellings, when the fire was started deliberately, cannot be acceptable.

Source - FRSSC quarterly reports and Home Office Fire & Rescue Service statistics

The committee can't scrutinise properly unless they are informed of all fire deaths

Inquest questions remain unanswered

After hearing of firefighter concerns, I attended a recent Inquest into a West Sussex fire death. Although I learnt more about the circumstances of this tragic incident, some of those concerns were not addressed. 

A fundamental concern must be the adequacy of regulations. The fire occurred in the early evening, on the ground floor of a recently constructed block of retirement flats, with fire detection and connection to a careline alarm provider. Fire Investigation Officers concluded the most likely ignition source was a faulty, or damaged, trailing lead for a lamp. This then ignited a very new recliner chair that apparently met all current regulations.

Yet, despite the occupier being awake and ambulant, sufficient smoke was produced to incapacitate him. So much smoke that, even with the benefit of a thermal imaging camera, the victim was not located by firefighters immediately after they arrived. According to Area Manager Dave Bray, he was not located until two breathing apparatus teams were involved in a methodical search.

Whilst the occupier's apparent decision to try and put the fire out was relevant, it was disappointing to hear Mr Bray suggest that the victim's age was a factor in that decision. In my experience, people of all ages instinctively try and extinguish a small fire. Most succeed in extinguishing the fire, some don't but then escape, some suffer injuries in the process and, sadly, a few do not survive. 

Mr Bray did helpfully make the case for sprinklers, as a way to help avoid such deaths in the future. The Coroner indicated that she would submit a Prevent Future Deaths report that would raise the benefits of sprinklers.

Response delays

Mr Bray insisted there were no delays in the service's response, yet evidence suggests that there were. The wholetime crew in the town concerned had been mobilised to another incident, shortly before this call was received. Consequently, the town's retained crew was sent to this incident, together with the wholetime crew from a town five miles away.

Mr Bray told the Coroner that retained crews had five minutes to turn out and that they arrived in 11 minutes. However, he didn't tell the Coroner that it is only a two minute drive from the fire station to the incident. 

If there were no delays they should have been there in seven minutes, not eleven.

The Coroner was also told that the incident the wholetime crew were attending was 'an emergency'. I have been told it was not an emergency, and there are questions about why they were sent to it. The Inquest was not told the nature of that incident, or that the wholetime crew was located very close to the fatal fire.

In such circumstances, when West Sussex had its own fire control, control staff would have quickly radioed the wholetime crew to ask if they were in a position to attend the life threatening incident. That did not happen. It is alleged that, when the crew became aware of the serious incident, they requested permission to attend. It is also alleged that the Surrey based Joint Fire Control initially refused permission, insisting that incident details must first be completed on their in cab computer.

This suggests that, instead of control operators being able to use common sense and initiative, they are tied to inflexible procedures, an inflexible mobilising computer system, or both.

Although I believe my information was reliable, it was not first hand, which is why I hoped the Inquest would uncover the truth. As it did not, the service should investigate the full circumstances and ensure the removal of any obstacles that may have delayed the wholetime crew being immediately sent to this tragic incident.

'Computer says no' is unacceptable, Fire Control Staff must be free to use their initiative to save lives

Inadequate Response Targets

Mr Bray also told the Coroner that the service met their response targets. However, he did not tell her that West Sussex targets are lengthy, and differ according to where you live in the County

The targets set by the County Council do not ensure that the service is effective at saving lives and property, they are simply intended to mask the inadequate resources provided by the Council.

Research has shown that the optimum response time for life saving is no more than 10 minutes. Yet, West Sussex County Council has decided that for 66% of West Sussex the target time for the first fire engine will be a lengthy 14 minutes, for 34% of the County it is 12 minutes, and only 0.2% will receive the optimum life saving 10 minute target. 

West Sussex County Council's lengthy response times for critical fires

Green diamonds are fire stations and their designated number

Incredibly, if the first fire engine takes longer than those times for up to 11% of critical fires, the County Council can still claim to have met their target.

Nationally, the number of fires and fire deaths are reducing, although the percentage of fire deaths to fires is increasing. Slower response times are inevitably playing their part in that. Sadly, it is even worse in West Sussex where both the number of fire deaths and the percentage of fire deaths to fires are both increasing.

If West Sussex County Council genuinely want to reduce fire deaths, they must improve resources and bring response times down

An open letter to West Sussex County Council Leader Louise Goldsmith

I know that some hoped that common sense would return to West Sussex County Council after Sean Ruth turned down the expensive job they created for him. Sadly not, they are still planning to have both a Chief Fire Officer and an Executive Director, Communities and Public Protection. I have therefore written an open letter to Council Leader Louise Goldsmith - 

Dear Councillor Goldsmith,

We were told that reduced Government funding had forced the County Council to make significant cuts to the fire & rescue service. This has increased response times, which has put residents and their property at greater risk. Those cuts included the removal of three front-line fire engines at Midhurst, Petworth and Storrington to save just £63,000. 

Yet, despite the shortage of money, the Council has now advertised for an Executive Director, Communities and Public Protection that will cost close to £200,000 a year. For at least three years the previous Chief Fire Officer ran the directorate, apparently to your satisfaction. It is therefore astonishing that the Council now considers it necessary to appoint someone to supervise the new Chief Fire Officer, especially as around 90% of the directorate’s budget is for the fire & rescue service.

Chief Fire Officers in other County Councils also run extra Council departments, but don’t cost their Councils as much as the West Sussex Chief Fire Officer, let alone the ridiculous sum to be paid to the Executive Director. Gloucestershire, for example, has a Chief Fire Officer who is also responsible for road safety, trading standards, information and communication technologies, registration and coroners services, civil protection and community safety, but costs the Council less than £150,000 a year.

The decision to more than double the Directorate's senior management costs, to nearly £400,000, flies in the face of both common sense and prudent financial oversight. I would therefore urge you to immediately stop the unnecessary appointment of an Executive Director, Communities and Public Protection.

I will be grateful if you would also answer the following questions:

1. Why is the new Chief Fire Officer considered incapable of managing the directorate without an expensive supervisor?

2. Why does a directorate that now has fewer employees need additional senior management?

3. Why have County Councillors not been consulted on such a significant and costly change?

4. Is there a business case to support the change (i.e. documentation setting out the justification, rationale and costs) and, if not, why not?

5. If there is a business case, then why has the Council been frustrating a legitimate Freedom of Information Act request to produce it for over six months?

6. Who approved the splitting of the Executive Director/Chief Fire Officer post in to two separate posts at a cost of nearly £400,000?

As this is a matter of significant concern, I have copied other interested parties in to the letter. I will be grateful if you would copy them in to your reply please.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Morris

July Update

Firefighters still busy, just taking longer to get there

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.”

Thanks and seasons greetings

Just wanted to say a big thank you to all who have supported the campaign to protect West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service from such damaging and unnecessary cuts. I also want to wish you all a very safe and happy Christmas.

How many firefighters should be on a fire engine

West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service has just launched a much needed recruitment campaign for Retained (Part time) Firefighters with an excellent video. In it they show exactly how many firefighters should be in the rear cab of a fully crewed fire engine. Sadly that does not reflect today's reality, and it certainly does not reflect Hampshire Fire Authority's proposed cuts, which will also affect parts of West Sussex.

Cuts Will Cost Lives

This is what Councillors seem oblivious to and senior officers seem to have forgotten about. 

This rescue in Suffolk at the weekend involved two ladders, at least six firefighters engaged in the rescue and at least eleven firefighters at the incident when the rescue was carried out. 

Crews of four don't cut it and Hampshire's proposed crews of two in a van are a sick joke.

Incidents like this don't happen every day, but no one knows where or when they will happen. 

There is absolutely no doubt, cutting resources will cost lives. Well done to the firefighters involved.

If further confirmation that cuts cost lives is required, just read this:

Crawley firefighters get new £280,000 fire engine

Crawley firefighters get new £280,000 fire engine with more powerful hoses and bigger water tank

Whilst it is very good to see that replacement fire engines are being provided by the County Council, this story hides the serious deterioration in fire cover in West Sussex.

New vehicles, such as this, do bring some benefits for certain incidents, but in no way do they compensate for the Council's cuts to fire engines and firefighters in Crawley. Before 2010 there were five fire engines and crews in the Borough, now there are just two. Before 2010 at least two simultaneous emergencies could be dealt with by those resources. Now, when there is a building fire in the town, anyone else needing help in Crawley has to wait for help to arrive from towns several miles away. Simultaneous calls are not uncommon, especially in Crawley, and the delayed response to those calls increases the risk to life and to property. 

Cabinet Member David Barling should remember the words of his predecessor, Lionel Barnard, 'it is not fire engines that put fires out, it is firefighters'. Not only has the total number of firefighters in Crawley been drastically cut, but the number on each fire engine has been cut. That significantly restricts what the first crew can do until more fire engines and firefighters arrive. It also reduces firefighter safety, by putting pressure on them to act without adequate resources. 

Replacing fire engines with ones fitted with the latest technology is to be welcomed, but our safety also depends on sufficient fire engines and firefighters being available. County Council cuts and their failure to ensure that all fire engines are crewed around the clock has made West Sussex, and Crawley in particular, less safe.

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.” 

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.

West Sussex tops both Fire Death & Fire Casualty tables again

So much for all the false reassurances about prevention being the answer, which they have been saying for years now. Prevention and response are both needed, yet West Sussex County Council have cut both.

West Sussex has had the most fire deaths and injuries, per head of population, of any area in the south-east, including London, for the second year running! Previous cuts are coming home to roost, more are just not acceptable.

Petition: Stop fire engine and firefighter cuts in West Sussex

The County Council continues to ignore the dangers of their planned cuts to the fire and rescue service. After discussions with other interested parties, it has been decided to launch an online petition calling for the cuts to be stopped.

Please 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 instead.

Your signature will not be included until you have confirmed the link sent to you by email. If you do not receive this email, please check your spam folder.

Please share this petition and encourage people to sign. If at least 3,000 signatures are received from West Sussex residents, workers, or students the County Council will have to debate it.

A Conservative who cares about the public

It seems that not all Conservatives are hell bent on cuts that will put the public at risk - "Two thirds support policing precept increase" in Sussex.

I am not a great fan of Police & Crime Commissioners, but it seems they are prepared to give the public the choice of paying a little more to protect their services. 

Unlike West Sussex Conservatives, who are happy to sacrifice the lives of some residents, just so they can say 'we have not increased Council Tax'. We knew the WSCC consultation on the fire cuts was a sham when residents were denied the option to pay a little more to avoid cutting fire engines and firefighters. Had the public been given that option I am sure there would have been as much, if not more, support for their fire and rescue service. 

It also seems that the police in Surrey and Hampshire will be protected from extra cuts. 

Press cover WSFRS secrecy

For those that have not seen this in the Crawley News

It is interesting that the spokesman mentions 'conspiracy theories', as I had not considered there may be an organised conspiracy. I had just thought the changes were poor decision making by one or more people in the service. Now you have to wonder if their actions are more sinister and co-ordinated!

Fire & Rescue Service or Secret Service in West Sussex - part 2

Having circulated a press release to the media on this, I have had a number of calls from them today. Interestingly some of them told me that they were suspicious when WSFRS stopped saying where appliances were sent from. Surprise, surprise, some also suspected a connection between this change and the cuts, and they have certainly not been impressed with the official excuse.

One of the things I was involved with, during my time with WSCC, was training for responder organisations in Sussex about information provision to the media and the public. I have also attended events with national and international speakers on the subject. Time and again speakers have said that the reputation of organisations depends on information being timely, accurate and honest.

WSFRS media professionals have attended some of this training, so I feel sure they would have advised against these changes. As for information requests, I cannot believe that any media professional would refuse it, unless there are specific legal reasons, or unless instructed to do so by senior officers.

More information is emerging about things that can be hidden by this new policy, which I see seems to have started just before Christmas. It appears that when there was a serious house fire in Crawley on the 30th December, the first pump to arrive was Horsham and the response time was some 15 minutes.

This was apparently because two Crawley pumps and the Reigate pump, out posted to Horley, were at other incidents. I don’t know if it was the same incident, as details have come from various sources. Crawley’s 3^rd was not available. Crawley’s two then became available and were sent on the ‘make pumps four’ request. Turners Hill (only available 72% of the time in 2013-14) and Horsham’s 3^rd (only available 52% of the time) were luckily available this time and responded to the ‘make pumps 6’ request.

If West Sussex County Council wants to avoid further reputational damage, they need to quickly reverse the decision to withhold station details on incident information. If they really want to avoid accusations of cover up, they should start including the response times. Now that really would be honest.

Unbelievable nonsense from the County Council about next years cuts

West Sussex to consider £124m ‘savings’

Who on Earth is Richard Burrett trying to kid when he says, "they are savings, they are not cuts". At the last County Council meeting Richard Burrett and his Conservative cronies voted against a motion to stop cuts to the fire service. 

His administration is cutting five fire engines in the County next year, even though the Council's own report shows that this will mean longer response times, more property damage and more deaths. They are also cutting the number of firefighters, which will mean more cases of fire engines not being available, or having to respond with insufficient crews to carry out rescues.

All this after changes they have made since 2010, which include cutting 3 fire stations and 6 fire engines. Those changes resulted in longer response times and deteriorating availability of retained (on call) crewed fire engines. Despite claims of more prevention work, fire deaths have increased in West Sussex every year since 2008/09.

You may drive past your local fire station and see a modern fire engine waiting to respond, but if you have an emergency there is no guarantee it will come to your aid. For example the retained crewed fire engine in East Wittering was available for 89% of the time in 2012/13, but last year was only available 47% of the time. For more than half the year people in the area had to wait for help from Chichester or from further afield.

Do not be fooled, this Conservative administration is doing their Conservative Government's bidding and cutting essential services. Party interests are taking priority over the welfare of West Sussex residents and their cuts will even cost some West Sussex residents their lives.

Remembrance a time to reflect on future as well as past

A well written and thought provoking article in the West Sussex Gazette

"Indeed I am still rather amazed that ‘savings’ of £1.6 million have been passed by West Sussex Country Council for its Fire services without much in the way of anger. Whilst others nod in understanding at the outrage in the adjustment of working lifetimes and pensions to Firefighters."