Tag: Chief Fire Officer

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service abandon plans to appeal refused planning application for Saughall Massie fire station but await decision on revised planning application by Wirral Council’s Planning Committee with interest

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service abandon plans to appeal refused planning application for Saughall Massie fire station but await decision on revised planning application by Wirral Council’s Planning Committee with interest

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service abandon plans to appeal refused planning application for Saughall Massie fire station but await decision on revised planning application by Wirral Council’s Planning Committee with interest

                                        

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority 25th May 2017 Item 8 Station Mergers Project – Progress Report

Below is a transcript of what was said at a public meeting yesterday of councillors on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority about the station mergers project. Above is video for that item (with a subtitle track).

Acronyms
MFRA Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority
MFRS Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service

Cllr Dave Hanratty (Chair), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority 25th May 2017
Cllr Dave Hanratty (Chair), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority 25th May 2017

Cllr Dave Hanratty (Chair, MFRA): Item 8 was the err update on the station merger, mergers, Phil?

Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service 25th May 2017
Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service 25th May 2017

Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer, MFRS): Thanks Chair and again a personal report is provided, a progress report to Members on the station mergers project up to the end of April 2017 and the recommendation that Members note the report.

Err and I’ll keep this relatively brief because the content of the err update is contained within, other than to say work has commenced at Prescot, err I’ll draw to your attention to paragraph nine which says, “All foundations and ground beams have been laid and the concrete errm slab has now been poured as of the 26th of April 2017. The retaining walls for the approach road are in place and steel work has started and has been put in place through the period of May.” and we are looking at now a completion date for the new Prescot site which as clearly Members will be aware is a fire station, police station colocated and that work is looking to be completed March 2018 and that is on schedule.

With regards to Saughall Massie and the proposal to put a planning application in, to errm build a fire station, err on West Wirral, a revised planning application was submitted to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council on the 13th of March and formally validated on the 28th of March ’17.

Err as part and parcel of that application we sort of err sort of addressed some of the concerns that were raised, err through the refusal of the initial planning permission and as a result of that we have reduced the overall size of the fire station by some 30%, err sorry, yeah by 30%, the overall size of the site, the fire station itself by some 10% and realigned some elements of the building itself so it’s simply smaller. We’ve also significantly improved some of the errm, the layout of the site and the landscaping associated with some of the concerns that were raised.That planning submission that we believe is going to Planning Committee on the 22nd of June errm where it will be considered and we’ll inform Members subsequently with options available to us to refer it to the Secretary of State, if we’re unsuccessful through that process but as Elected Members will be aware, we are hopeful that that planning application will be successful and we’ll be able to build a new fire station in Saughall Massie, which will be able to serve as part of the Wirral, which may be affected should we not be able to be afforded that opportunity. With regards to Saint Helens, err and a number of conversations that we’ve had with Pilkingtons who own the site at Canal Street.

Subsequently, the site, or the initial site that was proposed has been withdrawn by Pilkingtons, however Pilkingtons have offered us a further site, which is not you know too far away from the original site, at Watson Street. When we’ve looked at the analysis in regards to our operational response, from Watson Street as opposed to Canal Street, it’s actually a more preferable err base from which to respond. So again, those conversations have been had and discussions are progressing, err nicely. We’ve also extended those discussions as part of our collaborative err duty to Merseyside Police and North West Ambulance Service and then so this was really some conversation with Saint Helens err Council.

As a result of those conversations, Merseyside Police have made it clear that they’re not necessarily in a position at this moment in time to progress around a collaborative endeavor there. However North West Ambulance Service would seem a little keener, but they have yet to come back to us and we’re expecting a response from them err within the next seven days when they can potentially seek to put a make ready facility at St Helens colocated with Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service, but again that is yet to be determined.

Irrespective of those matters, we will be on site relatively shortly at Watson Street in Saint Helens to do some basic sampling of the land there to establish any remediation you know that will be required as part and parcel of the build. Again, you know our relationship with Pilkington was very good, Saint Helens Metropolitan Borough Council is very good and we are keen to progress to build a new station er as described at Watson Street in Saint Helens.

Other than that Members will probably the rest of the detail is contained within the report itself but I’m happy to take any questions on any particular issues.

Cllr Dave Hanratty (Chair, MFRA): OK, thanks for that report.

Unknown councillor (MFRA): Thanks Chair, yes could I just ask Phil about this err thirty percent decrease on the Saughall Massie site and the building? I mean that’s a significant decrease and yet you’d still got to get everything still in there, the kit and the engines. How’s it going to work out practically?

Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer, MFRS): Yeah, it’s the overall site that we’ve reduced by thirty percent, the station by around ten percent, so it is reduced in size, let’s be absolutely clear about that and some of the kind of the training facilities would be compromised as a result of that, as will some of the facilities that we provide from, from the operational crews. But we’re trying to kind of have, you know manage the footprint of the building, the aesthetics in relation to the kind of responses that we’ve received from the Planning Committee and equally we’ve took on board some of the kind of recommendations from the planners themselves to say, well actually this might be more aesthetically pleasing if you did this, if we moved some things like the car park over, which was you know adjacent to some of the housing in that location, that we’ve moved that to the back. We’ve moved some of the general spacing and so on and so forth, we’re trying to be as flexible as we possibly can be to some of the kind of concerns that were raised in the first instance, without preventing it being an operational base from which to function from.

Err but to be reflective of the comments that have been made, up to this point because it’s really important to get you know a response base from err the Saughall Massie area in terms of West Kirby and Hoylake. Thank you.

Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service 25th May 2017
Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer), Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service 25th May 2017

Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer, MFRS): And just to add to that, I too have serious reservations about this. However you shouldn’t underestimate the need for this fire station to maintain response times into west Wirral. Hence, why against my better judgement, I’ve arrived at this. Which is why, we pursued this route instead of the going straight to the Secretary of State which would’ve been the route that we err, could’ve taken.

But err credit to Phil [Garrigan] and Colin Schofield, who really have err, they have done everything they possibly can do to address those err the issues that were raised at the err Planning Committee. Well as I say, and I’ll say again for the record, I have some err quite serious reservations about the extent to which we are compromising the functionality of that err that fire station.

But again, we’re going to have to do that, because we err, because we need it to maintain response times.

Cllr Dave Hanratty (Chair, MFRA): OK, errm this is just an update report and we’ll have further reports as we go on with the err, with the schemes and obviously the outcome of the Planning Committee when it meets on the 22nd June, so hopefully we’ll be successful. We’ll wait and see. Errm, so that concludes the business. Errm could I just ask Members just to stay for just and officers for just a couple of minutes, because the Chief wants to give us just a brief update of obviously the events of err what happened in Manchester on Monday and obviously how err as an employer on Merseyside, we have to do that in closed session unfortunately? So if any members of the public, press or public can I just ask to leave? Peter? Err.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this result with other people.

What was in Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s 2 page response to the FOI consultation?

What was in Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s 2 page response to the FOI consultation?

ICO Information Commissioner's Office logo
ICO Information Commissioner’s Office logo

Next is the response to the FOI consultation from the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority.

Again I’ll declare an interest as I’m alluded to in their response (in fact my profession is named) and my appeal to the Information Commissioners Office last year is explicitly referred to in a report going to councillors next week.

Now by their own figures, responding to all the FOI requests over the whole of last year (2015) used up the equivalent of ~0.375 of a full-time employee.

From what I remember, this means that they allocate more resources to their press office than FOI.

Staff wide Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service had last year an estimated 700 firefighters and I’d estimate 300 staff that aren’t firefighters (of course this is directly employed staff, not staff employed by contractors).

So 0.0375% of its staff budget (approx) is spent on answering FOI requests, the equivalent of around a third of a job of a full-time employee.

Personally if I was on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority I’d be more worried about the other ~999.625 jobs, but there you go! It’s nice to see that they have some nice things to say about journalists in their response though and a report on FOI request will be considered by councillors on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority next Tuesday afternoon. The agenda for that meeting is here and the Wirral Council councillors on it are Cllr Lesley Rennie and Cllr Jean Stapleton.

Below is the MFRA [Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority] response to the FOI consultation, which you can compare to Liverpool City Council’s response.

Although it states it’s from the MFRA [Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority] by the way it’s written “The Service considers” one assumes that as with LCC’s response it’s been drafted by officers. Unlike the attitude taken by Liverpool City Council Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service state they are "supportive of the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act".

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority

Freedom of Information Call for Evidence

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority (MFRA) would like to make the following comments in relation to questions 3 and 6 of the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information Call for Evidence:

Question 3:What protection should there be for information which involves candid assessment of risk? For how long does such information remain sensitive?

The Service considers that there should be some protection for public authorities in relation to the release of risk registers. High level information about risks and mitigation is appropriate for release and many authorities will publish this as a matter of course. When a request is made for detailed risk registers relating to on-going projects or activities, this is much more difficult for this Service to deal with. It is vital when ensuring that public services are being delivered effectively, that all risk are considered and that staff feel able to “think the unthinkable”. Often these risks are mitigated, but they still remain in risk registers and are open to misinterpretation or being sensationalised. The Service would request that consideration be given to risk registers of this type only being release after the project is completed.
Equally releasing risk mitigation measures prior to the completion of the project may compromise the
measures themselves exposing services to additional risk.

Question 6: Is the burden imposed on public authorities under the Act justified by the public interest in the public’s right to know? Or are controls needed to reduce the burden of FoI on public authorities? If controls are justified, should these be targeted at the kinds of requests which impose a disproportionate burden on public authorities? What kinds of requests do impose a disproportionate burden?

The Service is supportive of the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act, and values its role in allowing people access to information and giving them the right to find out about matters and decisions that affect them. However, use of the Act has become increasingly popular and the volume of FoI requests has increased over the years. For example, the table below shows the increase in requests to MFRS since 2011:

Year

FoI Requests received

FoI requests believed to be for commercial purposes (as far as can be established with the information available)
2011 72 Not recorded
2012 82 Not recorded
2013 101 Not recorded
2014 138 13
2015 131 17
 
 
 

Dealing with this increase in requests has had an impact on the Service which for Merseyside Fire Authority undoubtedly places increased pressure on relatively small teams. Over the last four years, the Fire and Rescue Authority has had to make savings of £20 million as a result of Government spending cuts. The Authority is required to make a further £6.3 million savings in 2015/16. It is also clear that the Authority will also face further significant cuts over the course of the next Parliament. The Authority has already made significant reductions in its support services and staffing, which means there are fewer staff available to service FoI requests. To save £6.3 million in 2015/16, the Authority has identified another £2.9 million to be cut from support services, further reducing capacity.

Whilst the Service respects the rights of citizens to ask for information that may affect their lives and communities and recognises the role that journalists may play in seeking out inefficiencies or poor practices in the public sector, there is a cost associated with that. The staff collecting, collating, checking, redacting and authorising release of the requested information all have other work to do. As a result, dealing with a FoI request is likely to take staff away from core business.

What the Service believes is particularly difficult to justify is the extent to which commercial organisations use FoI to request information to develop new business leads or seek a commercial advantage. The private sector is effectively using the diminishing resources of the public sector for free, when those resources could be put to better use and there is no return on that investment for the public sector.

What we would ask the Commission to consider is either, levying a charge for such requests, or the ability for an organisation to refuse the request where the applicant is not able to demonstrate that the request is in the public interest.
Even when requests could be considered to be in the public interest, for example in relation to a public consultation on the Service’s plans, the enthusiasm of some members of the public to seek more and more detailed information can place significant pressure on a small authority. Five requests from one person for similar but subtly different complex information in the space of one or two months does result in disproportionate effort. This is despite the fact that individually, the cost of meeting the requests would not be sufficient to justify refusal and the subtle differences between requests rule out treating them as vexatious. It is the cumulative effect that has the impact.

It is also difficult to treat requests as vexatious or indeed classify the work required as excessive without it being perceived by the requestor or indeed the public or press as defensive – so in effect services provide the information for fear of being perceived as less than transparent.

Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service has been recording the time spent by all officers involved in processing all FoI requests since July 2015 (32 completed requests). Given it was already keen to understand and share the impact of such requests with the Authority and Government departments.

As such the total time spent since recording began has totalled 153 hours spread across a range of staff from administrators to the Chief Fire Officer. This equates to an average of 4.8 hours per request. If this was applied to the total number of requests received so far this year it would total 629 hours or 90 working days. With the lost time costs in the thousands.

This is resource that can be ill afforded during these times of austerity, so it is vital that the FoI requests processed are of valid public interest and not to further the profits of a commercial organisation.

The Service has welcomed the opportunity to contribute to this call for evidence and looks forward to the publication of the outcomes.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

EXCLUSIVE: Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer) states altered plans for Saughall Massie Fire Station will be submitted “either this month or early January [2016]”

EXCLUSIVE: Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer) states altered plans for Saughall Massie Fire Station will be submitted “either this month or early January [2016]”

                                              

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority meeting 17th December 2015 L to R Treasurer, Deputy Chief Fire Officer Phil Garrigan, Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens, Chair Cllr Dave Hanratty
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority meeting 17th December 2015 L to R Treasurer, Deputy Chief Fire Officer Phil Garrigan, Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens, Chair Cllr Dave Hanratty

At a meeting of councillors, on the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority held on the 17th of December 2015, Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer), gave an update on the progress of plans for a new fire station at Saughall Massie. You can read his report on this matter on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s website.

Dan Stephens said, “Paragraphs twenty-one to thirty on pages sixteen to eighteen provide an update on the Saughall Massie merger.

A pre-application for advice has been submitted to Wirral Borough Council on the 8th October and a planning meeting was held with planning officers from Wirral on the 4th of November.

Following on from this meeting a letter from Wirral planning officers was sent to the agents acting on behalf of the Authority, but unfortunately was given to a Wirral councillor beforehand.

That letter was subsequently passed on to the Liverpool Echo and the Wirral Globe who ran a story quoting sections of the letter. Clearly that was before we’d had sight of that.

I’ve since written to the Head of Regeneration and Planning at Wirral raising a number of issues that relate to that, and they are outlined within paragraphs twenty-six. Paragraph twenty-seven details the position over the medium pressure gas main which runs under the land.

Following on from the planning advice, the size of the station and the design that we would intend to submit a planning application on, has been significantly reduced to the point where the medium pressure gas main would no longer run underneath the main building, thus negating the requirement for it to be rerouted.

It is our intention to submit a full planning application, taking into account the pre-planning advice that we’ve received from Wirral at some point either this month or early January which would allow for consideration by the Planning Committee at some point next year possibly in April.

Paragraph thirty makes the point that any decision by Wirral to grant planning permission will almost certainly be referred to the Secretary of State. I need to make it clear to Members at this point that if planning permission is not granted, then the inevitable consequence will be the outright closure of West Kirby fire station with the resulting increase in response times.”

The reference to Secretary of State above refers to a government minister (however generally such decisions although taken in a minister’s name are decided by civil servants following the policy the minister decides upon).

The Chair of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority referred later in the meeting to his desire that the press would write "good news" stories about Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service. The above story is either good or bad news depending on your political viewpoint.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Police and Fire Collaboration Committee agree to joint review for collaboration between Merseyside Police & Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service

Police and Fire Collaboration Committee agree to joint review for collaboration between Merseyside Police & Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service

Police and Fire Collaboration Committee agree to joint review for collaboration between Merseyside Police & Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service

                                                           

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority Police and Fire Collaboration Committee 1st September 2015 Left Jane Kennedy (Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside) Right Sir John Murphy (Chief Constable, Merseyside Police)
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority Police and Fire Collaboration Committee 1st September 2015 Left Jane Kennedy (Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside) Right Sir John Murphy (Chief Constable, Merseyside Police)

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Video of the Police and Fire Collaboration Committee (Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority) meeting held on the 1st of September 2015.

The Police and Fire Collaboration Committee met for the first time on the 1st of September 2015. Papers for the meeting are on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s website.

The first meeting of the Police and Fire Collaboration Committee elected Councillor Dave Hanratty as Chair.

The other members of the Police and Fire Collaboration Committee are:

Councillor Linda Maloney (Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority)
Councillor Leslie Byron (Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority)
Jane Kennedy (Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside)
Sue Murphy (Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside)
 

The Police and Fire Collaboration Committee agreed the terms of reference.

Most of the rest of the meeting was discussion of the Fire and Police Collaboration Programme. There was a 5 page covering report and 8 page appendix detailing the “Collaboration/Shared Services Guiding Principles between Merseyside Police and Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service“.

Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens presented the report, as did Sir Jon Murphy (Chief Constable, Merseyside Police). Chief Fire Officer Dan Stephens drew the Committee’s attention to the list of possible areas for shared services in the report at part 6. The areas detailed in the report are:

  • Human Resources
  • Occupational Health
  • Finance
  • Procurement
  • Vehicle Fleet Management
  • Estates/Facilities
  • Press Office
  • Communication and Marketing
  • Performance/Corporate Development
  • Legal Services
  • ICT

He gave an example of shared working in the shared estates area as the Joint Control Centre in the building where the public meeting was being held. Dan Stephens highlighted the staffing implications in the report (section 16-17 on page 10). He stated, “Just to reassure members of the Committee that a Communications Strategy is being developed to ensure that all of our staff can be fully informed. As you can appreciate there will be a fair degree of interest in the work as it progresses.” Dan Stephens also referred to the legal implications, financial implications and other implications in sections 18-24 in the report.

Chief Constable Sir John Murphy added, “Everything that the Chief has just laid out there has been drawn up in complete collaboration with ourselves”.

Jane Kennedy, Police and Crime Commissioner for Merseyside said “That’s a good and comprehensive list of potential quick gains. For knowing what I know of the potential cliff edge that the Force is facing in terms of its funding and the particular threat in particular to community policing, for me B Ways of Working is absolutely crucial to the future benefit to the community of our two services working together. I can’t, my waking nightmare is the loss of what we currently know of as community style policing.

If we lose community policing altogether then there would still be neighbourhood policing, but we are, we are very close to that now. There is potential gain from us working very closely together with your people and the Force’s people on the ground in communities which I think is probably the greatest benefit.”

Councillor Hanratty (Chair) said that they needed to have conversations with the North West Ambulance Service to see “how they could work better together with them”. He suggested inviting the Chief Executive and Chair of the Board of Trustees of the North West Ambulance Service to a future meeting. Cllr Hanratty suggested that when they got to the last agenda item adjourning the meeting.

Jane Kennedy agreed with Councillor Hanratty but that it had taken her six months to get a meeting with North West Ambulance Service but, “I completely agree with what you’re saying David”.

Cllr Hanratty referred to both Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service and Merseyside Police’s independence. He commented that both organisations do “fantastic work”.

Chief Constable Sir John Murphy said, “Just to endorse what the Commissioner’s said there, the great strength of what we’re embarking on here is the MFRS [Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service] and Merseyside Police are under the same pressures, we share the same footprint and there’s a real joint will amongst the Chief Officer Teams and the people in this room to get things done.

Our experience with working with North West Ambulance and the North West is a problem to start with is that it’s not quite that straightforward and the experience of the JCC [Joint Control Centre] here and they’re in, they’re out, they’re in, they’re out, I would not like to see North West Ambulance Service get in the way of what we’re trying to achieve, but the principle of what you’re suggesting and the commenced approach towards that I agree.”

Councillor Leslie Byrom added, “I mean I agree with everything that’s been said, what we’re going to have in the next few months of business other than the budget stuff which is going to have a real major impact on how we’re going to plan for the future. This is the first step.

We’be got the overlay also that’s emerging of the Police Reform and Criminal Justice draft Bill. That mentions fire and police collaboration. It may mean that it’s more intended to affect non-metropolitan areas, there may be a separate solution anticipated for metropolitan areas but there is so much happening I think we are going to have to be fleet of foot for the next few months, adjourning this meeting is absolutely right.

Err, enabling us to call a meeting at you know legally short notice, errm and deal with changes that are being presented to us as they happen because you know we are on a bit of a roller coaster.

NWAS [North West Ambulance Service], obviously that’s another part, that’s another facet, another side of the entire blue light issue isn’t it? And I don’t think you know, I know we have difficulty sitting round and meeting with them, but actually I think we can’t leave that as an excuse can we?

We have to, they can not participate yes, but we have to be making the, giving leadership on this issue and showing that you know there is that overlay of blue light and the cross issues. Both the money and the way that they operate are quite different to us, I understand that, but we’re all in the area of public expenditure at this time.

So you know we just try our best with NWAS [North West Ambulance Service] to move things forward.”

The Chair thanked the officers for their work and referred to it as “a culture change for both of our organisations and the way they’ve worked together so far has been tremendous as well”

The recommendations contained within the report were agreed which are:

“That members:

a. Approve the draft Guiding Principles for the Collaboration Programme attached at Appendix A

b. Instruct the Chief Fire Officer (CFO) and Chief Constable (CC) to undertake a joint review of existing and potential opportunities for collaboration in line with the methodology detailed within the Guiding Principles.”

The Chair then agreed to adjourn the meeting, so that they could “call the meeting as and when required” but that the next meeting should be within the next couple of months.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Chief Fire Officer recommends new fire station at Saughall Massie and closure of fire stations at West Kirby and Upton

Chief Fire Officer recommends new fire station at Saughall Massie and closure of fire stations at West Kirby and Upton

Chief Fire Officer recommends new fire station at Saughall Massie and closure of fire stations at West Kirby and Upton

                                                  

Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service) answers questions at a public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie to discuss proposals for a new fire station (20th April 2015). Kieran Timmins (Deputy Chief Executive) is on the right.
Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer) answers questions at a public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie to discuss proposals for a new fire station (20th April 2015)

There are four agenda items on the agenda of next week’s Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority public meeting that relate to the decision about the future of West Kirby Fire Station and Upton Fire Station.

First (item 3) is a petition asking for Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority to “Stop the building of the Fire Station in Saughall Massie and the destruction of precious green belt land”. At the time of writing this petition on the change.org website has 321 signatures. The comments of the signatories can be read here.

According to section 11.3 of the constitution for Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority:

“The presentation of a petition shall be limited to not more than 5 minutes and shall be confined to reading out or summarising the subject of the petition indicating the number and description of the signatories, and making such further supporting remarks relevant to the petition as the person presenting it shall think fit.”

Item 4 is a “deputation in relation to the merger of Upton and West Kirby fire stations”. This is described on the agenda as “To consider a deputation of Wirral residents and Councillors concerning the proposed merger of Upton and West Kirby Fire Stations at the site identified in Saughall Massie.”

Section 11.4 to 11.7 of the constitution deal with the procedure for deputations:

“11.4 Any person likely to be affected by a matter in relation to which the Authority has functions, (other than employees in relation to matters of conditions of service) may ask that a deputation should be received by a meeting of the Authority. Such a request shall be made to the Proper Officer at least seven working days before the meeting to which it relates. The person making the request shall indicate the matter to which the request relates, the number (which shall not be more than five names and addresses of the persons who will form the deputation, and the member or members of the deputation who will speak for them).

11.5 On being called by the Person Presiding, the person or persons speaking for the deputation may make, during a period not exceeding five minutes, such remarks as she/he or they think fit, providing that the remarks shall relate to the matter indicated.

11.6 The Members of the Authority may, during a further period not exceeding five minutes for each deputation, ask questions of the members of the deputation. Such questions shall be asked and
answered without discussion.

11.7 Petitions shall be presented, and deputations received in the order in which notice of them is received by the Proper Officer, without making any distinction between petitions and deputations.”

Agenda item 7 is titled Wirral West Fire Cover Consultation 2 outcomes. The reports for this agenda item come to 236 pages!

Finally agenda item 8 (operational response savings options for Wirral) is the agenda item when an actual decision will be made.

This agenda item comprises of a report detailing the Chief Fire Officer’s recommendations to councillors (the following is quoted from the report and is the Chief Fire Officer’s recommendation (Wirral MBC stands for Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council and fire appliance means fire engine):

“a. approve the merger of Upton and West Kirby fire stations at a new station on Saughall Massie Road, subject to agreement from Wirral MBC to transfer ownership of the land to the Authority and the granting of planning permission;

b. approve the relocation of the West Kirby fire appliance to Upton to be crewed wholetime retained as an interim measure prior to the construction of the new station

c. amend the capital programme to incorporate the Saughall Massie fire station scheme; and

d. give delegated authority to the Chief Fire Officer (CFO) to continue discussions with partners, including Merseyside Police and North West Ambulance Service, with a view to sharing the new building.”

There are of course other options that are in theory available to councillors (but I’ll make it clear these are options which the Chief Fire Officer doesn’t recommend). These other options include the outright closure of West Kirby Fire Station and the relocation of the West Kirby fire engine to Upton Fire Station.

Due to the sheer volume of responses to this consultation, whatever I write below is going to leave something out. However I will do my best to summarise some of the responses to the consultation.

I had better also declare an interest at this point, as in the report on press articles/letters to the press on page 4 Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority have included the blog post I wrote on the 20th April 2015 headlined Public consultation meeting in Saughall Massie on proposed new fire station (along with three comments written by Alan Dransfield, keef666 and Jean).

The people of Saughall Massie are opposed to a fire station being built at the proposed site (currently owned by Wirral Council) on Saughall Massie Road. There are a variety of reasons given ranging from traffic, green belt issues, noise/disturbance and concerns that building on the Saughall Massie Road site is inadvisable due to regular flooding.

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service paid Opinion Research Services £19,195.00 (a spin out company of Swansea University) to do a report for the consultation. Their 49 page report details the results of a range of polling techniques including focus groups, a forum and a postal residents survey.

The deliberative forum for Saughall Massie found opposition to a new fire station there. Most of the group they asked from Upton were also opposed to the use of a greenbelt site at Saughall Massie, but at the same time supported a new fire station in the Saughall Massie area. The West Kirby group & the all Wirral forum were in favour of the Saughall Massie site being used for a new fire station. However ORS does state “deliberative forums cannot be certified as statistically representative samples of public opinion”.

A postal questionnaire was also sent out by ORS to 10,000 households (5,000 to the West Kirby Fire Station area and 5,000 to the Upton Fire Station area). Out of the 1,351 postal questionnaires that were returned a majority in both Upton (51%) and West Kirby (70%) areas went for option one (merging Upton and West Kirby fire stations by building a new fire station in Saughall Massie).

However these findings come with caveats as ORS also state:

“However, consultation is not a numbers game, in which the majority view necessarily prevails (like in a referendum), so the Fire Authority will wish to consider carefully all the arguments, evidence and considerations relevant to this case before taking its decision based upon its assessment of the public good.”

Here are some quotes from the members of the public that responded to the consultation and a link to the full 40 page document:

“As a resident of West Kirby and a mother of three young children I object to the proposals to close West Kirby fire station.

This is a ridiculous and dangerous proposal and directly increases the risk of death, from a house fire, to my family.”

“Also please provide a credible reason as to why, in a democratic and fair society, the residents of Saughall Massie’s overwhelming feelings of resistance to this proposed fire station are being overridden by the local Labour Council when equal or lesser feelings of resistance by those in Greasby were considered in full and their request to reject the proposed building of this facility (on a brown field site) was granted.”

“I live next to Saughall Massie Road and during the morning and evening “rush hours” it’s very heavily congested to a far greater extent than other local roads at these times. ”

“I object to the proposed fire station in Saughall Massie because:-

  • lives could be lost as Saughall Massie Road is already congested. Between 8am and 9.30am Mon-Fri – severe congestion
  • no open space for dogs & horses to run free
  • our properties will de-value
  • damage to wildlife habitats”

“Re Fire Station Saughall Massie Road

I would like to register my disapproval at the above. Building on Greenbelt land is out of order.”

“I would hope that you agree that Monday night’s fiasco did not satisfy the criteria as a meaningful consultation exercise. Having said that, you must be aware that the overwhelming views of the residents, both inside and on the pavement outside, was that this development does not take place at all within our precious ‘Green Belt’.”

“Proposal for a fire station, Saughall Massie, Wirral

I am writing to express my concerns over the proposal to build a fire station on the greenbelt land at Saughall Massie. I live directly opposite the suggested site and am disappointed to learn of this proposal which I personally use at least twice a day to both exercise my dog and meet up with other local residents. There is also a great deal of wildlife and the beautiful Jenny’s Wood. There are water voles, bats, owls to name a few and I am sure that many of these beautiful creatures will be affected by this build if it goes ahead.

I wish to register that I am totally opposed to the build and wish my feelings to be noted.”

The Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority will make a decision on the future of the fire stations at Upton and West Kirby at a public meeting starting at 1.00pm on Tuesday 30th June 2015 in the Liverpool Suite, ground floor, Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service Headquarters, Bridle Road, Bootle, L30 4YD. The agenda and reports for that meeting can be found on their website.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.