Archived decisions

Objectives

Questions

Response

Response

Response

Objective No 1 - Reducing preventable incidents

Lifts - Summary:

The consensus of opinion throughout feed back received to date, is the need for HFRS to risk asses each individual incident and not be seen to pass total responsibility to lift owners/managers, although it is generally felt legislation should be introduced to ensure better maintenance of lifts by property owners.

Acetylene Cylinders: Feedback again would indicate the need for legislation to exist with regard to the owning and stowing of acetylene cylinders.

Whose responsibility is it to make arrangements to release people who become stuck in lifts?

When people become stuck in a lift, what response should Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service utilise?

Are you aware of the effects that tying up our front line resources to these types of incidents has on our capacity to respond?

83% Premises Manager

25% Emergency response

84% Yes

14% Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service (HFRS)

19% Non-emergency response

16% No

3% Public

56% Lift repair company

---

Objective No 2 - Mainstreaming equality and diversity

Summary

A number of comments relating to this objective are around the need for this to become core business and not to be consulted upon. Also, it is felt this is an issue that is already embedded within HFRS culture.

Do you consider increasing the diversity of the workforce within HFRS will be beneficial to you?

If we were to increase the diversity of our workforce, would that improve the confidence you have in us?

Has our progress and investment in equality and diversity initiatives made a difference to your perception of HFRS?

What actions do we need to consider in order to maintain our commitment to our diverse communities?

48% Yes

45% Yes

33% Yes

25% recruit a more diverse workforce

30% No

34% No

47% No

43% Improve our ability to communicate

22% Not sure

21% Not sure

20% Not sure

32% Fire safety education

Objectives

Questions

Response

Response

Response

Objective No 3 - Working with the voluntary sector to widen our reach

Summary

Although recognised as a untapped resource, the overall feel of feedback is the need for this issue to be clarified prior to pursuing it any further, taking into account the initial costs of establishing a volunteer programme, the long term commitment from volunteers and the potential of those already employed within HFRS who may be able to expand their current roles.

Do you think HFRS should seek to utilise the skills of people within the community who would like to undertake voluntary work?

What kind of community safety work do you think volunteers would be interested in carrying out?

What would be the best way for HFRS to recruit these volunteers?

88% Yes

33% Working in schools

38% Local press

12% No

26% Working in ethnic

44% Station Open Days communities

---

41% Promoting fire safety

18% Mail drops

Objective No 4 - Introducing Diversity Liaison Officers to our Service

Summary

This objective raises a number of concerns from those completing the feedback with comments such as; `looking at the money spent nationally on this issue over the last few years - it has gone beyond a sustainable level' and ` no feedback to date on outreach so why expand?'. Furthermore, it is felt this offers the potential for fire fighters to expand and diversify their current roles so consideration should be given to offering similar role to fire fighters.

Do you think we should be employing Diversity Liaison Officers?

Do you think they should be attached to the Watches?

Do you think DLOs will improve the service provided to minority groups?

What effect will the DLOs have on the culture (the way we do things) of HFRS?

82% Yes

47% Yes

64% Yes

73% Positive

18% No

19% No

12% No

8% Negative

--

34% Not Sure

24% Not sure

19% No difference

Objectives

Questions

Response

Response

Response

Objective 5 - Learning more about our community

Summary

A number of partnerships have already been established and feedback would support the expansion of these to incorporate more of the community. However, the work currently being undertaken on stations needs to be recognised and perhaps this objective could be combined with Objective Nos. 2 and 3 and the roles offered to station personnel to support their development and the increasing diversity within their roles

Do you see value in an advisor to represent groups to help us in our risk reduction policy making?

Do you think we would find suitable advisors and volunteers in your community?

Who or what do you consider to be a `vulnerable' group?

76% Yes

60% Yes

34% Older persons

9% No

8% No

16% Ethnic groups

15% Not sure

32% Not sure

24% Low income earners

Objective No 6 - Improving our emergency cover in Havant

Summary

It is felt that an increase in cover would be a positive method of educating the community in preventative measures as well as ensuring the high risk areas within Havant are covered. Negative feedback would indicate the concern over why this issue, already agreed with the FRA in a previous IRMP needs yet again to be submitted for consultation.

What impact do you consider that the provision of a continuously crewed fire station will have on reducing risk within the community?

What impact do you consider that the provision of a continuously crewed fire station will have on our target to attend 80% of all incidents within 8 minutes?

What impact do you consider the provision of a continuously crewed fire station will have on its accessibility to the local community?

Do you consider the provision of a continuously crewed fire station will allow for greater opportunities for working in partnership with other organisations?

94% Positive

93% Positive effect

94% Positive effect

83% Yes

1% Negative

1% Negative effect

3% Negative effect

3% No

5% No difference

4% No difference

4% No difference

14% Not sure

Objectives

Questions

Response

Response

Response

Objective No 7 - Reducing our impact on the environment

Summary

This objective has been well received with a number of positive ideas being submitted to the Performance Review department. The amount of travelling undertaken by fire fighters, especially in relation to the recently implemented Personnel Reserve appears to be the only area of contention raised to date.

Is it reasonable we should continue to use fairly large amounts of water to a reasonable level in order to ensure our personnel receive realistic training?

94% Yes

1% No

5% Not sure

Objective No 8 - Promoting fire protection systems

Summary

The risks versus the benefits of fire protection systems has been questioned and the possible need for these to become legal requirements.

Who do you think that the installation of sprinklers should be targeted at:

Do you think the benefits of sprinklers are worth pursuing?

Should HFRS continue to lobby for mandatory sprinklers in schools?

14% Residential and domestic properties;

85% Yes

91% Yes

42% Large single storey retail and storage buildings

2% No

3% No

44% Community buildings (Schools, hospitals, etc.)

13% Not sure

6% Not sure

Objective No 9 - Improving safety in the home

Summary

Although throughout the feedback received to date, it has been recognised this issue is a natural part of HFRS community safety work and should be continually expanded to include `at risk' areas, it is the need to constantly evaluate and feedback that is required in order to make this objective a success.

Do you agree with our risk based proposals for Home Fire Safety Visits (See details in draft Plan)?

Do you feel there is any value in us carrying out Home Fire Safety Visits?

Do you consider your community is one of our target groups?

Do you think our home visits should be just about fire or include other home safety issues?

88% All of them

89% Yes

49% Yes

21% Just fire safety

12% Some of them

3% No

23% No

76% Other home safety issues

---

8% Not sure

28% Not sure

3% Not sure

Objectives

Questions

Response

Response

Response

Objective No 10 - Relocating our resources in Portsmouth

Summary

This very emotive issue once again has resulted in a large amount of feedback being received which in the main indicates concern about the information and statistics presented during consultation. It is felt the decision to close Copnor Fire Station, is already a `done deal' and the consultation purely an exercise to satisfy residents and those with an interest in changes to the fire cover in Portsmouth.

The general consensus of opinion however, is in agreement with the proposal to relocate the Special Equipment Unit (SEU) to Cosham fire station but not with the closing of Copnor - although statistics supporting this move has a number of times been requested.

At present the statistics presented show the three stations currently located in Portsmouth performing above the current 8/80 response standards and the concern is the reduction in this standard will ultimately lead to the reduction in cover. The dramatic increase in the population of Portsmouth over recent years is the issue causing the most concern, along with the high volume of traffic on the island of Portsea on a daily basis.

A number of times throughout the feedback it has been proposed to retain Copnor as a community fire station for use in conjunction with local beat officers, police community support officers and community wardens, all of whom are vital in the reduction of arson and anti-social behaviour in such a densely populated city.

Overall and as expected, the feedback received so far during consultation is the overwhelming objection to the closure of Copnor fire station.

Should HFRS continually review the way it utilises it's resources?

Should HFRS be able to recommend relocating personnel and equipment, or the opening/closing of fire stations if it would improve the Service or make it become more efficient?

Are fire stations and appliances best located where they have historically been, or should they be based where they will provide the best response?

The relocation of the Special Equipment Unit to Cosham is independent of the proposed closure of Copnor fire station - should this go ahead as soon as possible?

86% Yes - this will improve the Service

65% Yes- relocating resources

10% Should stay where they are

45% Yes

4% No - the Service is fine as it is

23% Yes - Opening and/or closing stations

82% Should be at the optimum locations

6% No

10% Not sure

12% Neither

8% Not sure

49% Not sure

Objectives

Questions

Response

Response

Response

Objective No 11 - Improving road safety

Summary

Agreed that as a Fire and Rescue Service this is an area in which HFRS working closely with partner agencies, needs to expand and improve.

Do you think HFRS should be involved in road safety?

Do you agree that our focus to improve road safety should be targeted at young people?

Are you aware that the ratio of road deaths to fire deaths is approximately 10:1?

81% Yes

74% Yes

40% Yes

9% No

18% No

60% No

10% Not sure

8% Not sure

---

Objective No 12 - Relocating Winchester fire station

Summary

As with Objective No 10 - Relocation of resources in Portsmouth, a number of comments have been based around the accuracy of the statistics presented during consultation. Statistics comparing the whole time response from the current site with the proposed site have been requested in order to support the proposed move.

A great deal of the feedback focuses mainly around the actual proposed location in comparison to the current one, which some feel is in a highly visible site and ideal for the community and potential partnership working.

A number of comments support the move due to the one way system in place in Winchester and the difficulties the fire appliances as well as visitors face when either leaving or trying to enter the station.

Overall however the main concerns have been raised over the retention of retained personnel and the impact the proposed relocation of the station will have on them, a number of whom will be outside the four minute response time permitted and will therefore no longer be able to respond. The move would also place the new station in a much smaller catchment area and again the concern is the ability to recruit retained personnel.

What do you think is the main advantage of the fire station remaining on the current Winchester site?

What do you think is the main disadvantage of remaining on the current Winchester site?

What do you think is the main advantage of moving Winchester fire station to the new proposed site at Winnall?

What do you think is the main disadvantage of moving Winchester fire station to the new proposed site at Winnall?

What do you consider the effect of moving to Winnall will have on the risks in the Winchester area?

10% It's a nice building in the centre of Winchester

23% The station is old fashioned and needs updating

51% Station will be closer to the motorway

29% Difficult for personnel to get to work

48% Positive effect

90% Current site allows for community accessibility

77% Traffic can delay the response times on the current site

49% Station will be purpose built

71% Station will be too far out of town

6% Negative effect

---

---

---

--

46% No difference

Objectives

Questions

Response

Response

Response

Objective No 12 - Relocating Winchester fire station (cont'd)

One comment requests an evaluation of the most recently purpose built station; St. Mary's in Southampton, to allow for lessons learnt to be taken into consideration when building the new fire station at Winnall.

Objective No 13 - Developing regional working

Summary

Feedback recognises the positive aspects of this objective but suggests the need to expand to include close working with other agencies such as the Royal Navy. There appears to be some concern over this leading to a regional fire service, a regional training centre and regional procurement - the latter being opposed by the FBU.

Do you agree that HFRS should work collaboratively to gain efficiencies?

In what one other area do you believe HFRS should aim to work more closely?

96% Yes

40% Other `999' Services

1% No

30% Business community

3% Not sure

30% Other FRS

Objective No 14 - Reviewing our work with children and young people

Summary

Positive feedback received to date with the only issue being the need for correct CRB procedures to be carried out (and the FBU's interpretation of these). It is felt there is a need for HFRS to publicise the initiatives being carried out in order for these to be successfully expanded.

Should HFRS be involved in tackling anti-social behaviour?

Do you believe there is an issue in your community of deliberate fire setting?

Are you aware that HFRS is involved in children and young people initiatives?

54% Yes

28% Yes

66% Yes

27% No

47% No

34% No

19% Not sure

25% Not sure

---

Objectives

Questions

Response

Response

Response

Objective No 15 - Delivering community safety through our RDS staff

Summary

The benefits of utilising those HFRS personnel that live and work within their local community has been applauded throughout the feedback received with the potential to include a number of other proposed objectives, i.e. Objective No 14 - working with local young people as well as Objective No 8. One area of concern is the funding for implementing and expanding

Do you consider it important we use local resources to address local risks?

How do you think we should use local resources?

Is it important to you that the service you receive is delivered by locally based personnel?

92% Yes

34% Home Fire Safety Visits

51% Yes

4% No

36% Fire Safety Education

15% No

4% Not sure

30% Partnership working

34% Don't mind

Objective No 16 Building our network of Community Safety Officers

Summary

Comments received to date fully support this proposal if the role is a duplication of the current Community Liaison Officer based in Portsmouth.

Do you consider it important and of value to have a Community Safety Officer working in your area?

Do you consider HFRS should spend financial resources in this way?

Would you make use of a Community Safety Officer?

85% Yes

82% Yes

20% Yes - for personal reasons

6% No

9% No

9% Yes - for commercial reasons

53% Yes - for community reasons

9% Not sure

9% Not sure

18% No

Objectives

Questions

Response

Response

Response

Objective No 17 - Development of Cosham Fire Station

Summary

The only comment relating to this objective received so far is the potential to utilise the facilities at Copnor fire station during the development of Cosham.

Should HFRS actively pursue its plans to provide a new Cosham fire station to meet the needs of a modern fire and rescue service?

What one facility could a fire station include for use by the wider community?

Could new fire stations play a wider role in the provision of community services?

83% Yes

35% Involvement with young people

67% Yes

17% No

43% Information on HFRS activities etc.

12% No

---

22% Room for community use

21% Not sure

Objective No 18 - Learning from our presence at Popley Fields Community Centre

Summary

Very positive comments received regarding Popley Fields including the recognition of the initiatives and positive influence over the local community. The only concern being the removal by HFRS of these resources which could potentially lead to a dramatic increase in local support and positive behaviour.

Do you feel there is value in HFRS integrating with the community through community centres, etc?

Would you approach and use the fire service if they were present in your community?

Do you consider that a fires service presence could have a negative impact on your community facilities - if they were used in this way?

83% Yes

75% Yes

11% Yes

2% No

5% No

75% No

15% Not sure

20% Not sure

14% Not sure

Integrated Risk Management Plan 2008-11

Comments

Results from consultation on title change

Summary

As part of the consultation process an alternative to the name of the IRMP was sought, unfortunately this did not result in any one particular suggestion being voted as the most popular and therefore it is very difficult to sum up the re-naming of the IRMP or indeed a preferred alternative.

At most meetings a great deal of discussion took place regarding the re-naming of the IRMP but without any final suggestions. The Leadership Forum for example ended their discussion on the subject with a suggestion to ask the public for their opinion on `Community Safety Plan'. However by this stage in the consultation programme, 8 of the 12 public meetings had already taken place without this name being one of the proposed alternatives.

The comments and feedback on the suggestion for `Our Plan' seemed to attract mixed comments at both public, stakeholder and employee events as indicated below:

`Our Plan' Does not mean anything'

`Our Plan' sounds like a retirement plan'

`Our Plan is the best'

`Good idea to change to "Our Plan"

`Our Plan - to do what'?

`Our Plan' means very little but IRMP inc risk and therefore valid'

Similar comments were received about the suggestion of `Corporate Plan' and indeed about keeping the name IRMP. The majority of comments relating to the re-naming of the IRMP would lean towards emphasising or retaining `Fire and Rescue' in it's title as the following comment, again a comment from the Leadership Forum;

`Fire and Rescue Plan links it to Group and Station Plans'

The inclusion of Fire and Rescue was also supported at a number of consultation events - although again, no definite alternative was really offered;

`Fire & Rescue makes more sense'

`Fire & Rescue Plan'? Yes the group would support this'

`Key word is `Rescue' but liked `Our plan to make Hampshire safer''

`HFRS Plan to Make Hampshire Safer as the title should say what we want the plan to do'