Fire cuts

[Otta]

Of course it's great that there are less fires, but the fact is that fires do still happen, and my concern would be that the nearest fire stations were shut down, and by the time anyone got to my burning house, it was too late.

And lets not forget that a lot of people rent, and whilst landlords do have some responsibilities like checking the gas regularly, they are not going to go to the expense of fire proofing your house unless the law forces them to.

[????]

But Otta, if there was a fire station on every street then deaths would be absolutely minimised, sadly there has to be some sort of pratical compromise in the real world and with less fires, less need, emotive stuff aside.

[Otta]

I agree that compromise is required, I just wonder whether shutting stations is the best compromise available.

[Santerme]

Moflo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> While London Mayor Boris Johnson is being cheered

> over the Olympics and boosted in the polls,

> London?s Fire Brigade is being cut and

> dismantled.

>

> The London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority

> (LFEPA) has had its budget cut by ?29.5million

> next year and by a further ?35.3million the year

> after. In total: ?65 million.

>

> With the cost of operating a fire station with one

> fire appliance at ?1.4m per year, this means 15

> fire stations and appliances are at risk of

> closure. Up to 25 next year could close next

> year.

>

> For context, there are just 112 fire stations in

> London. In just over a year 35% of London?s

> stations could be shut down.

>

> Labour?s City Hall Fire spokesperson, Navin Shah,

> sent out a statement this week saying:

>

> The mayor needs to come clean on fire brigade

> cuts. This isn?t just an academic debate about

> numbers, if there aren?t enough fire engines in

> London then they will not get to incidents on

> time. As we all know time is a crucial factor in

> saving people?s lives.

>

> It is disgusting that the mayor and government are

> making these cuts.

>

> So far, the Conservatives are refusing to

> elaborate much on what they would close. Mayor

> Boris Johnson previously ruled out frontline cuts

> to fire services, but will now u-turn on his

> promise.

>

> The London Evening Standard has barely covered the

> issue, but broadly remained painfully silent.

Are these cuts not being made in administrative staff which outnumber the uniformed branch about three to one..

Not seen any proposals for front line cuts in detail.

[spc]

I'm guess most people out there are unaware that the public consultation on the fire cut is underway and has been since the 8th March, it runs until 17th June 2013. You can take part on-line at http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/lsp5.asp#.UZPKBaKG2So it is worth reading all the supplementary document as the consultation document does not give the whole story, they can be found here http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/LSP5-supporting-documents.asp and the Ward attendance time can be found here http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/Documents/ward-impacts.pdf

The London Fire Brigade (LFB ) is having it's budget cut by ?45M over the next 2 years and the only way they can see to make this saving is to close 12 fire station and remove a total of 18 fire engine from the fleet (this is approximately 10% of the whole of the LFB ).

For the last decade the LFB has set an attendance time for attending an incident anywhere in London of 6 mins for the first appliance and 8 mins for the second appliance, they plan to continue with this target. Which does on the surface seen reasonable, but from the documents I have attached you can they don't make these targets on 31% of occasions now before the cuts.

There are 5 Wards in Southwark which do not receive a 6 minute attendance now:

College 7 mins 9 secs

East Dulwich 6 mins 30 secs

Newington 6 mins 10 secs

Peckham Rye 6 mins 27 secs

Surrey Docks 6 mins 21 secs

After the removal of the second appliance at Peckham fire station and the closure of New Cross fire station there will be 6 Ward outside the 6 minutes

East Dulwich will increase to 6 mins and 37 secs and Peckham Rye 7 mins 27 secs the worst attendance time in the Borough.

Other station closures in South London will also have a knock-on effect for the people of East Dulwich, station that the LFB say will be taking up the slack when New Cross is closed and Peckham losses and appliance will also have to cover their grounds.

Forest Hill will also be covering the closure of Downham fire staion.

Brixton will also be covering the closure of Clapham fire station and

Old Kent Road will be covering the closure of Southwark fire station.

Not to forget that once New Cross closes the one remaining fire appliance at Peckham will be covering that closure.

You all have about a month to have your say on these closures so please take part in the consultation, once the stations are closed and the land sold off they won't be opened again.

[DaveR]

Presumably the knock on effect has already been accounted for in the new attendance times you quoted? I note that all of the attendance times are still shorter than the national average (7.5 minutes), and that over the last ten years attendance times have increased by 15 per cent but fatalities have fallen by a third. I also note that the difference in cost between running seven appliances at four stations and the same number at six stations is ?1 million pa (?7 million vs ?8 million). I genuinely can't see anything in the consultation to suggest that station closures are necessarily the wrong thing to do.

[spc]

That is exactly what the LFB is relying on, people being taken in by statistic and averages, yes fire deaths are down as an average and have been coming down ever since they were first recorded in 1966, but in the Borough of Southwark they are not going down but up, 26 people died in fire related incident in the last 5 years up from 8 over the previous 5 year, the next highest was Brent with 18, no other Borough had more then 11 over the same period. Note this is over the same 10 year period you are quoting.

Once again the national average is misleading, that figure includes attendances to the Highlands of Scotland, the middle of Dartmoor etc where there can be a 20 minute attendance time to a grass fire, the average to a residential property fire will be lower than that. As you say in Southwark the new attendance times do include the closures in them, but once again they are averages, so on some occasions the times will be much higher, only last week an appliance from Peckham took more than 10 minutes to attend an incident in the East Dulwich area this was due to it having been attending a call on another station's ground and picked up the call on the way back. This will only get worse when the cuts take effect, a fire can double in size in a minute so the effect that afire can have when the LFB takes a minute longer to arrive can be great.

Not sure what point you are trying to make when talking about 7 appliance running out of 4 or 6 stations and the difference in cost, they are not just moving 18 fire appliance around, they are getting rid of them completely. The LFB has 169 standard fire appliances now there will be 151 if these plans go ahead.

These proposals are nothing to do with a reduction in risk to the public from fires and other emergencies, but simple due to the Mayor cutting the budget, at a meeting the other evening Ron Dobson the Commissioner of the LFB stated that if it was not for the reduction of the budget he would not be recommending this cuts.

Averages don't tell the whole story, so some more facts to think about:

Number of times a fire appliance mobilised within Borough of Southwark in 2011/12=7071, 26% higher than the London borough average of 5602.

Number of fires within the London Borough of Southwark in 2011/12=1215. 48% higher than the London borough average of 819.

Number of dwelling fires within Borough of Southwark 2011/12=319,56% higher than the London borough average of 204.

[DaveR]

The point about the cost impact of reducing the number of stations is that (as many people have already observed) arguing that there should be no cuts is just not sustainable, and the figures give an idea of the potential savings achievable by having fewer stations, even if they operate the same number of machines.

I don't see how you can say that LFB are relying on people being taken in by stats, and then ask us to rely on your stats. That having been said, if it is right that call outs in Southwark are high, that should be reflected in planning.

Quoting stats by borough does point up anotehr interesting question i.e. should fire services be organised nationally? Coincidentally, see BBC today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22564390

I was interested in this quote:

"When I was a firefighter, fire deaths in the home were 700 and 800 a year. Now, they're 180 a year.

"It's a really good news story, but the service itself must adapt and change, not only to maintain that fire safety and prevention front, but to adapt its service.

"So why have - even though those fires have gone down 40% - the number of firefighters remained broadly the same.

"It's a question that the local authorities and fire authorities will need to address and need to answer."

The Fire Brigades Union, as expected, dismissed the report. That is why they are not gaining public support.

[LondonMix]

I wonder why Southwark has so many more incidences than other areas. Perhaps, that's more down to a lack of fire prevention strategies / information. Understanding the underlying reason for the high call out rate should be key to understanding how to deal with it. For me, getting the number of fires down would be the main spending priority but of course until that was achieved you'd need to ensure appropriate service levels.

[DJKillaQueen]

There are appropriate service levels though. DaveR is right in that whilst the stats show a massive drop in not just fatalities but fires and other call outs over recent decades the level of cover has remained broadly the same, with the fire service shifting some of it's role into fire prevention.

The unions have always protected jobs over any factual debate around need (understandably as that is the first remit of a union, to protect it's members jobs) but on the other hand, essential services can't be gradually stripped away just because we have a few good years of low use of them.

Personally, my view, from looking at all the data and evidence, is that the cuts can be sustained. On the other hand though, making anyone unemployed in the current climate is not something I wish for. And it's because of the current climate, where so many people are losing their jobs, that the Unions are miscalculating so badly (with their lack of leeway) when it comes to gathering public support.

[LondonMix]

Sorry, DJ, my post wasn't against the cuts per se, but reducing the service across London based on call outs (some areas will be but more than others for example).

[Marmora Man]

spc said:

Number of times a fire appliance mobilised within Borough of Southwark in 2011/12=7071, 26% higher than the London borough average of 5602.

Number of fires within the London Borough of Southwark in 2011/12=1215. 48% higher than the London borough average of 819.

Number of dwelling fires within Borough of Southwark 2011/12=319,56% higher than the London borough average of 204.

This seems to indicate a real need for a Southwark Fire Prevention strategy - why is the area that Southwark Fire Brigades are responsible for more likely to be called out to incidents.

Other places have obviously achieved significant reductions as the overall average is falling. I think it was Liverpool that pioneered the idea that preventing fires was both a more responsible strategy that ensures far greater safety for far more people and, as a an additional benefit, in the longer term reduces the need for as many fire appliances and fire staff.

I recall that three years ago on these pages, spc and his / her colleagues fighting against, not "CUTS", but changes to shift patterns that would have allowed more time devoted to fire prevention work.

[spc]

Sir Ken Knight's report is just a re-hash of the Bain report from 10 years ago, which was dismissed by the Government once it had achieved it aim, which was to undermine the FBU during their national strike. KK is no expert and has proved this on many occasions. He was all for Regional Control Centers a few years ago, saying the FBU opposition to it was just about the loss of fire-fighter jobs, even when the FBU produced evidence based reports saying they would not work he continued to say they would not only work but save the tax payer ?150m a year. Half a Billion pound of tax payer's money later the scheme was scrapped. Most people in the fire service take what he says with a pinch of salt.

10 years ago approximately 10-11% of a Ff's time was take up with attending incidents, it is now about 7%, 10 years ago a Ff did very little if any community safety work (not the same as fire prevention which we also do) , now they spend 12% of their time doing this work. The fire service has never been resourced by how often it is used but on risk, the risk to the public and Ffs, whatever happens you will still need enough fire appliances spread out across London to reach any fire that happens in a reasonable time, so there is a minimum number of appliances needed, the real question is what is that level?

There are many reason why Southwark has more fires and other incidents than most other Boroughs, inner city Boroughs tend to have more at risk people living in them, more over crowding and poverty. I don't have the figures to hand, but Southwark as a Borough did approximately 28% more community safety work last year than the LFB target, one of the highest in London, in some areas they are leading the way on community safety, about 18 months ago Ffs from Southwark Fire Station devised a program to reach a high risk group and trailed it within the Borough, a lot of this work was done off duty without the help of the fire service, it is now being rolled out across the brigade.

The FBU may try and protect jobs, but have also been a leader in fire safety, as they are experts, in the 1970s the FBU started lobbying to change legislation on building construction and materials used in furniture as foam filled furniture was a leading cause of fire deaths, it took the government and fire brigades a decade to listen to them, in the 1990s they leaded the way on pushing for the fitting of smoke detectors in residential properties and the education of the public, again it took until the 2000s for the government to take on this work (what they now call Community Safety). The LFB are now lobbying the government to have sprinklers fitted in all new residential properties and high risk homes, something the FBU has been lobbying for for years, this again will save lives. The FBU does not just say no to change, it has consistently pushed for changes in the fire service, not change for change's sake, or just to save money at the cost to the service it provides, but to improve the service and to cut costs.

As a tax payer I am all for reducing waste in the public sector, but that is not the same as cutting the service you provide, the risk to the public from fire has not been reduced a great deal over the last 10 years, in some ways modern building construction has increased the risk to Ffs and the public, the fire service has just got better at dealing with it, modern equipment and procedures, better training, changes in legislation have all helped. In a lot of ways fires have got a lot more complicated to deal with, there are many more high rise properties in London than ever before, many with complicated layouts and fire related mechanical systems in them, it takes a great deal more Ffs to deal with a fire in a high rise than your standard house. We have taken on more and more roles over the last 10 years and the FBU are lobbying the government for us to take on even more.

If as the FBU is lobbying for; every residential property was fitter with hard wired smoke detectors which would alert the occupier to a fire and allow them to get out safely and sprinklers which don't normal extinguish fires but just suppress them until the brigade arrives, I could see a day when the need for the fire brigade to attend a fire in such a short time could be relaxed and the size of the brigade reduced, but until then I want a well managed, trained and resourced fire brigade that attends a fire in a short enough time to save my life and prevents too much damage to my property. I have seen the devastation caused by fires and other incidents over the years in people's homes and businesses and the cost to people not just financially but the cost in lives.

I work hard every day to reduce fires and to keep people safe when they do happen, if in the future there come a point when there is no need for a fire service I would willingly join the unemployed and looking for work even in these difficult times, as it would be worth it.

[spc]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I recall that three years ago on these pages, spc

> and his / her colleagues fighting against, not

> "CUTS", but changes to shift patterns that would

> have allowed more time devoted to fire prevention

> work.

You are right I was opposed to the shift change, partly because of the effect it would have on Ff's work/life balance and the fact that the Brigade wanted to rip up my contract without any discussion, but the main reason was because they wanted to change the shift to be able to close fire stations at night, as more people die or are seriously injured at night I thought it was a bad idea.

They have changed my shift and got a longer day out of me, which is what they said they wanted, although they did not get the 12 hour shift they wanted to be able to close stations at night. As for their claim that with a longer day we could do more community safety work has once again proven to be wrong, moving our finish time to 8pm (the time they said they wanted) has removed the opportunity for an evening slot for doing any community safety work and cut down on the training we can do on nights too.

The FBU offered a 24 hour shift to the brigade which would have removed one of the shift changes completely and give the brigade an extra hour/ hour half of time for doing any work needed, but it did not fit in with their real agenda of closing fire stations at night so they rejected it.

[edw]

@ spc: "Number of times a fire appliance mobilised within Borough of Southwark in 2011/12=7071, 26% higher than the London borough average of 5602.

Number of fires within the London Borough of Southwark in 2011/12=1215. 48% higher than the London borough average of 819.

Number of dwelling fires within Borough of Southwark 2011/12=319,56% higher than the London borough average of 204."

OK, those statistics suggest that demand for fire services in Southwark are higher than average.

Of course, you should bear in mind that the population of Southwark is 289,000, 16% higher than the London borough average of 249,000 (source:ONS).

Moreover, the same source as your figures reveals that the average first pump attendance time in Southwark is 283 seconds, 21% faster than the London borough average of 360 seconds.

The average second pump attendance time in Southwark is 345 seconds, 28% faster than the London borough average of 480 seconds.

Just because demand is higher, does not mean that the service is not coping well.

[LondonMix]

Great information edw!

[uncleglen]

Fire cuts, police station closures- thank goodness King's is a major trauma centre for South East London because we sure are going to need it!