Agenda item

Report by Executive Director Nicola Bulbeck and Director of Operations and Chief Fire Officer Gavin Watts – attached.

The Fire Authority is required under the national fire and rescue framework to produce an Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP). The plan assesses all foreseeable risk communities face within the county of West Sussex. The Chief Fire officer then addresses the risk by developing action plans to be delivered over the next three to five years.  A draft 2018-22 IRMP was developed and submitted as a draft consultation document to stakeholders, staff and the public. The consultation took place between the 16^th April and the 28^th May 2018.  All the responses have now been considered and we are now in a position to publish the final version of the 2018-22 IRMP.

Representatives of the three main fire service unions have been invited to address the Committee at the outset of the session for five minutes each.

The Committee is asked to note the consultation feedback and subsequent amendments to the draft IRMP and support the publication of the 2018-22 IRMP.

13.1 The Committee considered a report by Executive Director and Director of Operations and Chief Fire Officer (copy appended to signed minutes). The timing of this item was delayed due to webcasting technical reasons.

13.2 Gavin Watts, Director of Operations and Chief Fire Officer and Neil Stocker, Director of Public Protection and Deputy Chief Fire Officer introduced the report which gave an overview of the draft Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP) 2018-22 which assessed all foreseeable risks communities face within West Sussex. A consultation of the draft took place between 16 April and 28 May 2018 which involved stakeholders, staff and the public, with all responses now received. West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service (WSFRS) was now in a position to publish the final version of the IRMP 2018-22. Key points were:

·         There were 5 priorities in the IRMP for WSFRS, which was part of the journey for the Service to be more visible, open and transparent. The priorities were similar to those proposed in the FRS National Framework, with a focus on the way residents were looked after.

·         The consultation process involved the extensive use of social media, organisational contacts, drop in events, engagement with staff, and with local district, borough and parish councils. The main themes to arise from the consultation included crewing levels, value for money and capacity to deliver action plans.

·         Next steps included a decision by the Cabinet Member for Safer Stronger Communities in late June / early July and then a first year action plan to be developed and brought back to the Committee at its meeting in September. 

13.3 Ms Goldsmith, Leader, substituted for the Cabinet Member for Safer, Stronger, Communities and thanked officers for their time and effort in producing the IRMP document. She highlighted the need to ensure the County Council was ready for the upcoming autumn inspection by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS).

13.4 Representatives of 2 of the main fire service unions were in attendance to address the Committee:

13.5. Gary Locker, South East Regional representative from the Fire Officers Association (FOA), thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak. He declared an interest for his role in risk and improvement within the FRS and advised that the view of the FOA was not influenced by his role.

13.6 The FOA supported the reform within the FRS and broadly agreed with the plans presented in the IRMP. A main concern was over the ability to deliver the 61 projects that arose from the plans, in addition to usual FRS business. It was felt to be impossible to deliver with current resources and even though the FOA accepted it would cover a 4 year period, it believed that without sufficient investment or support, service and delivery of projects could be affected. FOA thought this to be an ambitious IRMP but with the right resources behind it would make residents and the community much safer, so the Association asked the Committee to consider the significant amount of work underlying it.

13.7 Joe Weir, Fire Brigades Union (FBU) echoed the points above but opposed the IRMP. The FBU had serious concerns including the planned reduction of fire officers and fire vehicles, which in their view would hamper safety standards. Also that a reduced crew of 4 fire officers would be less resilient and not cost effective for the Service. They thought the IRMP was unachievable and unobtainable and felt that it should highlight the true cuts to service that were planned.

13.8. The Committee made comments including those that follow. It:

·         Welcomed the draft IRMP as a framework for future work but queried whether the Service had the ability and capacity to deliver the action plans and how this would be monitored.

·         Questioned whether the FRS understood the risk profiles in the plans and were supportive of the development of a more diverse workforce, including both older and retained fire officers and the issue of staff recruitment and retention. An officer advised that a suitable assessment of risk had been carried out and the FRS were developing a workforce strategy which would be part of the presentation in September to Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee (ECFSC). There was a challenge around an older workforce where experience was lost, but it was recognised that there was a need for improved fitness facilities for staff and barriers and blocks that may deter new applicants were also being looked at.

·         Raised concerns over the issue of appliance crewing numbers proposed reduction from 5 to 4 officers as standard, although recognised that each incident was assessed individually. An officer advised that any changes would be consulted on and protocols developed. 4 officer crews were currently in operation with safe systems in place, so it was a case of using resources more effectively and not reducing numbers.

·         Noted the low response rate to the consultation was disappointing, but highlighted the importance of collaboration with other blue light services. An officer advised that the FRS currently had good working relationships with other local fire authorities such as East Sussex County Council, Surrey County Council and Hampshire County Council, with good evidence of achievements already.

·         Raised concerns over the impact of response times on businesses and suggested that the IRMP was a recipe for cuts rather than improving efficiency and that its aspirational nature should warrant further investment in the service.

13.9 Ms Goldsmith added that investment in new equipment had already taken place this year, including the purchase of a new platform, with further investment planned towards acquiring 6 new fire engines and additional equipment.

13.10 Resolved – That the Committee:

1)   Notes the consultation feedback and subsequent amendments to the draft IRMP

2)   Recommends the publication of the 2018-22 IRMP

3)   Recommends the next steps for the delivery of the IRMP

4)   Requests that all major changes to services identified in the IRMP are subject to further consultation and scrutiny as appropriate.