Reckless decisions put more South West lives in danger

Cornwall

No rescue ladder at Launceston

Cornwall County Council's decision to remove the only fire engine with a long ladder (13.5 metres) from Launceston fire station was bizarre. I wanted to see the risk assessment that lay behind this decision, so I submitted a freedom of information request for details. Not only did they fail to respond in the time required by law, but they have not provided all the information.

One of several buildings in Launceston where a 13.5 metre ladder is needed

From the limited information they did provide it is very clear that they failed to carry out a proper risk assessment before removing this particular ladder. The only risk assessment they have provided is generic, and relates to the introduction of a specific type of new fire engines. The brief section refers to the inability of these fire engines to carry a 13.5 metre ladder and how they will have to carry a shorter 10.5 metre ladder instead.

Astonishingly, the risk assessment says that the likely harm or loss resulting from this is firefighters being unable to reach a casualty and:

Injury/death 

to personnel 

or public

Yet despite this, they go ahead with their reckless gamble. They naïvely suggest that the fire safety legislation, which only applies to certain buildings, and fire safety initiatives in the home, which don't reach everybody, are adequate control measures. They also try to justify this folly by saying these ladders are rarely used. In doing so they ignore the reality that they have no idea where or when one will next be needed to save a life.

It is even more astonishing when you realise that, in the recent past, Launceston firefighters rescued a woman in the nick of time using their 13.5 metre ladder. Without that ladder the woman would have died a horrible death, whilst firefighters stood helpless. 

A woman clinging to this chimney could only be reached with a 13.5 metre ladder

It is also disturbing that Cornwall Council, which claims to be "committed to open and transparent government", has refused to provide all the information they hold. The excuse, disclosure would "prejudice commercial interests", and they consider that more important than the public's right to know.

I suspect the real reason is that the information includes emails that cast doubt on this reckless decision. Cornwall Council clearly have something to hide. 

There is no commercial interest, 

but there is a strong public interest on a matter of life and death.

Devon & Somerset

Plymouth residents exposed to additional risk

The stupidity of replacing properly equipped fire engines with RIVs (Really Inadequate Vehicles) was illustrated again today, when Plymouth fire crews were dealing with a serious fire. Instead of fully equipped fire engines being sent to Greenbank fire station, which is the city's busiest, two RIVs were sent to provide inadequate protection to Plymouth residents. They came from Ashburton and Moretonhampstead where, until recently, both stations had been provided with fully equipped fire engines.

This is worse than the inadequate Cornwall changes, as the RIVs only carry 9 metre ladders, and it could have been even worse. Had it not been for public protest, the RIVs would only have been carrying 5 metre ladders! Even so, there are many buildings in Plymouth with occupied floors above 9 metres where, if a fire breaks out when Really Inadequate Vehicles are on standby, lives could be lost. 

The policy of removing fully equipped fire engines from many fire stations and replacing them with second class and third class vehicles is fundamentally flawed. The farce of today's inadequate cover was a predicted consequence of this reckless policy. It was recognised by experienced serving and retired firefighters, but conveniently dismissed by inept managers to cut costs. 

The people of Devon & Somerset deserve properly equipped fire engines, not inadequately equipped vans.

Animals in Devon better protected than people

Another recently highlighted inadequacy is the provision of Heavy Rescue Tenders in Devon. Heavy Rescue Tenders (HRT) carry equipment needed at more difficult and complex rescues, such as road traffic collisions (RTC) involving lorries, railway accidents, building collapses, and heavy machinery accidents. 

Much better provision for people in Somerset than in Devon

Devon is around double the size of Somerset and has more than double the number of people living there. Yet, there is only one Heavy Rescue Tender in Devon (at Middlemoor), whilst there are three in Somerset (Glastonbury, Taunton and Yeovil). It is even more illogical, as fire crews in Devon attend more road traffic collisions than fire crews in Somerset. 

Most of Devon without adequate Heavy Rescue Tender cover

A recent RTC in East Devon occurred whilst the Devon HRT was unavailable, so the HRT from Yeovil was sent. That distance was perhaps not too bad, but what if that RTC had been at Hartland, Ilfracombe, Plymouth or Tavistock? The golden hour, the optimum time to release trapped and injured casualties and get them into a hospital, would be more than used up just waiting for the HRT to arrive.

If animals get into difficulty in North or West Devon, specialist rescue vehicles and crews are available at Barnstaple and Plymouth. Yet people seriously trapped in those areas are dependent on the Heavy Rescue Tender from Exeter, or if that is unavailable, one of the Somerset ones.

DSFRS is clearly aware that this makes no sense, as they seek to justify the unjustifiable on their website. They say it is, "so that they can be close to the major road arteries entering and leaving the two counties, and to cover important road junctions within the counties". 

Are they really unaware of the the major road arteries between Cornwall and Devon (A30, A38 and A39), and do they not care about the many important road junctions in the other two thirds of Devon?

The discrepancy may pre-date the amalgamation of the two services, but failing to improve provision in the following 15 years is a continuing and unacceptable failure. 

Heavy Rescue Tender provision in Devon 

must be increased to the Somerset standard

Fire Authority stealth cuts put lives and property at risk

Ashburton area protection downgraded and more to follow

Just a couple of years after Ashburton residents successfully fought to save their fire station, the Conservative controlled fire & rescue authority has stabbed them in the back. In a secret move, Ashburton's properly equipped fire engine has been removed and replaced with a poorly equipped van.

The so called Rapid Intervention Vehicle (RIV) has previously 

been dubbed by firefighters as a 'Really Inadequate Vehicle'. 

Whilst a few fire stations are having their older fire engines replaced with new, fully equipped Medium Rescue Pumps (MRP), others are being downgraded. In recent years, the fire & rescue authority has replaced many proper fire engines with less capable Light Rescue Pumps (LRP). Compared to the MRP, the LRP effectively provides residents with a second class service, whilst the RIV only provides a third class service.

A report told Councillors about these inadequacies nearly five years ago, and the purchase of more RIVs was put on hold after local protests. However, since then they have bought another five, and they seem determined to blunder on and downgrade the protection offered to many communities. The report said: 

"LRP’s and RIV’s do not carry the same quantity of equipment carried by the MRP’s." 

The effect of downgrading from a MRP to a RIV

How many buildings have windows that the 9-metre ladder can’t reach?

I don’t know, but worryingly, neither did the fire & rescue service when they chose the locations for RIVs. They have no idea how many lives are now at increased risk in the Ashburton area, or anywhere else.

DSFRS will claim that not many rescues are carried out with a 13.5 metre ladder (carried on the MRP). How often is irrelevant, they are still carried out from time to time, and no one knows when or where the next one will be. DSFRS excuses will be of no comfort to someone trapped by the next life threatening fire and, if they don't survive, it will be of even less comfort to family and friends of the victim.

Not only less water, but also less ability to obtain additional water for firefighting

As well as having less than half the water carried on a MRP, the RIVs are less well equipped to obtain additional supplies. With only half the hose on a MRP, more fires will see the RIV too far away from hydrant supplies. How many more? Again, the fire & rescue service failed to check, but a lot more buildings will be too far away. 

Without a portable pump, they cannot reach water supplies that are only accessible on foot. It was only last week when portable pumps were used at two fires. Near Staverton, two portable pumps were needed at a fire that could only be accessed on foot, and at Ilfracombe two portable pumps had to be used to boost water supplies at a major fire.

Even if there is access to open water, the 25% cut in the amount of suction hose carried on the RIV may mean it is still too far away to be used. 

Other equipment no longer carried, or reduced, includes

No Roof Ladder - which means firefighters cannot safely access the roof for rescue or firefighting. 

No Gas Tight Suits - no protection for firefighters from hazardous materials.

No Foam - firefighters unable to fight fires involving flammable liquids.

No Winch - this reduces the ability to rescue people trapped in road crashes or in other hazardous situations.

No Positive Pressure Fan - unable to remove harmful smoke from burning buildings to improve visibility for rescue and firefighting.

Beaters reduced by 66% - With just two carried, and much less water available, the ability of firefighters to tackle wildland fires (field, gorse, grass, woodland etc.) is seriously reduced. 

Hosereels reduced by 50% - With just one hosereel, instead of two, this limits the ability of firefighters to stop fires spreading. It also halves the distance that can be reached from the vehicle. On a MRP, the second hose reel can be attached to the first to double the distance that can be reached.

Breathing Apparatus cut by 25% - For safety, firefighters wearing breathing apparatus sets must work in pairs, so the cut from four sets to three is, in practice, a 50% cut in operational capability.

The real risk

Nearly 8,000 people live in the area covered by Ashburton fire station, with many more visiting and travelling through the area on ordinary roads and the busy A38. The Ashburton crew also regularly go to other areas to provide assistance or to provide cover when local crews are committed. 

There was a perfect illustration of the folly of using RIVs last week, when Ashburton's RIV ended up in Plymouth to provide cover when all their crews were attending a serious fire. The RIV is inadequate for protecting people in and around Ashburton, so is totally inadequate for the significant risk in Plymouth. There are many taller residential buildings, where someone could easily be trapped beyond the reach of a 9 metre ladder, and there are significant risks in Plymouth, including the nationally important Royal Navy dockyard.

Will your area be next for 3rd class protection?

After the public outcry about fire station closures and the use of RIVs, all but one of the fire stations was saved and the fire engine replacement scheme was put on hold. It now seems that the Fire & Rescue Authority has secretly resumed replacing fully equipped fire engines with inadequately equipped vans.

A Freedom of Information request has already shown that claims they had properly risk assessed this flawed replacement policy were false. Councillors should have taken action against those responsible for the false claims. Claims that are now putting lives and property in greater danger. 

The 5 RIVs recently purchased brings the total to 20, but original plans were for 45. If that is implemented, there will be very long waits for vital equipment that is not carried on RIVs. The map below shows the original planned locations.

As per the plan, RIVs are now at Ashburton, Chard, Dartmouth, Ilfracombe, Kingston, Okehampton, Princetown, Tavistock, Teignmouth, Williton, Wells, and Woolacombe. Not in the plan, Moretonhampstead and Tiverton have also been allocated a Really Inadequate Vehicle. 

Councillors need to act to stop communities in Devon & Somerset being downgraded to 3rd class protection

Value your safety? Value your fire & rescue service? Then use your vote wisely on May 6th

 If you want a fire & rescue service that keeps you safe, then your vote matters on the 6th of May. Please make sure you are registered and that you use your vote in all the elections on that day. If you are already registered, make it easy to vote by applying for a postal vote, but please note that your completed application form must arrive by 20th April.

I am not a member of a political party and my vote is not guaranteed to any particular party. That is because none of them have policies that I am in full agreement with, so when I vote I consider the candidates, their policies and their performance. 

Whilst campaigning in support of our fire & rescue services I have engaged with politicians, local and national, from every political party that will listen. I have yet to decide which candidates will get my vote in May and I will not try to influence anyone else to vote for specific candidates or political parties. 

However, based on past performance, the one thing I am sure of is that I will not be voting for any Conservative candidates. That is because Conservative Government policies and Conservative Councillors on fire & rescue authorities have, over the last ten years, done immense damage to our fire & rescue service. 

As a result we are all less safe

Policies and decisions have not only been inept, they have been arrogantly steamrollered through with dishonest claims, unsubstantiated assurances and inadequate scrutiny.

Thanks to significant public protest in 2019, the cuts planned by the Conservative controlled Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority were watered down. Yet nine frontline fire engines have been removed, which means longer response times when an additional fire engine is required in those areas. For example, when a second fire engine and crew is needed in Lynton, for a second incident or to assist the first crew, it now has to travel at least 13 miles. Even more if the nearest crew is unavailable.

Unfortunately, you cannot directly vote for Members of the Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority, as they are Councillors appointed by Devon County Council, Somerset County Council, Torbay Council and Plymouth City Council. So, it is in elections for those councils that you should consider your vote wisely.

The threat to other fire stations has not gone away

The Conservatives made it quite clear that they have not abandoned plans to close Appledore, Ashburton, Colyton, Kingston, Porlock and Woolacombe. They said they "will be subject to periodic review", which means the axe is still hanging over them.

Conservative Councillors are also still trying to bully firefighters at Barnstaple, Exmouth and Paignton into accepting new shift systems that will increase response times at night in those areas. 

A shabby way to treat dedicated staff and wholly irresponsible 

to use the safety of the public as a bargaining chip in staff negotiations.

From Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services inspection report

Third rate fire appliances

Conservative Councillors also approved the replacement of 45 fully equipped fire engines with inadequately equipped vans. They claimed that risk assessments had been carried out but there is no documentation to substantiate that claim. An investigation by the Information Commissioner found that not only were there no risk assessments, there were no reports, no memos, no emails, absolutely nothing to show that RIV locations were determined by the risk in those areas. 

This dishonesty was exposed after 15 Rapid Intervention Vehicles, dubbed Really Inadequate Vehicles by many firefighters, had been supplied. There are disturbing rumours that Conservative Councillors intend to increase the number of these third rate vehicles. Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service had similar plans but wisely decided to trial them before placing an order. They concluded they were inadequate and abandoned their plans in favour of more compact but well equipped fire engines.

The Conservative Government is now talking about taking the fire & rescue service away from fire & rescue authorities and giving control to Police & Crime Commissioners (PCC). There is no justification for this PCC empire building, and it will give the public even less of a say in how their fire & rescue services are run.

Conservatives, local and national, have already seriously undermined the ability of our firefighters to respond quickly and effectively when lives and property are in danger. Their plans will see that response get ever longer and less effective.

Fire & Rescue Services are not safe in Conservative hands