Safer Together Programme: Service Delivery Model Appendices

Opinion Research Services | Devon & Somerset FRS – Safer Together: Independent Analysis of Findings November 2019

Opinion Research Services

November 2019

The Strand  Swansea  SA1 1AF 01792 535300 | www.ors.org.uk | [email protected]

Appendix 1

Tables presenting summaries of Written Submissions (letters/reports)1

Summary of main themes raised in written submissions – general views (positive)

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Agreement with/support for the proposals: general

Agree with increase in 5 It is admirable that prevention and education are taking place and protection, prevention and take up a sizeable percentage of the budget education I welcome the proposal to release more capacity for home fire safety visits and safety checks particularly given the increased risk factors of the communities within Mendip A strategic review in this area should be made

Generally agree with 2 This committee supports proposals to review and realise aspects of proposals Fire Service delivery Clyst St George Parish Council…accept that a review of the Fire and Rescue Service is overdue, and after 35 years such a review is going to generate a degree of resistance to changes proposed, however our changing lifestyles such changes must take place, both to ensure the safety of the public and to give good value to taxpayers across Devon and Somerset….Clyst St George Parish is not significantly impacted by the proposed changes….we judge that this will not have a detrimental impact on us

1 “We have taken care to ensure that no information that identifies individual respondents has been included in this report. However, where a response has been submitted on behalf of an organisation (such as a Parish Council), we have included the name of that organisation as this is often important for context, but does not compromise individual anonymity.”

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Agree with proposals to 1 I welcome the fact the Authority and the Unions are working increase number of on-call together to find a solution to increase the number of on-call firefighters firemen during the daytime by better pay and conditions

Agree with options 1-4 1 We can…support Options 1,2,3 and 4 without any qualms. Beyond option 4 we found that we questioned the impact on our fellow Devonians

Summary of main themes raised in written submissions – general views (negative)

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Disagree with/cannot support proposals: general

Reductions will result in 46 It looks so obvious that closing fire and rescue services is extremely increased danger/risk to risky and stupid and the public do not support the measures which firefighters/general public are up for consultation Perhaps they could tell us, officially, how much is a life worth? Any reduction in the Fire and Rescue Service may cost people their lives The proposals impact more significantly on East Devon than any other area in Devon and Somerset. I’m not convinced that any of the options proposed would ensure the safety of people in the District Recently there was a serious fire in Seaton which impacted upon 17 residents. Would there be such a positive outcome to a similar event if these proposals are implemented? Proposed changes in all seven options will have drastic effect on the safety of visitors and residents in both our parish and across the whole of north Devon Closure of this station will pose a very real risk threat to residents in case of emergency and the parish council feels that it is an unacceptable risk to be forced on the local population …we feel that lives will be put under greater risk under the current options Reducing capacity will result in some areas remaining uncovered by a fire service for significant periods while crews will have to travel further to deal with emergencies

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Vulnerability – especially in 43 The disabled and frail (whom I believe are recommended to stay in rural/isolated areas their dwellings – windows and doors shut – until help arrives) may be at a disadvantage if too many engines are cut Would those with dementia be exposed to a greater and increased risk? The parish council’s main concerns are the lack of cover for isolated rural properties, some of which have thatched roofs It is only recently that the smaller, more versatile fire engines were rolled out to offer a more responsive service in the narrow Devon lanes. Surely many of those residents would be considered particularly vulnerable and hard to reach if they then lost the fire service? The very nature and topography of this region means that many communities, although on paper not appearing to be many miles apart, are isolated and are difficult to access. Vehicles from a central population hub attempting to respond to an emergency in a rural community will not be able to offer such a rapid response time as more locally based units, leading to rural communities being further disadvantaged For whatever reason, the systematic national destruction of rural communities continues unabated One conclusion may be that your concern for the wellbeing of people living in rural areas is not a priority and may, therefore, be simply downgraded with these people being categorised as more expendable and less worthy of saving by your planners? Can you explain to me why protecting larger conurbations should be to the detriment of smaller or rural communities? This is discrimination of the highest order We live in a very rural area which for the most part is very difficult to get to in the winter months due to the locality and also very busy with tourists in the summer season…if any of these cuts go ahead it will make communities such as these very vulnerable and isolated Devon has one of the largest lengths of road infrastructure in England. There will be other rural counties that might rival Devon for the nature of its narrow lanes but it is probable that a fire appliance in other counties could probably cross that county in half the time or less than it takes a fire appliance to progress half way across Devon

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised Fire and rescue services for Exmoor are currently provided from fire stations on the periphery of a large area of moor and woodland, which contains a number of small towns and villages as well as many remote farming and residential communities. Roads access is often restricted and access times can already be longer than the target response times Exmoor’s population experiences enhanced problems in accessing emergency medical and health care treatment. The involvement of a trained fire crew in co-responding with the Ambulance Service is of particular value … We believe the FRS should review their proposals to take account of the need to maintain and enhance co- responding In 2015 a report was published, commissioned by DEFRA, of an Independent Review of Rural Proofing … Government has supported its recommendations … We believe that the Safer Together proposals should be tested against the principles and methodology of Rural Proofing …all public service providers and relevant voluntary agencies should be working together to focus on the most vulnerable in our communities…I would like to see commitment to partnership working at a neighbourhood level

Concern over availability for 40 Ashburton is also adjacent to the A38 and has had to attend a other incidents e.g. RTCs/ number of Road Traffic Collisions over the years flooding/co-responder The station (Porlock) currently carries out a lot of first responder demands actions in addition to the primarily envisaged role of fire response The station is a base for the Porlock Co-Responder service. There is a great concern at the loss of this important community service provided by the fire fighters Then there are Road Traffic Collisions (RTCs) involving high speed impacts resulting in occupants having to be released using hydraulic road rescue equipment The main London to Penzance railway line runs through the area and while this poses a risk, the significant rail risk is associated with Whiteball Tunnel. At 1,000m long this has the potential for a protracted and complex deployment Call outs on the Dart. While this is not part of your statutory obligations, your Integrated Risk Management plan (IRMP) makes clear that the National Framework requires you to asses such risks

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised and decide how to address them. I am not sure that ‘it may be that this is supported from other locations’ is really enough Your breakdown of incidents attended over the last five years shows an overall increase in road vehicle fires, other primary fires and secondary fires. Can you explain how you will increase or maintain the response to fire incidents, which show an increasing trend, when you are reducing service? Mendip, like many other Devon and Somerset areas contains communities susceptible to flooding and I would like to know how the proposals impact on responses to flooding and other specialist capabilities including dealing with hazardous chemicals and how the service will support local authorities and event organisers to protect the safety of the public

Slower response times 39 Around a third of the residents of Devon and Somerset, over 600,000 people, will see a slower response from the Fire and Rescue Service The proposed cuts will lessen response times and put people’s lives at risk 30,000 households would be waiting over ten minutes for an emergency response, which flies in the face of the Emergency Response Standards that the service is targeted on ‘Travel to fire’ times will increase significantly for some Dartmoor communities exceeding the 15-minute target times to reach a property ...the crewing levels of the South Hams fire stations means most fires in our area will not be reached by three appliances in the proposed 13 minutes It was made clear at the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Board in Torbay that emergency response times in the Bay would deteriorate and that the ten-minute target for response to incidents would not be met should these proposals succeed. We believe this reduction in the level of emergency response is unacceptable and undermines the Fire Authority’s case that the proposals are merely a reallocation of resources to provide more efficient levels of service

Short-term savings are 30 Once you cut the services it will be extremely difficult to restore misguided in light of them at a future date … the eventual need to bring back fire

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised increasing housing and services to the area as a result of both housing and industrial industrial development development will far outstrip any savings made now There are some large housing estates in Yeovil of which Wyndham Park is one with some 850 houses and a primary school. There is also Brimstone which has an 8-year build in progress … There is also Augusta Park, Abbey Manor etc. The town is growing as are other towns in the region due to an influx of people retiring The population in the Axe Valley is due to increase in the near future, particularly in Axminster where 2,000 new homes are being planned. This increase will require extra fire cover and back up. Now would be a very bad time to reduce this cover Yeovil is getting larger all the time with new developments being built, in 2014 there were 638 call outs and in 2018 there were 810 – surely these figures speak for themselves Members of the council have asked that I write to convey their views, particularly in the knowledge of the growing population of Sedgemoor, increased business and new homes, more jobs, people and vehicles on the road … and the Somerset West and Taunton council’s decision to build an enormous Employment park (Nexus) alongside J25 Under the government’s National Planning Policy Framework, East Devon District Council has identified Colyton as one of a small number of village settlements suitable for further substantial further development…The demand for the fire service in Colyton is increasing

Increasing risk of moorland 25 There are many heavily used recreational sites on the moor, fires and other emergencies including Spitchwick, Haytor, Widecombe, Newbridge and as a consequence of climate Dartmeet…and a multitude of activities enjoyed including change canoeing, kayaking, horse riding, climbing, tombstoning and hiking. Quick access to fire and rescue services is essential for the safety of people using these sites…often where communication is extremely limited The effect of continuing changes to our climate on the risk of a major fire on Dartmoor The risk of moorland fires is increasing, not decreasing. Dartmoor National Park is the largest recreational area in Devon and Somerset and attracts a massive increase in population during the time fire risk is at its highest i.e. summer

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised Environment Risk Category (IRMP pp37 to 42) does not seem to include damage to the environment as a side effect of a moorland fire. I recognise that this is not a statutory duty but it can affect public safety so we would like this aspect to be specifically recognised in your plans You don’t appear to have accounted for the likely rise in incidents as a result of climate change: flood, fire and possibly even dams bursting …bad weather...makes significantly slower travel than computer models predict

Concerns around traffic 23 Highways’ England plan to dual and bring the A303 traffic up to congestion/narrow roads and Taunton onto an ever busier M5 main roads/motorways Devon has 4,000 miles of roads. We all know that many of these are single track with passing places…holiday visitors add to the volume of traffic and increase transit times on these narrow roads I agree that the increase in electric vehicles is a risk across all service areas. However, I think that the risk of a battery casing puncture and a subsequent fire is greater in a high-speed RTA. Consequently, I would argue that electric vehicles pose higher levels of risk for Ashburton Fire station to deal with given the proximity of the A38 and this needs to be addressed The M5 motorway also runs through our area. This brings a multitude of possible incidents from simple fires involving cars to lorries carrying hazardous loads

Concern for elderly and 18 In your published analysis of local populations (Website) it turns vulnerable residents out that the elderly are more often afflicted by fires. Doubtlessly, this area of North-Devon hosts a high proportion of elderly people Porlock…has the highest level of people over 60 in Somerset. Of the 2,000 people in the district, 1,000 are over this age and some 500 have mobility issues. To remove fire cover form such a vulnerable population would be a most unfortunate decision It is likely to have a detrimental effect on people’s wellbeing - left on one’s own to try and fend for themselves as much as they are able and for those feeling vulnerable and isolated, this will compound the situation An increasing number of elderly and seriously infirm people are being cared for at home. They would need immediate rescue in an

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised emergency. How would this be achievable within stipulated time limits if there is no fire station at Ashburton?

Demand for back- 15 Colyton also back up Seaton and Axminster due to their close up/resilience for multiple proximity as most serious incidents require more than one fire incidents engine Long delays are certain to be caused when the reduced service receives more than one call-out from the same area

Generally disagree with 16 I am appalled that this Government is planning to make cuts to this proposals essential service … we need our vital fire service It’s a problem that the plan is to slash services across two vast disparate counties and only have one whole extra provision that would be needed to fight serious fires I write this in utter disbelief that these proposals have made the light of day let alone being announced to the general public and then up for consultation The range of incidents and what the FRS are asked to deal with is already overwhelming. Closing fire stations and losing trained firefighters is a huge cause for concern. There is considerable investment in both, and firefighters should expect our support A fire at a thatched property needs eight fire engines. The service are proposing to cut more than 30 front line appliances. How do they plan to resource large incidents with many fewer engines? On the 31 July 2019 members of Sedgemoor District council supported an emergency motion in response to (this consultation). The emergency motion submitted received cross-party support from the conservative group, Labour group and Liberal democrat groups at Sedgemoor…the proposed changes will not be implemented Collumpton Town council considers that all seven options will have detrimental impact on both the residents of Devon and the many people that visit the county Braunton Parish Council…would like to express their grave concern over the proposed changes to the service provision… Bridgewater Town Council…calls upon DSFRS authority members to reject in full the options proposed Comeytrowe Parish Council … unanimously agreed to oppose the cuts to the service and the proposals contained in the document

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised Newton Abbott Town Council, having considered the current consultation being run by Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service calls upon DSFRS authority members to reject in full the options proposed East Worlington Council would like to express concerns from parishioners and councillors over the changes proposed for nearby stations Teignmouth Town Council does vehemently call upon Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service Authority members to reject in full the options proposed in the consultation document ‘Safer Together’ Torbay Council felt that the six options proposed by the Devon and Somerset Fire Authority in their consultation cannot be supported In the view of Bow Parish Council, to reduce the local service is unacceptable. Members are unanimous in wishing to express their concerns at the proposed cuts and are also unanimous in their objections to the proposals

Increased pressure on 13 The proposals would see fire cover stretched dangerously thin. remaining staff and resources The loss of the Porlock station greatly increases the demand on Minehead fire station…The loss of Minehead vehicles to service a fire in Porlock District will greatly increase the risk to residents of Minehead

Disagree with retaining 2 The closure of seaside stations makes sense, because half their seaside stations over inland possible call out area is in the sea. However, the response times will be far better from inland stations. It therefore makes no sense to retain Seaton, a seaside station within three miles of Colyton, and close Colyton

Summary of main themes raised in written submissions – general views on the options (positive)

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Agreement with/support for the options: general

Generally agree with the 1 This committee supports proposals to review and realise aspects of options Fire Service delivery

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Support for some aspects of 1 We agree with the closure of Budleigh Salterton fire Option 1 station…Exmouth fire station, provided there is adequate cover, is well placed to cover the Budleigh Salterton area and indeed crews say that often Exmouth fully manned engine is able and does respond sooner than Budleigh Salterton on-call engine to a call out in their area

Support for Option 4 (subject 1 It would be interesting to see how the single change made between to further information) option 3 and option 4 can deliver the annual revenue saving of £1,918,453 by reducing the overnight cover in three stations. This would allow all stations to remain open and all existing engines to be retained. According to the risk statistics this would show a change in risk of less than a single percentage point and produce a bigger saving to percentage risk change than any of the options presented

Support for options 1 - 4 1 We can…support options 1,2,3 and 4 without any qualms. Beyond option 4 we found that we questioned the impact on our fellow Devonians

Summary of main themes raised in written submissions – general views on the options (negative)

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Disagreement with/concerns about the options: general

General comments 5 There will be a considerable risk to all settlements in or adjacent to Exmoor National Park with every option as they start with closure of Porlock Fire Station and just get worse with each iteration The members do not believe enough evidence has been presented in the consultation document to be able to agree to any of the options 1-6 and, therefore, oppose all of them The Budleigh Salterton and District Chamber of Commerce cannot support options 1-6 I have been requested to send representations from Parish Councillors of West and East Putford PC. Those representations are that Councillors do not agree with any of the proposals There is no Option 8 to retain the existing coverage and resource it adequately

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Opposition to option 1 11 I can assure you that it would take a fire engine over 15 minutes to get to Woolacombe from Ilfracombe at peak tourist season. I also understand that distances have been calculated as the crow flies and do not take into account the topology of the area. This means that I reject this option because it includes closing Woolacombe The public has had enough of public funds being withdrawn … and enough of ‘efficiency’ being a euphemism for ‘cuts’ If this were accepted, increasingly Ilfracombe’s fire appliance would be needed to cover these areas – therefore, being away from Ilfracombe when they could be needed for local … incidents. It is interesting to note that many of the proposed station closures are along the south coast of Devon, an area which attracts a large influx of visitors during the summer months It makes no sense to cut stations, jeopardising lives and safety in an ever-growing population No ifs or buts – just keep our fire station open and pay our firefighters a very decent wage Allowing stations to close would seem to be a very backward step Ivybridge Town Council…opposes the closure of any fire stations until there are more realistic figures provided

Opposition to option 2 3 I reject these options (2-6) out of hand since they all include the station closures at Option 1 Only having two (engines) will put Yeovil at risk and other areas (Martock) where engines are to cover a call. How many incidents have occurred over your data set period that have required 3 engines?

Opposition to option 3 3 Yeovil at risk (even longer delay) and Martock (no cover) I reject these options (2-6) out of hand since they all include the station closures at Option 1 If you reduce the second truck from Lynton and close Porlock Station, this will result in a two thirds reduction of our immediate support vehicles (for Exmoor) at a stroke…making us feel extremely vulnerable. This will affect not merely the moor, but dwellings, farm buildings and other structures, putting lives and businesses at risk The paramedic lead ambulance service for our area (Exmoor) has been severely culled and they rely more and more on the Fire

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Service to do their work…if the Fire Service is stretched any more, it will not be safe!

Opposition to option 4 2 I reject these options (2-6) out of hand since they all include the station closures at Option 1 A further retained night-time crew in Barnstaple would leave residents in North Devon severely disadvantaged

Opposition to option 5 5 I reject these options (2-6) out of hand since they all include the station closures at Option 1 Of all the impact assessments … only Option 5 does not lead to additional lives saved, so I query the rationale for putting it forward A closure of Budleigh Salterton and Topsham, plus a change of manning at Exmouth and Paignton, would not be acceptable if required for a major incident or even as back up. As such, it does not fulfil the primary aims of the service As above but even less backup available during the day. Yeovil even longer delay and Martock at risk (no cover) To close any of the stations and change Barnstaple from whole time to retained at night would be a complete unacceptable risk to all who live and love North Devon

Opposition to option 6 9 I reject these options (2-6) out of hand since they all include the station closures at Option 1 As an organisation which represents 110+ independent tourism accommodation providers, we are dismayed to hear of the above plans…we have seen that large fires in Paignton, Torquay and…Exeter in the last couple of years often require a rapid response from multiple appliances…it is impossible to see how this can be achieved with the planned cuts The possibility of the closure of up to eight fire stations, a reduction in the total number of its firefighters and a scheme to leave Barnstaple’s fire station unstaffed for 15 hours in every 24 put a very different perspective on how they (DSFRS) view the public’s protection As above (ref Yeovil) but the risk that the roving engines are not local enough to cover expediently Option 6 … does not specify where these would be based … undoubtedly, they would not be in positions where residents would

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

wish to see them … It may satisfy a “table top” exercise and the accountant, but not the general public and business community who pay for the service

Essentially this option reflects a virtual decimation of any reasonable level of Fire Service and is likely to increase the risk of loss of life. It is impossible to believe that anyone would consider this a viable option in a civilised country

There is no explanation of how the roving engines proposed in Option 6 would work e.g. in which areas they would be placed. Purchasing new equipment and staffing a whole time crew for these new engines would cost more than a retained crew at Colyton, for example

Summary of main themes raised in written submissions – views on station closures

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Disagreement with/concerns about station closures

Ashburton 32 General Comments Closing a station does not remove risk, probability or consequence and is not the answer to solving the problem of either equipment or personnel availability. Accepting recruitment issues as a reason to close a station is like saying, “I don’t need to eat because I have no crops” All options include the closure of Ashburton FS implying that cover can be provided by neighbouring stations, yet fail to acknowledge that Totnes station is set to lose a second fire engine…also in options 2 to 6, Torquay loses its third fire engine The national arrangements … to “Back Fill” in times of major emergencies…retaining smaller facilities would continue to provide areas exposed to such risk and protection in such times when back filling occurs. The impact of austerity over the years has been very damaging for local services and the more vulnerable residents. Please don’t add to it by closing Ashburton Fire Station

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised I write on behalf of Widecombe-in-the-Moor Parish Council …in response to the current consultation affecting Ashburton Fire Station and its proposed closure, which the parish council vehemently opposes I am writing on behalf of the Buckland in the Moor Parish meeting to protest at the proposed closure of Ashburton Fire Station Bickington Parish Council wishes to express its objection to the proposed closure of the Fire Station in Ashburton in Devon – it considers lives will be lost if the fire station were to be closed Buckfastleigh Town Council …as a town council and on behalf of the residents of our community, we strongly object to the proposed closure of Ashburton Fire Station and other proposed closures and cuts to service contained in these proposals Ashburton Town Council wishes to express grave concern at the proposed closure of Ashburton Fire Station Travel times/road network Closing this station will put lives at risk/If there was a major gorse or wildfire up on our side of the moors or a fire at Widdecombe, Buckland or Poundsgate, they can get there quicker than any of the surrounding engines Currently on Dartmoor there are extreme Fire Risk notices again this year. We need a local fire station so they can respond quickly The time from Chagford to an incident close to Ashburton would...approach 30 minutes or more…Times from Totnes or Newton Abbot would also fall into the category of 30 minutes or more…The distance to outlying areas covered by Ashburton Fire Station such as Poundsgate…means that the 10 minute target time cannot be achieved by the Bovey Tracey facility and is at least double that achievable by an Ashburton based service…Oakhampton could easily cover areas to the north of Chagford that might otherwise be covered by Chagford in times that are equal to or better than those proposed by the loss of Ashburton Bovey Tracey would be the nearest to us…but how would they be able to cope…I understand that even now they struggle to get a crew especially during the daytime Our nearest station would be Buckfastleigh and if they were already out on a shout, that would leave Totnes, Bovey Tracey or

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised Newton Abbot and they are all 20 minutes away. Failing that, Exeter, Plymouth or Ivybridge … (there are) increasing accidents involving animals Local knowledge of the Ashburton FRS Local knowledge is invaluable. This has saved many a life in the past and will continue to do so in the future There are narrow lanes everywhere…blind corners…fords and very steep inclines like the one out of Widecombe in the Moor…Dartmoor bogs (known to local firefighters) Our local fire and rescue servicemen know the local moor well and maintain a good working relationship with the farmers. They know what the different areas are called and the best way to get there too There are many heavily used recreation sites on the moor … and a multitude of activities…Quick access…is essential for the safety of people using these sites The River Dart is one of the fastest rated rising and falling rivers in the country…the challenge of a Fire and Rescue call out here is negotiating he narrow stone bridges…the local firefighters practice going over the bridges Road Traffic Accidents Ashburton cover a great number of RTAs on the A38, of which many are not included in their statistics, as Buckfastleigh don’t carry the equipment needed to cut people out of the cars The fire station is just yards from slip road so can get to the North bound or south bound carriageway very quickly Accidents on the A38 likely to increase The statistics for rescue along the A38 are incorrectly reported…responses by Ashburton Fire Station are under reported Built environment Ashburton Fire Station serves an area of great historical value: there are a number of listed buildings/thatched buildings The children at Dartmoor Community School, The Atrium Studio, Ashburton Primary School and Widecombe Primary School should also not be put at risk… Within a few yards of the station are…Dartmoor College and Ashburton Quarry

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised Population/Demographics The document makes no reference to population size in Ashburton or…Buckfastleigh…Another fire station mentioned where there is an intention to retain that service is Chagford where the population is a fraction of that in Ashburton or Buckfastleigh The population is rising within our area with all the new builds…we need more fire services, not less Co-Responding and First Response Not all the call outs attended are fires. They have helped the ambulance service…pump out homes in times of flooding Deliver basic first aid and possibly a defibrillator to surrounding areas in times of snow, flood, storm Climate Change Impacts The accelerating climate emergency and the associated risk for moorland fires With climate change we will need the emergency services more… Other risks Farming is a dangerous business and it’s a comfort to know that the Fire and Rescue team are nearby…haymaking time is dangerous work…sometimes the hay combusts The fire service has not justified the proposed closure...the risk model used does not seem to take into account issues which are important to Buckland in the Moor and Ashburton

Porlock 31 General comments Arsonists often set light to several areas at once and other engines may just not be available when required The closure of (Porlock) will also affect Lynton…where will the backup come from if the proposals happen? … another nail in the coffin of the viability of this vibrant community On behalf of Porlock Parish council I was disappointed to learn (via the press) that Porlock Fire Station is being considered as one of your cost cutting options being proposed Selworthy and Minehead Without Parish Council totally oppose closure of Porlock fire station I am writing on behalf of Cutcombe Parish Council in response to the public consultation over the proposed closure of Porlock Fire

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised Station. We should like to express our community’s opposition to this in the strongest terms. We are, frankly, alarmed Stogumber Parish …Councillors’ overwhelming concern was the proposed closure of Porlock Fire Station Somerset West and Taunton opposes the closure of Porlock Fire Station Porlock Parish council does not support the proposed closure of Porlock Fire Station The proposal for the closure of Porlock Fire Station…the main station to work alongside Lynton, would mean the loss of their vehicle used extensively for moorland fires and reducing the Lynton Station from two appliances to one…this would be their 4x4 appliance which also works off road, leaves Exmoor very exposed. Ilfracombe Station reduced to one appliance during daytime and…reducing an appliance in Barnstaple and taking away full- time night cover, which will revert to retained cover during this time, will impact greatly on this area Exmoor In the summer months the Exmoor moorland is prone to catching fire…barn fires are commonplace, and the rural community is widespread and inaccessible. Having Lynton and Porlock stations either side of the moor…is crucial This very efficient fire station should remain open as it is the closest to the northern part of Exmoor and is good at having a fast response to an emergency The team know the damage and distress cased to wildlife including deer calves, nesting birds, rare plants, woodlands and invertebrates There will be more moorland fires in the future with global warming Road system is difficult – local knowledge is important to minimise delays Access to Porlock and surrounding villages for emergency vehicles from other areas is limited to the A39 and narrow rural roads, meaning that there would be potentially disastrous delays…particularly for fire crews that are not familiar with the area

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised Porlock Hill, the steepest A road in England, has accidents of varying severity every year Built Environment Porlock (has) a number of thatched properties/older, historic housing stock; complicated chimney stacks/interconnecting roof spaces Demographics A predominantly elderly population Tourism Porlock is a popular tourist destination with an increased population in the summer using the camping and caravan sites in the village and surrounding areas Co-responding and first response Our firefighters fulfil a vital role as co-responders and have provided lifesaving help on numerous occasions The Fire Service are First Responders, so fear that the proposed closure will place additional pressure on the other emergency services.

North Devon (Woolacombe in 22 General comments particular) Combe Martin Parish Council (CMPC) does not support your proposals to close or reduce services at Barnstaple, Woolacombe and Lynton Fire Stations First Response/Co-responder It is important that Woolacombe retains its co-responder role, due to the increase in population during the summer as the South Western Ambulance are already overstretched There are simply hundreds of stories where the Woolacombe co- responders have prevented death and deterioration of seriously unwell patients because an ambulance couldn’t get here…but no- one gets to hear about them because the DSFRS say they are not important to what they base risk on It is remarkable that Woolacombe in your 5-year average number survey shows the 3rd highest co-responder operations. Why is this? Most likely because thousands of holidaymakers are coming to our place Tourism impacts

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised We have an ever-changing demographic due to holiday makers - one you can never properly risk assess In Woolacombe and the surrounding areas the population increases from 1400 to 15000 over the summer Travel times/road network There is no way that a fire engine from Ilfracombe or Braunton can make it in the times you quoted…the engine travels down narrow roads – in heavy traffic or icy/windy conditions The security of knowing that there is an ERU at Woolacombe is immeasurable. We have narrow streets and parked cars and the smaller vehicle is ideal for these conditions Ilfracombe only has standby operatives and can’t always raise a team. The larger engines with turntable hose and longer ladders are in Barnstaple with an even longer arrival time Taking away the second appliance from Ilfracombe, closing Woolacombe and making Barnstaple a retained station at night - who would attend a fire if, say, Barnstaple were not able to get a night crew and Ilfracombe’s one engine had gone to assist along with Braunton. A fire breaks out in one of the hotels in Woolacombe, do we just let it burn? Most of the time the roads are blocked up to Mullacott cross – up to an hour delay on a road that usually takes five minutes to drive …once in a queue, you cannot overtake, turn around or go around vehicles Crewing difficulties in Braunton and Ilfracombe Ilfracombe and Braunton are both retained stations and struggle to actually keep a fire engine available (Woolacombe) had just recruited three new recruits…and there are more waiting to join…The future looked positive for the crewing of Woolacombe station. In fact, we would most likely be one of the most reliable and stable retained stations Other comments Members question the £350,000 savings… These include the infrastructure and equipment already in place. The staff costs are approx. £42,000 Closing Woolacombe will increase the likelihood of death and injury as IIfracombe answers many incidents across the local region

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised Why now that the community numbers have grown, along with our holiday visitors, is it considered safe to close it? Your figures are far short of the call outs and support that is given to other stations, plus the lives saved with the Co-Responder Scheme. There are more flats/apartments being built Would … lead to increased risk to other towns and villages within our locality due to extra demand being made on an already limited service which it is proposed to reduce further With Ilfracombe being reduced to one pump during the day and reduction to on-call cover only at night in Barnstaple, the coverage for Braunton Parish would be too low which would put lives at risk There are many elderly residents who could be put at risk The proposal does not consider that the centre of North Devon has the biggest population which is set to grow. As well as not considering that the region increases in population during the summer

Colyton 18 General comments If the Colyton Fire Station is closed I have no doubt that in future, residents in this area with similar problems…are much more likely to suffer devastating losses of both life and property Colyton Chamber of Feoffees (wish to)…express our profound concern at the DSFRS draft plan for the future, together with the threat to close Colyton Fire station Shute Parish Council are very concerned that this closure (Colyton) is being considered at all and would urge you to re-examine your proposals… Co-responding/first response The important role it plays as a co-responder with…the South West Ambulance service Most call outs need two fire engines, so when Seaton or Axminster need two, Colyton go and help. It works the other way round as well The impact…would (be) over a much wider area than the town itself

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised Local knowledge of Colyton FRS The knowledge of locally based crews drafted in from a greater distance and lacking in knowledge of the local lanes can result in delays which may have fatal consequences The firemen are all retained and so as part of the local community have considerable local knowledge and an awareness of the high proportion of elderly people in the area … difficulties navigating the local roads would certainly be exacerbated by the higher volumes of traffic during the holiday season Impacts of climate change A…significant factor which would support the retention of the Colyton fire station is its position in the lower Axe Valley, given the increased likelihood of widespread flooding in the general context of global warming Built environment (All the options) clash with the Council’s own policy for strategic development, including the expansion of the number of homes in Axminster, Seaton and Colyton Many people live in rural villages accessed via narrow country lanes and it is these communities that are likely to be disadvantaged by a reduction in emergency cover Colyton has a number of high-risk thatched properties Demographics East Devon is a coastal area attracting hundreds of thousands of visitors and water related incidents are not uncommon They say Colyton is low risk. What about all the thatched houses, schools, old folks homes and elderly people plus holidaymakers? The population of Colyton is growing…Axminster and Seaton’s populations are also growing FRS staffing advantages Colyton has never had problems recruiting volunteers, and at present we have three female officers - 25% of the 12 strong crew - with another undergoing training To close Colyton would be a backward step in equality amongst firefighters...Colyton is the only station locally with SHACS level 2 – an ability to rescue a person from height in a confined space.

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised The Colyton crew went out 81 times in 2018. Their nearest station, which isn’t deemed as quiet, went out 62 times Colyton has the 5th highest total incidents of the 8 stations, the 3rd highest incidents attended in the station area by affected engines 2018, and the 2nd highest availability of first affected engine Colyton has at least an 89% record of turnout Other community impacts We have lost enough services in recent years…a hospital, our police station…St John’s ambulance. We are possibly the largest employer in the Beer District…we urge you to reconsider…closing Colyton station, not just for our sakes but also for the wider community

Kingston 8 The only 4-wheel drive fire engine capable of getting to Burgh Island and other difficult terrains It is already nearby and does not have to struggle to get here through holiday traffic from the retained stations at Ivybridge, Plymstock, Kingsbridge or Modbury The availability of the engines at the retained stations is not guaranteed as a backup – they could be on another mission or not have sufficient firemen available to take their fire engine out Kingston Fire Engine also backs up the retained fire stations and is often called out to fight fires as far away as Dartmoor Kingston is manned by four volunteers who are willing to risk their lives to save people and property in Bigbury and beyond High percentage of absentee homeowners and elderly residents incapable of raising alarm of tackling fires whilst we wait for the fire engines to get here Thatched properties The Kingston appliance is in good order …. As a first response vehicle it is more than adequate to provide critical and timely early interventions There have been occasions in peak summer when our roads have been so clogged up that we have grounded to a standstill…the smaller Kingston fire engine can get through much better whereas the larger appliances would grind to a halt…the Kingston appliance can use the back road from Kingston to Ann’s Chapel which is so useful if the B3392 is blocked

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised Frequently caravans are transported from up country to service the caravan sites at Challaborough…these block the roads up frequently…your big engines would not get through for hours, whereas Kingston could go via narrow back lanes There would be some capital saving, but to expose so many localities to greater risk so that you can save the £2 per annum peppercorn rent charged by the Flete estate for the use of the station building seems remarkably short-sighted The cost of running it with volunteers is low and their presence is very valuable The ACTUAL costs associated with the Fire appliance are ONLY £5,091.66 and NOT £32,984.00 as reported…Therefore, the actual cost savings associated with closing down Kingston Fire Station have been inaccurately presented and cannot justify closure For those stations proposed for closure, no viable alternative cover stations are detailed, together with their status, crewing durations etc. and especially call out to site anticipated travel time…With less engines/crews and night cover, such alternative cover could be crucial for more remote locations such as Kingston

Appledore 6 I believe the retained fire service in Appledore should be compared with the work of the RNLI here. Please consider retaining the…fire station and introduce the use of voluntary firefighters … the Bidna (ship)yard remains fully equipped and Richmond Dock needs only a small investment to accommodate ships. Furthermore, the potential to revive our fishing industry could well happen. Please do not base your decisions on today’s situation; retain the fire station and, if as I hope, it will become needed in the future It is becoming increasingly possible that the Appledore Shipyard will reopen, which, I assume, will contribute to an increased risk of fire in the area With increasing numbers of new houses being built in the area and the regular influx of tourists, I am concerned that removing the provision completely from Appledore may result in tragic consequences…we enter a rural hinterland with scattered properties and hamlets, which are often hard to reach…it seems wholly inappropriate that there should be any reduction in service in this area

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Topsham 3 An intricate town full of dead ends, hidden houses, houses that adjoin, without any fire protection…and houses on streets with no vehicle access…Closing the fire station would lose this local knowledge and open up some of the more hard to reach parts of town to potential disaster A fire appliance…from Middlemoor …is unlikely (to) be able to find the location of the fire and suitable means of accessing the incident in less than 15 minutes…you need local knowledge Topsham FS provides good value for money as it is manned by part- time retained firefighters. Topsham and Middlemoor both cover the motorway…With the increased traffic in recent years, especially in summer and the likelihood of there being more than one incident…it seems madness to remove your backup appliance

Budleigh Salterton 2 The proposal to close the Budleigh Fire Station and reduce the Exmouth station to daytime hours is a disaster waiting to happen Budleigh Salterton Station is no longer viable. Why? …With the closure of Budleigh, Exmouth should be 24/7, not part-time staffing. Two pumps and one small 4x4 would be sufficient to cover a very wide area including the high-risk Woodbury Common and the Royal Marine Camp and Sandy Bay Caravan complex?

Summary of main themes raised in written submissions – views on removing third fire engines

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Disagreement with/concerns about removal of third fire engines

Yeovil 8 Yeovil is expanding rapidly, both residentially and commercially

The loss of a reactive and timely fire service could put our five thousand college students at risk in the event of an emergency

Yeovil engines tend to emergencies in Dorset, particularly Sherborne and Portland. We are also aware that the service cannot be reciprocated due to Sherborne being an on-call station

Yeovil Town Council are … opposed to the removal of assets from Yeovil and surrounding area stations

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised (The Firefighters) are all very worried about the impact this will have on Yeovil and the surrounding villages…would be cutting their frontline cover by 33%...Over an average of three years the appliance has been mobilised 25.2 times per year….It is also used as a standby pump at Yeovil fire station. I gather that V73P5 is the only appliance in the fleet that can supply V73A1 with water in relation to output and pressure...Because Yeovil is a ‘Hub’ station the appliance offers the flexibility of regular training. All the crews at other local on call fire stations add a minimum of 5 mins extra time to get to respond to the fire station

Crewing both or even one appliance could result in the service not being able to respond in a timely manner to the Network Fire Services Partnership’s minimum Pre-Determined Attendance (PDA0) requirement of 4 x fire appliances for a Military Aircraft Crash here at Leonardo or 2 x appliances for a commercial/industrial accident

Taunton 4 The Exmoor National Park area is most directly affected by the following ‘Safer Together’ proposals: … Removal of third fire engine from Taunton Station (Options 3-6)

Bridgwater 3 Sedgemoor has a growing population, increased business and new homes, more jobs, people and vehicles on its road and I strongly oppose any reduction to the fire service provision in Bridgewater

Torquay 1 The English Riviera can ill afford a major fire with multiple casualties, simply because the local fire service is unable to mobilise sufficient appliances quickly enough

Summary of main themes raised in written submissions – views on removing second fire engines

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Disagreement with/concerns about removal of second fire engines

Lynton 16 Invaluable crew and appliances suited to remote rural location A vital asset for the whole of Exmoor The second appliance has off road capabilities that are essential in our rural location for example moorland fires, access onto farms

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised and fields, flooding incidents. This pump also has winching facilities that can be used in many situations. Also last year we were completely cut off from civilisation by snow! This appliance has the ability to respond in all these situations The pump is on the run during the time most big incidents happen! Lynton is a priority station so if we go out another pump has to come and cover the area - Costs more money! It gives us ability to help other stations as the second pump can cover Lynton while the first pump is operational. It gives Lynton, Porlock and other close surrounding areas local backup with vital resources Due to its remote location it is absolutely essential that this or a pump like it, is kept at Lynton If the proposals happen, who goes…to the RTC, house fire or even a chimney fire The Exmoor National Park area is most directly affected by the following ‘Safer Together’ proposals: Removal of second fire engine from Lynton Station In the summer months the Exmoor moorland is prone to catching fire…barn fires are commonplace, and the rural community is widespread and inaccessible. Having Lynton and Porlock stations either side of the moor…is crucial Without Lynton’s 4x4 with its large water supply and Porlock’s ‘Ground Hog’ the (moor) fire will be out of control in no time…damage to heathers, wildlife and environment will be huge, putting more firefighters in danger and using more resources A proportionate local response is needed as Lynton has old buildings, it’s steep and inaccessible in severe winter weather Response times Lynton is situated 20 miles in every direction from its nearest towns of Barnstaple, Ilfracombe and Minehead. Porlock being the nearest support station is 12 miles away and Combe Martin approximately 16 miles. This would mean the average response times would be 40 minutes from the main towns and 20-30 minutes from the two nearest villages and this would be on a clear run Highly inaccessible, particularly in winter months when it is regularly cut off with snow Tourism impacts

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised During the summer months it…benefits from a large influx of visitors/to at least double Other comments It costs you very little money to keep operational! A preponderance of older properties Moorland fires … will only increase as summers get hotter We seem to be fighting for our very existence in Lynton, having lost our hospital, resident ambulance/paramedic, two care homes and a police sergeant and five constables over the past few years. Our retained firemen are often called upon to be first responders to medical emergencies and do a marvellous job The loss of the second engine in Lynton will be an issue as Minehead is one of the most remote fire stations in England and puts it at a geographical disadvantage Having a second engine is important to ensure a sustained response. Removing this engine will also put extra pressure on IIfracombe and Barnstaple to provide cover

Crediton 5 At Crediton both the fire engines (one large, one smaller) have…their particular uses in specific circumstances…Retaining both fire engines at Crediton is imperative to continue providing essential protection for residents

Totnes 5 There are many old timber framed buildings in Totnes, making it vulnerable to fires. Reducing the number of fire engines from 2 to 1 greatly increases the risk both to residents of Totnes and to the other firefighters

[It] could be catastrophic [for Totnes] to both life and property, with regard to the latter in particular to the heritage buildings, many of which are timber framed, extremely old and at extreme risk of fire… The population covered is around 23,000 and is also an area at risk of flooding

Martock 3 I believe Martock and Chard are at risk of losing their second appliance and this will also have a ripple effect Option 3 not only includes the removal of the third appliance from Yeovil but in addition to this includes the removal of the second fire engine from Martock. The combination of the removal of both appliances will leave the town and the surrounding areas seriously under-resourced

Summary of main themes raised in written submissions – views on changing from wholetime to day crewing

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Disagreement with/concerns about changing some stations from wholetime to day crewing

Barnstaple 18 In Ilfracombe…many of the buildings are four or five stories high and are of multiple occupation. Many of them have not had a fire inspection for years and lack the basic safety fire protection required. We also have large hotels…Equipment to reach the top floors of these buildings are in Barnstaple As Barnstaple is the main centre for the larger North Devon (and will) see a growth in the area of 17,220 new homes…It is important that North Devon has a Fire Station this is manned 24 hours a day by full time firemen with specialised equipment that can supplement the other fire stations in North Devon. The risk is far too great to the people of North Devon if Barnstaple Fire Station is downgraded Firefighters there are specially trained to deal with both search and rescue in difficult access scenarios including flooding and swift water incidents in addition to line rescues from height and confined spaces…provides this cover 24 hours a day, seven days a week right across North Devon and beyond Barnstaple fire station has a wide range of risks, both commercial and industrial. It covers the main hospital for North Devon, protects over 27 care homes, 75 houses in multiple occupancy, 26 schools, 96 hotels and some 450 shops…also an extensive area of rural risks including many thatched homes, open fields, moorland, coastal and woodland areas Fremington Manor Care Home, Bishop Tawton Primary School, Park Lane Care Home and the North Devon Children’s Hospice will all fall outside of recommended attendance criteria…none of the surrounding stations’ fire engines will be able to reach the scene in under 20 minutes The Exmoor National Park area is most directly affected by the following ‘Safer Together’ proposals: Change of status to day crewing at Barnstaple station (Options 4-6) It will put more pressure on the retained personnel…at the moment they will only be disturbed at night if Barnstaple have a two-pump shout…if these night-time shouts increase by a large percentage, it is going to impact them…I think many will leave due to it being too much of an intrusion into their work and personal lives

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised Barnstaple Town Council does not support the Barnstaple Fire Station reducing to a retained service at night and only a full-time day crew

Exmouth 5 My estimation is that it would take at least twice as much time…with people only on call at night Exmouth is the largest town in East Devon and warrants a full twenty-four-hour service The proposal to close the Budleigh Fire Station and reduce the Exmouth station to daytime hours is a disaster waiting to happen With the closure of Budleigh, Exmouth should be 24/7, not part- time staffing. Two pumps and one small 4x4 would be insufficient to cover a very wide area including the high-risk Woodbury Common and the Royal Marine Camp and Sandy Bay Caravan complex The numbers of countryside fires during heatwaves and the number of flood incidents, needing rescues…will increase If the Budleigh Salterton station is closed, Exmouth must have adequate cover for the enlarged area. 24-hour cover should be extended

Paignton 3 As you will be aware the proposal to turn Paignton Fire station into a ‘day crewed’ station would inevitably lead to an increase in initial response times to key incidents in the town at night, plus the arrival of a second engine to incidents across Torbay in the evening

Summary of main themes raised in written submissions – views on changing second fire engines to on-call at night only

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Disagreement with/concerns about changing some second fire engine to on-call at night only

Ilfracombe 8 During past years, Ilfracombe has needed the aerial appliance turntable ladder engine on several occasions…part-time firefighters are not trained to use these. Does that mean that if there were a need, Ilfracombe would have to wait until a ladder engine came from Exeter?

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised Would it not be cheaper to have some full-time firemen based at Ilfracombe during the daytime to supplement the on-call firemen so that one fire engine would be available at all times? I am concerned that the new roving fire engine will be used by the Authority instead of bringing in firemen to Ilfracombe to keep Ilfracombe’s fire engine on the run. The roving fire engine could be needed anywhere in the county and leave Ilfracombe without cover

Wellington 6 With the thousands of additional houses and units being built in Wellington coupled with its access to the M5 and West Somerset, the likelihood of future demands will grow…the service should be strengthened in Wellington rather than the overnight reduction Wellington is a growing town with a population that exceeds 15,000…A considerable amount of new building…will result in at least 1,000 new homes…In addition, our location has several commercial estates and two large factories including an aerosols factory Wellington has two major factories with high numbers of employees and significant risk. Relyon has between 300/400 employees, while Swallowfield Consumer Products is a Lower Tier COMAH site (Control of Major Accident Hazards). Also, the local station is well supported by the town’s two major employers. They (Relyon and Swallowfield) release at least five employees to respond to calls and this is sufficient to crew one pump. Both these firms have been supporting the fire service for at least 50 years. This has meant the station has maintained one pump availability 100% 365 days of the year Wellington provides crewing for National Resilience assets, high volume pump (HPV) and hose layer and a Mass decontamination Unit (MDU). These are required under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and need to be crewed by specialist crews 365 days a year… If the second pump/crew are taken off during the day we would lose the ability to crew these resources, with the possibility that skills could be lost if staff move away, and the asset availability lost Whether at our immediate junction (J26) or further afield, our local FRS has considerable demand to attend road traffic incidents, particularly in the summer, in poor weather and the Friday peak travelling period. We are also near a railway line with a considerable length of tunnel which could be assumed to increase the risk

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised Demand for the services of the local station is increasing around the town itself, as well as support they give to nearby stations, some of whom also have proposed cuts…the proposed cuts are ‘gambling with lives’ One submission makes all the following points in objecting to the proposal for Wellington: The population is increasing and three housing developments have recently been built The town has seen an increase in commercial units There are two major factories with a large workforce and risks from various hazards The main railway line from London to Penzance runs through the area The M5 also runs through an area where RTAs are common Second pump availability is not currently 100% but additional personnel have recently been recruited to try and combat this It is a high-performance station within the top 12 most active on- call stations within the FRS The station has one pump with 100% availability, 365 days a year (as two major local employers release five staff between them if needed). Second pump availability is also generally good, meaning it is often called to support other stations The station provides crewing for National Resilience Assets, a High Volume Pump and hose layer and a Mass Decontamination Unit. If the second pump was taken away, it would lose the ability to crew these resources M5 incidents require a minimum initial attendance of two pumps, and delays will be experienced in waiting for an additional appliance from elsewhere in these circumstances Surrounding stations are facing similar reductions in cover, and there is concern around the cumulative effect of this.

Frome 4 If a second fire engine is called from Shepton Mallet, that service must be paid for. Thus, savings may not be significant overall The closest alternative station (for Frome if proposals for Frome and Wells go ahead) is at least 25 minutes away (Shepton Mallett) The engine and crew might attend a property fire but cannot access the source of the fire until a second engine and crew arrive. In such a case a second engine would have to be called from Shepton Mallet or from Wiltshire but until that time the fire could

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised not be efficiently tackled and the property could be destroyed…Wiltshire Fire Engines have been sent to Frome some 90 times in the last year between 0800 and 1800 to back up Frome’s two fire engines…the second fire engine at Frome…has attended 78 incidents between 0800 and 1800 hours over the last year. Domestic fires have increased 23% in the last year and Frome is noted as being a ‘high risk’ area. If a similar number of incidents occurs, then a single Fire Engine and crew would be unable to efficiently extinguish a property fire until a second fire engine and crew is brought from Warminster or Shepton Mallet on average every four or five days One neighbourhood in Frome is classed as one of the 20% most deprived…in England…brings with it increased risk factor for fires…higher levels of anti-social behaviour In 2018 there were a series of arson attacks I question the removal of the full operational capacity of the second engines before prevention work is embedded and delivering the preventative outcomes Mendip hosts many large events within the district including the largest in Europe, Glastonbury Festival Of the 85 on call fire stations in the DSFRS, Frome is the second busiest. It is also the fifth busiest on call Fire Station between 0800 and 1800 which is the period when the service proposes to reduce cover by not manning the…second fire engine

Wells 3 Wells is … a city with a growing population It has the Cathedral/Wells contains numerous ancient and nationally important heritage buildings…the rich heritage and impact on communities does not seem to have been considered within the consultation document Wells has … several large schools, at least two care homes and an increasing amount of housing for the elderly … most of the housing in the city centre is terraced and opens straight into the street, often with no rear access – any fire could quickly spread to adjacent premises Wells has an…aging population I question the removal of the full operational capacity of the second engines before prevention work is embedded and delivering the preventative outcomes.

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised Mendip hosts many large events within the district including the largest in Europe, Glastonbury Festival

Williton 3 The Exmoor National Park area is most directly affected by the following ‘Safer Together’ proposals: Night crewing of second fire engine at Williton Station

Unspecified 2 If the loss of wholetime fire crew at night will mean the aerial ladder platforms will not be able to operate at night. It will be impossible to reach properties with multiple floors which is unacceptable

Okehampton 2 Bow is midway between Crediton and Oakhampton. Therefore, with proposed cuts at both these locations, a reduced service at both those stations would inevitably adversely impact the Bow area, thereby rendering the area less safe for the future

Tavistock 2 Tavistock Fire Station covers an area of 300 square kilometres…making it one of the largest fire grounds in Devon. There are more than 22,000 people in this area…a figure which will only increase as the many new housing developments come to fruition…if the second appliance is removed from the town during the day, when many businesses, manufacturers, schools, colleges, shops and hospitals are fully operational, I am extremely concerned that this will create a delayed response Outside Tavistock we have a rural hinterland with scattered communities, where access is often difficult…therefore, it is vital that the ability of the fire service to respond to such events is not compromised in any way

Chard 2 The South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028)…clearly states that Chard is the second largest settlement in the district. Over the plan period it is proposed to deliver approximately 1,220 dwellings (including one new primary school, two neighbour centres in Millfields & Holbear and sports and open space provision), with a further 1,496 dwellings after 2028 dwellings (including one new primary school and two neighbour centres in Avishayes & Stop Line Slopes). It is the Council’s view that services should be increasing in line with additional housing and employment in the area

Teignmouth 1 Torbay is the most deprived authority in the South West region. Within Torbay around one in three of the population live in areas in the top 20% most deprived in England

Summary of main themes raised in written submissions – views on roving fire appliances

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Disagreement with/concerns about roving fire appliances

Inadequate service for 4 The idea of a guy in a Land Rover serving as a mobile unit up on the potential need Moor is rather laughable…would there be a phone signal where they decided to park up for the day? If he attended a fire, what’s he going to do? …Where would his fire hose and water supply be? The Exmoor National Park area is most directly affected by the following ‘Safer Together’ proposals: Introduction of day-crewed roving fire engines If you feel we as a village (Woolacombe) not at risk enough to keep our station open, then does that mean…a roving appliance will not be seen here as they are to be travelling to ‘at risk’ areas? I see that the mobile units are only stationed during the day so what about after hours?

Confusing option 1 The addition of the six roving appliances in Option 6 is confusing…these will be manned by full-time fire crews but does not identify where these crews will be resourced from or where the engines will be based at the start or finish of each shift

Summary of main themes raised in written submissions – other issues (finance and funding)

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Other issues: finance and funding

This is primarily a cost-cutting 18 The outline given by the fire service is a strategy of improvements, exercise/saving money should whereas from what I can see, the strategy is a pure cost-cutting not be put before people’s exercise and a significant reduction in the number of firefighters safety and engines The fire management service is being pressurised to reduce costs to meet budgets rather than budget meeting both the expected and potential demands Make no bones about it; this is a cost-cutting exercise … yet the Fire Authority has in excess of £37 million held as reserves! This represents the biggest ever single cut to DSFRS and is proposed despite the fact that the Authority underspends year on year by between £1.5 and £2.2m and have nearly £40m in reserve

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised It would appear to the town council that the ‘redistribution of resources’ is merely a cost saving exercise in which 33 communities will lose resource and only 1 will gain Your target - as we understand - is no more than an austerity programme in entertaining less day-today operations at reduced costs, but with increased risk

Council tax more than covers 15 I understand that the cost of running the Lynton station is approx. the existing service £35,000 when the council tax allocated to it is nearer £60,000, so it is more than self-funding The station costs around £120,000 per year to run. The people of Colyton pay the Fire Authority about £136,500 We feel this is not fair or acceptable to the public who we rightly feel should have access to a fast, efficient service by paying a proportion of our Council Tax towards this I am given to understand that the cost of running Ashburton’s fire station is somewhat less than the income provided to you by residents, if this is the case then the closure of Ashburton’s fire station would be depriving ratepayers of their rightful dues The money raised by our local community by way of taxes will still arrive in your coffers, but it will be spent for the benefit of others and not the residents of Ashburton and surrounding area Frome fire station costs £300,000 … but this is more than covered by the £1 million paid for by constituents. Our parishioners may, therefore, be paying in future for a service which they do not receive We all pay council tax which gives the people of Porlock and the surrounding area the right to receive the same level of service as elsewhere

Cuts/closures would not 8 The figures claim a capital saving of £475,000 in the first year if generate the savings claimed Colyton station is closed. Of this, the site is valued at £175.000. This figure is too high taking into account it is a small site boarded on two sides by busy roads. The other £300,000 is claimed as the value of the fire engine. The Colyton fire engine is not new, but it is also not old enough to need replacing for several years. Therefore, the capital saving in the first year is only the second-hand value of the engine if sold on the open market, which would be about £100,000. This makes the capital saving in the first year about £200,000. No

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised professional auditor would accept the figures in the consultation document I believe these figures are inflated, the station building is rented from the Flete Estate for £2 per year, there is rate relief applied due to the voluntary status, so the only establishment costs are electricity and water, with a bit of maintenance. Although the fire engine is 21 years old it is low mileage and perfectly serviceable and has been upgraded throughout its life so will go for a few years yet. The ‘Capital Savings’ column shows savings associated with the removal of the third and second fire engines for Options 2-5. However, the summary for Option 6 indicates similar savings of £5.725m which does not factor in the re-introduction of the roving appliances into the total numbers which we calculate would reduce the savings by £1.8m giving capital savings of £3.925m. This appliance (Lynton’s second engine) is M reg and has done very little miles for its age. It has been brought and paid for many years ago by the service but is fully operational and requires a minimum amount of money to keep it running. There would be no great saving to the service in removing this appliance

Central Government cuts and 8 Why is it that reduced funding from central government always the need for lobbying affects ordinary people the most … affecting public safety? I would be grateful for a meeting with the Chief Fire Officer alongside Cllr Howgate to discuss what steps can be taken given the difficult financial constraints the Authority finds itself in as a result of the need to make £8.4m of savings due to continuing underfunding by national government. I recognise the challenges this poses to the Authority and will be pressing for a fairer funding package that would give adequate scope for maintaining a first- class service of fire prevention and emergency rescue If you have calculated the service you need to provide, rather than the one you have to make fit the ‘financial envelope’, are you lobbying the government to fund it? If you have not calculated the service you need to provide … do you intend to do so? … Money should never be the driver of services I urge you not to reduce the service, but to lobby for more funding on the grounds of special circumstances of our area, such as increased population and the complex nature of our road system

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

False economies 7 To downgrade the service for a small saving is a false economy If the changes have to be reversed in the near future, then this will take years and money to do so This is an unsustainable strategy. Once the site and the skilled firefighter base has gone, they will be gone for good The irony is that it is we who shall continue to pay for this sort of false economy…in reality there is no actual saving at all I fail to see how withdrawing the Kingston Fire Station and crew (for the price of a small car) can improve our safety DON’T DO IT. IT’S MADNESS AND MAKES NO FINANCIAL SENSE!

Increased not reduced 6 Additional resources should be allocated to these stations rather investment is needed than the reductions envisaged in the proposals A significant amount of the money needed relates to pension shortfalls and commitments – the Government should be supporting that if it is a nationwide problem, not reducing quite substantially its grant support to the service, disproportionately affecting the rural communities Cuts and caps to staffing have left many stations regularly unable to supply a fire engine crew and this is then cited as a reason for further cuts. This is a pattern familiar to us from cuts to local hospital services which have been cynically run down in advance in order to make the case that they are underused and uneconomic

Other means of raising money 5 Have other means of bridging this financial gap been considered? Savings must be achieved by partnership working, not by each emergency service withdrawing back to the largest towns and cities so that the smaller villages don’t get an ever-worsening service for the Council Tax they pay There is no mention of how cost savings have been made at management level or in administration All of these cuts are to fire crews. They do not propose to cut office staff…(many on £50k plus salaries) Why not cut office staff instead?

Residents willing to pay more 3 I am sure that a further payment by our council taxpayers would be to retain service enough, financially, to keep the station open

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised I am sure … that residents and businesses would rather spend a few more pennies per week (if necessary) to keep vital full-time fire service cover Have you considered alternatives such as asking local taxpayers whether they would be prepared to pay a small ring-fenced increase in council tax to meet the cost of maintaining the levels of fire and emergency cover that they have now?

Perceptions of poor financial 2 The irony of the nearby ‘HO Command and Control Centre’ having management by DSFRS cost the public finances £20m whilst remaining unused at Blackbrook is not lost on Parish Councillors either at this time. The centre costs have frequently been noted at PC meetings throughout the period of austerity

How will savings be 2 The document does not clarify how any savings made would be reinvested? reinvested to meet local needs We have too many fire engines and staff in areas where risks are low and, therefore, demand has fallen and in other areas where the risk has increased. We do not have enough resources, although there are no proposals about increased resources in these areas

Summary of main themes raised in written submissions – other issues (staffing and crewing)

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Other issues: staffing and crewing

Prevention and protection/ 18 The agreement for disbanding stations is that there are very few replacing front-line fires, so an increase in prevention officers will have little effect. The firefighters with prevention statistics show that most incidents are road traffic accidents and officers flood and water rescues and backing up the primary appliance with more personnel…These incidents are not going to be reduced by increasing fire prevention officers…The proposal also states that it will have to increase the fire safety checks on businesses in the Colyton area to 474. Putting a conservative cost on each check of £200, this will add £94,800 to the budget. These increased checks are unnecessary because businesses are already fire surveyed by their insurance companies. No company can get insurance without a comprehensive fire survey. This is a far more practical and cost- effective means of fire prevention. Taking this into account we

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised would propose the reduction in fire prevention officers to 4 per county. This should release enough money to retain the front-line services. Colyton has been very succesful in engaging the community in protection activity which is essential, but, where lives are at stake, having a fire engine and crew able to attend is the priority While it is acknowledged that prevention and education is vital to reducing the risk of fire incidents, this should not be at the expense of the response service The Fire & Rescue service say that the money saved will be put into preventative measures, but you don’t say how the money will be spent ‘Safer together’ suggests that more fires are prevented through measures such as home fire alarms. However, attendance at false fire alarms represents a large and rising workload…which are taking an increasing amount of resources. More widespread prevention measures – desirable though they are – may actually increase the demand for attendance from fire crews Concerns have been raised about breaking the links with local teams for prevention advice Smoke alarms do not put out fires; they possibly enable escape Do they have hard facts that prove safety checks and visits will compensate for the proposed cuts and changes…? Fire fighters used to talk to people about fire safety. Why can’t they do that now to save employing someone else? P.9 shows a person (possibly a fireperson, it does not make this clear) installing a smoke alarm. I consider this misleading as I know that this work has been taken away from local stations. No doubt all your staff have clearance to enter people’s homes but the local fire-fighters are known to us and we would much prefer to have one of them come to our homes.

Suggestions to improve 9 We all appreciate the work all of your highly skilled staff carry out recruitment and retention of for an hourly rate less than you would now pay to have your bins on-call staff i.e. better washed or windows cleaned pay/conditions Review all shift patterns across the at-risk stations and look to remove the 84-hour contract, moving staff to either a 42 or 63 hour contract. This would allow for greater flexibility amongst the crew and support an improved work life balance for staff. This option

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised combined with option 1 could ensure full coverage of all stations, for example Ashburton with Buckfastleigh could cover one weekend on and one weekend off They need a safe level of resourcing and staffing and realistic response targets to enable them to do their work properly, without putting themselves under excessive strain and risk. There needs to be greater clarity and detail about how the new pay structures would operate because significant concerns have been raised about the unintended consequences of reducing recruitment and retention rather than supporting them It is no secret that we have struggled in recent years to keep our second appliance on the run during daytime hours. This has mainly been down to the recruitment process taking far too long and people losing interest

Local knowledge is essential 7 Local knowledge will be lost and could be lost The local crews know the best way to get to where they need to be, getting there quicker and saving lives Last year alone, four of the Ashburton Firefighters provided over 8,000 free hours of availability in order to keep the engine on the run. The commitment, expertise and local knowledge would be lost should the station close If Colyton fire station were to close you would inevitably lose proven cost-effective Retained Firefighters with valuable skills and experience within their community… How are you going to ensure that fire staff on these roving machines gain such local knowledge?

Shortfall of on-call firefighters 6 There will be a shortfall in volunteers to take on the role as many are already finding shouts impinging…on their livelihoods and sleep … from their increasing role as first responders on top of their fire shouts The quality standards of our excellent fire service will be negatively compromised by the impact of these proposals on the recruitment and retention of quality fire fighters which detrimentally impacts on the ability to meet the fire services optimum response times to ensure safer communities and to meet recommended optimum medical times to save lives Difficulties with the recruitment, employment and retention of on- call firefighters should be addressed and solved as they can provide the most flexible workforce

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised The service needs to both attract and keep more retained firefighters…a retained and trained firefighter from Topsham, for example, cannot easily transfer to Middlemoor. It brings about a level of family disruption and is unlikely to be embraced by the firefighter in question We understand that there is an issue with the recruitment of on- call firefighters. We would be interested in knowing what assumptions have been built into the proposals to ensure that engines will be available when they are required What could be done locally to encourage local employers to release employees for service?

DSFRS is already 6 Currently the services yield a performance which is lower than a understaffed/the cuts would theoretical performance, described as ‘full availability’. We can exacerbate this or undermine only understand this result to prove that already the services are recent improvement efforts in understaffed recruitment and training

Reduce senior 3 You do not give any statistics of the number of personnel employed management/wages/ at Fire & Rescue Headquarters, nor their level of earnings. You do bureaucracy/non-essential not state whether any of these – presumably highly remunerated staff individuals – are going to be let go in order to protect front line services The published accounts of DSFRS 2018/2019 show that there was a significant increase in the number of officers earning between £55,000 and £155,000. This alone seems to indicate that the wage bill in this higher tier has escalated by approximately £1.5 million in a single financial year. With the apparent need to make cutbacks, why have the public not been consulted on the option of making savings at this level of management instead of cutting frontline services?

Summary of main themes raised in written submissions – other issues (consultation)

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Other issues: consultation

Misleading/inaccurate 45 The options proposed do not provide sufficient detail for the statistics use of statistics/data improvements claimed, particularly information on how the on-call - general system would be improved, how extra prevention and protection would be achieved or how much would actually be re-invested into the service Does not sufficiently detail each of the current stations and what the consequence of the suggested changes would be within the locality but also in the wider area Firefighters are first responders … why was there no detail in the consultation on how that would be mitigated? Data utilised fails to properly acknowledge issues of rural isolation, sparsity factors, exponential seasonal population increases and woeful transportation links for our communities. There is insufficient breakdown to compare rural and town data. How can residents compare data for local areas to the national data quoted in the consultation? We could not find anything concrete about the change in risk to life associated with each proposal…there needs to be some explanation of what change in risk there would be from each of the six proposals and how this compares to the risk associated with no change The information does not adequately explain how the remaining fire engines, stations and crew will keep a rising local population safe…for instance: How is the on-call system to be improved? How much would actually be re-invested into extra prevention and protection measures? How will the service be monitored and evaluated for any impact of cuts on response times and outcomes? The documents also give no information around how the untested concept of daytime roving appliances might be utilised to meet response times. To offer this as a mitigation for the proposed reductions is a high-risk strategy at a time when fire deaths in Devon are increasing There is no mention of timescale, we would like to see implementation over a number of years, with a continuous review process, this should allay some fears that this review cannot be stopped, once started, and it can be modified as it progresses

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised They state the location of its fire stations were based on … standards of fire cover set in the 1930s. UNTRUE … prior to the Brigade setting their own standards … in 2004, they used the latest standards published in 1998. Strange, then that the Chief Officer … has made no strategic relocation of ANY fire stations despite his argument regarding the changes in both the location of new buildings and the growth of changes in the two counties population density. His only proposals regarding fire station location is to close some!

Inaccurate/insufficient 25 Incident type is limited to station ground fires and RTCs information presented on Statistical data used for the consultation and analysis must include type/volume of callouts ALL call outs. They must NOT concentrate on fires and fatalities alone, but include estuary and cliff rescues, RTCs, trapped persons (e.g. in lifts) and all other rescues If they go out to assist another crew that is not quoted as a call out. If this is so, then it is absolutely outrageous! The official callouts only include the first two engines to attend an event and they only include certain fires…do not include commercial property, ladder rescues, assistance with the ambulance service, first aid rapid response, assisting the Coast Guard…moorland fires…The actual number of callouts that Lynton has done this year is…in the region of 100. The official recorded number is less than a tenth, which is farcical ‘Cherry picking figures’ occurs when stating that some stations only respond to 10 or less fires per year as this is based on primary fires and does not account for supporting other engines, back ups, RTCs, fires outside the area, animal rescues or floods The headline figure used by DSFRS that Topsham Station attends approximately 20 incidents a year is at best wildly inaccurate and at worst deliberately misleading. Last year, the station attended 221 incidents in total and this number has increased year on year for the last five years Firefighters have also highlighted that the data does not reflect the full scope of their work responding to non-fire incidents for example flood incidents, farm machinery or animal rescues and neither does it reflect the many occasions on which they are lending support to neighbouring areas. It is also of concern that there is no data around the occasions on which an additional appliance would have been sent but no staffing was available or

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised where crews are not being sent to situations where that would previously have been the case The crew actually attend far more RTC incidents on the surrounding roads … fires in the sand dunes, bin fires, business fires - None of these have been included in the statistics and fancy graphs…animal rescue, water rescue, flooding assistance and management Perhaps it would be a good idea to publish all the facts, not just the ones that stack up in favour of these cuts The consultation does not make it clear how incidents beyond domestic fires and road traffic accidents would be impacted … I would like to see how the new options impact on emergency planning and promoting community resilience The other functions that are not counted are education, and prevention work. This is important work and will be dropped if you go ahead with your plans. … assuming that all stations act independently serving their area. We all know it is operated as a coordinated network of contiguous stations. This grossly underrepresents the number of calls responded to as does the reporting protocol which only counts the first two responding appliances and then only if they are from the area covered by that station. What isn’t included in the statistics are: commercial property, assistance with other agencies (i.e. air ambulance, land ambulance, coast guard etc.) and moorland fires Inaccurate reporting of fire and RTC risks You omit to mention that there has been a national increase in fires over the last five years (by 8% since 2014/15) (3) The data assumes the risk from fires and RTCs has decreased whereas figures for Devon and Somerset actually demonstrate: fire deaths increased last year (from 8 fatalities in 2017 to 11 in 2018); RTC deaths increased last year (from 28 in 2017 to 35 in 2018)

Little consideration given to 20 Estimates of risk contained within the consultation need to take seasonal population increases account of tourism in consultation Between Easter and October holiday makers are forming the documentation majority of the population. The permanent population of Porlock is 2,000 permanent residents…25% of the houses are second homes and these are filled to capacity in the summer months. The increased risk has not been

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised included in the modelling used by the D&SFA but clearly a factor that should be included

Little consideration given to 19 Exmoor has a large concentration of buildings of historical high-risk buildings in importance, often with thatched roofing. Farming communities consultation documentation often use modern methods and technologies in buildings not originally designed for such usage. This increases the fire risk There are very large buildings and organisations in and around Yeovil, such as Yeovil district hospital, Leonardos, RNAS Yeovilton and Montacute House (National Trust) as well as numerous schools, care homes, day centres etc – many of which look after some of our most vulnerable residents … isolated rural properties, some of which have thatched roofs Ashburton Fire Station serves an area of great historical value. There are 114 Listed buildings in the Parish of Widecombe and at least a quarter are thatched. This includes Higher Uppacott which is a Grade 1 listed thatched building of national importance and the Grade 1 listed St Pancras Church There are significant numbers of thatched and listed buildings in Ashburton’s ground. These tend to have a higher level of combustible materials than average, presumably affecting survivability and would be a significant loss to the heritage of the area if they were badly damaged by fire …there are more listed buildings in Colyton (114) than in the whole of Axminster (87) and Seaton (19) combined (106). These include nationally important historic properties such as Shute house, the great House and the Colyton Tannery

Inaccurate/insufficient 16 … the statistics presented to us at the consultation do not take into information presented in consideration the true time it would take for an appliance to reach consultation documentation – Porlock and Porlock Weir from Minehead and Lynton on response times A retired police officer confirmed that during his employment and on duty he could not achieve the stated times in a police car, so how we should expect a fire appliance to achieve the times is very questionable The figures used have been misrepresented in terms of miles from towns and arrival times … it appears you have used as the crow flies data The Safer Together publication states that the nearest fire stations are just over 4 miles from Woolacombe at Braunton and

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised Ilfracombe. This is as the crow flies and is certainly not the case via the main road These figures have been quoted “as the crow flies” to make it seem they are nearer than in reality. In 15 years I have never seen a fire appliance have the ability to travel through fields and hedges to get to an incident The proposals do not appear to take into consideration the road networks and volume of traffic at peak periods The fire service says response times won’t increase. Of course they will We are also curious as to how the estimate that it takes longer to get from Coyton to Seaton than from Seaton to Colyton came to be calculated The revised attendance times make no reference to properties that may be disadvantaged by the proposed changes

Criticism of options 16 We believe the options outlined … are extremely limited … every option involves the closure of eight stations We are concerned that the public consultation document does not allow for an open-ended and creative response None of the options are a choice I would make There is a tactic to present worse case scenarios of pulling almost half the fire provision so that people vote for the worst options Many people may well find it confusing as to how you can offer ‘options’ which are nothing of the sort. You are simply asking just how far they are willing to accept cuts in services. I cannot reconcile Appendix 1 of the second paper which only shows an increase in Life Risk for every option (see fig 47 for example) with Figure 2 in the same paper which shows a reduced Life Risk for all options bar option 5. It is not clear how Option 1, for example, which only involves closure of stations, can reduce Life Risk. Perhaps additional prevention and protection activities have been factored in, though this contradicts my reading of both papers which seem to say that the options have been analysed without taking such extra activities into account. We are concerned that both the paper and online ‘consultation questions’ will give an inaccurate and skewed result. Questions 1a to 1f invite a rating to the whole of each Option. Many respondents may give a good rating intending it to relate to their local proposal

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised but have no opinion on the remainder of the other areas included in the option. Such a result will give a false positive response to areas about which the respondent has no knowledge or opinion. The reality of the consultation is that it is prescriptive and leads the respondent through a sequence of unacceptable alternatives. The whole consultation is premised on the first option. If that is unacceptable the following questions are pointless. We believe this consultation has been badly thought out and a total waste of money. To expect local people in one area of the two counties to understand the needs of another area is both ridiculous and impossible. The length and complexity of the options are too difficult for the lay person to respond to in a knowledgeable way. Therefore, we expect the results of this consultation to be inconclusive and should therefore be scrapped.

Modelling is “suspect” 14 The essence of your financial model is based on a ‘risk model’ which has not been explained further in any detail…several parameters which fit the model are outlined but the mathematics behind it is not…Are you really suggesting that with the exception of model 5 (increased death toll) less resources yield better outcome? You may understand that such a model calculation violates common sense Have you modelled how your ideal fire service would be built to meet today’s needs? If not, why not? If you have, how much of your proposed changes fit with that model? We believe these latest proposals are based on overly optimistic ‘best-case’ scenarios. They are not adequately backed up with case evidence and do not include other, less optimistic risk scenarios. We are not convinced by them It is assumed that appliances would be available 100% of the time if the changes were made (compared to the current 80%). This is unlikely to be the case and risk will increase The data provided by the FRS is flawed and reflects the unachievable expectation that upon cutting resources, the assets left will be available all the time. This gives a false impression that the risk of deaths will reduce…. Risk modelling does not compare like for like…what is needed is a comparison of theoretical full availability vs current theoretical full

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised availability. If this was done, each option would display increased risk Every option seems to disadvantage Mosaic groups A and G disproportionately. This is particularly true for the number and percentage of households with more than 20% increase in Life Risk ….I am not sure what Mosaic group Buckland in the Moor residents fall into, but A and G seem likely. If Ashburton Station is to close, then this clearly needs to be addressed and the Parish Meeting would like to be consulted on how the additional risk to parishioners will be mitigated. By their very nature Emergency Incidents are both unpredictable and always going to happen…and when they do happen all people will want is the ‘Big Red Truck’ to turn up as soon as possible.

Inaccurate/insufficient 10 There is an assumption that after the cuts all assets will be information presented in available at all times, giving the false impression that the risk of consultation documentation – fire deaths will reduce if the proposals are agreed, whereas appliance availability statistically, it is likely that the risk would increase There is no evidence of how incidents anywhere in the area would be covered when there are concurrent incidents drawing cover from the main stations. This lack of evidence raises deep concerns amongst our traders If we had a house fire in Woolacombe…and Ilfracombe…arrive with a crew of four...are you aware they are not allowed to enter the building until another engine and crew arrives? …The facts and figures put across have been skewed to hide the truth and reality of the situation It is also rather absurd that DSFRS have made these proposals and options on the pretence that there will be 100% cover from all Retained and neighbouring stations in the area which I have also found is very far from the truth as I am reliably informed at times in North Devon on a weekend the whole coast from Barnstaple – Lynton – Woolacombe can be unavailable due to staff shortages I have read both the ‘Community Impact Assessment Pre- consultation Service Delivery Operating Model 2019’, and the ‘Analytical Comparison of Community Impacts: Service Delivery Operating Model (SDOM) options’ papers. It is not clear from either what appliance availability has been used for each option. SA options are being compared with 95 percentile availability from

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised 121 appliances, I believe that each option should use no better than 95% availability as well

Criticism of title of 9 A more appropriate title would be ‘less safe apart’ consultation It was noted that it is somewhat ironic that the consultation is titled ‘Safer together’ when in reality the proposals are suggesting that the fire and rescue service is actually spread further apart! Further we believe that presenting the biggest ever cut to services as a progressive development under the title ‘Safer Together’ is misleading, duplicitous and patronising and undermines public confidence in the Fire and Rescue Authority How does this equate to Safer Together? The changes proposed for DSFRS are made under a Safer Together banner. This implies that all the emergency and rescue services are working together. This is patently not the case and DSFRS are being curtailed in areas that have already lost community hospitals, ambulance and paramedic services and many joint responses to emergencies are not recognised

Poor timing of consultation 6 The consultation was badly planned on a Wednesday afternoon … events when most people would be at work … However, the public meeting held in the same hall was full to capacity The public consultation has been held for a very limited time slot when most residents are in work Consultation meeting (in Ashburton) … conveniently arranged when there will be low public turnout as most people will be at work

Little consideration given to 6 At the SWT Council meeting 19 June rural poverty was rightly rurality/rural poverty identified. The proposed reduction in rural fire cover is another in consultation example of how all the services are being reduced to the rural documentation community and this proposed cut should be opposed at all costs. Rural lives matter, this service needs to be improved not diminished.

Criticism of survey 7 The consultation document is confusing and does not allow for true instruments/questionnaires freedom of speech The questions asked in your consultation document were ridiculous The matters being put forward, the number of options and the form of response all deter from responses being sent

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised Your online survey … is very poor … many give up midway because of its lack of ability to put down what their own opinions are I feel the consultation process, form itself and whole project has been rather complicated, mis-leading and very tiresome to complete…(but maybe this was the intention?) Others have tried to complete the online version, myself included, only to have the document “time out” when they clicked ‘submit’, thereby losing all the information that they had entered …copious and frankly complex documentation The way the FRS has requested feedback is constrained and doesn’t provide the public the opportunity to question some of the fundamental presumptions made’. Every option suggests the closure of eight stations and there’s little opportunity to provide feedback on the impact of closing each station in turn

Inaccurate/insufficient 5 Councillor … challenged the data presented in the consultation and information presented in had asked for more financial detail consultation documentation – Why was there no information … on how the funding arrangement finances for the DSFRS compares nationally? How are residents to ascertain if the funding for the…service is fair? The change in risk from your proposals is neither quantified or explained. The financial case for closure has not been explained What savings in recurring costs will actually be realised by each option? There seems to be the assumption for most that any revenue savings will simply be spent on something else…How capital cost saving will affect recurring costs – will sites be sold, how will maintenance costs change etc. What gap is between the target of £8.4m a year and the actual savings for each option? There is no detailed breakdown of either revenue or capital savings. It is imperative that such information is provided in order that people can have clarity of and confidence in these figures

Little consideration given to 5 Like all plans and studies, they should be far reaching, not a ‘now future changes assessment’ in consultation The report does not seem to take into account the likely large documentation expansion of housing and other facilities as a result of the forthcoming Greater Exeter review…and the large increase in people over 50 moving to the area

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised Expanding communities and the construction of new housing estates will undoubtedly demand revisions to fire and rescue plans even though the new buildings are likely to have been built to modern construction standards The use of incomplete historical figures to predict future need is unsound and a poor basis for robust decision making Unfortunately, out in the community, the Fire Authority, unlike in industry, does not control what people do…Let us not forget that just because the statistically predicted event has not happened, that it cannot happen or will not happen. We live in an uncertain world

Limited 5 Nor has the consultation involved local community representatives community/stakeholder DSFRS declined an invitation from this Town Council to attend involvement either our Council meeting or the Public Meeting convened to consider the proposals … a poor response from public servants I was disappointed that out of 24 consultation dates, only 2 were held in Mendip District Council area, leaving some of the most vulnerable people (those in rural areas, relying on public transport, with restricted mobility etc.) with only your website to learn about the proposals The FRS have refused to engage with a major stakeholder, resulting in a lack of opportunity to gain insight into the detail of the proposals

Little consideration given to 3 The changes in climate … may lead to more fires involving areas of climate change, flooding, risk vegetation…The proposals do not show how this area and East of wildfires in consultation Devon’s Sites of Special Scientific Interest would be protected documentation Many areas along the coast have been identified as vulnerable to erosion and flooding. The proposals do not show what the Fire Service will be able to undertake to support and protect the public in these areas Exmoor … along with other upland moorland areas presents particular risks and challenges in terms of the environment…increased risk of wildfire…(which) in peat-based areas can become difficult to extinguish…Many small and large rivers on Exmoor (are) subject to sudden and major flooding. Flooding and wildfires need specialised equipment and trained crew available at very short notice. These environmental problems

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised will only get worse with climate change…the ‘Safer Together’ proposals do not adequately address these risks

Criticism of questionnaire 3 How does the colour of your skin, gender, religion, sexual profiling questions orientation, marital status have anything to do with the closure of a fire station! Profiling questions too personal

Unsuitable venue for 3 The venue is restricted for disabled people and there is limited consultation event access/parking (2) There was a consultation of sorts at Ashburton on Monday 22nd July, unfortunately it was a fiasco. The venue, The Chapel of St. Lawrence, was totally unsuitable, with access for the disabled not being possible due to Child Protection issues, these being notified to your authority by our Town Clerk several weeks in advance.

No consultation event close- 2 No consultation event was planned or has taken place in this town by (Wellington) despite having 16,000 residents. The nearest event … necessitated a 16-mile round journey. I have been contacted recently by concerned constituents that no consultation event has been scheduled in Teignmouth…… Given that the proposals have the potential to impact on fire services in Teignmouth, I do think it would be appropriate for a consultation event to be held there.

Poor access to consultation 2 Paper copies of consultation document were limited discounting document many residents who do not have access to the internet … The consultation document is not available in other formats or languages. For some of our traders, English is not their first language and have been unable to take part

Senior staff unfamiliar with 1 The nearest member of the Devon and Somerset Fire Authority local areas lives thirty miles away from us, which does not give me confidence that they know and understand my area well.

Poor management of 1 A populace enraged by the proposal to close its Fire Station was consultation event never going to fit into the building and your Officers were completely overwhelmed. Posing questions to anyone in authority was impossible and the Chief Fire Officer had very rudely organised himself another meeting elsewhere. He should not try to be everywhere when closures/major alterations to working practices are being addressed. I tried several times to engage with him, but he was more interested in talking with his own personnel, others

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised that I approached, having said they would come back to talk to me, simply never reappeared in order to do so. It was nothing short of chaos

Other criticisms of 12 I believe that this consultation has not been handled well. Few consultation document practicalities and local factors have been considered and the proposals are very much desk-top based from people who seem to have little or no local knowledge. It fails to recognise the excellent work that firefighters already do to prevent injuries, building damage and environmental damage, and to respond to all types of incidents. …you assert that you “will try to be in the right place at the right time” It is questionable that you are apparently seeking to base vital policy decisions on an aspiration! Surely, clear and deliverable policy standards are what is required. I found the document a truly terrible document. The number of options and choices is bewildering and very difficult to fill in for most ordinary residents of the two counties. It is almost as if the forms were designed to baffle and confuse. There is great capacity for confusion and I feel that the whole process has been unfair on such an important issue for all residents across the two counties. I hear the response numbers are low and I am not surprised. Understand just how few people will actually take the time to fill out the onerous consultation document…..Many members of the public have been concerned enough to sign various petitions against the proposed cuts. Sadly, in some instances these expressions of concern have been dismissed by senior members of DSFRS because they are not in the format of the official consultation document. Teignmouth town council also wishes to express its concern that you as the fire Authority are asking the general public which of the options presented are a good solution for the people of Devon and Somerset. Teignmouth town council believes that asking such a question of the public is flawed especially as it is for the Fire Authority working jointly with the Firefighters who are best to ‘know’ what the ‘Best solutions’ are for shaping the delivery of the service for the future and then public consultation. The council is also concerned as to the appropriate lack of transparency in this process where the document refers to the information/ data collected by this consultation being kept

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised confidential and only the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue staff responsible for the analysis of data and those responsible for preparing the consultation findings report receiving full details and not the public or the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority members. Due to the complexity of the form we had to run five drop-in sessions to assist the vulnerable (generally the elderly) in filling in the questions. Many did not have the means or competence to complete the online form and those unable to fill in the paper copy simply gave up. The consultation process has been so confusing and off putting for the majority of the general public that many have not completed the questionnaire due to it being full of jargon and terminology that they simply do not understand, to ask them to comment or make decisions on something with such flawed data that they don’t even understand is ridiculous…unless of course this is what DSFRS want? Were members of the Fire Service represented on the Fire Authority Board, as they are the people with the knowledge to make decisions about restructuring?

Summary of main themes raised in written submissions – suggestions/alternatives

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Other issues: consultation

A longer consultation period/ 8 This major change in approach should be more widely discussed fresh consultation and understood by all before any part is implemented Exmouth Town Council requests … a new consultation which takes fully into account the concern of this and other councils, community organisations and local residents To be able to offer a realistic and appropriate suggestion for an alternative course of action would require more detailed information and discussion Please delay proposed closures until the HR 4Rs scheme is operational, to support staff and deal with potential relocation support.

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised This will undoubtedly mean going back to the political masters and telling them that what is proposed is unacceptable

Address difficulties in 5 Existing services fulfil a vital role in providing support for the recruiting on-call firefighters neighbouring stations all of whom suffer from recruitment difficulties for volunteer fire fighters Increase the allowance given to part-time firefighters to appeal to those who are self-employed or share parenting. Or employ more full-time staff at stations but share backroom functions with other emergency services to save money Review all shift patterns across the at-risk stations and look to remove the 84-hour contract, moving staff to either a 42 or 63 hour contract. This would allow for greater flexibility amongst the crew and support an improved work life balance for staff. This option combined with option 1 could ensure full coverage of all stations, for example Ashburton with Buckfastleigh could cover one weekend on and one weekend off

Personnel reductions 2 I would like to know why there are two Chief Fire Officers for Devon and Somerset with a combined salary of over £300,000. Two people for one job? And all those deputies on over £100,000 each? Seems like a good place to start saving money rather than endangering public lives. … and the number of fire prevention officers is reduced to 4 per county.

Strategic reduction in number 2 Why are you not reviewing a way of reducing the number of of stations but with full-time stations overall, but manning the majority you do have with full- firefighters in all time firefighters? … In the north Devon area, we have stations at Woolacombe, Ilfracombe, Combe Martin. Have you considered building a full-time station at Mullacott serving this area with perhaps a part-time, retained facility at Woolacombe (or one of your ‘roving engines’ during the summer months …) which is also a co-responder? Consider where would be the optimal placement of fire stations taking into account population density and rurality…consider having 24/7 full time cover for at least one appliance at all these stations. Reconsider the role of the Fire and Rescue service, especially with respect to the challenges we are likely to face as a result of climate change

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised

Fire station relocation 1 Further options should be considered and should include: no closures; build more fire stations in the right locations before thinking about reductions… Although there is recognition that populations are growing, the proposal is to close stations and reduce costs. It would be more logical to relocate more services / use increased tax revenue from higher populations to build new stations where coverage is lacking.

Consider changes in pressure 1 With the new status and increased development in the East Devon on heaths and woodlands area, the pressures on the heaths will increase … climate change will see higher risk of wildfires … in the last few years we have had several large fires in excess of 30 hectares … we request that you consider the risks in vulnerable sites such as heaths and adjacent woodland and residential dwellings.

Increase taxes 1 It may well mean that taxes have to rise to meet the expanding demands … we have to ask, “Do we want and need a level of cover that has been proven to be reasonable in the past?” The response is, “Yes we do”

Premises sharing/co-location 1 There needs to be a more creative assessment of the way in which of roles communities can retain at least one emergency service – perhaps by working with local communities to share premises – perhaps with the parish council …..The need for more co-responders to relieve pressure on A&E is important and in Cornwall the opportunity has been taken to co-locate the roles of PCSOs and fire officers – why has that not been used in Devon?

Aggregate Crewing 1 Combine station crew to ensure minimum threshold of hours is covered for any shifts and incidents. WE understand this has not been explored or considered as part of the Safer Together campaign.

Reduction in council tax 1 Alternatively, if the service we currently expect to receive is to be contribution to the fire downgraded, then perhaps a reduction in our contribution to the authority fire authority will also be considered?

Use of helicopters 1 We have these 2 charities: Devon Air ambulance trust, Dorset and Somerset Air Ambulance. WE live in a new Space Age. Could Devon and Somerset Fire Service plan for fire-fighting helicopters to manage fires on moors and tall buildings with difficult ground access. (viz. Grenfell Towers) There are Spegel buckets for such speciality work. The helicopters would give quick response. If

Number Sub-Theme of times Example Comments raised necessary suitable fire engines could give additional ground support if needed.

Appendix 2

Tables presenting summaries of Written Submissions (emails)2

Summary of main themes raised in email submissions – Options and general comments (positive)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Agree/Support proposals – General

Agree with increase in protection, 3 Undoubtedly the work carried out in these areas is of great value prevention and education to our communities and essential in the reduction of risk The consultation in this form lacks positivity. We need a stronger message on the prevention and protection work that will be unlocked from this. We absolutely support the Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service in their commitment to end preventable fire and rescue emergencies, with the aim of creating a safer world for us all is as important to the community as actually fighting fires.

Agree with change of status to day 1 There are other ways of saving money and I agree with day crewing crewing some of the quieter whole-time stations that on call staff can cover at night.

Agree with maintaining cover 1 We agree with everything you have said about keeping a full fire cover in Torbay and District.

Agree – general 2 I think the fire service management should be allowed to manage the fire service within the available budget without unqualified interference. We have reviewed the proposed options and support the work that the Fire Service is undertaking to modernise the service to meet the changing needs of the population.

2 “We have taken care to ensure that no information that identifies individual respondents has been included in this report. However, where a response has been submitted on behalf of an organisation (such as a Parish Council), we have included the name of that organisation as this is often important for context, but does not compromise individual anonymity.”

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Agree with Option 1 3 Unlike some of the claims made by activists, it is not all bad. I am advised that Topsham and Appledore are realistically the low hanging fruit, with their capacity already almost matched by nearby stations. Closing the Budleigh Salterton fire station makes sense BUT only if Exmouth continues to provide a 24-hour service. I cannot believe you would contemplate a daytime service only for the largest town in Devon and the surrounding area. I would like to vote for Option One please.

Agree with Option 2 1 In principle I accept the need to make changes; in particular losing the 3rd appliance from some stations

Agree with Option 4 2 My preference would be for Option 4 seeing that it offers the best value on financial returns. Looking at the financial benefits the big jump in revenue savings is between Options 3 and 4 with Option 5 delivering the same capital benefits and only a modest additional revenue saving so Option 4 would be my preference.

Agree with Option 6 1 We would be happy to support Option 6. We are assured that the high priority status of the Hospital in terms of response would be met through this model.

Agree with option 7 2 Go back to the drawing board. Consider where would be the optimal placement of fire stations taking into account both population density and rurality (regardless of the existing stations); consider having 24/7 full time cover for at least one appliance at all these stations. Reconsider the role of the Fire & Rescue service, especially with respect to the challenges we are likely to face as a result of Climate Change: remember too that having a properly funded, effectively located, full-time Fire & Rescue service is like insurance – always there when we need it. If it is not possible to go back to the drawing board at least do so for the North Devon coastal area: a new station located at Mullacott trading estate (with full-time staff) would enable swift response to Ilfracombe, Woolacombe, Combe Martin, and Braunton and would release the three coastal stations and their resources. Perhaps locate a fire appliance on-call and as co-responder in Woolacombe during the summer season when the population swells up to 10-fold.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Option 7 which is a Mix and Match Option as follows: Option 6 which would result in the following:• Savings being made by the service; greatest capital saving, 3rd highest revenue saving • Largest increase in prevention measures; Business and home fire safety checks • Reduced risk rather than an increase in risk as in Option 5 where there is an increased risk of fatality in fire and RTC, and an increase of waiting time for an engine. With the addition that Okehampton should retain a 2nd Engine on the grounds of special circumstances at Okehampton with attendance at RTC’s on the A30, a 30 mile stretch of dangerous road with Okehampton having the nearest engine.

Summary of main themes raised in email submissions – General comments (negative)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Concerns/Opposition to proposal

– General

General comments of disagreement 27 We need our vital fire service. Shame on this Government with proposals If you cut the Fire Service anymore, in the near future we will have the problems in the Fire Brigade like we are now having with Police numbers. Despite statistics manipulation it is plain to any clear-minded citizen that increasing waiting times for Fire Service attendance will impact on that Service and increase danger to those involved, be it fires, RTA or other first response duties. I would be very disappointed to read in the future … that Devon and Somerset fail Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Fire and Rescue Services inspection, as did West Sussex after such a restructure. It is a demonstration of their utter disregard for general public wellbeing and safety Any action that reduces the effectiveness, the response time, the availability of, or the morale or manning levels of the fire service has to be condemned fully and unequivocally. If this is done for purely economic reasons, then that volume of condemnation is raised.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

The Brigade's Senior Management…seem to have taken the Core Values of the Service and systematically obliterated them … I'm disgusted and ashamed at the levels of dishonesty, misinformation and downright arrogance they have shown towards the public they are supposed to serve and who pay their wages I suspect like the rest of the public services; they are being deliberately run down and assets sold off to make them a more attractive business proposition for the private sector All of these options make my life in North Devon much more risky by … seriously depleting the firefighting ability in North Devon. The Fire service, the Ambulance service, the police service, and the medical services in small rural communities are critical. These must be maintained for the benefit of the community and … the visitors who bring the prosperity to the Area It should not matter where one lives; we should all receive equal treatment as we all pay for the service. Developments that make us feel even more vulnerable with further extended response times and straining the mental health of your team when they realise that they have arrived too late to save either life or property should be avoided at all costs. Surely the provision of fire fighters is our insurance in the terrible circumstances of a fire The basis of a consultation is to discuss reasonable options. There are no real or reasonable options in this paper as the basic and underlying premise is fixed and the remaining "points for consultation" i.e. the remainder of the six options are relatively less important. In this respect, it is clear that the process up for approval on Friday falls short of the Government's Principles for Consultation

Reductions will result in an increased 79 Risks to lives and property must be massively increased with some danger/risk to firefighters/general of these proposed changes public/risks lives "In London, 10 fire stations have been closed, 27 fire engines axed, and more than 600 firefighter posts have been cut. Every year response times are increasing and 2015-2016 saw a 15% rise in fire deaths compared with the year before." After Grenfell, any increase in risk to the public and fire officers caused by cuts is utterly indefensible.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

ASLEF is seriously concerned by the health and safety implications caused by these proposed cutbacks. They will inevitably have an effect on the protection afforded to our members at home, and at work on a large section of our railway, and therefore also on their passengers, the travelling public. We live in a country and at a time that should be improving safety of all, not making the place more dangerous The risk to firefighters will significantly increase if these cut proposals are approved … Is firefighters’ safety still a concern for DSFRS? if so how? What the Analytical Comparison document does reveal is that over 600,000 residents will face an increased risk to their lives if the full proposals are carried out (262,486 households x 2.3 average occupancy = 603,718 people). That detail should not be kept secret. The public deserve to know before responding to the consultation. The fact that a small village Fire Station may not be used as often as a big city station is not a waste of money but a blessing, and to think that in the awful circumstances they are needed to save someone life they might not be there is awful. It’s no point waiting until a life is lost (or many lives) in an incident and then saying ‘ oh perhaps we shouldn’t have closed the station’ and reopening it – how many times have we seen this sort of thing happen on the news. We would also add taking Porlock’s fire station away we are sure will endanger lives If people die as a direct result of the longer time it takes an appliance to arrive, will you be taking responsibility for their deaths? I don’t reckon you would. Ok risks of fire have reduced over the years, but they still exist and why should it become a postcode lottery as to who gets cover either during the day at the stations you intend to close or at night in some of Devon’s largest towns. The Royal Clarence is important incident to consider as perhaps if the wind direction and speed had been different the outcome for Exeter would have been catastrophic. It is not hard to imagine scenarios other than fire outbreaks occurring that would put lives

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

at risk with a depleted service, chemical spills, motorway pileups etc. I would like some answers from yourselves of how you are going to guarantee the safety of the residents of Woolacombe and the surrounding areas of North Devon because losing stations and reducing services in others will put a strain on the whole of the county This is the 21st century what price are you putting on a life ? I am a serving Police Officer and the cuts we have experienced have had massive implications on fighting crime and keeping the public safe any confidence they had in us has gone … don’t let this become the same for your service. The pounds saved are worth nothing compared to the lives! We need to protect and preserve what we have.

Will result in slower response times 43 I personally have only had to call out the Fire Service on one occasion. My neighbour knocked to tell me that my xxx was on fire! I had no idea, dialled 999 and within minutes there was a crew at my door and the fire was put out … the fact that I knew they would be there within 5 minutes made me feel a lot safer Although we do not have high rise buildings like Grenfell here, we do have buildings similar in size to the block of flats in Worcester Park, South London, which was destroyed despite the efforts of 20 fire engines. What hope would we have here with a similar size fire By closing stations & reducing staffing you will be increasing response time & putting our lives in danger. By the time other responders arrived, the house would probably have burned down! As Braunton and Ilfracombe Fire Stations are retained and Barnstaple is a retained station at night, during an emergency in Woolacombe and Mortehoe, we would probably not be reached in time. If any of these stations were understaffed, and therefore taken off-line, which is quite likely to be the case, they wouldn’t be able to respond at all! We have had three fires in the last two years where had it not been for the quick response of the fire crews of Topsham could have become large fires.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

In your presentation, unless I missed it, you do not say what your legal requirement is to get an appliance to a fire scene. Someone said 30 minutes. Well if that is the case, with the Kingston closure where is an appliance going to come from? What is utterly unacceptable is wholesale removal from large geographical areas of your ability to respond to incidents within a reasonable time. I believe that DSFRS set their own ERS times to what they think is needed to save lives. For example for an RTC, 2 pumps are required carrying a crew of 9, with the correct equipment to attend within 15 minutes. As this was set by the service how do they now find it expectable to fail to meet these times? As the changes made to Wells alone, we will be unable to meet these times in the day?

How will the service respond to 24 …and there are always people who will risk life and limb, not only increasing fire incidents in non- in properties (celebrations of holidays - drink taken, falls down domestic situations? stairs and out of windows!) but on or in our river, the Torridge, which must be one of the most dangerous along this coast .... The Coastguard and Lifeboats do sterling work, but there is always the possibility that more help will be needed, hence the reason to keep the fire engine Fire service response to support the Ambulance service, another shining example of managerial incompetence, has to be a positive use of trained staff resource in rural areas. You don’t appear to have accounted for the likely rise in incidents as a result of climate change: flood, fire, and possibly even dams bursting We have no A & E nearby, the local DRs Surgery only works office hours … Ambulances can take hours, because of the distance and also because they, like the rest of the NHS are at breaking point. Of most concern is the fact that some of the stations being closed are designated medical co-responders but the stations that will now be responding will NOT be co-responders, so this is the absolute removal of a critical service which I believe contravenes the other emergencies section of the 2004 act. In the case of Woolacombe which is a co-responder that has dealt with 221 medical incidents since 2014. Following closure, this service will

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

not be provided by the Ilfracombe or Braunton stations designated as the replacements F&R - on-call firefighters, also trained as Special Constables, known as Community Responders (similar to Ambulance?) - ‘also provide important cover for police in areas where there has been a reduced community policing presence’ so multi-tasking already...

Concerns regarding traffic 20 The roads here are chock-a-block with farming vehicles, builders’ congestion/narrow roads and main lorries, delivery vehicles and tourists and as you should know, the roads/ motorways so-called access B road is five miles with a great deal of single lane working You appear not to factor in the vast traffic to and from the South West through arterial routes in Somerset. It is not long ago that the firework disaster occurred at Taunton and accidents keep happening on the A303

Short-term savings are misguided in 18 The population of Frome has increased a lot in recent years due to light of increasing housing and its popularity, demonstrated by the new large Edmund Park industrial development estate; The Saxonvale development has proposals of several buildings of height, which may need more than one resource …; The Mendip plan is to build on several fields from Edmund Park to the Marston Industrial Estate, with proposal of 5000 new homes. With the ever increasing population of Frome many roads and new estates have cars parked on both sides of the road, causing delay for the fire response Byron has just finished building 53 all year-round apartments. The Royal is a very large derelict hotel. A new all year-round residential park is being developed at Tranquility Park. Most of the hotels in Woolacombe and Mortehoe are now apartments. We are surrounded by large caravan parks. The town is about to expand and has in fact just started in Chuley road. There are two new housing developments pending and a hotel next to the A38 Yeovil is an urban sized population with the largest commercial risk in Somerset. Leonardo Helicopters are planning to upgrade their civilian airfield to a tarmac runway increasing the local risk They are/have built so many new houses in Wellington that the fire service just cannot cope.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

The area of housing this side of the bypass has increased tremendously in the past few years and is still increasing. It has also recently been in the headlines that many new houses do not have sufficient fire blocks in place although they were included in the plans. The development of Hinkley Point has increased all journey times in and around Bridgwater. This will mean not only that it will take longer for a fire engine to reach a fire but will also mean that retained firefighters will take longer to get to the station. This means that it is unsafe to rely on retained people at any time of the day or night

Fire fighters do a good job and have 14 Ever since I joined, we have been extremely proactive with fire local knowledge prevention in Colyton and the surrounding areas, which has not only educated the older members of the community but the younger people as well. We have even carried on with this prevention work over the last 3 years when the budget was removed, we did it on a good will basis because we didn’t want our communities to miss out on valuable fire safety advice These fire service teams have built up years of specialised local knowledge and have evolved exactly the right local skillsets to respond effectively While on paper, it may seem economical and efficient to close and centralise services, in reality, I feel your plans are missing the crucial point of the enormous value of these local, specialist teams Our local retained firefighters are so loyal, dedicated & do such a wonderful job, with family life put on the back burner & don’t get enough appreciation Sadly, Government funding has failed to support these brave men and women who regularly put their lives on the line to keep us all safe. … it will cost lives over time, as well as lose generations of experience. The fire crews at Ashburton not only have many years of experience and training that would be lost if the closure went ahead, they are also available at short notice in the event of an incident. We are proud of the brigades work here and we are proud of our young men who use their local knowledge of the area to our

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

advantage and are sufficiently civic minded to give up their leisure time to ensure that this beautiful part of Devon is properly serviced against the threat of fire. The crew there have a wealth of experience, with 3 members having over 15 years’ experience, 1 having 20 years, and one having over 30 years’ experience! Not the kind of knowledge you want to throw away, and not the kind you can replace tomorrow.

Concern over elderly and vulnerable 7 You state that: “Through our research into fire deaths in South residents West England we know that those aged 85 and over are most at risk of dying in a fire. Devon and Somerset’s population of those aged 85 and over is set to almost double by 2029 (43% increase).” Please explain why your response to this statement is to reduce the cover. Our population is one of the oldest in Europe, being older makes us even more vulnerable. We can no longer look forward to the security we have paid taxes for all our lives. What good is it having smoke detectors throughout the house if you are deaf, under heavy medication or not sufficiently mobile to vacate your home quickly?

Demand for Back-up / multiple 7 Ashburton station provides cover for Buckfastleigh if they are out incidents and vice versa. If Ashburton closes, then Buckfastleigh will be the only station able to respond locally in the prescribed times. If there were two major incidents at once, say a major RTA on the A38 and a serious house fire in one of the outlying Dartmoor villages there would not be the resources available to cope with both. In fact, it would be a stretch with the current resources.

Lack of faith in DSFRS 5 Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue is an organisation I have always been very proud to be a part of and I have been honoured to serve my community. But, to be very honest with you, my faith in the leadership and management of it is being seriously tested at the present time These proposals demonstrate a lack of foresight, innovation and to be brutally frank, competence The idiots who put these options forward are clearly incompetent and lack any understanding of what constitute sensible public safety provisions … On Health and Safety grounds alone the degree of incompetence demonstrated would justify sacking

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

The documents presented do NOT have OPTIONS … The service has produced a single option with layers of severity … We have been purposefully misled … We were categorically told there was an option that did not involve station closures. We were also informed the ‘demand led/volunteer’ model was an option. Both these are not present in the final draft … Based on this, the FRSA would like to record its heartfelt disappointment with Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service. The goodwill with which we approached this, is now depleted. We will now ensure our concerns are publicised vigorously … We will also enter into further discussions with a mind-set of mistrust. My husband was in the fire service for xx years, I know personally of the sacrifices the crew make on a daily basis to attend shouts. We were told that Woolacombe is struggling to get recruits, there are 3 I believe waiting to join, but with the uncertainty over the future of the station, have still not yet committed.

Loss of first responders 5 No one who has not been in receipt of this invaluable help will know what it means to have someone there with equipment looking after you while you wait for an ambulance to arrive I desperately needed the support of the first responders knowing they have a defibrillator on board if needed I know you don’t acknowledge the first-responders being your priority but looking at this another way, I waited 30 minutes for an ambulance to arrive it was 11pm so very little traffic. If this had been a fire the firemen in Barnstaple would have had to get to the fire station put on their gear and drive here. There is no way a fire engine would go as fast as an ambulance. I would be interested to know how long it would take to get here (not as the crow flies but by road) I feel the loss of the Co Responder relationship with the ambulance service is a risk. We know that this service has saved lives in the past and can only assume it would do so in the future. This proposal makes you realise the emergency services should work more closely Running in conjunction with our fire station is the first aid co responder vehicle I understand this is a service that isn’t just the responsibility of the fire service but definitely if the station goes

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

we will lose this ,which again is called out regularly, this is a life saver for our village.

Increased risk at night 3 Risk – how is the increase risk to life of night-time fires weighed up against the increased incidence of fires in the evening in the models?

Addressing likely increases in 3 We frequently see fires on woodlands, moorland, heathland and emergencies and consequences of scrub around the county and the fire service’s rural stations have climate change always done an excellent job of attending such fires and minimising damage. With the increasing risks associated with climate change, it is likely that such fires will become a more frequent occurrence Many of these habitats are of national and indeed international importance and offer many other services to local communities such as flood alleviation, water quality enhancement and carbon sequestration as well as biodiversity benefits. They also are key parts of the tourism economy and provide health and wellbeing benefits to those who visit them. Without adequate protection from fire, particularly a rapid response from local stations, there is an increased risk to these important habitats It would be short sighted to shrink it now, at the very point where we may need it to deal with events that were rarely experienced in the past but may now become much more frequent. Lots of homes have wood burners and people are opening up fireplaces in their homes With this dry weather we seem to be having the last few years, the fields and dunes are short of water and can easily be set alight by bbq or cigarette

How will service respond to 2 I am not aware that there have been any discussions about the increasing road traffic accidents? potential impact of these closures upon the time critical requirement to extricate trauma victims from vehicles involved in motor collisions. For the victims of such incidents we know that every minute counts and that in some areas, particularly East Devon, following casualty extrication there can then be a very long journey times by ambulance before patients can get to hospital to receive life-saving interventions (particularly blood administration) that can’t be delivered in the pre-hospital environment. All the Trauma Units in the Peninsula and the Major Trauma Centre in Plymouth contribute to a national Trauma Audit

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Research Network database (TARN) that gives us a good idea of the trauma burden within the region and what factors influence survival. It is clear that time is key for patients with life threatening bleeding. Whilst such incidents are fortunately rare they do occur and we need to assure the public that any intended closures do not have an unintended consequence of adding small, but potentially life-threatening delays in the extrication of patients from incidents in relatively inaccessible, rural areas. RTAs can be rife with teeny tiny lanes and people unused to driving on them mixing with cyclists, animals, livestock and the occasional leaping deer...

Increased pressure on remaining FRS 1 Moving resources to different areas would put more pressure on remaining fire stations and remove speedier cover from these areas.

Increased risk with leaving the EU 1 The possible consequences of Britain leaving the EU have not been taken into consideration. The recently published Operation Yellowhammer report on planning to leave the EU, despite being heavily redacted and edited, indicates considerable pressures will arise for the population. This will almost certainly result in greater risk-taking behaviour which has the potential to increase the risks of house fires and other dangerous activities. Until this information is factored into the consultation process, any changes made will be done so without full analysis and appreciation of forward risk, and lives and property could be lost as a result.

Summary of main themes raised in email submissions – The Options (negative)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Concerns/Opposition to Options

Option 1 19 I don’t consider any of the proposed options would be a good solution or benefit the people of Devon and Somerset. How can they, they all involve reductions in fire cover and increased risk of injury, death, property damage and loss not just from fire but as a result of delayed attendance to industrial, domestic and road traffic accidents (RTAs).

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised It is not possible to solve rural problems with urban solutions; the infrastructure is entirely different and closing fire stations is not the answer. Put safety first and keep the small stations open. All of these stations provide a very valuable service to their communities and are pivotal in ensuring the safety of their residents. On top of this they are called upon to provide support out of their station areas as extra resilience at larger incidents. There has been no mention of this in the consultation document which I feel is misleading as a result. Lee Howell … said "Fire engines will take longer to arrive at an emergency in East Devon once stations close and cover is cut”. If this is the case, then Ottery St Mary Town Council condemn the current plan and strongly urge the fire service and the government to revisit the plan and ensure that there is no loss to current levels of service. Some of the stations being closed are designated medical co- responders but the stations that will now be responding will NOT be co-responders, so this is the absolute removal of a critical service which I believe contravenes the other emergencies section of the 2004 act Following station closure, several of these areas will suffer a degradation of response times so that they now fail the DSFRS standard response time for the first engine as published in the consultation document and will now automatically require despatch of two appliances to incidents, thus increasing overall appliance requirements. The service says the options are about matching risk. The definition of risk must have changed for these stations because a number of the stations that are on the list of closures were listed with medium risk previously When National level talks between the employers and FBU are resolved, we are certain to see an expansion of the Firefighter role. If stations are closed, this opportunity to serve rural communities in broader ways will never be realised. Life is better knowing we have this service and lives are saved because we do

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Closing retained service fire stations … may be easier but only saves a little money proportionate to your whole budget and leaves big gaps in the service cover Our Chief, Lee Howell appears to have done a 'u' turn, he has stated in the past there will not be station closures 'on his watch' The FRSA appear to have been misled, they were assured that one of the six proposals would not include station closures and yet each one does I am strongly opposed to the suggestion of closing stations, all of these stations provide a very valuable service to their communities and are pivotal in ensuring the safety of their residents, on top of this they are called upon to provide support out of their station areas as extra resilience at larger incidents, there has been no mention of this in the consultation document which I feel is misleading as a result.

Option 2 3 While the least damaging option being proposed is the loss of the third fire appliances at Bridgewater, Taunton Torquay and Yeovil, even this option is offset by need to provide adequate fire and incident cover for a significantly increased population, new housing, industrial developments and busier roads in both Counties Every call the 3rd fire engine (at Yeovil) goes to is saving either life or property or providing the resilience to cover big incidents. These appliances are used and are a very valuable resource … provide excellent resilience when needed and their removal would affect operation response

Option 3 4 The population of Devon and Somerset is increasing. Re- evaluation and some repositioning of Service Provision and resources is needed, but even putting these proposals forward reflects badly on the Senior Management in both Local Authority and the Fire Service. Areas where two appliances are currently, the savings are never 50%. To have a second appliance never costs as much to run as a single appliance … To remove the second appliance from Lynton and to remove the appliance from Porlock will be seriously detrimental to Exmoor as both the second appliance at Lynton and the Porlock machines… are capable of going off-road

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised I disagree with the removal of second appliances at 4 Retained stations. It has been claimed that these are at risk due to the stations not being able to recruit and keep the appliances available. Surely the answer here is to have a suitable and sufficient Retained crewing model which pays fairly and attracts staff to crew these appliances

Option 4 1 To close any of the stations and change Barnstaple from whole time to retained at night would be a complete unacceptable risk to all who live and love North Devon. Removing Option 1 details from Option 4, Option 5 and Option 6 would allow for proper evaluation of station closures and give you the ability to vote for a solution that keeps all of our communities served by a dedicated fire service. I have read the papers and understand that some retained stations need to close however I would like to raise my concerns on option 4 and above. 1. My understanding is that the trained fire fighters do not only put out fires. They are all trained to rescue humans and animals but there are no figures quoted regarding these other incidents they attend other the fires they don’t now attend. To me this paper is written in a way that it appears the decision has already been made. 2. If Barnstaple goes to day manned only. This will mean our nearest fire station that gives night cover other than retained stations are Taunton or Exeter. This will put lives at risk. I work at the local hospital in Barnstaple and it seriously concerns me that if we are without a full time fire station within a 55 mile radius our patients are at risk should a fire, major incident, or chemical incident happen. I do hope that you re consider the options and do not progress any further than option 3.

Option 5 8 Statistically the highest number of domestic fire deaths occur between 22:00 and 05:00. People who are asleep are more vulnerable … Arson remains the largest single cause of fire in England and Wales and research has estimated that the overall annual cost of arson to the economy in this area is around £2.53 billion … the incidence of arson (is) greater at night … Please explain how reducing, cutting night cover improves Public Safety Removing Option 1 details from Option 4, Option 5 and Option 6 would allow for proper evaluation of station closures and give you

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised the ability to vote for a solution that keeps all of our communities served by a dedicated fire service Fourteen second fire engines are taken out of use during the day, yet it is claimed that will make no difference to RTC fatalities (same result as for option 4). This suggests that the figures used in the consultation document are for first fire engine only, so … deliberately misleading ANY station closure or reduction in resources will inevitably have a knock-on effect on the surrounding areas in terms of response times and therefore ability to save lives and property Option 5 of the Safer Together Programme proposes reducing the daytime cover from two to one appliance in Wellington … It would perhaps be good to share your risk register? We urge you not to implement Option 5 in your proposals. Retain the second pump in Frome 24 hours a day and think to the future. Plan not for reducing your service but for increased demand in the years ahead I oppose the reduction in fire engines across the area during the daytime, particularly in Frome, and Wells The potential increase in fire safety checks are not guaranteed and cannot prevent every emergency. We still need a second fire engine to respond to any emergencies. Frome's second engine is already well used, around 78 times a year and 44% of the time (information from the Fire Brigades Union) - it is not redundant. Frome is your second busiest 'on call' station and the 5th busiest in the daytime. This will increase with the likely increase in population and traffic in future due to planned housing developments in Mendip's Local Plan, as it is required to allow development in accordance with the NPPF. The need for a second engine will therefore be likely to increase not fall in future - the consultation documents do not appear to have assessed this.

Option 6 5 Removing Option 1 details from Option 4, Option 5 and Option 6 would allow for proper evaluation of station closures and give you the ability to vote for a solution that keeps all of our communities served by a dedicated fire service. I am told that the roving fire engines were “in certain locations for the purpose of the modelling”. Whilst there may be odd occasions when a roving fire engine happens to be near enough to an incident to provide an improved response time, the random

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised nature of emergencies means there is a much higher probability that it will not. Evidence of this can be found in the Analytical Comparison of Community Impacts from Service Delivery Operating Model document, dated June 2019 … This shows the outcomes for options 5 and 6 as the same, which means there is no improvement on response times for roving fire engines. I believe you are on the cusp of making fatal errors if you allow these proposals to go ahead. It seems to me that these apparent financial benefits could in fact just disappear as part of the loss of central funding so the idea of having 6 roving engines (Option 6 - which I can see could be very beneficial) could just be pie in the sky as the extent of further funding reductions isn't clear to me. I think Option 6 is sensible with big equipment to tackle big incidents but smaller, more flexible vehicles that can attend quickly and are more manoeuvrable than the big engines. It's a bit like first- responder paramedics, as opposed to ambulances. However, according to your process, I can only select Option 6 if I'm prepared for all the changes in Option 1 to 5.

Summary of main themes raised in email submissions – Station closures (negative)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Disagree with Station Closure at:

No location specified 7 Fewer Fire Officers gain higher workloads, resulting in less safe working conditions. Where will this end? Perhaps someone can stop for a moment and ponder our sad demise. Enough is enough ... Stop these cuts now, and demand adequate funding for this vital service Closure of some of the stations will result in response times from replacement stations now failing the DSFRS own standard for first response I do not agree with any station closures as Devon and Somerset are large rural counties and the fire stations are already spread out in a logical way in which to cope with the terrain, which often

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised comprises country lanes and in urban areas difficult traffic conditions

Appledore 3 We used to have a small engine which was dedicated for the narrow streets of this village. It was removed some years ago. Why? It would be good to have one back Appledore also has a smaller engine which caters for its narrow streets It’s worth noting that a lot of the retained fire fighters at Appledore used to work at Appledore Shipyard, and they did have an arrangement with the site to charge their vehicle there and also allow for a quick getaway in an emergency. While Appledore Shipyard has recently closed, rumours are that work under another company may begin as soon as October. The Shipyard is also a high risk itself, with a combination of flammable gasses and materials, higher risk work processes and hazards, asbestos, very frequent working at height... and the ship and site has also been used for fire brigade training experience for Appledore Station in the past.

Ashburton 21 Response times will increase (6) The data contained in the … consultation document clearly shows that closure of the station would significantly increase response times beyond the 10-minute safety standard set by DSFRS. A FOI request … revealed that of the 1821 households that currently sit within the 10-minute response window, only 5 would remain should the station close! … That the figures do not include businesses or public buildings such as schools and hospitals provide an even greater concern. Bovey Tracey would be the nearest to us … but how will they be able to cope with the increased call outs? I understand that even now they sometimes struggle to get a crew especially during the daytime Increasing cover for growing urban areas like Newton Abbot should NOT be at the expense of remote rural populations, who will inevitably suffer longer initial response times and delayed or unavailable backup. Whist the statistics may show that one local town is more prone to incident than another it does not mean that the nature or type of potential incidents has disappeared. It therefore follows that

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised the risk and potential consequences will increase if the present Ashburton service is withdrawn. The risk of property damage including triple SSI areas, and lives lost would be considerably increased. Local Knowledge (2) All call outs require local knowledge as even the most modern of communications do not warn how to negotiate difficult bends and terrain to get to some of the old thatched cottages and farmsteads quickly. Buildings (8) The town itself is chock-full of historic listed buildings, the vast majority of which are at least partly timber-framed, and very flammable; standing cheek by jowl with common roof lines, and often insufficiently separated roof-spaces. The surrounding countryside abounds in thatched properties, and isolated farms with barns with very high combustible loads. Such fires need a rapid response At Poundsgate on Dartmoor we have the Higher Uppacott Longhouse which dates back to the 14th century and to lose such an historic building would be a disaster … It has the South Dartmoor Community College with the adjacent Antrim with over 1200 students, the Primary School with 200 pupils and Sands School with 90 students. There is also St Andrews Nursing Home, St Lawrence Chapel, St Andrews Church and many shops and industrial businesses employing large numbers of staff. Grey Matter Ltd alone employs over 80 staff, and Glendinnings Ltd having 240 staff. There is also the proposal to build a 80 room Primary Inn next to the new Police Headquarters on Dolbeare Business Park. It has the South Dartmoor Community College with the adjacent Antrim with over 1200 students, the Primary School with 200 pupils and Sands School with 90 students. There is also St Andrews Nursing Home, St Lawrence Chapel, St Andrews Church and many shops and industrial businesses employing large numbers of staff. Grey Matter Ltd alone employees over 80 staff, and Glendinnings Ltd having 240 staff. There is also the proposal to build a 80 room Primary Inn next to the new Police Headquarters on Dolbeare Business Park. The station is also adjacent to the A38 and over the past few years have had to

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised attend a number RTC’s. On average, the station is having two callouts a week. Should other fire crews be attending fires in their own area then the Ashburton crew would have to go to that fire station to be on standby. It would be an absolute disaster should there be a fire or accident at any of the above I have mentioned, especially at the schools and nursing home. Current use of appliances (2) DSFRS’s own safety standards require the attendance of nine firefighters (usually two pumps) for a building fire within the 10- minute response time and 12 firefighters (usually three pumps) if 10 minutes cannot be achieved. Since the start of the consultation on 3rd July, the Ashburton engine has been out on call no less than 35 times! The true figures of the call outs that they HAVE attended & The fact that the population is rising within our area, with all the new builds … would indicate that we need MORE fire services not less! Demographics (3) High risk older and vulnerable populations that are above average in our locality and are projected to increase hugely in the coming decade Because our community is ageing please consider the fear you are creating in our village. Ashburton is the largest town in the National Park with the station having to cover a large area which includes, Bickington, Buckland-in-the-Moor, Widecombe-in-the-Moor, Poundsgate, Ponsworthy and Woodland. RTCs / Roads (6) Retaining the Ashburton facility makes sense as does retaining the potential back up in Totnes in particular, especially when the nature of the ground to be covered in any incident in the surrounding area is taken into consideration. The station is also adjacent to the A38 and over the past few years have had to attend a number RTCs. On average, the station is having two callouts a week. Should other fire crews be attending fires in their own area then the Ashburton crew would have to go to that fire station to be on standby. (3)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Ashburton cover a great number of RTAs on the A38, which many are not included in their statistics, as Buckfastleigh don't carry the equipment needed to cut people out of the cars. Climate change impacts (1) Climate change modelling indicates that there will inevitably be an increase in flooding incidents which will no doubt require some form of rescue, along with the risk posed by frequent use of the River Dart for paddling activities. Dartmoor NP (5) We have recently heard from Dartmoor National Park Authority about their concerns around the impact of climate change and the increase in Moorland fires. The removal of Ashburton Fire Station would, again, significantly increase response times to such incidents, incurring greater loss to wildlife, habitat and possibly isolated rural properties. Your statistics indicate that secondary fires which include those on moorland increased by 40% in 2018 from 2014/5. … The local fire crews are of the opinion that the vehicle we have been left with would not be able to cope with the sort of off-road driving required to combat a moorland blaze. Ashburton station, with its rapid access to the A38, and proximity to a section of that road with a long history of accidents; and its excellent access to Dartmoor via three different routes, all originating in the town, serves a very large geographic area, and is vital in order to retain a reasonable response time to such ‘shouts’ Due to mismanagement of Dartmoor vegetation by Natural England, there is now a constant worry about wildfires on the moor. The Ashburton station is already some distance from the moorland (Dartmoor) areas which it has to serve and the idea that residents would now have to rely on a fire station even further away is extremely worrying Co-responder This coupled with co-responding activities and entry to properties that the ambulance service has need for, all help to build the picture around the need for a quick response rescue service. High availability of retained firefighters

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Ashburton Fire Station has some of the best daytime availability due to large, local employers supporting workers to be on-call and a number of self-employed fire fighters committed to be available. Last year alone, four of the Ashburton firefighters provided over 8,000 free hours of availability in order to keep the engine on the run. The commitment, expertise and local knowledge would be lost should the station close.

Loss of community facilities (3) I feel that it is likely that in a town such as Ashburton where we pay our various elements of Council tax, and see little return for it – no police presence, precious few services or amenities from the District Council, and in a wider scenario, the hospital closed, the school turned into an academy and now in dire straits, with multiple redundancies, the local authority-run old people’s home closed; and the streets uncleaned - that there will be a considerable temptation for a campaign of civil disobedience, withholding an element of the Council tax bill that might reflect the services we had received in return for our payments, and which we no longer receive. The retreat of the Welfare State – in microcosm in Ashburton These latest proposals merely follow the pattern established over the last years of removing more and more resources from our rural communities and focusing spending on central urban settlements. Our youth service, hospitals, early years, police, buses and schools have been stripped back or removed and centralised services are not easily or quickly accessible, putting the lives and well-being of our residents at increasing risk. High risks will result from closure (10) Ashburton Fire Station is within minutes of attending any of the above, whereas the likes of Buckfastleigh, Bovey Tracey, Totnes and Newton Abbot are at least 15 to 30 minutes away. If these proposals are not withdrawn then people’s lives, which will include many children, will be put at risk. To me, and I sincerely trust to yourselves, lives mean more than money. The proposed closure of Ashburton Fire station and the loss of their services are extremely worrying and we would like to receive reassurance from the Fire Authority that no local deaths, injuries

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised or loss of property will arise as a direct result of any of the proposed options for reorganisation of local fire services. I am writing to you with my concerns for life safety in the Ashburton , Buckfastleigh, Dartmoor areas. How the Ashburton station is showing as a low risk is quite disturbing as we are on the A38 a very dangerous stretch of road,we are the gateway to Dartmoor & have the South Dartmoor academy, River Dart country park, Glenndinning Quarry & numerous large business’s & care homes. If Ashburton closes then Buckfastleigh will be the only station able to respond locally in the prescribed times. If there were two major incidents at once, say a major RTA on the A38 and a serious house fire in one of the outlying Dartmoor villages there would not be the resources available to cope with both. In fact, it would be a stretch with the current resources. There are other stations such as Ivybridge, Bovey Tracey and Newton Abbot but it takes time for them to mobilise and get to the scene if they are available. The fire crews at Ashburton not only have many years of experience and training that would be lost if the closure went ahead, they are also available at short notice in the event of an incident I am particularly angry at the thought of closing Ashburton fire station. The statistics you represent for Ashburton are not a true reflection of all the other callouts Ashburton provides to support other crews and teams…I suggest your senior management makes efficiencies elsewhere rather than closing Ashburton fire station, and indeed stops the others in your proposals. I, like many of the public completely oppose these and I urge you to take public opinion onboard and stop these now.

Budleigh Salterton 2 Assuming the closure of Budleigh Salterton and Topsham Fire Stations proceeds and full time cover is not available from the modern Station at Liverton in Exmouth then I believe the local population will be at significantly higher risk … If you add together the populations of Budleigh Salterton, Exmouth, Lympstone Topsham, and Woodbury there must be around 50,000 people (maybe more) in the immediate area served by the above Station. Budleigh Salterton Station is no longer viable – why? The Exmouth Station was relocated some years ago to the new Salterton Road site from the inner town site. This was sensible for better road access. However, with the closure of Budleigh, Exmouth should be

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised 24/7 not part-time staffing. Two pumps and one small 4x4 would be sufficient to cover a very wide area including the high-risk Woodbury Common and the Royal Marine Camp and Sandy Bay Caravan complex. They can be first responders in this large geographic area.

Colyton 11 The closure of our fire station will result in a greatly delayed response to incidents both in the parish of Colyton and the areas served by Seaton and Axminster fire stations where we would be the second pump to attend. Without Colyton Station neighbouring stations, such as Seaton and Axminster, are going to have to wait for a far longer period of time for back-up to arrive, putting lives in further and unnecessary danger.

A low risk area? (2)

We have been informed that we are a ‘low risk’ area. We strongly disagree. Apart from the fact that we have multiple thatch properties, not only in Colyton but in the surrounding rural villages including Shute, Umborne, Northleigh, Southleigh, Whitford and Musbury, we also have high risks such as the tannery and nursing homes plus being in a high flood risk area. We also have a large amount of new housing being built and planned for the near future including at least 70 homes on the old Ceramtec site in town. There are also plans for 440 new homes in Axminster which will increase their need for second pump assistance. This is going to massively increase the population and risk level. We have large schools in Colyton and in the surrounding villages with many young lives at risk. Co-responder The Colyton pump often takes part in callouts to fire and traffic incidents in co-operation with other Axe Valley stations at Axminster and Seaton. Loss of community facilities Already this area has lost hospital beds and has to wait hours for an ambulance in an emergency. Demographics (5) The number of homes across the Axe Valley will increase hugely in the next few years. Axminster is subject to a “Masterplan” with a thousand new homes in mind. Seaton is outside the AONB and still

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised has capacity for hundreds more houses. Colyton, under the 2018 EDDC Villages Development Plan, is one of a handful of settlements in the district required to take new housing. A number of major schemes are in the pipeline in Colyton, including the Homes England plan for 70 homes at the old Ceramtec factory, and the Town Mill development of 8 light industrial units. In short, the demand for a local fire service is about to boom across the Axe Valley. This is not the time to cut. Reports speak of population change in our area, why do they not stress that the population is growing substantially with new housing being built Colyton and district is seeing a massive house building programme so how is sacking almost 300 Fire Fighters going to support a larger population A value for money service Over many years the on-call stations have come in under budget, the main reason being that most on-call firefighters commit many more hours to the service than their contracted maximum 84 hours. Often in excess of 120 hours per week. We represent amazing value for money, the service has been running on 'goodwill' for years. I understand that our station costs £120,000 per year, even if we were to save only one life a year it should be worth it Built Heritage (2) I am shocked and appalled that the Authority in the process of seeking some £8 million of cuts should, in so doing, put at risk our National Heritage … the National Trust property at Shute Barton is one of the oldest and rarest manor houses in Devon … Closing Colyton Fire station and relying solely on the limited remaining fire engine at Seaton, would add precious minutes to the time taken by a fire engine to get to us up our narrow lanes. In that time, our heritage could have been lost forever Importance of local knowledge (4) Colyton are familiar with our properties- they know where the fire hydrants/ nearest sources of water might be. They know their way around these historic buildings …. The fact that there has, so far, not been any loss of life, is down to the time and energy that the officers from Colyton have invested in coming out to each of the

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised properties, advising us on fire safety measures and generally informing and assisting The resilience that Colyton and other 'quiet' retained stations offer together with the local knowledge and interaction with the community is what has helped make the area a much safer place to live We know which narrow lanes to take and which ones to avoid. We serve such places as Musbury, Whitford, Umborne, Southleigh, Shute and Northleigh, some of which have difficult access and local knowledge is key to a speedy response. These villages are going to be left without a fire station able to attend an emergency within 10 minutes which is completely unacceptable We pride ourselves to serve our community and work tirelessly to keep the appliance on the run 24 /7, all of us doing over our contracted hours. Colyton has engaged with its community and has visited all of the surrounding schools, local action groups and visited nearly every household to promote fire safety and fit smoke alarms. This has driven down the amount of calls in this area. We attend many serious RTC,s on our main trunk roads sometime being first in attendance and often second backing up the other local Stations including ones from Dorset. Travel times Your data suggests Seaton can get to Colyton in 10 minutes. To then carry on to one of the remote villages will, at best, take double the time. You know, as well as we do, that 20/25 minutes is far, far too long to be waiting for a fire engine, especially if it’s your beloved thatch home that has caught alight, not to mention if someone is still inside. Staffing (3) We have one of the most diverse Stations in the service, twelve firefighters in all with three being female and another female waiting in the wings. Surely these percentages should be embraced not closed down? The 12 retained firefighters include 3 women, one as a senior manager, and another woman ready to fill the next vacancy. This is well in excess of the D&SF&RS average which stands at 5% A specialist service

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised We are a SHACS 2 qualified station and able to execute a higher level of rescue at height and in confined spaces than other surrounding stations. How much longer is a casualty going to have to wait for a specialist team to come from further afield again putting lives unnecessarily at far greater risk? The Colyton fire station has a unique skillset having to cover an ancient Tannery, many thatched houses and listed buildings, and remote village settlements along difficult and narrow lanes in places such as Shute, Whitford, Musbury, Umborne, Northleigh and, Southleigh. It is the only station in the area to possess the higher SHACS level 2 qualification to execute a Safety and Height Ability in Confined Spaces operation … insufficient analysis has been done to identify and respect the extraordinary specifically local skills and knowledge which will be lost if this process is executed. Between us all we work very hard as a team to keep our pump on the run as much as possible and have a great average of <95%. We are also the only SHACS L2 trained station in the area which due to the nature of our surroundings, we feel, is a very important role. Colyton has been not only the 2nd pump into neighbouring towns but very often the 1st pump in attendance with other stations off the run or on other calls. We are the lifeline to other stations all around, just as they are to us. Most call outs often require 2 or more fire appliances due to the nature of the call. If Colyton Fire station was to close there would be lives lost, no question about it With the cover we provide to all the towns and villages in our area, I think it comes at a very small cost, especially when each of us gives around 50 hours over are contracted hours free of charge A diverse crew Here at Colyton we have one of the most diverse crews in the Service with 3 female members serving with another in the pipeline. Colyton is ideally situated to support Axminster, Seaton, Honiton and all the smaller districts in this area. Additional to this it is also ideal to support road accidents A35, A3052 ,A375. The closure of Colyton Fire Station will remove the second engine for property fires in Seaton, which will mean that NO second engine will be available to reach Seaton within the 13 minute

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised required response time. Even more seriously, in the minority of cases where the Seaton engine cannot be launched in time, the closure of Colyton will mean that no engine will be able to reach Seaton in much under 20 minutes. This represents a completely unacceptable increase in risk to the residents of Seaton

Kingston 13 On the day of the consultation (July 8th) Kingston received a ‘shout’ to go to Salcombe as Modbury was unable to supply a crew to back up Kingsbridge. This was attended successfully. The following day Kingston was called to back up Ashburton (also threatened with closure) and Totnes 2nd appliance (also threatened with removal). The public impact of ‘sacking a volunteer due to savings’ is one we are duty bound to challenge … Kingston fire station costs £34K to run. I imagine there are many Chief Fire Officers who would be very keen to have a station available to them at that budget (2) What would happen to the engine currently in Kingston? Risk We also dispute that our fire risk has significantly decreased over a ten-year period. This may be true nationally, but our records show that we had 25 alerts in 2008 – 11 of which were to attend fires. Whereas in 2018 we had 22 alerts – 17 of these were to attend fires. The Kingston crew act for the good of their community providing much valued expertise and local knowledge. They would be unlikely to be available to man a fire engine from Modbury or Kingsbridge if Kingston were closed. The proposed increase in the hourly rate paid, whilst desirable, misses the point. We will NOT be safer without a fire station in Kingston. Kingston and its neighbouring villages and hamlets contain many vulnerable properties with thatched roofs. Properties in our Parish and those adjoining are often remote, difficult to access and a challenge to locate. Kingston's small fire engine is able to negotiate the very narrow roads and tracks far better than a larger pump and our crew knows the area very well indeed. Local knowledge is paramount here and so is response time. Fire sources state that because of prevention, fire incidents have decreased by 36% in recent years … however, not for the Kingston

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised vehicle. Calls are up and in 2019 there have been 15 since January. This is an increase. There is an increase in new build housing and traffic Particularly in Plymouth, is this the time to cut an engine that would free Ivybridge’s potential increased load? With the number of thatched properties in villages. RTA accidents. Holiday congestion and lane knowledge and access make our crew and vehicle indispensable. Travel times from other stations There is no way that an appliance based in Modbury or Kingsbridge could get to a fire or RTC in Bigbury-on-Sea, Bigbury, Ringmore or even Kingston in 15 minutes as stipulated in the Safer together booklet particularly in the summer Apparently, Kingston and other villages would be adequately covered by Ivybridge, Modbury and Kingsbridge, 20min response time. However, local stations are known to have staff availability problems and struggle for manpower at times and our firemen are called in to help How were the reaction times from other stations calculated? It seems like the best-case scenario, what would be the worst-case scenario I wonder? During the busy holiday period, with narrow lanes blocked by tourists in many cases unable to reverse? Which station would ultimately be responsible for monitoring Kingston, Ringmore, Bigbury and Challaborough area? ... What would be their total covered area? Costs are low currently The station crew is made up entirely of volunteers (4 of them at present, not 12 as stated) so wages are minimal. Our engine is in very good order, is perfect for the local roads and does not need to be replaced by a large £300,000 model. The rent for the station is just £2 per year. Consequently, the running costs of the engine, crew and station are extremely low. I was then told that the reason for closing our station WAS NOT FINANCIAL … then why is it being proposed? It is certainly NOT for safety reasons! (3) The fire station in Kingston is rented off the Fete estate for £2/year. There is rate relief due to the voluntary status and the annual electricity and water bills must be relatively small … The fire engine is 21 years old but has low mileage and is a 4 wheel drive vehicle which is an asset in this country area. It has been

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised upgraded over the years and although we are told it needs updating, presumably this would be by a second-hand fire engine from elsewhere. What is the total saving calculated by closing a volunteer-run station that has its premises rented out for £2 a year, where you have already invested in qualification and training of their crew? Appliance appropriate to road network Kingston`s engine is a 3\4 size vehicle able to access narrow lanes and has 4x4 capability Local knowledge of crew The 4 crew all local work in and around Kingston and have a detailed knowledge of lanes and access in the surrounding coastal villages, they are able to access farm fires, barn and vehicles in fields, costal cliff areas more easily than a larger machine. Kingston Fire Station – Reasons to justify its continued use. • Kingston is a rural location with narrow roads for access – local knowledge of the roads is required. Traffic during holiday periods can cause congestion, hold ups and blockages. If there were to be an incident in Kingston without the local appliance, access times from appliances outside will inevitably contribute to delays and potentially loss of life. • The Kingston Fire Engine is the only 4 wheel drive unit in the area and is therefore a valuable asset for certain road traffic situations and where access to incidents over fields/Dartmoor etc is required. The Kingston Fire Engine is also not as wide as most appliances and can be used in some of the narrower lanes where normal appliances cannot be used. This station is voluntarily manned, pays a peppercorn rent of £2 per annum to the Fleet estate and serves the particular peninsula between the estuaries of the river Erme (Wonwell beach) and the Avon (Aveton -Gifford) as well as many other localities extremely well. To my certain knowledge it has saved several properties from complete demolition by its ability to respond swiftly to incidents by virtue of being locally based and by being a smaller engine able to access areas that bigger engines could not. The next nearest engine is at Modbury (which is in the next phase of cuts) and that takes twenty minutes to get here providing there is no holiday traffic; Ivybridge and Kingsbridge are at least thirty minutes away on a good day and a clear run, so we are great

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised danger of them arriving to late to stop any fire getting a strong hold… This station must be one of the cheapest to run in that the fire-men are only paid for call outs and training, the station rent is probably the lowest in the country, and the very serviceable engine is not the newest ‘all singing, all dancing, with bells on’ model. We are proud of the brigades work here and we are proud of our young men who use their local knowledge of the area to our advantage and are sufficiently civic minded to give up their leisure time to ensure that this beautiful part of Devon is properly serviced against the threat of fire. Have you considered a number of properties in Kingston are second homes or holiday homes? Many of them with thatched roofs I dare add. Owners in my experience seem to be more cautious and in habit of keeping their homes safe from potential fire than people having a great time enjoying their deserved holiday. I live at Bigbury on Sea, you infer, I think in reference to the Kingston closure that you would get a first attendance here in 10 mins and full 3 minutes later. It may well take you an hour to get here once Kingston has closed.

Porlock 38 It was good to hear on the BBC a few days ago that Taunton Council thought the proposal to close Porlock was ‘ridiculous’ Please find attached a copy of the 1,261 signatures collected online over the course of the consultation, all opposed to the closure of Porlock Fire Station. I have also attached a copy of the comments that were included when members of the public signed the online petition. I, like most people in Porlock, am stunned to hear that Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service are considering closing Porlock Fire Station. It seems fairly obvious that whoever has put this proposal together is not a local resident and has no understanding of the area involved. The total removal of off-road cover on Exmoor is in our view totally unacceptable from both the human safety and environmental points of view. Wildfires can be extremely dangerous and damaging. There are many humans who get into difficulties and get injured in off road situations where our fire personnel have performed a really valuable service.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised The scenario - RTA accident A39 - 1 engine attends, chimney fire 1 engine attends, thatched house in Porlock high street catches fire ... How much of the high street of Porlock would we lose before an engine from somewhere got to the village, and a thatch fire is going to need more than one engine? Result huge trade loss and more importantly we could lose lives. I believe that the recent proposals to reduce provision at Lynton & to completely remove the station at Porlock are both foolhardy and dangerous. I implore you to give careful & thorough consideration to the particular needs of this area &, crucially, to the vulnerability of its population - & also the many tourists who visit the area - should the present provision be reduced … they are frequently called upon to fight moorland fires, for which they have the necessary specialist equipment & great expertise. Though situated in different counties the Lynton & Porlock stations are inter-dependent & together cover a large, isolated, rural area of Devon & Somerset, protecting a scattered population which would be at much greater risk were services to be reduced or removed. An acclaimed fire service Porlock is a small community with a fire station but the area it covers is vast and I would like to draw your attention to the factual statement below: 'Porlock fire station was acknowledged as the best in D&SFA in 2018, a remarkable achievement for retained fire fighters who average 85% availability. This is considerably greater than many equivalent stations.' To close such an effective fire station seems to be an unbelievable action. Exmoor National Park The specialist equipment for dealing with wildfires will not be available where and when it is needed … Even if specialist equipment for wildfires is available at other stations there will be a delay in emergency fire response time (7) The local crew have specialist knowledge and equipment for dealing with heath fires and are very good at containing them. A pristine moorland is crucial to our tourism industry, the main employer in our area

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised The experience and local knowledge of moorland access, water supplies and peat bogs which has been built up over the years will be lost should you choose to close Porlock. The narrowness of the roads and tourist traffic will greatly inhibit the ability of larger appliances to get to fires in the area of the National Park. It's also very well placed to offer back up and cover to the existing network of fire stations, so Exmoor has an 'acceptable' level of cover. The winter and the much larger summer populations of that part of the moor will experience delays in emergency fire response time (2) Temperatures will continue to rise and so will the risk of moorland or wildfires (2) Moorland fire incidents have increased and will continue to rise with global warming … Exmoor tourism exists because of the moor. If this burns into ashes tourism will be affected. To reposition Porlock's Moorland fire fighting vehicles elsewhere is almost irresponsible. RTAs, Roads and Terrain With increased tourism to the area the need for this vital response particularly with the danger of Porlock Hill as well as other steep inclines remains. (2) We in Porlock, are in a very precarious position. The major road that connects us to our nearest towns is narrow, single lane in places and follows some very sharp bends. The High street is often grid locked. We sometimes get cut off in winter especially up on Exmoor. In summer the volume of traffic, both with visitors and local heavy farm traffic, makes the likelihood of accidents and hold-ups an additional hazard. I cannot imagine how long it would take to drive a fire engine, assuming there was one free, from Lynton, bearing in mind the unpredictability of the sheep, highland cows and Exmoor ponies who wander freely over the road. Porlock Hill is a black spot there is no quick way down. The “Comprehensive Strategic Risk Analysis“… it is patently obvious that the compilers of this document … have not been to see the area; that it has all been done by computer. Looking at a map does not show the effects of the pinch points in the village which cause daily hold ups. Contrary to the assumptions made,

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised this local community has not changed much since the 1940s. The A39 is still just as narrow; Porlock Hill just as steep and the local roads are actually worse because more people have cars and park on the road. Our special new tender should make it through but a full sized engine? -Good luck! Holiday traffic and bad drivers cause no end of problems, not to mention tractors! You do not seem to take into account the narrowness of the roads and the rural nature of the area which is exacerbated especially in the tourist season. Butlins in Minehead being a point that if there is a fire at Butlins who will cover the Minehead area which at present is, I believe, covered by Porlock (4) We … were involved in a serious collision on the A39 just outside Porlock. The fire service was … the first of the emergency services to arrive … as they were stationed at Porlock just a few minutes away and not 20 to 40 minutes away. Their early arrival contributed to saving the life of a motor cyclist. Minehead is too far to be of any help and has no first responders. A prize-winning station The station was awarded as the best station in D&S FA last year and provides nearly 90% availability. To close the station is totally counter intuitive Land rover and Groundhog 4x4 Vehicle Porlock operate an all-terrain firefighting unit consisting of a land rover (dual purpose with co-responders) and a Groundhog 4x4 all- terrain vehicle fitted with a fogging unit. The Land rover carries a high-pressure fogging unit. When this vehicle is mobilised to a fire and put into operation, it removes the need for many additional pumping appliances to attend. The Groundhog ATV was used to rescue 2 motorists trapped in snowdrifts on Dunkery Beacon during heavy snow and blizzards. This was achieved by a small number of dedicated personnel. If the Groundhog had not been available, the outcome could have been much different. Porlock Fire Station received an award from the Chief Officer just last year for their assistance with the RIV project and trial crewing levels. We stand to lose our Papa 2, which … provides us with excellent capability in dealing with moorland fires and also enables us as a station to respond to most incidents with adequate resources. For

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised example, an RTC is minimum 2 pumps, and without this pump we’d have to wait at least 20-25 minutes for any support. Porlock has specialist moorland fire vehicles and the skills to respond quickly, which again cannot be replaced by Minehead.

Demographics – an older population (5) Porlock is … very well placed to provide a quick response to our community which means the residents, the majority of whom are aged over 60. Porlock has one of the oldest age demographics in the UK, with approximately 54% of our population over 60 against a Somerset norm of around 25% .It is expected that by 2037 the average age of the UK population will rise and the number of over-80s is likely to double so this situation is likely to intensify (6) The area has a particularly high elderly population with the associated mobility issues this entails Our population is one of the oldest in Europe … we can no longer look forward to the security we have paid taxes for all our lives. What good is it having smoke detectors throughout the house if you are deaf, under heavy medication or not sufficiently mobile to vacate your home quickly? High tourist population (2) Tourists are worried and fail to understand … how a rural area with high risks – moorland fires, accidents on Porlock Hill, elderly residents, thatched cottages, remote and difficult to reach properties etc can be put at risk in such a way. Also, most of the tourists rely on mobile phones to call the emergency services and we know that these frequently don’t work in rural and valley areas thus delaying calls for help. If our village of Porlock, other villages, or the surrounding moorland is devastated by a massive fire or fires, it will have a tremendous impact on the community and tourism This is a popular tourist area with a markedly increased population in the tourist season Co-responders Not only is Porlock at risk of losing a fire service but one must assume that the Co-Responders, who offer rapid response to life threatening medical emergencies, would also be removed. It’s not uncommon for an ambulance to take 'hours' to get to Porlock and

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised to my mind, with the age range of our community, this service needs expanding rather than removing. Porlock was one of the first stations in the country to operate the Co-responder scheme and due to the remoteness of the village, has provided invaluable lifesaving care when an ambulance has not been able to respond in a sensible time, for the last 20 years. Porlock is not the only community to benefit from this service, it also responds to incidents in Minehead and surrounding villages. Porlock fire service is often called on as cover for neighbouring stations whose appliances are deployed elsewhere or as backup if necessary. Without Porlock will Lynton, with only one appliance, cope? Minehead has Butlins, only recently they had a fire and Porlock was deployed to Minehead. If Minehead had an Incident and Lynton were already deployed how long then would Porlock have to wait? … Porlock also needs the Co-responders. … We have no A&E nearby, the local Drs Surgery only works office hours and as Dr Kelham said, in his position as GP they were literally indispensable to him. Ambulances can take hours, because of the distance and also because they, like the rest of the NHS are at breaking point. Our fire fighters also provide a very good back up for the ambulance /doctor with the co-responder facility. More lives will be damaged or lost in the future with the removal of this service, the cost of which seems to be covered by the ambulance service. Buildings a fire risk (8) There are a large number of old and thatched buildings in our area which might not be any greater risk of fire in themselves, but when there are incidents, the results can cause rapid destruction … and the ever increasing use of wood burners could well be exacerbating this problem The existing houses will burn as successfully today as they did yesterday, full coverage is still required. There are 87 thatched houses within the area covered by our fire station, some of those thatches being very large. The area has a high number of thatched properties that present a particular fire risk and require a rapid response. Strength of Community Feeling With less than 24 hour notice the village hall was packed with some 180 members of the public, which is approximately 10% of

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised the District, all expressing dismay and fury that the station was earmarked to close … To learn, out of the blue, particularly as you visited just 3 weeks ago, that the station is to close has outraged them. It was with horror that along with 179 other Porlock residents I heard of the planned closure of the Porlock Fire Station. There is real anger here that a superbly functioning service is to be disbanded without any real understanding of the community it serves. We are very good at self help and survival in Porlock, having recently saved our library, buses and toilets, but running our fire station is beyond our knowledge and skills. We appreciate all your arguments but PLEASE think again. This is a community where people care for one another, contribute to the many available activities, protect the environment and support the Fire Station and its crew. Waiting for a fire engine to arrive from MInehead when your thatched roof is a blaze or for the arrival of a First Responder when a critical accident occurs on Porlock Hill is inconceivable and unjust. Unrealistic modelling by fire service When Porlock is removed from the map there is a significant ‘hole’ which despite all statistical computer modelling, varying road conditions, frequently poor weather, a high level of tourist traffic as well as simply poorer Exmoor roads would never allow the optimistic (but still reduced) cover suggested

Porlock Hill and road network Porlock has one of the steepest main roads in England (A39) and a myriad of back lanes where sometimes local knowledge is the only thing that will get an appliance to the required location on a navigable route Anything which blocks the A39 west of Minehead (eg accident or flood) means an extremely lengthy diversion for fire vehicles to reach settlements or moorland the other side of the blockage from Minehead via Wheddon Cross, Exford, Chetsford Bridge, or a call on the (proposed to be depleted) fire service resources in North Devon.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Travel time from Minehead both to Porlock and elsewhere in its current fires service area is very unpredictable and, particularly in summer, often very lengthy. Even on a 'normal' day Minehead's Fire engine, which would become our local station, must take an additional 20 minutes after initial alert to get to Porlock. The consequence of fire, and the time it takes to start extinguishing it are very well documented and the additional time it takes for appliances to arrive could well be devastating to lives and property.

Distance from other Stations, communities /Capacity of other stations

With the Porlock appliance out of the equation, 2 pumps from Minehead and 1 from Lynton would be mobilised. That would mean no fire cover from Combe Martin to Williton. Is this acceptable to you? You cannot guarantee that appliances in neighbouring stations will be available to attend an incident in Porlock, so keeping Porlock open builds in some resilience where they can support their neighbouring stations when required.(2) Whilst an 8 pump fire was taking place early this morning in Williton, Porlock responded to another call in Williton which goes to demonstrate the resilience this station provides to the service If Combe Martin are off the run or out on a shout this means we’re waiting over half an hour for any support. In that time we could have sent a BA team in to a property and they could have exited the building before support has arrived. As such OIC’s are going to be under huge pressure to commit anyone and will err on the side of caution to protect their crew potentially leading to previously avoidable loss of life. We will be dependent upon Minehead, Lynton and Dulverton to service a huge swath of the National Park. Given that much of this area has narrow roads with limited passing places I am bound to respectfully question the ability to provide attendance within the 10-minute Emergency Response Standard for a house fire or 15 minutes for an RTC. This assumes, of course, that these three stations will have the available plant, machinery and personnel to maintain the appropriate level of service. … I could find nothing in the brochure that touched on these issues.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Options 2 & 3 involve removal of second and third fire engines. Since this will involve a reduction of an engine in Lynton, what impact would that have on that station's ability to service the wider Porlock area? How can we be sure that … Minehead will have sufficient capacity in terms of engines and personnel to manage the increased demands upon their capabilities? Since Minehead and Lynton are On-Call stations how can we sure that there are sufficient, qualified personnel available within the required 5-minute station response time? Is this station response time included within the 10-minute Emergency Response Standard? If so, there is only a 5- minute window to get to the Porlock area to attend to a fire. The road system in the area is poor and it is disputed that the area can be adequately covered from Minehead. Response times will be much slower than as set out in the consultation document, particularly when taking in to account the poor quality of the moorland roads and poor weather conditions … There will be an increased risk to maintaining adequate fire cover in Minehead. Although Dulverton Station does not appear to be threatened at the present time, it is anticipated that the closing of Porlock Station will have a profound effect on the service provided locally. I understand you think Minehead Fire Station could cover this area of Exmoor. Have you tried actually driving to Porlock in the busy tourist times or has a paper exercise taken place to calculate time? Porlock Hill is the steepest A road in the country and the number of accidents our supurb Fire Officers here have to deal with is considerable, especially with tourists who lose vehicle control. The area around Porlock has really benefitted by the speed our fire vehicles can get to Moor fires, lives will have been saved.

Local Knowledge We know most of the men personally and if we have any concerns we would happily approach them for advice and because we know and trust them we are more likely to have them in our homes and follow their advice. Many people would not have the same trust in strangers. We feel safe because we would get medical emergency care whilst waiting hours for an ambulance to be despatched and reach us. First Response

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised The two first responders currently based at Porlock Fire Station … provide a vital service in this remote area (2) I was distressed to learn that Lynton and Lynmouth may lose one of its fire engines and that Porlock Fire Station might be closed. What will happen to us in Lynton should there be more than one fire locally with only one engine to fight the fires? This email focusses on Porlock and its environs. There have been two major trends in the last few decades, both of which can be expected to continue: 1. Our population has got older on average 2. Climate change has increased the likelihood of moorland fires. As far as I can evaluate, there have been no changes which would reduce the need for fire service cover. Given the above points, I can see no case to change the Porlock service, other than improving/expanding it to cover for these identified increased risk factors. Porlock is to close which will mean losing two specialized moorland firefighting equipment (land rover and ground hog both with excellent 4x4 capability’s and both with great high pressure pumps on that make short work of moor fires). This means that we will be fighting fires on the moors by hand with beaters. The last large fire we worked with Porlock on had a 1.4km fire front and with the 3 mentioned vehicles we extinguished the fire in an hour. With beaters we could not keep up with the fire spread and the same fire would have burned overnight and become much worse as well as had a lot more resources of pumps and man power tied up for a prolonged period of time and on top of that effected the wildlife of our beautiful area.

Topsham 13 Topsham, because of its location cuts down attendance times during Exeter rush hours along and adjacent to the M5 - A38 & A30 road network a potential lifesaver, particularly as new estates around Exeter may well increase the traffic problems at times when the RTA risk is high. Topsham is an idiosyncratic mix of architecture and roads. Local knowledge is vitally important to fire fighters in our town. Also, traffic on our roads is increasing at an alarming rate with all the new builds. This is already causing heavy regular traffic jams

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised possibly hindering engines from arriving at a scene of emergency speedily from a more distant location The council’s lack of parking enforcement certainly means they would struggle to get down the Strand at any time or many other parts of Topsham. Perhaps a smaller single fire appliance would be better than none. During your visit to Topsham to present the Service Delivery Operating Model options, it was suggested that the service might consider relocating an appliance to SHQ/STN60 rather than station 59, which you agreed at the time was worthy of further consideration. Obviously, our strong preference is to keep the station at Topsham open, even if this is only with only one appliance. However, I think it would be reasonable to say that the majority of staff are highly sceptical that responding to Middlemoor is workable for them and would like to understand whether the SHQ/STN 60 option is a viable alternative that could potentially secure their future in the service and roles they feel passionate about. The proposal to move an appliance from Topsham to Middlemoor adds a potential 15 minute delay while the Topsham crew drive to Middlemoor, which the chief has said is acceptable but in reality is not when lives are involved. There are several old houses some of architectural value. Although the distance from Exeter to Topsham is not great, 4.5 miles, the traffic on the Topsham and London Roads means that there could be a delay in a fire engine reaching Topsham at some times of the day placing Topsham residents and their properties at risk. The pumps and crews based in Topsham support the Exeter pumps and fire crews when there is a large fire in Exeter. Removing the retained firefighters would reduce that capacity. As the retained firefighters work in and around Topsham they will not be able to be deployed from Exeter in the required operational time frame. Topsham Fire station is very close to the M5 and is well placed to assist with emergencies on the motorway. It is also close to Woodbury Common, where wildfires often need to be dealt with in the summer.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised The firefighters are an important part of our close Topsham community; they are involved in any number of charity activities, and are always available to give advice on such problems as smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, electrical hazards, etc. ... would leave a huge hole in our Topsham community. If Topsham were to close how would this impact Middlemoor, Danes Castle and Exmouth? To take a crew from Topsham and ask them to attend Middlemoor to ride the second pump is in my book not a good deal take the early morning rush hour attendance times would not be meet add summer traffic or god forbid an RTC on the motorway that always pushes traffic around Topsham, Topsham road, sandy park, Middlemoor roundabout. As a local resident I would like to formally register my strong opposition to the closure of Topsham Fire Station. To do so would make this community extremely vulnerable in the event of an incident and I have no doubt that we would be significantly less safe as a result. We have seen 4 major housing developments within 1.5 miles of the centre of Topsham with hundreds and hundreds of new homes constructed. This has simultaneously increased the likelihood locally of needing the emergency services provided by a Fire station, crew and appliances both for household incidents and for the extremely busy overloaded road network where road traffic accidents will inevitably occur. We have had many serious accidents locally, including several recent fatalities on Topsham Road within the last 2 years. This overloaded road network also justifies keeping the Topsham Station open on a tactical level as response times from other stations with the regular grid lock encountered on Topsham Road and Exeter Road will be compromised with saveable lives lost. I would argue that the need to have a well-positioned, local resource is dramatically increasing which makes the proposed closure extremely hard to understand, even with cost savings necessary across the rescue service. Topsham Station is no longer viable – why? With the new build at Middlemoor which is 24/7 and additional 2nd response from Danes Castle and Exmouth there is ample cover 24/7. Not covered in the report was Danes Castles, which I feel should be reviewed.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised It was part of a previous plan to move the site. No doubt the Middlemoor build was considered adequate. I disagree. This location is trapped within the “inner City” and must retain 24/7 cover and turntable ladder because of the number of high-rise student accommodation blocks both inner City and on campus at the Uni. It would be more sensible to re-locate with a new site build on the Northern perimeter on a main road access into City/Uni Campus/ new College development and direct access to the City Centre now and following the future City development plan. Like all plans and studies, they should be far reaching, not a “now assessment”. May I remind you that the first engine to attend the Clarence Hotel fire was Topsham engine not one of the engines from Middlemoor, although it was a huge fire and appliances were brought in from around the county. Topsham was the fastest and proudly so.

Woolacombe 72 I fear this could have potentially devastating consequences for our Community and Tourism Industry … Having a fire station in Woolacombe cuts down the risk massively, as our local crew could reach an incident much faster than a crew coming from elsewhere (4) This would leave the area vulnerable,especially if Ilfracombe station is downgraded The staff costs are approx £41,000 per year, a good price for insuring Woolacombe and neighbouring Parishes have cover for fire, road traffic accidents, flood and first responders, essential when Woolacombe swells in numbers up to 13,000 per day during the summer. Plus, the roads in the area in and out of Woolacombe can be congested back to Mullacott Roundabout (3 miles). I feel so much safer being so close (to Woolacombe FRS). Our nearest Fire Station is Woolacombe - 11 minutes away. Its closure would leave us dependent on Braunton Fire Station, which is 14 minutes away. Having survived a house fire when I was a teenager, I know how much difference 3 extra minutes can make and I find the prospect of it frightening. You have not provided evidence of future services being better to Woolacombe than the current services. It seems to me that we should be supporting our Retained Firefighters ...

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Your proposals contain no option without closing Woolacombe’s Fire station. I challenge your rationale for this fait accompli. If these stations are closed I will lend my support to any campaign to prevent planning permission or change-of-use to be granted on any of these properties and particularly in the case of Woolacombe which … has special status as a co-responder location and within a village with a massive population rise during the summer months which does not seem to have been considered by the fire service in any of their documents. A fire station was deemed as a necessary service in Woolacombe many years ago when the population was less and the visitors fewer than today. How can it now be feasible to withdraw this service when the number of people relying on this service has increased significantly and the dramatic effect of the change in the environment we see today. Imagine this – It’s a Wednesday evening in the summer holidays. Woolacombe has seen in excess of 15,000 visitors today. Traffic has been queuing bumper to bumper from mullacott cross into the village itself. It has taken over 90 minutes to get into the village. Now, imagine there has been an RTA in the centre of Woolacombe due to the immense amount of traffic (and the accompanying road rage). A young family with 2 small children are trapped inside a vehicle. The car then ignites and is ablaze. Woolacombe no longer has a fire station. The next available crew is in Ilfracombe but they are on a call out. The second appliance in Ilfracombe is only available 16% of the time and even if it was available it would take at least a minimum of 30 minutes for a crew to arrive in Woolacombe. 4 young lives are lost due to no one being there to help. I … struggle to see how Barnstaple alone, will be able to cope as the only ‘manned’ fire station! What about nights? What about when thousands of tourists are here? What about when the road is blocked & backed up with traffic? What about when extra caravans etc are here with quicker burn rates in the event of a fire?! Climate Change We have already seen a rise in brush fires. The increase in Secondary fires is a major concern and this is an area where fire alarms cannot be used to reduce these numbers.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised With the longer and warmer summers forecasted due to global warming, I can only see wild fires increasing further and we need to ensure we have the right local cover to protect the public, buildings, the local environment and to protect the important tourism industry that this local area depends upon First Response Woolacombe is a co-responder that has dealt with 221 medical incidents since 2014. Following closure, this service will not be provided by the Ilfracombe or Braunton stations designated as the replacements, and, therefore, there is significant increased risk to life. I have had personal experience of this service by the Woolacombe station responders and would not be alive today if they had not been able to get to me promptly with oxygen while I waited for a paramedic ambulance to arrive (3) … I sustained a broken leg, fractured kneecap and broken wrist, and was also bleeding heavily, the co-responder crew from the village were in attendance in a few minutes, and were able to carry out instant remedial tasks, whilst the ambulance had to travel from South Molton probably a 45 minute journey. The first responder roll in support of the ambulance service is such an important service at Woolacombe, and very much appreciated by us locals. This would completely disappear if the local fire station was closed. Fortunately my wife and I have not needed this service ourselves, but we are aware of others who have, one being an acquaintance whose life was saved by the fire officers. We have had personal experience of Woolacombe fire crew coming to our house … They were the first on the scene and were able to administer the care he needed whilst we waited over half an hour for an ambulance. I have been in the situation of requiring emergency medical attention and the response from the Woolacombe responders was within minutes. Had I relied solely on the ambulance respond time I could quite easily have died. Maybe the station could incorporate the life guards and coast guards to provide a first class service. Woolacombe provides medical first response - has the impact on medical outcomes of the closure of this station been quantified and are the ambulance service confident they can replace this loss of cover? (2)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Responding to incidents outside Woolacombe We also respond to incidents further afield (than Woolacombe), which DSFRS failed to include in their statistics … when promoting the closure of our station. We provide emergency response into Ilfracombe on a regular basis as they struggle to maintain crewing levels for their fire engines … As all stations do, Woolacombe provides resilience to the on-call system that currently has its gaping faults due to years of under-investment in recruitment and retention. Us and the other 7 stations up for closure seem to be paying the price for that. (2) I understand that the Woolacombe fire officers attend incidents elsewhere in North Devon in support of the local fire officers … this important part of their job is not recorded in centrally held statistics. If you close the smaller fire stations such as Woolacombe’s you lose this vital flexibility and will stretch what remains to a dangerous and unacceptable level. Co-responder We are so remote we rely on the co-responder service to provide that safety until the ambulance will arrive... the average response time to Woolacombe is 40 minutes for the ambulance in summer especially... but there are simply hundreds of stories where the Woolacombe co -responders have prevented death and deterioration of seriously unwell patients because an ambulance couldn’t get here. (3) Woolacombe On-call firefighters provide an invaluable medical emergency service to both permanent residents and seasonal visitors, and over the years they have saved many hundreds of lives. Withdrawing this service by closing Woolacombe Fire Station poses an unacceptable level of risk. Reducing the engine numbers is also a bad idea; Woolacombe sometimes is not available and relies on Ilfracombe to cover, if a night emergency is needed,(Barnstaple under your proposals will lose night provision) both engines may be required to provide sufficient cover. Co responding is a big part of life at Woolacombe station. On average a caller can expect to wait approximately 40 minutes for an ambulance. … we have saved many lives and helped prevent deterioration of many more ... A young surfer who sustained a head injury … the wait for the ambulance was over an hour; we

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised were there in 5 minutes and provided oxygen which prevented brain damage due to hypoxia. A woman involved in an RTC...the ambulance was 40 minutes; we were there in 5 minutes and provided treatment for shock and bleeding wounds … How long would you like to wait for an ambulance if your child had a serious head injury or your loved one was suffering a heart attack? (2) … the second Ilfacombe appliance availability over the last three years has been less than 50% whereas the Woolacombe engine has not dropped below 50% over the same period. The second section of the document … highlights six key areas where the fire service would respond to an emergency … No mention of our coastal location and the fire service’s commitment to respond to water rescue is mentioned at any point later in the document. We are a mecca for … dangerous sports … The co- responder service our fire brigade offers regularly makes the difference to a person in trouble surviving or not as an ambulance called from Ilfracombe or Barnstaple can rarely attend on scene in the time needed Our fire crew is often first on the scene as co-responders. Last year they were called out as co-responders to 7 critical cases, resulting in 7 lives potentially saved Do you think lives will be put at risk by the loss of the co- responder scheme across the affected rural stations in Devon and how will this be addressed by the already over stretched ambulance service? All of the above stations (Woolacombe, Lynton, Porlock) are very much in close proximity to each other and all rely on back and support from the other stations. This would not be possible if any reduction in engines or stations were to be cut. The other proposals of cutting services at other fire stations, are also going to have a negative effect on the safety of residents of and visitors to the area. Roads, access and traffic Response times for Woolacombe … do not take into account seasonal road congestion .... There is often holiday congestion getting into Woolacombe, sometimes with queues of over a mile … It is, therefore, quicker to get the Woolacombe engine out to a fire than getting the Ilfracombe or Braunton engine into the village (17)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised I understand that there will be cover from other stations, but as has been recently demonstrated following incidents locally, they are not dependable in either having enough staff to be able to dispatch an appliance or if they are on another call, they will not be available at all … the nearest manned service would be from Barnstaple and on a good day that is a 25 minute journey It makes no sense to me to close the smaller fire stations. Woolacombe and Mortehoe for example are reached by quite narrow roads, which get very busy in the summer in particular. It is difficult for fire tenders to get to a fire or a rescue incident already We have a difficult traffic situation in peak times between Easter and October due to holiday makers, often cruising with their caravans on narrow roads. How do you under such circumstances warrant the statutory response time of 20 minutes, if you have to operate from e.g. Braunton or Ilfracombe? (4) A typical example was a fortnight ago when Woolacombe had no crew available and the first responding appliance, from Braunton took 25 minutes, and the second from Ilfracombe 34 minutes, and this was not even during the busy season. We live in a very rural area which for the most part is very difficult to get to in the winter months due to the locality and also very busy with tourists in the summer season. Both of which hinder a rapid response to emergency call outs. I am fully aware of this as a serving coastguard in the Lynton and Lynmouth area and would challenge most published timings especially from stations such as Barnstaple which is nearly 20 miles away. On a sunny day, traffic can queue down the hill in to Woolacombe as far back as Mullacott Cross (4.4 miles away by road). If a fire engine had to come from Ilfracombe or Braunton to a shout in Woolacombe or Mortehoe, its progress would be severely hampered by this traffic, as in some places there would simply be nowhere for the cars to go to clear a path, even if the fire engine had its’ sirens and blue lights going. The increase in traffic could also potentially lead to an increase in accidents. (4) Roads are windy and narrow in places, so not ideal for emergency vehicles to proceed along at speed (3)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised If an incident were to occur at this time it would be extremely difficult for an appliance from outside of the village to attend in less than 45 minutes to 1 hour. The consultation does not take into account the narrow rural roads which serve Woolacombe and the surrounding hamlets, these roads are regularly gridlocked in the height of the season, with tailbacks up to the Fortescue Arms and beyond. I certainly would not want my life (or that of my loved ones) in the hands of a crew who are stuck several miles up the road behind many other vehicles. On 15th July 2019, there was a fire in Woolacombe. Braunton and Ilfracombe were sent as Woolacombe was unavailable. DSFRS tell you that it will take Braunton 19 minutes to respond to Woolacombe, and it will take Ilfracombe 16 minutes to respond to Woolacombe. It actually took Braunton 25 minutes and 2 seconds and Ilfracombe 34 minutes and 40 seconds to attend this fire .... during the day when fire fighters generally respond quicker and before the summer holidays Because of the holiday influx, Woolacombe Station has reduced availability during the peak summer season at present. This means that some incidents within the Woolacombe area are already being attended by appliances from Braunton and Ilfracombe … we operate a dynamic mobilisation approach, mobilising the nearest available appliance. Even the main A361 to Mullacott and the B3343 from Mullacott to Woolacombe are beset by potholes and twists and turns making them longer than the stated distances. The farm lanes which the representatives at the public meeting claimed were their preferred routes would not be suitable at the best of times for a fast-moving fire engine, let alone whenever a holidaymaker has decided to follow the suggestion of their satnav and take a caravan down them. Unless the proposed cover from Ilfracombe and Braunton are able to fly directly along DSFRS’ straight lines, it would be impossible for them to meet the stated response standards (5) How would appliances from Braunton or Ilfracombe get here in a reasonable length of time? It takes 15 minutes when the roads are clear, so you are looking out 20-30 minutes if you consider the additional traffic, before even considering queuing traffic.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised The unimpeded travel time from Braunton to Woolacombe village centre is 6.4miles approx. 18 mins plus 5 mins deployment = 23 mins. 5 times longer. The unimpeded travel time from Ilfracombe to Woolacombe village centre is 6.1miles approx. 15 mins plus 5 mins deployment = 20 mins. 4 times longer. We are served by a dedicated on-call crew who can, and do, deploy in 5 mins. The station is located in the heart of the village from where it has options how to get to where it needs to go. Your own statistics show the rise in death toll of 25% in just 5 years … This is not the backdrop against which to make cuts. The success Woolacombe has enjoyed by being rated one of Britain’s best beaches along with warmer weather has led to more visitor traffic. More cars and more people in the same space means more risk. Braunton and Ilfracombe crewing problems V Woolacombe I understand that Ilfracombe and Braunton have issues getting a crew together at times … if an engine had to come from even further afield – Combe Martin for example is a minimum of 20 minutes away, or Barnstaple a minimum of 30 minutes away – it could have disastrous consequences (4). Woolacombe has 3 volunteers currently undergoing training which will take the crew to 9 and in a better position than the proposed retained fire stations (2) Both of the two nearest fire stations Ilfracombe and Braunton are also under-manned, and at times do not have sufficient crew to turn out, and rely upon the next nearest station, Woolacombe, to cover their area. At present there are three new recruits that have joined Woolacombe, whose training has been put on hold for the time being, which would add to the station strength. We have previously had a guest leave their touring caravan and awning for the day to walk to the beach ... Sadly, an electrical item caught fire and within seconds the entire awning, caravan and items on their hard-standing pitch … were engulfed in flames. It did not take long before the awning next door over 12 meters away caught fire and spits of flying awning which were on fire damaged several other awnings. Woolacombe Fire Service responded and were absolutely amazing. Other units did arrive, however took much longer than Woolacombe to arrive and should

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised we have had to wait it would have been a lot worse, with the possibility of the entire avenue full of caravans and awnings catching fire. I understand that Woolacombe has encountered some crewing problems in the recent past but they are currently waiting for a further 3 crew members to be trained. It is worth considering how long it would take Ilfracombe or Barnstaple to attend a shout in Woolacombe??? Or indeed how long it takes for Barnstaple to attend when there is no Ilfracombe Crew? Let's assume its night-time and Barnstaple is now being covered by a retained crew as cutbacks have been made. Demographics The Woolacombe area has a massive influx of self-catering holiday makers that is disproportionate to the size of the local population At any one time we could have over 1000 guests on site, and that is not including the other larger holiday parks including Woolacombe Bay etc. That is almost the same number of residents that are living in Woolacombe. I'm sure you don’t need me to tell you how quickly fires can spread from caravan to caravan and this was obvious from the fact that 3 crews arrived It seems the more is created for the valuable holidaymaker in North Devon, safety wise it is taken away. The Air Sea rescue was stepped down. And now the Fire service? This is putting lives at risk for both the residents in the area and visitors alike. I am astounded that there is even a proposal to close a fire station in a town and area where there are literally thousands of Caravans, static homes and tents in use during the hottest parts of the year. The event of a fire in any of the campsites is something I wish not to think about due to close proximity of the units and the amount of people in the parks. If there were no means of fire control in the area, I would like to know what measures will be put in place in case of such an event? More people in the hotter months, often combined with more barbecues and fires being lit at this time raise the risk to life considerably.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised We are also a massive tourist resort that has 1700 registered bed spaces, plus 12 touring sites that house thousands of additional visitors in addition to parking for 3000 cars (which are often full to capacity) for day visitors. Just taking the 3000 day visitors as an example: if each car has an average of 4 family members that would be an additional 12,000 people just to the beach alone. In short, our numbers swell 10 fold throughout the summer season and no account of these additional numbers is mentioned anywhere in the “Safer Together” consultation document. (17) Many of our visitors stay in temporary accommodation, tents, caravans, camper vans etc which by their nature are a greater fire risk in themselves than normal homes, coupled with the use of portable gas appliances and the popularity of barbecues, often while consuming alcohol combine to make the risks of fire in the Woolacombe area much higher than in a settled population as presented in the consultation modelling of fixed housing with fire- resistant furniture and smoke alarms. (4) We have 5 large holiday parks within a 1.5 mile radius of Woolacombe … accommodating thousands of people each week … 2 hotels, several caravan and campsites, numerous apartment blocks, B&Bs, guesthouses, pubs, restaurants, cafes, etc., not to mention the homes of 1200 residents and a primary school with over 200 children The large majority of these tourists are accommodated in highly flammable temporary dwellings that they are unfamiliar with, often using barbecues and camping stoves with little consideration for the safety implications … Statistics from the CORGI HomePlan survey … in June 2015 found that 45% had cooked in a tent or awning … only 13% of all campers and caravanners took carbon monoxide alarms with them and only 13% of people had ever had their camping and caravanning gas appliances serviced.

The population of Woolacombe changes massively throughout the year. We are a tourist hot spot through the summer months and the school holidays all year round. If the weather is good and the surf is up, then Woolacombe can be busy any time of the year (3) We have an ever changing demographic due to holiday makers one you can never properly risk assess

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised From an off-season population of around 1200 residents, the population from Easter to October multiplies significantly, peaking at around 18,000-20,000 on the busiest days in July and August. (2) As Woolacombe and the North Devon coast continue to be promoted widely, and with the inevitable ongoing expansion and development of existing holiday parks, the number of seasonal visitors is likely to continue rising steadily for the forseeable future. Due to the constitution of our community, an ageing populous, busy seasonal aspect (that lasts for at least 10 months of every year NOT just the 6 weeks summer holiday) we value our retained Firefighters that are important members of our community. They are OUR first responders on nearly every occasion. During the busy summer months, we get a lot of party goers come to holiday in the village, and with that there is a marked increase in alcohol and drug related behaviour. The resident population has a large majority of elderly people and lots of those have mobility issues. There are many elderly residents who could be put at risk (2) In your published analysis of local populations (Website) it turns out that the elderly are more often afflicted by fires. Doubtlessly, this area of North-Devon hosts a high proportion of elderly people. It is, however, of utmost importance to bear in mind that between Easter and October, holiday makers are forming the majority of the population. We do hope that you have included this number of people living temporarily in Woolacombe/Mortehoe in your risk assessment. You are certainly aware that in our area there are many camper sites with the respective risks (e.g. gas cooking, grilling) Housing developments/Built infrastructure Have current and future planned increases in local populations due to house building been taken into account when determining potential probability of incidents. Have you included Ilfracombe’s Southern Extension and Barnstaple’s Westacott Urban Extension? (3) We also have a thriving business estate, Mullacott Industrial Estate that has many manufacturing bases that would be

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised especially vulnerable should our retained fire station be threatened with closure There are many more flats/apartments being built, further increasing the population The proposed plan seems to ignore the need for multiple pumps required in attendence for large buildings with large numbers of inhabitants... Such as the 3 large hotels in Woolacombe, the School, campsite clubhouses, more hotels than I can count in Ilfracombe, the Comprehensive school and factories. I find it absolutely shocking to think that there is a high possibility that in the future if one of our hay stores or barns were to catch fire we wouldn’t have the village fire brigade to call on and may not even be able to expect a shout to go out to Ilfracombe or Barnstaple because of their additional cuts. Meaning we could face a lengthy wait with vulnerable students and animals, something that doesn’t bear thinking about. There are 3 major hotels in Woolacombe and the former Narracott hotel has been converted into 57 apartments, while many more buildings have been converted into multiple occupancy buildings again increasing risk. Station and National Trust Our station costs have been worked out at £40,000 per year, not £100,000 per year as DSFRS have advertised. The land that our station occupies belongs to the National Trust and is leased, cheaply, by DSFRS (something the Chief wasn't aware of when he came to see us at Woolacombe station last week). If the station were to close, the land would have to be returned to the National Trust how it was received, as green land. DSFRS would have to remove the building, the drains, the concrete, etc. Station crewing After years of trying to recruit more fire fighters, with no help from DSFRS other than a poster, we finally have 3 new recruits. (2) This means that out of us and our 2 neighbouring stations (Braunton and Ilfracombe), we are the only station with an improving outlook for availability. Braunton only has one contracted person with the qualification to go out in charge of the fire engine and he has handed in his notice, so as of 1st October 2019 Braunton are unavailable 24/7. Ilfracombe … Watch Manager has handed in his notice and will be leaving before

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Christmas. This means that it will cost DSFRS even more money to keep both Braunton and Ilfracombe functioning, while Woolacombe gets no support from the crewing pool and with 3 new recruits we will soon have the best unsupported availability out of all 3 stations … Chief, Lee Howell … still thinks it's best to close Woolacombe station … It is a known fact that people are most vulnerable when they are asleep. Nighttime is when Woolacombe is currently more available, and the improving staffing levels means our overall availability is going to massively increase, unlike other stations. What the DSFRS neglect to tell the community … is that ILFRACOMBE and Braunton are both retained stations and struggle to actually keep a fire engine available The closures assume that the surrounding fire stations will pick up the difference due to closures. However as nearly all the stations are retained, that relies heavily on the availability of staff at the moment of need. When Ilfracombe station was changed from whole time to retained, it was promised that there would always be 2 pumps kept on the run. This has not happened. Their first pump is often available, the second rarely ever. Firefighters from Woolacombe have previously been sent to Ilfracombe on standby, so quite clearly, if Woolacombe closes, we cannot be guaranteed a pump will come from Ilfracombe (or Braunton due to their staffing issues). The figures given in the brochure are misleading, Braunton and Ilfracombe are rarely on the run. I believe Braunton may now be totally off the run due to the resignation of their only person trained to be in charge? In the past we have suggested that Woolacombe fire station could become home to the local coastguard unit. They currently operate out of unsuitable premises in an unsuitable location. Sharing facilities with us would reduce costs to both organisations. Option 6 of the consultation document, in addition to the station closures, would result in only 1 appliance being available from Ilfracombe during the hours from 8am to 6pm. Therefore, any incident in Woolacombe requiring more than 1 fire engine would need the assistance of Braunton and/or Barnstaple. All of this presupposes that these appliances are available and not on other calls.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised A community resource The fire service plays a key part in the community not only in fire prevention but accident and medical support. I believe that the options set out by Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Services would leave the area in a vulnerable position. At the Ilfracombe consultation session held at Ilfracombe last Friday, one of Town Councillors, Netti Pearson, suggested that if a local fire station could be operated from the Mullacott Industrial Estate Ilfracombe, then Woolacombe Combe Martin could be closed. A BAD SUGGESTION ! How could the Ilfracombe retained staff get from work in the day time, get to Mullacott, at least two miles, get operational in the five minutes as laid down currently by Service rules ? Ilfracombe Trades Union Council opposes this suggestion. Having lived in Woolacombe for the past xx years I have always been reassured that the Fire Service is close at hand if ever we need it. I know they are firstly there for fires but all the work they do helping with accident and emergency is very much needed. It has been brought to the public light that there is intent to close many fire stations in and around north Devon, including Woolacombe. I have to voice my disapproval and resistance to such a blinded and disastrous proposal! There is nothing good that could come of this- that area is secluded and especially during peak tourism months, extremely hard to get to and by having the closest station 20 minutes away, traffic dependent, you are looking to make the front pages due to an impending disaster ; which I hope never happens! I have been visiting the area for many years, I have the closest of friends who I class as my family there and are paramount the local economy, even when I return from my current home here in xxxxx. The fact that this is on the table shows the level of incompetence at local and national government and as always, local services and communities are in the firing line. I hope that you see the long term damage this will cause and urge you, whether this is a financial reason or not (which I’m sure it is) not to go ahead with this. Your role is to ensure the safety and security of people living in that area, not put them into harms way.

Summary of main themes raised in email submissions – Removal of third fire engine (negative)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Disagreement with the removal of third fire engines

Non-specific 2 With regards the suggestion of removing the 3rd fire appliance at stations I also disagree with this, these appliances are used and are a very valuable resource, these appliances provide excellent resilience when needed and their removal would affect operation response. The removal of some third … fire engines might well be feasible in some cases, but would the savings made be of any significance? Where will all the redundant pumps go?

Bridgewater 1 The reduction in the number of appliances operating from Bridgwater, coupled with the reduction in the full-time crew availability, will clearly reduce the reaction time of the service locally.

Taunton 3 More houses, more people, more flooding incidents and more fire (both will continue to increase due to climate change) … Fewer stations/engines and firefighters makes no sense and is illogical. What is often missing in these proposals and restructure options is basic common sense and logic. I have lived and worked in Taunton for 14 years and the idea to reduce to only two fire engines makes no sense. Reductions to the manning levels at Taunton, as part of the same process, will mean that they will not be able to provide effective cover when needed, making the reductions at Bridgwater even more dangerous.

Torquay 4 I believe Paignton’s Appliance is attending as second Pump into Torquay when required. A fast response to these highly populated areas is critical. We also have new builds going up rapidly within the area, which is expanding the cover needed even more. With regards to cut in the fire service in Torbay. I find this absolutely appalling considering recent events and fires in the bay In this email, we are submitting a petition signed by members of the public in the Torbay community. They express our opposition to the proposed reforms.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised I wish to object to the proposed changes to the fire stations both crew and equipment in Torquay Paignton and Brixham.

Yeovil 5 There is a clear rise in calls year on year, which is likely to rise as new developments are built and risk factors are increased. With the number of new housing developments taking place in the Yeovil area and more and more houses being built in rural areas this reduction it is felt that this could be potentially dangerous. Like many rural villages there are several thatched properties in the villages of Seavington St Mary and Seavington St Michael. The villages are 4 miles from Ilminster, 6 from Martock and 12 from Yeovil. Significant economic and employment development is underway in and around Yeovil, driving a significant increase in residential and commercial premises and the number of people who live and work in Yeovil … removal of a fire appliance at Yeovil, may compromise longer-term delivery of fire and rescue services to the considerable and expanding commercial sector (goes on to list recent major developments and ongoing developments including retail, hotel, NHS accommodation and housing) (case 15) Yeovil Fire Station attended two dwelling fires in the early hours of this morning, 13.9.19. The first was in flats almost opposite the fire station. Four people were trapped and had to be rescued from a first floor flat by firefighters wearing breathing apparatus … Three fire engines attended from Yeovil Fire Station and were there within minutes of the call coming in. One of the three fire engines is due to be cut under new proposals by Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service. The occupants of the flat were alerted to the fire by a smoke alarm. Smoke alarms doubtless save lives; however, they do not walk up stairwells, extinguish the fire and lead members of the public to safety. That takes a dedicated team of firefighters, arriving quickly, with the correct amount of personnel and equipment. Weight and speed of attack is crucial in saving lives … The second incident occurred on the new housing development near Augusta Park, Houndstone. The front door to a coach-house style property was deliberately set alight and the 3 occupants inside were trapped. Once again, all three fire engines from Yeovil were mobilised and were there in a matter of minutes. Demographics

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised As Yeovil grows, (Bunford Heights, Brimsmore, Wyndham Park, Augusta Park etc) so do the number of fire calls and incidents that the fire station attends. Since 2014 there has been a steady rise in the number of calls - from 630 in 2014 to a predicted 850 this year. Residents have seen this rapid growth in their town, they have seen an almost 3% rise in their council tax to pay for DSFRS and therefore are quite rightly angry when they see that their fire service is being cut. Yeovil has a growing population and a high concentration of employment in aerospace and logistics, compared with the national level … RNAS Yeovilton is Europe's largest rotary airbase and a national interest is held with its risk with a large MOD presence from the Royal Air Force, Navy, Army and MOD … Yeovil is an urban sized population with the largest commercial risk in Somerset. Leonardo Helicopters are planning to upgrade their civilian airfield to a tarmac runway increasing the local risk. Multiple employers attract large staff numbers including Screwfix Direct Limited, Tool stream and four major trading estates … Yeovil is home to YDH which is spread over 10 floors. Yeovil also has many residential and specialist care homes serving the community that all require specialist and Pre-determined attendance to any incident. By losing the third appliance from Yeovil it will take longer for additional support from the service to arrive.

Summary of main themes raised in email submissions – Options and general comments (positive)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Disagreement with the removal of second fire engines General 2 I also disagree with the removal of second appliances at 4 Retained stations. It has been claimed that these are at risk due to the stations not being able to recruit and keep the appliances available. Surely the answer here is to have a suitable and sufficient Retained crewing model which pays fairly and attracts staff to crew these appliances, taking the pumps away doesn’t solve the broken crewing model currently used.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised The removal of some … second fire engines might well be feasible in some cases, but would the savings made be of any significance? Where will all the redundant pumps go?

Lynton 15 I believe that the recent proposals to reduce provision at Lynton & to completely remove the station at Porlock are both foolhardy and dangerous. I implore you to give careful & thorough consideration to the particular needs of this area &, crucially, to the vulnerability of its population - & also the many tourists who visit the area - should the present provision be reduced … they are frequently called upon to fight moorland fires, for which they have the necessary specialist equipment & great expertise. Though situated in different counties the Lynton & Porlock stations are inter-dependent & together cover a large, isolated, rural area of Devon & Somerset, protecting a scattered population which would be at much greater risk were services to be reduced or removed. What will happen to us in Lynton should there be more than one fire locally with only one engine to fight the fires? Risk Factors I would argue that the risks within this particular station's ground and amount of vulnerable people that live here requires the fire station and both pumps … The station area is home to a range of risks including 8 care homes 2 schools 8 factories/warehouses around 100 hotels/guesthouses and more than 60 retail outlets. In the outer district there are many rural risks such as thatched homes open fields moorland coastal and wooded areas. Climate change is can only exacerbate this risk whether this includes wildfires or flooding incidents. Surely there is no such thing as a low risk fire station. Are not the risks to peoples' lives living in these areas no less than for those living in any other areas? I am aware that Lynton's station is remaining, but its isolated position is another reason why the 2nd appliance must also remain. We are so isolated here that it would be a great worry if we did not have enough local firefighting teams – the engines from Minehead or Barnstaple would take at least half an hour to arrive by which time a lot of damage could have been done.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised The 4x4 The appliance in question is a 4x4 vehicle which is essential for Lynton's crews being able to perform their statutory and special service duties ... In addition, 2 pumps are needed in many incidents and work in tandem with one another such a RTCs when an occupant is trapped or in a wildfire when both pumps are needed. In your response it is indicated that DSfire wish to maintain their response capability and locate resources in areas according to risk. Then why remove the vehicle in the first place? … Is a 4x4 appliance going to be introduced to a station such as Combe Martin or Ilfracombe to help our lone appliance at Lynton? How long would that take to get to Lynton? I do not feel this query has been satisfactorily answered. The Lynton engine in question is the 4x4 vehicle and its loss would leave the station unable to tackle moorland fires or operate anywhere that required such a vehicle. The Fire Brigade's Union has recently released figures that show that wildfires have increased over the last year in England and Wales (2) 'Safer Together' proposes to take away the second appliance, which is a 4 wheel drive vehicle capable of going off road and reaching remote moorland fires. Climate change With increasingly hot summers (a) … rise in outdoor fires whilst excessive rain will see more flooding. Demographics /vulnerability There are people here, many with alcohol dependency issues, struggling with their mental health, disabled, limited mobility, elderly in homes or alone etc. It is worth noting that a rural area such as Lynton has a higher than average number of residents over 65, indeed who are over 80. In Devon and Somerset the proportion of residents over 65 is expected to rise from 24.4% in 2019 to 28.1% in a decade according to the Office of National Statistics. The population over 85 is expected to rise by 43% over the same period.

There are plenty of people within this parish and station ground that could be classed as 'vulnerable', residents in care homes, elderly and disabled people living alone in the village, outer district or on the moor … The fire crew's operational efficiency will inevitably be compromised without the second engine and less

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised crew. This is gambling with people's lives … rural communities are to be penalised yet again.

First Response First response … definitely saves lives but would be curtailed with the loss of our engine. Those retained crew that remain will be compromised and not have the equipment without the second appliance to perform their duties as they do under the present system. Crew would not, for example, be able to enter a domestic house fire with only one fire crew.

To change from Fire officers to volunteers would greatly increase the response times needed by appliances to get to fires in the area. If for instance the proposed single engine at Lynton is needed elsewhere and there is a fire in Lynton the response time for a fire appliance would be increased substantially.

Loss of community facilities In the context of the likely loss of critical acute services and key staff from North Devon Hospital to Exeter, this possible loss of our fire engine is another severe blow to residents in Lynton and elsewhere (2) Proximity to Exmoor Lynton has been historically a 'key' fire station because of its position geographically and because of the time it would take other appliances to reach this part of Exmoor… it seems to me the modelling is incomplete … Lynton fire station is not close to other fire stations … Combe Martin's on call station is thirteen miles away and takes a good half an hour. Minehead is further … The picture becomes even more stark when the possible loss of Porlock's station and Barnstaple's being reduced to day cover is considered … There are many outdoor risks within the station's ground. Where would this appliance be suited better than Exmoor? Porlock Fire station is earmarked for closure so not only would their main appliance be lost but also two smaller all-terrain fire fighting vehicles. The combination of both cuts would result in the removal of all the moorland firefighting capability in the north Exmoor area. Having Lynton and Porlock stations either side of the moor with the appropriate firefighting equipment is crucial to protect the

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised people, business and environment for the devastation that fire can cause We have many gorse and heather fires on Exmoor, if there are not enough teams to put the fires out quickly we could lose the beautiful scenery which so many locals and tourists enjoy The total removal of off-road cover on Exmoor is in our view totally unacceptable from both the human safety and environmental points of view. Wildfires can be extremely dangerous and damaging. There are many humans who get into difficulties and get injured in off road situations where our fire personnel have performed a really valuable service. Roads and Travel Times Only one winding A road (A39) passing through the villages of Lynton and Lynmouth, and a fairly tortuous B road over the moor towards South Molton, via Simonsbath. Barnstaple, Ilfracombe and South Molton are all about 20 miles away by road. Minehead is 20 miles east by road through Porlock, Over steep hills to the east and high ground in all directions. Lynton has been cut off from the outside world for several days by up to 12 foot high snow drifts on the roads in all directions a number of times while I have lived here, and we often suffer flooding on all the surrounding routes (2). The population in the tourist season is considerably higher, with congestion problems on the roads in and around the villages. Yet we have been classified by the consultation document as a low risk area. How do the DSFRS work that out? Do they have a crystal ball? (2) Our most accessible fire station is at the village of Combe Martin, some 14 miles by road. It has one older engine and a small crew, which covers our area if Lynton is out on a call. Ilfracombe then has to cover Combe Martin's area. This is normal practice, as is covering for and assisting crews from other stations all over North Devon and beyond for all types of fires, rescues of people and animals, floods, assisting police, coastguard and ambulance crews, road traffic collisions etc. I was distressed to learn that Lynton and Lynmouth may lose one of its fire engines and that Porlock Fire Station might be closed. What will happen to us in Lynton should there be more than one fire locally with only one engine to fight the fires?

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised I am sending you this email with the utmost concern regarding the possible imminent loss of a fire engine at Lynton. Lynton has been historically a 'key' fire station because of it's position geographically and because of the time it would take other appliances to reach this part of Exmoor. Having read the consultation document, it seems to me the modelling is incomplete with regard to the effects that taking away the lynton appliance would have on the station area and the consequent risk to life as a result. Lynton fire station is not close to other fire stations. To the North we have the sea, whilst Combe Martin's on call station is thirteen miles away and takes a good half an hour . Minehead is further still, the other side of the moor. The picture becomes even more stark when the possible loss of Porlock's station and Barnstaple's being reduced to day cover is considered.

Martock 1 With the number of new housing developments taking place in the Yeovil area and more and more houses being built in rural areas this reduction it is felt that this could be potentially dangerous. Like many rural villages there are several thatched properties in the villages of Seavington St Mary and Seavington St Michael. The villages are 4 miles from Ilminster, 6 from Martock and 12 from Yeovil.

Totnes 5 Trends in call outs may well have changed, the whole point of an emergency service is that it is there when needed. Reduce it and in an emergency, especially a major one, the service will be stretched and not fit for purpose. This action would have a possibly disastrous effect on the historic buildings (many of which are listed) in Dartington, Dartington Hall and Totnes should a serious fire break out. The Council is concerned that the historic nature of Totnes and the surrounding villages might not have been adequately considered in proposing this action. Reducing the number of fire engines from 2 to 1 greatly increases the risk both to residents of Totnes and to the local firefighters. Across this area the main changes affected Kingston and Totnes. However, if engines were removed from these sites it could mean the Salcombe unit being removed more often to service other areas and with this community being out on a limb this was a worry.

Summary of main themes raised in email submissions – Change of status to day crewing (negative)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Disagreement with change of status to day crewing

General 1 I feel this is unbelievable to even be suggested - the only crewing model that delivers 100% cover and gives a guaranteed turn at immediate notice. All 3 of the stations provide superb cover in their areas as well as providing massive support and resilience to neighbouring stations. I don’t feel the impact of changing these stations has been fully understood. Yet again the figures used for these stations doesn’t include calls outside their areas to support the failing Retained crewing

Barnstaple 12 Fires at night may occur rarely but the potential is higher that they spread further before detection and people are less able to act to protect themselves when just roused from sleep. Retained crews, with the best will in the world, are not trained to use the Bronco platform vehicle, perform specialist water rescues or environment protection so these facilities will not be available at night. (2) To even consider the reduction of overnight full-time cover in Barnstable is complete insanity. Both the fires on our lane in recent years occurred at night. There are a number of large old converted multiple-occupancy but poorly maintained buildings in Ilfracombe which may be at increased risk from this reduction. Barnstaple is a growing town with more and more homes planned The map on page 46 shows day crewing at Barnstaple only increasing first pump response time by one to two minutes. The reality is that at night, with On Call Firefighters responding from home, it would be an increase of around four minutes. These outputs suggest the results have been manipulated to appear less severe. Barnstaple is home to specialist equipment including the aerial ladder, water bowser and special rescue, which currently only whole-time staff are qualified to operate … The aerial ladder in has attended several high profile after hours fires in Ilfracombe and made a difference. There is a fear of what might happen if it takes at least an hour to travel from Exeter. The specialist rescue including two boats is called to a range of incidents that deviate from the statutory fire and RTC cover. The

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised consensus is in the future there will be more flooding incidents and the service will be needed even more … The proposed change would mean none of that would be available at night unless it comes from Exeter (an hour from Barnstaple) Barnstaple is a designated specialist rescue station. Its whole-time firefighters there are specially trained to deal with both search and rescue in difficult access scenarios including flooding and swift water incidents in addition to their line rescue skills from both height and confined spaces. As you are aware Barnstaple fire station currently provides this cover 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year: cover that is afforded right across North Devon and beyond its boundaries. Or rather it will do until the Chief Officer’s options for Barnstaple fire station’s DOWN- SIZING are enacted! The fire station will then only be staffed by its whole-time firefighters from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. At night (6 p.m.to 9 a.m.) station will be empty of all its firefighters. It will be covered only by ‘on-call’ firefighters only (they were once referred to as ‘retained’). On-call firefighters are, of course, trained in all their duties involved in riding normal fire engines but none possess the skills, or the training, to undertake line-rescue or water-borne rescue. These two highly specialise fire engines will just lay dormant for the whole of the night shift. Both North Devon, and the other emergency services, will be deprived of these specialist skills. Rescues from high places; cliffs, cranes and high buildings; those affected by flooding, or needing water rescue-a canoeist for example on a summer evening-will be disadvantaged, or worse, because these special fire engines will be kept at the station! The Chief Officer has failed to mention these facts, or the consequences of his day crewing policy regarding Barnstaple, within the consultation document. There are plenty of reasons why the DSFRS Chief Fire Officer’s proposals regarding Barnstaple are flawed. In fact, there are at least 29 of them. That is the number of occasions that these highly trained whole-time firefighters have been deployed over the last 12 months of recorded data outside of daytime hours. Occasions where their high rise and water-borne skills (and intensive training) have been utilised at incidents that range from attempted suicides, water rescues, body recovery and even animal rescues. The proposals to reduce status 24-hour whole-

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised time crewing to whole-time day crewing (9 hours) and night-time on-call crewing (15 hours) is erroneous.

Paignton 4 Your proposals to Paignton in particular are simply ridiculous … ... your data is flawed and you have conveniently left out vital information such as the fact that Paignton is the second largest town in Devon and the fourth largest urban area in Devon... with huge plans for further expansion... as well as having hundredths of thousands of tourists each year … With the town having a very high proportion of elderly, very vulnerable people, the people who cannot get themselves out of the house by themselves, you are expecting people to wait even longer for a crew to save them from a fire... your ideal and supposed timings that the retained can get to the station and get to the fire are farfetched and not what is experienced in Reality! … how on earth are the retained at night going to reach a property in Stoke Gabriel in good enough time if people are trapped? Just look at the fires that we have had in the last few months in the Paignton area.

Summary of main themes raised in email submissions – Change of status of second fire engine to on-call at night only (negative)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Disagreement with change of status of second fire engine to on-call at night only

General comments 2 What is the benefit of introducing 'night cover' second appliances on stations? The station is still there, as is the appliance; why discourage and diminish the potential service? Presumably there is a miniscule saving in paying lower retainer fees, but the discouragement in respect of recruitment affecting the first appliance too, will impinge more widely. The financial cost savings will be minimal as there will still be all of the other outlay apart from the daytime pay which is minimal. How on earth does the service plan on deciding who will provide the cover at daytime. This will split stations and crews and will result in more staff turnover, let alone the impact of fire cover in these communities.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Chard 1 Why are you recruiting more Fire Fighters in Chard if you are planning on reducing the amount of hours that pumps are available? How many times have both pumps from Chard been called upon in the last 12 months? How many shouts or times have the appliances been used in the last 12 months from the Chard station? How many were House Fires; Commercial Fires; RTAs; Rescues; Cover to other stations; Other (please can you let me know what these are)

Frome 7 Performance According to data on your website, Frome is the second busiest retained station in your area in terms of all incidents over a five- year average. According to your officers in Frome, in the 2018 calendar year, our second pump was used 78 times during the day. On average, that is three times a fortnight … Surely response times will lengthen as a second pump would need to travel from another station. Will your emergency response standards be met? Why vary the two-pump status of Frome now that it can crew 24 hours? This station is vital to north eastern Somerset, an area with much less fire cover than…much of the Authority's area. This seems insane when the second fire engine in Frome is used nearly 80 times a year. Indeed, Frome is the second busiest station in Devon and Somerset. Frome is the second busiest retained station in Devon and Somerset from April 2015 to June 2019 … (and) the fifth busiest retained station between the hours of 8am - 6pm … because of a recruitment ban by the service … our second pump hasn't been available as much as we like. However, at the end of 2018 we had … successful recruitment drive where we had 9 positions (reduced FTE) to fill … Since we have two available, our performance of availability has increased by 19%, and we are working hard so the other 7 can push us close to 100% availability…. DSFRS need to look to the future and prepare for what is happening with a bigger town, more visitors, longer travel times, smaller fire engines (equipment/water and personnel), greater range of calls recently added gain entry, more casualty care as waiting longer for ambulances means pumps will be tied at incidents longer.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Risk Frome's risk profile for 2018/2019 by DSFRS was VERY HIGH RISK for Dwelling fires, RTCs and Business Safety to name a few, now I'm not aware of a significant event or drastic action that DSFRS have taken to reduce this risk to low (the risk profile needed to remove a fire engine). Please can you explain? Also, our calls don't dramatically drop during the day, a fire engine is still needed indicates the risk is still there. It will be really unsafe to leave this large area vulnerable With increasing temperatures there is greater risk of fires in a largely rural area which has had to return to hay production as a consequence of the hot summers. Spontaneous hay fires are a concern. Demographics Frome's property fires increased in 18/19 by 23%. With a further 762 dwellings with planning permission, plus another 760 without, the population of an already very busy town is likely to increase significantly and could see up to an additional 9,000 (4 per household) in Frome alone in the next 10 years Between 2018/19 and 2031/32 1450 new houses will be built. According to Statista the average UK household size is 2.3 people. This indicates that Frome’s population living in new houses will increase by 3,335 by 2032 or 12% based on the estimated population of Frome 2018 of 27,373 (Somerset Intelligence). Travel times and response standards How are Frome going to meet DSFRS emergency response standards? Shepton (nearest DS) is 26.5mins away and Warminster (nearest DW) is 18mins away; both outside current emergency response standards What's the risk of individuals waiting 15 mins say 17:45, to report a property fire due to the fact that they'll get a quicker 2 pump response? Impact on surrounding stations What's the knock-on effect for surrounding stations’ employers? Shepton's call rate is likely to increase but how much of a negative effect will this have with the relations and goodwill of employers who are releasing, and could this change due to the increased demand?

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised What is Wilshire's and Dorset's view as this will put additional strain on their already over stretched resources?

Ilfracombe 12 Population experiences seasonal fluctuation Ilfracombe has a significant number of elderly and infirm residents We have very old and poorly maintained high buildings and very steep hills. We are also geographically isolated. We have a long history of serious fires in this town and therefore any reduction of services in our town or the surrounding areas puts lives at risk. (2) It also has many Houses of Mulitiple Occupancy and older buildings of three stories and over; some of which are derelict or at least poorly maintained or difficult to access. I am concerned that the proposed cuts to the fire station at Ilfracombe will endanger the lived of residents and tourists. There are many 4 and 5 storey Victorian residential and B and B or hotel buildings in Ilfracombe so any delay in getting a fire crew to a fire in one of these buildings is very likely to cause an increase in fatalities and serious injuries. Last winter the road to Barnstaple was impassable due to snow so a fire engine would not have been able to get to a fire in Ilfracombe. Reducing the status of crewing in Ilfracombe and the closure of Woolacombe Station would certainly place residents and visitors to Ilfracombe at a significantly higher risk … It is difficult to understand how DSFRS can now justify a further reduction in cover when their own statistics show an overall 8% increase in fires attended by the service since 2014/15. We have the most deprived ward in Devon … high rates of poverty which reduces resilience to fire Many whose lifestyles would be considered as chaotic and high risk due to drug and alcohol abuse and mental health issues. The Safer Together strategy team have so far refused to hold a consultation in Ilfracombe

Okehampton 2 Our fire station is a must with the moors right on our door step. Okehampton is a rapidly expanding town and any reduction in service is short sighted.

Tavistock 3 The table shows a revenue saving of £24,089 (not including the on-call salaries). The question was ‘if the appliance is not being

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised removed, but just not crewed during the day how are these savings achieved’? The cost savings do not justify the risk

Wellington 9 Option 5 of the Safer Together Programme proposes reducing the daytime cover from two to one appliance in Wellington. This in itself, raises real concern. However, when you combine the other proposed local resource loss, to that of Wellington, the risk factors seem unacceptable … principle areas of particular concern being: The M5; Increased local housing development; Increased commercial development; Risks associated in particular with two major employment sites locally; The Railway; The nature of the demographics; Rurality and associated access issues. It would be a huge loss for Wellington if the government reduce the fire station to one operative vehicle a day … the fire service with RTCs is second to none and the M5 is just minutes away from Wellington. Wellington is not only an expanding town, but my particular parish has both the M5 motorway and the main London to Penzance railway passing through it, both of which have suffered many accidents over the years and needed your services. You’re threatening a growing town (with adjacency to the M5) currently over 16 000 but rising to 20,000 shortly Wellington fire station serves the M5 my concern is for the safety of the crew when attending incidents on this road. As there will be no back up for their appliance between 8-6. The nearest appliance will be Cullumpton, Taunton or Tiverton. Which will leave crews with no safety for an extend 10 mins and on top of this you’re cutting Taunton which already back up the station and cutting Tiverton to one pump also. Obviously, crew safety can’t be a concern for you? They are/have built so many new houses in Wellington that the fire service just cannot cope Wellington population is growing with new houses being erected at mass rate … We have three major factories which run during the hours of your proposed cuts. These factories employ high numbers leaving these people at risk If they want to hold a proper consultation then it needs to be held in Wellington at a suitable time! (3)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised We cannot lose any fire service coverage in Wellington. As a local business and resident of Wellington, Somerset, I was shocked to hear we may be losing one of our appliances.

Wells 5 The City of Wells has some of the most important historical buildings and heritage in Devon and Somerset. With Wells Cathedral, the Bishops Palace, Vicars Close and over 330 listed buildings … Surely this needs to be reviewed as clearly for heritage we should be at the highest risk (rather than medium) The City is expanding: 4 new housing estates, each consisting of 100-300 houses ... construction projects … Charlie Bighams factory … an eco-waste incinerator … numerous industrial estates and quarries. For an RTC, 2 pumps are required carrying a crew of 9, with the correct equipment to attend within 15 minutes. As this was set by the service how do they now find it acceptable to fail to meet these times? The information states that the decision to turn off P2 in the day is down to risk and savings … Why are we now getting information from other sources that it has actually been based on the availability of the station? Recruitment has been a problem, as nothing is being done to get people through the door by the service. Any open days have been over 20 miles away, we have had public events/exercises within the city which would have been ideal to get the public involved, but there have been no actions from the service. This then meaning that the FFs currently at Wells are now having to lose out on work, turnouts, experience and money as one pump will now be switched off. With the location of police to the City Fire Station … Seems there is a possible mini Blue Light Hub, for the area. Since the portacabin, next to the building is used by Westcountry Ambulance Service, it seems the announcement from Westcountry Ambulance Service, to changes to Shepton and Glastonbury. This seems to me a Blue Light Hub at the City Fire Station, could improve. Westbury-sub-Mendip Parish Council, which covers an area of the Mendips in Somerset between Wells and Cheddar, wishes to object in the strongest possible terms to the reduction of overnight fire service cover for Wells and the surrounding area it serves. The historic city centre, including the Bishop's Palace,

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Vicar's Close, the properties surrounding the Cathedral Green as well as many other listed and conservation buildings, is a nationally important heritage site and good fire protection should be maintained at all times, which will not be adequately met with only one full time appliance at night. The Cathedral as the beating heart of the city is unique in its design and has the largest remaining collection of stained-glass windows in the country. Given the devastating loss of Notre Dame in France earlier in the year and the damage it did to that country's morale, to potentially risk the same for Wells, Somerset and the nation as a whole by reducing fire cover appears at best short-sighted, at worst reckless. For the wider area, given the nature of the local road system particularly on narrow country lanes, any reduction in fire service protection will mean far longer response times from remote stations, which could easily put lives at unnecessary risk. The biggest concern is the level of risk with in the city regarding Heritage. Starting from Wells Cathedral, to the Bishops Palace, Vicars close (the oldest residential street in Europe) and 3 other churches within the city. I think you would struggle to find more heritage in one small space all over the country. And I believe we are only classed as a medium risk! Following this, for the next closest stations to turn up to an incident at any of these places, the turn out time would be well over 10/12 minutes. Even if it were to be a RTC, or residential fire to only have the choice of one pump turn out for the first 10-15 minutes could have very serious outcomes. (these driving times are taken from google maps, and then a 5 minute turn out is also taken into consideration) Following a review of the information that we have been given, the Fire Fighters at 83 Wells have some large concerns over the information and it resulting in our P2 to be turned off during the day.

Summary of main themes raised in email submissions – Introduction of day-crewed roving fire engines (negative)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Disagreement with the introduction of day-crewed roving fire engines

General concern 5 The FRSA is concerned at National Level about the inclusion of ‘roving appliances’ option. When asking how the roving fire engines would work, the officers and civilians at the consultation actually said, 'well, we need to work on a bit more detail of that'. This is an absolute nonsense, especially within a week or two of the close of the consultation, and YOU don't know how it will work? The area (Kingston) would definitely be safer with our present cover, rather than relying on a roving vehicle!

Inadequate service for potential need 5 The reason for having roving appliances is they can provide cover where is it in demand. How is that possible to an unexpected situation? The idea of a roaming fire engine to be in the vicinity is absurd, these engines would spend much of the time nearer the towns! These are never going to be in the right place at the right time, the service admits it’s got a large geographical area how on earth will they predict where to put 6 Roving Fire Appliances, it’s an impossible task and will not work. The idea of roving fire crews throughout Devon & Somerset seems a complete waste of time. As Woolacombe is considered a low priority to the Fire Service, it is unlikely that the roving crews will be anywhere near us in the event of emergency. I fail to see how this is going to cut costs or improve efficiency. (2) They won’t in our area as we aren’t ‘High Risk’ enough We understand the argument to redirect funds to roving appliances but let’s face it, these appliances aren’t going to be around the likes of Colyton and our remote local villages, not to mention the crews not having the local knowledge that takes years to build up.

No after-hours service 1 How will they be crewed (day duty as suggested, not good for life cover) and how will they be deployed?

More information needed 8 Is there any more concrete information about what this plan will look like in practice?

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Have any costing models been done on how much this would cost? Both in terms of personnel and equipment? How will the 'Roving' fire engine system work? Where will they be housed; how will crews be fed and watered. … If they are only for public education why use crews on fire engines rather than fire safety education staff? Has the method of operation been agreed with the representative bodies? i.e. will it fly? What education will be done to develop area knowledge in firefighters working on roving engines?

The decision to divert funding to this needs further explanation and analysis.

The Safer Together documents also give no information around how the untested concept of daytime roving appliances might be utilised to meet response times. To offer this as mitigation for the proposed reductions is a high-risk strategy at a time when fire deaths in Devon are increasing. Where will they be parked and how likely is it that they will be in the right place at the right time? … In addition, what extra cost would be involved and, very importantly, what do crew members think of this? The idea that a satisfactory service could be maintained using a ‘roving’ fleet of 6 appliances to cover 2 counties is nonsense. Where would these fire engines be based? Where would they be housed? Who would man them and would they really have sufficient local location knowledge and knowledge of farm related incidents? I understand that officers from headquarters got lost as they followed their Satnavs which took them on a cross country trip to Kingston on July 8th whereas local people knew they needed to go via Modbury, and Harraton Cross to avoid small lanes and traffic jams!

Resource implications 3 Having 6 pumps on the go all day every day will surely have a very negative effect towards the environment. I believe that for HGV to be driven safely throughout the day, they would need to have a tacho. If this was to apply to the roving appliances, has the additional cost been taken into consideration as extra skill sets would be needed for the crew so that there would be enough drivers during the shift, as one would not be enough?

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised As has been experienced when this idea has been tried with ambulances, how often will the engines actually be much further from an incident than they would have been if they had remained at the fire station? Something tells me they will not be 'roving' in the Axe Valley anyway since Assistant Chief Pete Bond has said resources will be allocated from low to high risk areas and we appear to be defined as a low risk area. If you feel we are as a village, not at risk enough to keep our station open, then does that mean that the ridiculous idea of a roving appliance will not be seen here (Woolacombe), as they are to be travelling to ‘at risk’ areas?

Costs relative to proposed cuts 1 You are also being asked to condone the closure of Kingston which is a volunteer station and costs only £21,000 per year, this is madness surely? How can this make sense when each of these proposed 'roving' appliances will cost £1 million?

Summary of main themes raised in email submissions – Costs and funding (negative)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Costs and Funding

General comments 1 It is unacceptable to withdraw a service just to ease the budget.

This is primarily a cost-cutting 25 The rationale presented for the changes suggests that, if we were exercise to have a clear playing field, service location would 1) reflect current population hubs and 2) fast road access. There is also 3) a

need to save money. Looking at the published options I am confused and unable to spot a strategy that reflects rationale 1 & 2. Instead the options appear to present closures and reductions in services that meet the cost saving rationale without a nod to areas of less vs greater need based on risk and road networks. How has this come about? If I am right, the fire service has made a basic error in their consultation process. Published options need to reflect the full rationale for change and be self-explanatory, without the need to dig deeper, for a true consultation … IF the ONLY consideration is to save money, I truly understand that, but please do us the courtesy of being open and honest.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Please don't treat the public like fools. This is about an £8.4 million funding cut over the next 3 years. Be honest! Too much emphasis is placed on cost reduction and not enough on future improved service delivery. Your target - as we understand - is no more than an austerity programme in entertaining less day-to-day operations at reduced costs, but with increased risk … We cannot understand, these austerity measures to be discussed at this point of time. One-off capital savings can only be understood to sell off some of the assets (fire-engines). In our view this would strip the services from being able to react in bigger calamities. I think that it would be better on all counts to make people aware of the need to save money as this is a very legitimate contributor to the need to change. And, when this is as a result of central government policies, why would a local government service not make this clear? The resources are not even going to be utilised by being moved to other needy places: they are simply being cut - this is bizarre. This is clearly about saving money and not about efficiencies that this is being badged with. Having read the briefing document for this consultation I note that future funding cuts seem to be a key concern. I believe funding has already been cut and so the service is under pressure to find futher savings. I do wonder if without the threat of further funding cuts would these options still all be under consideration? Furthermore, it isn't clear to me if some if not all of the projected savings for each of these options is likely to be swallowed up by such future funding cuts rather than being released for the schemes suggested in the consultation document. The proposed “Safer together” is clearly a cover over for cost cutting, that should not bring lives in to danger & risk. This is simply a cost cutting exercise supported by figures that can be manipulated to support any outcome you wish to promote. The only positive aspect of the options offered, is that it identifies the reason it has become necessary to put these proposals forward: the incompetence of Council and Service Fat Cats, Government austerity measures and cuts to local government service funding.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised The fact that the cuts don’t have any aspect of moving any resources except, in my opinion, a wild notion of ‘roving appliances’ shows straight away that this is money driven and not based around providing a fire and rescue service to the public. The strategy is a pure cost-cutting exercise and a significant reduction in the number of fire fighters and engines which cannot possibly be a positive step, let alone be called improvements. All of the options … are focused on reducing the capacity and scale of Emergency Response quite probably in order to reduce future costs rather than any other drivers. Although we are advised this is not the rationale. I see that one of the risks you state is ‘The public may feel that this option alone does not address Service changes needed to support more efficient use of public funds.’ Efficient use of public funds? The public, I can assure you, has had enough of public funds being withdrawn from public services, and enough of ‘efficiency’ being a euphemism for ‘cuts’. I suspect like the rest of the public services, they are being deliberately run down and assets sold off to make them a more attractive business proposition for the private sector, I wonder, will I be proved right, will this even be read or are you just going through the motions? It seems to me that these changes are just a cost cutting exercise dressed up with (mostly incorrect, inappropriate or misleading) facts.

This is a false economy 9 Please do not let yourselves be known as the Dr Beeching of the fire service. If you allow the closure of local facilities and their subsequent sale or repurposing, no doubt money will be saved in the short term and maybe even some added to the bottom line; but bear in mind as someone once observed of Margaret Thatcher’s policy of privatising everything from water supply to electricity generation - you can only sell the family silver once. In future years when those behind this madness will have retired, the local authorities will need to find ways to mitigate the loss. Just think how much clearer our roads would be and our transport links (especially in North Devon) if those rail lines had not been closed and then systematically destroyed beyond rescue. This is the legacy you as the authority risk inheriting.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised If this happens there will be no going back, there will be no easy fix as most likely the fire station property and land will have been reallocated. For the relatively small running costs it takes from the Fire service right now, is it really a risk that you are willing to take? Once these proposed cuts have been implemented then it will be doubly difficult to get these services reinstated however greatly they are needed. We are repeatedly told that global warming/climate change will bring an increase in the number of moorland fires. If the response is slow or the capabilities are removed, once fire takes hold, putting it out will take many more resources and man hour costs than keeping Porlock Fire Station running. This would be a very short sighted and non-existent saving. As a station and a crew (Coyton) we cost £120,000 per annum to run. This seems a minuscule amount for such a necessary service to the local community. Closing eight rural fire stations saves less than £400,000 per year, i.e. about £50,000 per station. £50,000 per year seems very good value for a local station, especially when you consider all the other services that firefighters provide; dealing with traffic accidents, rescue from cliffs, sea and rivers, moorland fires and flooding, prevention/advice and 'first responder' paramedics to name a few. Most of your Firemen are Retained Firemen and this is the cheapest way to operate the system. You will find in the future when there is a big demand for Skilled Firemen, you will then have a serious problem. I appreciate the cost of these stations but believe a lot of the crew are volunteers which again shows the value local people put on the service. It is false economy to think that getting rid of the Fire Station will save money because at “what cost” I promise you that this will not be a cost effective move, and it will cost lives over time, as well as loose generations of experience. On the one hand, the drive for these delivery changes seems to be money according to the Safer Together Programme. How much money will be saved by taking away the engine? How will this contribute in real terms to plug the 8.4 million that needs to be

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised saved by the service over the next three years? The station itself costs circa 30k a year to run, yet there is 60k in the pot allocated for lynton's station, payed for through taxpayer's rates. It does not make sense to take away this engine for monetary reasons.

Public willing to pay more to retain 3 I certainly would be willing to put my hand in my pocket to secure current service a local service. Before closure, why not ask all residents of Topsham if they would be willing to pay £25, £50 or £100 or £200 each year to contribute to keep the fire station going? If you need more money then please charge your customers (us and the businesses) proportionately more. I have no doubt that the general public respect and admire the Fire Service and the vital work done on our behalf. Also most people would be happy to pay the small additional amount required to enable you to keep up the good work and avoid service cuts.

Council tax/more than covers existing 15 As a community, we more than adequately cover the revenue cost service of running this service from our community charge … If Porlock Fire Station is shut down could residents expect a reduction in their community charge or are you going to expect these households to pay the same whilst being exposed to a greater risk from a much-reduced level of cover? Increased council tax in the town to cut our fire service! The cost of staffing our fire station is £41,000 per year, yet the savings quoted for closing Woolacombe Fire Station is £350,000 – that is a huge discrepancy, and yet another attempt to mislead the public in the importance and efficiency of the Woolacombe Fire Station. We pay the same rates as other residents of Devon and Somerset, yet we will be receiving a substandard fire service The station itself costs circa 30k a year to run, yet there is 60k in the pot allocated for Lynton’s station, paid for through taxpayer's rates. It does not make sense to take away this engine for monetary reasons. (2) Frome & surrounding villages pay over £1.2million to DSFRS. It costs DSFRS £300k for Frome fire station, with £800+k going back in the DSFRS pot. How can you justify saving £31k & how is this a saving as if you need two pumps, you'll be alerting another station; you have additional hours rate to take into account travel (Shepton - up to an hour approx. £90 in itself), additional fuel

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised costs, wear and tear etc. Surely this is going to cost the TAXPAYER more? The fact that the district (Porlock) contributes considerably more in tax than the running costs of the station highlighted the unfairness in reducing cover to a District that arguable should be demanding more given the changing demographics. We as a parish, let alone as the whole response area for the station, are net contributors to the service even after the entire running cost of the Ashburton station is subtracted from the income from the precept. I am given to understand that Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority has £39,000 in reserves and bearing in mind that each household throughout the county is paying over £65 a month in council tax to pay for this service. I am concerned that your share of the local precept is £155 thousand but it only uses £100 thousand to our Ashburton fire station, perhaps without the fire station your share of the precept should be reduced As a poll taxpayer I pay for the Fire Service. I don't invest that money in consultants, expensive committees and Chief Officers. I invest in my local Fire Station at Martock, and Yeovil, safe in the knowledge that at present they could respond at my need, even if other things were happening at the same time. Don't imagine that I and others will pay more for less. The station (Colyton) is reported to operate at approx 12,000 pounds per annum yet local rates raise in excess of this, so why close a station that is operating under budget. How can it be justifiable to lose 300 front line firefighters and yet keep employing increasing numbers of expensive back room staff,this really makes me feel Safer Together.

Capital assets/savings 2 I understand that DSFRS are claiming capital saving in the region of £450k for this fire station, but as yet it's been very difficult to establish how this figure is calculated, maybe you can explain? What happens to the assets in Porlock? Are they relocated or sold and, if so, where? It is stated that “We need to match our resources – our crews, equipment and fleet – to specific risks in each of our communities”. If you close Porlock fire station you will be doing

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised the complete opposite. To most people, closing down Porlock would only save on the daily expenses. Disposing of equipment, already in use and paid for, is not a saving but a waste of money.

Outside expert advice needed 1 Why hasn’t an independent consultancy company been used to have a look at the whole service, top to bottom, to see if the money can be saved. Not just what seems to be jumping straight to cutting the front line and providing less services to the public.

Absence of long-term planning 1 There does not appear to be a long term plan in place … to take resulting in unnecessary spending one example, Porlock was given a new appliance in a blaze of publicity with the primary reason of improving response times only for the proposal to close the station and rely on stations many miles away to be made days later. Surely the cost of the new appliance could have been saved by waiting until the end of the consultation. It is not the only place that these new appliances have been supplied with the proposal to close that station or reduce the number off appliances at a station coming immediately after. DSFRS has … been unilaterally funding the experimentation into using smaller appliances. We are now on the fourth generation of these experiments with some of the earlier trials being withdrawn from service or transferred to obscure quiet stations. At least 25% of the five years old IVECO Eurocargo ones are now in the reserve fleet, many having now been replaced by the new Rapid Intervention Vehicles. It is normal for fire appliances to have a service life of around 20 years. A much slower development program would have saved considerable sums of money … Whilst not denying these smaller vehicles have some advantages there are the hidden costs that frequently additional appliances and special purpose vehicles (eg Water Carriers and Rescue Tenders) have to be mobilised to provide the equipment not carried on the smaller ones. Has this been fully costed? Additional Water Carriers and Rescue Tenders may be required.

Poor financial Management by FRS 2 What work has been done to reduce headquarters expense? Has work been done to reduce the expense of the governing body? Private Eye has previously exposed very grandiose expenditure on executive cars etc in other areas. Are you also guilty of this? Are managerial salaries following local authority trends upwards? Does the Fire Authority itself represent value for money?

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised If the plan is to sell the station property to fund other areas its simply not acceptable to risk our communities because of poor management. Please consider a more intelligent option

Central Government cuts 6 I wanted to let you know that if you are going to be directly affected by any of these station closures it's very difficult to see it as anything other than a government-imposed cut. To rub salt in the wounds, this proposed cut in service comes from an organisation that's just upped its fees by 3%. The cuts to services are not justified, as the Fire Service has £39 million in reserves and could use just a small proportion of these to retain all services as well as increase fire prevention. I note the Government's 25% cut to your funding over the last 4 years, and your 'savings requirement' of £8.4 million over the next 5 years. And talking of increasing trends, you don’t appear to have accounted for the likely rise in incidents as a result of climate change: flood, fire, and possibly even dams bursting. However the proposals are framed, it is clear that they are in response to cuts in funding. Given that "austerity" is now officially over, the Council would urge the Authority to abandon these proposals and instead look to improve rather than cut a service that is vital to the community. How does our funding compare with other counties? The govt needs to be challenged about unfair funding. ‘Cost pressures - our Service now receives less funding from the Govt, and that is set to decrease further’, so austerity is not over...yet

Cost savings - staff / capital 2 £350,000 will be saved by closing Woolacombe. What it doesn’t state is that the majority of this is the infrastructure and equipment already in place. Staffing costs are approx. £41,000 per year – this is a minimal sum in the great scheme of things and taking away this vital service will basically take away our right to basic fire and medical cover, but we are still paying the same as everyone else in the country in the form of contributions in council tax. 'Work Smarter not Harder' I understand that the Devon and Somerset Fire Service have in excess of £36,000,000 and the proposed cuts will result in an immediate saving of circa £440,000. But with retained fireman earning £17.00 an hour and

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised the eventual need to bring back fire services to the area as a result of both housing and industrial development will far out strip any saving made now. The project to reduce our services in Devon and Somerset, in a farcical attempt to save some money (despite forking out for 2 gigantic Top salaries...one of whom has barely set foot in the area...no names needed) is - frankly - utterly abysmal.

How savings to be reinvested? 5 … stated within the program … the money saved will be put back into the service and its prevention work. If there is less money available to the service, so changes have to be made to save this £8m, where will the money be coming from to put back into the service …? Are the cuts to fund even more white-collar workers rather than officers on the ground? There is no suggestion that council tax will be reduced as a result of offering a seriously reduced service. And then I mention savings. You have £38m. Use some of that to maintain cover please The board is concerned that no information has been given on whether any of the savings created by the changes would be reinvested and how the on-call system would be improved to increase from 80% availability to 100%...It is not felt that the proposals provide enough detail on how the on-call system would be improved, how extra protection will be achieved and how much will be reinvested into the service

Overall savings from proposals 1 Am I right in saying that you are looking at saving £8 million? Am I right in saying that if you implement all of the cost cuts you will only save less than £1 million? If the above is correct can you tell me how you intend to bridge the gap? Do you need to make savings due to cuts in government or local council income as we have seen no decrease on council tax bills

Cuts/closures would not generate the 4 There has also been a point raised that is stated within the savings claimed/ funds could be program. That the money saved will be put back into the service taken from the reserves. and its prevention work. If there is less money available to the service, so changes have to be made to save this £8m, Where will the money be coming from to put back into the service as these change are because we don’t have the money available anymore?

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised The annual saving from the closure of the eight fire stations is less than £400,000. Surely this sum could be found from the reserves. Finally why are these proposals put forward when the DSFRS has approximately £37 million in the 'reserve pot'.

Management costs 2 Please tell me why there seems to be such a jump in management positions in the last two years; what these positions are and how many people are paid in excess of £50k per year

Concern over level of financial 7 … with their reserves of £33m of taxpayers’ money. I know the line reserves that comes out is that this money is earmarked for resources and can’t be spent on anything else but do we really need more office based jobs when we’re cutting frontline services and lightweight rescue kit at the expense of stations and engines. I question the need to stir so much ill feeling when this year, I understand you will operate with a £4.6 million revenue SURPLUS? It’s almost as if you want trouble for trouble's sake? The service has massive financial reserves which it has already saved Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Authority has £39,000 in reserves and bearing in mind that each household throughout the county is paying over £65 a month in council tax to pay for this service. It is not understood … why more cuts … to the service are necessary when accounts show under-spends of nearly two million pounds and the presence of large reserves. Your General Reserve, i.e. unallocated money, is 7% of your budget, but is only required to be 5%. There is money there, which could be spent to avoid any cuts.

Inequality of funding town v country? 3 Many of the residents pointed out that they pay the same tax as those in urban areas and not unreasonably demanded that they continue to receive the same degree of Fire and Rescue Service cover. As Council Tax payers why should those people in Ashburton and immediate surroundings pay disproportionately to support an area outside that of their own when there is already an existing service that forms part of the attraction of living in that area. We pay our council taxes the same as anyone one else and should receive the same level of fire cover. If you lived in one of these

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised rural areas would your opinion of these cuts be in your own families and friends’ interests, I think not.

Planning and lobbying 2 Keep lobbying government to fund the services you need to provide instead of trying to work out what services you can provide with the funds you have been given.

Any other means of raising money 5 I will complete your questionnaire but given these usually don’t offer much scope for real statements so would like to say that shedding capital assets renders your organisation poorer in real and significant ways that can never be recovered should further flexibility be required in the future. Perhaps you could rent your sites rather than sell them, or indeed develop them with the support of local authorities The loss of jobs too has a damaging effect on the wider local economy. I was astounded at the lavishness of your Headquarters when watching the article on Fire Station closures on BBC Spotlight last night. Surely expenditure on items like your Headquarters and general " non producers ", who will never extinguish any fires, should be kept to the very minimum and money invested in Fire Stations where the assets for actually carrying out the purpose of your service are stationed! I really thought that I was looking at the entrance to some plush Hilton hotel when your Headquarters came into view on last night's programme! Do you not think that you actions go against the grain for both your fire station staff, and the general public, when your reason for closing stations is, supposedly, to better use resources. Surely a more modest Headquarters and, maybe, a drastic reduction in top heavy administrative staff would serve the public better than closing down stations. If a station saves just one life a year then it is reason enough keep it open. I do not like your options given to the public re saving money for the fire service in North Devon. As the main purpose if this change is to save money, the question has been asked, why hasn’t an independent consultancy company been used to have a look at the whole service, top to bottom, see if the money can be saved. Not just what seems to be jumping straight to cutting the front line and providing less services to the public.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised DSFRS must find the necessary funding elsewhere, and not rob us all of what remains of our vital front line fire and rescue services.

6 Whilst I appreciate your aim to make savings but it should not be Proposals should not be about done at the expense of heightened risk. money/the emergency services were created to save lives/money should Money should never be the driver of services. not be put before people’s safety After all should financial matters take precedent over lives. All of the options in this set of proposals are focused on reducing the capacity and scale of Emergency Response quite probably in order to reduce future costs rather than any other drivers. Although we are advised this is not the rationale.

Summary of main themes raised in email submissions – Staffing and crewing (negative)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Staffing and crewing - general comments

Criticism of management 1 The organisation is too top heavy, too obsessed with empire building and operating like a "business", too full of people that have been promoted beyond their capabilities, too bloated with departments that nobody even knows what the title means. We need to get back to basics, remember what the public expects and deserves for its money.

Shortfall in volunteers/on-call crew 6 If it's not a money saving exercise, as the Chief says it's not, why cut cover and increase the response times massively, before improving the retained system? Surely this is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face and making the situation worse.

The Safer Together consultation document cites challenges in recruiting On-call firefighters due to the changing nature of employment within smaller communities and seems to be using this as a means of justifying the closure of stations. Yet at other stations the proposed reduction of crewing from Wholetime to On-call indicates an increasing reliance on On-call crew …

By exploring ways to create more flexibility in the types of contracts available and streamlining the current training

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised requirements, I believe that DSFRS could make significant increases in On-call firefighters in smaller communities. Some of the significant resources allocated for fire prevention and protection could be utilised to train a small number of on-call firefighters to carry out basic building inspections and home fire safety visits on a part-time employment basis, thus enabling them to carry out essential work within the on-call response area whilst also providing cover. The opportunity exists to access funding by investing in On-Call development. One method would be via the apprenticeship scheme, which has the potential to create funding of over £1,000,000.00 per annum. This funding outweighs the proposed savings of closing the 8 on call stations. It also makes available positive operational hours that would be equal to 2 day crewed operational appliances. An additional benefit that our operational firefighters’ competence will rise across the service and increase firefighter safety. You cannot put a price on this Trying to replace more Wholetime staff with On Call could result in much lower availability figures. Where appliances are to be withdrawn seeing one’s colleagues made redundant will badly affect morale and could have adverse effects on the remaining staff. The need for more mobilisations of the remaining appliances plus the need to man special purpose vehicles may mean an increased number of Shouts in working hours may make it difficult for employers to keep releasing staff and may withdraw the facility completely. The conditions are being created for the perfect storm which could see an avalanche of On Call staff giving up. Can this risk be justified? The priority should be to ensure every station is fully crewed and every appliance available. This is giving in to the problem of recruitment rather than look to solve it. I asked your officers at the consultation what the salary would be to give a cost neutral solution should it include the projected first hour salary. Despite leaving my email, I never received an answer. (It is this kind of poor response which gives weight to some of the more outrageous arguments placed in the public domain).

Staff management 5 Aggregate crewing is something that has been discussed before and that we at Woolacombe are happy to be a part of

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised As a risk-based organisation it is essential to provide for redundancy in a service delivery model. These days not only is this necessary to provide for spate type incidents or loss of communications or access, it is also essential to provide for incidents arising out of terrorism or public disorder, not to mention those resulting from forecast increases in extreme weather conditions. I might also add the Brexit effect whereby it will be necessary to respond to the forecast that much larger numbers of holidaymakers are likely to take holidays in the UK (and so the West Country). I am told, that if your senior station officers ran a tighter ship in checking who was on call, and whether they actually responded whilst clocking up hours, that attendance tends to improve. This will mean more to you than it does to me, but I get the idea, and it's an open goal for someone. In terms of the 100% availability, we have a number of other strands of work related to this that are not detailed in the proposals. We have been working on improved duty systems (ways of working) that encompass both hours of work and pay. Would it not make sense & be much safer to implement all of these so-called strands to get the alleged !00% availability before taking these drastic steps to cut services. The term unavailable can mean many things. It could mean that the fire engine is under maintenance and has not been temporarily replaced, or it could mean that it is responding to one incident when another is announced, it could mean that there are no crew available due to illness or other similar reasons, or that recruitment is a problem. It should be the responsibility of the Fire and Rescue Authority to resolve staff availability and establish where any back-up equipment is sourced from if maintenance is an issue.

Staff recruitment, retention and 16 It is an extremely long-winded process from application to joining, training as well as the initial training courses taking up a lot of annual leave from a new recruit’s primary employment … the course being held away from home doesn't help … Tie this in with contracts that ask for … 63 or 84 hours a week on call, and you can see why the appeal of becoming a fire fighter has dwindled. All of these points we have raised time and time again, but to no avail. Just like extending the 5-minute response to station radius for staff. If we increased this even by just a few more minutes, it

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised would increase the pool of the people we can recruit from, whilst still providing a quicker response in an emergency vehicle than waiting for the next nearest fire station. The information provided states that the decision to turn off P2 in the day is down to risk and savings … Recruitment has been a problem, as nothing is being done … by the service. Any open days have been over 20 miles away; we have had public events/exercises within the city which would have been ideal to get the public involved, but there has been no action from the service … meaning that the FFs currently at Wells are now having to lose out on work, turnouts, experience and money as one pump will now be switched off. Rather than paying the retained a fraction more to up their hours they are paying standbys full pay to do the same job. The recruitment process is a long drawn out process taking me 20 months to get on the courses to start training. In that time, we lost 3 other interested residents … We’ve all put ourselves forward to be Firefighters, given up time for training, leave work to respond, give up evenings and weekends to be on call in order to serve our communities and this is being made increasingly difficult by the service we’re supposed to be here for. It should also be noted that we believe - and strongly regret - that highly experienced and expert fire officers may be lost if they cannot comply with rules governing time within which they are required to attend their stations for a ‘shout’! Recruitment has been a very big problem at Wells for some time and it is only with constant pressure that we are finally getting a taster day, the crews believe this has influenced the decision to turn off P2. As a service I think that the way recruitment is handled needs to be looked at. At the moment it’s no secret that P2 is sometimes off the run during the day times, as a station I feel that the most is being done to keep it on the run, but the lack of personnel is holding us back. It is the role of the service to recruit for our stations, and I don’t feel there is enough being done. It takes a long time to go through the recruitment process, and then even longer the earn the skill sets to get trucks on the run (HGV and OIC).

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised I have been in the service for just over a year and a half, in this time I have only known of one open day or experience opportunity near to our station and I believe this was in Martock, 20 miles away. With better recruitment will mean more Fire fighters, which will mean more drivers and officers, which will mean pumps on the run more often, which will reduce turn out times, ultimately meaning more lives saved! We suggest: In Porlock there is already an outstanding service, rather than close this, invest in what is already a service of excellence. Recruit, train, add educational services for the area, including a specialist moor firefighting team. Investing in the best surely has to cost less, and would provide the elderly, youngsters at our primary school, holiday makers, farmers in outlying farms, business owners with a reliable safety net when the terrible happens. You also state that “Due to the changing nature of employment within our communities over the years, we cannot recruit and retain sufficient on-call Firefighters to crew all of our existing fire engines as less people now work in the communities in which they live. Of those that do, many cannot afford (or cannot be released by their employers) to leave their jobs when their pager activates to attend emergency incidents for us.” If there is a problem with recruiting retained firefighters then why are you not reviewing a way of reducing the number of stations overall, but manning the majority you do have with full-time firefighters? As an example, in the North Devon coastal area we have stations at Woolacombe, Ilfracombe, Combe Martin. Have you considered building a full- time station at Mullacott serving this area and surrounding villages, with perhaps a part-time, retained facility at Woolacombe (or one of your ‘roving engines’ during the summer months when the population increases from c 1,500 to c. 20,000), which is also a co-responder? Rethink- retain and retrain firefighters to help in other emergency areas, maybe offer incentives if they support the local police, ambulance, coastguard or doctor’s surgery. It is concerned that cuts to fire service resources will necessitate greater reliance on retained village crews such as Witheridge's supporting yet even more incidents ever further from their base in

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Witheridge. Clearly even the most committed retained fire fighters have limits to their availability and the council fears fewer volunteers coming forward if the demands are not sustainable with their "day jobs"; increased demands may even lead to existing volunteers leaving thereby threatening the viability and availability to serve rural communities miles from urban crews in the event of a local emergency. Considering the size of Devon the amount of units needed to cover this meant removal of the engines at Kingston and Totnes would be detrimental. Salcombe was isolated and a significant problem is the potential lack of crewmen. This fact is not mentioned within this consultation and it is believed that there is a further inhouse proposal to change the contract for retained firefighters so they would be worse off financially and if self-employed they could lose money for not doing their own work. This needs to be highlighted now rather than further closures being stated due to ‘lack of voluntary staff’. No consideration is given to the huge contribution our retained fire-fighters provide to our small permanent community and the surrounding areas. The calculation of how much fire-fighters are actually paid shows that they earn less than £1 an hour for their services - this does not include the above and beyond value they add to all of us. The people who are involved in the retained fire service are community minded, similar to our local surf lifesaving and coastguard teams. Review all shift patterns across the at-risk stations and look to remove the 84-hour contract, moving staff to either a 42 or 63 hour contract, this would allow for greater flexibility amongst the crew and support an improved work life balance for staff. This option combined with option 1 could ensure full coverage of local stations, for example Ashburton with Buckfastleigh could cover one weekend on and one weekend off. This would not only provide an overall cost saving to the Fire Service but also ensure continuity of service across the local communities at all times.

Make cuts to Senior/admin staff 14 The only cuts should be to the people who put forward these proposals, they clearly are not concerned about the public’s safety … There is absolutely no justification for the salaries being paid to senior Public Employees and Officials, particularly when they put

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised forward proposals like these despite hard evidence that the cuts already made have already cost lives. The cuts should be coming further up the management ladder and not on the front line where its endangering people’s lives. What cuts are happening in HQ for example??? If we are to have less stations and engines then surely we would need less managers Maybe the structure of the DSFRS at higher levels should be reviewed, it appears that extensive savings could be made in this area. If there is a way to "modernise" or "streamline" or "rationalise" the service then it is understandable that back office functions, office efficiencies and cost savings in administration, vehicle renewals, office energy costs etc should be vigorously pursued. Cut pay of demonstrably incompetent Senior Fire Service Personnel; this means All of them. These Salaries should be cut in half … Chief Fire Officer, Assistant Chief Fire Officer, Director of Corporate Services, Director of Finance and Treasurer. Cut the Fat from The Top - Cut these Council Officials Salaries in half: Chief Executive, Strategic Director for People, Strategic Director for Place, Assistant Director of Education. I would also like to know why there are two chief fire officers for Devon and Somerset with a combined salary of over £300 thousand … 2 people for one job? And all those deputies also on over 100 thousand pounds each? Seems like a good place to start saving money rather than endangering public lives (2) Back office staff should be considered for cuts before front line staff. Obviously, this is more difficult, as it is the back-office staff who are in charge of the cuts … When Devon and Somerset combined it was proposed that savings would be achieved from back-office functions. The non-uniformed wage bill has risen by £5m/year since and continues to see cuts to the frontline staff As well as posting the cuts all over social media there has also been two java jobs advertised for £30k+. Who thought that would go down well I don’t know Reducing front line cover whilst recruiting regularly for Head Office staff with titles such as "Architectural Data Services Lead" seems to be concentrating on paperwork and statistics rather than Firefighting. The recently publicised fiasco of the Training

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Records Software makes one wonder how much is being spent this way. It is all very well having a wonderful control system if there are no Firefighters to actually mobilise. Have you considered making savings in non-frontline services such as ICT, HR, Payroll, finance and accounting and other internal back office functions by outsourcing, thus enabling you to divert more of the limited budget into front line services. This approach has been successfully adopted by a large number of the country's police forces as well as the NHS, local councils, government and other organisations around the UK and Europe. Look again at the cost and value of the top earners. Woolacombe station cost just £41,000 to run and yet the top five earners took home over £600,000 in salary. Can that be true? If so, can it be justified? How many saved lives is that equal to? If the Service has been allowed to slip into an inefficient service should we not be looking at the senior management who are responsible for this and not the Fire Fighters. Are managerial salaries following local authority trends upwards? Does the Fire Authority itself represent value for money? Look again at the cost and value of the top earners. Woolacombe station cost just £41,000 to run and yet the top five earners took home over £600,000 in salary. Can that be true? If so, can it be justified? How many saved lives is that equal to? What price are you putting on a saved life?

Staff and prevention work 2 Have the options given sufficient consideration to staffing for prevention work? If we have the money and the roving engines, will we still have the staff to do it? Much is made in the report of prevention activity, but no mention is made of how much prevention and community safety activity will be lost as a result of the cuts at affected stations. Attendance at community events, visits to schools etc., are valuable prevention and safety opportunities. That loss needs to be set against any gain that may, or may not, result from some of the changes. A significant increase in prevention activity may be hoped for, but the report is lacking in detail of how that will be achieved and at what cost.

Staff consultations 1 Staff at station level have been asked by DSFRS to come up with ways to save the Service money and change our ways of working.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised One of our grumbles is that stations were asked these questions several years ago and we responded then and nothing was acknowledged or acted upon by the Service.

Reutilise your investment in staff 2 There is an opportunity to reutilise your investment in staff differently differently, especially when you price in your investment in their training and retention previously. Crewing – discussions with firefighters indicated that some pumps are crewed with 4 and others with 5 firefighters. There was concern that at a typical house fire where two pumps are required, more than 8 firefighters might be needed which would necessitate an additional pump in order to supply the people. This relates to the consultation when considering removing engines. Where applicable, redundant engines could be compensated for with 5-crew. I read in the IRMP this afternoon about how some incidents could be managed with only 2 firefighters. Are there smarter ways to address crewing number? Sending additional hands via a car for example rather than an engine? Sending fewer crew in an appropriately sized/equipped vehicle for smaller incidents?

Non- action of the current service. 1 I have recently witnessed in the last 10 years several call outs of the fire service around the Exmouth area. I know that I am not alone with the thinking. I and many of my friends are shocked at the non-action of the fire service when called out to quite major fires indeed the Royal Clarence in Exeter when the fire service did not even get called out to was in itself a disaster. No doubt Health and safety comes in to play. However the canteen truck seems to be more of a draw than the fire itself. It has been observed on many occasions that the fire engine in Exmouth cruise up and down Exmouth sea front. (Nothing else to do !) The understanding I have from others is that large payments have been made to compensate fire fighters from a problem at Budleigh Salterton.

Redundancy arrangements etc 1 We wish to place on record our frustration at the information made available on redundancy, redeployment and relocation. In a meeting on 7th June we specifically asked if detail regarding these opportunities would be developed beyond what we had been given at that time. We were given total assurance this would be achieved. On the evening of June 19th the information given had not progressed in any way … DSFRS has failed within its duty of care to staff.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised We wish to place on record our concern that uniformed senior officers prioritised visits to WT stations who will face shift change, over On-Call stations that will be closed. We recognise the seniority of non-uniformed members of ELT, but operational staff do not read this in a similar way. This decision was ill judged.

DSFRS are already understaffed / 4 Fewer stations/engines and firefighters makes no sense and is (and the cuts would exacerbate this illogical. or undermine recent improvement …given the number of incidents responded to and given the fact efforts in recruitment and training) that staffing issues have been resolved it is a much needed and invaluable service. Recruitment difficulties for day crew (retained) should be taken into accounting when recommending night crew only for a second engine

Summary of main themes raised in email submissions – Other comments (negative)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Other Comments

Prevention and protection 4 Are the ‘service wide impact of the proposals on life risk’ based on the … ‘potential’ 32,500 home fire safety visits and fire safety checks’ being undertaken? … If so, where you state ‘potential’, is this a maximum number or a realistic target of numbers that you seek to achieve on the prevention side? – And what are the costs of these proposed visits to us? Lastly, can you please provide me with the impact on life risk statistics based on the six proposed options but with no additional ‘potential’ home safety visits and fire safety checks. You state that: “In future, we need to make sure we can prioritise and increase our capacity to deliver targeted prevention and protection activities in our communities, focusing on the known risks in each area.” Whilst it is admirable to target resources on prevention and protection this should not be an alternative to providing a service ready to respond to an emergency when called. There are parallels with the NHS where resources have switched to keeping people out of hospital thus reducing the ability of hospitals to cope when emergencies arise.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Prevention plateau – I asked today about US evidence that prevention work has a plateau in effect. It was explained that the US service is extremely different from in the UK and that the evidence in this area is current and growing. I was satisfied with the answer but future iterations of risk-based reallocation should be mindful of this potential. Prevention work – in the options with changes to staffing, have the options given sufficient consideration to staffing for prevention work? If we have the money and the roving engines, will we still have the staff to do it?

Your fire prevention programme is of course of great importance but we still need fire cover you cannot ever totally prevent fires caused by unforseen causes.

Rural Poverty 2 The geography of North Devon is quite unique with it’s vast, wild, beautiful large unpopulated areas and small communities, all this makes us vulnerable and often with no voice. It seems rural communities are to be penalised yet again.

Learning from other services 1 You might wish to consider the international approach to life safety in the marine world. Even though lifeboats and life rafts are exceptionally rarely deployed, they remain an absolute requirement for all shipping all over the world. The fact that this equipment is rarely used, has never been seen as a reason to reduce it. Nor have all of the other improvements in safety regimes, introduced throughout the modern era, been used to encourage the reduction in practical operational safety devices. It also seems perverse that the consultation document gives no information by way of comparison of levels or models for service delivery or operational capability in other fire authorities. There is a wealth of information and experience available about both successful and less than successful initiatives, including … recruiting to the community-based fire and rescue services. Similarly, per-capita costings and levels of capability ought to be part of the consideration.

Other comments: Have a trial period 2 I think such wholesale changes all at once will leave the to see if it works/a slow transition population in danger . Its too much all at once . You have not tried bringing these proposals in place small changes to see what effect they will have. Any changes implemented would need an early review bearing in mind the expansion to the area.

Summary of main themes raised in email submissions – Criticism of the consultation (negative)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Criticism of consultation

General criticisms of consultation 28 I am worried that the public consultation is simply an exercise to lend legitimacy to a 'done deal'. I assume the persons involved in the making of this proposal do not live anywhere near the proposed closures! It appears that none of you have ever been to Woolacombe and this is unfortunate on a scale that is immeasurable … I urge and beg you to throw out all the bizarre paperwork, incorrect statistics, heartless and thoughtless ideas and turn this unbelievably ignorant plan (?) around. The video presentations with Pete Bond and Joe Hassel slumped in chairs without ties and shirt buttons undone were just embarrassing and the overly complicated way the proposals were set out was baffling. It's obvious to everybody this was a deliberate tactic to confuse the public into apathy, a tactic it's fair to say has thankfully backfired. The rationale presented for the changes suggests that, if we were to have a clear playing field, service location would 1) reflect current population hubs and 2) fast road access. There is also 3) a need to save money. Looking at the published options I am confused and unable to spot a strategy that reflects rationale 1 & 2. Instead the options appear to present closures and reductions in services that meet the cost saving rationale without a nod to areas of less vs greater need based on risk and road networks. How has this come about? If I am right, the fire service has made a basic error in their consultation process. Published options need to reflect the full rationale for change and be self-explanatory, without the need to dig deeper, for a true consultation … No relocation of services is suggested at all. Personally, I live 6.5 miles from the nearest fire station, which has relatively poor road access to its surrounding areas. This station is included in reduced services. I have serious concerns that the methodology, data analysis and modelling and subsequent proposals contained in the consultation document are potentially in breach of several points contained in the Home office Fire and Rescue National Framework for England

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised … and also contravene some parts of The Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 I am both dumbfounded and shocked to my core at the blatant attempt of the DSFRS to misguide and mis inform … the entire North Devon community. If you have a protocol or guidelines for consultation, please could I have a copy or alternatively could you say that you do not have one. The plan says clearly what is to be done and how. It meaningfully does not define what the conditions/rules are for consultation carried out by the Fire and Rescue Service and how these processes should be planned and conducted. The standards should exist before consultation and should lead, design and determine how consultation is to be done to ensure total accountability, equality and equity for those being consulted. There are too many examples of organisations carrying out what they feel is consultation when the people who received the process feel they were not involved, heard or properly consulted and some of these had extreme consequences. The protocol/guidelines should determine the process and what is legally required for public consultation. They are not there to determine the outcome. At the meeting in Porlock, the Officer leading your team said that he would take and answer questions but that no notes would be taken and that anyone who wanted to comment on the consultation document would need to either complete the consultation questions form or write to the Service with their views in order for them to be considered. This is wrong in terms of proper consultation … What is said should be recorded and should be taken into consideration. You refer in a number of instances to your conclusions as being 'evidence based' but I cannot immediately see such evidence in the brochure. I have looked over the data used in this proposal and feel it’s very misleading to those that read it, and do NOT see how this is value for money . I wish to protest very strongly about the flawed and ill considered Safer Together Programme which is due for approval on Friday, 28th June 2019. I ask that this programme is NOT approved at the forthcoming meeting and that further consideration is made

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised and proper consultation is taken BEFORE the programme is agreed and not after it. This flawed approach appears to be the way that this process is currently being done. The effect of this is that the decisions are to be made, in this case on 28th June, and then the exercise to justify them comes afterwards. This is no way to run an actual consultation exercise nor indeed is it an operation of even a modicum of democracy. The FRSA wish to confirm detail in our previous email about the use of the word “OPTIONS” The documents presented do NOT have OPTIONS. You are being misled and your right to vote on what options to go to public consultation has been taken from you. The service have produced a single option with layers of severity. The FRSA request you use your authority to return the proposal for more detailed options before it goes to public consultation. The communities have voted you to represent them and we hope you do this. As I read through the document I turned to page 46, which I read a number of times. If I read it correctly it states that the information received from the consultation won’t be made available to FRA members, other local authorities, the public or to firefighters. My concern is that the public consultation document states: The information/data collected by this consultation will be kept strictly confidential and shared only with Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service staff responsible for analysis of the data and those responsible for the preparing the consultation findings report. I may be wrong, but wouldn’t all the information/data collected be made available to all FRA members and also placed on the website in the interests of transparency for our constituents, local authorities and staff. As you know, I have had concerns about what members of the public think and write, I feel that we need to combat the possibility of perceived secrecy. Would you please confirm that you feel the level of confidentiality proposed for the information collected from the public consultation is correct? So, I am calling D&SF&RS out. These cuts are not going to make us safer. These cuts are political. The facts and figures have been warped and used to fit the political agenda of austerity. From the call outs to help out other crews are missing from the data in an effort to make it seem like the fire crews don’t have enough calls

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised to justify their being there; not to mention “as the crow flies” distances being used as a deliberate attempt to make it seem like the next station is nearer than it actually is. The proposed “safer together “has Been either rushed through & not looked at as what knock on effects it will have on the response times to attend emergencies. If as we have had numerous times a large fire in Torquay where all the main stations & other outlining stations are deployed, we then have a terrible accident on the A38 or a large fire on Dartmoor, you will have no cover. Will it take someone to die to realise this in not “safer together “ I wonder if this is a true consultation? More often than not in the public sector it is just a rubber stamping exercise. I expect the time I have spent making these heartfelt points is probably a waste of time. The Carhampton Parish Council met last Thursday evening (4 July) and was concerned at the proposals contained in the documentation so far received regarding changes to cover including both the proposal to close Porlock Fire Station and to reduce overnight cover at Williton Fire Station. One Member is retired from the Fire Service and is under the impression that the law relating to the Fire Service requires cover to be provided in relation to the population of the area. He believes that, if these proposals are implemented, that legal requirement will not be met. I remain interested as to how fire coverage is not reduced by removing one appliance from Newton Abbot and replacing it with one of a lesser albeit increased mobility, even though an RIV may be quicker on the scene, the time it takes to get crews to it remains the same. That being the case, does this mean that we will see more RIV’s in place of the usual pump ladders etc in the future? And as the actual old appliance isn’t based at the station anymore I’d say this counts as a loss of capability rather than an addition to fire coverage…I’d be interested as to how the brigade assesses the fire coverage needs based on the aforementioned expected growth of Newton Abbot and outlying areas of Teignbridge considering that we are to gain 700> houses p/annum over the next 5 years.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Misleading / Flawed / inaccurate 15 Assuming a fire tender is able to travel at 60 mph which is a mile a statistics / use of statistics / data minute coming from Newton Abbot an extra 7 minutes maintaining that speed in this area is not possible. I also would like to call into question the statistics that are being used as part of this consultation process. The fire service consultation event claimed Woolacombe was called out 15 times a year, but there had actually been 36, including life-saving medical emergency shouts as a co-responder. In your very confusing consultation document you use figures in a very strange way, counting only incidents you need to respond to by statute, house fires and RTCs. Does this mean that no other incidents will be responded to in future? If so this should be the headline of your consultation, it shouldn’t be buried in the detail. If it doesn’t mean that you will only respond to house fires and RTCs why do you not also count this very important work in the document? Another unexplained oddity of the document is that it only counts house fires and RTCs in the area of a fire station, but you nearly always send multiple appliances from several stations to incidents. Only using the area of a fire station suggests that in future there will only be one appliance at any incident. I can not believe you mean to do this, but if you do it should be the main focus of your document because your firefighters need to know. I am sure most or all of them would cease to be firefighters because of the greatly increased danger. However, if it doesn’t mean this startling change why is the workload of each station being so dramatically understated? One might think it were an example of fiddling the figures to give the answer wanted. The data in Appendix A appears to be focused on attendance on Home station ground and where responders have been required from other stations. Although it alludes to calls out of station, there does not appear to be documentation of any analysis on where or why these off home ground responses have been required and which station provided them. Without this important information, the true value of any particular station cannot be assessed. To ignore these off station ground responses for any particular station is a major failing. My understanding of these figures is that off station attendance, for example the Woolacombe engine attending the Clarence hotel fire in exeter in 2016, or coverring for an out of service engine from another station, do not count towards the station statistics and are

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised therefore excluded from the data fed into risk and response modelling, thus invalidating modelling results. Appendix A does not contain any data relating to: • Availability of each station appliance and reasons for unavailability. • History of concurrent (ie simultaneous) incidents and how these were resourced • Incidents requiring support of appliances from other stations • Instances where appliances from one station have been required to cover non-availability of other stations eg Appliances from Barnstaple being moved to Ilfracombe to cover non-availability of the Ilfracombe appliances, I note from the supporting documentation that the second Ilfacombe appliance availability over the last three years has been less than 50% whereas the Woolacombe engine has not dropped below 50% over the same period. • analysis of overall coverage levels on an hour by hour / day by day basis for each area rather than each station ground, thus showing where stations are covering for other station non- availability I just know that the consultation is a complete fallacy. The stats don’t include all the facts, some are misconstrued. And the survey does not actually offer any outcome but at least station closure. So when people look through the survey data, 100% of responders agreed to close the stations.It is easy to take away an asset, but it is not easy to replace a service which already supports the community and youth projects, as well as closing another employer in Appledore. The data provided. One of the services ‘Core Values’ is honesty, the data provided is not honest. There is a lot of information that has been shown in a very devious way. E.g., responding times for other stations to the area, these times have been shown as the crow flies and with no allowance for a personal turn out to a station. Taking a given time from 9 minutes to 15/16, not allowing for traffic. There is no break down available for the savings made, just what seems to be random figures, meaning nothing to the public. I don’t think this is fair as we are the taxpayers, paying this money in.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised On p42 of the consultation document there is the options summary. What I’ve asked of the analysts (and they seemed to think this was doable) is that a risk change column is added to each option; and then the savings, P&P, and risk figures are calculated for each element at the bottom of the table: station closures; fire engine relocated; third engines removed etc. My feeling is that for some element, e.g. third fire engine removal, this will enable us to look at the data an say yes this is doable and makes a saving, let’s vote that through, then for other option we may feel the data is less clear cut and draw more on the consultation findings. It would be great to see the consultation responses grouped by these elements as well rather than along the options lines. This is the only way we can make informed judgements for option 7. It’s likely the closures will be the big sticking point so it would also be useful to have some key risk and savings data per station. Some will be minimal savings and others greater. That will help us judge if we might want to retain some and not others. And finally, for the roving engines, we need a risk and cost for different numbers of engines. It might be there is a threshold of engines (e.g. 3) which makes them risk-cost effective, but it would be good to know that. I will be very happy to see a preview of the data or proposed structure of it if that would be helpful. May I also point out that your quoted statistics for Topsham call outs are short of the mark - you quote and average of 20-25 call outs a year - we have already had 159 this year and call outs have increased year on year over the last 5 years which I think proves our fire station has a very useful function in the form it is run at present. But for some absurd reason, only house fires and road traffic collisions attended on their own designated area are officially recorded by the Fire Authority. For example, during a period when Lynton had attended 47 incidents, only 3 would qualify as counting for station use. This gives an extremely misleading representation of the workload of smaller rural stations. This CLP feels that the data given in the consultation is flawed and has an unachievable expectation, in that there is an assumption made that after the cuts, all assets will be available at all times, giving the false impression that the risk of fire deaths will reduce if

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised the proposals are agreed, whereas statistically it is likely that risk would increase. Some of the data in the documentation has been shown to be misleading and/or incorrect. The risk to life as a result of proposed station closures and downgrading appears to rely on optimal response times from neighbouring stations with an assumed 100% availability as there is no indication to the contrary. Given recent history in North Devon with appliance availability across On Call stations, this is unrealistic. Looking at the proposed station infrographics for stations in the supporting documentation, following station closure, several of these areas will suffer a degradation of response times so that they now fail the DSFRS standard response time for the first engine as published in the consultation document and will now automatically require despatch of two appliances to incidents, thus increasing overall appliance requirements. I am also concerned that the consultation has not considered all aspects of the work undertaken by DSFRS and has yet to review non front line support services and so does not have a complete picture on which to make considered decisions. The context for inconsistent performance is a payment/working time system that has needed attention for a decade. By neglecting opportunities to evolve, DSFRS has effectively ‘set up to fail On- Call stations. Last year the On-Call contributed ¾ million hours to DSFRS above what they were contracted to provide. The decision to publicly criticise and chastise On-Call performance was ill judged. The data quoted is misleading, because it fails to account for imports made by the ORC. Unless this is clarified, using on-call Performance data is dishonest. The FRSA is concerned that no modelling has been done for sustainability following the proposed changes. On Call stations survive because they are located within a residential community. Stations that adjoin the proposed stations also suffer with crewing levels but this risk has not been acknowledged. Travel times – it was explained to me that this is from national data and uses night-time HGV travel times which are broadly accurate. I think we could say something explicit about this – that

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised it is both fairly reliable but that we can take steer from consultation responses in rural area where it is less reliable or the routes inappropriate.

Criticism of modelling for options 32 The Risk Modelling Outcomes appear to be badly misplaced in this context. My objection is that it is not appropriate to use a 'Global' model to assess small area/local effects. By this I mean that if the total catchment of data is large enough, the apparent effects at local level are minimised, where in fact they may be considerable for the local community. I think that resources should be allocated in accordance with the level of risk to a given area. I believe that a mix and match of all the options should be used to best achieve this. Proper risk assessment based on threats and assets will show that the threat to life etc. remains the same as in the past; only the incidents have reduced … Therefore, the assets required to deal with those incidents cannot be reduced in order to maintain an adequate service. We don't agree with your data analyst's informing us that the risk of living in North Devon is so low; that we don't need this vital service! Your risk modelling is a sham! Many of your retired ex colleagues have proven without doubt that you have misled the public by massaging the statistics. I am convinced that the specific ways the figures to assess risk have been put together seriously underestimates the demands on your resources … I take the point about new roads having been put in since last reorganisation, but that also seriously understates both the area to cover, population to protect etc. As per agenda Item 8 sec(b) para(iv), I would request that all relevant Risk Assessments for the proposed changes within the SDOM consultation documents be forwarded with immediate effect. We are also angry that you have interpreted the Risk Assessment inclusion in the consultation to that of "as required". This did not reflect the discussion and intent of the amendment as discussed and moved at the FA meeting on 28th June 2019. We therefore request that the Risk Assessments are included in the consultation documents immediately It is also concerning that modelling figures have not been provided for property damage, which is also certain to increase if the proposals go ahead.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Manipulation of a risk matrix to satisfy budget demands is not an acceptable answer. The answer is to go back to the budget provider and tell them that what they are imposing is unacceptable & increases the exposure to risk to property and people in particular. No account seems to be taken of the impact of random large profile incidents (such as a major life loss at the Woolacombe Bay Hotel for example), within the model. Again, focussing only on the number of incidents attended takes no account of the importance that a single incident may have. (2) The essence of your financial model is based on a ‘risk model’ which has not been explained further in any detail … several parameters which fit the model are outlined, but the mathematics behind it is not. As published numbers in your model vary only little, we have to assume that this model is statistically extremely robust and significant for small changes. We also find it disturbing that numbers of non-statutory duties (e.g. co-responder operations) are listed in Table 1 and 2 but are obviously not included as relevant parameters in your risk model. Appliances in attendance – I was advised by firefighters than a typical dwelling fire requires four appliances. Today I saw the risk data showing that the first pump to arrive carries the biggest risk saving, with the second next. After which presumably the reduction of risk is minimal. Notwithstanding this, have the current models for pump reduction considered the potential need within a given area for four pumps? How is the increased risk to life of night-time fires weighed up against the increased incidence of fires in the evening in the models? Flooding and other special services – can we get an output to give an indication of the impact of these services under the options? I suggested that even a few figures providing context to how much resource goes on special services would help with understanding the potential impact of the changes. We need to be mindful of the impacts of climate change particularly on flooding. There is an incentive here to build it into the risk modelling to enable responsiveness and adaptation. Risk modelling needs to be easier and more flexible (see below). I think we should look towards what the authority can do to push for

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised special services to be included as statutory functions with funding attached. Keeping accessible records on this work will help build the case. The FBU has some campaign going on this. Travel times … from national data … uses night-time HGV travel times which are broadly accurate. I think we could say something explicit about this – that it is both fairly reliable but that we can take a steer from consultation responses in rural areas where it is less reliable or the routes inappropriate. There appears to be a lack of depth to the data presented as it does not consider the split of daytime and night-time availability for on-call firefighters. I was also looking to clarify if any modelling had been done in relation to the extra workloads inherited by stations adjacent to those that are earmarked for closure? For example, if Topsham were to close how would this impact Middlemoor, Danes Castle and Exmouth? Your figures for risk reduction are welcome and do give you an opportunity to redirect your existing resources in a constructive way. For example, has the drain on your ability to provide fire cover for the wider area been quantified during the Exeter fire? I presume resource was moved across your area and beyond to cope? Have you modelled how you would deal with this six months into your plan? In the DSFRS report on why you need to change you state that “If we were to start from scratch and rebuild our fire service with new fire stations and duty systems to meet today’s needs, it would undoubtedly look a lot different.” Have you modelled how your ideal fire service would be built to meet today’s needs? If not, why not? If you have, how much of your proposed changes fit with that model? It appears that the risk analysis and modelling have used only home ground incidents as the measure of requirement for an engine in a particular location. Although the figure for home ground incidents is a good measure of incident risk within an area, the fact that some stations provide more 'off home ground cover than on, indicates that there is still a need for cover. I cannot see any evidence of analysis of concurrency of incidents, ie, two or more simultaneous incidents, anywhere in the modelling, This is

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised an important aspect which I believe has a significant impact on the overall requirements for provision of cover. On the modelling process itself, the consultation document states that it was devised by the Devon and Somerset Fire and rescue itself, • Why was it necessary to devise a new Risk model when other Fire services use existing Standard Risk models - were any existing models considered and rejected - if so why? • If the modelling used the station data as provided in the supporting documentation, which is incomplete (see comments above), then is the model valid? • Why was it necessary to modify as standard response model? How does the public know that the modifications are valid? • The response models are stated as using the documented response times, but in many cases, these are unrealistic eg - Ilfracombe to Woolacombe is stated as being less than 10 minutes travelling time with an overall response time of 16 minutes ie allowing 6 minutes for the on call crew to get to ilfracombe fire station, whereas, according to google maps, the travelling time from Ilfracombe fire station to Woolacombe Fire station exceeds this even in the middle of the night. this therefore invalidates the results of any response modelling using the supplied figures. Regarding response times for Woolacombe, these appear to be highly optimistic and do not take into account of seasonal road congestion due to holiday makers been taken into account. There is often holiday congestion getting into Woolacombe, sometimes with queues of ever a mile into the village on a hot holiday weekend, it is therefore quicker to get the Woolacombe engine out to a fire than getting the Ilfracombe or Braunton engine into the village. • Have the models been subjected to independent review by experts outside of Devon and Somerset or HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and approved as being valid and without deficiencies? It is not entirely accurate to describe places such as Lynton as a low activity area if the risk assessment employed by dsfire Authority does not refer to those incidents that take place off the station area, and restricts the data collected to statutory responses only, that being primary fires and road traffic collisions. In practice, Fire stations within the region operate as a matrix

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised with appliances attending incidents in other parts of the two counties off their own station ground, and do so as a regular occurrence. This means that Lynton's engines actually attended 47 incidents last year rather than the 32 recorded in the consultation document's data tables. Moorland fires, barn fires, vehicle fires, floods, water rescues and the rest, are not relevant according to this consultation because they are not statutory duties of the fire service, yet these are routinely incidents attended by fire crews in rural areas such as Lynton and lives have been saved as a result. It is a flawed risk assessment that does not include these type of incidents. Finally, I asked about the issue of the option risk data being based on full availability given that this is currently unachievable and, given the on-call issue is still under discussion, unlikely to become so even after changes are made. I asked the analysts could a risk profile be made for lower availability, so we have essentially a risk range to make judgements on. They explained that it wasn’t really possible with their current IT, as the availability is by station rather than overall, but they would try to do something. As I understand it, they are using excel with a clever algorithm and each risk scenario has to be run by hand. As someone running data models through basic SPSS functions which will automatically derive best scenarios for a range of parameters this was surprising to me. I asked is software available that could do that and was told it is and the rep has been and visited to show it a number of times. With a movement towards risk-based resource allocation I strongly believe we need resilience and reflexivity in our risk modelling and the current setup cannot provide this. It is a poor use of staff time to run scenarios by hand. If the software exists that can automate this and allow configuration of parameters, then I believe that should be secured asap. What would be the process for expediting this? We should be able to adapt to changing risk profiles and it be a matter or pressing go on the software and churning out the data. We will want this for changing climate change risk, for any change in fire incidence, for changing RTC risk on roads where usage changes, for growing communities, for changing commercial distribution, for future consideration of station location and staffing patterns. All of this should be computable in a much faster and more manageable

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised way. I strongly believe this is indispensable for risk-matched- resource system. Appliances in attendance – I was advised by firefighters than a typical dwelling fire requires four appliances. Today I saw the risk data showing that the first pump to arrive carries the biggest risk saving, with the second next. After which presumably the reduction of risk is minimal. Notwithstanding this, have the current models for pump reduction considered the potential need within a given area for four pumps? I live in Lynton, North Devon. A remote coastal community bordered on the north side by the Bristol Channel, on the south and east by the open moorland of Exmoor, with only one winding A road (A39) passing through the villages of Lynton and Lynmouth, and a fairly tortuous B road over the moor towards South Molton, via Simonsbath. Barnstaple, Ilfracombe and South Molton are all about 20 miles away by road. Minehead is 20 miles east by road through Porlock, Over steep hills to the east and high ground in all directions. Lynton has been cut off from the outside world for several days by up to 12 foot high snow drifts on the roads in all directions a number of times while I have lived here, and we often suffer flooding on all the surrounding routes. The population in the tourist season is considerably higher, with congestion problems on the roads in and around the villages. Yet we have been classified by the consultation document as a low risk area. How do the DSFRS work that out? Do they have a crystal ball? No computer model using historical data can yet predict the unpredictable: when and where an emergency is going to happen next.

Criticisms of methodology general 2 During the latter stages of the consultation period there have been suggestions that only the online survey responses will be considered as part of the public feedback, so I would appreciate your assurance that my email response will be taken into account as per the written guidance in your Safer Together consultation document. To ask people who attended the meeting and asked their questions to then complete the questionnaire or to write to the Service to have their views considered is wrong and seems to create a false hurdle to participation and questions people’s commitment to what they have just said. Asking vulnerable people to complete questionnaires, use emails or to write seems

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised to discriminate against a known mainly older community who may find it difficult to do this.

Poor timing of consultation event 15 What was the reason to organize a public meeting for 2-6 pm period on very short notice, making it nearly impossible for working people to attend and express their concerns? The public consultation organised by DSFRS in Woolacombe village hall … at a time when most local residents could not attend as they were at work (3) Parents and working residents cannot take time off work to attend a mid-week afternoon session and these are the very people that are showing most concern. The time of day and place did not lend itself to a town with a population in excess of 80,000, or 115,000 plus in the Taunton Deane area. Work commitments and access to the town centre have been the most common theme and simply unaware the event was taken place The public consultation meeting that was held in the Village Hall in July was between 1.30 and 5.30 in the afternoon – what a pointless time to schedule a meeting – I was unable to attend because of work, as no doubt, were many others. I must comment that there should have been some consideration around putting in some evening and weekend events to allow better engagement with those that work. Other principles might also be questioned with the very short notice given to the whole programme prior to the publication of the Safer Together Programme and by the document's own admission of the high and increasingly elderly target population to whom it is addressed but with little consideration of their needs or understanding and ability to respond. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend any of the consultation meetings as they are all during working hours and therefore those of us that work are not able to attend. I am also am unhappy that you arrange a consultation meeting in Ashburton with your representatives on Monday 22nd July between 10-2pm. This seems conveniently arranged when there will be a low public turnout as most people will be at work. In addition, the venue is restricted for disabled people and there is limited access/parking.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Criticisms of consultation events 19 Instead of officers who attended listening to any concerns I raised and taking them away to consider then coming to a view on any of the proposals they listened and immediately responded to the effect that the proposals were precisely as they should be. That may be engagement with the public, but it is certainly not consultation … it is one reason that consideration might be given to paying an independent organisation to run any consultation meetings. Your Safer Together programme has been confusing and misleading and your drop-in exhibitions evasive! Chaotic meeting this morning at the unsuitable venue of St. Lawrence Chapel. The chief … did a runner & left it to this poor chap, what a waste of time. Given that Ilfracombe is one of the largest towns in North Devon, I would ask you again to consider a ‘drop-in exhibition’, or at least a public presentation In Ilfracombe at a more appropriate time than the ones in Woolacombe and Barnstaple, say 6.30pm in the evening I was disappointed to read that the "Have your Say" sessions on the fire service reorganisation make no mention of Wellington. As a town whose service may be at risk, it seems inappropriate that residents, many of whom are elderly and without personal transport, are expected to travel to Taunton or further afield … Are we to assume that Wellington is safe from reorganisation, or more worryingly that a tacit decision has already been made to reduce cover already? If many residents are being excluded from "having their say" locally is there any other option open to them? This gentleman … is questioning the format of the drop-in events, in that we are not taking notes during each event … he also is questioning option 7 and says we are misleading people by not being clear what we are asking people to respond to. I have advised him to write his concerns down, which he said he would do via the Safer Together mailbox. I notice that you are not having a consultation day in Chard or any of the surrounding towns, Public transport links to Taunton & Yeovil are virtually impossible and I would urge you to consider more local consultation days. Was there any reason you have equipped the poor staff with very little information? I genuinely felt very sorry for them.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised What was written in the document for Option 7 was being reinterpreted (by your representatives at a consultation event) to allow comments to be made about the closure of Porlock Fire Station … Option 7 actively dissuades anyone from suggesting this by saying it has to be a mix or match proposal involving the six options that all include closure of Porlock Fire Station. A complete lack of respect from the chief fire officers in respect to answering questions, attending meetings basically backing up what they’re trying to push through. Seems ludicrous to me as well that another line that gets thrown out is ‘we’ll put it to the public in the hope someone will come up with a better way to save money’. In effect it’s a we can’t be arsed let’s chuck this out there and hope for the best. I understand that the Service wanted to control the format to ‘drop in’ events. The public expectation is that some events would have been more formal with a presentation style - I do feel this could have been accommodated so that the different needs of the wider community audience could have been taken into account. The single event held at Taunton, I feel was and is insufficient for the public and stakeholders to be able to engage effectively and be informed enough to provide appropriate feedback on the consultation document. The local offers of consultation events have proved inadequate to date and have, if anything, fuelled the disquiet. I am also not encouraged when those visiting for the open door talk and opportunity for us to have our say at the village hall were unable to accurately work out the distance between us and our next closest fire station and the timings they believed it would take to reach it. It was evident they had no clue about our local area or its infrastructure, roads and traffic challenges. I just want to express my disappointment and anger that you have failed to include Ilfracombe in your fire service cuts consultation exercise. You have given the excuse that it is only towns directly affected by a closure, but this is obviously untrue when you look at the list of venues. Ilfracombe is not only affected by a reduction of services in several of the options, but it will also be doubly affected by closures in surrounding towns. Ilfracombe will be covering Woolacombe, Lynton and even Porlock but with reduced capacity under these proposals and yet no consultation. However,

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Bideford is given a consultation as they will be covering Appledore if the fire station closes. I suggest strongly that Ilfracombe deserves the same courtesy. It appears discriminatory to exclude Ilfracombe and a proper explanation must be given as to why. The Safer Together strategy team have so far refused to hold a consultation in Ilfracombe Is there a reason why there is no consultation event being held in Wellington despite the proposal to remove the second appliance during daytimes?... I am left wondering whether you are trying to “silence” Wellington in order to get few replies so you can proceed? (2) If they want to hold a proper consultation, then it needs to be held in Wellington at a suitable time! I am writing to strongly request that an additional consultation event be held much closer to the centre of Mendip, ie. Shepton Mallet or Wells … the only proposed consultation point in Mendip will be at Frome on 29th August, after a Bank Holiday when many people will be on holiday. Not one opportunity to view the proposals for us in Mendip without a 60-mile round trip - not very well spread out or planned I would say Could you please advise why you have no public 'Drop-in’ sessions planned to take place in Teignmouth??? Why no venues for drop in for Paignton and Brixham. Aware of one in Torquay. Not good for the less able-bodied people. You may be aware that the Fire Union arranged a well-attended meeting in Taunton and I understand have provided similar information in Wellington that has led to a petition and a great deal of support. I could not attend the Taunton meeting, many colleagues did. A meeting in The SWT council offices was held yesterday hosted by a council officer as the Fire Authority declined to attend. The Officer did a good job of presenting your proposals; however, it would have been much better to have had a Fire Authority officer presenting, answering questions and responding. It seems to me that your communication strategy is fundamentally flawed. Currently, it looks and feels like you are taking no account of a significant partner / stakeholder grouping and that you have chosen to ignore elected members who are

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised very well placed to message and communicate within our communities. A lost opportunity which I find regrettable. I do hope that you reflect on this obvious flaw and that the Fire Authority Senior leadership team reconsiders its communication strategy. A meeting of elected members could still be organised if that change occurred. On a personal front, regarding the detail of your proposals, I remain unconvinced that the Fire Authority has taken due care and paid enough attention in assessing the risks associated with the additive proposals, I see no evidence of risk assessments at every added stage that adequately cover each new scenario. Is this a flaw in the proposals or in the Fire Authorities Communication? Given the lack of effective communication, I am erring on the side of the former. I suggest to you many others are taking a similar position.

Poor arguments presented to justify 11 The statistics in the consultation document are for the whole of proposals – number of fires Devon & Somerset … not specific to this area. These stats claim that there is a 2% decrease in primary fires, yet also states there is an increase of 21% in “other primary fires”, an 8% increase in “primary road fires” and a 40% rise in secondary fires If we are to take these as correct, you are contradicting yourself in claiming there is an overall reduction in a need for this service. Anyone can pull one figure out of the mix and focus on that, but it is not the full picture. (2) Across the UK, there are already 19% fewer firefighters than nine years ago … But the FBU reports that demand for fire services is rising. I was told (by DSFRS) that whilst we are seeing large scale housing developments, these new homes present a low risk in terms of fire. I am not convinced by this assertion as I have not seen any evidence to back up this claim … Recent local developments of the Premier Inn chain use timber frame technologies. Despite the company’s reputation and record for fire safety the Major Incident Fire in the Premier Inn at Cribbs Causeway Bristol in July 2019 demonstrates the difficulties and resource requirements for firefighting for such premises … I believe my concerns are … shared by the Association of British Insurers and as such we cannot currently be assured of the safe longevity and integrity of homes built in this way without more data and experience.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Page 10 also confirms that ‘All Fires’ have increased by 8% since 2014/15, with secondary fires increasing by a massive 40%!! Yet you say figures are low?! (2) In 2018 the Fire service attended a total of 17,814 incidents across Devon & Somerset., the DSFRS authority audit strategic analyst said in her 2019 audit report that the county’s popularity with tourists resulted in higher incident rates than in other parts of the UK, with significantly higher numbers being recorded during the summer months. There has been a sharp rise in the number of fire-related deaths in Devon and Somerset over the past 12 months. The past year has seen the number of fire-related deaths across the two counties rise by 150 per cent, according to Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service. YES, the same “Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service” that is putting forward these proposals for further cuts. The same period has also seen a sharp rise in the number of arson, other fire-related incidents and the number of false alarms which firefighters have attended. I am underwhelmed at the faith put in the fact that some stations 'only' attend 10 house fires a year. I imagine that should YOUR house be one of the 10, you would be irritated by their absence. Perhaps not the most diplomatic way to spin the story. Whilst Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Services Safer Together Consultation Document states that the number of fires attended by their crews have fallen by a third in the last ten years, statistics calculated through DSFRS systems show an overall increase of 8% in all fires since 2014/15. (3)

Poor consultation document – 10 It is a confusing document and seems to have been written with general comments/general lack of the belief that all of the closure options are necessary. information Why has the data regarding individual Fire stations been removed from the intranet and internet Websites during this consultation period please? There is a need to know how much activity and what types of incidents the Firefighters at each Station have been tasked to perform eg the recent incident in Bude? I have briefly looked at the video and questionnaire … and, quite honestly find it too lengthy and involved I can’t help but think that this information has been deliberately made to be confusing for people to understand …

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Some people will not have been able to attend the meeting and will only have the consultation document to go on … The documents should not be open to reinterpretation because they are a legal document. The document is too hefty, and I fear that this will deter members of the public to respond.

The document itself requires hours of reading and understanding

I’ve been trying to find on the website the Equality Risks and Benefits Assessment pertaining to the proposed closure of Porlock Fire Station and have been unable to locate it. It is also very disturbing that the station risk profiles for every fire station have suddenly been removed from the DSFRS website. Removing recent (2018/19) performance information during a consultation is not being responsible and accountable

Poor advertising of consultation 2 I am sure that you will agree that the event at the Taunton Library events was poorly attended and poorly promoted? I have not been fully aware of the proposed reductions and the consultation.

Inaccurate/insufficient/misleading 45 The consultation document … is deliberately misleading. Sadly, it information presented at appears this has been done to deceive the residents of Devon & consultation – on type of Somerset and I would urge you to withdraw the document. callout/volume of callouts You talk of fires having reduced by over 30% but no information is supplied about percentage changes in other rescues, I can only imagine that telling us those figures would undermine your programme of cuts should the public learn the truth. It is quite misleading to not include incidents attended in other station areas, attendance at incidents as relief crew, standbys at other stations and co-responder calls in all the tables. If resources are removed, then that work will fall on the remaining resources and that must be factored in. It is also of concern that in the report, in interviews and on social media, claims and statements are made that are not substantiated. For example, it cannot be acceptable for an organisation that professes to be honest, open and accountable, to state that prevention is working in Devon & Somerset when fires in people’s homes increased in each of the three years prior to 2018/19. Option 5 would see a net cut of 16 fire engines and

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised approximately 250 firefighter posts, plus another 14 fire engines would sit unused during the day, with just one fire engine reallocated. Professing on Facebook that, “we are not cutting things, we are just reallocating things to make them better”, is at best laughable and at worst dishonest. Misleading the public will only bring the service in to disrepute. Perhaps the worst aspect of the proposals has been the way the Service has tried to deliberately mislead the public with the statistics at their disposal. Using such methods as using an 80% ridership factor for figures before the cuts and a miraculous 100% for after is just snide and underhand, along with only counting shouts on own station ground when the lack of pumps on the run means appliances are, now more than ever, going out of area to emergencies. I know you can make statistics say whatever you want, but I think that theory has been stretched to the limit here.

Only statutory incidents included The fact that DSFRS are only considering statutory duties of fire and RTCs and not considering the other vital services that save lives is another cause for concern. (8) For some absurd reason, only house fires and road traffic collisions attended on their own designated area are officially recorded by the Fire Authority. For example, during a period when Lynton had attended 47 incidents, only 3 would qualify as counting for station use. The official callouts only include the first two engines to attend an event, and they only include certain fires such as residential and road traffic accidents. They do not include commercial property, Ladder rescues, assistance with the ambulance service, first aid rapid response, assisting the Coast Guard, and numerous other callouts, which are key functions they perform. The actual number of callouts that Lynton has done this year is somewhere in the region of 100. The official recorded number is less than a 10th which is farcical. The official figures do not include the moorland fires, and other assistance they provide so do not count which is very unfair and not reasonable.

Only Station Ground incidents counted Off-station attendance - for example the Woolacombe engine attending the Clarence hotel fire in Exeter in 2016 or covering for an out of service engine from another station - do not count

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised towards the station statistics and are, therefore, excluded from the data fed into risk and response modelling, thus invalidating modelling results (5) To be called to assist another crew is just as important as being the only crew attending, or why would they have been called? Last night whilst the Public meeting was about to begin, Woolacombe Fire Fighters were deployed. Apparently alongside Ilfracombe they were the ONLY units available in the whole of North Devon, yet that ’shout’ will not count as one they have attended as it was outside of their catchment. (2) I am also concerned that the details of incidents attended by the Woolacombe crew only refer to those included within so-called ‘station grounds’ and do not acknowledge the many instances where they provide cover to Ilfracombe and Braunton when they are either called out elsewhere or unavailable due to lack of retained personnel. (3) The information given within the booklet fails to inform the public properly that it only includes calls within the station’s ground and doesn’t take into consideration any of the calls attended to other incidents in other areas … giving misleading data to help their argument (6) Appendix A does not contain any data relating to: Availability of each station appliance and reasons for unavailability. History of concurrent (ie simultaneous) incidents and how these were resourced; Incidents requiring support of appliances from other stations; Instances where appliances from one station have been required to cover non-availability of other stations; Analysis of overall coverage levels on an hour by hour/day by day basis for each area rather than each station ground, thus showing where stations are covering for other station non-availability Statistics for Woolacombe Fire Station have only taken into consideration call-outs to incidents within the parish boundary, without taking into account all of the incidents attended in neighbouring areas. This is a wilful misrepresentation of the facts. (2) According to the Lynton watch manager 47 incidents were attended last year, but as not all were within the station ground these are not recorded. This I believe to be a fault with the modelling employed because it does not reflect the matrix system

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised that connects fire stations in the region and reality of how many incidences are dealt with (2) The figures … fail to take into consideration the occasions when Colyton has played a crucial role in saving and protecting lives and property outside the county. I know that Colyton were involved in the Lyme Regis cinema fire, and the clock tower inn in Chideock ... Do the figures take into account the many occasions when Colyton has been called out to support other brigades, which could not have coped without the assistance of the extra vehicle from Colyton. Exclusion of incident categories Fire deaths not in dwellings, which in some years have exceeded those in dwellings, and deaths at non-fire incidents, other than road traffic collisions, have not been included. The figure shown for RTCs is also highly suspicious, as the service saves many more lives at RTCs than it does at dwelling fires. I was concerned to learn that the data used to assess the 'worth' of stations is taken as the number of incidents that they attend. I cannot see any evidence of analysis of concurrency of incidents, - ie, two or more simultaneous incidents - anywhere in the modelling, This is an important aspect which I believe has a significant impact on the overall requirements for provision of cover. The Safer Together public consultation document promotes working in partnership with South Western Ambulance Service and publishes statistics relating to Co-responder casualties. At the consultation drop-in session … I was advised by the Local Risk Manager that these statistics have not been factored into the risk calculation for closing Woolacombe Fire Station, as the responsibility for responding sits with the Ambulance Service. I feel that to disregard these figures, and, therefore, the serious impact of this increased risk to life is morally and ethically negligent on the part of DSFRS. This document completely ignores … non-fire or RTC incidents … therefore, the risk to life as a result of closure of a remote station where the number of responses to medical incidents as first responder is high in comparison to fire and RTC incidents, is significantly higher than stated in the analysis document

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Have Councillors considered the other services which the fire brigade provides to farmers whose livestock needs to be rescued, or to those vehicles which regularly find themselves stuck in the rising flood waters around Whitford and Musbury They only use RTC and House fires as their statistics for this consultation … the crew actually attend far more RTC incidents on the surrounding roads into the village ... fires in the sand dunes ... bin fires ... vehicle fires ... business fires ... animal rescue ... water rescue ... flooding assistance and management … NONE of these have been included in the statistics and fancy graphs … Fire deaths not in dwellings, which in some years have exceeded those in dwellings, and deaths at non-fire incidents, other than road traffic collisions, have not been included. The figure shown for RTCs is also highly suspicious, as the service saves many more lives at RTCs than it does at dwelling fires … FSEC modelling in other fire & rescue services shows that for every extra death in a dwelling fire there can be 15 extra deaths in non-fire incidents, as a direct result of longer response times. The data is based on initial response to domestic fires and RTCs. We wish to add the dimension of Resilience to this debate. Our argument is that, whilst some of the 8 stations are ‘quiet’, they attend these incidents but also contribute a crucial role to the frequent large-scale incidents that take place in our region. The FRSA wishes to see modelling of how the appliance removals would impact on the Service response to 10, 15, 20 appliance incidents. It is at these times that ‘quieter’ appliances contribute to the service’s already depleted ability to respond to further domestic fires and RTCs. At the recent closed meeting with Ashburton Town Council, Chief Fire Officer, Lee Howell, conceded that the Ashburton engine had more than double the activity than was reported in the consultation documents (129 call outs as opposed to the reported 61). We believe that much of the data contained in those documents does not reflect the true activity of the pump and therefore does not accurately assess the risk associated with our geographical area. Whilst Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Services Safer Together Consultation Document states that the number of fires attended by their crews have fallen by a third in the last ten years. Statistics

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised calculated through DSFRS systems show a overall increase of 8% in all fires since 2014/15. The response times recorded in the consolation document are incorrect and the 'on call' system is the most cost-effective way to provide coverage in a rural county. The consultation paperwork was in my opinion incorrect it did not show take calls off the station ground which would have showed a greater number of calls why was this emitted from the paperwork? We feel that the data given in the DSFRS consultation document is flawed for two reasons: The headline figure used by DSFRS that Topsham Station attends approximately 20 incidents a year is at best wildly inaccurate and at worst deliberately misleading. Last year the station attended 221 incidents in total, and this number has increased year on year for the last 5 years. There is an unachievable expectation, in that there is an assumption made that after the cuts, all appliances will be available at all times, giving the false impression that the risk of fire deaths will reduce if the proposals are agreed, whereas statistically it is likely that risk would increase. Overall, if the proposals were to be adopted, ⅓ of the residents of Devon and Somerset, over 600,000 people, will see a slower response from the Fire and Rescue service. 30,000 households would be waiting over ten minutes for an emergency response, which flies in the face of the Emergency Response Standards that the Service is targeted on. You give some examples of how domestic fires have reduced but you don't say if serious road accidents have decreased/increased or visitor injuries have decreased/increased in the Ilfracombe area. I recognise that you need to demonstrate 'value for money' and that the demands made upon you have changed over time. However, the data that you provide in "Safer Together" shows that whilst "non-fire" and "special service" incidents have fallen considerably over the last 5 years, this doesn’t seem to be true of your “core business” – firefighting. Deaths from fires have not

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised reduced, hospitalisations have increased, and fires overall are up 8%. Secondary fires show a considerable increase and are approaching the level of Primary fires. This clearly demonstrates how you are conveying the statistics in an inaccurate manner. Ashburton in particular is unique in being a first responder to issues on Dartmoor which is very unique. Closing this station will put lives at risk. There has been misleading information on the number of call outs to Woolacombe.

Inaccurate/insufficient information 8 According to your model, currently the services yield a presented at consultation – on performance which is lower than a theoretical performance, income, costs and expenditure described as ‘full availability’. We can only understand this result to prove that already now the services are understaffed. We … assume, that inaugurated savings are projected against real staff costs and not compared to theoretical numbers. Because of the blatant discrepancies in the information presented concerning Kingston Station (eg. the costs and the response times and the crew), I found it difficult to judge and, therefore, make comment upon the various options … about other stations and appliances because the information provided about these might also be inaccurate. There also seems to be no logic to claims that, for example in option 1, closing 8 fire stations and removing 90 firefighter posts will save money, but also increase Fire Safety Checks by over 3,000. “Potential increase” is not good enough, some detail and costings must be provided to support the figures. It is also not clear if the additional costs of longer journeys and extra time (On Call Firefighter payments), for those stations filling in the gaps created by the changes, have been factored into the claimed savings …

Options 1 through 3 note that the savings may not generate sufficient release of resources. The cumulative savings of 1 through 3 are £661,094 (annual) and £5.725 millions (capital). No breakdown of these savings is provided, and it is not clear what the division may be between labour, premises and FF&E. In the case of Porlock it will be helpful to know what that breakdown amounts to and whether the figures are net after disposal of assets.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised One of my main concerns is the cost saving figure banded around! The Fire officer has stated that £329,000 will be saved by Kingston`s closure !! A figure that is supposed NOT to include wages, this hard to believe as we know that vehicle fuel, maintenance ,garage rent and equipment is about £15,000, Fleete Estate charges a peppercorn rent for the garage of about £200 a year and rate relief is given , so costs are rent electricity and water! Could the figure of £329,000 please be justified? Even if it included the wages bill for 4 retained firemen, a mere £12,000, and the cost of training, the figure is nowhere near the £329.000 quoted! Kingston Fire Station Operating costs Under the Freedom of Information Act, the following financial information was supplied to me by Information Officers of The Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service. 1. Fire Station building annual rental cost £2.00 a. Additional costs for the building 2017/18 amounted to £1,113.00 which included payments for electricity, cleaning materials, refuse collection, water/sewerage rates and unforeseen maintenance. 2. Annual operating costs for the Kingston Fire Station: £19,053.00 a. The annual operating costs include payments to the firefighters as they get paid to attend training and incidents etc. 3. The estimated total annual average cost for a fire appliance of the type at Kingston is £32,984.00, but the cost is likely to be higher due to the age of the vehicle at Kingston. HOWEVER – Following up on item 3 above, further information supplied under the Freedom of Information Act related to the cost for the Kingston Fire Appliance shows that the ACTUAL annual costs associated with the Fire appliance are ONLY £5,091.66 and NOT £32,984.00 as reported – please see the table below. Therefore, the actual cost savings associated with closing down Kingston Fire Station have been inaccurately presented and cannot justify closure of the Station, given the needs for the wider local rural community for the service. The data I have seen so far appears to be misleading if not incorrect, it appears that some of the station statistics were carried out during the trial pay scheme which meant that certain

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised stations that were on it had quicker response times and better availability in comparison to their neighbouring stations. Whilst you have provided some information in answer to my comments and questions, I am absolutely amazed by your statement "It should be noted that there is no detailed breakdown of either Revenue or Capital savings". How can you possibly have arrived at savings figures, without such breakdowns, you must have brilliant 'crystal balls at the DSFRS. Seriously it does mean that nobody is accountable for these figures. I can only conclude that you have no means of providing irrefutable evidence that your figures are correct, especially the Revenue saving for Option 4 of £1,918, 453, which is, to say the least, a ridiculous amount for what savings are achieved. As I have previously stated in my letter to Lee Howell "I do not wish to publicly discredit the DSFRS, an organisation for whom I have the greatest admiration and respect and obviously do not seek to put this matter in the public domain and/or with higher authorities, but unless you can provide the 'proof positive' that I have requested, then there is no alternative to this. Your failure to produce such 'proof positive' is a sad indictment on the DSFRS.

Overstating the value of prevention 15 I am concerned that fire prevention and protection is being and protection portrayed as a magic wand solution. Since the start of this century concerns have been repeatedly raised about the effectiveness of smoke alarms on sleeping children. Those concerns have recently surfaced again following a BBC Watchdog report where a worrying 7 out of 8 sleeping children were not roused by an alarm … almost half of house fires attended had working fire alarms - thus demonstrating that whilst essential for reducing the risk of being trapped in a burning building, smoke alarms do not in themselves prevent fires. It is acknowledged that putting resources into fire prevention is important, but this should never be prioritised at the cost of reducing the number of fire stations that are essential to provide a proper fire and rescue service. In 2013 DSFRS pledged an extra £450,000 a year towards fire prevention in mitigation for the cuts to whole-time fire stations. This money appears to have had little impact in reducing fires and emergencies. How can you justify removing fire cover from

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised communities to invest in fire prevention when there is little evidence that it will work? Inside Housing published an article on this subject in June this year which suggested that across the UK in excess of 65,000 (10.3%) fire doors which have been inspected are currently unable to satisfy the 30-minute standard, and at the time of publishing it was estimated that only 8% of fire doors which were known to be non-compliant had so far been replaced. It seems unrealistic to expect continuous gain in the reduction in incidents and casualties as a result of public education, considering that the regime has been in place for nearly twenty years now … any further reductions are likely to be increasingly marginal, requiring a much greater input for a progressively smaller return. Further, it is certain that the majority of operational service delivery reduction Options are in areas where the need for education is lower. Therefore, it appears that these areas will lose operational cover without any local compensating benefit. (2) Much of the thrust of what fire officers have said during the consultation, and certainly of what the chief fire officer said when he met the county council cabinet a while ago, is that fire prevention work saves lives. I am quite sure that is true, however, this does not mean that there is no need for an emergency service when a fire does happen. Reaction does save lives, and although fire prevention measures and home inspections are to be welcomed in helping to do this, this cannot be a substitute for front line response. It is impossible to put a figure on he lives that have been saved through fire prevention, figures can be put on those lives saved by fire crews. I agree this is worthwhile but not as a replacement of front-line appliances. Accidents will still happen and the PDA for a confirmed property fire will be 2 pumps. The Officers have been saying that the cuts are in response to a reduction in fires as a result of Fire Prevention work. I would put it that the reduction has been more due to legislation regarding Gas and Electrical and Building Regulations plus the safety aspect of the Product Directives and CE Marking. This I would suggest is likely the plateaux and few additional reductions are likely. I am

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised also not sure what Fire Prevention actions are now taking place as I have seen much less activity than there used to be. You cannot educate the elderly not to have a heart attack We will lose lives.

Inaccurate/insufficient/misleading 20 The response models are stated as using the documented information presented at response times, but in many cases, these are unrealistic eg - consultation – on times taken by Ilfracombe to Woolacombe is stated as being less than 10 minutes appliances travelling time with an overall response time of 16 minutes … whereas, according to google maps, the travelling time from Ilfracombe fire station to Woolacombe Fire station exceeds this even in the middle of the night. This, therefore, invalidates the results of any response modelling using the supplied figures. The risk to life as a result of proposed station closures and downgrading appears to rely on optimal response times from neighbouring stations with an assumed 100% availability as there is no indication to the contrary. Given recent history in North Devon with appliance availability across On Call stations, this is unrealistic. You’ve supplied no information about how far away people will be from their nearest appliance after your proposed cuts, or how many minutes they will have to wait in their burning buildings for rescue … How long will it take for you to get to me in event of fire or entrapment traffic incident? Only when we know this will we be able to judge whether what you propose is acceptable or not. For a public body to be so deceitful is appalling and you should be held to account. Make the information simple for everyone. The wait on units for rural communities will be detrimental and there is no information on attendance times if these proposals are introduced.

They had measured travel distance as the crow flies and used times to get from neighbouring stations to Woolacombe calculated in the early hours of the morning and on the quickest route using narrow lanes that fire appliances wouldn't actually use (due to hills, corners and the width of the roads).(6) One of the services ‘Core Values’ is honesty, the data provided is not honest. There is a lot of information that has been shown in a very devious way. E.g., responding times for other stations to the area … have been shown as the crow flies and with no allowance for a personal turn out to a station. Taking a given time from 9

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised minutes to 15/16, not allowing for traffic. There is no break down available for the savings made, just what seems to be random figures, meaning nothing to the public. The Fire Service documents show the distances as the crow flies, which is very misleading and doesn’t allow for our narrow roads or congestion in the summer months. (3) The reduced risk claim is frankly fraudulent, as it is based on a comparison for the future, which assumes all the service's fire engines are available, with the current situation, which assumes several fire engines are not available. The excuse given is that crewing, and contract changes will ensure all appliances will be available in future. That is outrageous speculation and it is highly unlikely that will ever be achieved. The only honest and responsible method is to compare current theoretical full availability with future theoretical full availability. That comparison shows, although not very clearly in the public consultation document, an extra death every other year on option 5 (25 extra in dwellings and 22 extra in RTCs in 100 years). A figure that will be higher, as not all deaths have been included in the results. The journey times calculated for pumps from other stations (Kingsbridge, Modbury, Ivybridge) to reach Kingston and its neighbours have been badly miscalculated. I suggest these journeys are timed properly, using a large fire engine and not, as seems to be the case, following sat nav routes which a larger pump would have difficulty negotiating and, in the case of the tidal road at Aveton Gifford, would at times prove impossible! The journey times you have estimated … like so much of it are misleading. Even on blue lights getting from Braunton to Woolacombe in 8 minutes is at best ridiculous, especially in the height of the summer when traffic can be queuing from Mullacott Cross. A prime example of this is how the DSFRS data map shows that Seaton can reach Colyton within ten minutes, yet Colyton cannot reach Seaton with ten minutes! (2) I would like to dispute the response times from Minehead and Lynton (to Porlock) … they are unlikely to be accurate when taking into consideration: the weather conditions over and the remoteness of the moor; Butlins changeover days in Minehead;

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised the huge difficulties of getting up and down Porlock Hill and at Countisbury during the winter months/icy conditions; and the fact that some properties in Porlock and surrounding villages can be very difficult to reach (such as my own house up a narrow bridle path) … If an appliance came from Lynton or Minehead and the fire had 30 minutes to take hold, there is no way we would be saved by the time they worked out how to reach us up the hill. The station profile for Colyton states that a Colyton pump cannot reach Seaton within 10 minutes. Yet the station profile for Seaton states that its own pump can reach Colyton within 10 minutes. The disparity … gives little confidence in the care being taken with the evidence base presented to councillors. The response times given for the next nearest response time would appear unachievable with Stn 81 given 8 minutes and 65 at 9 minutes (does this include 5 mins to get mobile as both stations are retained) In addition, the DSFRS claimed that Braunton was only 5.1 miles away from Woolacombe. This was the distance ‘as the crow flies’ and not the actual distance by road. Google Maps show the distance as 6.7 miles and will take 16 minutes in clear traffic, which during the summer months is very rare. I also understand that distances have been calculated ‘as the crow flies’ and do not take into account the topology of the area. This means that I reject this option as it stands because it includes closing Woolacombe.

Little consideration for rurality, 29 Over-arching all of your proposals is the move to reduce the sparsity, vulnerability, community delivery of service and involvement within rural and remote communities. This not only will have the direct effects, of closure of fire stations or less fire engines, to impinge on these communities, but contributing to them will also be lost; this latest impact coming along with the removal of an increasing number of other traditional, previously locally based, services. Improving the levels of service, be they operational or safety improvements, for those that already consume the largest part of the budget of the service at the cost of those that have the lowest levels of service, raises serious moral questions. (There is) a lack of any perceptible sense that equity requires that the life of a human being is of equal value whatever geography inhabited … The life of a person in the sparsely populated Exmoor

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised area should not be regarded as more expendable that one in an urban or suburban area. The fire service is and should be expected to continue to be an emergency service available to all in its area. This should be addressed. Nor do they appear to have considered the potential impacts of their proposals in a deeply rural and sparsely populated area, that depends heavily on tourism (access and enjoyment, and the socio- economic duty), where both national and local planning policies, as well as geography, mean that the housing stock is not typical of the modern era: a much higher proportion than is usual of older houses, of thatch, of open fires and wood burners, consequently a heightened fire risk; many of the houses a very great distance from any fire hydrants. There does not appear to have been appropriate consideration of one of the consequences of national park status which is the premium on house prices which, added to the scenic beauty of the area, has led to the much higher than usual proportion of (well-to- do) elderly people in the population who have retired here, leading to a much higher than usual personal vulnerability. Access to the area, and moving around in it, depends on a small number of roads covering a large area, which carry not very much traffic in the winter, but a considerable amount in the summer. The proposals do not seem to take account of the difficulties of dealing with road traffic collisions or similar in such an area, where accessing an emergency may need very lengthy and time- consuming diversions, which time may be much greater in the summer. This needs to be addressed. In your options you appear to be applying major conurbations rules to a rural area where the distances and road quality are never anywhere near as good as in cities. It is … a great concern for me and for my local volunteers, that … you are considering strategic options which may impact on the emergency support provided in rural areas which would almost certainly have a significantly negative impact on the farming community … across all of the key public services, rural communities are being targeted for cutbacks in favour of major urban areas … it leaves rural communities feeling progressively more isolated and impoverished … Farming is an increasingly isolated business with many farmers working long hours on their own in what is now recognised as the most accident-prone

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised industry in the UK. The farm is a relatively dangerous working environment with a variety of volatile materials stored and used in the course of their work, such as hay, straw, chemical fertilisers etc. Many have problematic access for large vehicles, such as the most modern fire appliances, and poorly signposted water supplies. Of course that assumes that water is available or that the supplies are sufficient for replenishing fire appliances … Local knowledge is of paramount importance when dealing with rural incidents as is the ability for local fire teams to undertake visits to advise on fire prevention and to assess fire service requirements in the event of an incident … Add to all of this the increasing number of arson attacks on farms by mischievous youngsters and the growing number of farm incursions by aggressive single issue pressure groups intent on causing damage and I cannot help but feel that now is the wrong time for the fire service to be retreating into the cities. There are some stations that appear to have very few incidents per year but given their isolated location, the difficulty of access (particularly in the winter) how will you be able to attend a serious incident if that station closes. We are so isolated here that it would be a great worry if we did not have enough local firefighting teams – the engines from Minehead or Barnstaple would take at least half an hour to arrive by which time a lot of damage could have been done. We are outraged that the fire service is considering the removal of the local essential stations. We are a rural community and cannot stress enough the importance of our local fire service and the local officers who are well informed and who’s local knowledge is vital to protect us, our property and our visitors to the parish. Over the years I have seen progress in cooperation across the emergency services. I was relieved when it was no longer necessary for my father to abseil down cliffs to rescue and or reassure those who got into difficulty; however, someone still has to do this. We have different needs in the rural areas where of course there are less household situations because there are less households but we have moorland which as you are aware often catches fire involving lengthy attendances. We live in an area of outstanding natural beauty with coastline and national park which also reduce the radius of building development. It should

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised not be forgotten that the population increases dramatically in the warmer months swelled by tourists. I live in a rural location, on a farm, more or less nine miles equidistant from Barnstaple, Ilfracombe and Lynton. At a distance of five miles Combe Martin is our nearest Fire Station. As I am sure that you are aware fire can be totally devastating to a farm business and although we make every effort to reduce risk in both the farm buildings, on our small touring caravan site and in our own home I would consider that there is a risk of fire at our location… To conclude I implore you to remember that the lives of those who live in rural and coastal communities matter just as much as those who live in the towns and cities, and we should be entitled to the same resources when required. The proposed changes can only have a negative effect on response times and that cannot be justified. The way we live may have changed, but it has not removed the need for the fire & rescue service to arrive quickly and with adequate resources. It is my sincere hope that the wrong decisions are not made and that subsequently a disaster occurs which causes lives to be lost. Porlock Hill, the steepest A Road in England has accidents of varying severity every year, and we are regularly cut off during bad weather. Additionally, access to Porlock and surrounding villages for emergency vehicles from other areas is limited to the A39 and narrow rural roads, meaning that there would be potentially disastrous delays in reaching incidents, particularly for fire crews that are not familiar with the area. The consultation does not take into account the narrow rural roads which serve Woolacombe and the surrounding area, these roads are regularly gridlocked in the height of the season, with tailbacks up to the Fortescue Arms and beyond. I certainly would not want my life (or that of my loved ones) in the hands of a crew who are stuck several miles up the road behind many other vehicles. I so hope that the rural stations remain … I fear the sorrow to come if they are closed. I do not agree with any station closures as Devon and Somerset are large rural counties and the fire stations are already spread

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised out in a logical way in which to cope with the terrain, which often comprises country lanes and in urban areas difficult traffic conditions. We live in a remote part of Devon and find our Fire and Rescue Service coverage already reduced to a RIU 2-wheel drive vehicle so to learn that more cuts are proposed is a worry.

Insufficient consideration to the 9 I do not believe that there has been proper consideration of the natural environment National Park and its landscape, including swaling and wildfires (conservation) … Some years ago the then Chief Executive at ENPA had to make some considerable efforts to increase the fire service understanding of swaling as one of the tools in moorland management, which itself needs managing but not preventing or extinguishing except if it goes wrong, and the difference between that and (summer) wildfires which do of course always need putting out. The documentation now appears to suggest that the fire authority has both lost that knowledge and fails to see that it has any need to have regard to National Park purposes, let alone supporting ENPA in achieving them. This needs to be addressed. The risk of wildfires is far greater in open moorland with its heavy fuel load than it is in more densely populated or intensively farmed areas, and this gives a heightened risk to the populations on and adjacent to Exmoor. You all of course know that the service has already suffered harsh cuts over the past few years, but to take away 1 fire truck from Lynton and the only fire truck in Porlock, leaves us all in danger. - especially as we understand that the 2 trucks are the only trucks that can go on the moor to tackle moor fires. I have witnessed the speed at which moor fires spread. It is frightening! So if we have to wait for support to come from further away, this puts our properties and lives in danger. Special vehicles are required to access Dartmoor both in the summer and especially the winter months The Lynton engine in question is the 4x4 vehicle and it's loss would leave the station unable to tackle moorland fires or operate anywhere that required such a vehicle. The Fire Brigade's Union has recently released figures that show that wildfires have increased over the last year in England and Wales. Lynton has two much needed fire appliances, but 'Safer Together' proposes to take away the second appliance, which is a 4-wheel

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised drive vehicle capable of going off road and reaching remote moorland fires. Porlock Fire station is earmarked for closure so not only would their main appliance be lost but also two smaller all-terrain fire fighting vehicles. The combination of both cuts would result in the removal of all the moorland firefighting capability in the north Exmoor area. Your statistics indicate that secondary fires which include those on moorland increased by 40% in 2018 from 2014/5. The statistics here indicate that the risk of fire in this area has increased not decreased. This directly impacts upon many of our residents in this area. However, this consultation document seems to reduce cover for us even more. The local fire crews are of the opinion that the vehicle we have been left with would not be able to cope with the sort of off-road driving required to combat a moorland blaze. The Moor is on our doorstep and it only needs a small piece of glass to start a fire there.

Little consideration to future changes 12 Surely in the case of providing safety cover, past demand should in no way dictate future levels of required service. The consultation does not provide sufficient information on how cover will be provided, given the amount of new housing being created in the area. You will find in the future when there is a big demand for Skilled Firemen, you will then have a serious problem. Woolavington is a designated two-tier development zone and there are expressions of interests from major House Builders and plans to expand the village. Localised cover becomes much more important as time goes on because of the ever-increasing intensity of population and traffic on our country roads and villages. Not even a Magician or the cleverest professor could predict when and where the next Major or Minor incident will occur. No one in any area should have lifesaving cover reduced. If one person’s life is lost. That's too great a price to pay. I hope due consideration is given to the increase in road traffic and possible accidents … The increase in the number of elderly people in the next few years could result in more accidents in the home that would require emergency services.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Could you explain your strategy for dealing with 'Future Risks' as currently I cannot understand how cutting and closing will make anyone safer. There are proposed commercial developments, significant new residential builds a few miles away and excellent road access to these and, indeed, to where I live. Closure seems short-sighted (2) All these changes have been based on the past but … nobody knows when or where we will be needed next. No computer model using historical data can yet predict the unpredictable: when and where an emergency is going to happen next. Have you considered the expected population growth over the next few years? Whilst there may not be much use for a 2nd /3rd appliance in some stations now, there is a possibility that with more houses in an area in future these appliances will be necessary. However, have the Fire and Rescue service taken into account the recent changes in and around Dartington with major Domestic and large commercial construction taking place.

Little consideration to seasonal 25 There does not appear to be any account taken of the high increases in population numbers of self-catering holiday accommodation in certain areas … the risk to life in these areas is higher than stated in the analysis. I have questioned this with DSFRS who responded: (that holiday makers do not cook as much as resident population and holiday accommodation has more regulations concerning smoke alarms) … However, there is an insufficient number of catering establishments in the Woolacombe area … holiday makers are, by necessity, self-catering – i.e. cooking - within their holiday accommodation. Although this is a small residential area, when tourists are added it is a large town -with many holiday homes, properties are left vacant or occupied with those unfamiliar with the household appliances which is an increases risk. The warm weather has many tourists having barbecues, often with a lot of alcohol being consumed, which is a danger -I am not comfortable at the time it would take for appliances to arrive from either Ilfracombe or Barnstaple. I feel some of the times quoted for response are extremely optimistic on the roads which can be clogged with

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised tourists, this summer some of the queues into Woolacombe were literally miles long. During April to October, the population of Woolacombe and Mortehoe increases by tens of thousands, and probably represents more increased bed space than the rest of North Devon put together. Surely, this fact alone, should alert the Fire Officers to rethink their proposed closure of our Fire Station in Woolacombe? We are a growing city and to reduce the fire cover from 5 pumps to 4 pumps is not good practice and with regards to the roving appliances again l can’t see that working. The number of tourists that come to Woolacombe is huge and to think there may not be an emergency service right on the doorstep is a massive worry. Local Fire Stations are not a waste of money or a luxury they are an important lifeline and are there when you need them. Given the narrow roads and in summertime especially the traffic jammed roads I really fail to see how Woolacombe is going to stay protected without its own fire service. For six months of the year the amount of people staying in Woolacombe is huge and many holiday sites/holidays lets are open all year round so Woolacombe needs its own service. I would think the person who is making this what could be a fatal decision for someone ought to spend a few days with the crews and see what they are up against day by day. Then that person may stop and think about the difficulties the local service has in getting to situations promptly and how much harder that would be for a service from another area. In the summer months, the population of Ilfracombe increases bringing with it more risk of traffic and people accidents, fires, rescue and such like. How does the process take this into consideration? Though there are only about 1,000 residents on the electoral register there are visitors all year. In high Summer we max out at around 100,000 people on a hot sunny day. This heightens the major risk of fire in all the campsites, beaches, hotels, apartments, Moors, roads etc etc. In the summer our little village swells to thousands and thousands of people all camping or using holiday homes. The fire risk in this period rises enormously. The roads to get to us and Mortehoe

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised aren’t good and often the fire engine and fire crew often double as A&E in the absence of an ambulance. Whilst I understand that our residential population isn’t huge, between Easter and October half term it increases by 6.3 million visitors and every building and field are packed out. There are always fire crews at large events and festivals and wherever thousands of people gather, as the risk is increased. Surely that should be the same for popular tourist areas? The proposed closure of our fire station must be based on the idea that we have a small population, which is simply not true for much of the year. With over 6.3 million visitors through the 6 months, in addition to our residential population, if anything our fire crews are woefully understaffed. I am unsure what influence you have on these decisions, but I implore you to listen and reconsider. We are a seasonal, rural location whose population swells by many thousands in the summer months. This alone makes our village quite unusual to cater for safety wise. We need cover and we need it close to hand as in the summer months our roads into the village can be grid locked for miles, this alone would prove dangerous and extremely time consuming trying to get appliances into the area. Porlock is also a popular tourist destination, with an increased population in the summer using the camping and caravan sites in the village and surrounding areas. In the 3 years I have lived here there have been multiple instances of major flooding in the town with road closures that would delay engines arrival. Our town is critically dependent on tourism. Many flats rented to holiday makers are above restaurants and cafes increasing the fire risk. Tourists are more likely to be drinking and falling asleep with lit cigarettes. Most of the housing is 5 storey terraced houses often split into flats. If the tourists using the holiday home next door to my property accidentally start a fire the whole row of terraced Victorian buildings would be at risk. There are no fire escapes. Grenfell shows what is possible. In this country we need to be capable of responding to the worst-case scenario because though rare they do happen. It is just a question of time. As our weather becomes increasingly extreme in ways

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised that increase our need for the heroic fire brigade we should not be compromising where lives are at risk. This village has a huge influx of visitors staying in the summer… Due to the constitution of our community, an ageing populous, busy seasonal aspect (that lasts for at least 10 months of every year NOT just the 6 weeks summer holiday) we value our retained Firefighters that are important members of our community. They are OUR first responders on nearly every occasion. I hope you have also taken into account the population of the Mortehoe and Woolacombe parish, taking into account the seasonal aspect on the local population. The resident population is 1178, but with 1,700 registered bed spaces plus touring pitches on the 12 sites available, the population of both villages can shoot up to over 13,000 plus day visitors to the area with approximately 3000 available parking spaces.

During the busy summer months particularly, it would take a fire fighting vehicle a long time to get from Ilfracombe to Mortehoe along the congested, narrow, windy lane, which concerns me greatly as someone who spends a lot of my time on one of the camp sites in Mortehoe. The population of the two villages of Mortehoe and Woolacombe escalates during the summer months to many thousands. We, alone, can have up to 800 people staying at any one time, and we are one of the smaller parks.

Lack of partnership working 1 There is a lack of any perceptible sense of ‘partnership working’ in the proposals and consultation Supporting both visitors and residents alike has been through partnership working between the fire service and the health service which has led to first or co-responder arrangements in some places. There does not seem to be appropriate consideration of how such partnership arrangements can be replaced if the fire service no longer plays its part. That is not to say that the fire service should do other people’s jobs for them, but that in such an area as Exmoor it is unlikely that appropriate arrangements can be put in place for the local population and for visitors unless public services work in partnership. This needs to be addressed.

Little consideration given to climate 15 The risk of fires on open ground, trees and derelict buildings are change, flooding, risk of wildfires those which are least likely to be reduced by fire prevention, and

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised with summer temperatures and extreme weather incidents both predicted to continue rising there is little hope that these risks can be reduced. Having declared a climate emergency at all levels … it would be entirely wrong to cut response resources both for wildfires and floods. These proposed cuts come despite a big rise in wildfires over the past year that has put the fire services under pressure. The latest available figures, for 2018-19, show there were 182,825 fires in England, the highest since 2011. Nearly 39,000 were wildfires, contributing to a 62% rise in the last year; a sign that the warming climate is creating a greater demand for the emergency services and a sign that fire service resources should not be cut. Global warming … with it comes increased threats of severe fires not just to houses but to the whole area and with more severe rainstorms in an area dominated by hills and valleys comes the threat of more frequent and severe floods. How can anybody in charge of emergency service provision deem it feasible to reduce and withdraw emergency services that will be in the front line dealing with these threats in the future? Is it intended that the firemen should carry their equipment across the moor to fight fires and whether you believe in global warming or not the incidence of fires in the countryside are increasing year on year worldwide and also those that do occur have tended to be more severe than previously. We have many gorse and heather fires on Exmoor, if there are not enough teams to put the fires out quickly, we could lose the beautiful scenery which so many locals and tourists enjoy. With the longer and warmer summers forecasted due to global warming, I can only see wild fires increasing further and we need to ensure we have the right local cover to protect the public, building, the local environment and to protect the important tourism industry that this local area depends upon. Specifically, in my area these cuts would mean there are no off- road vehicles to deal with moorland fires. In the recent heat wave large areas of Spain and France burnt. Had the heat wave been a little further north it would now be us looking out at ashen landscapes. It seems extremely short sighted to entirely remove this capacity just when it is likely to be more needed than ever.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised The long dry summers we are having increases the danger of moor land fires and will become worse with climate change. Porlock fire-fighters are experts in this field and have the knowledge, equipment and experience to tackle these fires before they become unmanageable. By the time other appliances and fire-fighters reach these fires, not being familiar with the local terrain, its roads and tracks, the fires could become unstoppable. The damage to land property, wildlife and habitats would be an ecological disaster. I wouldn’t want this on my conscience. Climate change is a very real challenge facing our communities, with increasingly hot summers seeing this rise in outdoor fires whilst excessive rain will see more flooding. Future risk – we need to be mindful of the impacts of climate change particularly on flooding. There is an incentive here to build it into the risk modelling to enable responsiveness and adaptation. Risk modelling needs to be easier and more flexible (see below). I think we should look towards what the authority can do to push for special services to be included as statutory functions with funding attached. Keeping accessible records on this work will help build the case. The FBU has some campaign going on this.

Little consideration for historical 19 Ilsington Parish council represents the Parish of Ilsington which is buildings/old/thatched buildings the second biggest parish in the county and within it we have a high percentage of thatched and listed buildings. I wish to strongly object to this proposal it could lead to the possibility of loss of life if not that more damage done by fire to old buildings in Topsham and more so the new wooden frame buildings around the town. …there are 87 thatched properties within the ten-minute response time of our fire brigade. This village, Porlock Weir and surrounding area has many beautiful thatched houses. Some listed but nearly all very close together. Time to arrive at these, some listed, properties is essential to save lives and properties. Not to mention the properties history and attraction, which tourists come here to see and stay. In addition, many of our properties are thatched, and it is a fact that without prompt action these buildings are very vulnerable. Recently one such was gutted at Holberton, the engines arriving

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised too late to save it; on the plus side, I have personally seen the saving of a thatched cottage here in Kingston by the prompt action of the chief fireman and his men. If the engine had had to come from Ivybridge or Kingsbridge it would definitely have been burnt beyond saving. In Ilfracombe, there are also many cramped and badly maintained buildings which makes them more vulnerable to fire. We have a very direct interest in the Fire Service, and of course in the wider sense. We live in a Colt wooden bungalow with a cedar shingle roof. As you will know, the shingles burn like candles. Previously we had an old house with a long thatch below the road at xxxxxx. Add in the massive fire in Exeter next to the Cathedral and a case can be made for strengthening the service, not reducing it. For example, has the drain on your ability to provide fire cover for the wider area been quantified during the Exeter fire? In Porlock we have eighty plus thatched buildings, , I have seen thatch burn and after a delay of twenty minutes waiting for help to arrive there would be little left to save and all the fire prevention measures in the word would be of little use. The City of Wells has some of the most important historical buildings and heritage in Devon and Somerset. With Wells Cathedral, the Bishops Palace, Vicars Close and over 330 listed buildings. With the different options that have been put forward for consultation we believe there are many issues surrounding them? • Heritage. As detailed above, The City of Wells has many historical buildings. In one concentrated area I believe it to be the most in Devon and Somerset. Yet we are set as a medium risk. All down to the fact that we have very little Thatched properties. Surely this needs to be reviewed as clearly for heritage we should be at the highest risk. There are many old timber framed buildings in Totnes making it vulnerable to fires. In our towns we have many old terraced properties which do not have regulation fire breaks and therefore any fire needs to be reached fast in order to prevent conflagrations spreading to multiple properties. There is a lot of older properties in and around the Town. They are all built of wood which can be susceptible to fires.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Inaccurate/insufficient information – 9 Some of the figures quoted are suspiciously cherry picked. I was other rather annoyed to find more accurate information in a union document than some of the headlines given in 'Safer Together'. To be fair, the detail was in your document, but only at sub table level, whereas the headline was very much of the opinion that everything is getting better. There seems to be no strategy as all the stats do not add up in your consultation document, which by the way makes for very boring and misleading reading. Perhaps it would be a good idea to publish all the facts not just the ones that stack up in favour of these cuts. It is inaccurate, littered with disparities and has been written in a way to favour the outcome they want … Another example is how the data shows that Colyton Station has had numerous co- responder call outs on the data used, Colyton is not even a co- responder Station! It strikes me the Fire Service are deliberating overlooking call outs to alter statistics to their own advantage, and make it look as though the Woolacombe crew aren’t needed. On the issue of transparency, the consultation document does not provide links to all documents which would have been involved in the process of completing the consultation document. An example of two of these is the National Framework 2018 and the DSFRS Efficiency Plan 2016 - 2020. Living in Ilfracombe, I can't see how I'm able to take away a fire station in a town, Porlock for instance, I don't live in. I don't have the information to make that decision or to know its potential impact on people in that area. 1. What is the projected cost of this consultation? 2. What is the total, rounded cost of salaries and wages of the people working at Clyst St Mary? 3. Is the authority employing, either directly or under contract, Change Consultants? (I am familiar with this category from our NHS.) 4. As regards 'risk', what is the policy and the reality of marking fire hydrant locations? Obvious in say the US but less so in the UK I believe.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised 5. What separate and independent committee will analyse all the input from this consultation? 6. Will the public be able to question deductions and possible changes in policy once the input is collated and summarised? 7. You quote Greenstreet Burman. ** I find this - https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/03281935/officers Currently there are only two active officers - one an 'Human Factors And Ergonomics Consultant' and the other a psychologist. Are you still receiving expert advice from this company? From the start of the consultation and when the booklets where first issued, all of the information provided states that the decision to turn off P2 in the day is down to risk and savings. This has since been backed up by other members of the service that have delivered information. Why are we now getting information from other sources that it has actually been based on the availability of the station? Recruitment has been a problem, as nothing is being done to get people through the door by the service. Any open days have been over 20 miles away, we have had public events/exercises within the city which would have been ideal to get the public involved, but there has been no actions from the service. This then meaning that the FFs currently at Wells are now having to lose out on work, turnouts, experience and money as one pump will now be switched off.

Limited community involvement 1 This paragraph instructs the DSFRS to provide the opportunity for the communities to plan their local service through consultation and involvement. This consultation process seems to have omitted the planning part of the obligation, in that the community is being asked its opinion on plans which have already been drawn-up.

Criticism of questionnaire profiling 1 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this consultation questions and please could you confirm that this email will be taken into consideration with responses because as an organisation it was not possible to complete the formulaic questionnaire. The options proposed within the Safer Communities Service Delivery Operating Model Proposal were considered and it was felt that the response form was more targeted to a response from an individual and not a town council. Therefore, I have been asked to email raising the concerns for this community.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Options/questions 8 I have not filled in the questionnaire properly, as I personally do confusing/ridiculous not have the patience. I feel that the questionnaire was designed to put off as many people responding as possible. I have attempted to consider the published consultation document but found it incredibly complex. If the decision to make cuts has already been made and I sincerely hope that is not the case, then surely the allocation of resources should be made by professionals not members of the public. I would also like to point out that the Consultation questionnaire may not be entirely representative of the strength of feeling and public concerns. This is because some people feel it is too complicated and various questions require specialist knowledge to answer accurately and are put off completing the form. Following the meeting today it appears that we are all confused by the options and how they appear within the papers. We are concerned that details of individual station options will get lost within the group option. We will be doing a full SWOT analyst on each station and share the detail in the coming weeks. We have produced the options in a way that is more visual and, in an order, that we would of expected the service to of provided. The officers at the meeting today explained that each part of the options were to be consulted on and evaluated during the 12 weeks so why were the papers produced in such a complicated way? Please see attached in hope that you will also simplify the options tomorrow. Your consultation requires people to have an understanding of the implications of closing or downgrading stations across Devon and Somerset and to offer an alternative using a combination of the options offered. This really is too much to ask; in fact, many people may well find it confusing as to how you can offer ‘options’ which are nothing of the sort. You are simply asking just how far they are willing to accept cuts in services. The survey is also confusing mostly because it is as I say too much all at once. I suppose you have done that deliberately. I have read and considered each proposal within the consultation and found it impossible to make answers to each proposal as they overlap each other and are confused in their content.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Proposals / levels of risk assessment 2 The Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 PART 2 covers the do not support the service’s core FUNCTIONS OF FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITIES and details the functions / legislative responsibilities Core functions for which you are collectively responsible. These proposals will reduce the existing ability of those employed to discharge these core functions on your behalf and for us to the same level. It will deliver a reduction in that level of service not an improvement. The Risk Assessments to accompany the SDOM public consultation are required to fully inform the public and staff, as voted and agreed by the DSFRA. As required means that they are needed for all the proposals. The SRSC Regs, which DSFRS recognises, outlines the inclusion of Risk Assessments. - Reg 4a 1(a) The introduction of any measure at the workplace which may substantially affect the health and safety of the employees the safety representatives concerned represent. - Reg 7 68(a)(b) Employers have duties under the Management Regs to provide information on risk to their employers health and safety identified by their risk assessments. Preventative and protective measures designed to ensure employees health and safety. These Risk Assessments are required as a matter of priority.

Unsuitable venue for consultation 2 Called to request change in timings or venue and additional event timings, due to possible inability for elderly being able to access due to granite steps and limited easy access and disabled access - being used by a playgroup at the timings. Chaotic meeting this morning at the unsuitable venue of St. Lawrence Chapel

No consultation event close-by 4 The only venue in the Mendip District Council Area on your consultation list poster is in Frome. There will be many in the area who would dispute that Frome is the principle town in the Mendip District Council area. MDC is situated in Shepton Mallet. The centre of mass of the MDC area is, more or less, between Shepton Mallet, Glastonbury, Street and the City of Wells, with a combined population of in excess of 40,000 (2011 Census) as opposed to Frome with a population of 26,000, off on a limb in the extreme North East corner of the MDC area.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised There have been many comments to the effect “the cynic in me might think that the venue is deliberately out of the way to minimise the involvement with those affected……” On 9th July, the Safer Together Programme stated that “We will however throughout the consultation process be reviewing and assessing any additional visits required.” You stated that the only two Fire Stations that are affected in the proposals are Wells and Frome with potential night crewing only on their 2nd fire engine. With that in mind might I strongly suggest that you arrange another consultation event to be held either in Wells, as one of the fire stations affected or at Shepton Mallet as the seat of Mendip District Council. You will know I am deeply concerned about the proposals and will be encouraging residents to reply to the consultation. Yet I was surprised to see a Public Exhibition of the plans is only being held in Torquay, rather than also holding one in Paignton where the largest impact will be felt. It is not right residents of Paignton concerned about the proposals for their area will have to travel to a neighbouring town to attend a consultation event on them. There are several venues close to Paignton Fire Station which would be a good venue for a consultation event, plus I know local churches are only too happy to discuss making the main body of their buildings available for events of importance to the community. I hope you will urgently look into arranging an event in Paignton to ensure local residents can have their say. At our meeting of the 3rd July it was noted that the Devon and Somerset Fire Rescue Service was undertaking a public consultation in respect of a reconfiguration of the service cover being offered by your organisation. It was also noted that documentation in respect of and outlining these proposed changes had been lodged at Torquay Library. Paignton with a population of circa 47 Thousand also has a public Library but has not been treated in the same way. The committee asked that copy documents and other relevant material be lodged at Paignton Library ASAP in order that Paignton People be able to participate. Many are elderly and do not make use of the internet. Should there be any public meetings we request that we be included as a separate town. We believe that the changes, despite any

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised modelling that suggests a low risk, are potentially life threatening so require as much information as can be garnered and passed on to the public before they make their feelings known. A reply to this E mail outlining your intentions is essential and we are in expectation of an urgent reply.

Criticism of survey 14 It is very difficult to respond constructively to a consultation that instruments/questionnaires offers no alternatives, and instead merely builds each proposal upon the sum of all the earlier proposals The online consultation pro-forma does not accommodate the objective and factual nature of my evidence, nor does the format allow for the inclusion of hyperlinks The online document with several options is huge and putting this out to lay people is confounding. I’ve tried to submit my consultation document this evening, but your page won’t load properly when I’m trying to submit it (2) The "complete survey" button repeatedly just takes me to a page saying "this page is temporarily unavailable" - so it looks as though you will not have received my answers to the consultation questionnaire. I have looked at the Online Questionnaire and found it to be extremely confusing, so am emailing instead. I must say it was over complicated and confusing, one would almost think deliberately so. The questionnaire… is obviously designed to be as difficult as possible … shows that the statisticians have no idea of our community, and actually have already decided Attempting to fill it in online is like a minefield. I therefore have not been able to complete this document so am putting my concerns in this e mail I still have concerns about the process and how the Consultation Document and Questions are worded. In regard to the issue of scrutiny the completed written and online questionnaires should be available for the public to view. Many people will have completed the questionnaire in a way which was not exactly how those who designed the questionnaire expected them to be answered. For example, many of the responses to questions 1a - 1f will start or include the phrase Do Not Close a particular Fire Station (e.g. Porlock). This may not be the answer

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised to these questions which was needed but it is an answer and should be recorded in the final data on which some decisions will be made. Again, it is about the interpretation of whether a question is open or closed and whether it is fair to expect any person objecting to the closure or reduction of their service not to take every opportunity to protest. This process cannot become a “spoilt ballot paper” process simply because the respondent answered the question the way they wanted or chose to. Having the consultation on-line or on social media excludes quite a large chunk of people, particularly vulnerable residents who may in themselves be more prone to fire risk. (2) We have lots of people who would like to comment but who do not have access to the Internet. As elderly people who are more vulnerable to fires, they have concerns which they would like to share, but no way of accessing paper forms which they can send to you or information books detailing the options proposed. There are concerns that some people are being prevented from contributing to the safer together consultation. Some stations have asked for hard copies to fill in but are being told there are none left. There have also been requests for copies in Polish, and Braille. Could you please let me know the situation with hard copies of the consultation? Are there any left, and are there any available in other languages, or for those with a sight loss?

Criticism of the timing and 3 Please can you explain why all of these are to be held during the accessibility of consultation events day - when the majority of folk would be at work? I commend my former colleagues that have put together a good set of public engagement events around the service area however I must comment that there should have been some consideration around putting in some evening and weekend events to allow better engagement with those that work. Additionally, I understand that the Service have wanted to control the format to ‘drop in’ events. The public expectation is that some events would have been more formal with a presentation style - I do feel this could have been accommodated so that the different needs of the wider community audience could have been taken into account.

Criticism of title of consultation 11 Very Definitely Not. - A Safer Together Program. No-one I have spoken to feels safer with the proposals.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised We feel it is an insult to our intelligence to dress these proposed cuts up as an improvement to the service under the title ‘Safer Together’ How can the population of Devon and Somerset have any confidence in the proposed misnamed ‘safer together’ programme? Well a good place seems to be the name, "Safer Together". I'm sure whomever came up with it was patting themselves on the back thinking it was a fantastic bit of spin. Well I'm afraid the general public is a little more sophisticated on that front than 20 or 30 years ago when that might have worked. Nowadays it is nothing more than a slap in the face to the communities losing fire cover, the individuals losing their jobs and the remaining crews losing backup. Based on these observations, how can the population of Devon and Somerset have any confidence in the proposed 'misnamed?' safer together programme? Its obvious we will not be, “Safer Together”. I am writing to express my very deep concern at the possibility of losing Woolacombe’s fire station as part of your risky and ironically named ‘Safer Together’ programme of cuts. Safer together means nothing if we cannot get fast service from you when needed.

Questions 13 What are the numbers of staff to be lost/redeployed under each Option? Will any of the changes being considered for the Fire Brigade still allow the attendances and times as laid down in the Fire Service Act to be met. What are the costs of redundancy or other compensation envisaged under each option? What reductions in central management and administrative staff and costs will result for each option? I'd like to know how many properties in Torbay fall outside of our 10-minute ERS currently, and how many will fall outside after the proposed changes go ahead. Could I have numbers during the day, and then at night. Can I also please have total numbers, and the numbers that it changes by including a percentage increase if possible. I hope that makes sense.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised I understand that there is a second phase plan being discussed to close the Bovey Tracey Fire Station and merge it with Newton Abbot's at Forches Cross, once the Drumbridge to Newton Abbot road widening is completed. Can you confirm if this is planned for a future phase? They (councillors) wondered what the difference in response times would be if the planned closures went ahead and what station would serve Holcombe Burns, which mainly consists of Longdown, Exeter. People who are attempting to fill in the public consultation document are asking for an infographic for Seaton and Axminster so that they can compare it to Colyton's. As you have the figures available would it be possible to see those for Ivybridge as it would just give us a flavour of the callouts they have – mostly for road traffic accidents on A38 I imagine – knowing how many we have on a regular basis along this stretch. Also the co-responder call outs too as the fire service were/are often first to attend. The saving from option 1 is: 387,636 over three years equates to £1,162,908 together with the one-off capital saving of £3,325,000 makes a total three year saving of £4,487,908 The yearly cost of the 6 roving fire engines is £1,940,000 which equates to £5,820,000. Please can you tell me where the saving comes? And presumably the excess in cost will grow as you go into year 4 and 5?! Also, to clarify, you tell the people of colyton they will as safe with the removal of their fire service, but yet you are not able to let them know whether in fact any of the roving engines will be anywhere near colyton as you haven’t worked that out yet? How on earth can residents make informed decisions on unknown quantities. And how can you stand in front of people and say we will be safer when you do not know the facts yourselves? 1. Please clarify the relationship between cost savings and protection/prevention measures. Within each option, eg on page 26, you state that the P&P numbers are what could be achieved by reallocating the reduced outgoings to P&P activities - ie with zero net cost savings as I understand it. However, in the summary on page 43, you are presenting these as if both could be achieved,

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised rather than one or the other (or some of each). Option 6 reduces the overall cost savings by nearly £2m, which should greatly reduce the funds available for more P&P activities, but the numbers presented have risen rather than reduced. Is the summary wrong or have I misunderstood? 2. You do not attempt to quantify the potential risk reductions resulting from increased P&P activities. Is that possible? Without that, the increased numbers are pretty meaningless and it is impossible to judge the value of a proposal other than in £ terms. 3. As a retired analyst, I'd say the report appears well-written and based on a fairly sophisticated risk model. Was the model developed just for this document or was it using a wider/national standard basis? If the former, (a) was it independently audited, and (b) is there scope for sharing/developing a best-practice model across the country? 4. Finally, the introduction asserts that fires attended have fallen by more than a third in 10 years. On page 10, the data shows an 8% increase over the last 5 years so I deduce that there must have been a massive reduction in the previous 5 years. The introduction appears to be assuring us that everything is fine and no need to be worried by any service reductions, whereas the facts suggest the opposite is the case. Is the introduction wrong, or just deliberately misleading? • How soon following the consolation will the contract negotiations begin for the retained, as this will impact on savings. Would it be fair to say that until this happens, and you were to turn off 83P2 and a 2 pumps call was to happen then, this could incur further costings as you could end up alerting more staff than needed. • If Wells had the required amount on call for 2 pumps in the day and an incident occurred are there any protocol in place for this asset to be used or are the crews just to sign for an attendance and walk away. (this would be a hard pill to swallow if crews could assist) Has the decision taken into account the amount of development currently taking place? Whilst we understand the need to save money can you actually put a cost to savings that this has to the service, as we still need the Appliance we still need to train and maintain competence, we

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised still need to maintain the units available as it’s the intension for 83P2 to be crewed from 1800-0800 seven days a week. I am very concerned about the proposed on-call nightshift and ask firstly how many machines will be present overnight and how many qualified Fireman are required by your proposal to live within 5 minutes of the Station to man this/these machines Secondly how many Fireman actually at this time live within those 5 minutes of the Liverton Site which is not exactly in the centre of this area. Thirdly what is the total response time, under your proposal, for arrival at the furthest point normally to be covered by Exmouth Station at night and where is that point. I live in Hulham Vale, Exmouth and along with my neighbours would like to know the total response time at our address. Please can you email and explain how further appliances will be kept within distance to fill in the accessibility gap for a highly used tourist area with narrow lanes and the possibilies that arise from lack of knowledge of the area and tinder dry scrub and farmland? I have read your report on proposals to cut services in the county. I M unable to attend any of your public meetings so I wonder if you could answer a couple of questions please 1 Can you explain what is meant in your tables by the column Theoretical full availability ? 2 what influence will the consultation have on your actions or will you simply aim for the biggest cuts you can make ? With the proposed cutbacks I would like some more information, 1, the riv's what's the manpower for this vehicle and location around area 2, the station's not manned due to man power issues so vehicles off the road. 3, if Barnstaple loses the whole time and are just day manned, how are the specialist vehicles going to be used during the night, how are retained going to cover all of these vehicles 4, the man power of vehicles before they leave the station 5, FIRE PREVENTION you are going to cover this more, I didn't realise that all building's be it commercial or domestic all have sprinklers now, can the service really say when a fire is going to occur. When fires happen now they seem to be big and require a

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised lot of man power and vehicles, what happen when it happens in the same area how are you going to cope with losing so many vehicles and also manpower

Summary of main themes raised in email submissions – Alternatives and suggestions

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Alternatives/Suggestions

Other models 8 Combining Emergency Services Have you looked at other models in use around the world such as running a combined/shared fire and ambulance service for the smaller, more remote or not speedily accessible locations? This would be especially useful in North Devon with its scattered, mainly rural, population where response times can be negatively impacted by the large seasonal influx of holiday makers clogging up the narrow roads. Many health incidents require rapid transport to hospital regardless of whether a paramedic is present - as was the recent case at Croyde Bay involving coastguards … it may be worth engaging with organisations who have gone through similar transformation processes to see if there are lessons to be learned or ideas that you have not considered. The company that helped Kent Fire to make their improvements is Sopra Steria - it would be worth contacting Kent Fire or Sopra Steria or looking at the Sopra Steria website for further details Have you considered co - locating appliances with other public sector organisations e.g. having a joint ambulance / fire station or with a Highways agency depot or on MOD land – e.g. RMB Chivenor to cover Woolacombe in summer. This would free up sites which could be sold off for housing Where is the lateral thinking, e.g. connecting future services to other emergency services (e.g. could the Coastguard and Air Ambulance provide additional cover to negate the loss of local Firefighters?) or keeping local First Responders or increasing Emergency cover in the Tourist Season when demand is higher and traffic is more congested. With the location of police to the City Fire Station (in Wells) … Seems there is a possible mini Blue Light Hub, for the area. Since

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised the portacabin, next to the building is used by Westcountry Ambulance Service, it seems the announcement from Westcountry Ambulance Service, to changes to Shepton and Glastonbury. This seems to me a Blue Light Hub at the City Fire Station, could improve. Maybe the station (at Woolacombe) could incorporate the life guards and coast guards to provide a first class service. I see no reason not to explore sharing resources with Police Stations, Hospital sites, ambulance Stations or even other County Council-owned sites like highways depots so as to better position resources effectively. Combining Fire Services Have you considered a South West Fire Service eg to combine with Cornwall and therefore have savings from combining 'Head Office' functions? Other models If as we are told and I accept that risk profiles and communities have changed over the last few decades, then I would anticipate a strategy to be in place to see some Fire Stations relocate and indeed changes from the traditional resourcing model, including moving to full time 24/7/365 cover by Firefighters. Fire Stations could be established using modern developments in interim structures for example rather than being of a more permanent nature and be co-located within existing public sector/local authority estates. The opportunity exists to access funding by investing in On-Call development which has the potential to create funding of over £1,000,000.00 per annum. This funding out ways the proposed savings of closing the 8 on call stations. It also makes available positive operational hours that would be equal to 2 day crewed operational appliances. An additional benefit that our operational firefighters competence will rise across the service and increase firefighter safety. You cannot put a price on this. DSFRS say that closing 8 stations savings would provide 3034 fire safety checks. To put that in prospective that equates to less than 3 fire safety checks a year for each on call firefighter. During the workshops in the last few months our members were requesting to return this and other work to the stations. Giving this extra work to the stations will ensure operational crews work within

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised their area rather than seeking extra employment out of the station area. The FRSA also wish to raise the use of aggregate crewing across two stations. This would ensure the minimum crew would be achieved between the two stations that are locate close to each other. If you vote to close one station it will not repair the availability issues at the other one!

Income generating ideas 2 Have you considered renting the roof of a fire station out to a renewable energy company to put solar panels on it or even a wind turbine on the land Why are we still paging everyone to come in for a bin fire etc. It's a small thing, won't save thousands, but we should be able to page a crew not the whole station. Maybe we should be charging for cat up a tree etc. Cow in slurry pit, horse in ditch

Modern Technology 1 Making use of modern technology may be one answer such as using drones to establish the type and location of a fire so that the minimum of appliances can be sent. If a fire engine is needed then a fire engine is needed – you can’t make do with a stirrup pump and a bucket.

Make provisions for the future 1 My conversation with a senior fire service representative at our Woolacombe village hall elicited that the ‘estates department’ would endeavour to ensure to secure the ‘best return’ for the service by the decommissioning of these facilities. Once again selling the family silver … I was informed that this ‘best return’ might be realised by securing planning permission on decommissioned stations so that the plot(s) can be sold on at the best profit. In the case of Woolacombe, where the site is owned by the National Trust, it was suggested that the building could be re- purposed for commercial use … I have suggested in my response to the consultation that closed stations should be mothballed against a time when they can (and will need to be when the proposed housing and population growth in the area is considered) be re-commissioned and re-equipped. I realise this might not make such of a short-term big-dollar reward, but this whole exercise should not be about short-term planning but a well-considered strategy for the future.

Address difficulties in recruiting and 2 Having a variety of lower hours contracts available … would boost retaining on-call fire fighters the retained staff numbers. Currently my partner works a normal

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised 7.30-4.30 job Monday-Friday, but then does not have enough free time after he has covered his retained hours to be able to go away for a weekend. Many possible retained staff have been put off applying by the 84-hour contracts All retained staff should be trained in all the skills (driver, in charge, etc.). This way, if there are 4 people, it doesn't matter which 4 people, the pump is on the run … this removes the pressure off any individual, as everyone is equally qualified. I know of firefighters that have left the service due to the pressure of always being in charge. Retained fire fighters do not get weekends or bank holidays off. Yet if they want to take 3.5 days of holiday, they have to use 7 days of annual leave. This is a ridiculous system. Initial training takes up a huge amount of normal working hours … If you want to encourage people to join the service, and stay with the service, courses for retained staff need to be offered at weekends. Constantly training new staff because the fire service is not flexible and accommodating enough … must be a huge expense. I have heard of firefighters attending courses and having their car keys taken off of them so that they cannot return to their homes in the evening. It seems that the training staff may need … reminding that this is a modern fire service, not the army I would question whether a better funded retained service (with a professional recruitment campaign) would be viable, using some of the reserve fund to overcome recruiting issues?

A longer consultation period/ a new 6 (We) request you use your authority to return the proposal for consultation more detailed options before it goes to public consultation. My simple request is that either yourself or a senior colleague meet with representative members from the Wellington area to discuss your Safer Together Proposals. This needs to be reviewed and halted before it is too late See sense. Rethink the whole thing, including the slogan and you you'll get the public on your side. Make it clear to people that the cuts are out of your hands. What a PR disaster. If these documents (updated risk assessments moved at FA meeting in June) are not readily available, we request that the

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised consultation process be stopped until such time that all information is visible and readily available to the public. I was shocked to see that the document does not reflect the amendments passed at Fire Authority meeting last Friday. It is the opinion of the FBU, that the added option 7, that was not agreed by the fire authority, does not satisfy the condition set out in the amendment b) passed on Friday … I see no other course of action than to cease the consultation until such times as the serious concerns that the amendment sought to address are properly considered.

More thorough forecasting and 1 The population in the Authority area is not only growing but is planning also getting older and your own projections indicate the extent of this rapidly increasing challenge. In a similar context, the ability to crew fire stations in rural locations also can change, often quite suddenly, year on year. This sort of scenario, of the forecast of greater, not lesser demands upon the Service need to be weighed carefully by the Fire Authority before any effect is given to change.

Crewing suggestions 9 Why downgrade 24-hour wholetime crewed stations to day-time crewing? The case is made for increasing lifesaving cover out of hours so why not night-time crewing and, if that cannot be accommodated into working practices, why not just community retained cover for the 24 hours? Are there smarter ways to address crewing number? Sending additional hands via a car for example rather than an engine? Sending fewer crew in an appropriately sized/equipped vehicle for smaller incidents? If you can fix the retained system, the service will become more efficient and cost effective. Currently the majority of DSFRS fire stations are retained, so clearly this is the key area to increase efficiency … there will be less need to pay people to sit in other fire stations earning lots of money on an hourly rate because there aren't enough local people to keep pumps on the run. Most of these difficulties revolve around crewing shortages in the 'on call' sector and the answer is not to cut services but to embark on a concentrated recruitment programme which will take into account the changing employment factors in our area … Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service need to address any ways and means by which new recruits can be encouraged to join this

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised most valuable service. Perhaps more flexible employment contracts would help? Perhaps focusing more effort in the retained Fire Fighter recruitment and making the statistics fairer for the station would help reflect the real value of our station (Woolacombe) I understand that Barnstaple has little problem recruiting but have the salary scheme in place. In addition, especially in Woolacombe, more could be done to financially incentivise the few employers that employ young people. (Campsites, bars etc). Were the employers able to get some small compensation, whilst feeling they were part of a solution, much could be done. There is also a lot more traffic on the roads in the areas you are proposing to close stations in eg Appledore and Woolacombe. Could you for example move an additional appliance to (say) Barnstaple in winter, but move it to Appledore / Woolacombe in summer to minimise risk Combined crewing: If two nearby fire crews are both off the run, but together they could form a crew, then this idea would see the combined crew being able to turn out to an incident. The retained staff know the system inside out. This may mean that the service needs to become more flexible, and perhaps have a different approach for each fire station, as they each have local differences Being able to mix fire stations … if a retained fire fighter lives near one station, but works near another, they could cover or add to their hours in this way. I wonder whether with the proposed closure of Porlock you don’t make Minehead a wholetime station as it will cover a much larger population, particularly in summer.

Alternative/additional closures 2 Why maintain Newton Abbott which can be covered from Torquay? Better to keep a third appliance at Torquay and close the station completely? I think two pump stations should go to one pump. Half the time second pump is off the run.

Phased implementation 1 Given the potential number of changes and the uncertainty of effectiveness or viability, a phased implementation, rather than a 'big bang' approach would seem wise … more easily managed, but new concepts can be trialled (i.e. one roving appliance to start

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised with). And public concern and fears can be moderated and responded to.

Make a stand against government 2 Resist austerity and fight further cuts - The Population and risks in cuts and depletion of services both counties are increasing, not decreasing … Lobby central government for additional funding. The population in the South West increases significantly during the summer months … In addition to the Fire Service, Hospital Casualty departments and the Police need sufficient funding to provide an effective service Provide better security, increase deterrent, reduce arson, investigate - Put Police Officers on the ground. I understand the Government have pledged more support for other rescue services, so why not lobby again for more backing to support the Fire Service and prevent the closure of much needed stations

Questions to DSFRS about the risk 3 Why was it necessary to devise a new Risk model when other Fire model services use existing Standard Risk models - were any existing models considered and rejected - if so why?

If the modelling used the station data … which is incomplete, then is the model valid?

Have the models been subjected to independent review by experts outside of Devon and Somerset or HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and approved as being valid and without deficiencies? Given the full range of reductions in service delivery that might result from this consultation; what has been done to map contingency capability? You say that all stations will be affected – some directly and others with secondary changes, such as increase in response requirements. What other secondary changes will affect stations? Can you provide evidence of activity levels of the wholetime stations and which on call stations are you comparing them to when referring to risk and activity? Please provide the risk profiles of all these stations (WT and on call) and how and when this information was collected? On the proposal of removing 2nd pumps during the daytime you say that this reflects the fact that risk profiles have changed in many towns and we don’t need to provide two pumps during the

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised day. Can you please provide the risk profiles for these affected areas and how and when this information was collected

More data presented with Options 2 (Add) a risk change column to each option; and then the savings, P&P, and risk figures are calculated for each element at the bottom of the table: station closures; fire engine relocated; third engines removed etc. … this will enable us to look at the data and say, ‘yes this is doable and makes a saving’, let’s vote that through, then for other options we may feel the data is less clear cut and draw more on the consultation findings. It would be great to see the consultation responses grouped by these elements as well rather than along the options lines. This is the only way we can make informed judgements for option 7. It’s likely the closures will be the big sticking point so it would also be useful to have some key risk and savings data per station. Some will be minimal savings and others greater. That will help us judge if we might want to retain some and not others. And finally, for the roving engines, we need a risk and cost for different numbers of engines. It might be there is a threshold of engines (e.g. 3) which makes them risk-cost effective, but it would be good to know that. Some additional information will be very helpful in understanding why station closures, and particularly in Porlock, should be supported by its residents and those who are serviced therefrom.

More robust and rigorous risk 3 I strongly believe we need resilience and reflexivity in our risk modelling needed/independent modelling and the current setup cannot provide this. It is a poor review needed use of staff time to run scenarios by hand. If the software exists that can automate this and allow configuration of parameters, then I believe that should be secured asap. What would be the process for expediting this? We should be able to adapt to changing risk profiles and it be a matter or pressing go on the software and churning out the data. We will want this for changing climate change risk, for any change in fire incidence, for changing RTC risk on roads where usage changes, for growing communities, for changing commercial distribution, for future consideration of station location and staffing patterns. All of this should be computable in a much faster and more manageable way. I strongly believe this is indispensable for risk-matched- resource system.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised Please have the document withdrawn and postpone the consultation until a revised document can be published showing full, accurate and honest details of the impact of these cuts. I understand from the FRSA that some of the data used to support these proposals is at best flawed and feel that it should be independently analysed.

Listen to staff 1 The service needs to listen to … retained staff … many ideas are suggested but not even considered. For example, the idea of combined crewing. If two nearby fire crews are both off the run, but together they could form a crew, then this idea would see the combined crew being able to turn out to an incident. The retained staff know the system inside out. This may mean that the service needs to become more flexible, and perhaps have a different approach for each fire station, as they each have local differences

Alternative Options 2 It does seem that the closing of a fire station, and particularly Porlock, is not the first place to seek cost savings. Clearly the apparent over-provision of fire engines with annual savings of £273,458 coupled with capital savings of £2.4 millions is a good place to start (difference between Option 1 and 3) … It seems to me that in the first instance a reallocation of plant and machinery would make the most sense. Does the fire service still rely on paperwork for administration purposes or can they fulfil these requirements using a laptop or smartphone app supported by automated back end processing?

Options appraisal 1 Andy Wright Director ASV … appears to be the lynch pin, in a most circular way, of the (Consultation) Institute. He studied at Liverpool John Moores University. My questions in bold. 1. a. Given that he/ASV Ltd is "commissioned to facilitate 4 focus groups and options appraisal workshop, produce findings report’ “what subject did he read at LJMU? b. What was his degree? It is not stated on Linked In. c. Will c1. the professional firefighters c2. those others who have contributed to the consultation have sight of this man's 'findings report' before any conclusions are made by the Fire Authority and likely errors then made good?

Use financial reserves 1 I understand government are making cuts to your Revenue Support Grant in the region of £7m. However, usable reserves are increasing on average by £4 million every year (for the last seven

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised years). This is almost 60% towards the saving you need to make. DSFRS hold £39m in usable reserves … use some … to save some of our fire engines. If we used all our reserves (which I know is unrealistic) we wouldn't have to make any of these cuts for 40 years!

Make savings through cutting 2 Around 50 Ford Kuga 4X4 cars have been obtained for Officer vehicles Provision. Are there really that many officers who need such a luxury status vehicle when Firefighters are driving glorified bread vans? Plymouth runs an underused Fire Boat which few comparable ports bother to have. This is an expensive luxury which is not necessary and if decommissioned would save a considerable amount of money. When it comes to saving money and possibly jobs. I struggle to understand why the fireboat still exists in its current form … The boat does not get shouts, it is not able to be operated in a meaningful way. Even when a local boy was missing in the Tamar and all local boats were out looking for him, the fire boat was not called upon. The local dockyard and local business has far superior capabilities available. As far as providing a rescue capability for our own firefighters, we have RHIBs at Station 48 and a much better RHIB mothballed in storage that seems to be off limits to everybody. This in itself is a massive waste of an asset. The cost of the fire boat must dwarf its use … the fire boat is a giant white elephant. Unless it is an immediate turn out asset (which it will never be) and manned with a qualified crew, it is just a gesture. This is not just a waste of money but a potentially dangerous hazard. I have been a coxswain for several years now and crew for 16. I have never been impressed with the way the boat is operated. Crew do not have any ongoing training record or system and as far as I’m aware, the boat doesn’t feature on any computer competency record … It’s an expensive, dangerous ineffective unused asset and there are other much cheaper, more immediate alternatives already present

More partnership working 7 Instead of closures, the service needs to be more proactive and robust. Look at how the stations can work together to provide cross cover; look at what other services they can provide to ensure public safety, look at how they can work more effectively with SWAST to improve on attendance times and patient outcome.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised I suggest that the reductions in incidents requiring fire services is a result of a successful and efficient use of resources. To reduce these resources while possibly saving money, may be counterproductive. I would like to see our wonderful fire officers being given additional skills such as first responder, first aider skills. They could then supplement the ambulance service and at times when not answering fire calls, could be called upon for other emergencies. This would require a coordination of all emergency services. Rethink- retain and retrain firefighters to help in other emergency areas. Maybe offer incentives if they support the local police, ambulance, coastguard or doctor’s surgery. I presume you have covered all the low hanging fruit of saving money by joint procurement with other Fire Authorities and the Police and Ambulance service. If you haven't you should be looking at better buying where you buy the same kit eg computers, stationery etc. Have you considered/investigated sharing back office services with other emergency services eg the police and/or ambulance service? This approach has been successfully adopted by Kent Police and Fire and Rescue and has increased efficiency and public safety and saved in the region of 2 million pounds in the process. I’m sure you are aware of JESIP (Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Programme) and how important joint emergency service working is. West Midlands ambulance service recently have lost the rapid response vehicles in the community at local standby points at fire stations and this has had a huge impact on lives of individuals, not to mention the police in this area have also been relocated to large “hubs” reducing the amount of vehicles stationed in the community. Western Power Distribution … keep a “Priority Service Register” which records a large number of customers who would be vulnerable in case of loss of power … from those on home dialysis to people with dementia. The water and gas distributors are also required to keep such a register and there are ongoing efforts to unify these. On home visits, your staff would be in a position to suggest to vulnerable people that they could sign up.

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Cut spending on unnecessary/non- 1 A significant amount of resources are devoted to road accident statutory programme: road accident prevention services … it seems that Devon and Somerset FRS are prevention content to channel resources on this aspect of work … an activity that it is not required to provide, and the statutory responsibility rests with a different public authority … it is not a public service that a fire and rescue service is required to provide … The local authority is responsible and funded for prevention and reduction, whilst the fire and rescue authority is responsible and funded for emergency response and rescue in the event of such accidents occurring. Few fire and rescue authorities undertake road safety prevention work FoI questions: 1. Does Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Authority approve which non-statutory services that its Fire and Rescue Service (FRS) provide? 2. Has Devon and Somerset FRA been advised that road accident prevention is the statutory duty of local authorities and not the FRA? If so, please provide a reference to the advice provided to the FRA. 3. Has Devon and Somerset FRA approved the road accident prevention programme provided by its FRS? If so; - please provide reference to the FRA approval. 4. What is the financial cost of the road accident prevention programme provided by Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service, including staff costs, for the financial year 2018/19? 5. Do the local authorities that hold the statutory responsibility for road accident prevention within the area of the Devon and Somerset FRA, contribute to the FRS for the road accident prevention services it has chosen to deliver? If so, what was the financial contribution made to the FRS by each of the Local Authorities in the area of the FRA for the road accident prevention programme for the financial year 2018/19?

Super Station at Clyst St. George 1 Close Exmouth, Topsham, Exeter, Budleigh Salterton, and Sidmouth; Make Clyst St George a superstation which would easily serve all of the locations I have mentioned. Use staff much more efficiently like every other business has to. (including Police and councils)

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised

Premises sharing / co-location of 1 If … risk profiles and communities have changed over the last few roles decades then I would anticipate a strategy to be in place to see some Fire Stations relocate and indeed changes from the traditional resourcing model, including moving to full time 24/7/365 cover by Firefighters. Fire Stations could be established using modern developments in interim structures for example rather than being of a more permanent nature and be co-located within existing public sector/local authority estates. This type of strategy is conspicuous by its absence.

Aggregate Crewing 1 Aggregate crewing - combine station crew to ensure the minimum threshold of hours is covered for any shifts and incidents. We understand this has not been explored or considered as part of the Safer Together campaign

Alternative revenue generation 3 Instead of always projecting the idea of saving money, why don't we start looking at making money … I understand that some stations have to close, but instead of closing them down why don't we re-use them and make profit from what they actually are … have them as adult training venues like the academy but for adults looking at either going into whole-time roles or the more extreme ideology of a firefighter experience for a week long period or as a weekend experience? In addition to their limited time on station, they could undertake a week-long contract as a volunteer thus keeping that specific station with a limited capacity for fire calls, but a capacity all the same. At best this would be a great PR event for the service, along with one which could bring in and make a lot of capital once all the safe systems of work are in place. I would look more holistically at the problem. The fire stations in neither Bideford nor Appledore are conveniently located to cover the maximum number of households in the area in the shortest time. This will be even more true when the Northern Devon local building plans are taken into consideration. However, both are on prime real estate. Rebuild a fire station near Heywood's Roundabout, Bideford side of Torridge Bridge, near where the vets has moved to. Once built and operational it would be far more convenient for a lot of Bideford, Appledore, Northam, Instow, East the Water and Westward Ho, and easier to help out with response to fires and car accidents at Bucks, Mills, Clovelly, Hartland, Yelland, Fremington, Barnstaple and Torrington. To pay for the

Number Sub-Theme of times Main Issues and Example Comments raised new build, which would also release resources in terms of fire appliances, manpower, etc., sell off the old stations for housing – they are in perfect locations for homes

2 We are an emergency service, the definition of emergency is “A Roving fire engines serious, unexpected, situation requiring immediate action”. Therefore, the reason for having roving appliances is they can provide cover where is it in demand. How is that possible to an unexpected situation? Also having 6 pumps on the go all day every day will surely have a very negative effect towards the environment. I believe that for HGV to be driven safely throughout the day, they would need to have a tacho. If this was to apply to the roving appliances, has the additional cost been taken into consideration as extra skill sets would be needed for the crew so that there would be enough drivers during the shift, as one would not be enough? What education will be done to develop area knowledge in firefighters working on roving engines? Is there any more concrete information about what this plan will look like in practice?

Appendix 3

Alternatives suggested by questionnaire respondents

Comments that have been identified as explaining specific alternatives to one or more aspects of the proposals

1 keep Topsham where it is but 1 pump, it will cost more to move it and recruit again. 2 keep Ashburton, its location provides good access on the A38 and also a backup pump to Buckfastleigh. 3 3rd appliances are at urban stations where recruitment is a lot easier, 3rd appliances are normally old hand me downs, the cost saving won't make any real difference by just housing it there.

1. Removal of 3rd appliances. Excessive resource for risk 2. Change of status to day crewing at Exmouth, Barnstaple and Paignton. Not sufficient activity at these stations to justify the cost to run. Money savings could be used to improve pay and conditions for on-call staff Disagree 1. Station Closures - insufficient gain for risk 2. Removal of second appliances - this should not be considered until on-call staff pay and conditions have been modernised to better enable understanding of availability Additional Suggestion See attached relocation of appliance to SHQ suggestion (text copied below) Relocation of appliance from Topsham to SHQ on weekdays From 09:00 to 17:00 Monday to Friday most of the on-call staff at Topsham are working at SHQ. these staff frequently travel together in one or more vehicles to Topsham at normal road-speed to turn out in V45P1 and often come back the same way. The daytime traffic congestion and rail crossing can often increase turnout time well above the targeted 5 minutes. If there was an appliance at SHQ crewed by SHQ staff on Mon-Fri 09:00-17:00 it could turn out in 2 minutes. Benefits * From a value for money perspective, taxpayers are getting a day crewed pump at on call costs. * It sets a great example to other employers around releasing on-call staff while at work. * There is the potential reduction in operational staff in support roles at SHQ an opportunity to undertake operational duties and maintain competence and/or supplement on-call contracts at other stations * Supports potential reduction in operational response capability due to other safer together proposals (e.g. closure of Budleigh Salterton station and daytime removal of second appliances at Honiton, Sidmouth, Tiverton and Crediton). Context This option could be used regardless of whether Topsham station stays open or is relocated to Middlemoor or SHQ 24x7x365 Practicalities * The management team at Station 60 have identified that they could free up an appliance bay * ICT have indicated that mobilisation equipment at Station 60 could be modified at very minimal cost to support this option

I think that Topsham could lose its second appliance but remain open so that it can continue to provide vital support to Middlemoor and its community. I worry about stations like Crediton losing its second appliance as a full PDA will be next to impossible to achieve in the event of a confirmed incident. If a full PDA cannot be achieved in the appropriate timeframe, losing a second appliance is not acceptable. Third appliances could be lost as long as PDA and full attendance can be achieved from neighbouring stations.

Would consider Street & Glastonbury review and potential Bampton Closure. Look at how holiday resorts would be effected if cover were to be reduced significantly in the tourist industry. Phased alerting consideration to 2 pump stations.

Option 1 can work without the closure of Topsham and the relocation of the Ashburton engine to another station to ensure adequate cover.

Budleigh should close. Exmouth should absorb the Budleigh fire fighters on a retained basis only with existing staff. A roving appliance should support crews where stations have been closed, particularly during peak season. Consideration of motorway/A road RTC's must be given when looking at stations proximity to these roads. Full time staff must accept and respect retained staff.

Changing wholetime stations to day crewed would see big savings and also little impact on response and risk. The only station the service should look at closing is Topsham, move 1 appliance to HQ and the other appliance to Middlemoor. Cover in Exeter will not be reduced, given all stations are seeing a rise in call outs. There will be a 2 minute response time from HQ in the day when HQ staff crew it. In the evenings and weekends Topsham crew can crew it. All the facilities are available at HQ and it would cost nothing to move it. Could also look at crewing the High Volume Pump at USAR and maybe some other specials to help USAR out.

You have a big issue with staffing on call which can only be address by looking at either the reward or condensing it down. A lot of the stations are old and must cost a fortune in upkeep. Either look at the conditions of on call and raise the money to make it more attractive or look at moving the fire stations. Appledore could easily be serviced by Bideford, but Bideford fire station location isn't great. Its on a prime development site that could fetch significant money. Look for somewhere on the road heading towards Appledore where a new station can be built in conjunction with the police and ambulance so you can pool resources save a fortune on the building and long term upkeep, share the site for training and split the costs 3 ways. Rainwater harvesting, solar panels and make the building as cheap to run as possible. Straight away you have got rid of 2 fire stations, your sharing the upkeep and costs with the ambulance and police. You have a new facility that will cost virtually nothing to run and is being utilised as opposed to fire stations which spend half of there life doing nothing. The existing fire fighters at Appledore could slot into the rota as well so your not losing highly trained fire fighters. This is just an example but there is a serious lack of investment into buildings. Continuing to use old buildings that cost a fortune and are in appalling places in a lot of cases with no parking etc to me makes no sense.

I would relocate Topsham fire station to Cyst St George. Its because it is nearer to the Topsham site.

My choice and suggestion; - DO NOT CLOSE ANY FIRE STATION. - Remove third Appliances from Torquay, Taunton, Yeovil and Bridgwater. - Change Paignton, Exmouth and Barnstaple back to day crewed Stations. - Reduce Topsham to a one pump station without moving or closing. I DO NOT support any Station closures on the basis of this having a negative impact on the service delivery to communities. The information provided in the consultation document is very misleading and inaccurately labelling these stations as 'low activity stations'. It is not acceptable to reduce fire cover by way of closing fire stations and increasing response times to these communities. 1 life lost from any of these communities would be a life too many. I currently have immediate fire cover in my town and wish this to remain so if I have to settle for losing a fire appliance from my fire station I will but I demand one fire appliance remain at Topsham fire station. There may not be many minutes delay for a Wholetime appliance to get to Topsham from Middlemoor but if this Wholetime Appliance is already at another incident then I truly believe I will be waiting for at least 20 minutes which is not good enough. I would accept removal of third appliances from the 4 stations and changing the 3 Wholetime stations to day manned crewing. Having 3 fire appliances on one station appears, on the face of it to be a little excessive for these areas. Changing the crewing from 24/7 to day crew at these 3 stations

would free up money in savings to carry out prevention work. Although you state this is all about matching resources to risk there is clearly a money saving/ cost cutting drive behind these proposals. I view these proposals to be a crime against the public you serve as the is reportedly approximately ï¿½37 million in the reserve pot within Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service which could be tapped into instead of proposing to close fire stations and remove appliances.

I am a resident of Topsham and would like to make an input into the six options that are currently being proposed to improve the efficiency of DSFRS. Firstly, I draw your attention to the attached spread-sheet which I produced analysing the six options and using the capital and revenue savings set out in the consultation document. With regard specifically to the revenue savings, I have assumed that as these come predominantly from salaries and maintenance costs that they will very likely be repeated into the future and that a reasonable estimation of their value should be made to more accurately appreciate the overall economic savings from each of the options. Assuming that these revenue savings will continue to be made until at least the middle term, say, 12 or more years then taking into account an estimate for DSFRS's cost of capital - I've assumed a conservative 7% and for wage growth circa 2% CPI - I suggest a reasonable multiplier of 10 can be employed to calculate the true overall economic value of each of the revenue savings associated with each of the six options. If the multiplied revenue savings are then combined with the one off capital savings the total overall economic saving from each option can be deduced. From the spreadsheet it can be seen that Option I, the closure of the eight fire stations, generates an overall saving of £7.7 million, Option 2 generates an overall saving of £9.9million, etc. The spreadsheet then takes the delta between each option to determine the added economic saving from the additional change imputed in each option. So, for example, the added economic saving from the removal of all third fire engines in Option 2, is £2.7million etc. Thus from this table it can be seen that by far and away the option with the greatest potential saving is Option 4 with a saving of £19.1 million from the change of status to day crewing in the Barnstaple, Paignton and Exmouth stations. And that the change of status to on-call at night only for second fire engines in Option 5 will also save an additional £3.4 million resulting in a potential £22.5 million overall saving from switching to retained crewing wherever possible i.e., Option 4 £19.1 + Option 5 £3.4. Thus these numbers indicate that the first priority (or first Option) for DSFRS to improve efficiency should be to see wherever possible they can switch from full time manning to retained; i.e., combined Option 4 & 5, without significant additional risk to the public or property. The next priority should be the optimisation of ownership and deployment of fire engines; i.e., the removal of all third engines £2.7m and some second engines £2.3 million - a total of £5 million. (Option 2 and 3). Finally the last priority should be the closure of the eight stations in Option 1 - a possible saving of £7.7million. The introduction of day crewed roving fire engines (Option 6) looks to be a backward step at an additional cost of £19.4 million. As I live in Topsham my main concern is with the possible closure of Topsham station. The current proposal is that Topsham is closed and one of its engines and its retained crews transferred to Middlemoor to act as second engine/crew there. To me this proposal looks problematic as I understand that there are currently few retained crew living near Middlemoor (as it is full time crewed) and that therefore the second engine if moved there will have to be manned largely by the current Topsham retained crews. As by definition they all live within 4 minutes of Topsham station most will find it difficult to travel to Middlemoor in the required time, especially during peak traffic times. And as it takes years to recruit and retain a new retained crew this will imply a substandard second engine service from Middlemoor for a substantial period, which could seriously adversely impact the residents of Topsham and surrounds. Additionally the cost of training a new recruit is significant as they have to be trained to the same standard as full time crew which can takes over 18 months. Has DSFRS taken into account the cost of recruiting and training new retained recruits for Middlemoor to man the proposed transferred Topsham

engine? Topsham station ground is admittedly a small area with only 20 call outs in 2018 to incidents within that small area, which might imply that it is seldom active. However, this statistic is somewhat misleading as over the year Topsham station had a total of 218 shouts of which 156 were jobs and 62 were standby, with most of these admittedly outside its deemed station ground area. And activity in 2019 looks to be increasing over 2018. Topsham is not a quiet station. As Topsham station is in a very visible position in the centre of the town, if it was reduced to one engine (which might well make sense), then the space made available could be usable for displays to help educate the passing public about preventative measures and also help advertise and assist with the recruitment of more retained crew. I used to work with BP as a senior TAX & Finance manager with a special interest in the economic evaluation of projects. I was therefore surprised to see that DSFRS do not seem to employ the standard discounted cash flow approach to help it analyse the costs and benefits of these proposed options - as this method is the one normally employed by most large commercial businesses in similar circumstances. I am also rather puzzled by the manner of the presentation of the six options as there is no option that does not assume closure of the eight stations. The inference I take from this is that for some unknown reason DSFRS have already made up their minds to close these stations and that the other options such as crew manning and engine location optimisation/removal are secondary and optional to these closures. My analysis would seem to suggest just the opposite. Firstly that the most important option for DSFRS would to move to greater retained manning wherever they can without risk to the public or property, with the removal of redundant engines as a secondary additional option. These two options could potentially save more than three times any savings from the station closures! Station closures should only be considered after these first two options have been thoroughly worked through, and only then when they do not adversely impact the recruitment and retention of retained crews. Finally, if nonetheless it is decided to shut Topsham, would it not be better to transfer one engine to SHQ rather than Middlemoor, as facilities already exist there to house an engine, some retained staff already work there (which would help with quicker daytime response times), and most existing Topsham retained crews could still travel there within the required times. SHQ is also in a good geographic location to serve the Exmouth area, which would have had a reduced service.

I can honestly say that I don't think any part of these solutions offered will be of advantage to Woolacombe. Why break what isn't broke? If you have managed to read my hurried writing when answered all of your points you will see that I speak from experience. This is not N.I.M.B.Y I understand cuts and costs will always be with us. But they should not be considered when lives are at cost. If there was a new station at Mullacott Cross which could be of use to local surroundings then that would be an option.

Keep an appliance at Ashburton (and staff). Cut back the service where there is a nearby sizeable town, i.e. Paignton, Budleigh Salterton etc. Make sure Dartmouth has proper cover. The ferry doesn't run after midnight so Dartmouth is isolated at night.

I have outlined my response to each option above, I feel that some of the decisions are reliant on alternative outcomes and they are so intrinsically linked that it is difficult to split them apart. Below is a basic overview of my preferences - Close - Appledore, Budleigh, Topsham, Woolacombe and Kingston Leave open but operate differently, eg vehicle and crewing Porlock, Colyton and Ashburton Remove P3 and P5s - agree Remove Seconds - Agree but consider reallocation of some specials. Day Crewing - I believe we should leave these stations to provide 24/7 cover but look at different/more flexible duty systems. Turn off seconds - ensure we have suitable technology and duty systems first to realise the benefits of doing this option. Roving Appliances - disagree, give better ownership to our stations and finance to support improved protection and prevention work.

If you are serious about working together, the Fire, Ambulance and Police should see if something can be work out to have a joint operation from Mullacott Cross Industrial Estate. Ilfracombe Police and Fire stations appear to be under used, the Ambulance appear to need of a better facility. Ilfracombe police station, Ilfracombe, Woolacombe and Combe Martin fire stations could all be sold to finance a modern unit at Mullacott. A specialist vehicle would provide a join fire and paramedic facility for almost any emergency apart from a fire. Access to West Ilfracombe would be on A361, East Ilfracombe on B3230. Woolacombe on B3343 and Combe Martin on B3133. It would put all of your roving staff in a central place to be better deployed. If you mean Safer Together there's your chance to prove Safer together.

This is how my service would look; I would close the following stations; Ashburton, Budleigh Salterton, Topsham, Colyton, Woolacombe and Appledore (These can easily be covered by other stations). I would keep Porlock open due to the potential response times from an alternative station and I would keep Kingston as this is a volunteer station so savings by closing would be less and the response time from another location would be close to breaching the service ERS. In addition to the above, I would consider closing Crediton and Totnes and cover these areas from other whole time stations such (Torquay and Paignton). I would remove the third appliance at least from Bridgwater, Taunton, Torquay and Yeovil and the second appliances from Lynton and Martock. (As suggested above, if you were to close Totnes and Crediton you would then have the saving of 4 fire engines or you could reinvest these into roving engines to add to the six suggested to make 10!). I would keep Barnstaple, Exmouth and Paignton as they are. The 14 stations that are considered as part of option 5, I think need to be reviewed. I would have thought some of these could have their second appliance removed? If they are only providing on call cover at night, surely the crewing of these appliances during this time are reduced too?

Topsham - 1 pump stays 1 x pump - H.Q.? 1 x pump - Middlemoor who will staff this pump, as fire fighters from Topsham cannot respond to Middlemoor due to the length of time it will take to respond. Kingston - come on what is the saving? Roving fire engines not got a clue how you would crew or manage this.

If you do any of the options, then provided option 1 is withdrawn there is clearly some scope for a combination of all or any of options 2 to 5 that do not involve closure of Kingston or preferably and other station. Option 6 does not attract me.

Reduce all stations to 2 engines and introduce the roving engines. No changing the crewing options, especially in Barnstaple as the population is growing rapidly and if you close Woolacombe and Appledore then Barnstaple would need to respond to more calls and would need to be crewed 24/7. If you had to close one in North Devon, I'd suggest Appledore as long as Bideford was full time crewed with at least 2 engines. I choose this because it is easier to get to Appledore from Bideford than it is to get to Woolacombe from either Barnstaple or Ilfracombe.

If Station 45 Topsham is closed: I would propose that a Appliance be based at SHQ/Station 60. This appliance can be crewed by operational staff based at SHQ (2 min turnout), essentially giving the Service a Day Crewed Station (during normal working days). In evenings, weekends & bank holidays, this appliance can be crewed by the staff from Topsham. This gives the staff an option of responding to SHQ instead of redundancy. There is also a potential for this crew to assist with specialist services for Station 60 - High Volume Pump... etc.

Station Closures Appledore - Yes Woolacombe - Yes Budleigh Salterton - Yes Kingston - Yes Colyton - Yes Topsham - Yes, I also agree with one appliance going to Middlemoor, but I suggest the other pump is not removed but relocated to Station 60. This will offer a good response during the working day and will be

available for stand by moves and relief crew at other times, especially during spate conditions. This appliance should be a RIV. Ashburton - No. This station should have a RIV with a reduced crewing model which Porlock are already working. This will enable them the work with neighbouring stations for attribute based response. Bovey Tracey has a high activity special appliance and will need support to crew. Porlock - No. This low activity station is already working with a reduced crew allowing a lower establishment figure. I do suggest the specialist wildfire unit is relocated to Lynton as Porlock will not have the ability to crew both appliances. This is a more suitable location to cover the potential risk. It could also act as a light strategic vehicle to support the main pumping appliance if the second is removed. Third Pumps Removals Yes to all of them . They offer little to reduce the risk. Second Pumps Yes to all of them, However; Relocate the water bowser from Yeovil to Martock Relocate wildfire unit from Porlock to Lynton Totnes and Crediton are already successfully crewing specialist appliances. Turning off Second Appliances During the Day Not a good idea. Pay for availability with the required crew, if the second appliance is not available it shouldn't cost anything and will naturally save money. The local ORMs can recruit to suit risk and requirement. The appliance cost is a constant cost. Day Crewing No to day crewing Exmouth, Barnstaple and especially Paignton due to the vulnerable groups who live there. An alternative could be flexible self-rostering and adjust crewing levels to suit the risk. This will reduce WDS establishments and offer savings or opportunity to reinvest in prevention activities. The estimated number of WDS posts available would be greater than the proposed day crewing. Station Crew Number Rationale Greenbank 4 + 4 Supported by neighbouring WDS stations and On Call appliances Crownhill 4 Camelshead 5 (SRT) Torquay 4 Supported by neighbouring WDS stations and On Call appliances Paignton 4 Danes Castle 4 Supported by neighbouring WDS stations and On Call appliances Middlemoor 4 Exmouth 4 Barnstaple 5 (SRT) Leave as 5 due to being the only WDS station in North Devon Taunton 4 Supported by neighbouring WDS stations and On Call appliances Bridgwater 5 (SRT) Yeovil 4 Supported by a reliable On Call appliance Roving Appliances I agree with the proposal, but I suggest these appliances are RIVs with a crew of two or three Business Safety trained officers. A reduced crew would then not deny an on-call station of attending an incident in their area which could potentially lower morale.

How about closing more rural stations, such as Chagford, as their population is small and fire and RTC incidents are small

This will be the obvious choice. There is no justification in keeping stations open that can't be available. Those stations that can constantly crew third and second appliances should be allowed to keep the resources subject to all activity being taken into account. E.g. support of incidents through relief/standbys and supporting other stations as the second appliance. Woolacombe, Topsham, Ashburton should remain open. Kingston, should sadly close. Budleigh should relocate to Exmouth. I don't know enough about the other stations to comment.

This option seems very sensible rather than each option being predicated on those before. In order to save money/re-allocate resources, I would support removal of all third and some second appliances and the switching off of some during the days. I would want the station closures to be the 'last resort' and only at the 1 or 2 where activity is SO low, that keeping them open is potentially hard to justify. I would like to see posts released (by introduction of a new duty system)from Exmouth, Barnstaple and Paignton for other meaningful activity, but 24hour fire cover still maintained at these locations. I would want the Service to confirm the crewing/availability of specialist appliances such as the aerials, specialist rescue etc. A new shift system introduction across DSFRS would also release further posts (to be deployed as and where necessary) from stations not included in the consultation in Torquay, Exeter, Plymouth, Yeovil, Taunton and Bridgwater.

I think out of all the options you have you should consider this one. Each station identified in the options above should be looked at alone and a decision made on that one station alone. I therefore put to you the reasons why I believe 70 Wellington should not have it's second appliance switched off during the day. However, I believe it would be wrong to include stn. 70 Wellington in this option for the following: Reasons for Keeping 70P2 on the run during the Day 08:00 - 18:00 ï¿½ From 01/01/19 - 31/07/19 the station has responded to 212 incidents, of which 121 have been during daytime hours (as above) which has demanded the following resources to be mobilised: ? P1 - 22 ? P2 - 75 ? P1&2 - 24: Initial mobilisation to the same incident. ï¿½ Of these 30 have been standby calls to support other stations that are responding to other incidents or have crewing deficiencies. It is important to note that we are only alerted to provide a cover move when we have both pumps available. Therefore, during this period we are not only providing cover to other areas but apart from a few hours we are still providing cover in our own community. ï¿½ Wellington provides crewing for National Resilience assets, High Volume Pump & Mass Decontamination: Often when these resources are mobilised the incident will be protracted: Flooding of the Somerset levels, Royal Clarence Hotel Exeter, Breach of the Tiverton canal and Landslip at Dawlish. On each of these occasions once the resources are deployed we are able to maintain cover locally while still crewing these assets. Should our P2 be ï¿½switched offï¿½ and daytime crewing reduced this would no longer be possible. ï¿½ Local risks include M5, Paddington to Penzance rail, and a Lower Tier COMAH (Control of Major Accident Hazards) site (Swallowfield) The M5 demands an initial two pump attendance, with the second appliance providing much essential Crew Safety as well as an immediate additional water and equipment resource. With all our neighbouring stations along the M5 corridor at threat of either losing an appliance or having one switched off we are concerned there will be delays in being able to initially deploy crews and/or compromise our own Firefighter Safety. Our major rail hazard is Whiteball Tunnel. At 1000m long any type of incident would be protracted and complex. We have two major factories, Relyon with around 500 employees and Swallowfield which is a COMAH site. Both these employers have supported the service for over 50 years by allowing several of its employees to respond to incidents. This practically guarantees us at least one pump availability during the day. ï¿½ We have recently been recruiting to further enhance our second pump daytime availability. Should option 5 be accepted then this work will have been in vain as the benefits have yet to be realised. The service is concerned about retention of On Call staff but it is likely that some staff will leave if they are not required to respond in the daytime, losing income, therefore go looking for employment further afield. ï¿½ Why switch of a resource at a high performing station that currently not only provides 100% one pump cover but also good second pump availability, without the need for any imports, while providing support to others? Our area must be considered as quite a high risk as why else when we have both pumps committed to incidents do we often have a standby crew on station? If our P2 is ï¿½switched offï¿½ and we respond with our one daytime pump what's the point in providing a standby crew (roving pump) bought in to cover, while we possibly have sufficient trained personnel and an available appliance in the town but not required to respond. ï¿½ Would it not be beneficial to introduce the proposed changes to On Call pay to see if this would increase availability during the required hours and possibly negate the need for roving appliances?

I do think removing some 2nd and 3rd engines could be an option, where they don't have the staff to crew them. Also if a single station doesn't have enough staff to man their engine, they should be considered. However a station that is available 89% of the time, as is Colyton should not be considered to close, I also know that Colyton does not have a problem retaining their on call staff. Very few have and then its usually to join another fire service of go wholetime for your service. Saying they only went out to 2 fires and 2 car

crashed is ridiculous, as they went out 81 times in 2018 and have already been out over 30 times this year. Only today they went to a car crash on the A35. OK so its not in their area but they were still needed and back up Honiton. The statistics you use are misleading as the Colyton fire engine covers a much larger area than just that town and are situated perfectly to help Seaton, Axminster, Honiton and Lyme Regis when needed.

Retain a third fire engine in major towns, replacing old ones with new mobile for engines Support introduction of a 6 day crewed roving fire engines - mobile fire engines crewed by day duty fire fighters in areas of greater risk across Devon and Somerset. Colyton/Seaton so close to each other one or the other should close, also Bideford/Appledore. Topsham, Budleigh Salterton could go. Porlock - additional special skills here so retain.

Maybe Woolacombe and Appledore could be manned in the main holiday months. When Tourism is at its height.

Keep Sidmouth, Exmouth and Middlemoor open 24 hours manned and scrap the retained fire fighters stations.

I would go for all of the options up to option 5 with the exception of Paignton to day crewing. I would give consideration to moving one of Topsham's pumps to headquarters rather than Middlemoor at least during the day where it could benefit from a faster turnout. Consideration could be given to exempting Frome (and possibly Ilfracombe) from option 5

in relation to Taunton, the risk is far to great to have further reductions in cover, as in previous years the 2nd WT crew was removed and replaced with on call personnel. I would recommend that another day crew station be created on the western fringes of the town (Galmington and silk mills areas) so that support can be provided to nearby towns and provide cover to the community and areas that will not get a rapid response, initially a unit could be built or rented on the industrial and commercial estates to house an appliance and provide welfare for crews during the day this can be from the existing WT crews day time only. The existing on call teams could then continue to provide cover as usual as staff live and work within 5 mins, overtime on call personnel could be recruited in that area to potentially respond from this area.

Maybe not close Budleigh Salterton, Exmouth if it goes day crewing will not be able to get to Budleigh within 10 minutes ( 12-13 last time the on call crew were called to Budleigh and 20 for Sidmouth) this will be longer to Otterton etc. If Exmouth was day crewed and on call at night, the one on call crew would have a large area to cover and cannot get to the far reaches of Budleigh, Otterton and east Budleigh much under 15 minutes. We have a high population of elderly residents who will need rapid intervention in the event of a fire as unable to safely evacuate on their own. Also the Budleigh appliance can support the Exmouth crew and vice versa. The Budleigh appliance regularly gets to the Exmouth area quicker than the Exmouth on call crew. The day crew option at Exmouth with on call at Budleigh and Exmouth - gives choice to mix and match on call crew when daytime shortages and the day crewing duty crew adds to the coverage if not available. I do not think merging the on call crew with Exmouth is viable as the turnout times at night to Budleigh and surrounding areas does not improve, whereas if Budleigh remained those areas can be covered in reasonable time and also available to back up Exmouth especially at night. If Exmouth is going to be Day crewed and on call at night only you'd be better off having the / a on call appliance at Budleigh( or having both ) -it can get to Otterton and east Budleigh in reasonable time and Exmouth also as either there before or at the same time as Exmouth on call. The station at Exmouth was built with the intension of Budleigh operating from it back in 2001 with immediate response from wholetime and retained back up - NOT SOLELY

RETAINED. They cannot turn out in less than or within five minutes. 50% of the calls Budleigh attend are in the Exmouth area, the turn out data doesn't reflex the close proximity of a full time crew who attend the majority of single appliance calls in the Budleigh area. If Exmouth was day crewed and Budleigh remained open the workload would increase at Budleigh. If Budleigh were to close the work load for the oncall Exmouth Crew would rise dramatically as they would be covering all the 1st away movements at night and all of Budleigh's - doing the work of 3 pumps. Day crew Exmouth with retained and keep Budleigh open. Keep Exmouth 24/7 and close Budleigh but incorporate Budleigh into the on call section at Exmouth to ensure good on call coverage (this is achievable as members currently respond from the Budleigh area) Although if you analyse the Exmouth on call turn out times they are quite long and this won't cover the north area of Budleigh. EXMOUTH stay FULL TIME -Budleigh to close Exmouth - day crewed - Budleigh to remain open NOT BOTH !

I see this as the only option that is viable and fair. The way in which this consultation is built on option by option has mislead the public into thinking that as a minimum station closures will happen and opposition to this will be fighting a losing battle. The late addition of option 7 has now given the ability to pick out of the consultation what they believe should happen. That being said this option will detail individuality as people (staff and public) will only be informed of circumstances in their area. It was disappointing also to see very unfair statistics which once again mislead the public and the fire authority and required a lot of additional explaining and balance so they hopefully then had the right information to make a balanced view. (Example of misleading information - Topsham attending 20 incidents last year in their station ground, not a fair representation of their workload. Providing capital saving costs for station closures as an MRP price when most of these locations have an RIV or LRP. This does not show a fair picture. Availability of the station closures - not explained and reasons given to the public ie recruitment freeze, poor pay system.) The consultation roadshow events were poorly placed locations and during the day time when the majority of people would not be able to go due to work commitments. The online questionnaire discounted a lot of people filling it in especially in areas of higher age population and in addition to this barrier not enough hard copies of the consultation were printed once again discounting participation. As I live and work in East Devon I will comment under option 7 about this area only as I feel am not well enough informed of the others; The closure of Budleigh Salterton/Topsham and the day crewing of Exmouth is not possible to maintain a decent amount of fire cover and resilience. This scenario has many if's and but's and is dependent on what happens at the neighbouring stations. If all of this is passed then this will leave an increase of areas that are not covered when incidents occur and when on call appliances are not available. Having a family the reality and the thought of Middlemoor having to attend Budleigh Salterton at times of low availability and when there is more than one incident at the same time is frightening. Since the start of the consultation Exmouth on call and Sidmouth have had to attend an incident in Budleigh Salterton due to Exmouth WT being at an AFA with an attendance time of 12 ï¿½ minutes and 20 minutes. As an employee and a member of public this is not acceptable and safe and under the safer together proposals would be the norm at night and whenever Exmouth’s day crew was unavailable. If the example I have stated above was actually in a Budleigh outlying village i.e. Otterton the attendance time for the first appliance would've likely of been in excess of 15 minutes as the first attendance. That all being said I do believe that it is possible to do either, but not both - day crew Exmouth or close Budleigh Salterton and Topsham. And there is positives and negatives on both depending on which side of the fence you sit. The aforementioned of Middlemoor having to attend places as far out as Budleigh Salterton also has a significant impact on the public of Exeter. Which of course is where their station ground lies. Essentially Middlemoor is an Exeter station split in two and designed to service Exeter and the expanding Cranbrook - Not towns and villages 15 miles away. The option

to move an appliance to Middlemoor from Topsham is not workable with the current on call staff at Topsham due to travel times and distances and serves only as an interim until more staff are recruited in that area. Current Topsham staff will then loose enthusiasm and leave. The reduction of second appliances during the day at Sidmouth and Honiton at this time creates no saving. However I can see that if a new pay system comes in then this would save money and be of benefit, but during periods when we have high or large incidents in these areas we may need to rely on these resources which potentially may net be there. The closure of Colyton is completely isolated and has no other external factors. ie station changes around it proposed. Whilst I don't agree with any station closures there would be less impact at Colyton other than an increase of attendance times due to incidents being attended by Axminster or Seaton. Availability at these two stations would have to be very good to cover the additional area. Once stations are closed it would be very hard to re-instate if infrastructure and population changed or increased.

I have given comment about the implications of the individual proposals alongside the option in which they would have fallen. I do not support the closure of Porlock Station, the removal of the 3rd Appliance from Taunton nor the change to night time only for the 2nd appliance at Wellington. I believe at the 3rd Appliance at Taunton should be changed to an RIV, saving the cost difference between replacing like for like. No building cost savings can be realised as the station remains functionally unchanged. I believe that mobilisations from other stations will increase costs whenever a 3rd Appliance is needed than can be supported currently. No information has been provided about the personnel implications of this proposal but I have proposed an alternate way of mobilising. Taunton is undergoing significant growth. There have been no proposals made about redistributing the current resources across the Taunton area and creating a new station on the Wellington side that could improve responses to this side of Taunton and into Wellington and out toward Wiveliscombe and Williton. Some savings could be made by replacing the second appliance at Wellington currently an L:RP for an RIV Within my other comments I have provided my reasons and alternate options for consideration.

Colyton Fire Station should remain open. The firefighters of Colyton should be additionally trained as first responders. This will help the whole community as ambulances also have great difficulty reaching the homes in the very rural area surrounding Colyton in an acceptable time. The air ambulance is a frequent visitor due to the time taken to get people out through the lanes. It would also make the FRS suitable for the 2020's.

As stated above I do not agree with any of the elements of any of the proposals listed above as they reduce the weight and speed of our emergency response. The only exception to this is the movement of one of the appliances from Topsham to form a new on-call team at Middlemoor or SHQ to supplement the whole-time crews currently based there, however the other on-call appliance should remain available at Topsham.

No Fire station closures especially Ashburton. Reasons given in question 1A, Give Ashburton a specialist appliance a wild fire unit or a 4 & 4 Vehicle. At present proposal option 6 I would be against but if you were to put a specialist vehicle at Ashburton than you use the main pump or the specialist vehicle to go out and do the fire prevention and protection work with a crew of 3 in the area. Move Newton Abbots Environment protection unit to Ashburton. Newton is a busy station so that will ease the pressure on them. A offer has been made to build a new station at Ashburton close to A38 which could encompass a training and meeting office for meetings which then you could sell the existing site to re invest in the service. Ashburton and Buckfastleigh train together to save costs.

Okay, if Budleigh Salterton station did have to close but I sincerely hope that you take on board responses to your surveys and decide not to close it as it is very much needed as fires etc cannot be predicted. If it was a

case of closure then the very least we can expect is a full time crew 24/7 and full engine capacity at Exmouth. Also Sidmouth fire station needs to remain as it is for back up replacement to Budleigh Salterton closure. Best option from me would be to stay as we are but look to improve employment options to keep coverage at all times.

Agree 1. Removal of 3rd appliances. Excessive resource for risk 2. Change of status to day crewing at Exmouth, Barnstaple and Paignton. Not sufficient activity at these stations to justify the cost to run. Money savings could be used to improve pay and conditions for on-call staff Disagree 1. Station Closures - insufficient gain for risk 2. Removal of second appliances - this should not be considered until on-call staff pay and conditions have been modernised to better enable understanding of availability Additional Suggestion See attached relocation of appliance to SHQ suggestion (text copied below) Relocation of appliance from Topsham to SHQ on weekdays From 09:00 to 17:00 Monday to Friday most of the on-call staff at Topsham are working at SHQ. these staff frequently travel together in one or more vehicles to Topsham at normal road-speed to turn out in V45P1 and often come back the same way. The daytime traffic congestion and rail crossing can often increase turnout time well above the targeted 5 minutes. If there was an appliance at SHQ crewed by SHQ staff on Mon-Fri 09:00-17:00 it could turn out in 2 minutes. Benefits * From a value for money perspective, taxpayers are getting a day crewed pump at on call costs. * It sets a great example to other employers around releasing on-call staff while at work. * There is the potential reduction in operational staff in support roles at SHQ an opportunity to undertake operational duties and maintain competence and/or supplement on-call contracts at other stations * Supports potential reduction in operational response capability due to other safer together proposals (e.g. closure of Budleigh Salterton station and daytime removal of second appliances at Honiton, Sidmouth, Tiverton and Crediton). Context This option could be used regardless of whether Topsham station stays open or is relocated to Middlemoor or SHQ 24x7x365 Practicalities * The management team at Station 60 have identified that they could free up an appliance bay * ICT have indicated that mobilisation equipment at Station 60 could be modified at very minimal cost to support this option

As per explanation for each option. I perhaps would favour a slightly more conservative approach, and keep Topsham open, with 1 on call appliance, and keep Ashburton open due to their location on the A38. I would not change Wellington, Okehampton or Frome due to their locations and risk profiles. However, all the other stations with 2nd appliances I agree can go to night on call only without much impact to risk of the public. Roving appliances is a good approach from the Service as it is flexible, and also provides potential jobs for those that may be displaced from the above options. However, the savings are then largely lost. I would suggest 4 roving appliances rather than 6? One in Somerset, one in West, one in Central East and one in Central North. None of the options of favourable when saving lives are the AME. Although I cannot speak for other areas, in discussing the proposals with surrounding areas, Linton have stated they would be willing to lose their second pump if it meant Porlock staying open. Last year they had a 12% on call response second pump and it only attended two calls, therefore in this circumstance it may be suitable for this cut to be made. However, this may not be the same for other station to pump to being considered. However, in the circumstance of Porlock shutting, it would be extremely dangerous for Linton to lose the second pump as well, as they will have to cover both Porlock and Woolacombe. Since the consultation started, firefighters from Taunton and Porlock have had to go to Lynton on a Saturday morning arguably quite a time that their crew would be available, on separate occasions as they did not have a crew available what happens when this situation happens again which it will and crew isn't available to cover or is taken often run to do so? This

will greatly put Porlock and more importantly the surrounding areas at risk, Halliford, Exford, Oare, Porlock Weir.

Have you considered a spend to save option with two full time stations and removing all other retained stations. Maybe one on the Roundswell side of Barnstaple and one possibly at Mullacott near Ilfracombe. That way you will cover all areas within a reasonably time frame and save money by reducing the number of retained stations that are often off the run due to lack of available staff.

I would close the smaller stations with the exception of Porlock If that resulted in adequate savings, stop at that Otherwise use option 2, again with the exception of closing Porlock., and deploy roving engines which would enable faster response times

1) Station closures fire engine relocation (option 1) - with exception of Porlock 2) Third engine removals from Bridgwater and Yeovil but not from Taunton and Torquay (option 2) 3) Support 2nd engine removals (option 3) 4) Support crewing station proposal for Barnstaple and Exmouth but not for Paignton (option 4) 5) Do not support option 5 proposal for night crewing of second fire engines 6) Do not support day crewing for two engine stations (option 6) 7) Am supportive of day duty roving fire engines of option 6 in principle but believe that these could be provided from within the existing station and staffing arrangements My reasoning for the above are set out in my comments on each option page

Reorder the options thus: 1) remove second and third engines first 2) implement both changes of status 3) assess how these changes have impacted on the communities and if necessary consider closing stations. This should be the very last resort! Personally I think a roving engine is a very odd idea.

increase the number of engines in larger towns but possible place on a on call status

The roving appliances should be implemented regardless of the other options that progress. This model allows for more dynamic mobilisation of the right resources against the incident profiles. A braver move from fixed stations should be considered. Retained / on-call stations could be removed with parking facilities for appliances co-located with other public sector organisations. Training locations could be created with local businesses supporting the community link and helping with risk management for both parties. As an example the Williton Station could be removed with the necessary parking and support space being sought through Local Authority owned facilities very close by. I understand the need for change and many of these options have been in the pipeline for a number of years, they do not appear particularly ambitious. I note that specialist appliances have been excluded from the review but there are options for change here too.

With regard to shift and rota changes, I suggest you engage an O&M specialist to help you devise a suitable system with the correct incentives.

I would order them in basically the opposite way to what you gave us. I'm not quite sure of how the impact of the roving engine would work, and could result in the roving engine gravitating to calls in the cities. But this would be the most favourable. Then changes to on call nights, Then changes to day crewing, Then reduction in 3rd engines(possibly, my level of knowledge on the impact of this is limited) Then the reduction of the 2nd engines (again I have limited knowledge of the impact) Then when all is said and done, and all crews are on call day and night and every station has 1 engine, then you can consider closures. And not before. Increase day time crew with on call over night

1. Ensure that only statutory functions are carried out by the Fire Authority and cost/review all discretionary functions such as road safety, water safety, etc. that are the responsibility of other agencies. 2. Ensure that where co-responding for the NHS that there is full cost recovery (capital and revenue) and no effect on the availability or delay of dispatching staff for statutory functions. 3. Close the HQ USAR station and relocate to another W/T station and review activity level. 4. Where possible locate all special appliances at W/T stations to reduce the demand for on call staff and keep crews local to ensure maximum availability for incidents in their community and minimise the time they are away from employment/personal time.

There isn't a need to cut or close any stations ,have you tried to get sponsors local or otherwise to sponsor fire crews? I’m sure companies would jump at the chance to sponsor local crews, and I'm sure the crews would be willing to be sponsored......

I think the options chosen are merely re-arranging the deck chairs and the authority needs to look bigger to save costs. Other options which need to be considered is merging with Cornwall and Dorset fire authorities, this will reduce the back office function, reduction in management and allow the stations and tenders to remain open.

Keep the engines but why not combine the ambulance and fire service which can then increase the effectiveness and staffing of both services

Would like to see all stations left open. With looking at engines staying at all stations, crews should be rotated to the best of there times. Daytime crew rota should be looked at and a possible standby crews should be used with a standby engine on call at night.

let the stations go back to doing advocate work in their station ground so they can stay on call, pay the on call more and not putting all the money into crewing pool. Take the 3rd pumps as are off more than on and there turn out times are can be very long. If a station said there have tried to recruit and can’t get no one in, then see if they are happy the take 2nd pumps away from some stations and not just turn off.

Personally I think that the only option I think could benefit in any way would be certain stations that have two or three appliances having the second and thirds turned off in the day for if they struggle with crewing levels and couldn't man the second and third it might as well be turned off in the daytime however it shouldn't be a permanent thing, for example say a station with two appliances only had available crew to man the first appliance between 7am-3pm but from 3pm onwards they had sufficient crew to man both appliances then the second should automatically be turned back on making both available to respond to incidents. Similar to if a station only had crew for one appliance 24 hours a day and 12 hours overnight 7pm- 7am but between 12pm-2pm had enough crew for those 2 hours to man both pumps it should be turned back on for those hours to enable both appliances to be operationally ready to respond to emergencies.

No closures of any station. Review staffing and vehicle numbers where full time but all stations should remain and where populations are expanding additional new stations close by

Full time and day crewing should be carrying out stand-by fire cover perhaps even on a day to day or shift to shift basis. This allows asset deployment to remain fluid where fire cover is required and is a specific risk- based approach. Specialist third engines need to be dynamically crewed with the consideration being given to a different shift patterns that could be independent of the main watch scheme.

Don't close stations, especially ones that have good availability and are busy. No issues with removal of appliances, could even take away Topsham's second appliance. No issues with removal of night time

wholetime crewing or the change of status of some RDS trucks during the daytime. Roving appliances isn't environmentally friendly and the quality of the CFS work won't be at the standard required.

If you ensure the on call team would be able to crew both appliances than this would be acceptable Keep them all 24/7, 2 Pump status. Roving appliances replace those you have removed that give 24/7 cover not just day. The work load you say these pumps would undertake could be done by the on call teams, up skilling and increasing moral in being a greater part of their community not removing them more to the side.

My preference is for every high and medium risk area (density of population or industry, busy roads, elderly population) to be within a prescribed distance or time from a fully manned station, e.g. 10 miles or 10 minutes. If this can't be achieved, then a reduced service of day crewing and 1 engine per station.

I believe personally in closing 1, 2, 3 max stations but possibly to look at which zones each station can cover and what their specialities are should be highlighted more. Any closures of more than 3 stations, the roaming engine feels like a necessary option to geographically cover enough areas and offer a sound contingency. Managing number of engines and day/night cover would feel better if trialled and implemented over 3 years to track data

The only acceptable solution would be the 3rd appliance reduction and making that a roving, more flexible response.

I do not think fire station closures should be mixed with any of the other options, as this reduces the resource too much. Either close stations and leave the rest of the resource as it is, or streamline resources at some stations while not closing any fire stations at all.

Option 3 but without station closures. Why isn't there an additional on-call crew at Middlemoor or at fire service headquarters, which would support the proposal to close Topsham? If roving appliances are an option then why only staff these during the daytime, when there is an increased risk to life if fires happen at night when people are sleeping? A rota system could be worked out to staff the roving appliances 24/7, and that would enable recruitment of more members of the community who maybe don't live within 5 mins of a fire station, and work shorter shift patterns than the current on-call contracts allow, which would enable people who already work 9 - 5 Mon - Fri to provide this cover (e.g. if there was a 20 hour contract option for this then that is entirely feasible for someone to work alongside their main job, regardless of their location). There would be so many benefits to this, and it would make proposed station closures an easier pill to swallow if this approach was adopted and pushed wider.

The only thing I would favour is removal of the 3rd appliance as it's not very often they are used. Topsham should maybe loss there 2nd away. Instead of closing the whole station. any 2 pump stations with less then 200 calls it should be looked at taking there 2nd pump away. This is due to a lot of one pump stations attending more then 200 calls.

The closure of one or two stations who station grounds are legitimately covered by other stations may be necessary in order to save money. Likewise, the change of one or two quiet, wholetime stations to day crewing in order to save money and free up wholetime personnel for re-deployment may be necessary. Stop making up other reasons and lies to justify this.

Overall a fairly well-balanced number of options, option 4 aside. I am aware that the on call side of the fire service struggle to maintain cover anyway so this is just a formality, in fact I am surprised more on call stations haven't been offered up for closure.

Review station closures - new stations within their station ground - closer to risk. Contracts and pay review to ensure right people in the right place Appliances and equipment relevant to risk Relocating stations with housing developments and industrial yards Garton pay and conditions - contracts is already being looked at Severe lack of firefighters within the service on the front line - hence appliances off the run - massive overtime bill Recruit more wholetime and on call On call recruitment is slow - approximately still a year from application to available

Station closures - is a no, I understand that some station grounds overlap but where are you going to stop? Building new stations is a good idea, this can also help the NHS and Police as we have the option to share Removal of third fire engines - I realise this has to be done due to low activity but of late shouts have increased and firefighter safety should not come second, with that said I feel this would be a lighter option Change of status to day crewing - Absolutely not, maintaining fire cover is important and with the RDS struggling to maintain the crewing levels this is not a good option at all On call night crewing - High risk option, reducing pump availability is also dangerous, unsafe for crews and not in the public interest, the public should not pay for a lesser service Day crewing roving fire engines - Wear and tear on crews and fire engines, clutching at straws with this one

Without going into specific detail about which stations and which engines and on the basis that cuts are inevitable (which is extremely regrettable), the best elements of the options could be selected as follows: The closure of some of the small(er) stations where response times are not significantly affected because of the vicinity and sufficiency of the resources of other stations. I imagine these closures could achieve the most significant savings. If 'normal' demand suggests that the removal of third fire engines from the larger stations would also not significantly affect community safety this is definitely preferable to the removal of second engines from other stations or indeed some station closures. On call at night for the second engine might be satisfactory if the response times are not compromised at the expense of community safety but this decision should be based on expected 'demand' rather than a blanket approach. The idea of roving engines does not sound like a worthwhile solution as it adds another element of chance to meeting what is already an unpredictable need.

Most of option 5 is the best option Station closures MUST be taken out as having been brought up in a rural location, I know how important a community fire station is. Prevention does not stop incidents from happening. I would also change the night only appliances. Huge expense sitting around in the daytime that could be better used. Change the appliance to a 4 x 4, meaning it can be used for summer/winter incidents due to more adverse weather. cost= 3 x 4x4 vehicles to one fire appliance

1. Retain all the stations, working with co-responders to achieve efficiencies without losing locations e.g. combined response station in "Avon". 2. Review night crewing times to boost availability from 1800-2000 when remains high. This may also make on call roles more compatible with other employment and hence improve recruitment and retention. 3. Use 2nd and 3rd engines at larger stations to establish roving response rather than removing capacity complexity. As engines require replacement, consider alternative vehicles to deploy personnel with reduced equipment and costs to non-time incidents. 4. Work with other fire providers, e.g. airport, power station and military to increase resilience. 5. Consider revenue raising activities such as input to building design, using expertise to inform concept plans. This also helps to expand roles for experienced officers with a gap between them for active fortnightly and seeking retirement age thresholds.

I do not feel that shutting stations is a safe option, it is wrong that you have put this on every option. Roaming fire engines are a good idea and you can man these with savings from the day crew only option element. To save money you could always ask yourself why do you pay for a CFO, DCFO and ACFO why dp we need three on insanely high wages. Why do you have pressure washers on every station not plumbed on and not fit for purpose, why employ so many "support" staff when you could give these roles to rds firefighters who could both do the role whilst sat on station keeping pumps on the run. Why not take into account the many thousands of on call hours you get for free from ff who keep the pump on for the community going way above what they should be doing. You close stations every firefighter will do just their contract meaning you will have lots more pumps off the run!

Although I am not a logistical expert, there may be a way of introducing some of the reforms if day and night time cover was left in place and there were firm guarantees that the roving fire engines would not leave any remote or town centre areas at higher risk of call out delays. However, it's firemen themselves who must be satisfied with what's being proposed. I do wonder if we should be monitoring life savers on a time and motion study basis in this way. Many firemen regularly risk their own lives to assist the public in emergencies and their conditions of employment should reflect this high level of personal risk and should not be comparable to other types of occupation, eg. office or retail work.

I would like to see no station closures as I think it is damaging to communities and increases the danger risk. ... If anything has to be done then I think changing the wholetime system is the was forward. Have whole time in the day and retained at night. According to your figures this is the only option that will save a substantial amount of money per year

Treating each option as a single item, just the new one added not the preceding options. Option 6: 6 roving pumps should be option 1 with any other changes added to it and the stations where the roving pumps would be situated declared up front based on demand. Option 1: Poorly used stations with good alternative provision would make sense to close. Option 2: Removing poorly used 3rd pumps makes sense. Option 3: Removing poorly used 2nd pumps at some of the stations where usage is really low. Not clear if all those listed are genuinely under-used as the reasons they are not available are not stated. Option 4: Reducing full- time overnight cover to on-call seems to make sense where demand at night is lower (according to Chart 1) Option 5: Contradicts the info that says there is greater demand in the day which is used as the justification for Option 4. Makes no sense. Option 7: A solution with mix and match seems better.

A similar idea to providing roving appliances at a lower cost would be for WT FF's to be upskilled to be able to act up and cover skill shortages and backfilling RDS stations. WT stations can then be backfilled with RDS crew to provide better integration of personnel and give crews greater experience to risks not normally found in their station areas.

I do think the day crewing option could be explored further - if the aim is to move resources from day crewed into roving appliances. I think a better solution would be to introduce a flexible rostering duty system across all WT stations. This would release the capacity of between 2-4 people per station which gives enough people to crew roving appliances. The 3 proposed day crew stations could move to nucleus crewing at night (2 FFs) so they only need wait for an additional 2 to respond. It's resourcing to risk but in a different way?

A change in shift systems is possible but day crewing is not the best option. Self rosta on a 12hr shifts covering 24hr periods works well. Close proximity crewing is a good option but not if your wanting to stay within the working time directive. But a good option to save money but keep a 24hr crew. Removal of 3rd

and 2nd appliances if they cannot be crewed at a sufficiently acceptable level. And you have tried to recruit but it's been unsuccessful. Relocation of fire stations so build new ones in a more convenient place to reach multiple destinations in the same response times or in a reduced time. No one wants to see a closed fire station especially in a major holiday destination.

1) closure of stations. 2) remove only 2 third engines not 4. 3)Keep at least 1 extra engine which can be roving between the closest towns. 4) OK (change of status to day crew). 5) This sounds dangerous. I would not want to have to rely upon fire fighters having to be called in from home to respond to a fire. They should be on duty to respond immediately. 6) sounds a good idea (roving fire engines)

All stations maintained with some moving to a higher degree of retained staff. Much closer links with the Ambulance service to include firemen with paramedic training within fire crews. Where no ambulance is available or at a greater distance fire crews should be dispatched in support.

I think another option could be included, possibly we could fix the on-call pay system or open and relocate more wholetime stations to reliably cover more areas. also this would allow for more prevention work while also having a better response to incidents.

Roving day time fire appliances, retention of third pumps at stations in all major cities, necessary closures in small local villages isolated from inherent danger points. Major increased recognition of the major building necessity which may require a variation in some of the second pump proposals and the need for full time coverage for major dangers which could occur in the run up to Brexit.

The least bad option is to remove some third fire engines and/or make some oncall.

If closures are essential the coastal stations in smaller towns should have priority for closure. A 5 mile radius round coastal towns is 50% sea. The removal of 3rd engines from some stations which analysis shows to have spare capacity seems a realistic option. Day crewing at appropriate stations would contribute to economies.

I believe that options four and five may work if the parts relating to options one to three are omitted substantial savings can still be made and wider cover maintained

Option 6 but with at least full time crew cover with 2 engines, one full time 24 hours and one for on call crewing plus some roving engines in the most rural areas and near transport router.

I am concerned about night time response times to Colaton Raleigh and feel that maintaining the retained fire-fighters at Budleigh Salterton on-call would allay my concern. I cannot speak from a knowledgeable position about people near the other station closures proposed but it is probably similar for many of them, long response times and higher life risk - unacceptable. Some elements can be combined in a different way to develop a new service model that avoids station closures in Option 1 altogether. Option 1 yields limited annual savings. Keep the eight stations open to maintain the wide network of engines available to respond and look at removal of all third fire engines and change status to day crewing as proposed in Options 2 and 4 (avoiding second fire engine removals). This yields revenue savings per annum of £2,075,021 and Capital savings of £1,200,000. This I feel would maintain response times and limit impacts on life risk in East Devon and beyond.

Each closure/change for each station should have its own consultation and questionnaire. It should also be done by shutting /taking away the most obvious closures and ones with the least risk to the public first, then

monitor the impact this has to risk/ stats and how it effects other stations, before looking at the next option/closure. This way you can see what impact one closure has to coverage and other stations.

I agree that some station locations have half their incident ground in the sea or overlapping with neighbouring stations so logistically this does need change. The concept of night and evening cover for 2nd appliances is a good one too. I can see this working with little disruption to the way things are, whilst still achieving some cost savings to the service. The benefits are that you keep many personnel trained and competent without disrupting work life balance so much. Therefor when the big job comes in - you have the resources to do it! Let’s say the big job comes in during the daytime...perhaps the service could get employers to agree to release personnel in the event of a major incident occurring. The possibility of this occurring is so rare an occasion that I can see many employers agreeing to this. The response wouldn't even have to be 5 minutes, it could be treated like the USAR call back team are. The initial response time would be achieved by the 1st away appliances on the 5min turnout. However, boosting resources could be a 20min response time...allowing employees to square away last-minute things with their employer before responding to the fire station and turning out, much more like we treat a relief crew job. 20mins from an incident would still mean you could have plenty of BA Teams there within 30mins or so ensuring all the relevant backup safe systems of work were in place by the time the big job was in full flow.

If Topsham is closed, it would be common sense to move 1 pump to SHQ where 6 of us that work here can respond. Also, Topsham FF's can still respond in the day/night and we already have the facilities for training etc. Second pump should go to Middlemoor. It seems crazy with the development of Cranbrook and loads more housing that is going up in the Exeter area to reduce the cover in Exeter by 1 pump.

Make Newton Abbot full time, cut one engine from Torquay.

Why has no consideration been given to USAR Stn 60, we have full time crews manning during the day and shouts are few and far between, I was recently on a course at STN 60 and all they did all day was standard tests on the equipment, why not remove day cover and have all hours covered by the call back teams. Why as a service have we not considered relocating USAR assets to stations around DSFRS, other services have, identify areas of risk and place the USAR asset at either a retained or current W/T station, gives flexibility and cost savings in site and day crewed wages and makes those stations who get a USAR asset viable and meaningful.

Is there any mileage in perhaps contacting town/parish councils to see if they would be interested in helping to support a trained voluntary service in their town/village? I believe this model works in some more remote parts of Europe

Potentially look at volunteers who can do the roll where station closure is being look at. Maybe have a minimum crew and additional volunteers

Think before you act and then regret. Although I'm sure your PR will tell the public otherwise! Perhaps more efficient communications / technology. More Fire safety and 'accident' programmes for households, construction companies, workers, alongside supporting communities in what to do if: floods, RTAs, moorland fires, rescues, First aid, responders, tourism... Enforcement /inspection of fire regs for hotels, builder's, factories, public buildings etc not leaving it entirely to outside companies. Working more alongside. Use Council Tax wisely and be totally accountable for what we pay and receive.

The only option I can see working is to keep Colyton but change contracts/number of hours they cover and to help support other stations where they have identified the "risk" as higher during parts of the day. Like roaming cover. This moving resources effectively and also keeping cover in Colyton when Seaton/Axminster are busy and unable to provide the necessary cover in Colyton.

There is 30 million in reserve funds. Putting people at risk (longer response) should not be our first option. We currently have both Plympton training academy and SHQ, we do not need 2 sites. How about the closure of one of them first.

If day crewing is an issue, why not make the busy stations day manned? Why not have explicit wording in contracts for new recruits recruited specifically for day cover?

As previously mentioned region is increasingly popular with tourists. It is therefore logical that the temporary increase in population in the region should have commensurate fire cover. This cover needs to remain fluid as the needs are dynamic. Therefore it would make sense to have a complete rethink of how service is provided and instead of removing fire engines and closing stations a merger with other services should be considered i.e. such as the American EMS service where fire-fighters are trained medical first responders. This model would make use of existing assets and apply the principles of collaborative procurement and economies of scale over currently two services i.e. ambulance and fire. Existing assets would become supernumerary but could be sold off to pay for the transition i.e. old ambulance /fire station properties. Change may be needed but a real major shakeup of the service is required to meet 21st century needs

The issue of day-crewing is a complex picture. The system works well in remote locations where a guaranteed pump crew is required, for example Leek, in Staffordshire moorlands. Also there are many different day-crewed duty systems (I personally have worked 4 of them) all have strengths and weaknesses and it depends on what the fire authority wants of the stations as to which system would work the best. The idea of roving fire engines is, quite frankly, ludicrous. However, a system of peripatetic firefighters based at key stations can work very well and be cost effective. For example, if an on-call pump is off the run due to the lack of a driver one of these peripatetic firefighters can be assigned to that station, putting the appliance back on the run.

If option 7 is used as a mix and match and the 3 stations in option 4 stay as full cover whole time will you introduce 6 extra pumps and crew? Creating potentially new whole time jobs as you say it's all done on risk and nothing to do with costs? So going from 121 appliances to the service having 127?

If skilled people are being displaced by the closures and changes, is there either some way they can be retained to assist with a prolonged incident, like say a major grass fire, so they can be another body on site, or to assist at shift changes? Or: Can they be encouraged to be fire officers in larger companies, checking their safety precautions, or used to visit homes to help people acquire adequate smoke/heat sensors, and give other advice?

Could there be a mini 2 person fire engine which responded to the 70% of jobs that only needed 2 people but would be able to call for backup from their station as needed!

Suggestions- many new houses are being built around Totnes, these developers have been asked to provide children's parks, allotments, roads etc. what about asking them to pay toward the upkeep of a two fire engine town!

If a significant number of fire stations are closed or downgraded then the introduction of six day roving crews would be my preferred option.

I wonder whether other avenues for saving have been properly thought through. For instance, a fire service employee who came to our Parish Council meeting said he was retiring as an officer but returning in another capacity .... so the fire service will have to pay him both a salary and a pension. I suggest that savings could be made by increasing the retirement age for all fire service employees to 66 (the same as for the rest of the population). The fire service could transfer those who are too old/unfit to attend fires to other jobs rather than retiring and then re-employing them, or they have to leave to find another job until they're 66, like the rest of us.

How about a close examination on central costs incurred at Fire HQ would be a good start. A closer working with other agencies for example Mountain Rescue teams who have specialist capabilities (often trained by the Fire service) Their volunteers are highly trained and skilled.

If you're really thinking about this logically why not close Axminster, Colyton and Seaton and put just one station on the A35. In your safer together document it talks about risks changing over the years, with better constructed houses etc. Well the only risk that has changed in Colyton is we've had several new housing estates built and another couple due to start next year, so I would say our risk has increased.

Local units could be used to continue education and fire safety checks rather than calling out services from 20 miles away.

Roving crews could be introduced, but not at the expense of station-based fire cover. A more flexible approach to retained contracts might encourage more people to become retained firefighters. Some stations could be amalgamated, for example Plympton, Plymstock and Ivybridge, which could all be removed and replaced with a single, larger station to cover the same area.

Thee must be a better solution - combine volunteer firemen and coastguards - or run a service like the pompiers in France

As I have said we do not want to lose Colyton fire station, it has been here since 1641. The crew will bend over backwards to keep their fire station open. We have been told to put forward some alternative suggestions to closing us. My suggestion is use us more, you have 12 fully qualified fire fighters, use them, don't get rid of them. We are already qualified to a higher level in rope rescue than any of our neighbouring stations. We are more than willing to do our own prevention and protection work, already having 2 crew members trained up in these areas. In the past we were the support station for the Hose Layer at Honiton, we are more than happy to support the HVP stationed at Exeter. We are also willing to support Honiton's ICU when they are not able to crew it. I was told that the roaming appliances were just a concept. Why not make Colyton's pump an East Devon roaming pump. We could take it where there are gaps in cover and if the Axe valley has an incident, we will be on hand to return. The Colyton pump could then be back during the night to cover its own area. We have so much to offer with such a dedicated crew, rather than getting rid of it take advantage of this wonderful asset you have.

Suggestions - Do spot checks on hotels, bedsits, hostels, flats, old people’s homes regularly and come down really hard on those that do not comply with regulations as in heavy fines, close downs or jail. check that all news builds and estates have good access

The fire service should ditch all animal rescues, unless human life risk i.e., trapped. RSPCA could and should deal with all of these. Ditch SRT. It’s a cover for wholetime not to carry out fire safety. Train retained stations in boat use, Exmouth retained already do boat. Level 2 rope is available on several retained stations already, add the lifting of an injured person and most retained stations will be happy with that. If the roving appliances are coming, and they are doing fire safety, I’m guessing they won’t be able to leave a house or premise until the task is complete? My understanding is currently we have several retained staff employed by DSFRS who are not released from Fire Service work as their task is important, this must surely apply to day crewed appliances? With the stations earmarked for day crewing, the staff available can do fire safety in a van in the problem areas, once the call outs within that area have decreased perhaps then remove an appliance.

The service struggles to encourage recruits due to the demands / commitments imposed. There is also no remuneration for crew to take on extra risks - such as EFAD / CC qualifications. Therefore, stations can have the required number of crew available but not the skills meaning resources are still unavailable. Backfilling with the skills will make these resources available, or, blending stations with aggregate crewing could also work, as long as crews have worked closely together and the OIC's can have confidence that tasks can be completed efficiently and to a high standard.

What about closing Seaton Station who can only travel east, west and north whilst Colyton can access Seaton and all other points north, south, east and west.

The on call needs to be fixed before looking at any reduction of fire appliances. Stations need to maintain their availability 100% of the time by themselves. That is without addition external support from orc or paid standbys.

What you need is a fresh approach, broader thinking. Look what other developed countries do, like the Netherlands, Germany Nova Scotia or New Zealand. In our villages we are vulnerable, as are these new builds. New build are like paper and in the villages are thatch..... What we need is more engines dotted around that are attended by volunteer but trained people. Not less engines or people. Maybe a rethink on engine design, and have specific tenders for areas with high fire risk but pumping units for outlying villages that take less maintenance. Maybe also smaller and faster units, that can get to certain RTC's, then bigger concentrations in more built up areas....

Since there are staff shortages at all North Devon stations, with appliances being classed as off the run, why not reduce the crewing number to 3, and mobilise 2 appliances together to any callout thereby having a combined crew of 6 at the incident.

One suggestion - more retained firefighters. Present ones seem to be totally committed, have excellent local knowledge and help as member of the community so for elderly and disabled residents can put a person at ease and have a calming effect on very vulnerable people. A further suggestion for Ashburton make it into a hub for fire, ambulance, police, search and rescue and keeping a community safe. Linhay, Ashburton would be an excellent position - proximity to A38 in both directions, Torbay and of course Dartmoor. This system works extremely well in Hayle, Cornwall for instance. (I came from there) also a popular holiday area.

I am a FF at 42 Seaton where we are 2.5 miles from Colyton Fire Station. Both stations can get to each other’s patch quickly and both back each other up regularly. In fact, we are so close its not unheard of for one to drive past the door of the other before it turns out. Management have seen this and recognised that maybe our area doesn't need 2 pumps so close together in such a rural location. I wouldn't disagree with this

as if you were to start again afresh locating stations, you wouldn't put two as close together as Seaton and Colyton are today. However, since both Stations have been long established closing one is a very sore subject to the local people (even though another fire station is only 2.5 miles away). My solution to the problem would be to give Colyton an RIV, cap their crew to 10 and allow them to turn out with a crew of 3. This would dramatically reduce the annual cost of the Station as the crewing level would be lower and the replacement fee of the RIV would be much cheaper. Arguably the RIV would be more suited to their Station patch anyway. This would keep the local residents happy with still being able to make a saving on the Station costs. The long-term plan could be to even merge Colyton’s RIV with Seaton Station and make even greater Station savings. It would be far easier to join the RIV to Seaton than try to make a two pump MRP/LRP station.

Why don't the service trial this all out protection and prevention work and if after 2 years fire calls reduce considerable think about the future? How do we implement safe systems of work with delayed personal on the fire ground?

Get the local on call crews undertaking CS & BS work again. support and train them in these areas.

Funny how you are prepared to close stations yet still fund a pointless Fireboat in Plymouth. Leave the on the water work to the experts in the Coastguard and RNLI and focus on your core business, get that right first. Perhaps instead you should look to share services with Neighbouring forces? I don't see that in your plans. Training, HR, vehicle maintenance, procurement and maybe even reduce the number of senior officers this way? I do not support these cuts because you do not appear to have considered enough other initiatives before hitting front line services.

Don't close but man Ilfracombe full time and look at possible shared cover between Woolacombe and Ilfracombe. Need better trained full-time crew not just volunteers.

Do not close the 8 stations! Replace the 2nd and 3rd engines at risk of removal with volunteer teams. If still considering closing stations - try travelling around the areas affected mindful of how the roads are at the peak of the holiday season and how long it would take an engine to travel along a single track road in heavy holiday traffic. Perhaps and extra charge should be put on the second homes and holiday homes of the area to make up the shortfall!

The fire service would give a quicker and more streamlined service with just a lesser amount of stations but faster response times as all 24 hours manned. The present situation using retained fire fighters is flawed as, in Budleigh Salterton at least, a fire fighter there commits to up to something like 120 hours per week availability, yet he also has a full time job as a fire fighter at a different station, (another 40 hours?)so as there are only 168 hours in a week and there are a lot of calls when exactly will he be sleeping. Surely if he's busy all day in Budleigh Salterton as a retained for and then does a busy night shift as a full ff, he cannot possibly be working safely with so little or no sleep.

Please reconsider the closures - to get stations in more desirable locations should be a side to this any closure should open a new station where needs are greater, or staff could be accessible for retained. Having a pager system that only calls out enough to cover pump + 1 currently all paged leaving standby crew (paid - at station with no where to go)

In the case of car crashes with small fire risk, could this work not be devolved to rapid response small vehicles (Ford Transit-size), whose occupants were trained primarily in use of hydraulic cutters, rather than

expensively trained firefighters? It seems pointless to send a large tender to a simple car crash when other creative options could usefully be explored.

As above, cuts if necessary should be made to larger communities who have more assistance generally.

Why not have local hubs, with a van or estate car, no water carrying abilities, but trained staff with breathing equipment etc and also trained as paramedics or advanced first aiders, so that the time responses can be maintained, which has the secondary help with false alarms or minor calls and you have the facility for the first responders to advise others quickly as to whether they are needed or not. Getting people out before smoke inhalation kills them and then waiting for the main back up to fight a fire, or having a paramedic attend a seriously injured victim much quicker, would be a more acceptable means of saving money. Furthermore, you'd have paramedics or similar spread amongst the community, rather than having paid crews sleeping through the night when there's no calls.

Why not fix the on-call system first to see if you can deliver an effective service before making any "safer together" reductions.

Response from Topsham Fire Stations Firefighters to the 'Safer Together' consultation document. We would like to make it abundantly clear from the outset that we do not support the closure of our Fire Station or any other Fire Station closures and believe that resorting to this as the first option within the proposals is very short sighted and demonstrates a lack of innovation by Senior Managers of DSFRS. What we would like the Fire Authority to acknowledge is an acceptance from us to a change in ways of working and how we feel this can be achieved at Topsham Fire Station. We as employees of DSFRS are willing to adapt and change as part of a service wide restructuring rather than a targeted, specific Fire Station. We would like to express grave concerns over the Safer Together document and the information within and how this has been presented in a misleading manner. We would like to quantify our response with the reasons below: Significant cuts have already been made to DSFRS over, approximately, the last 10 years, yet the reserves (nearly ï¿½40 million to date) have increased year on year. As frontline Firefighters we have lived these changes and cuts as well as feeling the effects of 'doing more with less'. These latest proposals are severe at best and dangerous at worse to both members of the public and Firefighters. All of the options will only provide increased risk of harm to Firefighters and members of the public through an increase in response times. Speaking about Topsham in isolation, under the proposal to relocate an appliance to Middlemoor Fire Station and still be crewed by Topsham Firefighters will not see that appliance 'turnout' in under 15 minutes. We fail to understand how this fits in to a 'Safer Together' concept when it will be a drastically reduced level of service to the public compared to the one that is provided from Topsham Fire Station. We question if Senior Managers have a true understanding of the local road network and how clogged they become at certain times of the day and still find this arrangement acceptable? The activity level statistics for Stations can only be described as 'manipulated to suite the brief of the Senior Managers' rather than a true reflection of what activity and the amount is actually carried out. This will have misled the general public into a false mindset of the true value of these Fire Stations. There is no alternative than to say that the public have been directed by the information within the document to think in a biased way, siding on the options presented in the consultation document because Topsham Fire Station was advertised as having an average of 20 - 25 call outs per year in the Topsham area. Our concern is that the general public will think that we only serve the community of Topsham. We actually have an average of 155 call outs per year using the last 5 years totals and our services have been required in many other communities. There is a great lack of detail in terms of how the service is proposing to develop using the money saved. Yes, it is clear where the cost savings would come from but there is no commitment offered to definitive plans as to how the savings will

be reinvested. This is of concern to us as we can only make hypothetical assumptions based on 'if, buts and maybe' statements from Senior Management. To example this, new On Call contracts are being advertised but there is no agreement in place to say what these will look like so how can the assumption be made that all Appliances will be available 100% of the time from April 2020. Relocation packages are being made available to employees but no firm offers are available to be considered by Firefighters who may be interested in this option - how can such a big decision be considered and made to form part of an employees response to this consultation? The options presented will severely hit the resilience of resources within DSFRS. The promise of 'there are other Appliances that can respond' in the proposals are clearly worked out on best case scenarios of all resources being available. The On Call availability needs to be fixed before further cuts are made. We have recently had 2 serious fires in Topsham within the last 3 months and Topsham appliances were first on scene for both. The speed of our attendance allowed swift firefighting action to commence and the threat to life was avoided and damage to property kept to a minimum. If we were not where we are then vital minutes would have been added to the response time from other appliances from other stations. In a community such as Topsham with the age of its buildings and age of its population this cannot be an accepted compromise - there could be a mini Clarence waiting to happen. There seems to be a mindset within Senior Managers that any fires within Topsham will not occur when Middlemoor's appliance is not already assigned to other incidents. Our argument to this was proven when a property fire occurred recently in Topsham and Middlemoor were at another incident. We find it astonishing that the community of Topsham are being told Middlemoor are only 3 miles away and will provide the response so you will be just as safe, even though it will take them longer to arrive than the current resources at Topsham Fire Station, so long as they are not at another incident in the city. As further housing developments take shape, it is clear to see that Topsham is fast becoming a Suburb of Exeter and will no longer be separate to it. Together with the locations of Danes Castle Fire Station and Middlemoor Fire Station we feel as though we are perfectly positioned to compliment the fire cover of the city of Exeter and also the surrounding areas due to our proximity to the M5 and A30. Over time there will be more households built and more vehicles using roads within our area which will increase the likelihood of risk to individuals occurring. What these households will also bring is opportunity for recruitment of On Call staff. There will be no issues with recruitment of On Call Firefighters for a Station based inn Topsham for the next several decades. Even as current employees of DSFRS some individuals have found the consultation questionnaire difficult to understand. If anyone was to disagree with option 1 then this would automatically discount options 2 - 6 as the Station closures are also included in these. Here are some quotes from the crew at Topsham regarding their concerns of a Station closure or any relocation - the question asked was can you provide examples of a negative impact to you if Topsham Fire Station were to close or relocate?I would have to cycle A LOT further! General increase in response time for other Firefighters.I remember running from Topsham to circuits at SHQ in the summer for 5pm and actually passing another Topsham Firefighter in his car who was sat in the traffic trying to get to the same place! We ended up getting there at the same time. The visits we get from the school and community kids groups (cubs, scouts) wouldn't be possible without a bus, as they always walk to us. Any community event/open day/charity work we do will be far less effective without any actual ... people!!? Much slower response time, potential skill fade due to the potential of less shouts, lack of community spirit. The big thing for me is being part of the community and feeling proud to serve the happy people of Topsham/Tourists etc and taking family's round the station and generally just talking to people whilst washing pumps etc doing our bit for charity and school visits etc We will lose all of that if we close or move to somewhere like SHQ and feel isolated. And obviously slower response time getting there to respond and getting to shouts in the city For me, it is the fact I don't see how

either relocation plan actually moves resource to risk. And I think it's a crying shame to close a station and piece of history without having a clear rationale. I don't even live in Topsham and what Firefighter A said about community and isolation resonates with me. Not being immersed will also bring a feeling of being removed from one of the reasons we do the job. I think, given the fact that Exeter is rapidly expanding and coming towards Topsham with the developments at Countess Wear, Topsham Road and Newcourt Road, Topsham is now a suburb of Exeter! The current location is ideal as with the other two stations (Danes Castle and Middlemoor) forms a perfect triangle to cover the city... moving the station would increase the response time to these areas aswell as further into the city and serves no real purpose.? Alternative proposal to the closure of Topsham Fire Station The proposal to close Topsham Fire Station and relocate an Appliance to Middlemoor Fire Station is short sighted and will result in a loss of vital commitment and experience of personnel, as well as providing a reduced service and increased risk of harm to the Topsham and surrounding communities. The Firefighters at Topsham Fire Station feel as though there are alternative ways of working and wish to present counter proposals to the Chief Fire Officer and the Fire Authority for consideration. BACKGROUND ESTABLISHMENT COMPLIMENT The Fire Station is an established Fire Station consisting of 20 Firefighters and has further interest of new joiners which have been put on hold at present. Variety of Firefighter contracts - 21, 42, 63 and 84 hours per week with many Firefighters completing more hours per week cover than actually contracted to do to keep appliances available. The current position is the healthiest the Fire Station has been in for a number of years due to a variety of factors - change of pay scheme, recruitment freeze, retirements from service, to name a few. AVAILABILITY Currently 2 Fire Appliances are located at the station - 1 x Medium Rescue Pump (MRP) (45p1) and 1 x Light Rescue Pump (LRP) (45p2). Current appliance availability statistics show that 45p1 is available approximately 94% of the time. This is the highest percentage of all the Fire Stations at threat of closure. ACTIVITY LEVELS We have the highest figures in terms of call outs of all the 8 Fire Stations proposed for closure. Calendar year totals; ? 2015 = 95 ? 2016 = 121 ? 2017 = 157 ? 2018 = 218 ? 2019 = 184 (as at 20th Sept) As you can see from the figures above this demonstrates a year on year increase in call outs with 2019 again projected to follow this trend. CHANGE IN CREWING ARRANGEMENTS Developments in crewing arrangements - i.e. aggregate crewing - has increased the availability of 2nd appliances but this has not been recognised or recorded as a matter of standard practise. This arrangement has meant that our 2nd appliance has been available more often than the statistics presented in the Safer Together Document suggest - but not recognised. OTHER ROLES Topsham is a support station to Middlemoor in crewing the Heavy Rescue Vehicle (59R1). We would be more than happy to continue to be utilised as a support station for this asset. COUNTER PROPOSALS 1. CHANGE IN APPLIANCE TYPE - smaller fire appliance As a 2 appliance station we feel as though with a change in type of appliance located at this station we would be able to provide and maintain an increased availability percentage through a recognised process. If one of the Appliances were replaced with a Rapid Intervention Vehicle (RIV), or other smaller typed vehicle (similar to the one based at Appledore Fire Station), with a recognised local crewing arrangement for a reduced crew (similar to the model used at Dartmouth Fire Station) we would be able to work more effectively with the staffing resources available. Topsham has a number of small and narrow streets. Locating a smaller vehicle at Topsham would also demonstrate an understanding of matching a 'resource to risk' as there are no RIV's or smaller vehicles located at nearby stations. The closest is at Budleigh Salterton which under the proposals for change in the future, would no longer be located there. Outcome - Topsham Fire Station remains as 2 Appliance Station, 1 x MRP or LRP and 1 x RIV with a new recognised reduced crewing arrangement. Benefits: ? No recruitment required. ? Reduction in costs through change in vehicle. ? Risk to community posed due to small narrow

streets and access issue reduced by provision of a smaller vehicle being able to get closer and quicker to incidents. ? Response times to Topsham community not negatively impacted on. ? Fire cover provision (5 Appliances) for Exeter area maintained. ? Public confidence remains intact. ? Staffing compliment not affected in any way - no stress issues, resignations, redundancies or relocation implications. ? Strategic location to access Exeter city centre and Exmouth direction. 2. TEMPORARY RELOCATION OF AN APPLIANCE ARRANGEMENT - appliance to SHQ To use the RIV as an example, this vehicle could also be relocated to Service Headquarters (SHQ) during daytime hours, Monday - Friday and crewed by personnel from SHQ. Topsham Firefighters currently have a local arrangement that an appliance is temporarily relocated to SHQ when sufficient crew are available from SHQ workforce. The below ERS map presents the response zones achievable with a 2 minute turnout time from SHQ and this demonstrates a further effective way of working by temporarily relocating an appliance at certain times of the working week. The orange dots show the Incidents Topsham attended between Aug 18 and July 19 (not including duplicate incidents at same locations and Standby moves). Unable to copy in ERS map. (please refer to e-mailed document) If alterations are made to the status at Exmouth or Budleigh Salterton Fire Stations, or appliances are unavailable for whatever reason, this arrangement provides an enhanced service to the public in the Exmouth direction as well as the Exeter city direction, covering a greater distance with a quicker response time. If the proposed crewing changes to Exmouth Fire Station are approved, the night cover location of Appliances at Topsham strategically places us to respond to the Exeter area and Exmouth area. The below ERS map presents the response zones achievable with a 5 minute turnout time from Topsham. With a change in vehicle these times could be improved upon further. The orange dots show the Incidents Topsham attended between Aug 18 and July 19 (not including duplicate incidents at same locations and Standby moves). Unable to copy in ERS map. (please refer to e-mailed document) Outcome - Topsham Fire Station remains as a 2 Appliance Station, 1 x MRP or LRP and 1 x RIV with a new arrangement for RIV being located at SHQ during daytime hours Monday - Friday. Topsham reverts to a 2 appliance station evenings and weekends crewed by current Topsham Firefighters. Benefits: ? No recruitment required. ? Reduction in costs through change in vehicle and crewing arrangements. ? Potential for increased availability with reduced crewing numbers. ? Risk to community posed due to small narrow streets and access issue reduced by provision of a smaller vehicle being able to get closer and quicker to incidents. ? Response times to Topsham community not negatively impacted on. ? Larger response area met through quicker turn out time. ? Fire cover provision (5 Appliances) for Exeter area maintained. ? Public confidence remains intact. ? Staffing compliment not affected in any way - no stress issues, resignations, redundancies or relocation implications. ? Increased work/life balance for establishment staff. ? Strategic location to access Exeter city centre and Exmouth direction. 3. REMOVAL OF SECOND APPLIANCE Remove an Appliance from Topsham Fire Station reducing establishment to 1 Appliance status and reducing the staffing resource and incurred costs. Outcome - Topsham Fire Station remains as a 1 appliance Fire Station (MRP / LRP / RIV). Benefits: ? No recruitment required. ? Reduction in costs through change in Station status. ? Potential for increased availability. ? Initial response of Fire Service resources to Topsham community not negatively impacted on. ? Strategic location to access Exeter city centre and Exmouth direction. Negatives: ? Reduction in number of Fire Appliances. ? Risk to Firefighters and community increased due to increased response times of back up appliances. ? Resignations, redundancies and stress a potential due to over staffing. 4. INTRODUCTION OF A SPECIAL APPLIANCE TO TOPSHAM If Topsham were to reduce to a 1 Appliance establishment this would create a resource of personnel and an empty Appliance bay. One option would be to allocate a special appliance to Topsham Fire Station. This could be a current operational appliance which is located at another Station where crewing numbers are low

and there is difficulty in maintaining availability of all appliances at this station. As and when further reviews of the Fleet Vehicles are undertaken and any new vehicles are introduced there is the opportunity for one to be located at Topsham. We are currently the support crew for the Heavy Rescue Vehicle at Middlemoor Fire Station and would be willing to take sole ownership of this vehicle. Outcome - Topsham Fire Station remains and houses 1 x Fire Appliance and 1 x Special Appliance. Benefits: ? Firefighter resources are already in place. ? Location to major infrastructure routes to Devon. ? Availability can be maintained of both vehicles without impacting on availability of the other if required. ? Depending on the type of Special Appliance (turnout time restrictions), further Firefighters could become available to crew this who may be beyond the 5 minutes response time. Negatives: ? Reduction in number of Fire Appliances. ? Risk to Firefighters and community increased due to increased response times of back up appliances. ? Resignations, redundancies and stress a potential due to over staffing. 5. VEHICLES FOR FIREFIGHTER DELIVERY OVER EQUIPMENT DELIVERY Reducing the Station to a 1 Appliance Station would leave a healthy staffing resource and an opportunity for a different vehicle to be located at Topsham. If the Service were to adopt an approach of 'Firefighter delivery' vehicles rather than using Fire Appliance's to deliver personnel to larger incidents further efficiency can be achieved. Larger incidents when they occur require numbers of Firefighters on scene rather than equipment once a plan has been fully implemented. Vehicles along the lines of RIV's could be introduced alongside fully equipped front line appliances at 2 appliance on call stations and chosen as a method of transport to larger incidents when 'make ups' are received at fire control. This new smaller vehicle could consist of basic firefighting/rescue essentials - Hosereel, fog spike, First Aid bag, RTC combi tool to example a few items of equipment. These smaller vehicles, with selective pieces of equipment, could be supplemented by a further increase in the number of Incident Support Vehicles carrying essential equipment which the Appliances may previously have carried but would no longer have. Outcome - Topsham Fire Station remains and houses 1 x Appliance and 1 x newer smaller vehicle focussing on Firefighter delivery. Benefits: ? Firefighter resources are already in place. ? Reduction in costs through change in vehicle. ? Main Appliance availability not affected as not deployed to larger incident and left parked up on the side of the road. ? Risk to community posed due to small narrow streets and access issue reduced by provision of a smaller vehicle being able to get closer and quicker to incidents. ? Response times to Topsham community not negatively impacted on. ? Location to major infrastructure routes to Devon. ? Availability can be maintained of both vehicles without impacting on availability of the other with revised crewing arrangements. ? Fire cover provision (5 Appliances) for Exeter area maintained. ? Public confidence remains intact. 6. WORKING WITH OTHERS We would be keen to explore any avenues of working with others. Station 60 Assisting USAR would be a logical approach due to the close proximity. We understand that the High Volume Pump was previously crewed by Sidmouth but this no longer happens. Station personnel have expressed an appetite for this. We would be keen to explore other assets at Station 60 that we could assist with crewing. Co Responding Introduction of Co-Responding arrangements working in partnership with Ambulance Service. Useable space within Topsham Fire Station If the Station was downgraded to a 1 Appliance Station the unoccupied Appliance bay could be utilised as office space for a small department to work from providing savings and/or generating income. Prevention and Protection Activity We have a strong relationship with the Topsham Community and enjoy our community engagement events and activity. We would be very keen to recommence prevention activity and engagement with our local community. We understand that the On Call contracts and pay structure are being reviewed and we would welcome the addition of prevention activity work as part of any new contract. Relocation of Topsham Fire Station To SHQ We would like the Fire Authority to acknowledge some discussions around a relocation of Topsham Fire Station to SHQ have

taken place throughout this consultation period with the Chief Fire Officer. At the time of discussion there were no definitive offerings and we found the discussion to be hypothetical based rather than consisting of facts. We would be willing to explore this further rather than a relocation to Middlemoor Fire Station if there was no other alternative than to close Topsham Fire Station, although this still causes concern over increased response times to incidents. Summary As a group we are wholeheartedly against the proposed closure of Topsham Fire Station. We are willing to accept and develop a change in ways of working and feel our proposals meet this criteria and offer innovative ways for the Service as a whole to adopt. If the very brave decision is taken to close Topsham Fire Station then we would like to explore through formal discussions and in depth agreement of terms the possibility of relocating to SHQ."

Alternate proposal for service delivery: Analyse our incident and risk data to determine the number and type of Pumping Appliances, together with strategically located Incident Support Appliances, that are required to meet our risk response profile whilst seeking to remove as many surplus Pumping Appliances as deemed appropriate. This proposal is to be supported by the addition of personnel carriers to those stations that may be re-profiled such that we retain our firefighters and more align our emergency response to the indicated resourcing of our response plans. By a combination of deploying the right Pumping and Support Appliances together with maintaining the ability to deliver sufficient personnel to an incident, significant savings can be realised in both Appliance and Equipment purchase and maintenance costs. Additional benefits would include reduced need for strategic cover moves and associated costs together with maintaining our service wide resilience. An innovative crewing model as should be considered within the review of our On Call model could provide for a more efficient, resilient and evolved service delivery model. Example: A former 'two pump' station is resourced with an MRP or LRP and a personnel carrier. Scenario 1 - Respond to a dwelling fire - response plan of 1 pump and 9 firefighters. Scenario 2 - Respond to a make up for personnel - Firefighters are deployed in the personnel carrier with the pump and sufficient crew remaining available for another call or for escalation/relief no cover move required. This proposal greatly reduces the change impact on our On Call staffing numbers and by extrapolation impact on employers and road risk. This proposal does however require a change of perspective that not all incidents will be attended in a pumping appliance which experience shows can be only used as a means to deliver firefighters to an incident. I believe this demonstrates a more innovative model that preserves our most valuable assets, our firefighters, and provides greater response resilience together with a continuing and visible commitment to public safety. Housing, Communities and Local Government Modern Methods of Construction Inquiry https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/housing-communities- and-local-government-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/inquiry15/ Parliament home page and Parliamentary business and Publications and Records and Committee Publications and All Select Committee Publications and Commons Select Committees and Communities and Local Government and Communities and Local Government. 4 Quality Assurance and Warranties 25. Demonstrating long-term performance is a common problem for innovative products which have no long-term data to draw on. A lack of confidence in the durability of MMC buildings from financial service providers, including valuers, insurers and mortgage lenders has been a key barrier to greater uptake. High profile problems with previous housing developments, have caused reputational damage to MMC homes. To combat these problems the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government established the Joint Industry Working Group on MMC to draw together representatives from across the industry to improve stakeholder education and understanding of MMC with particular reference to enabling better access to mortgage finance, insurance and assurance. The Working Group needs to develop solutions that will encourage these financial service providers into the market. Primary concerns 26. The insurance industry has been particularly cautious to engage with MMC

developments due to the lack of data on the long-term performance of homes built using innovative techniques. Without that data, it is difficult to assess the risk level of those homes. The Association of British Insurers said: At present, compared to the wealth of historical data and evidence on which to assess the risk posed by a traditionally built property, there is a lack of data and evidence on the ability of MMC buildings to withstand the effects of named perils in real-world scenarios, therefore limiting the assessments which insurers can make on such properties. 27. Confidence in MMC for homebuilding has also been affected by a number of high-profile failings in previous MMC developments which have led to long-standing reputational problems. More than forty non-traditional house types were classified as defective under part XVI of the Housing Act 1985. For example, the Cornish Type 1 House incorporated pre-cast reinforced concrete panel walls on the ground floor and a second storey within a timber-framed mansard roof. The pre-cast concrete proved to be susceptible to carbonisation and loss of structural integrity and the homes were poorly insulated. More recently, some of the £60,000 homes built in the 2000s and have reportedly begun to rot. Insurance provider, Zurich Insurance plc described case studies from their customers who have experienced problems in their MMC homes: Zurich Insurance plc case study 2.13 Zurich previously assisted two customers who had experienced near identical issues at their respective housing developments which had been built using common MMC such as timber frames, wooden cladding and components manufactured off-site. Just a decade after construction the customers were alerted by staff and tenants to a number of concerns including cracks appearing in walls, uneven floor surfaces and windows and doors not fitting properly in their frames. Given the nature of the construction such movement raises significant concern as to the remaining integrity of the fire stopping within the buildings, given that there is minimal inbuilt resilience to such defects within these structures. 2.14 Structural engineers conducted an intrusive survey of the developments which raised a number of concerns including: the existence of large voids in the internal structures which would allow fire to move quickly and undetected throughout the entire building; holes in the walls and around fires doors breaching vital firebreaks as a result of structural settlement and drying out; and large holes in firebreak walls and floors as a result of contractors installing piping and electrical services and not subsequently back filling them to the required standard and approved detail. 28. In their written evidence, the insurance industry and fire protection agencies raised concerns about the risk of fire in MMC homes due to the types of materials they incorporate. The Association of British Insurers said: MMC products often incorporate lightweight combustible materials such as wood, polystyrene and recycled materials, which have the potential to increase the risk of fire spread, leading to major damage to property and significant insurance claims costs for reinstatement. Hidden cavities and voids caused by bad practice during the installation phase can also enable the spread of flame, smoke and toxic gases causing harm to any inhabitants within the building. The Minister of State for Housing, Kit Malthouse MP, told us he is undertaking work on data accountability on safety in particular to ensure it is auditable, inspectable and assessable. 29. The Association of British Insurers also raised concerns about the reparability, maintenance and modification of MMC homes: The insurance industry also considers there to be a lack of information regarding reparability, maintenance and modification of MMC buildings, specifically relating to the associated costs and practicalities of repair, and would therefore welcome clarification on this. 30. In its written evidence the Association of British Insurers said it was concerned that if a small part of a modular home suffered damage, the whole module may need to be replaced. This makes repairs more difficult and costlier than for homes built traditional techniques. Other witnesses raised questions about the adaptability of MMC homes; the Home Builders Federation said ?for homes built out of Structured Insulated Panels (SIPs), homeowners will be unable to add an extension or additional windows once the property has been constructed.? This may make it a less appealing option to consumers. Social Housing 80. Provision of social housing has been falling;

between World War II and 1980 an average of 126,000 new social homes were built every year but in 2018 only 6,463 new social homes were delivered. Shelter's Commission on social housing report published in January 2019, entitled 'Building for our future: A vision for social housing' recommends ?a historic renewal of social housing with a 20-year programme to deliver 3.1 million more social homes.? This would require an average of 150,000 new social homes to be built each year. To meet those targets local authorities will have to increase the rate at which they are adding homes to the social housing stock rapidly. In response to Shelter's report, Cllr Martin Tett, Housing spokesman for the Local Government Association, said The last time we built enough homes councils built 40 per cent of them. We need to get back to those levels if we're to tackle our housing crisis, building a new generation of at least 100,000 high quality social homes a year. New social housing will have to add a significant proportion of the total homes built annually for the Government to get close to its target of delivering 300,000 homes each year by the mid-2020s. 81. Witnesses told the Committee that MMC is particularly well suited to sectors that require high volume, repetitive designs that can be built off-site and transported to the building site to be erected. This makes social and affordable housing good candidates for the off-site approach, where there can also be advantages in the speed of delivery. Ordering similar housing units in bulk helps to provide surety in the supply chain for the components used and lowers the cost per unit. Many housing associations are keen for more collaboration between local authorities and housing associations to come together and drive demand for certain MMC products and achieve economies of scale. 82. Several witnesses said that MMC homes are usually more energy efficient than homes built using traditional methods. This helps to reduce heating bills means the whole-life running costs of such buildings could be lower than other homes. For this reason, The Royal Institute of British Architects said that if the whole-life value of residential units were taken into account at the procurement stage, it would increase the demand for MMC homes. 83. In the 2018 Budget, the Government announced plans to abolish the Housing Revenue Account borrowing cap that controls the amount local authorities can borrow for housing. The Government forecasts this will enable councils in England to build an additional 10,000 homes per year. Local authorities could take this opportunity to borrow money to invest in MMC social homes which could help to speed-up the delivery of homes and benefit the manufacturers in the supply chain. 84. If we are to deliver 300,000 homes annually and meet demand for social housing, local authorities need to start building homes in far greater numbers than they have done in recent years. MMC are particularly well suited to this type of tenure because the large volumes of standardised accommodation help to bring down unit costs. Some forms of MMC have also proven to be more energy efficient than traditional construction techniques which helps to reduce fuel bills and running costs for tenants. Housing associations have been among the early adopters of MMC for building homes. Swan Housing Association and Accord Homes have both chosen to integrate the supply chain and build their own factories in which to construct homes off-site. 85. While social housing has a role to play in supporting greater take-up of MMC, it is important that lower cost designs are fully tested to ensure that MMC is delivering sustainable, durable, high quality social homes, so that MMC does not become associated with negative examples. Its use in this context should not be seen as a testing ground for its wider use and steps should be taken to promote MMC in all tenures, as we outline through this Report. Local authorities should increase rapidly the pace at which they build new social homes. They should further engage with housing associations which have already adopted MMC, in order to better understand best practice and explore the potential for more MMC use in the supply of social housing. Local authorities should also factor in whole life running costs of social homes when tendering for building contracts.

These risk ideas seem to be geared to protect the large urban areas at a cost to the rural with a smaller population. Could some of these stations be merged /satellited in some way to reduce overall costs.

Yes for one of the proposed stations is where I am stationed and we can always man the second appliance 12+ hours a day overnight so I feel we shouldn't have the second taken away, it would benefit us more having it turned off in the day time hours rather than losing it completely.

A suggestion: is there any way villages/villagers could be trained in first line fire response and given basic equipment, similarly to medical first responders? This will in no way address the risk posed by options 3 and up but may counteract some of the helplessness we all feel in the face of fire.

In order to get value for money and avoid waste of resources could fire fighters do other tasks e.g. working with para medics or even using fire tenders to water municipal plants as they do in Galicia (Spain ) . Then the people and equipment would be available when needed but would be doing useful work when not needed for critical incidents..

All engines should be stood down but remain ready for use in an emergency.

I am concerned about night time response times to Colaton Raleigh will be considerably longer than at present and feel that maintaining the retained fire-fighters at Budleigh Salterton on-call is the best solution

This is a good approach from the Service as it is flexible, and also provides potential jobs for those that may be displaced from the above options. However, the savings are then largely lost. I would suggest 4 roving appliances rather than 6? One in Somerset, one in West, one in Central East and one in Central North.

I can understand that stations may need to close, but this action should be covered by keeping the fire- engines as rovers and necessary trained staff to attend call outs in the original areas and where-ever needed.

The only element i favour with this option [6] is the six roving fire engines which i think is a good idea, i believe this should be incorporated into option 1 to mitigate the closure of the eight stations affected.

This is a good idea as it will make more WT pumps during the day but not at night when the risks go up significantly. . Should not be crewed by cutting WT stations to day crewing making those station areas less safe at night. . ORC are already roving FF's why not give them 21hr contracts to sit and crew the roving pumps as they are doing that already pretty much.

Waste of money for crews to be driving around and getting paid for sitting and waiting. It would make more sense to get on call fire stations with excellent availability to go day manned

I wholeheartedly disagree with all of this. Closure/reduction of services is unacceptable- if there are issues with keeping pumps on the run during daytime, make sure the people you are currently recruiting can actually provide day cover, and put this in their contract. Why not just have day manned stations?

Better of leaving a few 2 pump stations on the run during the day and using them for standby if required. New contracts for on call staff

Either make the retained duty more attractive to keep the pumps on the run, or close them completely and replace with a wholetime station which would be located as to cover many RDS stations. This way cover would be 24/7 reducing turn out times and improving firefighter and public safety.

If roving appliances are an option then look at staffing them all the time, and offering shorter shift patterns so you can recruit more firefighters who don't live within 5 mins of a station, without the financial overheads of limitations of having to keep stations running for them.

Don't agree that roving appliances is the best solution. A better resourced crewing pool is a better use of resources in my opinion, cheaper to maintain, way more flexible. Why send a whole crew to an area that 1 or 2 crewing pool members could have fixed.

I think Option 6 is sensible with big equipment to tackle big incidents but smaller, more flexible vehicles that can attend quickly and are more manoeuvrable than the big engines. It's a bit like first- responder paramedics, as opposed to ambulances. Whilst I appreciate that for big engines you need a purpose built fire stations, could smaller units be located in the community at the first-fire responders house etc?

It sounds ok in theory but of course these would have to based where demand is highest and presumably at one of the existing stations. It would be crazy to spend on another site if you are trying to save money. It wouldn’t work to have them all in one geographic location. It would just be simpler to say where these 6 full- time day-crew pumps would be based of the existing stations.

Night crewing for stations with 2 fire engines.

I understand that community awareness talks etc is certainly a positive way of reducing fires and other incidents like RTC's. Would it be sensible to recruit/train more Community Education Officers to do this and cut FF numbers slightly (perhaps through natural reduction via retirement etc..)

The idea of having 6 roving fire engines appeals but should be 24/7.

If second appliance can't be crewed switch it off, and back on at night. Day crew as before.

I think that Option 6 strikes a relatively good balance across the Service. I am surprised that other stations are not included and also that some are. For instance Princetown is a relatively low activity station with poor availability, closely surrounded by 2 other stations (Yelverton and Tavistock) both of whom have extremely good availability. On the other hand I am a little surprised that Kingston is included. The net monetary gain of closing Kingston is very small and with there positive attitude to work flexibly I would of liked to have seen that removed from the list. Politically I think that the loss of WT night cover could be negated by offering the WT crews a chance to work a Self-Rostering type scheme. That way there would be no loss of night cover and more efficiency savings and the introduction of a more flexible working pattern. The loss of 2nd and 3rd pumps during the day I understand, particularly if a new On-Call contract can be agreed.

You cannot close any stations. Use them more efficiently being able to mobilise with less than a crew of 4. 2nd and 3rd appliances could be a different type of vehicle and support incidents with crew members. You cannot turn 2nd pumps off at any time. New pay system can be used more effectively. Pay more for 1st appliance. You can achieve same saving and more availability of staff to do Protection prevention work if you reduce watches to minimum and use a properly managed crewing pool No detail about roving appliance but taking calls away from crews that are available would effect motivation and you will lose on call staff

Good idea for being flexible and able to adapt to changing situations. It is quite costly and maybe review whether all 6 are needed and also how to make best use of their available time. Maybe look to flex the number of appliances to meet demand throughout the year, reducing the cost.

I do not agree to any station closures. Removal of 3rd engine may be viable but not in conjunction with all the other changes proposed for this option. Roving fire engine - I don't think so. Put these engines in the stations you want to close, fire-fighters already on top only being paid a retainer and turn out, not a full time wage.

On the face of it, it [Option 6] increases day cover but is an expensive way of doing so. Look at RDS contracts and award them properly, this will then increase availability in these areas. With the spare W/T personnel, these could be used in pairs in a station van to carry out P & P in other towns and villages without W/T cover. They could be on call for the local RDS station - boosting numbers and keeping that pump on the run. As they are sent out in smaller teams, twice as much P & P would be completed.

No fire station closures. Use on-call staff to carry out prevention and protection work.

With the figures provided you could still fund these [day-crewed, roving] appliances if you only took a bit of options 4 and 5 with any of options 1-3 in them. WHY make drastic cuts that will cost lives when there significant savings to me made elsewhere? These appliances are great if we have fires during working hours sadly the last 4 fires in our town in the last few weeks have all been at night!

A useful option [Option 5] due to the fact that roads will be less busy which will not decrease response times, however I would consider moving your proposed 6pm time due to traffic and commuters still on the roads.

Good to reduce number of fire engines but cover must be available from other stations, so keep second engine to supplement station with only one engine

Stations stay open keep 2 engines in every station bigger stations to have 3/4 to vacate when smaller stations with 2 engines needing more support from them

Taunton is expanding at an incredible rate and if any change is required, in my view it would be wise to consider expansion, or a second Fire Station. Regarding Second fire engine removal, Martock possibly, Totnes possibly.

We need 24/7 cover in North Devon. Have you considered a spend to save option with two full time stations and removing all other retained stations? Maybe one on the Roundswell side of Barnstaple and one possibly at Mullacott near Ilfracombe. That way you will cover all areas within a reasonably time frame and save money by reducing the number of retained stations that are often off the run due to lack of available staff.

Day crewing is great. You should consider it for Taunton, Bridgwater and Yeovil.

I can see that these 3 stations used to be day crewed over a decade ago. Risk has reduced in these areas since then so it’s difficult to justify keeping them 24/7. However, Barnstaple is the only guaranteed resource in the whole of north Devon during the evening. If this is to be implemented it would have to wait until the other surrounding stations are fully crewed before reducing the crewing. Could a further option for these 3 stations be to have a reduced crew of 2 at night on each station so that it only relies on an additional 2 FFs to arrive? That way they can still carry out evening activities and you get improved WT/On call working together.

Specialist appliances is a problem. Training for on call crews to be able to crew them. Ongoing training to keep competency levels up. Who covers the specials when crewing levels drop below minimum as you cannot guarantee on call crewing levels? Have you looked at a self-roster shift system or even close proximity crewing? Both the other shift systems guarantee a 24hr availability for a fire crew at a reduced cost to the service but I realise this is not a cost cutting exercise. But a realigning of resources.

If some stations are closed, the number of fire engines reduced and therefore personnel, it makes no sense to change crew status - you should be thinking of increasing crews and their status to cover the areas that have lost their vital local service.

Exmouth should remain wholetime if you were to get rid of Budleigh. Or move Budleigh’s RIV to Exmouth and let the Budleigh crew respond on the retained system there. You then wouldn't essentially be sacking the Budleigh crew, you could still close Budleigh station and save the running costs, have a larger number of retained crew at Exmouth meaning a more reliable availability. If you then allowed the Exmouth/Budleigh RIV to turn out with a crew of 3 you could in theory turn "3" pumps out with just 11 crew from Exmouth. This would look good to the Exmouth / Budleigh community, not cost a huge amount extra to achieve, save running costs at Budleigh station, save having to employ wholetime FF there during the night and be a bit of a political compromise. Admittedly getting rid of 3rd pumps at some stations and adding Budleigh’s pump to Exmouth and making it a 3 pump station would be controversial, but possibly renaming the Station to Exmouth and Budleigh Community fire station or just being very clear that the 3rd RIV is the Budleigh station merging with Exmouth should appease opposition.

This [option 3] should really be a standalone option, as on its own it makes some sense. Should not require station closures as an integral part.

I think it should be considered increasing resources at Danes Castle and Middlemore to potentially close Crediton. This would be the same at Totnes, I would consider closure of this station and crewing from Paignton as this does have a wholetime provision.

We need to find better ways of working more use of volunteers

I very much disagree with the removal of the third fire engine at Taunton. The area is expanding at an incredible rate and if any change is required, in my view it would be wise to consider expansion, or a second Fire Station. Re Second fire engine removal: Crediton No, Lynton No, Martock possibly, Totnes possibly.

Relocate engine from Topsham to Middlemoor. Do not like second engine removals, particularly from Lynton. Don't like third engine removals as previously stated because all four towns are growing rapidly.

Lynton must stay at 2 pumps or if not keep Porlock.

Stations can be put to better use, use as community hubs, rent rooms, share with other services and this would subsidise the service

I don't feel this option [2] is making the service more effective. Larger incidents have become more common and these third appliances have become a valuable resource and helped with increasing crewing numbers on

the incident ground without having to wait for resources from further away. The reason third and second appliances are poorly crewed is due to the outdated retained system - sort out the retained system first before removing appliances and leave the wholetime system alone

Local response to the DSFRS consultation, In the main this response focuses on the implications for Taunton and its wider community, below we have tried to provide information to help the reader make an informed response to DSFRS own consultation document, which offers limited details of their vision and the savings they hope to achieve from the reduction in front line services, that will then be re-allocated to prevention and protection activities. It is acknowledged that these activities do have a place within the fire service, alongside intervention work, but not instead of firefighters and fire engines, and considerable budgets are already allocated to these activities. DSFRS have provided a number of options, that at a glance do not add up, for example some stations identified for closure already have smaller fire appliances, known as RIVs which cost significantly less (in the region of 140k less) than a Medium response pump or standard fire engine and the figures provided by DSFRS state that an MRP costs 300k, so the actual stated savings is far less than indicated. We feel that our own examples below can demonstrate that the savings through the proposals from DSFRS may not actually be realistic, and could in effect cost more by removing the 3rd fire appliance from Taunton. Using the figures provided by DSFRS, we have calculated that it could actually cost in the region of ï¿½60.000 more in revenue costs, to bring in fire engines from nearby towns due to the loss of Taunton's the 3rd fire engine, when fire cover will be needed. We have also demonstrated that attendance times will potentially increase up to 30 mins which is 20 mins more than the standard attendance of 10 mins. It is also acknowledged that the 3rd fire appliance from Taunton is not out on the road every day, however, it does provide resilience and cover at Taunton when the 1st and 2nd fire engines are already committed. The consultation proposal document is at best misleading and does not give the full picture. This response will hopefully depict the true situation of Taunton's 3rd fire engine as well as offering realistic alternatives to the proposed removal of your 3rd fire engine. The statistics included within our response are based on the reality of losing Taunton Fire Station's 3rd fire engine and the implications for the population of Taunton and the wider community. The Consultation Document States: Taunton's 3rd fire engine is rarely used. In Reality: Taunton's 3rd fire engine is more active than many other 2 pump stations in Somerset and Devon, and possibly more than some 1 pump stations. Figures can be obtained from DSFRS to confirm this when making a comparison with other stations. The 3rd fire engine provides emergency backup for the first 2 fire engines at any incident and also provides essential cover from Taunton station for its surrounding areas and beyond, whether called to an incident or not (it is worth noting that the 1st and 2nd fire engine may be committed to the same or separate incidents elsewhere). The 3rd fire engine often provides reliefs and/or standby cover moves and frequently attends other incidents that has not been included in the safer together document. The Consultation Document States: 3rd pump is often not available for use. The reasons for this may include: Recruitment across the organisation was capped for a number of years. Stations were not permitted to take on new personnel until the station staffing numbers dropped below 80%. Insufficient recruitment drives and the subsequent training opportunities for successful recruits. The recruitment process is slow! The start to end process for new staff at Taunton station has taken up to two years, from advertising the positions to completion of appropriate training in order to gain full competency and become a fully trained and functional firefighter. This has had a knock on affect which meant new replacements in Taunton have yet to complete the required skills to be operational in order to help sufficiently crew the 3rd fire engine. The Consultation Document States: Response time is 10 minutes for a house fire. In Reality: Within the Taunton area, with the loss of the 3rd pump, this will be more like 20- 30 mins from the next nearest available station, depending on traffic and time of day. This will also mean

that the 15 mins ERS for RTCs is also unlikely to be met. In the consultation documents, it is presumed that journey times are calculated as the crow flies and at night, so therefore these statistics are skewed and perhaps physically unachievable. Delays in attendance could potentially mean an increased loss of life, as well as property and this may also have an impact on insurance premiums. Fires can become fully developed and engulf a whole room in as little as 6-8 minutes. Quick response times are vital, to ensure the safety of the public and fire fighters a like and hopefully prevent incidents from being protracted. DSFRS may base this whole consultation on the assumption that only 1 incident will occur at a time within the Taunton area, where the population is in the region of 80,000 (most building fires require 2 or more fire engines). The numbers of fire fighters on fire engines has already decreased over the years from a standard crew of 5 firefighters to minimum crewing of 4 firefighters, and where appropriate, there is also the opportunity to ride with only 3 personnel to assist other crews when short of front line staff or equipment. This all impacts on safety for firefighters. Using DSFRS maps, the area which Taunton would be responsible for is extremely large, with the next nearest station being 20 plus minutes response time away, compared to other stations who have additional stations much nearer, with far shorter response times available. The Consultation Document States: Just two types of incidents for their statistics, which are dwelling fires and road traffic collisions. Reality: Fire fighters also attend other incidents, such as shed fires, barn fires, vehicle fires, fires in the open, commercial fires, alarms, hazardous material incidents, chemical leaks, environment protection incidents, water rescue, lift rescue, animal rescue, rescues at height, rescues in confined spaces, co- responding, assisting Ambulance service for gain entries to properties, assisting with bariatric patients, station to station cover moves, resilience for the Taunton area and any incident requiring our resources outside of our station ground (just to name a few) and these have not been included. Rightly, the perception of the public is that we would attend those incidents listed above and to leave these statistics out of the consultation document is misleading and perhaps providing a lack of understanding on how their council tax contributions is used. For the public to make an informed response it would have been beneficial if the full range of incidents that the fire service attend was included in the document. With an increase of council tax of 2.99% for the fire and rescue service in the Taunton Deane area, surely the public would expect at least the same level of cover or better. In addition to the above it is also worth noting that the fire services 2004 act makes for provision for the fire and rescue service to attend other emergencies, such as mass decontamination and terrorism. Although the service has changed over the last 50 years and there has been a reduction in dwelling fires and RTC's, the variety of incidents that firefighters are expected to attend has also grown over the years. Therefore, it is only logical that reference to all incidents should be included within the consultation document. A variety of fires and alarms could easily develop into a protracted incident causing greater risk to life if response times were slower. The Consultation Document States: Incidents are decreasing. Reality Incidents within the local Taunton area are increasing year on year (2015) 959 (2016) 1025 (2017) 1051 (2018)1065, and there are now over 1000 incidents recorded annually. The population of Taunton is increasing, the size of Taunton is increasing, the amount of traffic is increasing and with the M5, major road and rail links on our doorstep (not forgetting canals and major rivers that also run through the town) it is imperative that we are able to meet the demand for the ever growing population by being appropriately supported, funded and provided with suitable vehicles and equipment to attend all incidents. Taunton's 3rd fire engine was the first fire engine to attend the horrific M5 crash which took place in 2011, where 7 people lost their lives and a further 51 were injured many seriously. The 1st and 2nd fire engines were already committed at other incidents at the time of this incident and so the 3rd fire engine was first on scene. Sadly this crash resulted in loss of lives, however the death toll could potentially have been significantly higher if the first appliance had to travel from a different station. The resilience that the 3rd fire

engine provides whilst Taunton's 2 other fire engines are committed elsewhere, allows a response of approx. of 8 minutes to another incident at the same time. The Consultation Document States: Nine firefighters are required for dwelling fires with 1 fire engine. In Reality: Unfortunately the document does not state that a fire engine will only have max capacity for 5 people, therefore, it is suggested that additional personnel will need to be transported by people carriers. This would not be possible in locations in and around Taunton due to its wider urban and rural community, as the available water supply is limited and therefore it would require additional appliances to shuttle and supply water via fire hydrants to the incident. If a people carrier replaced a fire appliance, then 4 firefighters would have no equipment or water to assist in a fire or enable them to be further deployed on completion of the incident, until they have returned to station. The Consultation Document suggests that; Fire and road deaths will reduce slightly with the removal of these appliances. Further reductions in fatalities will be gained by the delivery of more prevention and protection activities. In Reality: This is an intangible figure as there is no evidence provided on how delivering more safety checks and home visits will reduce deaths. Logic appears not to apply here as it does not say how the removal of fire fighters and resources will result in a fall in fire and road deaths? Last year fire deaths actually increased in Somerset and Devon by 150%. The Consultation Document States: DSFRS will reduce RTCs, but no evidence of how this will be achieved, has been provided in the document. The Consultation Document States: The aim is to reduce ongoing running and maintenance costs of station buildings. In Reality: These costs are negligible. There are no real additional costs to having the 3rd pump as any heating, lighting and any other maintenance will be in use anyway as the 3rd appliance is housed alongside other vehicles, within the same building. The Consultation Document States: Roles at Risk In Reality: This means potential job losses for firefighters. The Consultation Document States: There is the potential for staff to work for the service in different stations and roles In Reality: This will mean unless on call staff are prepared to leave their primary employment and move to an alternative station area (i.e. work and live within the 5 minute response zone) then in many cases this could mean job losses. The Consultation Document States: Roving appliances will be introduced, but no actual detail has been provided as to how this will work and what areas. The 4th of July meeting at SHQ said they will be delivering prevention and protection to businesses that have never had checks and will be working in rural areas. In Reality: There is no infrastructure or facilities in place to accommodate the provision of roving appliances or the needs of crews who would ride them. The document does not say in what form these Roving Pumps will take, e.g. RIVs, MRPs or how many firefighters will be on each appliance (2,3,4 or 5 personnel), and DSFRS have not provided detail on where they will rove? Therefore it may not fulfil Emergency response standards in Taunton. There is no provision for welfare or replenishment of used equipment, such as Breathing Apparatus etc. and so much more. It is anticipated any additional support required in the Taunton area would be limited. Other factors to consider: When committed at incidents, to be effective additional crews are required quickly, to ensure a successful conclusion of the incident, therefore, removing the third fire engine may increase back up times by up to 30 minutes in or around Taunton. New, smaller fire engines, have a lot less water storage capacity, which results in water supplies being exhausted much sooner and the need for a fire hydrant or more fire engines quickly is essential to ensure supplies do not run out. Taunton is surrounding by many of rural villages, (not taking into account the additional travel time) and the need for water supplies is much greater in these locations, currently the 3rd fire engine helps provide much needed additional water, due to its larger storage tanks and this goes someway to keeping firefighters safe, allowing more time to locate and connect to a working hydrant. If committed to a dwelling fire with persons reported in a these village location, the Emergency Response Standard requires 3 fire engines to attend due to additional travel times. In effect the loss of the 3rd appliance could have a negative impact for firefighters

and villagers as water supplies may not last long enough. It is anticipated that water supplies for 3 fire engines could last approx. 6.5 minutes before a permanent supply is connected, if larger delivery hoses are used. In effect villages could be most affected, by potentially delayed attendance times, lack of water supplies and with minimum personnel to deal with a fire or rescue incidents. Whole time recruitment courses have been cancelled by the organisation. On call staff who are on fixed term contracts are then used to fill vacancies on whole time stations. This is a short-term fix which results in gaps on their home stations. Recruitment from on call stations to fill permanent whole time positions. Whole time staff on secondary contracts are used to fill on call vacancies. Shift workers are given contracts, so are not able to give extra free cover. Once contracted hours have been met by employees, there are no additional benefits or incentives to provide further cover. In the retained duty system, generally firefighters go above and beyond their contracted hours to keep appliances available. In the main contracts are 63 hours, however individual firefighters usually offer in excess of 100 hours. This is particularly pertinent within the Taunton area, where firefighters are often exceeding contracted hours to ensure the safety of their local community. Any reduction in fire fighters or fire engines would only serve to put further pressure on firefighters. The service has spent in excess of ï¿½1 million on software that has now been decommissioned. The service has refitted all fire engines (including the 3rd pump at Taunton which this consultation is based on) with updated new breathing apparatus sets at considerable expense. This spending could have been better planned as it costs in the region of £100,000 to run and maintain an on call fire station and fire engine annually. The failed software alone could provide Taunton, Bridgwater and Yeovil's third fire engine with 3 more years of service. DSFRS now has £37million in reserve funding. It is disappointing that this wasn't referenced in the consultation document, or how these reserves were raised? A significant amount of this reserve is from the unused budgets for staff wages, where recruitment has not matched retirements. Although we acknowledge that we are required to maintain a reserve, it goes without saying that the safety of the public should be and is the priority, not continuing to increase the reserve cash amount.

Third pumps should be cut before we lose individual stations in my opinion. Stations that have 3 pumps should not have their crewing levels cut immediately. Time should be allowed for natural wastage until crewing levels drop to the required level for 2 pumps. This is so no one loses their job at 3 pump stations (Just maybe not going on so many shouts).

I accept the following closures - Kingston as a volunteer covered station. I do not accept the removal of the service at Porlock due to the rural area it covers. I do not accept the removal of service at Woolacombe as this area has a high influx of visitors. I do not accept the removal of the 3rd fire engine from Yeovil because this town is currently undergoing expansion plans with another 4,000 properties being built within the next few years. Most of these will be timber frames dwellings which bring their own problems. There is also a plan to build more dwellings just over the border into Dorset, whilst these will come under Dorset there is an expectation that all services will be provided by Yeovil. Our fire crews already provide support to Dorset as far south as Weymouth and our local area must keep present resources to enable this to continue e.g. the recent barn fire in Marnhull which required Yeovil crews to attend. Yeovil has residential homes with over 60 residents and we must ensure that our fire and rescue service is maintained. Yeovil is the only wholetime and on-call service within south Somerset and this can save lives due to response times. I do not agree with the removal of the third pump from Bridgwater and Taunton as both of these stations are close to the M5 motorway. No other explanation required.

No to closures, the service needs to adapt the way it works by being more flexible with its crewing models. If some stations are struggling with crew availability why can't they work together e.g. two part crews making a whole crew therefore utilising what they do have.

Third engine removal acceptable on grounds of capital cost saving. Reduction in on call firefighters only to a level which maintains sufficient numbers to support wholetime staff turn out 2 pumps plus ariel ladder and/or other specialist appliance.

Opinion Research Services | The Strand • Swansea • SA1 1AF | 01792 535300 | www.ors.org.uk | [email protected]