Voting FOR Better Fire Cover for Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh
Yesterday there was an extraordinary meeting of Kent and Medway Fire and Rescue Authority. I am a member, so was at that meeting.
That meeting was to discuss a proposal from the Authority's senior management to go to a consultation on proposals to shift engines and cover to day shifts (when there are most accidents and call outs) and reduce some night shifts in on call stations where there are really low levels of call out, and low availability. A previous meeting had called for a six week pause while Councillors looked at the proposal, options and supporting data tabled then again before deciding whether or not to go to public consultation.
The proposal would have seen better day time cover across the entire county (faster first and second engine response times). For Folkestone & Hythe see an additional full time fire engine at Folkestone during the day (going from one to two). That would cut average day response times by around 70 seconds, and not change night response times here at all.
It's a question of resource allocation, put forward after a year of testing alternatives and data by the management team of Kent and Medway Fire and Rescue Authority. Are they any good at assessing risk and budgeting to provide the best possible service to the County? I think so, but that's irrelevant. The Government Inspector last August rated KMFRA as Outstanding in both understanding and dealing with risk and financial planning - absolutely one of the best Fire Authorities in the country.
That's relevant. They are good at this stuff. You should, at least, take it seriously.
They wanted to do it to improve day cover, as that is where the risk is, but currently the lowest available of crews. So I actually read, understood, and questioned the data, and understood the impacts across Kent before voting in favour of it. And what is the impact of the changes? Better response times when there are most accidents. And the quicker the response, the better the outcomes on average. Fewer people will die.
The vote was to take the proposals to consultation, prior to bringing back to a meeting in November for final discussion and agreement, or otherwise. Not for the proposals. But to put them to consultation.
And I ABSOLUTELY understand that in those areas where on-call stations at night are proposed to be cut, there will be real concern. The case is made in the papers that those stations have really low levels of call-out, are often unavailable / unstaffed at all for a variety of reasons, and that there is good cover from nearby stations. But for each of those stations I'd expect that evidence, and those claims to be examined, and even see if there are alternatives. I'd totally understand the concern of people in those areas.
Could the night on-call stations become day on-call stations instead? Are there other options that do the same thing - improve daytime cover within an affordable budget? That's to be tested, by consultation. KMFRA can't see a way. A six week review of the papers by a task team of Councillors before this meeting couldn't find a way. Even the FBU didn't find a way (within the budget available). But perhaps crews and residents could. We'd find out in the consultation. The detail is in the papers, but to make it easy to find, the key engine / station move proposals were:
The closure of 4 on-call fire stations at Chilham, Wye, Cliffe, and Westerham.
An increase of 3 wholetime fire engines available during the day. These additional wholetime fire engines would be located at Strood, Ashford, and Folkestone - providing 2 wholetime fire engines during the day and 1 wholetime fire engine at night at each of these locations.
To achieve the above, 2 wholetime fire engines would be made unavailable at night. These fire engines would be the second fire engines at Dartford and Thames-side fire stations. These locations would now have 2 wholetime fire engines during the day and 1 wholetime fire engine at night.
The removal of 4 ‘attached’ on-call sections at Deal, Herne Bay, Faversham, and Tunbridge Wells. There would still be a wholetime fire engine available 24/7 at each of these locations.
If you represent Deal, Herne Bay, Faversham, Tunbridge Wells, Chilham, Wye or Cliffe, you have absolutely every right to be staring into these proposals, checking the detail, looking at availability, questioning the impact of the night time changes, looking at alternatives, listening to the public consultation and then decide whether to vote for the proposals to go forward or not in November. I would. But when you read all the supporting data, and there is a lot of it in the papers linked above, there are reasons, and each of those areas ALSO benefit from the better day time cover too: when most incidents occur, and when those on-call units are NOT available, even today.
But as a Folkestone & Hythe area Councillor, I absolutely supported it. It sees an improvement in daytime response times of up to 70 seconds for people here, and no reduction in night time response times, its a no-brainer. Local Councillor votes to consult on proposal that is good for their area - shocker.
Wildly, Folkestone Reform Councillors Laws and Baker voted against better day fire cover across Kent and for their local local residents in particular. You'd have to ask them why they felt they would not vote for better fire cover for the County and their residents.
The full vote was 17-2 (myself and Mark Munday) against the putting the proposals out to consultation. The Chair of the Authority abstained, but aside from that, every single Reform, Restore and Labour Councillor present voted against going to consultation on proposals to give better day response times for fire and rescue call outs across Kent.