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?

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.

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

County Council failing residents once again

 County Councillors blocked from discussing Government plans for fire & rescue

In May, the Government launched a consultation on changes to the fire & rescue service. They include proposals that could see West Sussex County Council no longer being the fire & rescue authority, with the service handed over to the Police & Crime Commissioner.

Previously, the Council unanimously opposed any such change and agreed to fight any proposals. Yet, not only have County Councillors not seen the Council's response to the consultation, the Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee is today being blocked from scrutinising that response.

When I raised my concerns with the Chairman of the committee, Kevin Boram, he told me that they can't scrutinise this important matter, because it "is for the Governance Committee and the Cabinet to lead and scrutiny to contribute in due course".

With the consultation closing on 26 July, it is patently obvious that there will be no scrutiny, as the committee won't meet again until it is too late. The Governance Committee met in June but did not consider the Government White Paper and won't meet again until after the closing date. The Cabinet has also failed to consider the White Paper and even cancelled their June meeting, because "there is no substantive business or decisions required".  

The whole point of having a Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee is to scrutinise all actions and decisions that affect the delivery of the fire & rescue service. That must include the actions and decisions of the Cabinet Member and the Cabinet, as they materially affect the ability of the fire & rescue service to deliver an effective service.

It seems that Councillor Boram has been fobbed off and that Cabinet Member Duncan Crow does not want any Councillors to comment on the Council's response. The question is why, is he reneging on the Council's previous assurances and supporting the Government's plans? 

Councillors should demand answers and insist on the Council's consultation response being published in full.

Performance still inadequate

The reports for today's meeting continue to show that West Sussex residents are being failed by the fire & rescue service. That is not the fault of staff in the service, but the failure of West Sussex County Council to properly resource the service.

Surrey County Council still failing to meet their commitment

Despite all the previous assurances that steps are being taken to improve the time it takes the Surrey County Council run joint fire control to answer emergency calls, performance has dropped by 6.4% this quarter to just 91.1% of them answered in time. After they lowered the performance standard to make it easier to achieve the target, this is especially concerning. Staff in fire control always do their best, so this is either a problem of inadequate numbers of staff, poor technology, or inadequate procedures.

Response times continue to disappoint

It is disturbing to see slight response time improvements in quarter four of 2021/22, compared to last quarter, hailed as a 'particular success'. Failing to meet the response target for the arrival of the first fire engine, of 12 to 14 minutes, at 11% of critical fires can hardly be called a success. Especially when compared to neighbouring services with a target of 8 to 10 minutes. 

It is also notable that the figure for the whole of 2021/22 is worse than the previous year.

Failing to meet targets for the the arrival of the second fire engine at critical fires, and the first fire engine at critical special services (e.g., road traffic collisions with people trapped) at one in five incidents is again not a 'particular success'.

I have no doubt that everyone in the service is doing their best, but they cannot achieve an acceptable performance if they are not given the right resources. You can't expect a motor sport team to win Formula One races, if management only provides them with Go Karts. West Sussex County Council continue to ignore the reality that removing a quarter of frontline fire engines and crews is the principal reason why residents are not getting a proper service.

Crucial retained firefighter availability still in decline

The report also shows that the Council is still failing to reliably crew the remaining frontline fire engines. During the day, two thirds of frontline fire engines depend on retained (on call) firefighters. At night, three quarters of frontline fire engines depend on them. Looking at the figures for previous years, it is clear that the improvement in the availability during the last two years was purely the effect of the pandemic. With many retained firefighters furloughed from their fulltime jobs, or working from home, they were available more often for response to emergencies. 

The chart shows that the general trend for availability is continuing to deteriorate.

Source - WSFRS performance reports

Although Councillors have been reviewing this problem, the solutions they have come up with are unlikely to halt this decline. Radical measures are required, more funding allocated, and Government must be persuaded to improve pay and conditions for firefighters, both retained and wholetime.

Councillors must stop excusing these failures as 'national problems' and act to properly protect West Sussex residents

 

Standards cut to hide Fire Control failures & worst WSFRS performance for 18 months

Joint Fire Control failure cover up

Papers before today's Fire & Rescue Service Scrutiny Committee meeting reveal West Sussex County Council's shabby plan to drop their agreed standard for the Joint Fire Control to answer 98% of '999' calls within 7 seconds. This is something that any well staffed and efficient fire & rescue service control room should be able to achieve.

Yet since the joint Surrey/West Sussex Fire Control began dealing with West Sussex emergencies, they have consistently failed to meet this standard.

False claim

To make matters worse, they are dishonestly claiming that answering 95% of '999' calls in 10 seconds is a national performance standard. It is nothing of the sort. They have hijacked this from the Code of Practice for Public Emergency Call Service document, which is merely a working agreement between communications providers and the emergency services.

Unlike a proper performance standard, which focuses on keeping the public safe, this is simply an agreement by the emergency services to help communications providers reduce the time they spend on transferring calls. It is not about public safety, but about freeing up '999' call handler time, so communications providers, like BT, won't need to employ more staff.

This agreement was mostly about what police and ambulance services could achieve with their significantly higher call volumes. It is not an acceptable standard for fire & rescue services. Surrey County Council, who manage the Joint Fire Control, must be required to deliver their promised level of service. 

There is no legitimate excuse for Joint Fire Control failing to answer 98% of '999' calls within 7 seconds. That standard must remain in place and be met.

Failing to alert fire stations on time

Not only is the Joint Fire Control missing their target for answering '999' calls, they are also failing to ensure that fire stations are alerted within 2 minutes of the emergency call being received on 98% of calls.

The excuses offered in the report for consistently being over 10% below standard do not stack up. The previous joint East/West Sussex Fire Control faced exactly the same challenges and performed much better.

The 'deep dive' review promised in the report is to be welcomed, but these failings suggest there are fundamental weaknesses in this Joint Fire Control. Concerns have already been raised about a failure to ensure there are enough staff available, and there may be other problems contributing to these failures. 

Questions have to be asked about whether this so called 'state of the art' mobilising system is part of the problem (there have been reports from others using the same system of slow running at times), is it the loss of local knowledge, is it unnecessarily time consuming procedures, is it inadequate training etc? 

Whatever lies behind this unsatisfactory performance, which delays help reaching West Sussex residents, it must be fixed urgently. 

Poor performance

The performance report for the second quarter of 2021-22 shows the worst decline of the last six quarterly reports. Fourteen of the thirty core performance measures are worse, with some being the worst for 18 months.

Those affecting how quickly help reaches people in trouble are the most troubling. In addition to the fire control failures, overall response times for the first fire engine to arrive at critical fires and at critical special services, such as road traffic collisions with people trapped, are the worst of the last six quarters. 

The latest figures show that they failed to achieve the generous response target times (12 minutes for 37% and 14 minutes for 61% of the County) at a shocking 17.5% critical fires. 

The target for those needing rescue from crashed road vehicles and from other hazardous situations is 13 minutes, yet in the latest quarter shown the failure occurred on nearly one in four emergencies.

You will also notice the worrying downward trendline on these graphs. Sadly, the underlying reasons for these performance failures is West Sussex County Council's funding and staffing cuts.

Despite these being core measures in the West Sussex County Council Plan, they have not been selected for examination by the Scrutiny Committee.

We keep getting excuses about the failure to properly crew Retained (On Call) fire engines, but little effective action. Things continue to get worse.

Proposals 2 and 3 in the Community Risk Management Plan consultation, which will see extra wholetime firefighters employed, is the first measure likely to improve this poor performance. Those proposals should be supported. 

However, I am concerned they may be too little, and they are certainly too late to help the many West Sussex residents who have had to wait an unacceptably long time for help to arrive.

Between them, Government and West Sussex County Council have inflicted serious damage on the Fire & Rescue Service's effectiveness to help those in trouble. 

They both need to do more.

Why do decision makers never learn?

Friday was a depressing day for anyone concerned with fire safety and the fire & rescue service.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08wv2wc/south-today-evening-news-07072017

First, we learnt from local news that, following last year’s fire, the Trust running the Selsey Academy does not intend to fit sprinklers when they rebuild the school. Professional advice and common sense say that sprinklers should be fitted, but TKAT (The Kemnal Academies Trust) say they won’t, because they are “not a requirement”. Well, it is not a requirement to look for traffic before crossing the road, it is just a recommendation, but only a fool does not do so.

TKAT claim, “Our pupils are at the heart of everything we do”, but this shows that they are not. They may believe their procedures will protect the lives of pupils, but major school fires have many other consequences. Studies have shown that they have a detrimental effect on pupils’ education, which leads to lower than expected achievement. They cause emotional distress for staff, pupils and the wider community. They also have a negative impact on the school’s social life, and an economic impact on the school, local authority, parents, staff and community groups.

Not forgetting of course, that such fires pose a danger to firefighters and to nearby property. All these negative effects and risks can easily be avoided by fitting sprinklers, which is comparatively cheap in a new building. This selfish and short-sighted decision begs the question, what other recommendations and good practice do TKAT ignore, simply because they are “not a requirement”? TKAT, who run a dozen schools in West Sussex, must reconsider and do the right thing for pupils, staff, local residents and firefighters.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08xk42y/newsnight-07072017

The second shock was the revelation, on BBC Newsnight, that firefighters might have saved everyone in Grenfell Tower, if senior managers had made different decisions before the incident.

Crucial amongst them was the policy decision to no longer automatically send an aerial appliance to high-rise building fires. Firefighters had to request one, which meant it arrived over half an hour after the first call. I believe that there was every possibility that the external fire spread could have been stopped, if the aerial appliance had arrived in 11 minutes (time it took to arrive after being requested), instead of taking 32 minutes to get there.

The other fundamental issue, which the presenter easily recognised, but ex-Chief Fire Officer Ronnie King failed to recognise, was the absence of a plan B. We know that fires in this sort of building are supposed to stay in the flat of origin, but we also know that things can sometimes go wrong. Yet, it seems fire service planning, procedures and equipment only ever allowed for plan A. If everything and everyone does what is expected, then that is fine, but if not you need a plan B. I have to say that Ronnie King’s comments were very disappointing and illustrated by his comment, “I wouldn’t want to criticise any policy of London Fire Brigade”.

This fire appears to have spread beyond the flat of origin because of alterations, but there are many other situations where plan A will not work and a plan B becomes essential. For example, explosions that damage the structure. These can result from gas leaks, gas cylinders, illegal drug labs or bomb making. They can range from something as simple as fire doors not being shut, or fire spreading via open windows, to damage caused by a light aircraft hitting the building.

Cuts made in 2014 inevitably slowed the response to the Grenfell Tower fire. Six central London fire stations were closed and other fire stations lost their second fire engine, so reinforcing fire crews had to travel further and took longer to arrive. There was also a delay in getting extended duration breathing apparatus to the incident. With a high probability of it being needed in a high-rise building fire, why was it not on the initial response?

Both the aerial appliance and extended duration breathing apparatus issues suggest a worrying complacency amongst senior fire service managers, or a lack of experience, or inadequate risk assessment, or a blinkered mindset, or all of those.

The communication problems resulted from both equipment and procedural limitations, but these are not new. So why has nothing been done to overcome them? As for water supplies, I am not surprised that Thames Water claim there was no problem. It would not be the first time they denied responsibility and then later, when that did not work, claimed it was someone else’s fault. However, unlike other countries, there are no legal requirements for water companies to provide a specific quantity and pressure of water for firefighting in the UK. This was not such an issue when water supply was in public ownership, but things seem to have deteriorated with privatisation. Perhaps another issue in need of reform.

So, how would West Sussex cope with such a fire? Well, I understand that WSFRS do send an aerial appliance as part of the initial response to a high-rise building fire. A positive, but tempered by the fact that, for many parts of the County, the response time could be over 30 minutes and in worst cases over an hour. With greater distances, fire station closures and the removal of a quarter of frontline crews in West Sussex, standard fire engines would also take much longer to arrive than they did in London.

I am not aware of WSFRS having any extended duration breathing apparatus, or where the nearest would be. Water supplies and communications are unlikely to be any better and could well be worse than in London. If anyone can clarify these points, I would like to hear from you.

As for plan B, I don’t have confidence that this has been considered in West Sussex. Risk assessment seems to have been focused on finding excuses to cut resources, rather than reasons to ensure that the public and firefighters are properly protected. When you realise that someone in WSFRS looked at the problems posed by larger aircraft, with more passengers and fuel, and then decided to reduce the service’s response to aircraft emergencies, it is difficult to have confidence in plan A, let alone plan B!

I believe one of the significant problems in relation to both stories is applying business planning methods to the public sector. In the business world, if it will cost more to produce something than you will get back in sales, then you don’t do it. If you are already doing it, then you stop doing it. In the public sector there are no sales, so in the cost/benefit analysis the costs are easily worked out, but the benefits are less tangible.

So, for the Selsey Academy, did they include in the benefits column not damaging pupils’ education, not causing emotional distress to staff, pupils and the wider community, not harming the school’s social life, avoiding an economic impact on the school, local authority, parents, staff and community groups, not putting neighbouring properties at risk, and not endangering the lives of firefighters? I suspect not.

In the case of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, were assessments prepared regarding the decision to no longer send aerial appliances to high-rise buildings, and before cutting the number of aerial appliances in LFB? If they were, I am sure that the benefits column did not include avoiding dozens of fire deaths. It is also telling that in every city in the rest of Europe and in North America, one or more aerial appliances would have been sent immediately to a fire in a building like Grenfell Tower.

It is simply not good enough for anyone, be they property owners, fire service managers or politicians, to increase the risk to the public and firefighters. Lessons must be properly learnt, acted on, and never forgotten.