Programme 2020 Consultation: Options for Change 2016-2020
Full Report of Consultation
Opinion Research Services Spin-out company of Swansea University
Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
As with all our studies, findings from this research are subject to Opinion Research Services’ Standard Terms and Conditions of Contract. Any press release or publication of the findings of this research requires the advance approval of ORS. Such approval will only be refused on the grounds of inaccuracy or misrepresentation.
© Copyright May 2016 Opinion Research Services (ORS) The Strand, Swansea, SA1 1AF 01792 535300 www.ors.org.uk
Spin-out company of Swansea University
ght March 2016
2
Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Contents
Acknowledgements ...... 5 Executive Summary and Conclusions ...... 7 The Commission ...... 7 Extensive Consultation ...... 7 Summary of Consultation Strands ...... 8 Main Consultation Findings ...... 9 Conclusions ...... 19 ORS and Essex Fire Authority Roles ...... 20 Project Overview ...... 21 Opinion Research Services ...... 21 The Commission ...... 21 Open Questionnaire...... 22 Local Campaign Questionnaires ...... 22 Deliberative Forums...... 22 Written Submissions ...... 27 Petitions ...... 28 The Report ...... 28 Open Consultation Questionnaire...... 29 Introduction ...... 29 Interpretation of the Data ...... 29 Need for Interpretation ...... 29 Respondent Profiles ...... 30 Main Findings: Open Questionnaire ...... 33 Main Findings: Open Text Comments ...... 34 Staff Forums ...... 60 Main Findings: Operational Staff ...... 60 Main Findings: Support Staff ...... 66 Partner Forum ...... 74 Introduction ...... 74 Main Findings ...... 74
3 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Public Forums ...... 78 Introduction ...... 78 Main Findings ...... 79 Written Submissions ...... 97 Written Submissions ...... 97 Summary Table of Themes from Shorter Written Submissions ...... 102 Summaries of Lengthier Written Submissions ...... 108 Petitions ...... 123 Overview of Petitions ...... 123 Summary of Petitions ...... 123 Overall Conclusions ...... 125 Introduction ...... 125 Overall Conclusions ...... 125 ORS and Essex Fire Authority Roles ...... 126
4 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Acknowledgements
Opinion Research Services (ORS) is pleased to have worked with Essex County Fire and Rescue Service (ECFRS) on the consultation programme reported here.
We are grateful to all of those who completed the questionnaire or submitted a written submission, petition or online comment - and to those who took part in the forums. The latter were especially patient in listening to background information before entering positively into the spirit of open discussions about challenging topics, with some controversial aspects in some cases. They engaged with the Service, with the issues under consideration and with each other in discussing their ideas readily.
We thank ECFRS and EFA for commissioning the project and we particularly thank those with whom we have worked with for their collaboration - and for attending the forums and meetings to answer people’s many questions. Such meetings benefit considerably from such readiness to answer participants’ questions fully and frankly, as in this case.
At all stages of the project, ORS’s status as an independent organisation facilitating the consultation as fairly as possible was recognised and respected; this is an independent report and has not been influenced or shaped by ECFRS EFA or any other party. We are grateful for the trust, and we hope this report will contribute usefully to thinking about ECFRS’s development in difficult times.
5 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
The ORS Project Team
Project Design and Management
Dale Hall Kelly Lock Ciara Small
Fieldwork Management
Robyn Griffiths
Focus Group Facilitators
Dale Hall Kelly Lock Hannah Champion
Report Authors
Kelly Lock Dale Hall Hannah Champion Daniel Morris Ciara Small
6 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Executive Summary and Conclusions
The Commission
1. Essex Fire and Rescue service (ECFRS) and Essex Fire Authority (EFA) are considering options for the future of fire and rescue services across the county in the context of steadily reducing risk (when measured in terms of the number of incidents) and financial constraints. As such, on the basis of our experience of the fire and rescue service and many statutory consultations, ORS was commissioned to undertake a programme of key consultation activities, and provide an interpretative report of findings.
2. The three options consulted on were: Option 1: a 0.8% increase (about £0.55 on a Band D property per year) in the fire service portion of council tax and a reduction in response resources; Option 2: a 2% increase (about £1.35 on a Band D property per year) in the fire service portion of council tax and a smaller reduction in response resources than option 1; and Option 3: no increase in council tax and a larger reduction in response resources than option 1 and 2.
Extensive Consultation
3. The consultation period ran for 12 weeks from Monday 1st February 2016 until Monday 25th April 2016, and included elements conducted by ORS as an independent organisation - for example: advising on the consultation activity; designing informative and interactive presentation material suitable for use at the focus groups; designing, implementing and analysing responses to an on-line and paper version of an open consultation questionnaire; recruiting, facilitating and reporting eight deliberative forums with randomly selected members of the public, four with ECFRS staff and one with partners; analysing and summarising written submissions and petitions received by ECFRS during the consultation period; and producing a final overall report of all consultation findings and guidance on the interpretation of the material.
4. In addition, ECFRS and EFA’s own activities included: providing details of the IRMP proposals on the ECFRS website; printing and distributing approximately 3,000 consultation documents and questionnaires; undertaking 24 public ‘drop-in’ exhibitions in local libraries
7 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
and shopping centres; and publicising the consultation in the local media (broadcast and print) and via press releases, social media, Twitter and Facebook.
Summary of Consultation Strands Open Questionnaire
5. The open consultation questionnaire (with an accompanying Consultation Document) was available online and as a hard copy between 1st February and 25th April 2016. 6,245 questionnaires were completed: 3,590 were submitted online and 2,655 by post. A further 11,403 additional copies of the questionnaire were received separately from the ‘open’ version: these came in three separate ‘batches’ and had seemingly been collected via local campaigns - two across Essex and one locally to Harwich/Dovercourt.
6. It should be noted that while open questionnaires are important consultation routes that are accessible to almost everyone, they are not ‘surveys’ of the public. Whereas surveys require proper sampling of a given population, open questionnaires are distributed unsystematically or adventitiously and are more likely to be completed by motivated people while also being subject to influence by local campaigns. As such, because the respondent profile (as outlined in the full report) is an imperfect reflection of the Essex population, its results must be interpreted carefully. Crucially though, this does not mean that the open questionnaire findings should be discounted: they are analysed in detail in this report and must be taken into account as a demonstration of the strength of feeling of residents who were motivated to put forward their views (and in many cases concerns) about the proposed options.
Deliberative Forums
7. The consultation meetings reported here used a ‘deliberative’ approach to encourage ECFRS staff, stakeholders and members of the public to reflect in depth about the fire and rescue service, while both receiving and questioning background information and discussing their ideas in detail. All the meetings lasted for two-and-a-half hours and in total there were 27 staff, seven stakeholder and 109 public participants.
8. Staff and partners were invited to participate by ECFRS - and local residents were recruited by ORS through random digit telephone dialling, with quota controls to ensure the relatively proportional representation of different demographic and socio-economic groups. Care was taken to ensure that no groups were disadvantaged in the recruitment process and participants were recompensed for their time and expenses in attending.
9. ECFRS and EFA commissioned the forum programme in order fairly to ‘test’ the acceptability or otherwise of their proposals in thoughtful, considered and deliberative or ‘jury-style’ meetings. The meetings began with detailed presentations by ORS outlining the principles of the IRMP proposals and the implications of the changes in the relevant areas. There were
8 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
lengthy question and answer periods, followed by detailed and deliberative discussions of the issues.
Written Submissions
10. In total, 92 individuals and organisations provided written submissions or telephone feedback to ECFRS (though the latter was very small in number). Many of these submissions were both lengthy and deliberated - so these considered documents are worthy of careful consideration for the issues and counter-proposals they contain. To make them readily accessible, the written submissions are reviewed in the relevant chapter, though the main themes have been included in this summary.
Petitions
11. Three petitions were received as follows: 1,351 people signed a petition entitled ‘Save Clacton’s Full-Time Fire Cover’; 185 people signed a petition opposing the proposed removal of a fire engine from Corringham Fire Station; and 75 people signed a petition opposing any proposals to remove fire engines from Grays, Orsett and Corringham Fire Stations.
Main Consultation Findings The Principle of Change
12. There was some (albeit small) recognition of the need for change among questionnaire respondents in the light of falling incident levels and a perceived need for greater efficiency, value for money and modernity within ECFRS.
13. Both operational staff groups - and especially the operational managers - recognised the necessity of change in the current financial climate: they understood that difficult decisions must soon be made and implemented.
14. The support staff managers were fully supportive of all public bodies matching resource to demand in the context of reducing incident levels and the challenging economic forecast - as were support staff in principle. The latter, though, found it difficult to separate the issue of principle from the proposed means of achieving it in practice, particularly with respect to increasing on-call provision and the potential difficulties this may cause in terms of recruitment, retention, availability and training.
15. The partners forum generally agreed that in the light of a general decline in incident levels, it is reasonable for ECFRS to reduce operational resources to match reducing demand levels. There was, however, some concern even at this initial stage about how this could be done in practice, with participants arguing that ‘the devil is in the detail’.
9 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
16. When asked whether or not it is reasonable for ECFRS to reduce operational resources to match falling levels of demand, many members of the public initially struggled to make a judgement based on principle only - mainly because they found it difficult to divorce their concerns about the proposals and possible implications for their local areas from the issue of principle. After much discussion and debate though, most participants did consider it reasonable because: incidents have reduced and resources should reflect this; and it is sensible to re-balance current provision to ensure higher-risk areas are provided for.
17. In terms of the written submissions, Basildon Borough Council supported the principle of ECFRS’s proposed changes regardless of which option is selected - and Great Dunmow Town Council generally approved ECFRS’s proposed changes.
Three Options Support for Option 1
18. If all 17,630 consultation questionnaires received are combined, only 1% of respondents chose option 1. If we break down the various elements: 3% of the 6,227 respondents to the ‘open’ questionnaire who answered the question chose option 1; and None of those responding as a result of either of the three ‘campaigns’ did so.
19. There was very little support for option 1 in any of the deliberative forums with ECFRS staff, partners and members of the public - and among those who submitted a written response, only Tiptree Parish Council and one resident chose it.
Support for Option 2
20. If all 17,630 questionnaires received are combined, it is clear that option 2 is preferred by the majority of respondents. Almost three-quarters (73%) chose this option. If we break down the various elements: 64% of 6,227 respondents to the ‘open’ questionnaire who answered the question chose option 2 - as did all 5,583 respondents to the ‘option 2 campaign’; 3,413 (65%) of the 5,227 respondents to the ‘other’ campaign supported option 2; and None of the respondents to the ‘Harwich/Dovercourt campaign’ did so.
21. Many questionnaire respondents who commented on why they chose option 2 said they considered it a feasible and sensible option that maintains a reasonable amount of resource while making necessary budget reductions - and allows for further reductions in future if necessary. Fewer others, though, described it as the ‘least worst option’ and considered it a necessary evil rather than something that is feasible in the light of reducing demand and income.
10 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
22. Three of the five participants in the mixed operational staff forum supported option 2 on the grounds that it has least impact on support pump response times and protects as many jobs as possible. They also suggested that it: is the best way of avoiding industrial action in the short-term.
23. The support staff tended to support option 2 as the ‘least worst option’, though they expressed many concerns around: longer response times; public safety; firefighter redundancies; and a loss of experience from the Service. Their overriding worry though was what they saw as an over-reliance on the on-call service and frequently reiterated their concerns around the recruitment, retention and especially the availability of on-call staff.
24. Overall, option 2 was most favoured at the public forums, mainly as it: is the ‘safest’ option in terms of response times; retains as many operational resources (including experienced wholetime firefighters) as possible; and offers the best chance of making staffing changes through natural wastage as opposed to compulsory redundancies.
25. In terms of those who submitted a written response: The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) supports change that maximises fire appliance availability and firefighter posts; and Stansted Mountfitchet Parish Council and 26 individual residents support option 2 on the grounds that: it represents the smallest resource reduction; it maintains better response times than options 1 and 3; and the 2% council tax increase represents good value for money. It is the ‘least worst option’ for some.
Support for Option 3
26. If all 17,630 questionnaires received are combined, only 1% of respondents chose option 3. If we break down the various elements: 4% of 6,227 respondents to the ‘open’ questionnaire who answered the question chose option 3; and None of those responding as a result of either of the three ‘campaigns’ did so.
27. Some questionnaire respondents made comments generally in support of option 3 insofar as: it is feasible given ECFRS’s reduction in demand; it would allow the Service to enhance its efficiency and modernity; and may help negate the need for further cuts in future.
28. The operational managers wanted stability in the Service and to avoid the need for further spending reviews and more cuts before 2020. Therefore, while preferring lesser change and a maximum council tax rise in principle in the form of option 2, they decided after discussion that it would be preferable to have option 3 (minus the extra £3 million for prevention); that is to have the more radical change in order to ‘get it over with’ and stabilise the service to reduce uncertainty by going for the bigger change now.
11 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
29. A couple of participants at the mixed operational staff forum said that option 3 was perfectly feasible and safe. In particular they said that lengthening second pump response times in some areas made them no worse than some other existing areas under the current arrangements. Furthermore, there was concern that choosing the most conservative option could lead to the need for further reductions, even in the short-term.
30. Four of the seven ECFRS partners favoured option 3 on the basis that ECFRS has sufficient scope to make further efficiencies (in the context of reducing demand) to enable the £3m investment in prevention to be made without a council tax increase. However, it should be noted that this group particularly endorsed an ‘option 4’ that would see ECFRS undertake a more comprehensive whole-Service review and possibly consider adapting its crewing models, shift systems appliance types and fire station locations to develop a more modern, efficient and fit-for purpose FRS.
31. There was a small amount of support for option 3 among those who submitted a written response (Epping District Council and three residents).
‘None of Them’
32. If all 17,630 questionnaires received are combined, 24% of respondents chose ‘none of them’ when asked which option they preferred. If we break down the various elements: 29% of 6,227 respondents to the ‘open’ questionnaire who answered the question chose ‘none of them’ - as did all of the respondents to the ‘Harwich/Dovercourt campaign’; 1,809 (35%) of the 5,227 respondents to the ‘other’ campaign opted for ‘none of them; and None of the 5,583 respondents to the ‘option 2 campaign’ chose this option.
33. Among those who submitted a written response, Alresford Parish Council, Canvey Island Town Council, Little Oakley Parish Council, Ramsey & Parkeston Parish Council, Tendring District Council, the Town Council of Frinton and Walton and Thurrock Council felt they could not support any of the consultation options - primarily for the reasons outlined in the ‘overall issues and concerns’ and area-specific sections below.
Overall Issues and Concerns Main ‘General’ Themes
34. The main general issues raised across all consultation strands can be summarised as in the table overleaf.
12 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
It is regrettable that ECFRS Frontline resources should be Wholetime firefighter job is facing reductions, maintained (not least because losses must as minimal as particularly to its frontline ECFRS is currently piloting a possible to maintain Service- service: in an ideal world scheme that will see fire crews wide experience. these should be maintained providing emergency medical or even increased. response, which will increase future levels of demand). The proposals will The on-call system is fragile in First appliance response negatively impact public terms of the frequency with times could lengthen if fire and firefighter safety and which appliances are ‘off-the- stations convert from day- ECFRS’s resilience for large- run’ - and ECFRS must look at crewed to on-call – as could scale and simultaneous creative and flexible ways of second appliance response incidents. improving on-call recruitment, times if fire stations lose retention and availability prior their second wholetime to making wholetime engines. reductions. ECFRS and EFA should ECFRS and EFA must consider The proposed £3 million consider larger council tax revenue generation or investment in prevention rises (or using Council reductions elsewhere before should be redirected reserves) as an alternative reducing frontline resources towards operational to operational reductions. (rationalising management and response. support functions; sharing resources with neighbouring Fire and Rescue Services, emergency services and other organisations; and selling or sharing the Kelvedon headquarters for example). The most commonly ECFRS must be future-proof in The consultation process: attended life-threatening the context of population, has not been sufficiently incidents - road traffic housing stock and traffic extensive and has been ill- collisions and dwelling fires increases - as well as possible timed in terms of meetings; - have increased and must future terror attacks, has not been adequately thus be monitored to widespread flooding and grass advertised or promoted; is a identify longer-term trends. fires during hotter summers. ‘fait accompli’; has been too costly; and has not offered adequate information and data to allow informed decision-making.
35. In addition, it should be noted that there was some support for increasing the funding for and provision of prevention work as follows: A small number of questionnaire respondents endorsed the proposed £3 million increase - especially in terms of maintaining Firebreak (which was described as the most successful delivery programme to come from any FRS in the country), and enabling more schools and RTC-specific education;
13 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
The mixed operational group participants who supported more prevention work were particularly keen to see an increased focus on road traffic collision prevention given the upward trend in such incidents across Essex; The support staff managers were very supporting of investing in prevention: they considered this to be by far the most effective use of limited financial resources. The support staff also endorsed an increase in ECFRS’s prevention work, though they stressed that this must be properly targeted and managed to ensure cost-effectiveness; The partners’ forum generally agreed that ‘prevention is better than cure’ and that investment in such work is thus the correct focus for ECFRS – and it was said that ECFRS remains a response-focused organisation with much scope to expand its ‘excellent’ community safety offer and drive down incident levels further; Most participants across seven of the eight public forums agreed that ‘prevention is better than cure’. Indeed, only at the Burnham-on-Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers forum did the majority of participants (10 of 14) disagree with investing £3 million in prevention work on the grounds that: the investment would be better spent on operational resources; and that there is a lack of direct and incontrovertible proof that prevention reduces risk and incidents; and One written submission (from an ECFRS staff member) is of the view that Prevention, Protection and Response should be a joint priority for all within the Service and that the former two elements should be equal partners with the latter.
36. Furthermore, some questionnaire respondents and staff forum participants suggested that better value for money could be achieved in the area of prevention by enabling station- based staff to undertake such activity in addition to their response roles – a view echoed by the FBU who, while endorsing the proposed additional £3 million for community safety, would prefer it (and the existing community safety budget) to be invested in maintaining uniformed staff who could provide an intervention service when necessary and deliver community safety at other times. This, though was largely opposed by the support staff managers on the grounds that: firefighters are often unavailable to undertake such work; activities can be disrupted if crews are called out to an incident; and that it is not cost effective to redeploy them into such roles when they could be filled less expensively.
37. There was also some divergence from the common view on a council tax increase, whereby a minority of questionnaire respondents objected to an ECFRS precept rise - primarily because of a perception that the Service is currently over-resourced and can manage its financial challenges without an increase or because this would mean ‘paying more for less’ or. The latter view was echoed by support staff forum participants.
38. Moreover, most of the support staff managers referred to a previous plan for £15 million of savings across ECFRS, which they had accepted as feasible and eminently achievable. They
14 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
could thus not understand why, with a far lower revised savings target of £8 million, a council tax increase is being requested for the £3 million investment in prevention. They felt that many more efficiencies can and should be identified within the Service before council tax increases are contemplated.
Specific Issues/Areas
39. Across all consultation strands, most concern was expressed regarding the proposals for three areas: Dovercourt/Harwich; Thurrock District; and South Woodham Ferrers. The proposals for Clacton-on-Sea, Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey and Great Baddow were also mentioned, as was the suggested removal of ECFRS’s Pinzgauer appliances from certain stations, although with far less frequency than the three aforementioned places.
40. The main issues in relation to these areas are outlined below and overleaf.
Dovercourt/Harwich
41. The primary issues raised across all consultation strands in relation to the proposal to convert Dovercourt Fire Station from day crewed to on-call are summarised in the table below.
The area has specific risks The area suffers poor road Harwich, Dovercourt and (such as Harwich access from other areas with surrounding towns and International Port, the wholetime resources, villages are isolated and Carless oil refinery, the EPC meaning that if the difficult to access from other UK chemical factory, busy Dovercourt appliances are places in the event of on-call roads and many timber unavailable, this will mean at unavailability locally. framed dwellings) that are least a 25 minute wait for a best served by a wholetime fire appliance… crew. A fully on-call system is not An on-call crew would result The area’s population and viable in the area given in longer initial response housing stock is growing current availability issues and times during the daytime and significantly and requires potential future recruitment on weekends. adequate fire cover. difficulties in a largely ‘dormitory’ area. Firefighter redundancies are The area has lost a significant Some misconceptions that unacceptable – especially number of other services in Dovercourt Fire Station is to given the lack of alternative recent years. close. employment locally.
Thurrock
42. The primary issues raised across all consultation strands in relation to the proposals for Thurrock (and specifically Corringham, Grays and Orsett Fire Stations) are summarised in the table overleaf.
15 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Thurrock is a high-risk area43. Removing the second44. The area has a large and that warrants a full wholetime fire engines from growing population, whose complement of resources. Grays and Orsett will mean demographic is more similar Specific risks highlighted longer response times for to London than many of the were: nine COMAH sites; support pumps (and an initial more ‘rural’ parts of the ports; Tilbury Docks and its response in the case of county. associated industry; a busy simultaneous incidents) from road network (including the other stations and FRSs. M25, A13 Dartford Crossing and possible new Thames crossing); and the Lakeside Shopping Centre. Response times will lengthen The proposed removal of one Firefighter redundancies are locally (by more than on-call fire engine from unacceptable. estimated in ECFRS’s Corringham fire station45. projections). would result in considerable disruption for minimal savings.
South Woodham Ferrers
46. The primary issues raised across all consultation strands in relation to the proposal to convert South Woodham Ferrers Fire Station from day crewed to on-call are summarised in the table below.
An on-call crew would result in longer initial47. A fully on-call system is not viable in the area response times during the daytime and on given current availability issues and potential weekends. future recruitment difficulties in a largely ‘dormitory’ area. The area’s population and The fire station covers a large The station will lose its housing stock is growing area, including the remote specialist heavy animal significantly and requires Dengie Peninsula when rescue response vehicle, adequate fire cover. Tillingham and Burnham-on- leaving no heavy animal Crouch are unavailable rescue capability within Essex (which apparently often or off-road capability on the happens currently). Dengie Peninsula.
Clacton-on-Sea, Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey and Great Baddow
48. Clacton-on-Sea was thought (by a small number of questionnaire respondents, forum participants, written submitters and petition signatories) to warrant significant resources as: it includes Jaywick, the most deprived area in England; it has the highest population of over 65s in Essex; its population triples during the summer season due to the many holiday parks in the town; and its next nearest wholetime station is Colchester, which is 30 minutes away.
49. A few questionnaire respondents, forum participants and written submissions express concern about possible reductions in the Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey area given its growing population and proximity to Enfield, London and the M25.
16 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
50. Finally, there was significant concern in the public forum about converting Great Baddow Fire Station from day-crewed to on-call. In particular, people worried about the large area covered by the station (including the busy A12 road) - as well as firefighter redundancies and potential differences in experience between wholetime and on-call firefighters. Furthermore, one member of staff is concerned that Great Baddow has been ‘put in the pot’ with the other day-crew stations to change to on-call without consideration of how busy it is and the additional resource it provides to Chelmsford.
51. Moreover, this member of staff and some ECFRS partners were concerned about Great Baddow’s future if it is changed from day-crewed to on-call given it is a ‘dormitory’ town and recruitment of on-call firefighters may thus be difficult - and the support staff managers referred to Great Baddow in the context of station closures, arguing that the Chelmsford wholetime appliance can reach the village before the on-call crew there is able to mobilise. As such, closure was advocated in preference to a move from day-crewed to on-call in that the on-call crew would only be used infrequently, demotivating station staff and causing them to leave the Service.
Pinzgauer Vehicles
52. The removal of ECFRS’s Pinzgauer vehicles from Billericay, Manningtree, Dunmow and Burnham-on-Crouch Fire Stations (the latter in particular) without the provision of suitable, more economical replacements was unacceptable to some questionnaire respondents, forum participants and written submitters on the grounds of accessibility to rural, remote and difficult-to-reach areas.
Alternative Suggestions
53. Some alternatives were also proposed, many of which were specific to particular stations or areas as below: Build a new station in a central location along the A120 to service Harwich, Clacton and surrounding areas, or maintain Dovercourt and Clacton Fire Stations as now and close Manningtree (written submission - Little Oakley Parish Council); Cut wholetime establishment levels at Dovercourt from 12 to six, supported by 12 on-call firefighters, to ensure at least two full-time crew on the day watch (written submission - Ramsey & Parkeston Parish Council); Move full-time stations to more logistical locations i.e. create a full time station at Kelvedon, closing Coggeshall, Tiptree and Witham; All day-crewed to retained following wholetime second engine to retained at Clacton and Loughton. Change Leigh-on-Sea to retained. Remove second engine at Rayleigh Weir, Orsett and Corringham. Remove second engine from Halstead, Frinton, Witham, Canvey Island and replace with a smaller 4x4 engine such as a Land Rover/Ford Ranger (crew reduction six to four, improved off road capability). Allow
17 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
these to respond with crews of three as small fires units and adapt for future use as a fast response for medical emergencies. Remove the Pinzgauer from Billericay and replace with the water carrier from Chelmsford. Remove Pinzgauer from Manningtree, Burnham-on-Crouch and Dunmow and replace with a similar smaller appliance as per Halstead etc. Reduce all two-pump stations down to one pump and push the second pump further out. For example, remove a pump from Basildon and post to Wickford, giving Wickford full-time wholetime cover. Take a pump from Clacton and move to Manningtree, one from Colchester and move to Wivenhoe. Thus maintaining wholetime cover and improving attendance times in formerly retained areas; and Relocate one of the appliances and wholetime crew from Chelmsford to South Woodham Ferrers. This ensures emergency response cover for the Dengie peninsula... The risks at Chelmsford are still covered as the appliance at South Woodham Ferrers is able to rapidly attend Chelmsford due to the A130.
54. There were some more general county-wide suggestions though, such as: Considering station mergers, relocations or even closures in appropriate areas - for example where on-call stations are either covered by a neighbouring wholetime, facility, are frequently ‘off-the-run’ or are very quiet. Great Baddow, Burnham-on- Crouch, Rochford, Old Harlow, Tillingham and Leigh were all mentioned in this context (several questionnaire respondents; partners’ forum); Ensuring a Service-wide roll-out of the medical co-responding initiative (several questionnaire respondents, written submission - resident) An examination of firefighters’ shift patterns to ensure maximum flexibility, efficiency and value for money (several questionnaire respondents); Removing the second fire engine from all two-pump on-call fire stations. Braintree, Canvey, Halsted, Maldon, Saffron Walden, and Witham were mentioned in this context (two questionnaire respondents); Making all second wholetime pumps on-call appliances and/or replacing them with smaller operational vehicles (several questionnaire respondents, written submission - resident); Using smaller operational vehicles and crews for low-risk incidents to save on costs and make efficiencies (several questionnaire respondents, written submission - resident, partners’ forum, Clacton/Frinton public forum); Developing a more mobile service, as opposed to vehicles and crew responding from a fire station at all times (partners’ forum) Making better use of mixed crewing initiatives (several questionnaire respondents);
18 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Considering a full merger with other emergency services to share resources and make significant efficiency savings (several questionnaire respondents); and Marketing or contracting out ECFRS services to other organisations (several questionnaire respondents).
Conclusions
55. The Fire Authority will draw its own conclusions from the consultation elements reported here and from the other evidence available for its consideration. So ORS does not intend to advise the Authority on its final decision, but only to identify where there was general agreement in the consultation process.
56. The table below shows the relative support for and opposition to the three consultation options. Of course, there were opposing views within each engagement method, but in this case the majority view is stated. Taking everything into consideration, it is clear that option 2 was favoured by the majority of consultation participants and respondents. OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 NONE MIXED OPEN
QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE: THE OPTION 2 CAMPAIGN QUESTIONNAIRE: THE DOVERCOURT CAMPAIGN QUESTIONNAIRE: THE OTHER CAMPAIGN
STAFF FORUMS
PARTNER FORUM
PUBLIC FORUMS
SUBMISSIONS (most support for option 2)
PETITIONS
19 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
ORS and Essex Fire Authority Roles
57. Interpreting the overall ‘meaning’ of the consultation outcomes is neither straightforward nor just ‘numerical’ – for the different methods, groups and outcomes have to be not only respected, but also ‘evaluated’ in terms of the relative weight to be attached to each. They cannot be simply ‘summated’ into an unambiguous consensus.
58. It is also worth reiterating that consultation is not a ‘numbers game’ - and that the key issue is not whether most people agree or disagree with the proposals but whether the reasons for their popularity or unpopularity are rational and convincing. People’s reasoning has been well documented throughout this report, and it is this that the Fire Authority will primarily wish to consider when making its judgements.
59. In this context, it is not the role of ORS to make policy recommendations or to go beyond the fact-based interpretation above. In the light of our general guidance, the Fire Authority will consider all the consultation outcomes, alongside all the other evidence, in order to make its decisions. Ultimately, an overall interpretation of the consultation will depend upon the Authority itself: its members will consider all elements and determine which seem the most telling, by considering the relative merits of the various opinions as the basis for public policy.
60. The challenge for the Authority is to maintain public and professional confidence in the safety and resilience of ECFRS services while also demonstrating that it can successfully deliver appropriate changes to balance its budget. We trust that this report will make at least some contribution to that endeavour.
20 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Project Overview
Opinion Research Services
61. Opinion Research Services (ORS) is a generic social research company that works mainly for the public sector to conduct important applied research in health, housing, local government, police and fire and rescue services across the UK. The company was established in 1988 and has worked extensively with fire and rescue services (FRSs) across the UK since 1998. In 2004 it was appointed by the Fire Services Consultation Association (FSCA) as the sole approved provider of research and consultation services, under the terms of a National Framework Agreement. The same framework contract was retendered in 2009 and ORS was reappointed once more as the sole approved provider.
62. While working with FRSs across the UK, ORS has specialised in designing, implementing and reporting employee, stakeholder and public consultation programmes for a wide range of integrated risk management plans (IRMPs) - in many cases covering controversial and sensitive issues. In addition, ORS has extensive experience of statutory consultations about education, health and housing, and many other issues, including budgetary consultations.
The Commission
63. Essex Fire and Rescue service (ECFRS) and Essex Fire Authority (EFA) are considering options for the future of fire and rescue services across the county in the context of steadily reducing risk (when measured in terms of the number of incidents) and financial constraints. As such, on the basis of our experience of the fire and rescue service and many statutory consultations, ORS was commissioned to undertake a programme of key consultation activities, and provide an interpretative report of findings.
64. The consultation period ran for 12 weeks from 1st February 2016 until 25th April 2016 and the full programme included all the following elements: Independent research by ORS Advising on the consultation activity; Designing informative and interactive presentation material suitable for use at the forums; Designing, implementing and analysing responses to an on-line and paper version of an Open Consultation Questionnaire (including 11,403 additional copies received separately from the ‘open’ questionnaire); Recruiting, facilitating and reporting eight deliberative focus groups with
21 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
randomly selected members of the public four with ECFRS staff and one with partners; Analysing and summarising written submissions and petitions received by ECFRS during the consultation period; and Producing an overall report of all consultation findings and guidance on the interpretation of the material.
ECFRS and EFA consultation activities Providing details of the IRMP proposals on the ECFRS website; Printing and distributing 3,000 Consultation Documents and questionnaires; Undertaking 24 public ‘drop-in’ exhibitions in local libraries and shopping centres; and Publicising the consultation in the local media (broadcast and print) via press releases, social media, Twitter and Facebook.
Consultation Methods
Open Questionnaire
65. The open consultation questionnaire (with an accompanying Consultation Document) was available online and as a hard copy between 1st February and 25th April 2016. 6,245 questionnaires were completed; 3,590 were submitted online and 2,655 by post.
66. The profile characteristics of respondents to the survey show that the majority were between 25 and 74, slightly more were female (53%) and most (93%) were White British. Only 7% said they work for Essex County Fire and Rescue Service - though the actual figure may be higher, as some employees may have preferred to identify themselves as Essex residents.
Local Campaign Questionnaires
67. A further 11,403 additional copies of the questionnaire were received separately from the ‘open’ version: these came in three separate ‘batches’ and had seemingly been collected via local campaigns – two across Essex and one locally to Harwich/Dovercourt.
Deliberative Forums The Forums
68. The consultation meetings reported here used a ‘deliberative’ approach to encourage ECFRS staff, stakeholders and members of the public to reflect in depth about the fire and rescue service, while both receiving and questioning background information and discussing their
22 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
ideas in detail. All the meetings lasted for two-and-a-half hours and in total there were 27 staff, seven stakeholder and 109 public participants.
FORUM DATE NUMBER OF ATTENDEES
Harlow/Loughton/Waltham 14th March 2016 17 Abbey Public
Dunmow Public 15th March 2016 14
Southend-on-Sea Public 16th March 2016 11
Corringham/Grays/Orsett Public 16th March 2016 12
ECFRS Support Staff 11th April 2016 10
ECFRS Support Staff Managers 11th April 2016 6
Billericay/Brentwood/ 11th April 2016 13 Great Baddow Public
ECFRS Partners 12th April 2016 7
Burnham-on-Crouch/South 12th April 2016 14 Woodham Ferrers/Rayleigh Weir Public
Dovercourt/Manningtree Public 12th April 2016 16
Operational Managers 13th April 2016 6
Mixed ECFRS Operational Staff 13th April 2016 5
Clacton-on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea 13th April 2016 12 Public
69. Staff and partners were invited to participate by ECFRS - and local residents were recruited by random-digit telephone dialling from ORS’s Social Research Call Centre. Having been initially contacted by phone, all participants were then written to - to confirm the invitation and the arrangements; and those who agreed to come then received telephone or written reminders shortly before each meeting. Such recruitment by telephone is an effective way
23 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
of ensuring that the participants are independent and broadly representative of the wider community.
70. Overall, the public participants were a broad cross-section of residents from the local areas and, as standard good practice, were recompensed for their time and efforts in travelling and taking part. In recruitment, care was taken to ensure that no potential participants were disqualified or disadvantaged by disabilities or any other factors, and the venues at which the forums met were readily accessible. People’s special needs were taken into account in the recruitment and at the venues. The random telephone recruitment process was monitored to ensure social diversity in terms of a wide range of criteria – including, for example: gender; age; ethnicity; social grade; and disability/limiting long-term illness (LLTI).
71. Although, like all other forms of qualitative consultation, deliberative focus groups cannot be certified as statistically representative samples of public opinion, the meetings reported here gave diverse members of the public, ECFRS staff and partners the opportunity to participate actively. Because the meetings were inclusive, the outcomes (as reported below) are broadly indicative of how informed opinion would incline on the basis of similar discussions.
Background Information
72. The forums began, for the sake of context, with a concise review of ECFRS’s resources, incident levels (both overall and by station ground), strategic roles and finances. Discussion was stimulated via a presentation devised by ORS and ECFRS to inform and encourage discussion of the issues - and participants were encouraged to ask any questions they wished throughout the discussions.
73. Below and overleaf are some examples of slides used during the sessions to highlight ECFRS’s current resources and falling demand levels - and the apparent lack of correlation between the latter and corresponding population and housing stock increases:
24 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
74. Following this initial review the following three options for change were considered in some detail: Option 1: a 0.8% increase (about £0.55 on a Band D property per year) in the fire service portion of council tax and a reduction in response resources. This option would provide an additional £3m investment in prevention work and would result in the following operational changes:
25 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Removal of the second wholetime fire engines at: Orsett; Rayleigh Weir; Loughton; Southend; Grays; Corringham and Frinton; Clacton and Harlow second fire engines change from wholetime to on-call; Pinzgauer appliances removed from: Manningtree; Billericay and Burnham- on-Crouch - and the Pinzgauer at Great Dunmow replaced with a fire engine; and Crewing system changed to on-call at: Dovercourt; South Woodham Ferrers; Great Baddow; Waltham Abbey and Great Dunmow. Option 2: a 2% increase (about £1.35 on a Band D property per year) in the fire service portion of council tax and a smaller reduction in response resources than option 1. This option would provide an additional £3m investment in prevention work and would result in the following operational changes: Removal of the second wholetime fire engines at: Orsett; Rayleigh Weir; Loughton; Frinton and Corringham; One Clacton wholetime fire engine changed to on-call; Pinzgauer appliances removed from: Manningtree; Billericay and Burnham- on-Crouch - and the Pinzgauer at Great Dunmow replaced with a fire engine; and Crewing system changed to on-call at: Dovercourt; South Woodham Ferrers; Great Baddow; Waltham Abbey and Great Dunmow. Option 3: no increase in council tax and a larger reduction in response resources than option 1 and 2. This option would provide an additional £3m investment in prevention work and would result in the following operational changes: Removal of the second wholetime fire engines at: Orsett; Rayleigh Weir; Loughton; Southend; Grays; Harlow Central and Clacton; Brentwood wholetime fire engine changed to on-call; Pinzgauer appliances removed from: Manningtree; Billericay and Burnham- on-Crouch - and the Pinzgauer at Great Dunmow replaced with a fire engine; and Crewing system changed to on-call at: Dovercourt; South Woodham Ferrers; Great Baddow; Waltham Abbey and Great Dunmow.
75. Again, participants were given a great deal of explanatory information to help them understand the nature and implication of the three options, especially in terms of proposed prevention activity, reduced response resources and county-wide and local response times. Examples of how this was provided can be seen below and overleaf:
26 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Written Submissions
76. During the formal consultation process, 92 individuals and organisations provided written submissions or telephone feedback to ECFRS (though the latter was very small in number). The table overleaf shows the breakdown of contributors by type.
27 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Correspondent Type Number of respondents Residents 67 (1 also local councillor) Councils (City/Borough or 15 District/Town/Parish) (one submitted three different responses) MPs/Political Groups 3 (two submitted on behalf of residents/local firefighters) ECFRS Staff (including Fire Stations) 4 Representative Bodies 1 (two separate submissions) Other organisations 2 Total 92
77. ORS has read all the written submissions and summarised them in the full report.
Petitions
78. 1,351 people signed a petition entitled ‘Save Clacton’s Full-Time Fire Cover’; 185 people signed a petition opposing the proposed removal of a fire engine from Corringham Fire Station; and 75 people signed a petition opposing any proposals to remove fire engines from Grays, Orsett and Corringham Fire Stations.
The Report
79. This report reviews the sentiments and judgements of respondents and participants about the aforementioned proposals. Verbatim quotations are used, in indented italics, not because we agree or disagree with them - but for their vividness in capturing recurrent points of view. ORS does not endorse the opinions in question, but seeks only to portray them accurately and clearly. The report is an interpretative summary of the issues raised by participants.
28 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Open Consultation Questionnaire
Introduction
80. The open consultation questionnaire (with an accompanying Consultation Document) was available online and as a hard copy between 1st February and 25th April 2016. 6,245 questionnaires were completed: 3,590 were submitted online and 2,655 by post.
81. A further 11,403 additional copies of the questionnaire were received separately from the ‘open’ version: these came in three separate ‘batches’ and had seemingly been collected via local campaigns - two across Essex and one locally to Harwich/Dovercourt.
Interpretation of the Data
82. Where percentages do not sum to 100, this may be due to computer rounding, the exclusion of “don’t know” categories, or multiple answers.
83. Graphics are used in this report to make it as user friendly as possible. The pie charts show the proportions (percentages) of residents making relevant responses. Where possible, the colours of the charts have been standardised with a ‘traffic light’ system in which: Green shades represent positive responses Beige and purple/blue shades represent neither positive nor negative responses Red shades represent negative responses The bolder shades are used to highlight responses at the ‘extremes’, for example, very satisfied or very dissatisfied.
Need for Interpretation
84. Open questionnaires are important consultation routes that are accessible to almost everyone, but they are not ‘surveys’ of the public. Whereas surveys require proper sampling of a given population, open questionnaires are distributed unsystematically or adventitiously and are more likely to be completed by motivated people while also being subject to influence by local campaigns. As such, because the respondent profile is an imperfect reflection of the Essex population, its results must be interpreted carefully.
85. Crucially though, this does not mean that the open questionnaire findings should be discounted: they are analysed in detail in this report and must be taken into account as a demonstration of the strength of feeling of residents who were motivated to put forward their views (and in many cases concerns) about the proposed changes.
29 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Respondent Profiles
86. The charts below outline the profile characteristics of respondents to the survey. They show that the majority of respondents were between 35 and 74, slightly more were female (53%) and most (93%) were White British. Only 7% said they work for Essex County Fire and Rescue Service - though the actual figure may be higher, as some employees may have preferred to identify themselves as Essex residents. Please note that the base numbers for each chart - and all of those following - will differ according to the number of respondents who answered the relevant question.
Figure 1: Are you responding on behalf of an organisation? Base: All Respondents (4,660)
Figure 2: What was your age on your last birthday? Base: All Respondents (4,285)
Figure 3: What is your gender? Base: All Respondents (4,220)
30 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Figure 4: Is this the gender you were assigned at birth? Base: All Respondents (4,062)
Figure 5: Which of the following options best describes how you think of yourself? Base: All Respondents (3,766)
Figure 6: Do you have any physical or mental health conditions lasting or expected to last 12 months or more? Base: All Respondents (3,815)
Figure 7: Does your condition reduce your ability to carry out day to day activities? Base: All Respondents (371)
31 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Figure 8: What is your ethnic group? Base: All Respondents (3,967)
Figure 9: What is your religion? Base: All Respondents (3,723)
Figure 10: Do you work for Essex County Fire and Rescue Service? Base: All Respondents (4,173)
Figure 11: If so, which staff group do you belong to? Base: All Respondents (268)
32 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Main Findings – Open Questionnaire Three Options
87. The majority of respondents (64%) supported option 2. This was followed by around 3 in 10 respondents (29%) who said that they did not support any of the three options. Only 3% and 4% chose options 1 and 3 respectively.
Base: All Respondents (6,227)
88. The chart below shows the relative support for each option by area (the blue shading shows where there was relatively less support for an option within a particular area, and the red shows where there was relatively more).
89. It is particularly interesting to note that: Support for option 1 is low across the board, though it is marginally higher in Rochford (affected station Rayleigh Weir) and Thurrock (affected stations Corringham, Grays and Orsett); There is absolute majority support for option 2 in all areas except Chelmsford (affected stations Great Baddow and South Woodham Ferrers) - and it is at 50% in
33 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Tendring (affected stations Clacton-on-Sea, Frinton-on-Sea, Dovercourt and Manningtree); Support for option 2 is highest in Colchester, Basildon (affected station Billericay), Braintree and Epping Forest (affected stations Loughton and Waltham Abbey) - and outside Essex. All of these areas are either directly unaffected by ECFRS’s proposals or would have the same operational provision under each option, suggesting perhaps that most respondents here made their decision on a county-wide rather than local basis; As with option 1, support for option 3 is generally low, though a little higher in Maldon (affected station Burnham-on-Crouch), Brentwood (affected station Brentwood), Basildon (affected station Billericay), Braintree and Southend-on-Sea (affected station Southend-on-Sea); and Respondents in Chelmsford (affected stations Great Baddow and South Woodham Ferrers) and Tendring (affected stations Clacton-on-Sea, Frinton-on-Sea, Dovercourt and Manningtree) are far more likely to opt for ‘none of them’ when asked which option they prefer, followed by Maldon (affected station Burnham-on-Crouch) and Thurrock (affected stations Corringham, Grays and Orsett). This is perhaps unsurprising given the level of concern reported below about the proposed changes at Dovercourt, South Woodham Ferrers and the three Thurrock stations - and to a lesser extent at Great Baddow, Clacton-on-Sea and Burnham-on-Crouch.
Main Findings: Open Text Comments
90. When asked why they had selected a particular option, almost 60% of respondents declined to comment. The 41% who did most frequently raised the following issues (please note that many respondents raised several different points within one comment, which accounts for the fact that the number of responses is far higher than the number of respondents).
THEME NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Disagree with any cuts/service should be ‘kept as it is’ 1009 (16% of respondents)
Prepared to pay extra council tax to prevent service reductions/maintain 598 (9%) safety
Disagree with any cuts to frontline services/should maintain current fire 545 (10%) engine and firefighter levels
Proposals will put safety/lives of people and firefighters in Essex at risk 411 (7%)
Savings could be made elsewhere (e.g. management/other senior 397 (6%) staff/back-room staff/eliminating waste/sharing resources with other
34 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
FRSs and emergency services/selling assets such as HQ)
Need wholetime firefighters/on-call firefighters are insufficient and 291 (5%) unsafe
Response times are important/proposed changes will mean slower 228 (4%) response times
Disagree with reduction in provision at Dovercourt/Harwich 201 (3%)
Agree with option 2/happy to pay £1.35 council tax to prevent service 194 (3%) reductions
Do not want prevention budget to be increased/disagree with £3 million 165 (2%) increase for prevention and protection/any tax increase should be used to fund frontline services
Disagree with all options due to increasing population/housing 144 (2%) developments/traffic
Disagree with reduction in provision at South Woodham Ferrers 136 (2%)
Concerns about lack of coverage for simultaneous or major incidents 108 (2%) (i.e. fire in ports/petrochemical plants/flooding/RTCs etc.)
Disagree with any increase in council tax/already pay enough tax/ECFRS 84 (1%) can make further efficiencies
Option 2 is the ‘least worst’ option 77 (1%)
Fire service/firefighters are generally doing a good job and firefighters 67 (1%) need more support and recognition
Proposals will create additional pressure on ECFRS (a stretched service) 59 (<1%)
More cover needed not less 53 (<1%)
Closure of fire stations is unacceptable 47 (<1%)
Need more/clearer information 35 (<1%)
Disagree with reduction in provision around Harlow/Loughton/Waltham 35 (<1%) Abbey
Large number of timber framed houses/historical buildings in Essex 33 (<1%)
Disagree with reduction in provision in Thurrock 32 (<1%)
Agree with reductions as ECFRS has too many 31 (<1%) resources/appliances/insufficient demand
Pleased with increase in on-call firefighters/fire engines 26 (<1%)
35 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Proposals are financially motivated 21 (<1%)
Disagree with reduction in provision on the Dengie Peninsula 21 (<1%)
Disagree with reduction in provision at Clacton 18 (<1%)
Incidents are not decreasing as suggested in consultation document 9 (<1%)
Consultation/questionnaire flawed 7 (<1%)
Understanding of need for change 7 (<1%)
More resources required for prevention 5 (<1%)
Other 143 (2%)
Alternative Proposal 48 (<1%)
Nothing stated 3,666 (59%)
TOTAL RESPONDENTS 6,236
TOTAL RESPONSES 8,951
91. The table above shows that over 1,000 views were generic in nature in relation to people’s desire to retain ECFRS in its current form (and indeed, a further 53 suggested that more rather than fewer resources are required). Some typical comments were: Leave things as they are Shouldn't be any cuts at all in our service! I don't want to see any more cuts in important public services.
92. Furthermore, and on a related note, an additional 545 comments were made in support of retaining as many frontline resources as possible - particularly, for some respondents, in the light of forthcoming increased co-responding duties: Fund the frontline (firefighters), that's what we want and need in an emergency I do not support any cuts to frontline services. Yes I understand incidents attended may be falling but the risk still remains and will not go away! Frontline wholetime firefighter positions should not be reduced. More and more responsibilities will be put on firefighters over the coming years, for example ambulance calls. The more wholetime firefighters there are to be able to deal with these responsibilities, the better…
93. Almost 400 people suggested the need to look at making savings elsewhere (by making reductions in management, other senior and support staff; sharing resources with other FRSs and emergency and other services; and selling or sharing assets such as the Kelvedon
36 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
headquarters for example) - or even marketing FRS services to others in an attempt to generate revenue to offset budgetary reductions. Some typical suggestions were: If cuts absolutely must be made to the service, would it not be better to implement these cuts to the senior management team? After all the essential duty of the fire service is to protect the public, therefore shouldn't your major priority be to sustain the frontline equipment and staff? Ideally all three (fire, police, ambulance) should share command structure to give a better value for resources… There is scope for saving money through combining emergency services in hub locations Offer services to move into Kelvedon Park, such as the police. Share roles, for example split HR between the police and fire service The support services including control are cut to the bone so additional savings will be difficult unless more integrations for non-emergency tasks such as finance, takes place Reduce back office staff and contact other services to provide these functions or maintain back office staff and contact other agencies and offer expertise. Indeed Essex County Council, in its response, strongly advocates such a collaborative approach between itself and ECFRS to maximise efficiency and minimise the effects of budgetary constraints on both organisations: ECC values its relationship with ECFRS and we would like to take this opportunity to reiterate our offer to build upon existing areas of collaboration and explore new ways in which we can work together. Given the challenges facing both of our organisations we believe that the time is right to look for bold and innovative solutions including co- location of staff, the use of our buildings, data sharing, system leadership, joint delivery and joint commissioning.
94. Almost 600 people commented that they would be prepared to pay more council tax to maintain the status quo in terms of response resources: The precept required should be determined according to the needs of the people of Essex for an adequate and effective fire and rescue service, not according to politically motivated demands for cuts to funding or caps on council tax increases. Personally, I am happy to pay my fair share of tax to ensure our community is safe Council tax could be increased to make up the shortfall after the reduction in government funding. Whilst it does need a referendum I think it would be the most popular option. I calculate it would approximately an increase of £3.75 per year for an average Band D property. This is about the price of a pint of beer! To me to retain a great fire service or reduce it for the price of pint seems to make little sense
37 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
In my opinion the service should remain at the present strength, I and many others would prefer to pay more on our community charge than to reduce the service… There was, though, minority objection to any ECFRS precept rise - primarily on the grounds that people would then be expected to ‘pay more to get less’ or because of a perception that the Service is currently over-resourced and can manage its financial challenges without an increase: I do not wish to pay extra council tax to fund an over-manned and over-resourced organisation. If the fire service needs to make savings then they should make reductions internally just like any other organisation or business has to in this day and age. Times change and the fire service should be quite capable of modernising without doing it by way of unnecessarily charging the council tax payers…It is quite clear that savings can be made without any cost to the council tax payer Why should I pay extra council tax towards fire engines and personnel that are not really needed? The fire service needs to modernise, as it is currently paying for resources that aren't needed. If the fire service were a business in the real world then it would have gone bust years ago… Do you honestly expect people to agree to pay more and get less?! Absolutely laughable
95. Over 400 comments were made on the proposals (and particularly on the reduced numbers of wholetime firefighters and potentially longer response times) in the context of public and firefighter safety: The end result would not maintain or increase the safety of people who live, work or visit the county of Essex. No one would take out an insurance policy that would sometimes not provide cover (at a time when you didn't know). The Essex Fire & Rescue Service is the safety insurance policy… The reduction in wholetime crews and increased attendance times mean that single appliance crews will be in attendance at serious fire incidents for longer without support. This is potentially dangerous for firefighters and the public as crews will be morally under pressure to act before BA safety crews are available... In all options, it is shown that attendance times for a second supporting appliance will increase by at least three or four minutes, in addition to the increase in attendance for the first appliance…Nowhere do you consider the detrimental effect this will have on the ability of firefighters to deal with a serious incident effectively and safely. They will be under increased pressure from the public, and morally, to act, whilst short-handed and without appropriate safety crews being available…You will be placing your crews and the public in potentially more dangerous situations. Also in terms of public safety, 228 comments expressed concern about the possibility of longer response times - and many people were worried about the implications of an
38 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
increased reliance on on-call firefighters across the county. In relation to the latter point, the main issues were around the difficult recruitment and restricted availability of on-call firefighters in some areas (and the consequent problem of fire engines being taken ‘off-the- run’), and the lack of training such staff receive in comparison to their wholetime counterparts. Some of the many typical comments were: I would firstly like to say that I am concerned that you are underestimating the effect that these cuts will have to the average response times… All these options rely on increasing the number of retained firefighters. This has proved difficult in the past, and as you offer no proposal to improve the situation, your options are liable to failure The proposed level of cover an 'on call' firefighter can give in place of a wholetime is totally unacceptable…removing wholetime at day-crewed stations is inviting disaster especially when cutting resources in surrounding stations... Wholetime fire stations should not revert to fully on-call. They are in key locations, every second counts in response times. Plus in the event of a major incident the on-call system would result in detrimental results both from the quality & experience of the responding firefighters. They are not trained to a standard whereby the public is ultimately safe… The RDS system of working is not working in many areas of the county, and this is a trend that will continue as we move further away from 1980 where there used to be community spirit…People do not want to be disturbed by an alerter at 3am when they have to be up for work in London at 5am to attend a £100,000 job. This will be the same at the other commuter towns you are looking at converting to retained stations…
96. The proposed £3 million investment in prevention was the subject of 165 comments. Most of those who gave their views on this issue supported using any additional funds to protect frontline response resources - with several people commenting on the lack of ‘proof’ that preventative activities have led to the reduction in demand for FRS resources: No cuts in frontline should be an option. The £3 million should be used to crew the frontline appliances that are under threat… Is there a real need to double the budget for prevention and protection? If we have already reached 84% of the county with smoke alarms does extra money real need to be made available? Will we be able to quantify what goals have been achieved? Every effort possible should be made to protect and maintain fire cover; in particular the wholetime element of the service. All available monies, including the £3 million intended for community safety, should be redirected to support this aim. Further money should only be invested in other areas of the service when it can be evidenced that it will lead to a reduction in the risks faced by those who live and work in the county.
39 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Also, many respondents suggested that better value for money could be achieved in the area of prevention by enabling and allowing station-based staff to undertake such activity in addition to their response roles: Reduce spending on prevention and allow station personnel to increase involvement with prevention, therefore keeping stations and increasing prevention at no extra cost Having a multi skilled staff that can support protection, prevention and response would be the more efficient use of people Why invest more money into your safer communities scheme when serving firefighters could do the work at no extra cost? I understand there is a budget cut but there are better ways to spend the budget to give the tax payer 'value for money'.
97. It should be noted though that there was some minority support for using the £3 million additional council tax revenue to fund a greater investment in prevention, as the following comments demonstrate: I think you could do more to interact with children about fire safety. They are so enamoured with the service…and they are like sponges, so it could be worth educating the future generations in order to further reduce incidents in the long-term Firebreak is the most successful delivery programme to come from any FRS in the country…please invest in this amazing intervention programme Essex County Council is highly supportive of the adopted direction of travel towards prevent and protect. We believe this continuing shift in focus and associated resources will deliver improved outcomes… Educate the public on the figures of RTCs attended. Do not focus on the fire aspect as this has been diminishing for a significant period. Education and prevention measures are in place for these issues, but not so for RTCs.
98. Other issues raised were that: reductions should not be considered due to Essex’s increasing population, housing developments, traffic levels and terrorism targets; and that sufficient resources must be maintained to ensure a resilient, future-proof service that can deal with many simultaneous and major incidents: I would happily pay what I needed to in order to ensure we kept our response resources the same as they are now. The county is growing fast and will continue to do so…traffic in the county is getting worse and the A12 is simply dangerous, with accidents every day. We also have to understand the extreme threats that face us... We must keep all the tenders in Essex. We have M25, M11, Stansted Airport, Coryton Dartford Tunnel, Tilbury Docks, new Corringham Docks, Stapleford Airfield, Shellhaven, A12, Southend Airport, Lakeside Bradwell, Colchester Barracks, Harwich Port to name but
40 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
a few major incident risks within the county…rest assured if they are not there and something major happens we will suffer and lives will be lost In the event of multiple emergencies or a major event cover is too thinly spread in the main built up areas.
99. As for the consultation options themselves, it has already been established that option 2 was the preference of almost two-thirds of questionnaire respondents. For many (194 comments) it was considered a feasible and sensible option that maintains a reasonable amount of resource while making necessary budget reductions - and allows for further reductions in future if necessary: This seems to me like a balanced, middle ground option I feel this option retains the greatest number of firefighters and keeps service provision to a maximum whilst still being within budgetary constraints It makes sense that with reduced demand…the service will need to reduce its resource in line. This option seems to continue to offer good coverage with little increase in costs Looking at the maps in your consultation document, it seems to me there is adequate appliance provision to attend an incident and back up from adjacent stations to provide an appliance at all stations for a single incident, and probably more than one simultaneously… This option recognises that currently there are too many resources in the fire service (both appliances and fire-fighters) and balances it with a leaner service which is fit for the future. Furthermore, there is scope for further changes (both increases or reductions), if required, in five years’ time, to respond to global and local threats Understand a need for reductions and to shape the service for the future based on current figures. I think that this is the safest option as it will allow us to consider further cuts in the future (post 2020) should it be necessary. Don't cut all at once as there is nowhere else to go. A further 77 comments, though, described option 2 as the ‘least worst option’ and considered it a necessary evil rather than something that is feasible in the light of reducing demand and income: This is the least damaging option out of a bad set of choices presented Although none of the three are a particularly attractive option, this was the best in regards to the least amount of job losses and the safety of the general public… I feel these options leave us between a rock and a hard place. We have to choose the least worse option. Ideally the fire service should suffer no cuts… I don't agree with cutting our budget at all, but if we have to take this route let's go for the least amount of cuts.
41 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
100. There was some (though very little) support for the other two options - and the comments made were generally in support of option 3 on the grounds that: it is feasible given ECFRS’s reduction in demand; it would allow the Service to enhance its efficiency and modernity; and may help negate the need for further cuts in future: I am happy to pay extra council tax but I would rather this money go to other emergency services who are in a far worse financial situation with a far greater workload. The changes recommended in option 3 would still provide an appropriate service to Essex communities It makes more sense to cut the most and then rebuild the service into a more efficient service Save as much as you can. Makes more use of on-call, so option three looks the best I appreciate the way Essex Fire and Rescue has to change, as it is run in a completely out of date system. I would say, though, that Grays fire station would struggle if it lost one pump. Other than that though, option 3 seems the ideal answer Whichever option is chosen, there is the risk that you will be asked to reduce even further. Choosing option 3 now may delay further cuts later.
101. Turning to particular stations and areas, just over 200 comments were made in relation to retaining a day-crewed station at Dovercourt because: the area has specific risks that are best served by a wholetime crew and suffers poor road access from other areas with wholetime resources; and that a fully on-call system is not viable in the area given current availability issues and potential future recruitment difficulties. Some of the many typical arguments were: I would support option 2 with the inclusion of Dovercourt station remaining as a day crewed station. It is my concern that Harwich is a major port and has an oil refinery. Response times with an on-call crew could be severely inhibited to any emergency… I believe that Harwich needs a fully-functioning fire service especially due to the unique narrow street and buildings in the old part of the town.… I do not support any reduction in resources to the Harwich and Dovercourt fire and rescue service. The area requires speedy response times because so many dwellings are timber framed Harwich is in a unique position, with no road access from the north or east. Access from the south is via twisting roads linking villages… Our on call firefighters cannot support a 24 hour service. In fact I do not believe they can support a full crew for more than 60% of that time... Our next nearest fire stations, Manningtree and Frinton, are also on-call stations and fail to provide cover for several hours each week. This then means that should there be a fire…our cover will have to
42 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
come from Clacton (also with reduced cover) or Colchester. This will mean at least a 25 minute wait for a fire appliance… I understand that the ECFRS are confident they will recruit enough on call fire-fighters to fill the gaps. Harwich is blighted by no industry nor large employers. Most Harwich and Dovercourt residents lucky enough to have employment commute.
102. A further 136 comments disagreed with any reductions at South Woodham Ferrers - mainly in terms of longer response times from on-call crews, perceived difficulties recruiting additional on-call firefighters in future and the area’s growing population: If you make South Woodham Ferrers on-call you are putting all the surrounding area at risk as response times…will go up significantly. South Woodham Ferrers cover as far as the Dengies and if there was a fire that far out Rayleigh or Chelmsford would not get there in a reasonable response time… If you had researched the town you would have established that this is mainly a commuter town…you are going to find it very difficult to cover the station 93% of the time meaning that the majority of the time the station will not provide fire and protection cover. You have also not considered the expanding population in this area… If you are also reducing the surrounding cover such as Rayleigh and Great Baddow, your suggested response times will be significant more than you have stated and again this shows the holes in your research and how you are misleading the public and will be putting lives at risk… South Woodham Ferrers is the largest centre of population in the Chelmsford area outside the of the city itself. It has approximately 6,500 dwellings and 16,500 population, with businesses and factories...Chelmsford City Council have proposed adding up to 2,000 further dwellings with shops and factories in the near future. This is an expansion of over 30% so proposing to reduce the emergency service in South Woodham Ferrers at this time is pure folly.
103. Other areas mentioned (albeit less frequently) were Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey, Thurrock, Clacton and the Dengie Peninsula - the latter most often in the context of proposed reductions at South Woodham Ferrers and Burnham-on-Crouch. The most common issues raised in relation to these places are captured in the following responses: There are currently nine top-tier COMAH facilities within the Thurrock area. There is the potential for a 10th, with the green energy plant located at the former Cargills site, within Tilbury Docks. Also the Vopak site have been advising that their blast zone is to be extended further and if there is an incident, there is a greater risk to both industry & residents
43 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Living in Corringham and being protected by a part time station for over 70 years, I can't understand the savings you will make by taking away a fire engine…for a small saving leave the part time station with two fire engines and help support them… We have the most deprived area in the country in Jaywick, where we attend dwelling fires frequently. The population of Clacton triples in the summer season due to the many holiday parks that occupy the town. Our nearest wholetime station is Colchester (30 minutes away)…should we have a major incident, I don't feel one wholetime pump would be sufficient fire cover Purleigh Parish Council should like to express its particular concerns about the effects of the proposed changes on the Dengie Peninsula, as follows: currently the Dengie Peninsula is covered by Burnham-on-Crouch fire station and Tillingham fire station, both are on-call stations, so the response to an incident is not guaranteed. These two stations are currently unavailable during the daytime on many days due to a lack of available crew… This situation is currently alleviated by South Woodham Ferrers fire station, a day crewed station with permanently employed fire-fighters, providing a guaranteed response. Under the proposals, the crewing of South Woodham Ferrers fire station will change from permanent firefighters operating the day crewing system to on-call fire fighters, resulting in the nearest guaranteed response being from Chelmsford City Centre or Rayleigh Weir... My council opposes this change strongly. Rayleigh Weir is to have one of its frontline appliances crewing changed from wholetime to on-call, again removing the guaranteed response… My council believes the simplest solution would be to leave the crewing at South Woodham Ferrers as day crewed and remove an appliance from Chelmsford, spreading the guaranteed response. Currently at South Woodham Ferrers fire station they have a Unimog…specialist heavy animal rescue response vehicle. This will go, leaving no heavy animal rescue capability within Essex or off-road capability on the Dengie Peninsula. My council also strongly opposes this change…
104. Finally in terms of comments, it should be noted that there was some recognition of the need for change in the light of falling incident levels and a perceived need for greater efficiency, value for money and modernity: It makes sense that with reduced demand generally, the service will need to reduce its resource in line All other services have had to look at new ways of doing business. ECFRS have done so but high-profile scare tactics distract many of the public into continuing the unacceptable status quo. Change must be addressed to benefit the taxpayer and reform outdated practices and over-capacity The fire service is over resourced and the money could be spent on providing other more critical public services. The money you get already, if properly managed, is adequate to fund a service that can cope with the falling number of incidents attended
44 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
The review is overdue. We need to make savings and run a service that meets demand and provides public safety, but the current model is not efficient enough, and needs to make better use of time and resource This system is way out of date. The service is right in bringing in a new way of working and should carry on transforming a very out of date system.
105. In addition to the views expressed on ECFRS’s proposed options for change, almost 50 alternative suggestions were made. Some were very specific in relation to resources at particular stations, but others related to more general issues such as: staffing levels; fire engine numbers; on-call station closures; using smaller vehicles and teams for some incidents; mixed crewing; revenue generation; and medical co-responding. It is of course for the Fire Authority to judge the feasibility and desirability of these suggestions, all of which are outlined in the table below1.
Reduce all two-pump stations down to one pump and push the second pump further out. For example, remove a pump from Basildon and post to Wickford, giving Wickford full-time wholetime cover. Take a pump from Clacton and move to Manningtree, one from Colchester and move to Wivenhoe. Thus maintaining wholetime cover and improving attendance times in formerly retained areas All day-crewed to retained following wholetime second engine to retained at Clacton and Loughton. Change Leigh-on-Sea to retained. Remove second engine at Rayleigh Weir, Orsett and Corringham. Remove second engine from Halstead, Frinton, Witham, Canvey Island and replace with a smaller 4x4 engine such as a Land Rover/Ford Ranger (crew reduction six to four, improved off road capability). Allow these to respond with crews of three as small fires units and adapt for future use as a fast response for medical emergencies. Remove the Pinzgauer from Billericay and replace with the water carrier from Chelmsford. Remove Pinzgauer from Manningtree, Burnham-on-Crouch and Dunmow and replace with a similar smaller appliance as per Halstead etc. Relocate one of the appliances and wholetime crew from Chelmsford to South Woodham Ferrers. This ensures emergency response cover for the Dengie peninsula... The risks at Chelmsford are still covered as the appliance at South Woodham Ferrers is able to rapidly attend Chelmsford due to the A130 Manage wholetime firefighters at station level with more flexibility on short-term changes of watches in order to cover leave and sick (i.e. why have White with 11 riding then Green with seven riding the following day?) Station closures. A phrase that most think would spell political suicide. Take a good hard look at Burnham, Baddow, Rochford, Old Harlow, Tillingham, Leigh. All stations that are covered by their neighbouring stations
1 Please note that not all of the 48 individual suggestions have been reproduced as many people proposed the same or very similar things.
45 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
We are told no stations will close...is this necessarily a good thing? Is it not better to lose a station (maybe one where a wholetime crew can beat the on call crew to their own calls) and then maintain a more reliable crew in the areas that have less cover from surrounding areas? I believe…closing a pointless station like Great Baddow seeing as Chelmsford is on their doorstep and getting rid of a fire engine at all 'on call' stations that have two such as Maldon, Saffron Walden, Halsted etc. would save a lot of money Why is there two fire engines at Saffron Waldon, Maldon, Braintree, Witham, Canvey? Surely these stations can have one fire engine so there is some savings. Why can't Great Baddow close seeing as there is a large fire station in Chelmsford right on its doorstep? Move full-time stations to more logistical locations i.e. create a full time station at Kelvedon, closing Coggeshall, Tiptree and Witham… Cutting wholetime pumps is pure craziness; reducing retained stations is a more sensible option; they are either covered by wholetime, have no crew, or are just too quiet
Move stations to more central locations, crewed by professional firefighters Become more efficient; cut the number of machines sent to calls, use staff cars for very small fires or fire out calls, cut the management fleet of cars Smaller response teams to less urgent emergencies to free fire engines and emergency personnel to more life-threatening emergencies… Serious consideration should be given to ensuring Burnham retains a second engine, albeit a smaller 4x4. This could be utilised as a small fires unit with a crew of three instead of four if necessary and also arguably established in readiness to attend medical emergencies which will doubtless occur in the longer term Instead of reducing the number of fire engines where there are two or more, these could be replaced with smaller/faster vehicles to deal with emergencies not requiring a fire tender You should have a small core of full-time personnel and integrate your on-call personnel so that it would be more cost effective but still have the resources. This would save money and also keep the on-call interested Develop a flexible workforce based on mixed crewing. Retained or those with flexible hours working with a smaller wholetime workforce I believe further savings could be made by contracting out our services such as HR and workshops Essex Fire Service should…follow the model that the HSE have implemented; fee for intervention to generate revenue. They have provided years of excellent advice for free, this should be charged to business. We have some of the best firefighters in the country and instead of cutting them Essex Fire Service should be training and selling their services… The fire brigade should be bidding for council contracts to help maintain areas, which could be carried out by wholetime fire fighters
46 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Market facilities to other services such as running in-house boat handling courses… Running animal rescue courses, BA courses etc. Stop retired instructors coming back into the service…detach already qualified station based training instructors to teach on duty days - for example a station based BAI gets detached on watch-related days to teach BA. Allow stations to maintain budgets for supplies…allow more tasks to be completed by station based personnel, why pay someone else to do a job that a firefighter with experience can do? Make USAR a secondary contract working on an on call basis How would the American model work here? Emergency services sharing bases. Rescue vehicles carrying firemen and paramedics. Fewer but more specialised vehicles… The fire brigade could be using their free time to assist other emergency services. Ambulance and police are rushed off their feet, as well as prevention they should be providing first aid, to free up other resources.
106. As the following table shows, the second open text question (‘are there any other comments you wish to make?’) yielded very similar issues to those reported above. Again, please note that many respondents raised several different points within one comment, which accounts for the fact that the number of responses is far higher than the number of respondents - and in this case 85% of people chose not to comment at all.
THEME NUMBER OF RESPONSES
Disagree with any cuts/service should be ‘kept as it is’ 528 (7% of respondents)
Proposals will put safety/lives of people and firefighters in Essex at risk 272 (4%)
Savings could be made elsewhere (e.g. management/other senior 224 (3%) staff/back-room staff/eliminating waste/sharing resources with other FRSs and emergency services/selling assets such as HQ)
Need wholetime firefighters/on-call firefighters are insufficient and 146 (2%) unsafe
Disagree with reduction in provision at Dovercourt/Harwich 143 (2%)
Prepared to pay extra council tax to prevent service reductions/maintain 108 (1%) safety
Disagree with all options due to increasing population/housing 99 (1%) developments/traffic
Response times are important/proposed changes will mean slower 94 (1%) response times
Disagree with reduction in provision at South Woodham Ferrers 94 (1%)
47 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Fire service/firefighters are generally doing a good job and firefighters 52 (1%) need more support and recognition
Concerns about lack of coverage for major incidents (i.e. fire in 51 (1%) ports/petrochemical plants/flooding/RTCs etc.)
Disagree with £3 million increase for prevention and protection 44 (<1%)
Proposals will create additional pressure on ECFRS (a stretched service) 43 (<1%)
Disagree with any increase in council tax/already pay enough tax/ECFRS 41 (<1%) can make further efficiencies
Consultation/questionnaire flawed 39 (<1%)
Disagree with reduction in provision in Thurrock 36 (<1%)
Proposals are financially motivated 28 (<1%)
Use EFA reserves to protect against grant reductions 25 (<1%)
More public consultation required 23 (<1%)
Large number of timber framed houses/historical buildings in Essex 23 (<1%)
Need more/clearer information 22 (<1%)
Do not close fire stations 22 (<1%)
Concerns about lack of coverage for simultaneous or major incidents 20 (<1%) (i.e. fire in ports/petrochemical plants/flooding/RTCs etc.)
Support for option 2 16 (<1%)
Too many reductions to emergency services already 15 (<1%)
Understanding of need for change 11 (<1%)
Disagree with removal of Pinzgauers 9 (<1%)
Disagree with reduction in provision on the Dengie Peninsula 7 (<1%)
Other 50 (1%)
Alternative Proposal 33 (<1%)
Nothing stated 5,289 (85%)
TOTAL RESPONDENTS 6,216
TOTAL RESPONSES 7,606
107. The comments made were also similar and so, generally speaking, have not been reproduced here. However, more views were expressed about the consultation process at
48 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
this stage (62 comments in total), primarily around: the need for more consultation in general; a lack of promotion and advertising and a consequent lack of awareness of the consultation among the general public; the timing of meetings; the ‘loaded’ questionnaire and ‘confusing’ consultation document; the ‘unnecessary’ profiling survey questions; the cost of the process; the consultation as a fait accompli; and the need for more information to provide an informed response: This survey does not seem to have been well advertised as many I have spoken were unaware of it Consultation should not have been on a weekday afternoon when most people, except young or old, would have been at work This survey is poorly worded and loaded towards cutting services; it does not advise what or where the cuts would be made and how this would affect services The information looks to be confusing in its delivery, it needs to be more informative in an easier way to understand What does my age, gender, sexuality and religion have to do with cost-saving implications to my and the people’s fire service? If the same amount of money and resources that have gone into producing this consultation had been spent in the first place lobbying Government, some of these cuts may have been avoided Most likely, you have already decided which one and this is just a time wasting exercise... Whilst I won't pretend to understand all the 'ins and outs', it would be more useful to have information with regards to use of the service/call-outs etc. in order to reach a more informed response!
108. The other issue raised more frequently in answers to the second open text question was that the removal of Pinzgauer vehicles from certain stations (Burnham-on-Crouch in particular) without the provision of suitable replacements is unacceptable on the grounds of accessibility to remote and difficult-to-reach areas: Maldon District Council…is concerned at the proposed loss of the Pinzgauer 6x6 fire appliance from Burnham-on-Crouch… The appliance serves a relatively remote and predominantly rural community. The existing appliance has the capability to reach remote areas (including farmland) away from the highway… The council believes due to the remoteness of the area if the specialist fire engine is removed from Burnham and is not replaced like for like, a second normal appliance should be stationed at Burnham… The removal of the Pinzgauer vehicle from Burnham-on-Crouch is not appropriate given the marshland surrounding the local area and the difficulties presented with livestock…there must be a replacement straight away.
49 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
109. Again, some alternative suggestions were made as below, mostly around: on-call station mergers and closures; a possible merger with another emergency service; converting second appliances from wholetime to on-call; mixed crewing; shift systems; using smaller vehicles and teams for some incidents; and the full-roll out of medical co-responding.
Why do you still have two engines at Saffron Walden? Crews can't get to the station, machines can't get out, and when crews do get to the station, the yard is full of wives parking to do their shopping. Sell the site and build a one-pump station on the outskirts I do not see why stations themselves are protected. For example I would rather Harlow Fire Station retains two full-time pumps whilst Old Harlow is shut than to have one full-time pump and one on-call at Harlow and one on-call at Old Harlow. The station at Old Harlow is very small and appears outdated…. It seems more of a political move to say no station closures and removes the opportunity of a wholesale look at where we need to be located Although not ideal, I would like to see station mergers such as Hawkwell and Rochford... I would like to see a full merger with other emergency services. I don't understand why we still have separate HR departments and senior officers running these services when we could have all of these under one joint service which wold save money There are less fires due to the excellent work done by the fire prevention department. Now is a good time to use that professional background to bolster the ambulance service. A combined fire & ambulance service is the way forward South Woodham Ferrers fire station was built as a three appliance bay facility to provide cover for an expanding residential and commercial area. This expansion did not fully materialise and as a consequence we now have one fire appliance (plus a later addition of an animal rescue unit) leaving one spare bay (possibly two bays) available to house front line ambulances…with the closure of the police station, surely an office could be made available at the fire station for a local police officer presence and the spare bays could possibly made available to the East of England ambulance service? This would provide a revenue stream for the fire service, a capital saving to the ambulance service and a benefit to the police service. Presently other counties use joint service principles where the police and fire service share patrol vehicles and appropriately trained fire personnel attend first responder category a calls in jointly badged vehicles… A possible suggestion would be to…implement retained crews into one of the quieter 2+ appliance full-time stations where a retained appliance would not have any serious impact on response times Wouldn't the best "4th option" have been to simply convert all the second wholetime appliances to on-call? Cut the wholetime to a base core of about 200 and then integrate the on-call to do out duty, which would increase the on-call budget but it would be greater value for money, as most on- call do 90 hours a week, not 42. This would give you the cover you need, but would save you money as well.
50 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
There are many examples of more flexible working and shift systems across both public and private sectors that could be utilised in the fire service to make significant savings and therefore protect the front line Most serving firepersons hold second jobs. Their working week should be modified to the same as every other service... Think some stations should have a smaller second appliance possibly based on a long wheelbase Land Rover chassis. What is the point in sending out a fully crewed engine to deal with a fire in a town centre rubbish bin? Why can't a smaller vehicle, or even a staff member’s car, with mileage paid, be used? No wholetime firefighter should be made redundant. They should be taking on other responsibilities such as co-responding with the ambulance service, rather than being cut.
The ‘Option 2’ Campaign
110. A campaign by ECFRS firefighters that invited residents to fill in the consultation questionnaire and choose option 2 yielded a total of 5,583 responses - all of which evidently expressed support for this option. Respondents were also invited to provide further comments and although the vast majority of questionnaires were returned with no text included, the main themes that emerged from those who did provide their views are outlined below and overleaf.
111. 174 comments were made in support of ECFRS and objecting to any Service reductions on the grounds of: public and firefighter safety; population increases; the need for resilience; and the need to cater for an ageing population and terrorist threats. A further six people described option 2 in such terms as ‘the best of a bad bunch’ (with only four expressly considering it viable and sensible). Some of the many typical comments were: Any reduction in response speed and weight will cost lives I feel in the interest of public safety this is ridiculous. Public services are being drastically reduced beyond belief and it is costing lives on a daily basis… Outrageous that people's lives are at risk for a few pence each year… This is madness. How can you cut such an essential service? Lives matter! No cuts are good cuts. Would Essex stand up to a major incident or disaster? In my opinion there should be no reduction in response services - on the contrary the authorities should be looking at how they can expand response capability I disagree with any cutbacks to the fire service i.e. increased terrorist threats and an ageing population Why reduce emergency services…when more houses are being built, more house fires, more road accidents?!
51 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Cuts are necessary but they have to be in the right areas. Public services are not the way to go! Option 2 is the best of a bad bunch I have looked at the information given to me and I feel that I would be better served…if response resources were reduced as little as possible Advice given in day for option 2, let's make this work.
112. 22 people wished to see the additional £3m earmarked for prevention work invested in the ‘frontline’ instead, as the following comments show: The £3 million needs to be spent on protecting people Why are you wasting £3 million extra per year on prevention? We want to protect as many full-time fire engines as possible I don't agree with putting frontline money for back office.
113. Finally, nine people expressly stated that they would be prepared to pay more council tax to retain ECFRS in its current form; and a further five criticised what they saw as the disproportionality of the proposed reductions towards the frontline: I would gladly pay more council tax to keep our service as it is Let's keep these guys. I would not mind paying £25 extra a year Frontline cuts appear to be disproportionate to the back room cuts.
The ‘Harwich/Dovercourt’ Campaign
114. 593 questionnaires were received from Harwich Town Council: these were exact copies of the consultation questionnaire that had been completed by local residents. All opted for ‘none of them’ when asked ‘which of the options do you support?’
115. As for the open text comments, many were generic statements in support of having a ‘full- time crew’ at Dovercourt Fire Station: Keep station as manned now…full-time I think it's vital to have a complete cover 24 hours We need full time firefighters…any other option will not be good enough Despite better home fire safety, a wholetime crew, whether day crewed plus on-call, is and should be recognised by all concerned as required and necessary… Of course, Dovercourt is currently a day-crewed as opposed to wholetime fire station and some of the comments above seem to suggest a degree of unawareness of this. Nonetheless, they also demonstrate the strength of feeling against having a purely on-call service in the area and the comments below show the reasoning behind this judgement.
52 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
116. Most of the remaining comments also supported the retention of a ‘full-time service’ at Dovercourt, but gave the following specific reasons why: 134 people commented that an on-call crew would result in longer initial response times and on-call unavailability may mean having to rely on fire engines from some distance away (though again it should be noted that there was little recognition of the current situation whereby on-call crews provide the area’s fire cover overnight and on weekends) Full-time firefighters at Dovercourt guarantee a quick response. They should not be taken away Response times for crews will be unacceptable and fires will burn longer increasing risk to life and properties - allowing for spread of fire to other properties causing more damage and expense Without full-time firefighters at Dovercourt the nearest available fire engine may be 20 minutes away It is unacceptable that in the event of a fire the residents of Harwich should have to wait for emergency services to travel from other towns… A further 132 respondents explicitly felt that the proposed changes would put lives at risk: This is a disgraceful proposal to remove full-time fire crews from Dovercourt Fire Station. It puts people's lives at risk… These are our statutory rights paid for with tax and losing them risks our lives and property Without a full-time fire service in Dovercourt we will be at risk and it could result in loss of life which is unacceptable. That the proposal does not sufficiently account for local risks (such as Harwich International Port; the oil refineries and chemical factories; the busy roads; and the many old, timber-framed buildings and listed buildings) was noted by 91 respondents. They felt that these risks warrant wholetime cover, though it is not clear from the comments whether they thought this is already in place or whether they desired an upgrade from day-crewed: Who in their right minds would remove the full-time firefighters from a town and port of international status? It would be reckless In our location we require 24/7, 365 days a year. We are vulnerable, Bramble Island, Carless, International Port…
53 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Harwich is a high-risk area with several sites requiring swift response in the event of an emergency. As such, a fully-manned permanent fire station is essential to ensure the safety of our community With the old timber buildings and Grade I and II listed buildings in Harwich…if a building catches fire it is like a tinderbox and any delay in the fire service attending will have dire consequences.
117. Other reasons for wishing to retain a full-time presence at Dovercourt Fire Station were that: the area’s population is growing significantly and requires adequate fire cover (18 comments); Harwich, Dovercourt and surrounding towns and villages are somewhat isolated and difficult to access from other places in the event of on-call unavailability locally (15 comments); and that firefighter job losses are unacceptable (four comments): Not having 100% cover is a scary prospect, especially as the town is growing far more quickly than the amenities allow… We are a peninsula at the end of a peninsula. Our nearest towns are Colchester - 20 miles away; Clacton is 15 miles away; Manningtree is 10 miles away. All too far away to provide robust support promptly. There is only one mainly single carriageway main road into town - easily blocked by accidents Geographically ridiculous not to have a full professionally manned crew in our area Without full-time firefighters every option increases the risk of no fire engines being available Retained staff availability and availability of fire engines being brought in from other areas. This raises the time factor How well trained are on-call?
118. 17 generic comments were made on the unacceptability of reductions to Fire and Rescue Services - and a further six on the fact that the Harwich/Dovercourt area has lost a significant number of other services in recent years: I do not believe the fire service should be cut at all I feel we are gradually losing all the services that we pay or council tax for.
119. Finally, there were some misconceptions that Dovercourt Fire Station is to close, with 12 respondents making comments of this nature: Ridiculous idea to close a local station that is 25 minutes away from cover We are an ever expanding town who needs a fully active local fire station…we don't want to lose our fire station.
54 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Other Campaigns
120. ORS directly received a further 5,227 photocopies of the consultation questionnaire, but as they had no covering letter or note attached to them we are unaware of their provenance. As the pie chart below shows, 3,413 (65%) of these responses were for option 2, and 1,809 (35%) people opted for ‘none of them’.
35% Option 2 None of the Above 65%
121. Furthermore, many text comments were offered by respondents (most by those who chose not to support any of the options). 509 of these called for no reductions to ECFRS, and especially to frontline resources. Some of the very many typical comments were: The frontline services should be protected wherever possible. The fire service is an insurance policy for when all else fails Fire services are essential and the need is in times of crisis or major events. Tell me how the service will cope. It's a travesty to cut expenditure This is a valuable service to our community. I do not feel it should be cut, there are many skills within the service that can be utilised to provide a wonderful service to the community where the staff feel valued, fulfilled and inspired in their workplace The Fire Service provides an excellent service. Save many lives as well as providing preventative advice. To cut the service would be detrimental to the public.
122. A further 59 people commented on the need to maintain frontline resources in the context of public and firefighter safety - and another 23 did so on the basis that doing so would ensure good response times. Again, some of many representative comments were: Any more cuts to ECFRS will not only be putting the lives of the public in danger. It will also be putting the frontline firefighters lives in danger Many standard operating procedures and safe systems of work cannot be implemented with one appliance and four firefighters… I live in a rural area and find it of great concern that there is the real possibility of huge cuts to our fire service. Response times will surely be affected… These cuts to frontline emergency services will lead to the public having to wait longer in a fire, vehicle accident, flooding etc. I believe the general public pay their
55 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
council tax with the expectation that when they dial 999 in the event of an emergency a fire engine will turn up quickly with a well-trained crew of firefighters ready to deal with whatever is before them
123. Other reasons given for objecting to the proposed reductions to ECFRS were that: Essex is a large area to cover and so a great deal of resilience must be built into the system; reductions will affect the most vulnerable people in the community; the Service must be ready in the event of a large-scale disaster such as a terrorist event; and that the difficulties around on-call availability may lead to the unsustainability of a model that requires more such provision: I'm surprised the service covers such a large area already. Taking away resources is unfeasible Cuts on this level affect the lives of the most vulnerable in society No reductions should be considered in light of the ever present threat of terrorist attacks I am concerned that projected availability figures cannot be met by retained/on-call stations and the reduction of wholetime cover will be placed under excessive strain Stop using the argument that any gaps in delivery by the wholetime service will be plugged by the retained service. This is a nonsense as you have consistently failed for at least 25 years to recruit enough and then retain them to provide the same availability as wholetime crews and appliances. Reducing the amount of wholetime personnel...and a heavy reliance on the often unavailable retained personnel will lead to increased deaths and serious injury figures.
124. 109 respondents objected to the proposed £3 million investment into prevention work: essentially, they did not object to a council tax rise to raise the money, but they wished to see it used to protect ‘the frontline’ as opposed to within the Safer Communities department: Redirect the £3 million from prevention to the frontline. Increase council tax to spend on frontline and cuts Money in the budget - £3 million - should not be diverted to fire safety as these results cannot be measured… In Essex the emphasis should not be on funding community fire safety work but funding frontline professional, well-equipped firefighters The options above all suggest a larger portion of funds to be spent on prevention work. This is fine, but not at the expense of frontline resources…
56 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
It should also be noted that a number of people (11) made similar comments criticising ECFRS for intending to use the aforementioned £3 million for a leaflet campaign, suggesting that they had been informed that it would be used for this purpose: Put up council tax. Use £3m to save jobs and fire engines not on a useless leaflet campaign!
125. The need to examine ways to make savings elsewhere (for example within support functions and management, by divesting of the ‘massive’ ECFRS headquarters and by sharing services with other emergency services and neighbouring FRSs) was noted by 93 respondents – and a further seven suggested using EFA reserves to plug the funding gap: Merge backroom staff with Council and other emergency services to save money and collaborate with other fire services to save money I believe the cuts should come from backroom staff first. And only once this is exhausted should the fire engines and firefighters be cut Essex's Headquarters looks like a 'posh wedding venue'. Sell it and move somewhere more in keeping with a public service… Use the £13 million reserves to offset the lack of Government funding.
126. Some of those who chose option 2 (24 respondents) explained their reasoning for doing so: most said that they would prefer no reductions at all, but understood that they had to be made and thus selected the option they felt would have the least impact on the Service: My preferred option is no cuts to frontline services. But this option does the least damage to the service that we pay for I believe option 2 is a common sense approach.
127. Finally, this batch of questionnaires contained a number of ‘standardised submissions’; that is, identical photocopied responses. The first, of which we received 677 copies, was in relation to the proposed changes within Thurrock district and read as follows:
Thurrock is a large industrial area with the busiest road network in Essex and a growing population. All of the options above disproportionately affect our fire cover and will leave our local area at risk. It is for this reason that I cannot support any of the proposed options.
128. 82 of the following responses were received:
Increase council tax by 2% Use the £3m earmarked for extra community safety work to keep frontline firefighters as they are now Use the £8m support grant that you thought was going to be axed to keep at least the present number of wholetime frontline firefighters that are currently employed
57 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Keep all the current crewing models as they are Keep South Woodham Ferrers and Great Baddow crewed as they are as they are often the only appliances covering the Dengie Peninsula Do not increase response times. If you are failing to meet the times ECFRS set then you clearly do not have enough firefighters or appliance available Cut the number of back room staff, especially all the HR business partners etc. Get rid of one of the CFOs as I can't understand how you have 2, especially if 1 is not at work Cut your losses with the multitude of IT systems that don't work and get a system that does work Sack the officers, procurement officers and all those who were involved in the farcical control room operating turnout system
129. 35 of the following responses were received:
I welcome a 2% increase on my council tax, however I do not support any reduction in response resources. I do not want any more money being diverted from the front line into the safer communities budget
58 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
130. 26 of the following responses were received:
Use the £3m earmarked for community safety to keep the same number of fire appliances on their current duty system with the same amount of frontline firefighters Cut the number of back room staff, especially all the HR partners etc. Do not change the response times that are in place. They are considerably worse than those they replaced and you can't meet them. To replace them with an average longer time is madness Keep all Day Crewing stations at that status, do not downgrade to retained status Increase council tax by 2% to spend on frontline firefighters so they can be there when it all goes wrong
131. Two of the following responses were received:
I feel that the strikes will reduce fire cover in the area putting people at unnecessary risk. The figures are manipulated to suit the idea of putting residents at risk. This is done by increasing turn out times from the initial 5 minutes to 8 minutes, then to now increase it again to 10 minutes. This clearly shows the Fire Authority's thought process in thinking pennies/pounds are more important than the people they are supposed to protect. It is common knowledge that these cuts do not have to take place due to the £13 million in reserves and the money gained from selling Hutton and reducing HR and backroom staff. Not to mention resolving disputes which would stop the over-paying of resilience staff It is also convenient that the brigade needs to make these extreme cuts after a £15 million oversight, which no-one was made or held accountable…
Overall balance of opinion
132. If all 17,630 questionnaires reported above are combined, it is clear that option 2 is preferred by the majority of respondents. Almost three-quarters (73%) chose this option, compared with 24% choosing ‘none of them’ and only 1% each choosing options 1 and 3.
1% 24% Option 1 Option 2 1% Option 3 None of the Above 73%
59 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Staff Forums
Introduction
133. Four staff forums were held with: operational managers (six participants); a mixture of on- call firefighters and operational managers (five participants); support staff managers (six participants); and support staff (10 participants). Although the forums were poorly attended, a full, frank and deliberative discussion was had at each.
134. The forums lasted around 2.5 hours and considered all relevant evidence having received a detailed review of the fire and rescue service, its resources and roles and its options for change. The meetings were thorough and truly deliberative in listening to and responding openly to a range of evidence and topics - and participants’ views on the main issues under consideration are reported below.
Main Findings: Operational Staff The Options Investing in prevention
135. Mixed views were expressed about the proposed increase in prevention work: only one of the operational managers endorsed it; the others were don’t knows - and in the mixed operational group three participants endorsed it but it was rejected by the other two if it means reducing frontline pumps. Those who supported the increase did so on the grounds that: It’s about saving lives and we should invest in it for maximum public safety (Mixed Operational Group) The public rely too much on emergency services and can be irresponsible. It is good for us to encourage them to take more responsibility for their safety rather than just relying on us. (Mixed Operational Group)
136. The mixed operational group participants who supported more prevention work were particularly keen to see an increased focus on road traffic collision prevention given the upward trend in such incidents across Essex: The RTC increase is very important and should not be ignored because there are many deaths; we need to focus more on this (Mixed Operational Group) RTCs should be a priority for targeted prevention and we could do so much more (Mixed Operational Group)
60 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
137. They also suggested that fire stations might be better utilised for prevention work (providing firefighters’ working days can be restructured) in conjunction with community- based activity to target the most at-risk: We can do more with fire stations by restructuring the day’s work (Mixed Operational Group) Doing more on stations should not mean we don’t do more in specialist areas as well, like with problem families and high risk properties. (Mixed Operational Group)
138. This group as a whole, though, stressed that any increase in prevention activity must be monitored to ensure effectiveness and value for money: We shouldn’t put all our eggs in one basket. We should keep it under review if incidents don’t reduce as a result or if risk increases with a need for more resources. (Mixed Operational Group)
139. As for the operational managers, their discussion focused primarily on who should undertake prevention and protection work - and the group agreed that suitable operational staff should be properly trained and better utilised in this regard despite some past unwillingness: Fire engines don’t normally go to schools nowadays but they could; they have been unwilling in the past though and there was a lack of continuity (Operational Manager) We need a more hybrid approach so that the £3 million is not just for support staff but to involve operational staff as well (Operational Manager) We need more investment in training to equip firefighters to do more of the work (Operational Manager) This, they felt, would ensure that those undertaking the work have some operational understanding and expertise and deliver maximum cost-effectiveness and value for money: The education officers have little or no fire service knowledge and background even if they have good presentation skills (Operational Manager) It would be more cost-effective to involve operational staff. (Operational Manager)
140. Several of the operational managers also desired more information about the proposed investment in prevention prior to making a firm judgement as to whether they supported or rejected it, particularly in relation to: achievability; areas of expenditure; who would undertake the work; and which community groups would be targeted: There is not enough detail to justify this. It is a very high level target but is it achievable and will it affect the hard-to-reach groups? (Operational Manager)
61 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
We need more detail on how it is to be spent and whether redundant operational staff could be redeployed into Community Fire Safety with this funding? (Operational Manager) Would we recruit more staff and under what terms and conditions? (Operational Manager)
141. They also questioned the need for an essentially doubled budget given that we have three schools liaison people who do 80% of the schools so you could just increase by one for the other 20% - and suggested that the £3 million should not need to be a year-on-year cost in future if the prevention is successful: Would we need to keep spending this £3 million each year? Is that really necessary if the prevention is effective? (Operational Manager)
142. One of the operational managers also suggested that ECFRS should identify and utilise alternative income streams to fund prevention work, and also questioned whether it might be sponsored by insurance companies given the potential benefits for them: We need to explore income streams from grants for charitable work and the 106 agreement contributions from new housing developments. We should ensure that we get a share of that and will the insurance companies sponsor some of this activity? (Operational Manager)
Three options
143. The two operational groups began their deliberations about ECFRS’s three consultation options by discussing possible increases to the council tax precept. All participants initially supported the highest possible (2%) increase, although there was some concern in the mixed operational group about public perception in terms of encouraging other authorities to increase their own precepts and paying more for a lesser service: There are worries about all the authorities seeking to increase their council tax at once (Mixed Operational Group) It seems wrong to increase the council tax while reducing the services. (Mixed Operational Group)
144. It was also generally agreed that EFA has been sensible in setting the options at such a reasonable level. A referendum would be a big risk and would cost too much. (Operational Manager)
145. As for operational reductions, it was clear from both discussions that participants were primarily worried about increasing reliance on the on-call service at the expense of wholetime resources - particularly in relation to availability issues in certain areas and the general difficulties in ensure sufficient training and exposure to community fire safety work:
62 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
The models rely more on the RDS than now which might not be sustainable…it can be difficult for the RDS to be released for community fire safety and training (Operational Manager) If we remove wholetime pumps and rely more on RDS crewing, there will be availability problems…like at Brentwood where the second pump is hard to crew (Operational Manager) There is a lot of turnover in the RDS and people are reluctant to commit their leisure time… (Operational Manager)
146. As such, it was considered imperative that ECFRS give consideration to better ways of recruiting, retaining and guaranteeing the availability of on-call firefighters prior to reducing the wholetime workforce to ensure the effectiveness of the proposed new Service model: We need new policies to improve RDS recruitment and retention; this is absolutely critical if we’re going to reduce some wholetime resources (Mixed Operational Group) Whichever model we adopt, we need to improve the effectiveness of the RDS recruitment and crewing. This is critical and what we are doing at the moment is not working. (Operational Manager)
147. Other concerns were around risk reduction and the perception that population increases and developments such as the proposed new nuclear power station and Thames crossing may result in an upward incident demand trend (and corresponding need for increased resources) in future: I see no real evidence of risk reducing in future with the increase in population and transport and freight. The proposal is to remove fire engines from the Thurrock area where risk is increasing and there is a big development of industry and commerce in Harlow where there is a proposal to reduce resources (Operational Manager) The general population is growing and there’s the interdependency of risks at places like Stansted (Operational Manager) We could have a new nuclear power station by 2023 and another Thames crossing. (Operational Manager) Furthermore, in terms of existing risk it was said that: The A12 and M25 are some of the worst roads in Britain and Jaywick is the most deprived area in the country. And Clacton has the most number of over-65s. (Operational Manager)
63 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
148. The mixed operational group also mentioned co-responding in the context of increasing demand and call levels: participants were strongly of the view that due consideration should be given to this when planning future resourcing: Do the public know about co-responding which will increase our workload and call rates. We’ve had 260 calls in six weeks already… (Mixed Operational Group) I fully recognise that we should make cuts but we need to manage the change carefully and take account of co-responding demands. (Mixed Operational Group)
149. Ultimately, both groups - and especially the operational managers - recognised the necessity of change and that difficult decisions must soon be made and implemented: We have to do something; there are hard choices (Operational Manager) You can’t save money in a big way with small economies (Operational Manager) I think we have to (and should) look at changing where necessary and possible. (Operational Manager)
150. It was also acknowledged that poor industrial relations in Essex have led Representative Bodies to reject even what were considered positive initiatives (co-responding for example) - but that it is now time for them to show they are prepared to accept necessary change and demonstrate the positive role operational firefighters can play in this: Some good things like co-responding have been resisted by the Unions. It would have been better to take them on board and to show our greater community value. (Mixed Operational Group)
151. The operational managers wanted stability in the Service and to avoid the need for further spending reviews and more cuts before 2020. Therefore, while preferring lesser change and a maximum council tax rise in principle in the form of option 2, they decided after discussion that it would be preferable to have option 3 (minus the extra £3 million for prevention); that is, to have the more radical change in order to ‘get it over with’, and stabilise the service to reduce uncertainty by going for the bigger change now: There is a lot of turmoil and uncertainty; so it’s better to do a radical change now and then get some stability for the future rather than have recurrent bouts of change (Operational Manager) If we save the £3 million on prevention we could take option 3 and avoid the need for further cuts before 2020 (Operational Manager) It might be best to have option 3 without the £3 million if that would provide us with some stability…and we should make staff changes as soon as possible to avoid on- costs. (Operational Manager)
64 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
152. There was a polarity of views in the mixed RDS firefighters and operational managers group. Some were quite conservative about minimising change (especially in terms of the impact of the options on support pump response times) and protecting as many jobs as possible. They thus supported option 2: There are some serious changes in response times with the three options (18 minutes for the second pump in some district cases) so it shows that option 2 is the best overall (Mixed Operational Group) We have to recognise that the removal of pumps will have an effect even if it does not increase mortality; there will be an impact, particularly on the availability of support pumps… (Mixed Operational Group)
153. They also suggested that: option 2 is the best way of avoiding industrial action in the short- term. (Mixed Operational Group)
154. Others, though, said job protection should not be a primary consideration and that even option 3 is perfectly feasible and safe. In particular they said that lengthening second pump response times in some areas made them no worse than in some other existing areas under the current arrangements: The question should be ‘do we have enough fire engines?’ not just ‘should we keep what we’ve got?’ It’s not about job protection (Mixed Operational Group) The different service is not necessarily worse (Mixed Operational Group) I don’t think the response time changes are so dramatic really. The first pump changes are not so significant and the biggest changes in response times in some areas would make them no worse than some other areas are now. Maldon and Uttlesford for example. And there are definitely changes we can make safely. (Mixed Operational Group)
155. Furthermore, there was concern that choosing the most conservative option could lead to the need for further reductions, even in the short-term: With option 2 there could well be more changes before 2020. (Mixed Operational Group)
156. It was also said that certain other emergency services and local Government departments may be more in need of funding than ECFRS, and that providing the latter has a ‘good basic service that works’ then others should be prioritised on the basis of this need: You have to balance different levels of need in local government and emergency services. There are a range of services that need more council tax and should also be prioritised. There are more important things than what we need providing we have a good basic service that works. (Mixed Operational Group)
65 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Other Issues
157. There was some mistrust of the modelling and other data presented at the sessions - for example one participant in the mixed operational group stated that: the data leaves out the information about the increase in rescues and whether removing pumps will increase risk. Others in the group disputed this though insofar as: The increase in rescues is due to reporting practices (Mixed Operational Group) During our long careers we have noticed a decline in incidents and it’s not really true that we’re doing more rescues than other brigades. (Mixed Operational Group) Furthermore, one of the operational managers said that we have to trust the professional data.
158. Both groups were disappointed with the poor turnout to their sessions, particularly given the importance of the issues under consideration: It’s disappointing that more people are not taking part (Operational Manager) It’s a pity that there are only five of us here. (Mixed Operational Group) In this context, one operational manager suggested that more publicity and better invitations may have yielded better attendance.
159. Finally, another operational manager noted how the questionnaire returns have been ‘co- ordinated’ to get orchestrated responses and questioned whether that campaign will determine the outcome for the Fire Authority. (Operational Manager)
Main Findings: Support Staff The ‘principle’ of change Matching Resource to Risk
160. The support staff managers were fully supportive of all public bodies matching resource to demand in the context of reducing incident levels and the challenging economic forecast. Some typical comments were: It’s beholden on us to look at this…we have to look at where the money is best spent, whether in response or prevention (Support Staff Manager) We’re no longer in the position to have the luxury of extra resource and to maintain things at this level. All public bodies have to look at how they spend their money wisely. (Support Staff Manager) We need to design a proper service and use our budget effectively (Support Staff Manager)
66 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
You buy insurance not because you want to give away the money but you want to cover the risk that’s there…but in principle this is the right thing to do. (Support Staff Manager)
161. The support staff themselves also agreed with the above principle, though they found it difficult to separate the issue of principle from the proposed means of achieving it in practice - particularly with respect to increasing on-call provision and the potential difficulties this may cause in terms of recruitment, retention, availability and training: It will be difficult to recruit RDS crews within five-minute response areas (Support Staff) The answer to the question is yes….but we need to manage the service and RDS issues effectively to ensure public and staff safety… (Support Staff) There’s a high turnover and some have poor availability, so it’s dangerous to cut wholetime cover unless the retained can be available 24/7 (Support Staff) Their training is less intensive and they are reluctant to do it…so we’re mobilising appliances which are crewed by people not properly trained and equipped (Support Staff) Wholetime firefighters get 17 weeks’ training but an RDS gets only four weeks before going on the run with some specialist training after that…their standards can only be less. (Support Staff)
Increasing Council Tax
162. Participants were informed of ECFRS’s funding and expenditure and presented with three proposed options for change to the EFA council tax precept (a 0.8% increase; a 2% increase; or no increase). They were then asked which they would prefer in principle.
163. One support staff manager was prepared to endorse the 2% increase on the grounds that it is preferable to rely more on local taxation, thus reducing the Service’s reliance on central Government funding: Would it be better to rely more on local taxation anyway to reduce reliance on Government and give us more flexibility to do what we want on a local level? (Support Staff Manager) The others, though, referred to a previous plan for £15 million of savings across ECFRS, which they had accepted as feasible and eminently achievable. They could thus not understand why, with a far lower revised savings target of £8 million, a council tax increase is being requested for the £3 million investment in prevention: We don’t really need to do it because we have the money…the £15 million budget reduction has reduced to only £8 million (Support Staff Manager)
67 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
What’s annoyed me is that the Government spending reductions weren’t as drastic as we thought and yet they are still asking us for more council tax… (Support Staff Manager) I’m quite blinkered because they convinced me that £15m was doable so I don’t know why they’re asking for council tax now the required savings are a lot less. We’ve already proven we don’t need the increase. (Support Staff Manager)
164. It goes without saying then that most of the support staff managers felt that many more efficiencies can and should be identified within the Service before council tax increases are contemplated: There is still so much we could do to save money and still give a really good service but we haven’t taken the opportunity; there’s a lot of stuff we currently do which we don’t need to (Support Staff Manager) We are guardians of the public purse we are duty bound to look after it and spend it better. There is a lot more opportunity to do that (Support Staff Manager) If we don’t need to increase the council tax next year then we should not do so. There are other things we could do. (Support Staff Manager)
165. The support staff were also reluctant to endorse a council tax rise but for a different reason: they could not envisage paying more for a lesser service: This year the council tax has been increased without an improvement in services…we’re being asked to pay more for a reducing service (Support Staff) How can it be value for money if we’re paying more for less?! (Support Staff) I’d pay more if I was getting more! (Support Staff)
166. They also felt that what they saw as wastage should be addressed prior to considering council tax increases - citing such areas as: the new computer system; heating and hot water waste; company cars; catering for training sites from expensive providers; mail that is sent by HR to home; printing; and consultant costs.
The Options Investing in Prevention
167. The support staff managers were very supporting of investing in prevention: they considered this to be by far the most effective use of limited financial resources. Indeed, a couple considered the proposed £3 million investment to be too little: I’m really up for the investment in prevention and protection…you will get far more from that than you will from three fire engines (Support Staff Manager)
68 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
I am devoted to more prevention work; if I had it my way I’d want more money spent on it (Support Staff Manager) The response has been very cautious and prevention and education, especially in schools, could be increased more than is proposed. (Support Staff Manager)
168. Despite the general positivity though, some of the support staff managers desired more information on exactly where the £3 million will be spent and the anticipated outcomes from this investment: How will this be spent? Will it just be employing more people or will it involve using our resources more efficiently (Support Staff Manager) Gut instinct, yes. But I don’t know how much we currently spend and what the outcomes might be. (Support Staff Manager)
169. One manager in particular sought reassurance that the £3 million figure has not simply been ‘plucked from the air’ but has emerged from a proper review of the Safer Communities department and its needs: I completely support this but where has the review been of the existing department looking at where money can be saved and efficiencies made first before asking ‘can we have another £3 million?’ Where’s the review of your existing resources? The figure seems to have come first and then thinking about what it can be spent on! (Support Staff Manager) Before agreeing an extra £3 million for Prevention, we should review the department’s existing resources to ensure they are being used most effectively and then decide if additional funding is required. (Support Staff Manager) Another was, though, able to reassure them that: The £3 million is backed up; it is rounded up and convenient in some ways but it’s been done properly through 2020. (Support Staff Manager)
170. The support staff also endorsed an increase in ECFRS’s prevention work, though they stressed that this must be properly targeted and managed to ensure cost-effectiveness: It should be done if it’s really spent effectively. Don’t waste it by putting smoke alarms in just any home even if they can afford it. We need to manage the cold calling much better (Support Staff) It must be managed well. (Support Staff)
171. Some people in both groups suggested that operational firefighters should be better utilised in Safer Communities and technical fire safety roles - though this was largely opposed by the managers on the grounds that: firefighters are often unavailable to undertake such work;
69 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
activities can be disrupted if crews are called out to an incident; and that it is not cost effective to redeploy them into such roles when they could be filled less expensively: Now that the writing is on the wall, the people on station are now acknowledging that they have spare capacity to do this…it’s an untapped resource (Support Staff Manager) We could combine operation and prevention roles more effectively than we do now (Support Staff) But equally they are not really available when we need them and they can be called out at the drop of a hat (Support Staff Manager) Moving Grey Book staff to support roles…you’re overpaying people in the role they’ve been moved to and they may not even be right for that role. And they still have the Grey Book Terms of Conditions which is unfair as they are now in a very different job… (Support Staff Manager)
The Options
172. The support staff tended to support option 2 as the ‘least worst option’, though they expressed many concerns around: longer response times; public safety; firefighter redundancies; and a loss of experience from the Service: They are all undesirable in principle and they all put the public at risk, but option 2 is the ‘least worst’ option… (Support Staff) Option 2 is better than the others but the public need a rapid response and the service will deteriorate if we take away fire engines (Support Staff) You can only judge safety and impact with hindsight and lives can be a stake here. How much are they worth? (Support Staff) We need to think about the impact on jobs…so I’m reluctant to approve the reduction of any jobs (Support Staff) If we reduce appliances we’ll reduce experience in the service…we’re getting rid of lots of wholetime firefighters. (Support Staff)
173. As noted above though, their overriding worry was what they saw as an over-reliance on the on-call service under all three options: they frequently reiterated their concerns around the recruitment, retention and especially the availability of on-call staff - and urged a more creative and flexible way of managing this element of the Service to overcome these issues: On-call resources are less reliable…and my concern is around the robustness around the change in the provision from wholetime to retained (Support Staff Manager) It all depends on whether the on-call can be effectively recruited and retained. It can very hard to achieve in an affluent county like Essex where people don’t want to give
70 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
up their free time to crew fire engines and when there is a lesser sense of community and the number of calls has reduced. And employers won’t release staff (Support Staff) The availability is much worse for the RDS than is shown in the charts for this consultation (Support Staff) The contracts and terms and conditions are too old fashioned to be attractive. We need to have more flexible contracts for fewer hours of commitment…and we need to be able to recruit women more effectively than now. (Support Staff)
174. None of the support staff managers considered the options to be sufficiently radical: they suggested that more fundamental changes that reflect the need for long-term organisational reform should have been put forward: We don’t support any of those options…they need to go back and come up with something that makes far more sense (Support Staff Manager) I think we should force their hand and not let them take the easy option (Support Staff Manager) The easy option is option 2, but it feels like a cop-out (Support Staff Manager) We should have looked at what the Service will look at in 20 years’ time rather than five. (Support Staff Manager)
175. Indeed, the managers spoke at length about the ‘politically-driven’ decision not to consider station closures, which they deemed an incorrect one insofar as some could feasibly have been shut with no detrimental effect on public safety: Go for the brave decisions like closing stations that need to be closed (Support Staff Manager) Our response has been too cautious in terms of shifting resources and being prepared to close some stations. The decision not to close any has just been politically-driven! (Support Staff Manager) The politics has dictated that we are not closing any fire stations when probably we could have. It’s a brave decision financially but it’s actually a very easy political decision. (Support Staff Manager) They particularly referred to Great Baddow in this context, arguing that the Chelmsford wholetime appliance can reach the village before the on-call crew there is able to mobilise. As such, closure was advocated in preference to a move from day-crewed to on-call in that the on-call crew would only be used infrequently, demotivating station staff and causing them to leave the Service: Chelmsford drive past Great Baddow before they can get a crew out of the door…that is the obvious one that could have been closed (Support Staff Manager)
71 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
They’re changing Baddow to on-call…as they’re so close to Chelmsford one of their engines will be there first anyway. Recruiting to on-call is pointless because they won’t be used. A lot of work will go into it for nothing (Support Staff Manager) And if we recruit to Great Baddow, we will lose them quite soon thereafter as they’ll never get called out… (Support Staff Manager)
176. An examination of ECFRS’s shift systems was also supported by the managers - some of whom argued that offering more varied roles including community or technical fire safety would make this more palatable, especially for those firefighters who are looking for more flexible daytime shifts: What about shift patterns; looking at the working day? It’s not popular but we need to move into the 21st Century and make this a more appropriate Service (Support Staff Manager) Some Grey Book staff want a more flexible day job in community safety or technical fire safety training using their firefighter skills…at the moment it’s not what they do and they don’t really understand it but when they start they would probably gravitate over on a full-time basis. If you gave people the chance to do something different, away from the fire station, they would love it. I couldn’t believe the buzz I got from going and talking to the community. (Support Staff Manager)
177. In essence, it was said that: We should have wiped the slate clean and looked at what the Fire and Rescue Service should look like but all we’ve done is fudge around the edges. We have missed a huge opportunity…we could have looked at everything: where our stations are; how they’re managed; shift systems etc. We have not taken the opportunity to look at what a proper, modern, fit-for-purpose Fire and Rescue Service should be and what it should provide. (Support Staff Manager)
Other Issues
178. Other issues raised by support staff were around: the implications of the proposed £2 million support staff reductions; and poor organisational communications between managers and staff: What will be the impact of £2 million savings from Support Staff jobs? (Support Staff) Communications are very poor from senior management here and issues that are raised are never addressed. (Support Staff)
179. Support staff managers on the other hand complained about the current disconnect between Grey Book and Green Book staff and the need to revisit the terms and conditions in the two books to ensure they are relevant to providing a 21st century Fire and Rescue Service:
72 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
It doesn’t feel like a ‘One Service’ approach and having two books reinforces that (Support Staff Manager) No-one ever wants to change the Grey Book. The Terms and Conditions don’t necessarily provide the best service to the public in the best value and most flexible way. It is very limiting and rule-bound (Support Staff Manager) The two books are very antiquated and we need to look at them and see what’s needed to modernise (Support Staff Manager)
180. Finally, the managers also raised the issue of co-responding and how this might impact the Service - and suggested that more work must be done to ensure such co-operation is as effective as possible: Why is the huge issue of how we will be responding in the future (with the Police and Ambulance) not being discussed as part of this? It’s the elephant in the room but it’s likely to happen within the time period of this change programme (Support Staff Manager) With some incidents we get called to, we can’t currently deal with it without a paramedic - with a little bit of training we could actually give life sustaining support at that incident. We need to work together more to triage our incidents. (Support Staff Manager) This is not to say they were opposed to the initiative in any way though: in fact, they could certainly see its benefits to both the Service and its staff: If you go to Stansted Airport they do everything including paramedic calls which account for 80% of the calls. And the firefighters say the medical calls they do are the most rewarding because they are making a difference and potentially saving lives. (Support Staff Manager)
73 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Partner Forum
Introduction
181. Seven ECFRS partners attended a forum that considered all relevant evidence having received a detailed review of the fire and rescue service, its resources and roles and its options for change. Though small, the meeting was thorough and truly deliberative in listening to and responding openly to a range of evidence and topics - and participants’ views on the main issues under consideration are reported below.
Main Findings The ‘principle’ of change Matching Resource to Risk
182. The partners generally agreed that in the light of a general decline in incident levels (with the exception of Road Traffic Collisions), it is reasonable for ECFRS to reduce operational resources to match reducing levels of risk in principle: My perception even before coming was that demand seems to be increasing for the police and ambulance but it’s going the other way in the Fire and Rescue Service. So yes, it is the right thing to do.
183. There was a sense that while all emergency services are ‘quick to expand to meet demand’, there has hitherto been reluctance to contract when this demand lessens. Given today’s economic challenges though, it was said that all services must now be prepared to do ‘cut their cloth’ accordingly: We’re all very quick in the emergency services to expand to meet demand - and so it’s right and proper that if we’re not using everything we have, we should review things and do things differently if we need to. We should definitely be looking to rework or contract our model if we’re not using what we’ve got.
184. There was, however, some concern even at this initial stage about how matching resources to demand could be done in practice, with participants arguing that ‘the devil is in the detail’ and seeking reassurances about safety and efficiency in the context of ECFRS’s proposals: I agree with the principle of reducing, which you can do in isolation or in collaboration with other services. But the devil is in the detail and it’s about where you can remove appliances and still be able to respond effectively and deal with demand. If you’re going to reduce appliances it has to be in the right places based on data
74 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
I can see it needs to be reduced as there seems to be a waste of resources currently, but I think it’s useful to have the detail about where money will be spent in future. There are huge costs savings to be made but it’s important for us to know where money will be invested. Presumably it would be in prevention?
185. Furthermore, one partner at this stage highlighted the public anxiety surrounding ECFRS’s proposals (often heightened by media reporting) and urged the Service to provide sufficient and relevant information to mitigate this as far as possible: If I was a member of the public watching or reading the news about this I’d be quite anxious…there will always be fear and panic around reductions in emergency services and so the more information and reassurance you can give people the better.
The Options Investing in prevention
186. It was generally agreed that ‘prevention is better than cure’ and that investment in such work is thus the correct focus for ECFRS. One participant, though, questioned whether incident levels can be reduced further through this investment: In terms of the arguments regarding prevention versus response, prevention is better. But given there’s been a reduction in incidents, have they got to the point where they have done all they can in terms of prevention. Do they think the figures can be improved further by investment in prevention or have they plateaued? This was countered by another partner though: they argued that despite making much progress in the areas of prevention and protection, ECFRS remains a response-focused organisation with much scope to expand its ‘excellent’ community safety offer and drive down incident levels further: They certainly haven’t plateaued in community safety yet. At the moment the Service is still traditionally focused around response and there is definitely scope for them to increase their prevention and community safety product, which is absolutely excellent.
187. One participant suggested that £3 million is not a great deal of money these days, and thus requested more information about how exactly it will be spent to gage whether it will be sufficient: I don’t think £3 million is a lot these days. It would surely be spent quite thinly. I would like to see more detail on how it would be spent to see whether it would be enough… Another partner, though (who heads an equivalent department within another emergency service) felt that ECFRS could achieve a great deal with this sum:
75 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
My department is the Police equivalent and I know that this money will double their capacity.
188. Finally in terms of prevention, one partner questioned what is being done in collaboration with other agencies in this area and whether this has been taken into account when determining the £3 million figure. They suggested that: They should be working out how they’re going to deliver it in collaboration and then work out how much it will cost - rather than how much it will cost them to deliver it alone.
Three Options
189. In discussing ECFRS’s three options for change, the partners raised the issue of on-call resilience and questioned ECFRS’s intentions in terms of improving this (and indeed the length of time it might take to make effective changes). In fact, a couple said that they would find it difficult to endorse the proposed new model without some reassurance on this matter: With the increase in on-call, what will happen to increase resilience and availability? This is a national problem but the new model is based around increasing on-call. The problems are set to increase with more people commuting outside of their towns so how is the Fire and Rescue Service proposing to address that? It’s difficult to endorse this model on this basis without knowing what will be done around this issue The thing that concerns other emergency services is the pace of change and that this on-call issue will take a long time to resolve. The need for more flexibility for on-call firefighters was certainly considered essential both in terms of recruiting new staff members and retaining existing ones: Being an on-call firefighter is very onerous and there needs to be a lot more flexibility to attract people.
190. Other issues of concern were around: the need to replace the Pinzgauer appliances set for removal (but with something more efficient in terms of running costs); and the future of Great Baddow Fire Station if it is changed from day-crewed to on-call: If you look at the Pinzgauers, they were placed where they were because of a need for rural, off-road capability. But they are very expensive to run and maintain. So why not just change the vehicle to a 4x4 and crew it with two? That would still maintain an immediate rural response there because it’s needed…off-road capabilities are still really essential and important You will have to do a recruitment drive in Great Baddow for daytime on-call firefighters and there’s not a great deal of employment there. So the future for Great Baddow looks very bleak.
76 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
191. Ultimately, four of the partners favoured option 3 and one each favoured options 1 and 2 respectively. The remaining participant was a ‘don’t know’.
192. The reasoning of those choosing option 3 was that ECFRS has sufficient scope to make further efficiencies (in the context of reducing demand) to enable the £3 million investment in prevention to be made without a council tax increase: The huge gap between demand and resource shows that you could invest £3 million in prevention with a 0% increase…
193. Those who choose options 1 and 2 did so because this is a smaller reduction which would actually allow them to implement things without the potential for strike action etc.
194. It should be noted that the group was keen on an ‘option 4’ that would see ECFRS undertake a more comprehensive whole-Service review and possibly consider adapting its crewing models and appliance types to develop what participants saw as a more modern and efficient way of working. Some typical comments were: There needs to be a general review of the service’s flexibilities, economies…especially in response styles such as crewing systems and vehicle types A review needs to looks at the whole service and how the Fire and Rescue Service can adapt their traditional model and still give a really good service. The traditional model needs to be reviewed and then there could also be a 0% council tax increase The FRS needs to adapt its traditional model to provide savings as well as maintain the good service they currently do. The other services have done this.
195. Some thoughts around potential changes were: smaller operational vehicles for non-risk incidents; and a more ‘mobile’ Service (as opposed to vehicles and crew responding from a fire station at all times): The risk incidents are less than 10% so they could look at how appliances are deployed. For the vast majority of incidents, they could be deployed to differently via response cars and other vehicles. This would be more efficient and would save money A static fire station is not necessarily about being in the right place at the right time.
196. However, one partner (from a neighbouring FRS) advocated caution in developing a radically different and scaled-back response model insofar as: It is about mobilising to what you’ve got and being more flexible, but often we go out to calls that can be graded low initially but escalate quite quickly. RTCs don’t usually get worse once it’s happened, whereas fires can escalate. So that’s probably slightly different to the other emergency services. It’s just about bearing in mind that if you’re going for a minimalistic model, things can escalate; it’s about getting the balance…
77 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Public Forums
Introduction
197. A total of 109 randomly selected members of the public from affected areas across Essex attended eight 2.5 hour forums to discuss ECFRS’s ‘Programme 2020’ Integrated Risk Management proposals. The schedule of meetings is shown as follows:
FORUM LOCATIONS DATE NUMBER OF ATTENDEES
Harlow/Loughton/Waltham 14th March 2016 17 Abbey
Dunmow 15th March 2016 14
Southend-on-Sea 16th March 2016 11
Corringham/Grays/Orsett 16th March 2016 12
Billericay/Brentwood/ 11th April 2016 13 Great Baddow
Burnham-on-Crouch/South 12th April 2016 14 Woodham Ferrers/Rayleigh Weir
Dovercourt/Manningtree 12th April 2016 16
Clacton-on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea 13th April 2016 12
TOTAL ATTENDEES 109
198. The forums considered all the evidence included in the Service’s Consultation Document, while having a more detailed review of the fire and rescue service and its resources and roles. The meetings were thorough and truly deliberative in listening and responding openly to a wide range of evidence and issues.
78 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Main Findings The ‘principle’ of change Matching Resource to Risk
199. As aforementioned, participants were presented with five-year ECFRS incident data, which shows a general decline (with the exception of Road Traffic Collisions). They were then asked for their views on whether or not it is reasonable for ECFRS to reduce operational resources to match reducing levels of risk in principle.
200. Many initially struggled to make a judgement based on principle only - mainly because they found it difficult to divorce their concerns about the proposals and possible implications for their local areas from the issue of principle. It was also acknowledged to be a ‘moral’ and ‘emotive’ consideration, even as a more general idea: It’s a moral dilemma (Dovercourt) Your head tells you yes, but you heart says no; the public want their safety net based on perceptions, but I think the cuts to resources should happen. (Southend-on-Sea)
201. After much discussion and debate, most participants across the eight groups did consider it reasonable to adjust operational resources to match reducing levels of demand in principle. The primary justifications for this judgement were that demand has reduced and resources should thus reflect the current profile of the County, rather than that of the past - and that it is sensible to re-balance current provision to ensure higher-risk areas are adequately provided for. Some typical comments were: The answer is yes, we should adjust resources to the real risk profile, especially given there has been no reduction in resources over many, many years. This needs to be reflected in the actual risk profile (Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow) If you ran a shop you would have to think to yourself ‘if less people are eating carrots maybe we should stop selling so many’! (Dovercourt/Manningtree) Based on the figures given, it’s reasonable to reduce down to meet that existing level of risk rather than that which was there many years ago. There are fewer open fires, car safety improvements, less smoking etc. (Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow) Some of the figures show that we have 50% more resources than what we need (Dovercourt/Manningtree) We are only talking about changes in principle here, and in the same vein resources could be increased if incidents were going up. Resources from less needy areas can help more high-risk areas; it is a balance and is sensible to reduce resources in less at risk areas. (Corringham/Grays/Orsett)
79 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
202. A significant minority though, despite agreeing with the principle of adjusting resources to match risk, did so reluctantly and added important caveats such as: Any changes to resources should be considered and implemented on an area-by-area basis, giving due consideration to specific local risks: I agree in principle but we suffer from gridlocked roads and accidents in this area…it seems to me that strategy of where the emergency vehicles are placed is key. If demand is greater here then there should be more engine availability here (Corringham/Grays/Orsett) Based on the reduction in incidents it is reasonable to match resource to risk bearing in mind the way that houses are built, the reduction in smoking, car safety etc. It makes sense to undertake operational reductions but how the Fire and Rescue Service will go about that in specific areas is another matter. (Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow) Partnership working and collaboration with other emergency services must be considered wherever possible to ensure maximum efficiency: How many 999 calls involve several services attending the same incident? There is an unpredictability to all incidents so can you work closely with other services? (Clacton- on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea) The increase in demand is for RTCs at the moment where all the emergency services attend, so it seems important to increase collaboration with the Police to ensure that there is effective cover (perhaps without the need for full fire engines in all extrications). (Burnham-on-Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers)
203. Moreover, many concerns and questions were raised around public safety when considering matching resources to risk, even among those who agreed to doing so in principle. These included: Housing and population increases may cause incidents to increase in future (although a participant from South Woodham Ferrers argued that housing and population growth has little effect on fire risk): There are more and more houses being built (including 2,000 in Dunmow) and there are no resources to match that. This increase in housing is the same across the whole of Essex. You’re saying that there is not an increased risk between a plot of five houses and a plot of 5,000, but you have more people carrying out ‘risky’ behaviour such as smoking and drinking (Dunmow) There will be an increase in several thousand houses in Chelmsford; the incident figures will change and you can’t get crews back once the engine is gone (Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow)
80 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
It’s short-sighted to reduce resources when the population is expanding (Burnham- on-Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers) Reducing operational resources may increase response times: The firefighters accept that incidents are less, but they say that due to the cutbacks the response times are longer. We have our engines and want to keep them (Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow) Response times are important to consider, especially in rural areas (Burnham-on- Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers) There may be insufficient cover for large-scale, ‘what if?’ incidents, the possibility of which is often masked when using incident averages: What about the one-off spectacular? We live in a world of terrorism; what if something like this happened in Essex? If we reduced services based on day-to-day risks would we rely on other Fire and Rescue Services? Has the Risk Review been carried out to show that this has been accounted for? (Dunmow) In principle it makes sense but if there is a big incident and there are severely reduced resources… (Corringham/Grays/Orsett) Using the average is what concerns me; we have exceptions and averages do not take these one-off incidents into consideration (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey) The provision of wider cover and resilience may be compromised, both within Essex and in terms of assisting other Services: Would you be able to go and help other Fire and Rescue Services if you reduce services? (Dunmow) Surely you still need some engines in lieu? What if some need servicing? What if some need deploying? (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey) Incident numbers may plateau or even begin to rise, with a potential need to re- introduce resources if required: The incident data shows a decrease in the last five years, but we don’t know what’s going to happen in another five (Clacton-on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea) I don’t agree because what if all of a sudden the incidents and fatalities go up? In principle, at the moment, maybe it is a ‘yes’ but if incidents start going up it’ll all go pear-shaped and people will die. It’s all very well and good looking at things on paper, but we work in reality (Dovercourt/Manningtree) If Fire and Rescue Service resources are cut, how long would it take to bring resources back if incidents go up? (Dovercourt/Manningtree)
81 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Any reductions will lead to a reduced service for the public: I don’t agree. I work in the public sector and the same thing is happening and the service for local residents will go down. (Corringham/Grays/Orsett)
204. Other significant worries and suggestions raised at this stage were that: financial constraints and incident figures should not be a consideration in relation to the emergency services and public safety; these reductions may represent the ‘thin end of the wedge’ in terms of the need for further cutbacks in future; and that reductions should be made in other areas of ECFRS’s operations (possibly through collaborations with other emergency services) to protect the frontline as much as possible. Some typical comments were: It all depends on if you’re talking just about numbers. The loss of property, and the few deaths there are from fires are horrific for someone to go through. It may affect few people but the seriousness of the issue might not be quantifiable (Dovercourt/Manningtree) It’s nice to know that incidents are reducing but these figures will be used to cut back more and more each year (Clacton-on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea) Could you share control rooms and resources with the Police or other Fire and Rescue Services? This could save on costs (Corringham/Grays/Orsett) We have only spoken about the reduction in frontline staff, what about management and their over-staffing? Management staff seem to have grown in the new HQ. (Burnham-on-Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers)
205. Overall, although there was much concern about the principle of reducing operational resources to match risk, especially when taking local issues into consideration, all but a few participants did agree (albeit sometimes reluctantly for the reasons outlined above) in principle. The Dunmow and Burnham-on-Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers groups included the highest proportion of participants who disagreed with the principle: five of 14 people in each group were opposed, though they were evidently still in the minority.
Increasing Council Tax
206. Participants were informed of ECFRS’s funding and expenditure and presented with three proposed options for change to the EFA Council Tax precept (a 0.8% increase; a 2% increase; or no increase). They were then asked which they would prefer in principle.
207. Most participants across seven of the eight groups said they would support option 2 - an increase of 2% (£1.35 per year on a Band D property). It was clear that most participants hold ECFRS in such high regard that they would be willing to pay more towards it in a general sense - and more specifically it was hoped that a larger increase would mitigate against the need for large-scale operational resource reductions, as the following comments from the Corringham/Grays/Orsett group highlight:
82 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
If it means saving wholetime firefighters’ jobs I would pay more (Corringham/ Grays/Orsett) If it means that the number of firefighters won’t go down and that services won’t be cut I would prefer option 2. (Corringham/Grays/Orsett)
208. However, the widespread support for Option 2 (or indeed any increase at all) came with the caveat that value for money and efficiency must be offered and that the extra revenue must genuinely be required for service provision: I just want an efficient service, the best we can have. I don’t even mind paying 5% if that’s really what’s needed, but I want efficiency (Southend-on-Sea) Whichever option goes through has got to be best value for money (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey) I would go for option 2 on the basis that I do get value for money. (Dunmow)
209. A majority in the eighth group at Southend-on-Sea favoured no council tax increase at all - and a further five (of 17) Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey participants echoed this view. People’s main justifications were that: further efficiencies can be found within ECFRS; residents are already paying enough tax (for a generally worse service); any rise could be unaffordable for some people; and that an FRS rise could set a precedent for other organisations to raise their charges: There are still excess resources to be removed and reviewed before they really need to increase Council Tax; there is room for much more efficiency (Burnham-on- Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers) I think we pay enough Council Tax…why shouldn’t we get anything back for it and in fact pay more?! (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey) Some people won’t be able to afford a 2% increase (Dunmow) Who is to say that the Police and other areas our Council Tax goes towards won’t do the same and apply increases? (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey)
The Options Investing in prevention
210. When asked whether ECFRS should increase its investment in prevention work by £3 million (while at the same time having to make reductions in some operational resources), most participants across seven of the eight groups agreed on the grounds that ‘prevention is better than cure’: If there are good prevention tactics in place there will not be as much need for operational resources (Dunmow)
83 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
It seems to be the most cost-effective method; the result of this work has been the low levels of incidents. It’s no coincidence (Corringham/Grays/Orsett) Prevention must be the best option (Dovercourt/Manningtree) If prevention saves just one life it will be worth it (Clacton-on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea) Prevention can be very effective and it does make sense. (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey)
211. Specifically, there was a great deal of support for educating children through school visits, fitting smoke alarms and working more closely with local communities to drive down risk and demand: This work will include helping people fit their smoke alarms. A lot of people live alone and do not have one, including myself (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey) I work in a nursey and it’s incredible how much the children take information on board and also remember it when the message comes from the Fire and Rescue Service (Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow) Educating them young is the key isn’t it (Dovercourt/Manningtree) If my kids are going to be given fire safety messages it will potentially save their lives…it’s obvious (Clacton-on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea) It is good for the Fire and Rescue Service to interact with businesses and the community. (Burnham-on-Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers)
212. Unlike those in other groups, the majority of Burnham-on-Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers participants (10 of 14) disagreed with investing £3 million in prevention work. Others, while tending to agree that it is the ‘right thing to do’, also expressed concerns about: The potential impact of the investment in prevention on operational resources (particularly with regard to the loss of firefighters and appliances - and a corresponding increase in response times). Indeed, the dilemma for these participants was that while their gut instinct told them that prevention can be very effective, they did not wish to see a reduced operational service to fund more such activity: I like the idea of more prevention work but we don’t want to lose our appliances and firefighters (Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow) In theory it’s wonderful but you’re getting rid of crews with all the experience they have…there is no substitute for experience (Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow) I do agree with spending more on prevention, but will spending less on operational resources reduce the service provided to the public, such as longer response times? (Dovercourt/Mannintree)
84 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
The lack of direct and incontrovertible proof that prevention reduces risk and incidents: Do we know if the education has been successful? Is there proof? (Dunmow) Has prevention work really been effective in reducing incidents? (Southend-on-Sea) Is there any data to demonstrate the effectiveness of the prevention work you do? (Burnham-on-Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers)
213. The significant proposed investment also prompted calls for more information about how exactly the £3 million will be spent, the cost of implementing certain strategies, what it could achieve in terms of incident reductions and financial savings and how effectiveness will be monitored. Some typical comments were: I presume that it will be a targeted approach and that the £3 million will be spent in areas where it’s needed? I agree as long as the money is spent wisely (Clacton-on- Sea/Frinton-on-Sea) How does money help prevention work? Would you increase the number of staff to do this extra work? (Burnham-on-Crouch/Rayleight Weir/South Woodham Ferrers) Education is really important; going into schools and telling children about hazards is invaluable, but I would like to know how much it will cost to visit the additional 20% of schools (Dovercourt/Manningtree) What are the predicted savings if £3 million is invested in prevention work? Having worked out the risks you must have some idea! (Corringham/Grays/Orsett) Has anyone modelled what the £3 million investment could achieve in terms of reducing incidents and risks further? Someone should be doing that because it is a big investment (Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow) It makes a lot of sense but care would have to be taken about how much is being spent on prevention every year. It would need to be monitored. (Dovercourt/Manningtree)
214. There was also some argument that the success of existing prevention activities is evidence that enough money is currently being spent on prevention work and that the extra £3m is somewhat unnecessary: I didn’t realise that £3 million is already being spent on prevention work. I don’t think that much more is needed and the money could go towards other areas of the service (Clacton-on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea) There is already a very effective prevention scheme which sufficient, especially in schools. You can throw money without making it more effective. (Burnham-on- Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers)
85 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
215. Overall, everyone in the Dunmow and Southend-on-Sea groups supported ECFRS’s proposal to invest an additional £3 million in prevention work, while this was also the case for nearly all at Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey, Corringham/Grays/Orsett, Dovercourt/ Manningtree and Clacton-on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea. Despite this, fundamental reassurances were sought around the details and logistics of implementing this aspect of the proposals.
216. Conversely, most of those at Burnham-on-Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers disagreed - while the Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow group was also little more reserved in its support, with five of 13 opposed to the proposed investment.
Three options Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey
217. Opinion around the proposed operational changes that are common to all three options were mixed among the Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey group; just over a third (six of the 17 participants) agreed with the removal of the second fire engines from Rayleigh Weir, Orsett and Loughton and converting Dovercourt, South Woodham Ferrers, Great Baddow, Waltham Abbey and Dunmow fire stations from day-crewed to on-call.
218. The remaining participants were either opposed to or unsure about the proposed changes due to: the need for resilience in the context of fire cover (especially for incidents requiring more than two fire engines); and the possibility that ‘covering’ stations may not be able to cope with the extra demand for their services: If you get rid of one of the engines there will only be one left. If that gets deployed somewhere else we are left with nothing. Surely it would be better to keep the two engines so that we don’t then need to pull an engine in from somewhere else (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey) If you start pulling engines from all three stations, who will be close by send out additional engines if they are needed? There really isn’t much coverage and I’d be worried about having one fire engine to cover a whole area in case it needs to be sent somewhere where something big has happened (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey) What about all the surrounding stations not affected? Are they all capable of covering for these changes? (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey)
219. The conversion of Waltham Abbey and Dovercourt Fire Stations from day-crewed to on call was also a key issue for some, mainly because of the large areas they cover. Specifically, Waltham Abbey’s proximity to Enfield, London and the M25 and Dovercourt’s remote location and distance from the next nearest wholetime station were discussed: What percentage of the time is Waltham Abbey sent out to the M25? This could potentially have a massive impact if it’s being sent out to these kinds of incidents as it
86 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
means that the engine is away from the station for quite a significant amount of time (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey) I always thought that Dovercourt was a really busy area; if it will now be on-call what would be the nearest wholetime station? It’s probably a fair way and it’s a very remote area with lots of ports. (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey)
220. There was general acceptance of the plans to remove the Pinzgauer vehicles from Billericay, Manningtree, Burnham and Dunmow Fire Stations, although most stressed that they must be replaced by more economical off-road vehicles, especially in remote, hard to reach areas such as Dunmow.
221. When presented with the three options for change in their entirety, most (11 of 17 participants) supported option 2, which was generally considered to be safe and feasible. The main justification for this choice was that it offers more comprehensive fire cover, better response times and will retain more firefighters. Essentially, it was considered the safest and least potentially problematic option. Some typical comments were: It gives better support for back-up given the reductions in Loughton (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey) This option guarantees resources when you need them and fewer redundancies (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey) This is the least change possible so I support it (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey) Option 2 has better response times (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey) I see option 2 as the compromise; the way the options have been presented is almost in gold, silver and bronze (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey) I would rather pay more council tax and be safe. (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey)
222. Only a minority of participants supported the more radical options 1 and 3, mainly on the grounds of efficiency and not wishing to endorse a council tax rise. Most, though, were concerned that the additional reductions in wholetime firefighter numbers would ‘stretch’ the Service too much and increase reliance on the ‘unreliable’ on-call service: You’re losing a third of your labour…aren’t the firefighters going to be thinly spread? (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey) Old Harlow is going to have to take on much more and it is on-call so will availability be an issue because of the unreliability of the system? (Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey)
Dunmow
223. Most members of the Dunmow group agreed with the proposals to remove the second wholetime fire engines from Rayleigh Weir, Orsett and Loughton and convert Dovercourt,
87 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
South Woodham Ferrers, Great Baddow, Waltham Abbey and Dunmow fire stations from day-crewed to on-call - mainly because they trust ECFRS to implement safe changes. In addition, they also accepted the plans to remove the Pinzgauer vehicles from Billericay, Manningtree, Burnham and Dunmow Fire Stations, as long as they are replaced.
224. However, concerns around Dunmow Fire Station’s conversion from day-crewed to on-call were raised, mainly in the context of longer response times. In addition, it was noted that the current and projected times presented were not only based on averages, but also on district-wide as opposed to local data - meaning that the impact on a local level was somewhat masked: How can an on-call engine get to an incident at the same time as a day-crewed one? They have to get to the station before they even leave for an incident, so surely an incident during the day will be attended to quicker by a day-crew? (Dunmow) The response time of the first engine will in reality be the same as the second one in Dunmow if both engines become on-call. (Dunmow)
225. There was also scepticism about how easily ECFRS will be able to recruit more on-call firefighters in the area (although one participant felt more positive about this because ‘it is such a large town’): Can you guarantee that you can get enough on-call staff? Is there not already a shortage? (Dunmow) In Dunmow there are a lot of retired people who wouldn’t be able to be recruited as retained firefighters. (Dunmow)
226. Ultimately, after being presented with all three of the ECFRS’ proposed options, almost everyone (11 out of 13) favoured option 2 despite there being no real difference between the three in terms of impact on a local level – and the main reason for supporting option 2 was thus that it is less harmful in terms of county-wide job losses: Most of us have said that we are willing to pay an extra 2% in Council Tax but the only advantage of this compared to paying 0.8% under option 1 is one second off of the response times (Dunmow) The loss of firefighters comes into the equation, it’s not just about response times. (Dunmow)
Corringham/Orsett/Grays
227. The Corringham/Orsett/Grays forum criticised ECFRS for not taking ‘locality’ into sufficient consideration in formulating its proposals, and did not agree with using data based on county-wide averages to determine whether the proposed operational changes in their area would be safe. In particular, the high risk nature of the area (with its chemical works, ports,
88 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
increasing population, housing and traffic) was noted - as was its demographic profile, which some claimed is more similar to London than many of the more ‘rural’ parts of the county: The problem with averages is that is that we are in the unfortunate position of being in the high-risk area. It’s nice to include the whole of Essex but really it also needs to be looked at on a local level (Corringham/Grays/Orsett) Essex does have a lot of rural areas but this area is almost a suburb of London. I don’t think that the incident data trends relate to this area; it would be much higher here (Corringham/Grays/Orsett) There are car accidents, lorry spillages, we have a huge port, and where I live there are a lot of lorries. It’s also getting very busy; there has been an influx of people and it’s very concerning that there may be cuts when this area is becoming like London. Essex may be viewed as a rural area, but in areas like this it’s not (Corringham/Grays/Orsett) There is a new road planned through Orsett which will join the M25, has this been taken into account? (Corringham/Grays/Orsett)
228. Participants were very worried about the proposal to remove Orsett’s second wholetime fire engine, mainly due to concerns about the availability of back-up cover from other neighbouring stations and FRSs: So if there’s a house fire in Orsett, under these proposals where will the second engine come from? (Corringham/Grays/Orsett) You say that we can call on a second engine from elsewhere but what are the other FRSs doing? Are they reducing their resources too? If so will they be able to offer back up? (Corringham/Grays/Orsett) I would worry about having one engine in both Corringham and Orsett what with the planned new road and housing; there are not enough facilities as there is. (Corringham/Grays/Orsett)
229. The removal of Pinzagauer vehicles was generally considered a sensible proposal, with one participant explaining that: ‘this is the kind of rationalisation which is needed; looking at what you’ve got, what you might replace it with and how it can save money.’ However, another suggested that ECFRS should use this opportunity to introduce new off-road vehicles that are volunteer-run (similar to programmes being undertaken abroad).
230. When considering the three different options in their entirety, around half of participants felt they could not support any of them, with one stating that: it’s the one sector you don’t want reduced. The main reasons for rejecting all three options were as follows: Thurrock is a high-risk area that warrants a full complement of resources:
89 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
We have three high risk areas in Thurrock are we are talking about reducing our services! We already have significant issues, which will also be compounded by the Thames Gateway Plan (Corringham/Grays/Orsett) I’m not sure about any of these options. I’d be happy with one fire engine in each of the areas but this area can skew the average; it’s a special area which needs more cover - we can call in resources from London but you can’t get to Lakeside from there, so if something terrible happened I hate to think what would happen (Corringham/Grays/Orsett) Firefighter redundancies are unacceptable: I don’t support any of them because of the reduction in staff… (Corringham/Grays/Orsett) Response times will lengthen locally (by more than estimated in ECFRS’s projections) In all of these options response times are increasing, but in reality it will be even worse for us in this area. (Corringham/Grays/Orsett)
231. Most of the remaining half of the group hesitantly favoured option 2 if a choice has to be made: they were, though, very reserved in their support of what they considered the ‘least worst option’: I think option 2 is workable if one of them has to be done… (Orsett) The only one which looks marginally ok is option 2 because it doesn’t take the second engine from Grays (Corringham/Grays/Orsett) If there has to be a choice made, Option 2 is the least hurtful; it loses less engines and firefighters and still saves £6 million. (Corringham/Grays/Orsett)
232. Indeed, only one person considered option 2 to be safe and feasible as opposed to ‘the lesser of three evils’, arguing that ECFRS’s current surplus capacity warrants a resource reduction: There must be times when fire engines are just sitting there doing nothing; it seems that there are whole areas where resources are not being maximised…why do we need more fire engines if they’re not even being used? (Corringham/Grays/Orsett)
Southend-on-Sea
233. The Southend-on-Sea group was split in its views on ECFRS’s proposed changes, with five each favouring option 2 and option 3 respectively - and the remaining participant not able to make a choice. The main reason for the divided opinion was summed up by one participant, who said that: in the broader picture we have to make savings but people don’t want to lose their local resources.
90 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
234. Those who preferred Option 2 explained that they wanted to retain the second wholetime appliance at their local station due to concerns about increased second appliance response times (an additional 2.25 minutes under options 1 and 3), and felt that a 2% increase in council tax was justifiable to enable this: If there are two incidents at once, that could mean that the first fire engine would arrive 2.25 minutes later to the second of the two incidents (Southend-on-Sea) What is the life risk involved in the second engine arriving 2.25 minutes later? How much more dangerous would it be? (Southend-on-Sea) The response times mean that I would favour option 2 because I pay a little a bit more in council tax with no real impact on response times; that is the most effective approach (Southend-on-Sea) Under options 1 and 3 we would lose engines from both Southend and Rayleigh, which would have a much bigger impact. But under option 2 we would be able to keep the two engines at Southend. (Southend-on-Sea)
235. However, the remaining participants rejected option 2 in favour of option 3 insofar as the latter saves more money. In addition, there was recognition that most fire deaths occur before the FRS is even called out, and that having more resources available will not make a difference in these cases: But Option 2 is the most expensive option overall (Southend-on-Sea) We have to take into account that most people die in fires before alarms are raised. (Southend-on-Sea)
236. More generally, there were questions around whether savings could be made elsewhere, such as through station closures or through other means which would not affect the public so directly. Reassurance was also sought about whether: there is sufficient cover in place for important nearby facilities like the MoD and Southend Airport; the area’s ageing population has been taken into account; and whether ECFRS will be able to recruit sufficient numbers of on-call staff in future.
Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow
237. There was significant concern in this group about converting Great Baddow Fire Station from day-crewed to on-call. In particular, people worried about the large area covered by the station (including the busy A12 road) - as well as firefighter redundancies and potential differences in experience between wholetime and on-call firefighters: Response times will be worsened won’t they…it’s inevitable (Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow) South Woodham and Baddow is a big chunk of area to just be on-call, especially as Baddow is right next to the A12 (Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow)
91 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Will the reductions be made through natural wastage or will people be made redundant? Will duty of care be compromised? (Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow) What is the difference in experience between wholetime and on-call firefighters? (Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow)
238. In addition, a few participants sought reassurance that cross-border FRSs have been consulted on ECFRS’s proposals and are able to provide sufficient cover in Essex if required: What about border stations and areas such as Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Suffolk? Do you have arrangements with them? (Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow)
239. There was some support for the proposed changes to operational resourcing; a few participants agreed that the decrease in incident numbers justifies reducing the number of fire engines across the county. In fact, some were surprised that this had not been done sooner: The number of incidents has reduced by almost half yet the number of staff and appliance haven’t changed?! (Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow) The numbers don’t actually support keeping all 74 fire engines. (Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow)
240. After being shown the three options for change, seven of the 13 participants favoured option 2, while the remaining six were divided in their support for option 1, option 3 and alternatives. Encouragingly, all but one said that their choice was genuinely feasible, rather than a necessary evil.
241. Referencing their support for option 3, one participant explained that there is no longer a need for as many operational resources due to the incident reduction and that under option 3 you will have a fit for purpose, serviceable FRS.
242. Interestingly, and even after being told about the implications of raising council tax above the 2% limit, two participants opted to retain the status quo in terms of operational resources while still investing an additional £3 million into prevention work - resulting in a referendum for a council tax rise of significantly more than 2%.
Burnham-on-Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers
243. As with most of the other public forums, the Burnham-on-Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers group raised issues and concerns around how the proposed operational changes would impact on resilience for large-scale events and many simultaneous incidents: How do multiple incidents affect these data? (Burnham-on-Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers)
92 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
What about really big incidents and airplane crashes - could you deal with those? (Burnham-on-Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers) How do you deal with incidents that require three or four fire engines for say three or four days at a time? (Burnham-on-Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers)
244. In addition, participants questioned: are the on-call firefighters plentiful and readily available? Is there a big turnover? (Burnham-on-Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers)
245. Some participants were previously unaware that South Woodham Ferrers and Burnham-on- Crouch are on-call stations, and were pleasantly surprised by the current rural response times, described by one participant as much better than I would expect from an on-call service.
246. After weighing up the information and discussing the issues noted above, nearly all (11 of 14) participants favoured option 2. The majority (10 participants) felt that their choice was safe and feasible, while one considered it a necessary evil.
Dovercourt
247. Some participants at the Dovercourt group explained that although the consultation is, and should be, county-focused: we never go to a lot of these places and we’re obviously very worried about our own communities and areas. As such, the following two main area- specific issues and concerns were raised: The distance and poor access from the nearest wholetime resource (at Clacton) in the event that Dovercourt becomes an on-call station: What if there is a disaster? The cuts will not just affect Dovercourt, but also the villages around it as well. Plus Dovercourt is the road to nowhere! Manningtree is closer than Frinton and Clacton, but that is also on-call (Dovercourt/Manningtree) We are so far from Clacton; everyone thinks we’re really close but we’re really not (Dovercourt/Manningtree) Manningtree is more central than Clacton, and although there is a windy road to access it, it’s used very frequently. However, the fact Manningtree is also on-call causes huge concerns; it really wouldn’t be so bad if this station wasn’t on-call as well (Dovercourt/Manningtree) Longer turnout times leading to longer response times in the high-risk Dovercourt area and to surrounding villages: I’m concerned about Dovercourt with its refinery and villages. (Dovercourt/Manningtree)
93 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
248. In addition, the proposed county-wide loss of wholetime firefighters was a significant concern - and more locally there was worry that alternative employment would be difficult to find in the event of compulsory redundancy: The thought of people losing their jobs is a wider issue as well as local (Dovercourt/Manningtree) Dovercourt is a close-knit community, and if people lose their jobs they will probably have to leave the town because there aren’t many jobs here. (Dovercourt/Manningtree)
249. The group acknowledged that the three different options don’t really make a difference to us in Dovercourt, so from our point of view the options are for Essex - and so they were able to make their judgements on what they considered to be best for the county overall. The group unanimously supported option 2, reasoning that it is the safest option in terms of response times and maintaining as many operational resources as possible: I lived in a thatched property which caught fire. The FRS got there so quickly, probably within 11 minutes, despite being right out in the countryside. They were brilliant; there were three engines and they managed to save the house, but if they’d been just two minutes later that would not have been the case. Therefore I would rather pay more towards council tax to ensure that response times are better (Dovercourt/Manningtree) If I had to pick, I think option 2 because the response time is better, less jobs will be lost, there will be more full-time firefighters and not as many engines will be lost. For the safety of the general public this is the best option (Dovercourt/Manningtree) Most rational people would pay a few more pounds in council tax. (Dovercourt/Manningtree)
250. Despite this unanimity though, there remained some concern about the second appliance response time increase (at district and especially local level) under all three options: 2 minutes and 28 seconds could be the difference between life and death, and in Dovercourt it will probably be even longer than that. (Dovercourt/Manningtree)
Clacton-on-Sea
251. Most Clacton-on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea participants examined the options and proposals from a county-wide perspective - primarily because the first wholetime engine is maintained at Clacton under all three options, and this was their prime concern: Although there is a response times increase for the second engine, it is the first one that saves lives; if the first engine was being replaced to on-call I would be worried, but I am reassured that the wholetime engine will be coming first, and on-call second. (Clacton-on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea)
94 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
252. There was also a general acceptance and understanding that incidents have reduced and that it is therefore sensible to reduce resources to reflect this. In terms of the overall impact of the changes on county-wide response time standards, one participant described it as nothing.
253. However, the lack of specific information on fire engine availability, which one participant argued would take the on-call crewing changes into account rather just response times was criticised. There was also concern around resilience for large-scale incidents and how on-call firefighters will be recruited in future.
254. All 12 participants favoured option 2: a 2% increase in Council Tax was considered a fair compromise if it meant the staffing changes could be implemented through natural wastage as opposed to compulsory redundancies, and to retain a higher number of experienced wholetime firefighters in the Service: The Service is less impacted under option 2 (Clacton-on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea) I would choose option 2 - not because of job losses as such, but I think that there should be more full-time firefighters in the Service because they are more experienced (Clacton-on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea) Natural wastage is preferable and the council tax is affordable; an extra £1.35 is nothing (Clacton-on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea) I would rather more full-time than on-call staff (Clacton-on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea) Council tax is going to go up anyway so a bit more doesn’t really matter. (Clacton-on- Sea/Frinton-on-Sea)
255. For some, though, this was the least worst option. In an ideal world they would favour the status quo in terms of maintaining an insurance for local residents and catering for emerging risks such as terrorism and widespread flooding: On average Clacton gets one call a day but that’s the insurance we pay for (Clacton- on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea) We could be lulled into a false sense of security here. What about terrorism and flooding, what do we have in place for these events in the future? I want maximum benefit out of the service and it’s a bit worrying that they’re cutting back and we could suffer for it. (Clacton-on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea)
256. There were significant concerns about option 3 (whereby only one wholetime engine would be based at Clacton station): it was argued that second fire engine response times would be too lengthy if this resource has to come from Frinton or Wheeley. Furthermore, one participant felt that ECFRS’s projected response times under this option are misleading in that they are district-wide and do not properly reflect the local impact at Clacton:
95 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Clacton is not affected initially because it still has a full-time crew in all of the options, but the second engine could be affected if it’s coming from Wheeley and Frinton (Clacton-on-Sea) Frinton and Wheeley would have to come out to Clacton as a second engine; and getting from Frinton to Clacton will be no faster than half an hour! (Clacton-on- Sea/Frinton-on-Sea)
257. Finally, it was suggested that ECFRS should consider using smaller vehicles (instead of traditional fire engines) to save on costs and make efficiencies: If the second vehicle in Frinton was a smaller vehicle it could have a smaller crew and save more money. (Clacton-on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea)
Overall balance of opinion on the options
258. Overall, option 2 was most favoured, mainly as it allows the retention of as many operational resources as possible. Everyone at the Clacton-on-Sea/Frinton-on-Sea group, along with strong majorities at the Harlow/Loughton/Waltham Abbey, Dunmow, Billericay/Brentwood/Great Baddow, Burnham-on-Crouch/Rayleigh Weir/South Woodham Ferrers and Dovercourt/Manningtree groups supported this option.
259. In contrast, opinion was divided at Corringham/Orsett/Grays and Southend-on-Sea, where half in each group favoured Option 2 and the remaining participants either refused to support any option at all or chose option 3, respectively.
Principle and practice
260. Participants accepted that the number of emergency incidents across Essex has decreased, and most agreed, when asked the question as an abstract concept prior to being informed of ECFRS’s proposals, that in principle operational resources should be reduced to match risk. This was borne out in practice, with only a few participants across all eight groups opting for ‘none of the above’ when faced with the choice between options 1, 2 and 3 - but the fact that an overwhelming majority chose the less radical option 2 demonstrated a significant degree of conservatism amongst the general public when considering reductions to emergency resources.
96 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Written Submissions
Written Submissions
261. During the formal consultation process, 92 individuals and organisations provided written submissions or telephone feedback to ECFRS (though the latter was very small in number). The table below shows the breakdown of contributors by type.
Type of Number of Name of Organisation Correspondent respondents
Residents 67 n/a (1 also local councillor) Councils (City/Borough or 15 Alresford Parish Council District/Town/Parish) (one submitted three Basildon Borough Council responses) Canvey Island Town Council Epping District Council Great Baddow Parish Council Great Dunmow Town Council Little Oakley Parish Council Loughton Parish Council Maldon District Council Ramsey & Parkeston Parish Council Stansted Mountfitchet Parish Council Tendring District Council Thurrock Council Tiptree Parish Council Town Council of Frinton & Walton MPs/Political Groups 3 Robert Halfon MP (two submitted on James Dudridge MP behalf of John Whittingdale MP residents/local firefighters) ECFRS Staff 4 3 individual staff members (including Fire Stations) Colchester Fire Station
97 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Representative Bodies 1 Fire Brigades Union (two separate submissions) Other organisations 2 BATIAS Independent Advocacy Service Southend University Hospital Total 92
262. ORS has read all the written submissions and summarised them in this chapter; none have been disregarded even if they are not expressed in a ‘formal’ way. It is a painstaking but necessary process to identify the main issues raised by respondents.
263. The table further in this chapter outlines the feedback from the shorter submissions and the telephone feedback received by ECFRS. In brief: Great Dunmow Town Council generally approved ECFRS’s proposed changes; Stansted Mountfitchet Parish Council and 26 individual residents supported option 2 on the grounds that: it represents the smallest resource reduction; it maintains better response times than options 1 and 3; and the 2% council tax increase represents good value for money. It is the ‘least worst option’ for some; There was minority support for option 1 (Tiptree Parish Council and one resident) and option 3 (Epping District Council and three residents) - and another resident favoured an even larger increase in council tax and NO reduction in response resources; The Town Council of Frinton and Walton was opposed to all three options on the grounds that: existing resources are needed due to Essex’s increasing population and housing stock; firefighter job losses are unacceptable; longer response times will compromise public safety; and that savings should be made elsewhere in ECFRS; Maldon Town Council and three residents objected to the proposed conversion of South Woodham Ferrers Fire Station to on-call because of potentially longer response times - and because of their recent experience of a successfully concluded serious fire there; Two residents were concerned that the conversion of Dovercourt Fire Station from day-crewed to on-call will result in longer response times, especially given ECFRS’s on-call availability issues; One resident considered the proposals to remove appliances from Thurrock and Southend to be unacceptable in the light of the ‘high-risk’ nature of the two areas and the potential for longer response times;
98 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Other concerns were around: an over-reliance on the on-call system (one resident); the removal of second wholetime fire appliances from several stations (two residents); and the proposed £3 million investment in prevention at the expense of operational resources (one resident); and One respondent suggested that ECFRS consider smaller rural pumps as a second pump with a smaller crew (for example Hampshire).
264. The more detailed written submissions summarised later in this chapter do not lend themselves to easy summary and so readers are encouraged to consult the full report for a more detailed account of the views expressed. However, the following overview gives a sense of the types of issues raised – a ‘summary of the summaries’ if you like. Representative Bodies The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) sets out many alleged flaws in the approach taken by ECFRS in developing its consultation plan. In terms of the consultation options, the Union supports change that maximises fire appliance availability and firefighter posts and endorses the proposed additional £3 million for community safety - though it would prefer this (and the existing community safety budget) to be invested in maintaining uniformed staff on fire stations who could provide an intervention service when necessary and deliver community safety at other times. In a further submission, the FBU complains about ECFRS’s failure to apply a consistent approach to the use of statistical information throughout the IRMP process. The Union alleges that ECFRS has used three separate sets of statistics and has ‘failed to use them in an open or consistent manner’.
Local Councils Basildon Borough Council supports the principle of ECFRS’s proposed changes regardless of which option is selected. Alresford Parish Council, Canvey Island Town Council, Little Oakley Parish Council, Ramsey & Parkeston Parish Council, Tendring District Council and Thurrock Council cannot support any of the consultation options. Their reasons are typically area- specific (all of which are detailed later in this chapter) but some common areas for concern were: The possibility for longer first appliance response times if fire stations convert from day-crewed to on-call; The possibility for longer second appliance response times (and longer initial attendances during simultaneous incidents) if fire stations lose their second wholetime fire engines;
99 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
On-call recruitment, retention and availability and the potential for fire engines to be ‘off-the-run’ - again extending response times; and The ability of an on-call service to cope with risks in certain areas - for example Harwich Port, the Carless Oil Refinery and the EPC UK chemical works in the Dovercourt area, and the COMAH sites, ports, riverside industry, busy road network (including the M25, A13 Dartford Crossing and possible new Thames crossing) and Lakeside Shopping Centre in Thurrock.
Members of Parliament and Local Councillors Robert Halfon MP feels that ECFRS must: examine its land sale potential, rents, rates and contracting costs; ensure its resources are ‘in the right place’; and encourage more joint-working between blue light services to save on back office costs (including a joint blue light headquarters). Mr Halfon also suggests that more should be done to enable full integration and support of the on-call fire service and overcome current staffing difficulties, and hopes that the planned development and growth of Harlow has been considered when accounting for future demand there. James Duddridge MP writes to highlight the concerns of several constituents regarding plans to remove an appliance from Southend Fire Station on the grounds of: its busy workload; the area’s growing population; local risks such as high-rise flats, industry and a fast-growing airport; and the possibility of longer response times in the event of simultaneous incidents. Mr Duddridge himself also says that, while changes are needed overall, any reduction in Southend may place residents at risk. John Whittingdale MP highlights the views of South Woodham Ferrers firefighters, who reject the proposal to change their Fire Station from day crew to on-call because: crew members would only be paid if they ‘turn out’; it will be difficult to recruit on-call firefighters in the town; and that South Woodham Ferrers sometimes covers the Dengie peninsula when Tillingham and Burnham are unavailable. A local councillor describes their meetings with Waltham Abbey and Loughton firefighters and summarises their views on the consultation options in relation to: the possibility of a lack of fire cover for Epping Forest in future; ‘misleading’ data (including proposed attendance times) in the consultation document; the inability of a smaller pool of firefighters to deal with RTC and flooding increases and more prevention work; the disproportionate effect of the proposals on the frontline; mixed crewing; and redundancies.
ECFRS Staff Members One member of staff is concerned that Great Baddow has been ‘put in the pot’ with the other day-crew stations to change to on-call without consideration of how busy it is and the additional resource it provides to Chelmsford. They feel that the nucleus
100 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
crew model would have worked there, but have serious doubts that a daytime ‘on- call’ crew can be recruited. Another member of ECFRS’s staff is of the view that Prevention, Protection and Response should be a joint priority for all within the Service and that the former two elements should be equal partners with the latter. They also suggest that ECFRS should mobilise (especially officer cover) more intelligently, determining more precisely what the risk is at an incident and what level of response it requires. Colchester Fire Station staff have provided two proposals to ECFRS in response to the decision to remove the Rescue Tender from operational service, along with the resources it currently provides to the public in the town and the north of the County. These are outlined in summary detail later in this chapter.
Local Residents The concerns and issues reported by local councils were also echoed by residents - some of whom also stressed the need to consider making savings elsewhere in the Service (for example: reducing support staff; sharing resources - including management - with neighbouring FRSs and other emergency service partners; and reconsidering the need for the ‘lavish’ headquarters at Kelvedon).
Alternative Suggestions In addition to the FBU’s proposal to invest the ECFRS community safety budget in enabling operational staff to undertake more prevention and protection, some other specific alternative suggestions were made as follows: Build a new station in a central location along the A120 to service Harwich, Clacton and surrounding areas, or maintain Dovercourt and Clacton Fire Stations as now and close Manningtree (Little Oakley Parish Council); Cut wholetime establishment levels at Dovercourt from 12 to six, supported by 12 on-call firefighters, to ensure at least two full-time crew on the day watch (Ramsey & Parkeston Parish Council); Make all second pumps on-call appliances (Resident); and Ensure that every Watch includes a paramedic as the FRS is often the first responder to an emergency. (Resident)
The submissions are summarised below. It is important to note that the following section is a report of the views expressed by submission contributors. In some cases, these views will not be supported by the available evidence - and while ORS has not sought to highlight or correct those that make incorrect statements or assumptions, this should be borne in mind when considering the submissions.
101 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Summary Table of Themes from Shorter Written Submissions
265. Overleaf is a summary table of the main themes emerging from the shorter written submissions and telephone feedback received by ECFRS. In addition to those reported in the table, there were five requests for information, 12 requests for clarification on the consultation process or to request an event in a particular area and two expressions of willingness to assist with the consultation by displaying materials and/or disseminating information.
102 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
THEME RESPONDENTS COMMENTS
General approval of Great Dunmow Town Great Dunmow Town Council has considered the consultation document and, insofar as change Council it affects Great Dunmow, approves of the proposed changes. Support for option 1 Tiptree Parish Council Tiptree Parish Council has considered this consultation document and would support 1 resident option 1 as detailed within your documents. Having read the options in this week’s Echo, I would opt for option 1. Support for option 2 Stansted Mountfitchet Whilst none of the options has an immediate effect on our parish, we would not like to (‘least worst’ for Parish Council see the service at Harlow reduced. There is huge development proposed in that area and some 26 residents we believe that if the service is reduced in any way, this is unlikely to be reduced as Harlow grows over the coming years. We believe that option 2 would be worth the additional £1.35 Council Tax... If there have to be changes then option 2 is the one I think is most appropriate. It appears to have the most important thing, quick response times. We all value the work of fire crews and it is a matter of regret that job losses must be sustained at a time of rising population in Essex and at a time when we live in an evermore dangerous environment. This is such a small increase that it will go unnoticed by most households. I would be happy to pay much more than this for a good fire service and believe most people would too! Option 2 gives you the best fire cover. The other options reduces fire cover greatly and option 3 doesn't even meet their golden response standard. I support option 2 - a rise in council tax and the smallest cut in resources. It seems palpably obvious that option Two is the best option as it does the least damage to the Fire Service with the minimum of job losses. As a Band D property owner the extra cost is minimal and if it were double that sum (£1.35 per year x 2), it would still cost me less than 25p per month... We have read the supplement you had in the Witham and Braintree Times and my wife
103 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
and I both agree that option 2 would be the one we would choose. Cutting back is all very well, but option 2 is the least severe and would, we hope, tend to keep the service at more or less that we which we currently have. We opt for option 2 if cuts are to be made but we would rather it stayed the same as when the service is needed it is needed at once not from a fire station many miles away. Option 2 is best but not ideal. Options 1 and 3 remove half the appliances in the A13 corridor. Support for option 3 Epping District Council The formal response of this Council to the consultation exercise is to support option 3... 3 residents Understandable need to cost cut and the Fire Service is no different to other public sector organisations. Being a tax payer myself and a lot of my associates require more for our money. We have all had to make savings why should you be exempt? We prefer option 3 where we keep the second fire engine at Frinton station and save the most... We would not mind paying extra on the council tax to achieve this even though the option says there would not be an increase. I dread to think of the scenario which may arise...when the first engine is out and a second call comes in and we do not have back-up. Another engine is so far away from this area it could be disastrous. Support for another 1 resident Even larger increase in council tax and NO reduction in response resources! option All proposals Town Council of Frinton The consensus of members of the Town Council was that they are strongly against the unacceptable and Walton closure or reduction in such services. 4 residents With all the new house building going on in all these places surely it's false economy and safety to cut down on any engines or stations… I am…writing to express my disgust at the proposed sacking of experienced, skilful firefighters. You better than anyone should know response times are the most important factor in rescues and emergencies and chucking out experienced firefighters and replacing them with retained firemen is only going to extend the response times. Please
104 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
tell me what will happen if the men from one station are on stand-by at another and a shout comes in to their home station? What response times do you envisage the poor person whose house is on fire…or an RTA victim must suffer? It's all very well saying "no fire station closures" but if nobody is in it what is the point??? Moving any fire station to retained will mean a slower response time and could be the difference between life and death in certain instances. £2 million saving from support services is not enough, £19 million spent on your shiny head office which was totally unnecessary, a control room you can't use due to horrific procurement, a Chief Fire Officer on the sick paid for two years. When does the senior management of this service start taking account themselves for the poor running of this public service?? All this at a time when council tax has gone up and we are paying more for the fire service than we have ever paid. Would you like to respond to this with the figures so far this year regarding fires and road traffic collisions, both of which are significantly up and you want to cut front line services?!?! I would like to express my concerns. I have read about the new proposals and I think they are unacceptable. How can you allow for a ten minute response time? A fire would destroy a house in that time and anyone trapped would have no hope of coming out alive. I just feel upset that a service as important as yourself is being cut yet again. Concerns: South Maldon District Council [We have] more serious concerns about the proposal to change South Woodham Ferrers Woodham Ferrers 3 residents from a manned to a retained station. It is felt that the latter could cause serious delays proposal in getting a crew to an incident in the south of the District... Objection to the 'proposed closure' of South Woodham Ferrers - surely not worth a risk due to cutbacks. Do not cut the fire service. It is not something that should be "cut" or "sacrificed" in any way. Three or four local units attended a hay barn fire last in North Woodham Ferrers. Without these units able to attend so quickly we would be looking at a whole yard without stables in the coldest time of year. Because of them the horses are safe and the stables were saved. Save money elsewhere not from a service that helps to save the lives of many.....
105 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
I want to express my objection to these proposals. Last night there was a barn fire just down the road from me at a Livery Stables. Without the amazing work of the firemen that arrived at the scene within minutes the outcome could of been so much worse. All of the horses were saved and no one was hurt and they prevented the fire spreading to adjacent Stables and other units. Had they been longer in reaching the fire because their numbers had been cut or were on-call fire men only, the situation would of been much worse, for the buildings and the poor horses... Concerns: 2 residents I wish to register my protest at the proposed cuts to our fire service and in particular Dovercourt proposal without full-time firefighters based in Harwich we may have to wait for a fire engine to come from Colchester and this will most likely cost the lives of people in Harwich. Is it true that the fire service is thinking of only keeping the retained crew at Dovercourt? This means that we will only be covered 60% of the time as the retained crew are unavailable for 40% of the week. Concerns: 2 residents This is a busy area. Docks, oil terminals, Lakeside, M25 and Dartford Crossing. No way Thurrock/Southend can Grays or Southend be cut. Not happy with one pump going from Rayleigh Weir. You proposals have already cut our fire cover when you closed Rayleigh retained station and made Canvey fully retained. Now you want a further cut. Does that mean that if Rayleigh are on a job we will have to wait for Canvey, Hawkwell or Leigh? Given that you are planning to take one of the two pumps away from Corringham it seems a little bizarre that you are recruiting. Is the real reason for removing the pump simply that you're having trouble crewing it? Concerns: use of on- 1 resident I have the greatest admiration for retained firefighters. They are ideal covering their call firefighters own ground or crewing a second pump. But they cannot be expected to cover other station grounds due to their extended turnout times. Concerns: removal 2 residents Removing the second fire engine anywhere should not be an option, it will only put the of second fire public and firefighters at risk. engines Why remove the second appliance from some of the busiest stations? Why not have one whole time pump and the second retained?
106 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Concerns: 1 resident There should be no more money invested in community fire safety. This £3 million investment in should be invested in our wholetime firefighters/engines. My family pays for a response prevention emergency service not a community safety service. If I dial 999 I expect a fire engine immediately. All of your proposals cause an increase in attendance times - this is not acceptable. Any savings to be made should not come from the frontline, you should cease all community activity and make the cuts in those areas. Other 2 residents Suggest you purchase smaller rural pumps as a second pump with a smaller crew (for issues/comments example Hampshire). /suggestions I would gladly pay a little extra tax in order to feel safe knowing the right men are there when needed. What's the point you'll ignore it just like London's options?
107 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Summaries of Lengthier Written Submissions
266. Below are summaries of the lengthier written submissions received by ECFRS. Responses from Representative Bodies Fire Brigades Union (FBU) Introduction The FBU sets out flaws in the approach taken by ECFRS and offers suggestions for how those living and working in Essex could be better served and protected, whilst recognising and working within the budgetary challenges facing ECFRS. Prevention, Protection and Response The 2016-20 IRMP focuses on increasing prevention work, an increase that is supported by the FBU. However, it believes that this increase should be fully integrated, with operational firefighters delivering educational messages whilst maintaining and providing an operational response (rather than prevention being delivered by non-operational personnel). In particular, the FBU draws attention to: the long-term effectiveness of local safety campaigns, especially on areas outside high fire risk; the broad lack of evidence to support the redistribution of resources from response to prevention; the need to collect robust long- term quantitative data; the need for evidence of an unambiguous link between community safety activities and risk reduction - and to show that risks other than fire will not be adversely affected by reducing response capabilities; and the fact that local safety initiatives can only ever reduce average risk to the community (with reduction of intervention capacity increasing individual risk). At a time of financial constraints, the FBU believes ECFRS should focus its finances on core activities and statutory obligations. Challenges and Opportunities The FBU is mindful that fire authorities are required to follow Central Government provisions in developing and consulting on Integrated Risk Management Plans - and believes EFA is failing to do so in the following ways: “…there must be adequate evidence to support and justify any changes proposed, ensuring the maintenance and improvement in community safety.” The FBU recognises success in reducing the number of occasions ECFRS is mobilised, but argues that this reduction does not directly link to a reduction in risk insofar as it is largely accounted for by a reduction in false alarms and outdoor fires. In contrast, the most commonly attended life-threatening incidents - road traffic collisions and dwelling fires - have increased, indicating that there is no ‘adequate evidence to support and justify any changes proposed to the level of emergency response proposed’ in the options for change.
108 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
“…the maintenance of safe systems of work for firefighter safety.” The FBU argues that in the more densely populated areas of Essex - where the majority of potential life threatening incidents occur - the Service’s ability to make life-saving intervention and set up safe systems of work has always relied upon two pumping appliances (crewed by at least eight firefighters) responding at the same time from the same fire station. Furthermore, it refutes the Service’s argument that more rural areas of the County already only have a single pumping appliance covering them and says that, in these areas, it is even more vital for a second pumping appliance to be mobilised to an incident in support of the first. The FBU also believes that the new response standards (with no second pumping appliance standard included for life-threatening incidents) coupled with proposed reductions in fire cover pose a direct threat to both public and firefighter safety. “A fundamental part of fire service emergency cover is the determination of what response is required to incidents.” In the introduction to the 2016-20 IRMP, ECFRS highlights the changing world in which the FRS operates: ‘an increasing and aging population, international terrorism, climate change and widespread flooding.’ The FBU argues that the latter three issues in particular cannot be influenced and reduced by the ECFRS Safer Communities department - and will always require a large scale response by adequately equipped, highly trained firefighters. It is said that ECFRS has failed to address these risks in the ‘risk management plan’ and is consulting on large reductions in the firefighters required to resolve such large-scale incidents. “Fire and rescue services will need to provide evidence that the planned response is safe and appropriate. This is likely to involve carrying out detailed risk and task analyses of the planning scenarios.” The FBU notes the report undertaken by ORH to provide data evidencing utilisation (demand) and appliance attendance times, which has been used to inform the proposed reduction in fire cover based on historic data (working from demand in 2014). The Union argues that this report does not: assess risk; address firefighter or public safety; or take into account safe systems of work or operational procedures. It is also argued that by using historical data, EFA has failed to plan for the period to 2020 in terms of both the lack of reduction in risk and a possible increase in demand. In the context of the latter point, the FBU notes that ECFRS is currently piloting a scheme that will see fire crews providing emergency medical response and that levels of demand are thus expected to increase significantly due to this and collaboration with Essex Police. This increase in demand will, it is said, inevitably increase simultaneous incidents, therefore increasing attendance times as fire appliances are mobilised from neighbouring stations. This is apparently not referenced anywhere within the IRMP.
109 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
The Union again stresses that EFA has agreed an increase in attendance time targets, with which it does not agree as it has allowed the Authority to plan reductions in standards of fire cover. Financial Sustainability The FBU recognises the financial challenges faced by ECFRS, which is suffering an £8 million reduction in central government funding. However, the FBU feels that ECFRS can and has off-set this reduction by increasing council tax and making savings in support services. The Union also references staffing costs and says that in 2008/09, with a budget of £70.1 million, ECFRS supported a higher establishment than it does now with a budget of £71.3 million. It also compares the Service to Northern Ireland Fire & Rescue Service (a service in the same ‘family group’ as Essex), which currently operates on a budget and protects a population almost identical in size to that of ECFRS with a larger operational establishment. The Union thus questions how budgets are being spent and how sustainable the future plans are in light of an ever-decreasing proportion of budget spent on firefighters and emergency response. ECFRS’s Vision – Protection of Life, Property and the Environment “Protect of life, property and the environment” This FBU has set out above its views on alleged flaws and omissions in ECFRS’s IRMP in relation to the protection of life, property and the environment. It notes here that: Climate change has significant implications in terms of future changing risk for ECFRS, particularly in terms of widespread flooding events that require an effective response (though preplanning and interagency work is also vital to mitigate against their impact); Higher summer temperatures increase the chances of fires starting and spreading quickly (particularly in rural parts of the County) and that the service has made little or no progress in increasing its resilience for such incidents, which also require a large-scale deployment of operational personnel and resources. Furthermore, the consultation options see the removal of ECFRS’s four off-road vehicles, which provide vital support as a second pumping appliance to dwelling fires; While welcoming its recognition of emerging risks in the form of terrorism, the FBU feels the Service is failing to provide evidence through the IRMP process of how ECFRS will be better placed to respond to such incidents with reduced levels of emergency response resources. The Options In terms of the options for change: the FBU supports change that maximises fire appliance availability and firefighter posts, both wholetime and on-call - and it supports the proposal to invest an additional £3 million into community safety.
110 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
However, it also believes that the best service would be provided if the two proposals for risk management were integrated by investing the current community safety budget and the additional £3 million pounds in maintaining uniformed staff on fire stations. Those staff could then provide both an intervention service when necessary and deliver community safety at other times. Integrating protection into the role of operational firefighters would, it is felt, deliver the maximum investment return for the people of Essex. The FBU recognises there may be training and procedural challenges to overcome if integrated safety is delivered in this way, but it is more than willing to work with the Service to overcome barriers. Essentially, the FBU believes that maintaining the best possible response model, expanding the role of the fire service and firefighters and exploring ways of better utilising the latter will reduce average risk across Essex while also reducing individual risk when an emergency response is required. By adopting an approach that fails to integrate prevention, protection and response, and with new extended response times, the Union feels that ECFRS is placing firefighters and members of the public at increased risk when incidents occur.
Responses from Local Councils Alresford Parish Council Alresford Parish Council urges the Fire Authority to err on the side of caution when considering cuts to the service and highlights the following risk factors to consider regarding the Alresford area (in addition to fires and RTCs): the large expanses of thick mud often exposed by the tidal range of the River Colne and Alresford Creek, rescues from which require special equipment and training; woodland and scrub fires, which require appropriate equipment and sufficient numbers of firefighters; and aggregate quarrying, which has left a number of deep lakes and undulating terrain, rescues from which must be considered. The nearest fire station to Alresford is Wivenhoe (on-call) and it is noted that on many weekdays there are insufficient firefighters available. This means the station is often ‘off the run’ with Colchester crews having to attend incidents in the area - and the Council is concerned that its area might be at risk should there be cuts to provisions at Colchester. Alresford Parish Council requests assurances that a full firefighting and rescue service will be maintained at all times for Alresford.
Basildon Borough Council (BBC) Basildon Borough Council commends ECFRS on the detail and clarity of the information provided in its consultation document and the scope and methodology of ‘an extremely comprehensive exercise’. The Council notes that its Members have, individually, expressed support for all three consultation options and that it has thus not been possible to produce one cohesive
111 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
response. It also feels that choosing the most appropriate option is an operational matter that the Fire Authority is best placed to do. However, Members support the principle of the proposed changes regardless of which option is selected - a position that is supported by the Council itself. It is said that, whilst the Basildon Borough is not significantly affected by any of the consultation options, BBC recognises and identifies with the need to ensure sustainability whilst ensuring the maintenance of public safety and confidence.
Canvey Island Town Council Canvey Island Town Council does not support any of the consultation options. It is concerned that ECFRS is not currently meeting its target of a seven minute attendance to an incident on Canvey Island - and feels that any further service cuts could adversely impact the safety of the Canvey Island community. The Council also requests that ECFRS reconsider its proposal to remove the second fire engine from Rayleigh Weir Fire Station due to: the location of two top-tier COMAH sites on Canvey Island; the area’s population of over 40,000 people; road constraints and congestion (which, in the event of an emergency, could cause access issues for crews); and the fact that target attendance times were proven to be unachievable during a recent simulation.
Little Oakley Parish Council Little Oakley Parish Council is concerned that: fewer wholetime crews will jeopardise fire safety inspections at residential and commercial properties and the issuing of fire safety certificates; and that an on-call only service is insufficient to cover the port and two COMAH sites in and around Harwich. As such, the Council does not support any of the three consultation options and urges ECFRS to consider the viability of building a new station in a central location along the A120 to service Harwich, Clacton and surrounding areas. If this is not viable, then it suggests maintaining Dovercourt and Clacton Fire Stations as at present and closing that at Manningtree.
Ramsey & Parkeston Parish Council Ramsey & Parkeston Parish Council raises serious concerns about ECFRS’s proposed changes because its own and adjoining areas (Harwich, Dovercourt, Little Oakley, Great Oakley, Lawford, Manningtree, Tendring, Wrabness and Wix) are so geographically isolated. It thus strongly objects to all three consultation options. The Council is particularly concerned that all three options propose changing Dovercourt Fire Station from day crew to on-call, particularly insofar as its area is growing in terms of population and housing stock and contains high-risk industries including Harwich International Port, Halterman Carless Oil Refinery, the EPC UK chemical works and links with
112 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
the maritime industries at the Port of Felixstowe. These, it feels, demand the support of a fully-manned fire station. The Council is also worried about the ability of a solely on-call crew to provide a prompt emergency response and says that, with only two appliances at Dovercourt Fire Station, ‘daily manning by retainers cannot guarantee one, let alone both, to be able to response to an emergency’. Reliance on back-up from Clacton-on-Sea or Colchester, both with a response time of at least 25 minutes, will, it is felt, put lives at risk. It is argued that the geographic nature of the area means that many residents travel to their workplaces and that this, together with reluctance on the part of local businesses to release staff for firefighting duties, would impact on ECFRS’s ability to recruit enough on-call firefighters to offer daytime cover at Dovercourt. The Council requests that an additional option be considered where wholetime establishment levels at Dovercourt are cut from 12 to six, supported by 12 retainers. This, it says, would ensure at least two full-time crew on the day watch and guarantee that at least one appliance would be crewed during the day.
Tendring District Council Tendring District Council comments that: Local residents oppose the withdrawal of the Pinzgauer appliance from Manningtree Fire Station as it can more easily access ancient narrow streets in Manningtree and Mistley and is useful for gaining access to fires on farmland in a rural community; It will work with ECFRS to facilitate access to the small number of local schools the service has yet to access to allow it to undertake preventative work there; It is unconvinced that sufficient evidence has been provided that any of the three options would provide adequate cover in some parts of Tendring; It cannot support any of the options until it can be proven that the necessary recruitment for on-call coverage can take place; It embraces and supports the ethos of all emergency services working together.
Thurrock Council Thurrock Council writes that it has agreed the following motion regarding serious traffic gridlock situations in Thurrock in recent weeks: ‘In light of recent events where the Borough of Thurrock was brought to a virtual standstill on the 28th January and 9th February because of events relating to the Dartford crossing, we request that Thurrock Council send a letter to both Essex Police and Essex Fire and Rescue Services to rethink their proposals to drastically cut essential services to the borough of Thurrock and work with Highways England on an
113 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
action plan to combat the chronic congestion that affects the whole Borough during such incidents.’ The Council feels that solutions to these situations will require concerted and coordinated action from a range of organisations including the Council and ECFRS.
Responses from Members of Parliament and Local Councillors
Robert Halfon MP Mr Halfon recognises that the environment in which ECFRS operates and the challenges it faces are very different to what they once were. He says that demands on the Service have moved more to preventative work and that geographical demand does not always correspond with the existing fire station footprint. As such, it is felt that ECFRS must: look at handling costs; ensure its resources are ‘in the right places’; and encourage more joint- working between blue light services to save on back-office costs. Rents, Rates and Property Maintenance Mr Halfon feels that consideration could be given to a joint blue light headquarters to create significant savings and allow resources to be more efficiently and economically shared. Furthermore, he feels that any unused land around any ECFRS buildings should be sold off to reduce rates and raise capital for other ‘spend to save’ investment projects. Mr Halfon also suggests that ECFRS could work closer with public and private sector partners for more efficient contracting - and that if this is not possible and aging buildings only require more maintenance spending, it may be more economical to invest in refurbishments to save money in the long-term. This, it is said, could be financed by some of the cost-saving measures suggested above, effectively transferring some capital funds to offset budget spending by significantly reducing property maintenance costs. Back Office Support Mr Halfon comments that a blue light service headquarters could reduce the cost of back- office support across all services, meaning less pressure on funding for the frontline. He also supports looking at sharing back-office costs across two or more FRSs. Independent Cultural Review Mr Halfon believes it would be beneficial for the Fire Authority to build better industrial relations with the Unions to avoid strike situations and to build a more flexible and agile workforce that can meet modern challenges and pressures. He also says that the recommendations from the recent independent Cultural Review must be implemented as soon as possible to ensure a safer and happier working environment. On-call Fire and Rescue Service Mr Halfon suggests that more should be done to enable full integration and support of the on-call fire service and overcome current staffing difficulties. He has been informed that
114 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
current staffing levels for on-call pumps may not account for holidays or sick leave and make it difficult for pumps to always be properly and fully crewed - and that on-call firefighters in his area (Harlow) would like support and encouragement to proactively recruit. The Future Mr Halfon says that local residents seek reassurance that ECRFS’s modelling takes into account the planned development and growth of Harlow in terms of population and housing stock increases. The Service’s ability to respond to RTCs (in the town and on the M11) is also a concern - and with the potential for a new J7a to be built at Harlow, it is felt that increased volumes of traffic and thus RTCs must be considered when accounting for future demand.
James Dudridge, MP Mr Duddridge writes to highlight the concerns of several constituents regarding plans to remove an appliance from Southend Fire Station. These constituents argue against the proposal primarily on the grounds that: Southend is the busiest station in Essex; The area has a high and growing population, many high-rise flats, industry and a fast- growing airport; and that Response times will lengthen in the area in the event of simultaneous incidents (as the initial attendance will have to come from a neighbouring fire station). It is also said that residents should be prepared to fund as high a council tax increase as possible in order to reduce the need for operational reductions. Mr Duddridge himself also comments that, while changes are needed overall, Southend has a large number of high-rise buildings, many industrial sites, a football stadium, an University, and an expanding Airport. He feels that the proposal may place residents at risk.
John Whittingdale, MP Mr Whittingdale writes to highlight the views of South Woodham Ferrers firefighters, who reject the proposal to change their Fire Station from day crew to on-call. Their main concerns are that: crew members would only be paid if they ‘turn out’; it will be difficult to recruit a sufficient number of on-call firefighters from the town, especially as many employers are unhappy losing staff when on-call; and that under existing arrangements, South Woodham Ferrers Fire Station sometimes has to cover the Dengie peninsula when Tillingham and Burnham are not available, meaning that under the proposal there will be no cover for the peninsula within an acceptable travelling time in such instances.
115 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Local Councillor (explaining views of front-line staff) The local councillor describes their meetings with Waltham Abbey and Loughton firefighters and summarises their (negative) views on the three consultation options as follows: The increasing requirement for Loughton to send its one remaining pump into London or Saffron Walden means that, with many neighbouring on-call appliances ‘off the run’ during the day, large parts of Epping Forest would be left at risk; The proposed attendance times cannot be correct for large parts of the day; The data provided in the consultation document is misleading and is not comparing like for like (in terms of falling incident levels) - and there is little evidence that the overall need for ECFRS services is declining; Large increases in housing, RTCs on the M11 and M25, flooding from the River Lea and fire prevention work cannot be properly covered by a smaller number of firefighters; Front-line services are being ‘pruned’ more significantly than back room staff; Mixed crewing could be considered in principle, although there was concern about different skill levels and training; Redundancy is a concern - particularly that it may not all be voluntary.
Responses from ECFRS Staff Members Colchester Fire Station Colchester Fire Station personnel have provide two proposals to ECFRS in response to the decision to remove the Rescue Tender from operational service, along with the resources it currently provides to the public in the town and the north of the County.
The first - an interim proposal - seeks not to worsen the pre-Rescue Tender removal response arrangements for the immediate future and would see the retention of the Avon 310 inflatable boat and two rescue paths (previously on the Rescue Tender) at Colchester Fire Station, stowed in a small van within the spare bay. When needed, this would be mobilised along with Colchester's Water Tender or Heavy Rescue Pump in the same way that the Aerial Ladder Platform is currently crewed and mobilised. This would ensure that Colchester personnel maintain their skills in water rescue and provide a timely response to incidents. This proposal is cost-neutral other than providing a small van on which to transport the equipment. If an additional vehicle is not viable then the boat and paths could be kept at Colchester Fire Station as non-mobile specials and switched with equipment on one of the existing appliances when required. Under the second (long-term) proposal, a select number of personnel on each Colchester watch would be trained in both swift water rescue and possibly animal rescue to provide a more enhanced capability to the north of the county and Colchester. It is the respondents’
116 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
belief that moving the current swift water capability from Dovercourt Fire Station would reduce costs in terms of the number of personnel requiring training at both Dovercourt and West Mersea, and dramatically reduce training and PPE costs. Combining resources in a key and central location would reduce blue light movements and response times, and ensure consistency in the level of training and skills available for use anywhere in the county when required. The provision of this could be through relocating existing resources, or by providing bespoke stowage on the new Water Tender being delivered later this year.
ECFRS Staff Member The member of staff writes with particular reference to Great Baddow Fire Station and says: The consultation document states that day crews are on station Monday to Friday 09:00 – 18:00 whereas at Great Baddow they have been on station Monday to Saturday since 2010; The annual average demand figure for the day crew stations is said to be between 177 and 303, but Great Baddow alone has attended 3,296 incidents since 2009 (an average of 470 incidents per year); Of these incidents, only 1264 have been in ‘negative hours’ (6pm – 6am), meaning that 2,032 were during the daytime (251 in 2015). This is the time when it is least likely that an ‘on-call’ crew will be available in Great Baddow given the socio- economic make-up of the area; and The station regularly stands-by during the day at Chelmsford, Maldon and Burnham. The respondent’s major concern is that Great Baddow has been ‘put in the pot’ with the other day crew stations to change to ‘on-call’ without consideration of how busy it is and the additional resource it provides to Chelmsford. They feel that the nucleus crew model would have worked at Great Baddow, but have serious doubts that a daytime ‘on-call’ crew can be recruited there.
ECFRS Staff Member The respondent is of the view that prevention, protection and response should be a joint priority for all within the Service and that staff should be encouraged to work in or support all three areas to maximise ECFRS resources. To this end, it is said that every employee should get a grounding in the basics of prevention, protection and response to develop an understanding of how the Service works in all three areas. The respondent argues that the driver behind what ECFRS does should be ‘what is the best way to drive down the risk’ and that the best way of doing this is to make everyone accountable for prevention, protection and response. They suggest that Area Commanders do not prioritise the first two in any of their plans because they are not measured on or managed against them: they are managed on operational aspects only, which ‘are important but they should not be all powerful’.
117 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
It is said that re-drawn Command areas should incorporate all three delivery areas and that thought should be put into what resources are needed on stations to support the delivery of Safer Communities work - including training and more regular contact between specialists and station-based staff to ensure continuity of message and proper staff development. Including operational crews in Safer Communities and Technical Fire Safety work is considered important in terms of success because of the high regard that the public has for the response service. The respondent feels that operational firefighters must be properly educated in prevention and protection and that the focus should not be on the ‘detractors’ but on those that ‘get it’. ‘Lead the naysayers don’t manage them’ is the message. The respondent strongly urges that ECFRS develop a clearly and consistently articulated plan on managing community risk by establishing a local group of expert risk managers with operational, prevention and protection skills. They would then develop locally-appropriate initiatives within overarching Service-wide plans. They also suggest that ECFRS should mobilise (especially officer cover) more intelligently, determining more precisely what the risk is at an incident and what level of response it requires. For example, they say that a three-pump fire with a four-pump water relay does not need the pre-determined Level 3 officer, which ‘is a waste of resource, distracting the Level 3 from other responsibilities’ and ‘undermines the incumbent officer in charge and creates dangers to the officer and other road users by them responding’. Finally, the respondent says that if ECFRS is to achieve a proper balance between prevention, protection and response - the two former elements must be properly resourced and delivered with proper support, guidance, training, policy and mentoring. They say that prevention and protection should be equal partners with response and should have equal call on response resources: for example ‘if a risk evaluation shows a prevention approach is the best way to resolve an issue then take a machine off the run…for an emerging risk that needs to have a P&P activity to mitigate it’? However, they also say this should work the other way in that if there is a deficiency at a key station, prevention and protection staff should be used to cover it.
Responses from Local Residents Resident The resident makes the following observations: The Consultation Process The resident feels that the consultation process has been limited in terms of the opportunities for people to respond (for example, library events being held on weekdays only) and the options under consideration. They also ask why the questionnaire has ‘such a large section on ethnic diversity and other personal details’ that are of ‘no relevance to the issues’.
118 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
The Options The resident argues that ECFRS’s proposed reductions are uneven across the County, the majority (up to 83%) being made in the south of the county and in particular in the unitary authorities of Thurrock and Southend. They also feel that the options do not recognise the variations between the different parts of Essex, and that within Thurrock there are: two major oil storage depots; two of the three main county docks; riverside industry; and the M25 and A13 Dartford Crossing. These, it is felt, are all areas that can give rise to major incidents and require additional resources. Current Population/Situation The population of Thurrock is approximately 161,000 and under option 3 the area would have two full-time pumps and one on-call pump. The resident compares this to Maldon with a population of 61,000 and two on-call pumps, and questions how this is reflective of the difference in population and area in terms of industry and risk. Future Developments It is said that the Thurrock area has one of the greatest commitments for new housing under plans for the Thames Gateway (a further 17,270 homes) and that a new Thames crossing is planned, which will bring another motorway-graded road through Thurrock. The resident feels that the subsequent traffic increase will add to ECFRS’s workload. The resident also questions whether ECFRS will be able to recruit sufficient on-call firefighters to fulfil its proposals - and how these proposals will work if recruitment levels cannot be achieved? Non-Front Line With respect to the support services, the resident questions: why ECFRS occupies such ‘lavish’ headquarters at Kelvedon; whether the Service still uses the old HQ at Hutton; what options have been considered in terms of sharing resources (including management) with neighbouring Services such as Suffolk and Hertfordshire; why ECFRS still has two Chief Fire Officers; and how Essex ended up with the worst industrial relations of any UK FRS. While accepting that public sector organisations must live within their means, the resident feels that ECFRS’s proposals are aimed only at the frontline. Another Option? Finally, the resident suggests another option: ‘making all second pumps on-call appliances, rather than losing fire engines’.
Resident The resident asks the following questions: Why did ECFRS spend £20 million on new premises while reducing front-line staff and what has happened to the old building?
119 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
What are the people in the ‘lovely new building’ doing when there is an emergency? How many people in the new building are losing their jobs and what percentage is that compared to front line staff? How many RTCs do front-line firefighters attend compared to fires - and who has the ‘horrible job’ of extricating people from vehicles during the increasing number of RTCs? How many on-call firefighters does ECFRS have, who are they and where are they from? The resident also comments that reducing to one fire engine per fire station will result in incident attendance delays when ‘there is no crew available due to them being on another accident and not able to attend’. They also claim that there is no mention in the consultation document of the number of RTCs attended by firefighters and that ECFRS is thus misleading the public.
Resident The resident is concerned that ECFRS intends to remove fire engines from Grays, Orsett and Corringham Fire Stations and urges ECFRS and EFA to keep two engines at Grays and Orsett, as well as suitable provision at Corringham. They argue that Thurrock is unique and cannot be compared with the rest of Essex insofar as it has many RTCs and is surrounded by a very busy road network (including the M25, the Dartford Crossing and the planned new crossing). It also has: a growing population; more housing; a growing and changing industrial base; ports and many other COMAH (Control of Major Accident Hazard sites); and the Lakeside shopping centre.
Resident The resident asks the following questions: Given that manpower is more important at incidents than appliances; once the identified appliances are removed from fire stations, what will the intended minimum appliance manning be? What is the proposed Service-wide over-manning percentage to ensure that ‘stand- by’ personnel can be despatched to make up crews to the minimum manning level - especially at key stations? Given that the ‘endemic’ lack of a sufficiently large enough pool of on-call firefighters at some fire stations is a continuing problem, what research has been undertaken to ensure that where a wholetime or day crew is to be replaced by an on-call crew, there will be a sufficiently large pool of recruits available? Will ECFRS refrain from dispensing with wholetime or day crews until a suitable pool of sufficiently trained on-call firefighters are in post?
120 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Resident The resident comments on the area’s ageing population and influx of migrants who struggle to conform to the UK’s way of life - both of which require greater support from the emergency services. They also say that firefighters have been ‘antagonised and annoyed’ by proposed pension changes and that ECFRS is struggling to recruit on-call firefighters in rural areas. The resident thus suggests that ECFRS sits down with firefighters, unions and councillors to prepare a solution that reflects the future, one of which would be to ensure that every Watch includes a paramedic as the FRS is often the first responder to an emergency. They feel that savings could be made by working in conjunction with the NHS.
Resident The resident opposes the proposed removal of a fire engine from Loughton Fire Station. They say that: Loughton has grown substantially over the last few years; the fire crews’ potential workload must have increased; and that they cover two of the busiest parts of the motorway system (the M11 and M25). The resident also understands that the cuts could be stopped if there were a small increase in the annual Council Tax of £5 per household per annum, which they consider a ‘small price to pay’. The resident urges the Fire Authority to oppose the proposals, which they consider ‘ludicrous’ and a ‘waste of resources’.
Other Issues Fire Brigades Union In a further submission, the FBU complains about ECFRS’s failure to apply a consistent approach to the use of statistical information throughout the IRMP process. The Union alleges that ECFRS has used three separate sets of statistics and has ‘failed to use them in an open or consistent manner’. The Union says that, during the first phase of the consultation, ECFRS quoted DCLG fire statistics monitor 2013/14 figures using the following categories: ‘Fires’; ‘Hospital Non-Fatal Casualties’; and ‘Fatalities’. The time period used was the industry standard of 10 years. Following the FBU statistical response to this, the Service then apparently produced a second set of statistics using the DCLG fire statistics monitor 2014/15. On this occasion, three different categories were used: ‘Accidental Dwelling Fires’; ‘Accidental Dwelling Fire Casualties’; and ‘Accidental Dwelling Fire Fatalities’. The time period used was a non‐ industry standard of five years. For the second stage of the IRMP public consultation, it is said that ECFRS has used ‘service generated’ figures - and by using these new statistics, the FBU feels that national to local
121 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
comparisons became irrelevant along with comparisons to any previously used statistics, and that ‘using yet another set of performance indicators, that cannot be verified, has resulted in a lack of transparency and genuine scrutiny has become almost impossible’. It is the view of the FBU that the inconsistent and ‘potentially disingenuous’ use of statistics means that any member of the public responding to the consultation would require additional assistance to interpret the statistical information provided.
122 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Petitions
Overview of Petitions
267. Three petitions were organised during the consultation and this chapter reviews those of which ORS is aware. We apologise if there have been other petitions of which we have no knowledge, but we have cross-checked our records with those of ECFRS and the ones reviewed in the following paragraphs are all those known about.
268. The total number of signatures across the three petitions is 1,611. These were important petitions opposing: any proposals to remove fire engines from Grays, Orsett and Corringham Fire Stations; the removal of a fire engine from Corringham Fire Station; and consultation Options 1 and 3 (with specific reference to proposed changes at Clacton-on- Sea).
Summary of Petitions Petition 1: Clacton-on Sea Fire Station
269. 1,351 people signed a petition entitled ‘Save Clacton’s Full-Time Fire Cover’. The petition was worded exactly as follows:
270. A cover note was also sent stating: ‘please find enclosed a petition against the options one and three of the Essex Fire and Rescue Service cuts. This petition is specific to Clacton-on-Sea but all expressed a desire to stop these cuts’.
123 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Petition 2: Corringham Fire Station
271. 185 people signed a petition opposing the proposed removal of a fire engine from Corringham Fire Station. This was worded as shown overleaf.
Petition 3: Grays, Orsett and Corringham Fire Stations
272. 75 people signed a petition (organised by the Thurrock Labour Party) opposing any proposals to remove fire engines from Grays, Orsett and Corringham Fire Stations. This was worded as follows:
124 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
Overall Conclusions Introduction
273. The EFA will draw its own conclusions from the consultation elements reported here and from the other evidence available for its consideration. So the following remarks are not intended to advise the Authority on its final decision, but only to identify where there was general agreement in the consultation process.
Overall Conclusions
274. The table below shows the relative support for and opposition to the three consultation options. Of course, there were opposing views within each engagement method, but in this case the majority view is stated. Taking everything into consideration, it is clear that option 2 was favoured by the majority of consultation participants and respondents.
OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 NONE MIXED OPEN
QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE: THE OPTION 2 CAMPAIGN QUESTIONNAIRE: THE DOVERCOURT CAMPAIGN QUESTIONNAIRE: OTHER CAMPAIGNS
STAFF FORUMS
PARTNER FORUM
PUBLIC FORUMS
SUBMISSIONS (most support for option 2)
PETITIONS
125 Opinion Research Services Programme 2020 Consultation Report (May 2016)
ORS and Essex Fire Authority Roles
275. Interpreting the overall ‘meaning’ of the consultation outcomes is neither straightforward nor just ‘numerical’ – for the different methods, groups and outcomes have to be not only respected, but also ‘evaluated’ in terms of the relative weight to be attached to each. They cannot be simply ‘summated’ into an unambiguous consensus.
276. It is also worth reiterating that consultation is not a ‘numbers game’ - and that the key issue is not whether most people agree or disagree with particular proposals but whether the reasons for their popularity or unpopularity are rational and convincing. People’s reasoning has been well documented throughout this report, and it is this that the Fire Authority will primarily wish to consider when making its judgements.
277. In this context, it is not the role of ORS to make policy recommendations or to go beyond the fact-based interpretation above. In the light of our general guidance, the Fire Authority will consider all the consultation outcomes, alongside all the other evidence, in order to make its decisions. Ultimately, an overall interpretation of the consultation will depend upon the Authority itself: its members will consider all elements and determine which seem the most telling, by considering the relative merits of the various opinions as the basis for public policy.
278. The challenge for the Authority is to maintain public and professional confidence in the safety and resilience of ECFRS services while also demonstrating that it can successfully deliver appropriate changes to balance its budget. We trust that this report will make at least some contribution to that endeavour.
126