Fire stations

Post by **chameleon** » Tue 27 Dec, 2011 11:32 pm

raveydavey wrote: As a postscript to the enforced closure of Stanks Fire Station, it's interesting to observe that the "underused" Stanks fire station has had two fire engines based there over the Christmas period, rather than the usual one.I don't know what the reasons behind this are (I'd be genuinely interested to know), but a doubling of appliances hardly suggests under utilisation, does it? Two appliances having been the original quota before the last round of rationalisation (cuts).

jan8 · Post by **jan8** » Tue 27 Dec, 2011 11:50 pm

Two appliances having been the original quota before the last round of rationalisation (cuts). ?I don't remember 2 fire engines at Stanks. When was that ? I've been involved at Stanks for almost 15 years and there has never been 2 there in that time.If there has been 2 engines there over the Christmas period, they wont have both been manned, one must have been a spare appliance.

Post by **chameleon** » Wed 28 Dec, 2011 10:23 am

jan8 wrote: Two appliances having been the original quota before the last round of rationalisation (cuts). ?I don't remember 2 fire engines at Stanks. When was that ? I've been involved at Stanks for almost 15 years and there has never been 2 there in that time.If there has been 2 engines there over the Christmas period, they wont have both been manned, one must have been a spare appliance. More than 15 years ago jan, the removal of one was well reported in the press at the time.. The Senior officer at the time may have been a gentleman by the name of Chew.

jan8 · Post by **jan8** » Wed 28 Dec, 2011 10:59 am

chameleon wrote: jan8 wrote: Two appliances having been the original quota before the last round of rationalisation (cuts). ?I don't remember 2 fire engines at Stanks. When was that ? I've been involved at Stanks for almost 15 years and there has never been 2 there in that time.If there has been 2 engines there over the Christmas period, they wont have both been manned, one must have been a spare appliance. More than 15 years ago jan, the removal of one was well reported in the press at the time.. The Senior officer at the time may have been a gentleman by the name of Chew. Oh right, thanks for that Chameleon.

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Wed 28 Dec, 2011 6:24 pm

And we have have a mill fire in Bradford that crews are about to spend a second night fighting where "70 firefighters" (according to the BBC website) have been needed.I can't remember if an appliance has a crew of 5 or 6 nowadays, but either way that is an awful lot of firefighters dragged well away from their normal operating areas. Is that 10-12 appliances plus aerial platform(s), at a conservative guess?It makes you wonder how they cope now, let along once the cuts have been imposed and crews / appliances reduced by the numbers they've agreed. Heaven help us if there are two big incidents at the same time...

dogduke · Post by **dogduke** » Sun 08 Jan, 2012 6:16 pm

raveydavey wrote: Simply scandalous.Not quite a week after "public consultation" closes and it is announced that the entire closure plan will be put into effect, completely unchanged.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-16222191As suspected by many, the consultation period was nothing more than window dressing to make it appear that the public had been allowed to have their say. These plans were set in stone from the moment they were announced.On BBC Radio Leeds this evening, a stand in presenter who normally works on BBC Radio Tees and who obviously had no grasp of the wider picture gave the chair of the West Yorkshire Fire Authority a very easy ride, failing to challenge him on several points that were, at best, clearly inaccurate.How can he say that once Stanks and Gipton fire stations are closed and replaced with a new facility "in Killingbeck", that coverage for East Leeds will be better? There will be a third less fire fighters, crewing a third less fire engines, at a fire station considerably further away from most people on the patch. How is this "better coverage"?I hope he can rest easy in his bed at night. Is there still a local government ombudsman and could thisfiasco beclassed as maladministration ?

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Sun 08 Jan, 2012 7:00 pm

It seems that this has been a done deal from the outset.I've raised the matter several times with my 3 ward councilors and my MP. The MP, George Mudie, send a letter acknowledging my original email and I've heard nothing since.One of the three councilors replied to my original email saying that they were planning to organise a protest, but I've heard nothing since.Since then the whole plan has been rubber stamped and rushed through.It's interesting to note that the additional appliance that was station at Stanks before Christmas is still there - a station set to close suddenly has it's appliances quietly doubled - what gives?I honestly think that any lingering semblance of local democracy has been killed off with these proposals.

jan8 · Post by **jan8** » Sun 08 Jan, 2012 7:42 pm

raveydavey wrote: It seems that this has been a done deal from the outset.I've raised the matter several times with my 3 ward councilors and my MP. The MP, George Mudie, send a letter acknowledging my original email and I've heard nothing since.One of the three councilors replied to my original email saying that they were planning to organise a protest, but I've heard nothing since.Since then the whole plan has been rubber stamped and rushed through.It's interesting to note that the additional appliance that was station at Stanks before Christmas is still there - a station set to close suddenly has it's appliances quietly doubled - what gives?I honestly think that any lingering semblance of local democracy has been killed off with these proposals. Just have to re-iterate, that whilst there may be 2 fire engines parked at Stanks, only 1 is manned, the other is a spare engine with no crew that is being stored there for the moment.

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Sat 01 Sep, 2012 10:25 pm

The mind truly boggles, but after last years nodded through cuts, even more are being planned.The fire stations that were supposed to provide support to the "rationalised" (closed / merged) stations are now to be closed and merged themselves. So, less appliances, less crews and even further apart in the event cover is needed."Six fire stations in Leeds would shut with three new bases replacing them.The stations earmarked for closure are Hunslet, Morley, Rothwell, Garforth, Cookridge and Moortown."http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... -4888337So cover for the "new" Killingbeck fire station (planned to supercedes Gipton and Stanks), will be moved miles further out as Garforth and Moortown are closed, leading to vastly increased response times and lives put at serious risk. Despite what we were told in the previous consultation process...

book · Post by **book** » Sat 01 Sep, 2012 11:11 pm

I'm not getting involved in a political debate here but there are two new police stations being built at the moment, Elland Road on the old dog track stadium site and J41 M1 at Wrenthorpe. Is this because they are using reserves to fund these projects or are they PFI projects. It seems in these times of austerity that we could do without new builds? A city the size of leeds needs its emergency services wide spread and if response times are effected then it's not an option to close stations.