Spelthorne Will The Proposals Save Or Cost The Tax Payer?

In the October 2013 edition of Fire magazine the editor states that the fire service in general is high performing producing a social return of about 6 billion for 2 billion invested(Other reports suggest that this could be a gross underestimate). The benefits to society of a fully funded fire service are clear and tangible to many observers. Why then are Surrey Fire Authority and Surrey Fire and Rescue Service making the case to merge Sunbury and Staines Fire stations into one new location but in the process losing one fire engine? The consultation survey information states that the savings generated by this will provide a balanced equitable service across the county without the need for a reduction in the response standard. It goes on to state a predicted response standard for Spelthorne. This forms part of the Surrey PSP (Public Safety Plan). Nationally this is called Integrated Risk Management Planning. The FBU supports the principle of IRMP but only if implemented & applied correctly. Fire Brigades Union Its About Time report 2010 FBU had always fully supported a risk-based approach to fire cover so long as it is conducted according to a robust methodology. However, IRMP was introduced by the UK government in such a way that fire cover standards would be set, fire authority by fire authority, in the full knowledge that they would be determined, not by a thorough ongoing analysis or assessment of risk, but would instead be concocted in order to match funding levels politicians wished to allocate. Surrey In Surrey the current attendance standard is that 85% of the population will receive an appliance within eight minutes of a call. There is no mention of risk or local circumstances. Is it the case that community fire safety has ensured that the risk is identical in 85% of households in Surrey? This cannot be the case. Even if it is, what does the 85% of the population part of the standard mean? Does it mean that everyone in Surrey will get an appliance within eight minutes on 17 out of 20 times that they call for one? Or does it mean that 85% of the population will get an appliance within eight minutes every time they call, and the other 15% will never get an appliance within eight minutes? If it means the latter, and in many fire and rescue services with similar local attendance standards it does, what it really means is that 15% of the population have no attendance standard whatsoever. This is unacceptable. We understand that Surrey has struggled even to meet this standard, so it is considering worsening its response standard to an appliance within 10 minutes. If this is the case, then quite obviously the attendance standard is based on the resources that the brigade has, not the risk faced by the community. Compared to the simple resource-based, blanket approach to fire cover adopted by services like Surrey, the old national standard, graded on the basis of building density, was a highly sophisticated risk management tool. 1 Surrey did reduce its response standard to the 1st appliance within 10 minutes for critical incidents on 80% of occasions, the 2nd within 15 minutes on 80 % and all other emergencies the 1st appliance within 16 minutes on 95% of occasions. Yet again it could be interpreted that 20% of the population have no attendance standard whatsoever and even then these are only targets. IRMPs should be a process of continual improvement that take into account those of neighbouring fire and rescue services as well. They should also highlight the difference between true efficiency savings and cuts in services that are forced on the FRS as a result of budgetary constraints.

Spelthorne Will The Proposals Save Or Cost The Tax Payer?

Bearing in mind Surrey County Councils aspiration to be a World Class authority it should be measuring itself against one to see how it compares. Su rreys PSP mentions matching resources to demand but this is a reactive approach that looks at historical data. Resources, in this instance fire stations and therefore appliances, cannot be easily moved and should be based on risk as the Fire Service is not a supply and demand business. To be a World Class authority this should entail getting the fire authority (FA) and fire and rescue service (FRS) to consider future risk and calculate what pressures that will put on the demand for our services. As neighbouring FRSs might at times be reliant on back up from Surrey we should equally be considering risks in neighbouring FAs. Nationally we are warned on greater risks associated with climate change i.e. flooding and wildfires. The government also warns of the increased risk of terrorism, of which Heathrow would be a major target. Surrey as a whole is expected to have large increases in population, large increases in the percentage of elderly residents, large increases of homes being built, increases in road traffic. Locally there is also the West London oil terminal and high rise property that have additional risks associated with them. Neighbouring Surrey there is talk of additional runways or terminals at both Gatwick and/or Heathrow. Therefore even keeping the current resource levels as they are, the massive changes to the risk profile in Surrey could effectively equate to a reduction in service in the future i.e. cuts. Slower response could mean the difference between dealing with a fire in its early stages or a fully developed fire and the increased risks associated with that both for firefighters and the public as well. Surreys PSP document states that it is estimated that 80% of businesses never recover from a fire (Arson Prevention Bureau). Worse still is if the incident was a residential property it could be the difference between rescues and saving lives or not. 5.4 on page 11 of the PSP states that predictive analysis is used for the above risks to create a risk profile and establish where and when resources are required. With all the increased risks in and around Spelthorne the Service only deem it necessary to have one appliance for the borough and yet other boroughs within Surrey have far more. For the people of Spelthorne this hardly seems an equitable spread of resources. On page 11 coincidentally an example of the traffic chaos during rush hour caused by a fire in Staines involving gas cylinders is given. Given the recent questions on the lack of available fire cover on 18 th October 2013 coupled with the proposed loss of appliances in London that might impact on available reinforcement arrangement for Surrey, it is of interest to note a question that was put to the Transport Research Laboratory (for an earlier project) as to the possible consequences of a 20 minute delay just before 0700hrs on the busiest section of the M25 in Surrey on a Monday morning. Part of their response reads - On Monday mornings, congestion on the approach to J11-12 on the clockwise carriageway often tails back past J9, so drivers might have to slow down 15 miles before the bottleneck. However, average speeds are typically 45mph, so delays are only in the order of 5-10 minutes. A 20 minute delay in these conditions would equate to 40 miles of tailbacks. The AA issued a call for action on congestion in 2009 2 with Edmund King, AA President, arguing that there should be greater efforts to fight congestion as it harms commerce, climate change and costs. In the eight months to August 2009 major motorways were closed 1700 times equating to over 5000 hours or 208 days of closures, with the M25 being highest having been closed for a total of 206 hours. The Road Safety Foundation Saving Lives, Saving Money report 3 is clear about the economic cost of congestion Saving Lives, Saving Money breaks important new ground. It shows clearly that Britain loses 1.2%2.3% of GDP annually in road crashes but, for the first time, maps the high concentration of crash costs on targetable A road and motorways. The GDP % mentioned above equates to approximately 15-30 billion annually. Whilst this report centres mainly achieving safe roads rather than the cost of congestion it does provide some interesting data including the cost of a fatal collision on motorways or A roads at the 2m mark.

Spelthorne Will The Proposals Save Or Cost The Tax Payer?

Other studies dont just look into direct and indirect cost but introduce the idea of value of time of those inconvenienced. It is also worth considering that a response to an incident should not just be measured in terms of the first or second appliance turning up and the clock stops but the time it takes for all resources required to enable firefighters to safely and effectively deal with an incident where teams are sent into a burning building or into a hazardous area at a chemical spillage. The loss of an appliance at Spelthorne could significantly add to the risks for both firefighters and the public alike. I understand that cost savings for losing a Spelthorne appliance has been put at 1.2 million. The cost of a fatal fire is often quoted at 1.4 million and the RAC Foundation estimate a single fatal collision at the 2 million mark on motorways or A roads. The 1.2 million saving might be available to Surrey Fire and Rescue Service but at what cost to the public both in safety and monetary terms, at what cost to Surrey businesses and at what cost to the safety of the hard working, brave and professional firefighters.

So a fully funded fire service producing a social return of about 6 billion for 2 billion invested nationally? A fully funded fire service that Surrey County Council can hold up as a World Class fire and rescue service? Or an underfunded fire service that increases the risks and costs to all?

EVERY SECOND COUNTS! - http://www.london.fbu.org.uk/?p=2086

1 FBU It's About Time report www.fbu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/6367-Its-about-time-LOW-RES2.pdf 2 - http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/news/aa-calls-for-action-on-motorway-closures-and-congestion.html 3 - http://www.roadsafetyfoundation.org/media/11070/saving%20lives_saving%20money.pdf