Firefighters in Leicestershire call for public to have their say on cuts

[velbert]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lei...e-34595171

[Sponge bob square pants]

I hear Leicestershire FRS has made approaches to surrounding brigade to ask them if they could take any of the proposed redundant ff's so a real threat

I've heard that too, but the brigades in question are not anywhere near leicestershire, they are Scotland and Northern England. Are they prepared to up sticks and move just to join, as I've heard it's trainees?

[brumble49]

Fire authority backs U-turn over cuts proposals

Fire authority members today backed plans for a u-turn on planned unpopular cuts to the fire service.

Previous proposals would have seen two fire stations closed and 88 firefighter jobs lost to save Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service £1.5 million a year.

But last month it was announced the service is to receive a £2 million funding windfall as a result of being transferred out of Department of Communities and Local Government control and placed under the Home Office.

This prompted a rethink on the frontline cuts which would have seen Central and Kibworth fire stations close and 11 fire engines removed from service.


Today, all but three Liberal Democrat members of the County Fire Authority voted for the revised proposals.

Deputy Chief Fire Officer Steve Lunn said there had been "overwhelming" objection to the original proposals in a ten-week consultation before Christmas.

Five separate petitions, including one organised by the FBU protesting at the original proposals, with more than 14,000 signatures alone, had been raised.

Under the revised Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP), as well as two closure-threatened fire stations remaining open, five of nine appliances facing the axe are spared.

The plans will still see smaller Tactical Response Vehicles(TRVs) - described by the FBU as "a van with a jet washer on" - replace appliances at Melton, Coalville and Market Harborough.

Loughborough will also lose one of its two whole time crewed fire engines by one of the smaller vehicles on a two-year pilot, along with Oakham.

Mr Lunn added: "The revised IRMP recommendations address the concerns raised during consultation."

He added that there had been "extremely positive" feedback from using one of the TRVs in a pilot scheme in Uppingham for fire and rescue and medical emergencies.

Lib Dem county councillor Michael Charlesworth said; "While there has been a u-turn on the most radical proposals I still have concerns this is a huge step forward. Let's hope the TRVs do what we're told they can do.

"Hopefully, Loughborough has not lost a pump at the expense of the city being protected."

Mr Charlesworth asked committee chairman Nick Rushton on a point of order why the Chief Fire Officer Mr Chandler was not at the meeting.

Mr Rushton said: "The Chief Fire Officer is unwell, he has been for three weeks and doesn't feel up to doing the job at the moment."

He added that the revised proposals would see a service "fit for purpose with a balanced budget."

The authority agreed to a 1.97 per cent increase to its share of Council Tax - a 2p per week increase for a Band D property.

FBU RESPONSE

Leicestershire FBU chairman Gavin Wright told the meeting: "We wholeheartedly welcome the announcements to abandon plans put forward in September to close Central and Kibworth fire stations, along with five other fire engines earmarked for removal.

"One thing the LFRS public consultation has proved is that the public care passionately about their fire service, they were most certainly opposed to the proposals put forward in September.

"The FBU are in no doubt lives have been saved by scrapping the previous dangerous plans put forward by the chief and his principal officers.

"We thank you... to quote Sir Peter Soulsby (authority vice chairman)...'for putting the previous proposals in the waste paper basket, where they belong.' "

But he added: "We are still very concerned with the plans to remove Melton, Coalville, Harborough's and Loughborough's second trioed and tested engines and replace them with these untested vehicles that can carry just two firefighters."

He also called on the authority to review the decision to remove Western Fire Station's - "the busiest in the county" - with little or no public consultation.

He added: "We are open to change and new ways of working when treated as equals rather than subordinates."

Amanda Montague, Unison representative for support staff at LFRS said: "What Unison wants now is full negotiation on the future structure of the service with attention being paid to the job security of its support staff in order that they can now concentrate on carrying out their part in the transformation of the service."


http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/author...story.html

[bill.advanced]

The fact that these cuts were ever proposed in the first place says it all, and the fact that we seem to be celebrating lesser cuts speaks multitudes. Possibly the initial proposals were only seen as a means to getting what they realy wanted the revised cuts. If they had came in with the revised cuts initialy they would have been disputed, but now apparently we have to celebrate them. Cuts are cuts, wrap them up any way you like, but they lead to a lowering in service, increase the risk to the public and the members.

[cowboy]

yes the city win at the cost of the county at the time introducing medical response sir peter soulsby looking after himself

[Benito M]

What is this " 2 million windfall" as a result of going from DCLG to Home Office?

[bill.advanced]

What is this " 2 million windfall" as a result of going from DCLG to Home Office?

What I don't get is there is no mention of future payments, a windfall can only give temporary finance what about future years.
This whole exercise smells of something unpleasant.
I still don't know why the FBU are content with cuts.

[velbert]

Loughborough fire engine to be replaced with response vehicle
Loughborough Station is currently home to two engines but one will be taken away and replaced with a Tactical Response Vehicle for a trial.

• ZOE HIGGINS
  • 13:45, 13 FEB 2017
    
  NEWS
  
  
  ONE of Loughborough’s two remaining fire engines is to be replaced by a smaller response vehicle for a trial period later this year - but the Fire Brigades Union has expressed concerns with the plans.
  
  Loughborough Station is currently home to two engines but proposals to cut this resource in half have been discussed for more than two years.
  
  At one time it was thought there would be just the one engine left in town.
  
  Now, as part of its draft 2017/20 Budget Strategy, Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Combined Fire Authority has confirmed that one of Loughborough’s engines will be taken away but will be replaced with a Tactical Response Vehicle (TRV) for a trial period from August.
  
  This will cut the number of firefighters employed at Loughborough from 44 to 36, with eight of the original number being “redeployed across the service where required”.
  
  Richard Hall, area manager operational response for Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service, said: “The TRV is a smaller fire engine that has been designed by a very experienced team of end users/professionals within Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service.
  
  “This team have developed a vehicle that will be equipped and crewed to deal with the smaller types of incidents and also undertake initial actions at larger incidents prior to the arrival of reinforcing fire engines.
  
  “The main difference between a TRV and a standard fire engine is size. One is built on a lorry chassis, the other on a van chassis.
  
  “The TRV is provided with similar equipment to that carried on a standard fire engine. There is just less of it.
  
  “For instance a standard fire engine carries 1,800 litres of water whilst a TRV carries around 700 litres.
  
  “This equally applies to the crew in that a standard fire engine has four whilst a TRV has a minimum crew of two.
  
  
  
  Crew manager for Loughborough Fire Station Graham Vaux.
  “We have found that the vast majority of incidents that we attend do not require all of the equipment or crew that LFRS includes on a standard fire engine.
  
  “For instance, around 60 per cent represent small fires and false alarms.
  
  “As such the working group are currently confirming which incident types the TRVs can be considered to be used for once they arrive in service later this year.
  
  “TRVs will provide LFRS with a more flexible response to emergencies.
  
  “The TRVs will enable us to send the right people with the right skills and the right equipment to manage and resolve emergencies.
  
  “In addition LFRS are currently working with East Midlands Ambulance Service on an Emergency Fire Responder trial where fire and rescue staff are mobilised to the more serious medical emergencies.
  
  “The TRVs are planned to be included in this very important new area of collaboration.”
  
  Graham Vaux, brigade chairman for the Fire Brigades Union in Leicestershire and Loughborough crew manager, told the Echo that the union has concerns over the plans.
  
  He said: “At any one time there could only be six people to cover the whole of Loughborough which could be difficult if we get a big incident.
  
  “At the moment it’s not been tried and tested in Leicestershire so we are working with management to make sure the incidents it is sent to are appropriate and there are enough resources to deal with situations.
  
  “We just want to make sure it’s done safely and not done to save money and cut corners.
  
  “The ideal standard would be two engines and at least four firefighters each but the TRVs may only respond with two people.
  
  “Fundamentally we are against these cuts; we are going from what was once three engines to currently two and now one.”
  
  

http://www.loughboroughecho.net/news/loc...e-12575908

[noisycat]

For a moment,the way this article is set out,it seems that the FBU were supporting this idea with the photograph of the union chair in the middle. It always makes me laugh how senior managers are in full support of these cuts possibly because it may enhance their journey up the greasy pole.

[harry]

“We have found that the vast majority of incidents that we attend do not require all of the equipment or crew that LFRS includes on a standard fire engine.''

Has anybody EVER attemded an incident where ALL (or even most) of the equipment included on a 'standard fire engine' was used, ?