Fire stations

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Sat 10 Sep, 2011 5:55 pm

Not strictly "secret" Leeds, although not as widely publicised as it should be and if you live in Leeds it will affect you.http://www.westyorksfire.gov.uk/news/Fi ... oposalsThe Fire Service has plans to drastically cut the provision of cover across West Yorkshire as a whole, but with a specific focus on cuts in Leeds. The report claims that this can be done without impacting on front line cover, under the disingenuous title of "Making West Yorkshire Safer"The "Gipton and Stanks Business Case" proposes to close Gipton and Stanks Fire Stations and replace then with a single new build station at Killingbeck on York Road (at a site yet to be purchased). Hidden away in this proposal though is the plan to reduce the existing three fire tenders (1 at Stanks, 2 at Gipton) to just 2 crewed appliances - a 33% reduction in cover. A third uncrewed appliance will be based on the Killingbeck site, which will be staffed only when demanded or at periods of expected peak (ie Bonfire Night or forecasted severe weather) - so most of the time it will be useless as there will be no-one on site to operate it. The report is predictably vague about where this extra crew will come from or when it will be decided that they are needed.The report states that the Stanks Fire Station is "poorly sited" with "difficult access" - well, the Fire Service built it where it is in 1973 and no-one has ever complained of this before. I live yards away and have never seen any fire appliance struggle to get into, or out of the site.It goes on to claim that the Stanks appliance was called to 688 "operational incidents" in 2009/10 - which averages out at less than two incidents a day over the year.I have no idea how they have arrived at this figure - the Stanks appliance is called out multiple times every day, yet at the stated figures the law of averages suggests that it could go for several days at a time without being called out. As from today I'm monitoring the number of times a fire engine goes past my house with the lights and sirens on, because I'm damn sure the quoted figures are incorrect or have been "massaged" for the purposes of the report.Worryingly this line is tucked away deep in the report "there is some potential for fires to become more developed in these initial stages." In other words, fires will get worse before crews arrive, which inevitably means that people will die. This is the truth of these proposalsAnd then the plan reveals that the proposed new fire station will have a significantly reduced area that it will be able to cover in the stated 7 minute response time, which appears to be the gold standard set for a high risk call (see page 11 of 12 for the map).As an exercise, lets assume that these plans are approved and then the following happens: Both Killingbeck appliances are called to an RTC at the Shaftesbury junction on York Road - a bus and a car have collided, people are trapped and there has been a significant fuel spillage resulting in a serious fire hazard - both appliance crews are fully committed to the incident. It's 5pm on a midweek evening, so York Road is quickly jammed solid with traffic, as are most of the local roads with people trying to avoid the congestion. This quickly backs up onto the Inner Ring Road. Then a house fire is reported in Swarcliffe. There are "persons reported trapped". Where is the fire engine going to come from? Hunslet or Leeds Central? How long will that take with York Road gridlocked? Garforth or Moortown? How long will that take along the Ring Road at rush hour? Wetherby? It doesn't bear thinking about.Moving away from Gipton / Stanks, there are plans to reduce the appliances at Moortown to a single fire appliance and an FRU (Fire Response Unit - essentially a van or 4x4 fitted with a pump and some basic equipment) and to close Otley and Rawdon Fire Stations and replace them with a new build fire station at Menston. Bear in mind of course that Rawdon provides front line back up to Leeds Bradford International Airport at the moment. It's ironic that the Moortown Business Plan makes several references to the proximity Gipton Fire Station, despite separate proposals to close that facility.So, please, read the proposal, digest in great detail the business cases and let the powers that be have your thoughts.

liits · Post by **liits** » Sat 10 Sep, 2011 7:51 pm

What is often forgotten in restructuring programs like this is that services such as the Fire Service are not a business and should not have a business model applied to them [the clue is in the name].The only time you are a customer of such a business is when you’re stood on the pavement watching your house burn down.

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Sat 10 Sep, 2011 8:36 pm

Precisely - for 99.9% of your life you'll have no need at all for the Fire Service. But when you need them you need them immediately, 100%.

Post by **chameleon** » Sat 10 Sep, 2011 10:02 pm

And there is no substitute for local knowledge as was illustrated this summer in a case of Whinmoor's burning (Davey will understand that!).Having given a prcise description of the location and detail the weakest sat-nav would cope with, the chaps finally arrived having been to and searched another area of woodland the control centre had given. I repaeted my description of the whereabouts to the guys and the retort was - 'what we got didn't start to resemble that.' The message it seems was combined by control with a second call giving an incorrect location. Now I know the control centre staff won't be local but the crew was and soon realised where they were actually needed.If appliances have in future to come from other areas, a similar confusion over the location in a situation involving people could have a very poor outcome.I too am wondering where in Killingbeck may have been identified. Much of the 'spare space' is green space and as Davey rightly points out, other areas would be a nightmare in traffic terms.Do staff still occupy the houses abounding the Gipton site? I wonder what will happen to these when the station is closed/disposed of.

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Sat 10 Sep, 2011 10:12 pm

You make some very valid points there chameleon.One thing I overlooked in my original post, and which will be familiar to regular readers are the plans for the new "Outer Outer Ring Road" which will dissect the current countryside between Whinmoor / Swarcliffe and Thorner / Scholes, connecting to the M1 at Thorpe Park.This new dual carriageway will have a major junction with the A64 and the whole area surrounding it is to be designated as a development zone - thousands of new homes, offices, factories, warehouses and retail developments plus all the attendant people that occupy these places. All this will pass within half a mile of Stanks Fire Station and will radically alter any risk assessment of the area. As these plans are already well advanced, surely there is a requirement for them to be considered as part of the Fire Service review - after all the services provided will have to cover this area in the future.There may well be an argument for increasing cover at Stanks from one appliance to two (as has been the case several times over this summer - something that seems to have been kept very quiet) once the future needs are incorporated.

jan8 · Post by **jan8** » Sun 11 Sep, 2011 1:04 am

[quotenick="raveydavey"]Not strictly "secret" Leeds, although not as widely publicised as it should be and if you live in Leeds it will affect you.http://www.westyorksfire.gov.uk/news/Fi ... oposalsThe report states that the Stanks Fire Station is "poorly sited" with "difficult access" - well, the Fire Service built it where it is in 1973 and no-one has ever complained of this before. I live yards away and have never seen any fire appliance struggle to get into, or out of the site.It goes on to claim that the Stanks appliance was called to 688 "operational incidents" in 2009/10 - which averages out at less than two incidents a day over the year.I have no idea how they have arrived at this figure - the Stanks appliance is called out multiple times every day, yet at the stated figures the law of averages suggests that it could go for several days at a time without being called out. As from today I'm monitoring the number of times a fire engine goes past my house with the lights and sirens on, because I'm damn sure the quoted figures are incorrect or have been "massaged" for the purposes of the report.Hi RaveydaveyThere weren't any speed bumps in the road when Stanks first opened, they have only appeared in the last few years and do significantly slow things down.Yes Stanks appliance is out multiple times every day, but not with the blue lights on I can assure you, just doing mundane duties keeping the public safe not always on emergency calls, so the figures quoted will be (and are) correct.I cant believe that I've just written that, I'm going to lose my job when the 2 stations merge

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Sun 11 Sep, 2011 12:53 pm

jan8 wrote: There weren't any speed bumps in the road when Stanks first opened, they have only appeared in the last few years and do significantly slow things down.Yes Stanks appliance is out multiple times every day, but not with the blue lights on I can assure you, just doing mundane duties keeping the public safe not always on emergency calls, so the figures quoted will be (and are) correct.I cant believe that I've just written that, I'm going to lose my job when the 2 stations merge Hi Jan8, I'm sorry to hear that you are one of the people directly threatened with losing their job - I've been through a similar protracted process myself recently and it's not good.I'm genuinely surprised to read that there are only an average for 2 emergency calls a day at Stanks, living nearby it seems much busier.In fact, tucked away elsewhere in the report (within the Silsden Business case in fact*), is a graph showing that Stanks is the 18th busiest fire station in the county out of 48 stations, with an average call out of around 3 incidents a day (which would equate around 1000 incidents, not 688 as reported within the Swarcliffe Business case). This also shows that Stanks is busier than stations such as Castleford, Morley, Cleckheaton, Cookridge and Ossett.On this basis a new Killingbeck station with just two crewed appliances permanently available is going to be the busiest fire station in West Yorkshire. Combining the stated 3 emergency calls a day at Stanks with the 10 call outs shown for Gipton gives an average approaching 13 daily emergency call outs. That is significantly busier than either Bradford or Leeds Central fire stations which have significantly more resources available to them.* - Silsden Business case is available here: http://www.westyorksfire.gov.uk/uploads ... 7b8.pdfThe graph is on page 5 of 10.

liits · Post by **liits** » Sun 11 Sep, 2011 6:20 pm

I always understood that the site of a Fire Station [and ambulance] was determined by some bizarre formula based on the [residential] population density and or the number of premises of significant risk [of fire]?

Post by **chameleon** » Sun 11 Sep, 2011 6:48 pm

liits wrote: I always understood that the site of a Fire Station [and ambulance] was determined by some bizarre formula based on the [residential] population density and or the number of premises of significant risk [of fire]? So much these days is driven by the element of risk when planning and decision making, often resulting in some apparently bizare and expensive conclusions. The work undertaken and expense of reconstructing the Roundhay Park Dam and overfow for the 1:1000 year flood risk could be seen as an example to demonstrate the care which has to be given to safeguard the population.I would be interested to see the risk assesment giving rise to the cconclusions drawn in regard to the Fire & Rescue service here.Providing one starion more or less between two others has good points but the reduction in overall number of appliances must be questionable.One only has to take a cursery look at any telvised report of a major incident to see how many are required to be present. It may well be the case that the restructured provision could cater for this, but how are smaller 'everyday' incidents also requiring urgent attendance to be accommodated - however small the risk is calculated to be, surely the service has to be in a position to deal with what ever arrises?

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Sun 11 Sep, 2011 7:02 pm

chameleon wrote: One only has to take a cursery look at any telvised report of a major incident to see how many are required to be present. It may well be the case that the restructured provision could cater for this, but how are smaller 'everyday' incidents also requiring urgent attendance to be accommodated - however small the risk is calculated to be, surely the service has to be in a position to deal with what ever arrises? Quite - it's difficult to see how an adequate response could be given to another event like Allied Colloids or Higsons, should the unfortunate need arise. I'm sure that the first appliance would be "on scene" within the stipulated timescales laid down in the Government targets, but the only way to provide enough fire fighting equipment would be to drag appliances from across the county, and possibly from neighbouring counties as well with all the attendant delays that would incur. How long would the first on scene have to wait for back up, putting them at risk as well? That raises the question as to who covers the areas these appliances have left to attend the major incident?I'm sure that we'd be told that plans would be in place, but ultimately it would result in minimal cover, probably using stored (resilience) appliances (with the associated reliability issues) and crews unfamiliar with the area they have to cover.Look at the amount of industry close to Stanks Fire Station - Elida Faberge (who used to sponsor the Stanks appliance) and a good number of printing companies, including whatever Howsons is called now - all of which use a heady mix of highly flammable chemicals.