So What's New

So Whats New?

Well the Consultation Period is over (or is it?) . Following massive rejection of the proposals, WYF&RS have now watered down their plans  They can be found here->.  

A report of the consultation can also be found amongst the agenda of the meeting due to take place on Friday.( It can be found here)  from Page 91 onwards - but we have copied the relevant pieces:-

SUMMARY OF FORMAL REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 The Authority received  seven letters/emails 

(NOTE -Only SEVEN! -editor) 

of support or indications of no objection to the proposals.  These were from West Yorkshire Resilience Forum, Leeds City Council Safer and Stronger Scrutiny Committee, Humberside Fire and Rescue Service, North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service, (What about South Yorkshire Fire Service?-Editor) Kirklees Council and two residents from Marsden and Morley. (Must be officers? ed')

4.2 12,037 letters/emails of objection/concern from individuals, groups or organisations were received - 1,309 being unspecific in nature.  
Across the county 

45% of these relate to proposals in the Leeds district, 
22% within the Bradford district, 
13% in Wakefield district, 
9% in the Kirklees district 
and less than 

1% in the Calderdale district. 
This contrasts to a total 2,999 items of formal representation received following public consultation during September – December 2011 regarding seven proposals to change emergency cover in West Yorkshire.

Wow what an increase! We at FCCL wonder why?

4.3 There was a volume of correspondence that opposed changes in the districts of Bradford and Leeds.  258 letters/emails of objection/concern related to changes proposed across the  Bradford District and  14 letters/emails were received relating to  changes across the Leeds District. The issues of concern are captured under the relevant proposals below. 

4.4 Activity/responses relating directly to the eleven proposals was as follows (all figures  excluding responses by the Fire Brigades Union  and Fire Officers’ Association which are outlined at sections 4.15.1 and 4.15.2 below).

OUR FCCL RESPONSE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT WORTHY OF AN INDIVIDUAL MENTION!

It doesn't say, however, how many hits their web site had! 

We suspect the reason is, is because this site had many more! 

How many did FCCL Have? See here!

We do still have concerns about the way stakeholders were consulted! (See below). 

ONLY 100!

3 CONSULTATION ACTIVITY

3.1 Approximately 100 stakeholders were identified for direct contact,  including Members of Parliament; district, town and parish councils; neighbouring fire authorities and emergency services; local representative bodies; external employer and employee organisations and voluntary bodies. Representations 

were invited by 30 November 2012.

OK As we at FCCL Have already said, 100, in a county the size of West Yorkshire, IS NOT VERY MANY! and only an increase in 20 on last years!

 Click here to see  What we feel consultation with Stakeholders should be all about!

In the article found here , it comments that- 

"THOUSANDS of residents in more than 100 council wards across West Yorkshire will lose out on emergency response times if radical fire service cutbacks are carried out."

 100 council Wards would equal 300 councillors!

3.2 In recognition of the fact that it was not possible to communicate individually with 

all those who may wish to submit observations, the proposals were  also 

publicised via the internet and intranet, the print (See the links here, here and here and broadcast media. 
This year a consultation email account was provided and published to improve ease of 

communication for the public.  In addition, a consultation email account and 

hotline  was established in the  Public Information Office  for people seeking 

further information and assistance on the consultation process and timetable.

HOWEVER WE AT FCCL STILL HAVE CONCERNS

The new proposal now suggest that apart from the removal of appliances from some stations, Garforth, Rothwell and Morley, 

             are down graded to Day Crewing!

The

NATIONAL JOINT COUNCIL

FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY

FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES

Scheme of Conditions of Service

Sixth Edition 2004 (updated 2009) -

Describes Day Crewing as-

7.5 Day Crewing

Day Crewing is a duty system contained within firefighters' national 

terms and conditions, however, any move on to this system is 

voluntary, as it requires staff to live within  5 minutes of the station.  

Firefighters are suitably recompensed with an on-call allowance, 

turnout fees and rent/fuel allowance.  In theory, there are sufficient staff 

living within the 5 minute zone at all stations proposed to change to the 

Day Crewing system but further work is required to establish interest in 

working this duty system.

What this means is that, apart from all the additional costs and implementation problems, (as above) which they haven't mentioned!

On an evening, 

In MORLEY 

There will be a delay of 5 Minutes before an appliance can attend if there is an incident! 

WYF&RS Say- The response in the evening and at nights from 
Morley would be delayed by up to five minutes compared to its current performance due to firefighters responding from home and therefore, in some cases, the wholetime shift  Hunslet fire engine would respond faster into Morley’s area.

This is actually worse than the original proposals!-

Councillor Robert Finnigan (Morley Independants) has already e mailed us and shown his support!

And NOTHING is mentioned about the time increase in the revised proposals for!

GARFORTH and ROTHWELL

Back in 2004 WYF&RS tried to downgrade Garforth to Day Crewing (see link here) (and here)
This is what happened then!
Article can be found here!

Victory for Public Opinion!

We at FCCL feel that these new proposals are once again subject to further public consultation and urge every one concerned to immediately contact their  

Local Councillor 

to demand that this now takes place,

BEFORE NEXT FRIDAY'S AUTHORITY MEETING

YOU CAN FIND THE LINK TO CONTACT THEM

Here
or
MP'S
Ed Balls - Morley

George Mudie - East Leeds

Alec Shelbrooke-Elmet and Rothwell

Confused.com

 

We were left a  message at the FCCL HQ which suggested we take a peek at the planning application which was approved in only  June 2012  to build a close call crewing block at Rothwell Fire Station........... so we did :-) 

Close Call" Crewing System is a WYFRS term to describe a shift system whereby fire-fighters are either on duty on station during the day or residing in purpose provided accommodation nearby from which they can be quickly mobilised. They are therefore "on call" at the accommodation but whilst there can carry out normal quasi residential activities, i.e. preparing food, eating, sleeping and washing etc. The shift pattern would normally commence at station one morning at 08:00hrs until approximately 19:00hrs. Following this time, the fire fighter would retire to the accommodation where they would be on standby for call out from 19:00hrs until 08:00hrs. This would normally continue for a four day stretch until the end of the four day tour of duty when the next shift would take over. There would be two main alternative shifts with each tour of duty lasting four whole days.  

Close call crewing sounds to us like it will ruin your marriage, wreck your family life and probably requires you  to sign away your rights as per the European working time directive.(and would be unsuitable for fire fighters with caring responsibilities- like being a mum springs to mind!!!!!!!)

Anyway ................ why would WYFRS go to all this trouble AND EXPENSE to build what is essentially a glorified dormitory when the new IMRP plans say bye bye Rothwell. Here the plot thickens .........

But it is the documentation they have provided that made the red mist descend today. Here is a choice excerpt from the information they provided to the planning committee in April 2012. 

 “It is unnecessary to stress the operational advantages and the need for speed in responding to emergency calls as in many situations even seconds count when lives and property are in danger. The current proposals for Rothwell are operationally more desirable as it contains all the activities associated with the fire station within the site, and ensures that staff are located as close as possible to the station to ensure fast response times.”

Plans submitted to LCC in April 2012 

REALLY !!!!!! 

 so why less than 4 months later are WYFRS

 saying that an increase in response times  of 

3 MINUTES is ACCEPTABLE in the Rothwell area?

But also of interest is the SITE CONTAMINATION REPORT  which states that potential sources of contamination are

• General contaminants in the made ground derived from past building and demolition works
•  
• Hydrocarbon contamination derived from leakage or spillage of fuel and oil in the bunded storage area or during maintenance of fire fighting vehicles.
•  
• Surfactant contamination derived from the use of fire fighting foam solutions in the practice area
•  
• Polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) and petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) contamination from burning vehicle run off in the practice area.
•  
• Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination in the area of the former sub station on the northern boundary derived from the leakage of the transformer fluids.

Excerpt from planning application  

SO HOW MUCH WILL ALL THIS COST ?????????

Rothwell close call land                 £80,000

Rothwell close call block                £350,000

BUT ALL OF THIS IS HAS BEEN SCRAPPED NOT FOUR MONTHS LATER IN FAVOUR OF CLOSING ROTHWELL DOWN .....................................................................................

Which proves to FCCL that the plans currently out to consultation have been thrown together in a rush, are badly thought through and designed and are not fit for purpose.

How can WYFRS say one thing in early  2012 and then retract it in September? 

Rothwell it seems is getting a particularly

BAD DEAL.  

And of course whatever is built there when / if the station is sold will still have the contamination issue.


FCCL have sent this information to the local Rothwell Councillors for comment, and also wish to bring to everybodies attention that this planning application was approved NOT at COMMITTEE but by DELEGATED AUTHORITY  ---- which means an employee of the planning department approved it not local elected members. FCCL stress it is essentail that ALL FUTURE WYFRS PLANNING APPLICATIONS ARE DECIDED IN THE PUBLIC ARENA  (Not behind closed  doors!!!)  

Cllr Stewart Golton - Rothwell - Leeds

This evening at 4pm we are having a meeting with Cllr Stewart Golton, Leader of the Liberal Democrats in Leeds City Council. 

As councillor for Rothwell we are hoping that he supports our campaign. We will report back tomorrow on the meeting and what progress we have made.

If you wish to contact Stewart and voice your concerns about the closure of the station at Rothwell you will find his details below

Correspondence Address: 
5 Farrer Lane
Woodlesford
Leeds
LS26 8JP

Phone:  (0113) 288 0464

Fax:  (0113) 247 4586

Email:  stewart.golton@leeds.gov.uk                    send email to Stewart by clicking here

Bus. phone:  (0113) 247 4580

Dont forget firecutscostlives can be contacted at firecutscostlives@gmail.com