Fire stations

[liits]

chameleon wrote: 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. Actually, I wasn’t thinking in terms of the modern “elfin safety” rubbish, I was trying o remember something which I’d read about regarding the tramway extension out to Gipton and the further proposal to Seacroft.I’m sure that I’d read that the reason for the site of the police and fire stations at Gipton was because of the number of households and the [then] proposed industrial units at Seacroft.There must be something in it or else why would a fire station have been built in Stanks [along with the housing]?

[liits]

chameleon wrote: 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. Actually, I wasn’t thinking in terms of the modern “elfin safety” rubbish, I was trying o remember something which I’d read about regarding the tramway extension out to Gipton and the further proposal to Seacroft.I’m sure that I’d read that the reason for the site of the police and fire stations at Gipton was because of the number of households and the [then] proposed industrial units at Seacroft.There must be something in it or else why would a fire station have been built in Stanks [along with the housing]?

[chameleon]

liits wrote: chameleon wrote: 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. Actually, I wasn’t thinking in terms of the modern “elfin safety” rubbish, I was trying o remember something which I’d read about regarding the tramway extension out to Gipton and the further proposal to Seacroft.I’m sure that I’d read that the reason for the site of the police and fire stations at Gipton was because of the number of households and the [then] proposed industrial units at Seacroft.There must be something in it or else why would a fire station have been built in Stanks [along with the housing]? Yes you're right liits, I was just musing on the way so many decisions are arrived at these days - and reflecting upon how the goal-posts seem to move to suit policy needs

[electricaldave]

I wonder if any of those involved were also involved in this total screw-up, and I wonder just howm nay stations will lose as a result of the wastage that the FBU had warned about for years.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12 ... 1084406You never ever see senior managers being disciplined, sacked or , quite frankly, put in prison for the harebrained schemes that waste money on a monumental scale.I am currently work using an IT system that is a small part of the one that was proposed, it cost over £200 millions, was projected to ultimately cost over £500 millions, and still they cannot guaruntee that it will carry out the function as intended - the project has been pretty much frozen. The thing has some odd little idiosyncroses that really make it cumbersome whilst also showing some of the huge adavantages it might have had if our glorious leaders had the ability to make it work.http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809 ... .aspxThese grandiose schemes are just ego driven by individuals who seem to want to leave their mark on the world, no doubt the rationalisation of police forces into a single entity in Scotland is bound to go well - can't see anything going wrong with that.

[chameleon]

I think Dave, this was more a directive under the former Government which had a love-love relationship with the now discredited Privat Finance initiative as well as a perceived cost saving by centralisation.Having been involved with the fall-out from PFI and seen first hand the problems that arise and how the contracts invariably favour the money man in any disagreement, I can understand how difficult it can be to shed the load once it has been agreed - and therefore, the costs.As for the initiative of centralising after devolving, doubtless the benefits of reversing this will be a stark new revelation in time to come.The wheel goes round, doesn't it....    

[liits]

electricaldave wrote: I wonder if any of those involved were also involved in this total screw-up, and I wonder just howm nay stations will lose as a result of the wastage that the FBU had warned about for years.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12 ... 1084406You never ever see senior managers being disciplined, sacked or , quite frankly, put in prison for the harebrained schemes that waste money on a monumental scale.I am currently work using an IT system that is a small part of the one that was proposed, it cost over £200 millions, was projected to ultimately cost over £500 millions, and still they cannot guaruntee that it will carry out the function as intended - the project has been pretty much frozen. The thing has some odd little idiosyncroses that really make it cumbersome whilst also showing some of the huge adavantages it might have had if our glorious leaders had the ability to make it work.http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809 ... .aspxThese grandiose schemes are just ego driven by individuals who seem to want to leave their mark on the world, no doubt the rationalisation of police forces into a single entity in Scotland is bound to go well - can't see anything going wrong with that. I currently use an IT system that is downloadable free from Microsoft -and yes it can be used for commercial purposes, which my employer [who is also my Local Authority] paid into the seven figures mark for! Only quality stuff, down here in "the smoke".

[raveydavey]

There are two reports in yesterdays (Saturday) YMP that help illustrate my earlier comments.The first relates to a fire in an electrical substation at Knostrop Sewage works. A fairly major incident by the sounds of it, which required the attendance of 4 appliances - 2 from Gipton and 2 from Leeds Central. That left the Stanks appliance as the only immediate cover for the whole of East Leeds. Without the Stanks appliance, if anything else had occurred back up would have had to travel in from either Hunslet, Garforth or Moortown (which is also due to have cover scaled back in this review process).The second is the road traffic collision on the M1 near the Selby Road junction where a car ended up on it's roof blocking the northbound carriageway on Thursday evening which closed the motorway for some time. This required the attendance of the Garforth, Stanks and Gipton appliances, and all at the height of the rush hour. This then occupied every appliance based in East Leeds for some time, again leaving cover to appliances based on the other side of the city during the evening peak.It doesn't take a genius to figure out how thinly stretched cover is at the moment and the powers that be want to reduce cover further still? That is a very scary prospect.

[chameleon]

If you share concern - this is of interest and offers a shance to have your say -http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... _1_3859987

[jan8]

There will be a public meeting on 17th November at Wellington Hill Residents Association, Ringwood Drive, LS14 1AR starting at 6.30pm about the closure of Stanks Fire Station.Please try and attend - the real facts and figures will be given, not the massaged figures released by the Fire Authority !!!Thanks.

[Worldcup]

raveydavey wrote: 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.     Interesting that everyone agrees that one of only 5 very high risk areas is one that's going to have increased attendance times which has to increase the risk to public safety and increase damage to property