Agenda item

Report of the Chief Fire Officer (DSFRA/19/15) attached.

Minutes:

The Authority considered a report of the Chief Fire Officer (DSFRA/19/5) to which was appended the following two reports as considered previously by the Community Safety & Corporate Planning Committee at its meeting on 27 June 2019:

·        Report CSCPC/19/2 – Safer Together Programme Service Delivery Operating Model Phase 2 – Reallocation of Resources; and

·        Report CSCPC/19/3 - Safer Together Programme Service Delivery Operating Model Phase 2 – Consultation Process.

The first report identified that the Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service (“the Service”) had undertaken a comprehensive strategic risk analysis of the fire and rescue related risks faced by its communities through the Integrated Risk Management Planning (IRMP) process.  This had been supported by an organisational risk analysis detailed in the Fire & Rescue Plan.  The two analyses had identified that changes to the current Service Delivery Operating Model were required to deliver against the Service objectives of:

·        prioritising and increasing its capacity to deliver prevention and protection activities, targeted and focused to secure a reduction in known risks in each area;

·        securing the best response possible in meeting statutory duties and by effectively matching existing resources to known risks; and

·        utilising resources efficiently to ensure the right response is made at the right time.

The Integrated Risk Management Plan approved by the Authority in 2018 identified the following community risks:

·        an increasingly ageing population;

·        common health and well-being risks;

·        the unavailability of on-call appliances;

·        the historical distribution of service delivery resources;

·        an increasing demand for emergency medical responses; and

·        an increase in the number of serious fires affecting commercial premises.

The development of the Service Delivery Operating Model was aimed at reshaping service delivery provision to provide an efficient response to risk, meeting statutory dwelling fire and road traffic collision duties, addressing over and under capacity, updating duty systems to better match both response requirements and staff needs and releasing resources to support further investment in prevention and protection activities to reduce future risk.  Consequently, the proposals encompassed stations, appliances, operational duty systems and staffing levels.

The detailed risk modelling process had identified an over-provision of resource to the extent that 17 appliances could be removed from the existing fleet of 121 and 8 stations closed without any significant impact on the risks faced by the community.  Three stations could change status from having whole-time staff on duty both day and night to crewing with whole-time staff during the day and on-call staff at night.  Another 14 appliances could have availability varied to more effectively align to risk, again all without significant impact.  Additionally, analysis of the changing risk across Devon and Somerset highlighted a need for a more flexible response to changes to risk that could occur daily and seasonally.  To address this, it was proposed to introduce day-duty “roving” appliances that could be deployed dynamically and targeted at known risk “hot spots”.

A pre-consultation exercise had been undertaken by an external company – the Consultation Institute – to sample the population of Devon and Somerset and gauge their expectations of the fire and rescue service.  The report detailed some of the responses from the pre-consultation exercise, the outcomes of which had informed development of the final options proposed for full public consultation.  The methodology for the full public consultation (including publication of a consultation document and associated questionnaire, stakeholder analysis, staff engagement events and public “drop in” exhibitions) was detailed in report CSCPC/19/3.

As Chair of the Community Safety & Corporate Planning Committee, Councillor Redman commented that while the Committee had resolved, after considerable debate, to recommend that the Authority approve the options for public consultation, concern had been expressed at the meeting that, in presenting the options, the flexibility within the proposals should be clarified.  Given this, Councillor Redman MOVED, with Councillor Buchan seconding:

(a).       that, as recommended by the Community Safety & Corporate Planning Committee on 27 June, the following options be approved for the purposes of public consultation;

Option 1 - Station closures

Option 2 - Station closures and removal of all third engines

Option 3 - Station closures, removal of all third and some second engines

Option 4 - Station closures, removal of all third and some second engines and change of status to day crewing

Option 5 - Station closures, removal of all third and some second engines, change of status to day crewing with a change of status to On Call at night

Option 6 - Station closures, removal of all third and some second engines, change of status to day crewing with a change of status to On Call at night, change of status to some additional second engines to become On Call at night only and the introduction of day crewed wholetime roving engines.

(b).       that, in approving the above options for public consultation purposes, the presentation of options for consultation be amended to make clear the flexibility of the proposals, specifically that:

(i)           with the exception of Option 6 (which is dependent upon Option 4 for personnel together with either Options 2, 3 or 5 for fire engines), each option may be considered individually as part of the public consultation;

(ii)          the individual elements of the options can be explored as part of the public consultation;

(iii)        subject to (i) above, any final recommendations following public consultation could comprise all, some or a combination of the elements of the options that have been subject to public consultation;

(iv)        that full risk assessment information on the options will be available as part of the public consultation as required.

(c).        that report CSCPC/19/3 on the consultation process to be undertaken (as attached at Appendix B to report DSFRA/19/15 to this Authority meeting and considered by the Community Safety & Corporate Planning Committee on 27 June 2018) be noted.

The subsequent debate on the Motion and proposals included the following points:

·        clarification was sought and provided on the “roving” appliances proposal;

·        clarification was sought and provided on removal of appliances from the fleet

Some Members expressed concerns that, given the level of public response they had already received raising a number of issues, there might be benefit in deferring a decision on public consultation to allow more time for discussions with staff and other stakeholders on proposed options for consultation.  The Assistant Chief Fire Officer (Service Improvement) advised that considerable effort had been undertaken to identify and verify the risk data used to inform development of the options and that there had also been considerable engagement with both representative bodies and other stakeholders (including the Authority).

Councillor Biederman MOVED, with Councillor Way seconding:

that the Motion [moved by Councillor Redman] be referred to a future meeting for consideration

In debating the amendment, other Members acknowledged that there had already been considerable engagement on the issues, including a pre-consultation process.  It was acknowledged that some of the proposals may have generated a level of public concern but equally a view was expressed that deferring the public consultation would not afford any advantages and that the full public consultation would present the appropriate opportunity for the public to express its views.

The amendment was put to the vote and declared LOST.

There being no other amendments proposed, the substantive motion proposed by Councillor Redman was put to the vote and declared CARRIED, following which it was

RESOLVED

(a).       that, as recommended by the Community Safety & Corporate Planning Committee on 27 June, the following options be approved for the purposes of public consultation;

Option 1 - Station closures

Option 2 - Station closures and removal of all third engines

Option 3 - Station closures, removal of all third and some second engines

Option 4 - Station closures, removal of all third and some second engines and change of status to day crewing

Option 5 - Station closures, removal of all third and some second engines, change of status to day crewing with a change of status to On Call at night

Option 6 - Station closures, removal of all third and some second engines, change of status to day crewing with a change of status to On Call at night, change of status to some additional second engines to become On Call at night only and the introduction of day crewed wholetime roving engines.

(b).       that, in approving the above options for public consultation purposes, the presentation of options for consultation be amended to make clear the flexibility of the proposals, specifically that:

(i)           with the exception of Option 6 (which is dependent upon Option 4 for personnel together with either Options 2, 3 or 5 for fire engines), each option may be considered individually as part of the public consultation;

(ii)          the individual elements of the options can be explored as part of the public consultation;

(iii)        subject to (i) above, any final recommendations following public consultation could comprise all, some or a combination of the elements of the options that have been subject to public consultation;

(iv)        full risk assessment information on the options will be available as part of the public consultation as required.

(c).        that report CSCPC/19/3 on the consultation process to be undertaken (as attached at Appendix B to report DSFRA/19/15 to this Authority meeting and considered by the Community Safety & Corporate Planning Committee on 27 June 2018) be noted.

(SEE ALSO MINUTES DSFRA/15[a] and [b] AND DSFRA/16 ABOVE)

(At this point – 13.00hours – the meeting was adjourned, reconvening at 13.10hours)

 

Supporting documents: