Tag: Deputy 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.

Deputy Chief Fire Officer Phil Garrigan tells councillors “90 working days” are lost each year in responding to FOI requests

Deputy Chief Fire Officer Phil Garrigan tells councillors “90 working days” are lost each year in responding to FOI requests

                                                           

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.

Councillors on the Performance and Scrutiny Committee (Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority) discuss Freedom of Information requests (starts at 15m 35s) (12th January 2016)

Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer) speaks about freedom of information requests to a meeting of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority's Performance and Scrutiny Committee (12th January 2015)
Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer) speaks about freedom of information requests to a meeting of Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s Performance and Scrutiny Committee (12th January 2015)

Although I am not referred to by name (but my profession is in the report), I have made Freedom of Information requests to Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service/Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority during the period covered by that report. An appeal of a refusal of one of those Freedom of Information requests to the Information Commissioner’s Office is referred to in the report in section 16. I am therefore declaring this as an interest at the start of this piece.

I have previously written about Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s response to the consultation on changes to Freedom of Information legislation.

Yesterday councillors on Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority’s Performance and Scrutiny Committee discussed a report on Freedom of Information requests.

The report was introduced by Deputy Chief Fire Officer Phil Garrigan, who said “Thanks Chair, again this report relates to our response to a request from Members to better understand the implications of the Freedom of Information requests on the Authority and the report proposes to, it requests that Members review the information in relation to Freedom of Information requests and particularly the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

What I would say from the outset is that Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority adheres to and is supportive of the Freedom of Information Act and values its role in allowing people to access information, giving them the right to find out about matters and decisions that affect them. I’d like to be absolutely crystal clear around that.

However, use of the Act is becoming increasingly popular and the volumes of freedom of information requests have increased over the recent years. The table on page 58 exemplifies that. We received, we saw freedom of information requests in 2011 at 72, 2014 at 138 and up until November 9th 2015 at 131.

So it’s clear evidence that the freedom of information requests coming through to Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority has increased significantly over that period and you know Members will also be aware that we’ve been receiving those freedom of information requests it’s a requirement on us to turn around that information within twenty days unless we are able to provide you know a legitimate reason as to why we wouldn’t provide that information and even then we’d have to evidence that and reply to the particular individual who’s requested the information.

What we also recognise is that there are different courses of action that we could take. You know a) providing the information, redacting the information, refusing to supply the information by applying an exemption or determining that the work required to pull the information together is disproportionate and then notifying the application that it’s available by other means or by determining the request is vexatious and certainly the Information Commissioner has said you know when challenged around freedom of information and the number of requests it is always available for an authority or an organisation to reject it on the basis that it’s a vexatious request, but equally Members will appreciate the fact that that is quite challenging in that regard because it seems very protectionist, it seems as though we would be withholding information from a public member or an organisation on that basis and it’s very difficult to legitimise that in my view and more often than not the individuals, the staff who are seeking to provide that information will go way beyond what’s expected to provide that information as accurately as they are able to.

But it does place demands on our organisation, particularly as our organisation continues to reduce in size and when we look at the, our attempts to protect our front line operational response and we look at, it’s incumbent on us that we look at the support services that maintain the Service outside of our operational firefighters. So our non uniformed colleagues and uniformed colleagues are spending a significant amount of time dealing with freedom of information requests. So the organisation is shrinking but the demand around freedom of information is increasing.

So what the report does is it recognises that fact, it appreciates the fact that you know we will get a multitude of different requests in, some from you know members of the public, but some extended to journalists and so on and so forth and representative bodies who are utilising the information not in my view for how it was necessarily meant to be utilised in the first instance and also we have requests coming from organisations and companies where they are seeking to achieve you know some competitive advantage and I’m not sure again that was the basis of what the Freedom of Information Act was all about, but drawing all that in then and you know certainly it’s already been recognised as there’s been an independent Commission that has been invoked to review the Freedom of Information Act and we have provided a response to that saying that we are certainly for legitimate and less vexatious requests and maybe a levy or a charge may be applicable to kind of ensure that they are genuine and not repeated and that would maybe prevent some of the prolific you know press requirements being met when such a charge is applicable.

However the Information Commissioner has published a response in relation to that consultation which says, which argues against the introduction of fees and as I say you know starts to suggest that authorities should use section 14 which is around vexatious requests to avoid responding to the ones that were deemed to be you know vexatious in their very nature.

However you know in regards to that as I’ve previously stated, paragraph 12 describes the challenges around describing something as vexatious and that’s not something we would want to be perceived to be defensive over the policies and procedures that we’ve adopted as an Authority. I’m not sure we would want to be, or I certainly know we would want to be as transparent and open as possible but nevertheless what does that mean in reality?

In reality it means that since July 2015 through November, 32 complete requests have been responded to and the total of hours that have been attributed to that to deal with those requests 153 hours, which equates to 4.8 hours per a request for information. When you extrapolate that over the twelve month period it equates to 629 hours which again would be in effect is about 90 days of a person who is being responded to and obviously that’s a collective person because that’s an hour of one department, two hours of another, three hours of another and so on and so forth, but in totality it’s about 90 working days that’s lost from this Authority in responding to freedom of information requests at a time when we would be better focussed on our attentions on the delivery of the service and as I say protecting the front line.

However that is the kind of realities and again this is not about us, you know, challenging the utilisation of freedom of information but certainly it questions its actual usage in its broader sense and who actually uses it for what reasons.

When you then as part and parcel of our response to the consultation we asked staff members about what they felt the implications were for themselves and they are detailed in paragraph 19.

But what I would say in kind of closing and given that the kind of clarity of 90 working days lost to responding to freedom of information requests, I’ll just bring you back to the legal implications. Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority has a duty under the Freedom of Information Act to deal with requests promptly and in the event no later than 20 working days after receipt of the requests.

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority can exercise its rights under the Act if an exemption has been correctly applied and in most cases the public interest test is then applied to ensure any exemptions are correctly applied under those circumstances.

So there are ways in which we can deal with them, but again just to reiterate the point, our intent is to be as open and transparent as possible. We are you know responding to each and every one and it does incur a significant cost associated with them of 90 days across the whole 12 months of the organisation irrespective of who necessarily deals with them but certainly there are members of certain teams who spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with requests. I’m happy to take any questions on that Chair.”

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

Fire Brigades Union will strike for 24 hours from 0900 on 9th December 2014 to 0900 on 10th December 2014 over pensions dispute

Fire Brigades Union will strike for 24 hours from 0900 on 9th December 2014 to 0900 on 10th December 2014 over pensions dispute

Fire Brigades Union will strike for 24 hours from 0900 on 9th December 2014 to 0900 on 10th December 2014 over pensions dispute

                                                          

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority Consultation and Negotiation Sub-Committee 2nd December 2014 L to R Unknown, Cllr Mahon (Chair), Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer), Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer), Unknown, Cllr Robertson
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority Consultation and Negotiation Sub-Committee 2nd December 2014 L to R Unknown, Cllr Mahon (Chair), Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer), Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer), Unknown, Cllr Robertson

Present (Consultation and Negotiation Sub-Committee, 4 out of 5 councillors were present, quorum is two):
Cllr Jimmy Mahon (Labour, Chair)
Cllr Leslie T Byrom (Labour)
Cllr Linda Maloney (Labour)
Cllr Tony Robertson (Lib Dem opposition spokesperson)

Also present:
Dan Stephens (Chief Fire Officer)
Phil Garrigan (Deputy Chief Fire Officer)
Janet Henshaw (Clerk to the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority and Monitoring Officer)
Fire Brigade Union guy 1
Fire Brigade Union guy 2
Union guy 3
Union guy 4
Two members of the public (of which the author of this blog post John Brace is one)

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.

The Chair started the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority meeting by stating in the event of a fire alarm sounding where the nearest fire exits were and people were to assemble at the assembly point across the car park in the event of a fire. Smoking would not be permitted during the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority meeting and the toilets were further down the corridor on the opposite side to the meeting room.

If anyone was requested to leave the meeting for whatever reason, recording was to not continue outside the room. He asked people not to leave on display anything that was private or confidential items on display.

There were no exempt items on the agenda for this meeting so the press and public wouldn’t be asked to leave. He asked if any of the two “observers” present had any objections to being filmed (one of whom is the person writing this). Neither of us (including myself) did. He asked people to have their mobile phones on silent, told people he was Councillor Mahon and declared the meeting open.

1. Preliminary Matters

An apology was given by Cllr Tony Robertson for Cllr Lesley Rennie.
An apology was given by the Chair for the Deputy Chief Fire Officer Phil Garrigan.
The Deputy Chief Fire Officer pointed out he was present.

No declarations of interest were made.

There were no items that the press and public would be excluded for.

2. Minutes of Previous Meeting

The minutes of the meeting of the consultation and negotiation sub-committee meeting of the 2nd September 2014 (the blog post Labour councillors blame government for strikes in 1st ever film of a Merseyside Fire Authority meeting refers to this meeting) were agreed.

3. Industrial Relations Update

The Chief Fire Officer, Dan Stephens introduced his report (CFO/124/14) on matters of negotiation and consultation with the trade unions since the last meeting on 2nd September 2014.

He referred to 45 service instructions issued since 2nd September, most had been agreed but nine were outstanding. Dan Stephens referred to the ongoing talks with the Fire Brigades Union and that the Fire Brigades Union did not agree with the health and fitness instruction as well as an ongoing national dispute. However there had been talks in London on the 10th and 11th of September and a further meeting in Liverpool on the 29th September.

The Chief Fire Officer on behalf of the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service thanked Phil, Mark and Kevin for getting to the point where they had reached an agreement.

He referred to paragraphs 10 and 11 of his report about 24-hour shifts, the impact of station mergers versus outright closure and the mitigation he had recommended to the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority. With regards to the pensions dispute it was outside his influence and totally outside his sphere of control, however he hoped to maintain constructive dialogue and Merseyside was testament to strong industrial relations between the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service and the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Authority.

There was notification by the Fire Brigades Union of a 24 hour strike from 0900 on the 9th December 2014 to 0900 on the 10th December 2014. An Early Day Motion by Hilary Benn MP had attracted 236 signatures so far. However the pension regulations had been laid before parliament and the 40-day period would conclude on the 11th December 2014, which was the reason for the timing of the notification of industrial action by the Fire Brigades Union.

If the pension regulations were agreed by Parliament they would come into effect on the 1st April 2015. He said he would take any questions.

The Fire Brigades Union representative referred to the service instructions and the enormous body of work it had entailed. They had put it forward to the national Fire Brigades Union to be recognised as a template. He agreed with the Chief Fire Officer that it was much better to have an agreed outcomes and agreed introduction.

He referred to the policies about aiding sick and injured firefighters rather than punitively punishing them and accepted the reassurances about the issue of 24-hour working. Rather than death by a thousand cuts, he wanted to deal with the issues now to give a relative period of stability moving forward. Finally he pointed out to everyone at the Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service that it was a national pensions dispute and he wanted to reiterate that there was excellent industrial relations locally in that they could talk about thorny issues without either side finding it offensive.

Cllr Maloney said that as an Authority they hadn’t got a clue as to what was going to happen.

Cllr Byrom said that during the strike period relationships on Merseyside had been cordial. Other authorities hadn’t seen this so he was grateful. He said that they “stand on the brink of considerable change”. In the tours they had been doing of fire stations, he’d been able to say to firefighters and members of the public it’s not the cheapest way of working but a better way of working to retain a full-time method of operation.

If they lost control of the agenda, the way to save money would be to move to retained. He said, “We don’t want that.” However, working closely with the staff and the public they serve, he wanted to put forward the message that it was safe, a good speed of response, a good weight of response and that the crews when they get there were prepared and trained.

The representative of the Fire Officers Association referred to the financial difficulties, the staffing model and how everyone was integral to providing an emergency service. He too referred to the 24-hour shift system. On the pensions issue he said that the government wasn’t moving and that they had got to persuade ministers and civil servants as there were issues that hadn’t been fully considered by the government.

He wanted (in reflection of the 236 MPs that had signed an Early Day Motion) a debate, otherwise there was something seriously wrong with politics. The union representative suggested that they address their MPs and ask them to sign the Early Day Motion apart from the one who is a government minister.

Referring to the MP for Wirral West, the Rt Hon Esther McVey MP, he said that she, “certainly doesn’t seem to live in the real world, doesn’t seem to want to know the impact of the cuts that are happening on this [Merseyside Fire and Rescue] Service”.

Although the Fire Brigades Union had said not to respond to the Adrian Thomas review of conditions of service and questionnaire, he had seen a tweet from the Deputy General Secretary encouraging members to respond to this. He had retweeted it, because he thought it was important as it affects all members.

He wanted Adrian Thomas as the independent person undertaking the review to fully understand and appreciate the concerns and issues of members. Looking forward to the budget proposals in February, the mergers were the big issue, he wanted to make sure that any cuts protected the frontline.

Cllr Tony Robertson (Lib Dem opposition spokesperson) that he agreed over the fulltime issue. He referred to his union background as a branch secretary and how there was a huge amount of respect on both sides. Although he was only a recently appointed member of the Fire Authority, he had read about it prior to becoming a member. He said that industrial relations were a hugely important issue as poor industrial relations would lead to a poor service. Cllr Robertson also said he had “no enthusiasm for city region government”.

The Chair referred to the disputes from 2003 and the £100,000 cost of getting the Green Goddess and how in the past the trade unions had told them what to do and how bad it was in the past. He compared how it was in 2003 to the improved industrial relations in 2014.

The Chief Fire Officer said to respond to Cllr Hanratty, that all MPs on Merseyside, bar the MP for Wirral West had signed the Early Day Motion, which included the Rt Hon John Pugh MP for Southport who is a member of the coalition.

The recommendations were agreed. The Chair said that the next meeting would be the 24th March 2015, he thanked people for their attendance and wished people a safe journey.

=======================================================================================================

I’ve started a petition calling on the Mersey Fire and Rescue Authority to delete the part of its constitution that requires permission to film each public meeting following the legal change in August 2014. Please if you agree with it then sign it.

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