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

Revised proposals will still put lives in danger

I can understand why some may wish to celebrate the Chief Fire Officer's  revised proposals, but they should not do so too quickly. There is still much to be concerned about. Some people will have to wait longer for help to arrive, when help arrives it will often be less effective, and some cuts may be resurrected soon.

Topsham and Budleigh Salterton to close

It is not clear if the Topsham fire engine being moved permanently to Service HQ will be available at night. If an On Call crew cannot be recruited for the one eventually being moved to Middlemoor, and the one remaining at Service HQ is not crewed at night, then that would be a reduction of one fire engine during the day and two at night. It is possible that, on balance, these moves could improve response times in the Exeter area, but there are a lot of 'ifs'. The haste to close Topsham before an On Call crew is recruited at Middlemoor raises serious questions about the motive. 

The closure of Budleigh Salterton will be a loss of a fire engine in the area and it will increase some response times. Together with the removal of some second and all third fire engines at other stations this will be a total loss of nine front-line fire engines. That will adversely affect the service's resilience and ability to deal with periods of peak demand. Although they state that firefighters from Budleigh Salterton will be able to respond from Exmouth, it is likely that they will struggle to arrive in time to be able to respond. That could demotivate trained and experienced firefighters and result in some of them quitting the service.

Given the amount of inaccurate information and dubious risk modelling  provided during the consultation, 

it is difficult to have confidence in any of DSFRS's claims regarding these two station closures.

The threat remains for other stations

The future of Appledore, Ashburton, Colyton, Kingston, Porlock and Woolacombe is not guaranteed, the stations simply have a reprieve. The report says that they "will be subject to periodic review", which means the axe is still hanging over them. DSFRS had stopped actively recruiting at those stations long before the consultation, presumably to ensure that the stations' availability did not improve. The threat of review will not help recruitment and retention of staff. Of course that may be the intention, so that availability gets worse and can be used as a justification for closure in the future.

The Fire & Rescue Authority must give assurances that

no closures will take place without further public consultation.

The threat for Barnstaple, Exmouth and Paignton is more imminent, as firefighters are being bullied in to accepting new shift systems. DSFRS is effectively saying, agree to this or we will remove immediate response cover at night for people living in the Barnstaple, Exmouth and Paignton 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.

This tactic suggests that DSFRS has learnt nothing from the disturbing inspection report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. Perhaps not surprising when the Chief Fire Officer thinks bullying and harassment is OK, as long as you call it 'strong management'. 

The Fire & Rescue Authority must respect the public's views and guarantee that 
Barnstaple, Exmouth and Paignton will continue to have an immediate response crew day and night.

Inadequate and unsafe crewing

Then there is the deception of 'aggregate crewing', which is more accurately described as inadequate and unsafe crewing. I do understand why On Call Firefighters are frustrated that they cannot use their training and experience to help people when not enough of their colleagues are available to provide a minimum crew, but DSFRS should not take advantage of that frustration. 

For those with no fire service experience there is a need to understand the full implications of inadequate crewing. The officer in charge and the driver on a fire engine have specific tasks that are critical to safe and effective operations. That leaves the firefighters who arrive in the rear cab of the fire engine to attack the fire and carry out rescue work.

Having just one or no firefighters on a fire engine to

carry out sharp end rescues and firefighting is unacceptable

These rear cab images illustrate the stark deterioration in safety and effectiveness of DSFRS plans

A crew of 4 is barely safe and adequate

A crew of 3 is unsafe and inadequate

A crew of 2 is dangerous and ineffective

The advantage for the Chief Fire Officer is that the arrival of an inadequately crewed vehicle will allow him to stop the clock and claim he has met the response time target. Yet the reality will be that effective action to deal with the emergency will not start until a second fire engine has arrived from another more distant fire station.

It may also give the public the illusion of help arriving, but the reality will be that effective help is still several minutes away. The public may also become incensed when they realise that the two or three firefighters on the first vehicle are unable to take effective action.

If lives are in danger, firefighters will be forced to choose between having to wait for back up, with a strong likelihood that the victim or victims would not survive, or to ignore safety procedures and take unacceptable risks to try and rescue people. Most firefighters will feel compelled to attempt a rescue, which could cost the lives of both victim and firefighter. Responsible Chief Fire Officers have always refused to put their firefighters in that invidious position.

If the Fire & Rescue Authority decide to put firefighters in danger in this way, they must be honest about response times. A response time should only be recorded as met when at least four firefighters have arrived at an incident.

What are the true figures? 

It is also concerning that, once again, the report is missing important information and includes misleading and inaccurate figures.

A glaring omission, with regard to the financial position, is the amount of money that will be available from the council tax precept. This is integrally linked with these proposals and could mean none of the cuts need to happen. Consulting on a precept increase separately denied the public the opportunity of seeing what effect different precepts would have on the case for cuts.

No doubt the excuse will be that the precept consultation only closed two weeks ago and that the budget meeting is not until next month. However, that is no excuse for failing to show the implications of differing precept amounts on the proposals in this report.

Not only does the blatant attempt to deceive the public about the effect of the cuts continues in this report, but they have again manipulated the figures. This table in the report is not, as claimed, comparing 'As is' with options 6 & 7 "based on all fire appliances being available". It is dishonestly comparing poor availability of appliances now, with an idealised future where all appliances are available. That is deception, plain and simple.

In the original consultation document (see below) we were told that, based on all appliances being available, 'as is' (theoretical full availability in the consultation document) was an average of 7.61 fire deaths per year, but now they claim it is 7.99. Similarly, we were originally told that RTC deaths, with all fire appliances available, averaged 33.14 per year, but now they claim it is 33.72. DSFRS seem determined to manipulate the figures to make the cuts appear less damaging than they really are. The figures for option 7 are pure fantasy, as you cannot properly model the effect of roving fire engines.

Extract from the original consultation report

Removal of second and third fire engines will mean delayed responses

These fire engines may not be used as frequently as others, but they play an important part in ensuring proper fire cover. Without them, other fire engines from further away will need to be sent with inevitable delay that could cost lives.

Emergencies are random events and every year there will be several occasions when a call is received in a station's area whilst crews are already attending another incident. The fire stations with three fire engines are busier, so that will happen much more frequently. Without that third fire engine people will have to wait longer for help to arrive from another station. That will also have a knock on effect, as that creates a further gap in that area's protection.

The stations losing second fire engines may not be as busy, but simultaneous emergencies still occur with similar delays. Lynton's isolated location makes this a particular problem. Despite post-war austerity, and many less calls than today, Devon County Council recognised the risk in 1948 and decided that the station should have two fire engines. The 1952 flood tragedy illustrated how important that was, as the two crews were able to split up and save lives in different locations when crews from other stations could not reach the area. 

Chief Fire Officers and Councillors have continued to recognise the importance of keeping two fire engines at Lynton for over 50 years. It has often proved its worth. Yet now, that common sense and professional competence is tossed aside to save a little bit of money. 

It makes no sense to say that Frome will have their second fire engine available 24 hours a day 'due to its distance from other stations', but then permanently remove Lynton's second fire engine when it is even more remote. There are two fire stations with 3 fire engines within 7 miles of Frome. The nearest two fire engines to Lynton are each over 12 miles away and they have to travel on slower roads. If they are unavailable, then the next nearest help is over 18 miles away.

Roving fire engines ineffective and inefficient

To keep six roving fire engines on minimum crew will need 24 firefighters, plus others to cover leave, sickness and training. The chances of them being in the right location for the next emergency is slim, especially if prevention work dictates where they will be. As there is no indication that extra firefighters are to be recruited, there will clearly be a reduction in crewing elsewhere. That has safety implications and will delay responses elsewhere, but it is not explained in the report.

It is also an inefficient way to use 24+ firefighters. The On Call fire engines are rarely unavailable because none of the firefighters are available, it is often that they don't have someone available who is qualified to drive the fire engine or to take charge of an incident. Intelligent deployment of those 24 firefighters could see up to 24 extra fire engines available during the day, not just six. Similarly, they could also be carrying out four times more prevention work, whilst remaining available for any emergencies.

Variable fire appliance availability flawed

The claim that this will be based on risk is untrue. They are simply looking at call frequency in the past and gambling on likelihood in the future. 

The claims about fires being less serious during the day are half truths. National statistics for 2018/19 show that 8.6% of fire deaths in the home occurred between nine and eleven in the evening, yet 9.7% occurred between 9 and 11 in the morning. Similarly, fatalities in fire service attended road crashes between 3 and 5 in the morning amount to 4%, whilst between 3 and 5 in the afternoon they amount to 12.3%.

The risk of someone being trapped in a fire or crash is there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year and exists in every part of Devon & Somerset. DSFRS does not have a crystal ball, they cannot predict when or where someone will need to be rescued or a fire, large or small, needs to be dealt with.

All resources must be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

Unfair Consultation Report

The report is rightly critical of the way the proposals were presented, but Opinion Research Services is wrong to claim that 95% opposition to the proposals is not a balanced picture of general public opinion. The simple truth is that people in Devon and Somerset are not easily manipulated. They saw through the spin and misinformation and resoundingly rejected the proposals.

It is a nonsense to suggest that forums or focus groups would provide a more balanced picture of public opinion. They are particularly unbalanced, as the only information provided to the attendees is in support of the proposed changes. The chances of someone being there with the necessary details and data to challenge unsubstantiated claims and inaccurate data is remote.

The way the report tries to dismiss petitions by saying they "can exaggerate general public sentiment if organised by motivated opponents" is disturbing. That may be their opinion, but it is disrespectful to both those who organised and those who signed the petition. Rather like telling people they were too stupid to know what they were voting for! 

Anyone who has ever organised a petition, or collected signatures for one, knows that it is not an easy task and that people don't sign if they are not convinced it represents their views. An indication of how strong a message these petitions are sending to the Fire & Rescue Authority is that a higher percentage of Devon & Somerset's population signed them than the percentage of the nation's population required to have a petition debated in Parliament. The 3,818 written responses, including 94 from councils and other organisations, was exceptionally high and reflects widespread opposition to the proposed cuts.

Now I understand that Opinion Research Services want to keep their fire & rescue service customers happy. Reports that show as much public support as opposition to proposals will do that, and those with majority support will suit customers even better. So a report in which they have to admit 95% of the responses from the public oppose the proposed cuts is not what their customer, Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service, would have wanted to see. 

I don't believe their recommendations for future consultations will achieve true balance. They seem more intended to limit discussion by giving the public a one sided picture that will make them more likely to support future proposals.

It was 'Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service' that tried to fool the public with false claims and misleading information. I should add that I don't believe their communications team should take the blame, as they can only work with the information and data provided by senior management.

Many good and honest people across Devon & Somerset campaigned to ensure the public realised
 this was not about improvement, but about poorly disguised and dangerous cuts. 

They should all be proud of their efforts, they have helped safeguard lives and property.

Even more concerns after 'Safer Together' consultation live broadcast

If experienced fire service officers are confused, 

how can the public be expected to understand?

It really was depressing to listen to Sarah Allen and Joe Hassell provide inaccurate, misleading and evasive answers to questions during this broadcast. Sadly they are not the only ones, several people have reported the same problems when they asked D&SF&RS staff questions at the consultation events. 

Sarah Allen, Joe Hassell & Ellie Banner-Ball

Joe Hassell got off to a flying start by telling us that they needed to change because, “a lot of our station locations and the way our fire service was designed was essentially around the 1940s”. Not entirely accurate, but it was 1948 when most current fire station locations and fire engine allocations were first approved by the fire authorities and the Home Office.

However, his implied suggestion that things should have changed, but did not, is wrong. Since 1948, Chief Fire Officers and Fire Authorities regularly reviewed and refined arrangements, but found no justification for significant change. Inspections by Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate, for nearly 60 years, and then peer reviews thereafter supported those views.

Joe Hassell was then completely inaccurate when he claimed that “the amount of fires and incidents have reduced drastically since then”, as they have significantly increased since 1948. This chart shows the national figures for dwelling fires (fires in the home) for 1951, the earliest available, and 2017/18, the latest available.

Source - Home Office records

Whilst it is true that the number of fires in the home has nearly halved in the UK since a peak in 1999, it is also true that the peak showed an increase from 1951 of over 250%! D&SF&RS claim the recent 49% reduction in dwelling fires justifies a cut in the number of fire stations and fire crews, so how big was the increase in fire stations and fire crews when there was a 250% increase? There was no increase! There are actually less fire crews now than there were in 1948. The reason is simple, there is not, and never has been, a connection between number of calls and the resources required.

"Fewer fires does not directly equal fewer firefighters. 

We provide a service dependent upon risk, not demand." 

Chief Fire Officers Association (now National Fire Chiefs Council)

Have you got direct evidence that prevention works?

Instead of answering this question from a member of the public accurately, by saying 'NO', Joe Hassell claimed, "We absolutely know that saves lives". Throughout the interview they kept telling us that their prevention work has cut the number of fires and fire deaths and that more prevention work will save more lives. That is not fact, it is wishful thinking. There is no direct evidence that prevention works.

Now I certainly hope that the prevention work I did during my service helped save lives and prevented fires, but I have no way of knowing if fires did not start, or lives were not lost, as a result of that work. What I do know, with absolute certainty, is that we did save lives at many of the fires and other emergencies we attended. 

It is clear that changes in clothing and furniture regulations, the change to safer forms of cooking, safer ways to heat our homes, and the big decrease in smoking, especially in buildings, have significantly cut the number of fires and fire deaths. They are the main reasons and they have little or nothing to do with prevention work carried out by fire & rescue services, as Sarah Allen claimed in the broadcast. 

She also said that they had been investing in community fire safety for over 20 years and proclaimed "we’ll save far more lives by doing prevention work". The statistics do not support that claim.

Tens of thousands of fire safety visits have had this effect on fire deaths in Devon & Somerset

Source - Home Office Fire and Rescue Service statistics

A lack of detailed information

We are frequently told that they are 'Reallocating resources' and 'will do more prevention', but we have not been told how much money will be reallocated for each option. We have not been given any details about how that money will be spent, which makes it impossible to judge the value of each option. It also means, if the cuts go ahead, that we won't know if the claimed prevention improvements were actually implemented.

Now according to Joe Hassell, 93% of homes now have smoke detectors. So D&SF&RS are going to close fire stations and remove fire engines, which will mean a slower response to every emergency in the areas affected, in the hope they can persuade the 7% to fit smoke detectors. That makes no sense.

A delay when your home is on fire, a delay when your business is on fire, a delay when your care home is on fire, a delay when you are trapped in a crashed car, a delay when you are trapped in machinery, a delay when you are trapped in floodwater, all in the hope that a few more people will have a smoke detector in their home.

It should be remembered that for every four fires in peoples homes in Devon & Somerset, there are two fires in other buildings, three vehicle fires, three secondary fires and twenty non-fire emergencies, such as road traffic collisions. The service rescues many more people from non-fire emergencies than they do from fires, and these all need a quick and effective response.

Inaccurate answer about statutory duty

I have to say I was astonished when Sarah Allen said, "we only have two statutory duties - to attend fires and to attend RTCs". For someone who says so much about prevention work, forgetting that prevention is a statutory duty is incredible. 

She seems to have forgotten that regulations made under the Fire & Rescue Services Act extended their duties to include a number of other non-fire emergencies. She also forgot their statutory duty in relation to all emergencies that threaten human welfare and the environment under the Civil Contingencies Act. 

Perhaps she should have read some Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority documents:

Source: Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority Corporate Plan

This extract featured in their Corporate Plan for several years and is still accurate today. Under the same heading, the Fire & Rescue Authority's responsibilities under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 were also explained. 

It was also disingenuous to suggest that they are not funded for other emergencies. Core funding from Government and Council Taxpayers is for providing a fire & rescue service and has nothing to do with specific types of emergency. They also receive additional specific funding from Government for specialist rescue work and from the ambulance service for responding to medical emergencies.

Excluding certain emergencies from the data used in the consultation, and for the modelling, appears to be a deliberate attempt by Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service to mislead the public on the real effects of their proposals.

Modelling the effect of cuts

Another ludicrous claim from Joe Hassell was that if all 85 fire appliances (there are actually 121) had a wholetime crew it would barely save any extra lives. Anyone who knows anything about the FSEC modelling will know that you could only get such a result if you entered manipulated data and/or excluded some of the results. 

Modelling in another fire & rescue service, which was properly carried out and used the full results, showed that changing a fire station from day crewing to immediate response, the opposite of what D&SF&RS propose for Barnstaple, Exmouth and Paignton, would on average save an extra life every four years. That is not 'barely any' and is the effect for just one fire station.

In the same fire & rescue service, modelling the effects of removing a second fire engine from an on call fire station indicated an extra 11 deaths in 100 years. Yet for a similar station, in terms of number of calls and the area's population, D&SF&RS claim just 1 extra death in 1,000 years! That information is shown on the maps in the 'Analytical Comparison of Community Impacts from Service Delivery Operating Model' document, which is supposed to be the evidence base for these cuts.

Not only does this reinforce concerns that D&SF&RS has manipulated the input or output modelling data, or perhaps both, to make the cuts appear less harmful, but it confirms that they do have station level data. Yet in their response to a Freedom of Information request for full details of extra deaths and property damage in each station area affected, D&SF&RS claim they "don't have that information".  

The modelling tool provides results down to station level, so what they mean is they don't want to release that information. Without that detail it becomes impossible for the public, or the Fire & Rescue Authority, to properly compare the impact of the cuts in each affected station area with the claimed savings.

If they are willing to risk breaching the Freedom of Information Act again,
you have to wonder how bad those results are!

Some other inaccurate, misleading, evasive and
confusing answers during the interview

There were several inaccurate and misleading claims about risk - "risk is really low", "risk is at such a low level", "low risk area", "high risk area". This demonstrates a worrying failure to understand risk. D&SF&RS repeatedly misuse the term risk when they are actually talking about the frequency of calls. The risk for anyone trapped in a fire, or trapped in car crash is just as real as it always was and it is the same wherever they are. 

"If people comment on other stations we would have to do another consultation". Not true. "You can reach a final decision that was not one of the options put forward for consultation" (Consultation guidance from leading UK law firm Mills & Reeve).

We were told that modern cars and houses are safer, but that is misleading. People still get injured and trapped in modern cars and need to be rescued. When they are seriously injured, if they are not in hospital within the 'Golden Hour', their chances of survival quickly reduce. Modern houses still burn and sometimes much more quickly.

There were over 900 fires in people's homes in Devon & Somerset last year

and at 72 of them people had to be rescued.

Reserves are "not sat there waiting for a rainy day". Wrong, that is exactly what the primary purpose of reserves is. Every responsible public body has reserves for unexpected events that may require additional expenditure. D&SF&RS may have more than they need in reserves 'for a rainy day', but the answer was misleading.

"We are trying to get more day cover". Only crazy D&SF&RS logic could make this claim when their proposals will see up to 30 less fire engines available during the day.

"Some of the suggestions are to move appliances to different locations". Misleading, only one fire engine is to be moved to a different location. Sixteen others are being permanently removed.

They were asked "How much money will be reinvested in fire safety?" Their answer avoided saying how much. None of the consultation documents give that information either. Why is that information being kept secret?

We were told that removing wholetime cover at night at Barnstaple, Exmouth and Paignton would result in a "slightly longer response time at night". Misleading, adding five minutes to the response time to hundreds of emergencies is not 'slightly longer' when seconds count, especially if your life or property is at risk.

We were told that the "majority of fatalities are people who can’t escape by themselves" and "vulnerable people". Instead of doing more to ensure firefighters arrive quickly enough to save them, D&SF&RS is planning to arrive more slowly. Not only immoral, but making changes you know will impact more seriously on vulnerable groups is a breach of the Equality Act.  

"Will removing rural appliances mean longer response times". Another evasive answer about their response standard, which only covers the first fire engine's arrival time. He did not mention that building fires and road traffic collisions where people are trapped need at least two fire engines. The honest answer is, removing appliances will mean even longer response times for both first and second fire engines.

We were also told that "if it was just about money" they “could have made much bigger savings in a different way.” Confusing, and it raises two important points. 

1. If they had other ways to save money, why is the public being denied the opportunity to comment on those options?

2. The law firm Mills & Reeve advise that, if there is a need to make savings, the financial position must be clearly set out. Yet we have not been told exactly how much has to be saved and how much is being reallocated. Interestingly, they add that hiding financial reasons "behind other, more palatable, reasons to change a service risks your consultation being struck down as unlawful".

This consultation is riddled with inaccurate, contradicting and misleading information, false claims and a lack of detail. This broadcast confirms that asking D&SF&RS staff questions will only result in more of the same and they will end up even more confused. I think most people would expect much better from people earning over £75,000 a year. 

On the plus side, there was one important and accurate thing mentioned by Sarah Allen. Referring to incidents she said, "we don’t know when they are going to happen or what resources they are going to need in advance”. 

That is exactly why none of the fire stations should be closed

and none of the fire engines removed.

The consultation is not fit for purpose

Consultation document nonsense from Devious & Secretive Fire & Rescue Service

Under the heading "Why we need to change", we are told: "With large new housing estates planned in areas such as Cranbrook near Exeter, Sherford in Plymouth and Taunton Garden Town bringing large population increases and changes, we need to respond to these changing risks."

On the face of it a reasonable point, until you realise that 
None of the proposals improve protection for these locations!

Sherford – No proposals to improve the response and protection already cut in the area

The population increase at Sherford will be about 12,500, yet they previously downgraded Plymstock and Plympton, the two nearest fire stations, from Immediate Response (firefighters work shifts on duty at the fire station) to On Call (firefighters who have other jobs and must travel to the fire station from home or work when an emergency call is received). This means it takes longer for the fire engine to respond, if they have crew available. If they don't, it means an even longer wait for a crew to arrive from another fire station. 

Latest figures show the Plympton fire engine, on average,  is not available 14% of the time and Plymstock's is not available for 13% of the time. That is equivalent to around 7 weeks each. Two fire engines and an aerial appliance were also removed from Plymouth permanently and the second fire engine at Crownhill was changed from Immediate Response to On Call. This one is not available for 25% of the time, equivalent to 13 weeks. When you realise that not available times can coincide, you realise that the wider Plymouth area can be left with just four fire engines instead of the previous nine. 

Plymouth population increased by 12,500, but less fire engines available

Taunton Garden Town – Proposals to cut the response even further

The population increase at Taunton will be nearly 30,000. One fire engine at Taunton was previously changed from Immediate Response to On Call crewing. Now they plan to completely remove one of the fire engines in Taunton, and to remove another one from Bridgwater, which is the nearest back up to the developments on the north-east side of Taunton. Incredibly they also propose to mothball the second fire engine at Wellington during the day. Wellington will be the nearest back up to the developments west of Taunton.

Taunton population increased by 30,000, but less fire engines available

Cranbrook – Proposals to cut the response even further

Now D&SF&RS will no doubt claim that moving one fire engine from Topsham to Middlemoor will improve the response to Cranbrook. Now it is true that Middlemoor is a couple of miles nearer, but there is no guarantee they will be able to recruit On Call firefighters at Middlemoor. If they do, there is no guarantee how often that fire engine will be crewed. At Topsham they have a trained crew for that fire engine and it is available nearly all the time.

The proposals also include cutting the second fire engine at Topsham, which will leave the Exeter area with just four fire engines. Previous cuts reduced that from six. It is also worth noting that the second and third crews to arrive at the Royal Clarence Hotel fire were from Topsham, as the two Immediate Response crewed fire engines were at another incident.

Exeter population increased by 18,000, but less fire engines available

You have to wonder about the credibility of those who set out why they

'have to change', but then only propose to make things worse!