Archived decisions

Objective 1

Develop speed of response standards for specific risks

Summary

The consensus from the public was that there were many incidents that could be classified as non-emergencies; but they felt that every individual incident should be risk assessed:

· Road Traffic Collisions (RTC's) - emergency.

· Primary fires - emergency.

· Secondary fires - views were mixed as to whether this was an emergency response, but it was generally accepted that primary fires and RTC's should take priority.

· Lifts - staff felt lift calls to be emergencies; public felt them to be non-emergencies.

· Automatic Fire Detection's (AFD's) - more important for domestic property than commercial property; repeat offenders should not have a response or be fined; mixed feelings as to whether these should attract an emergency or non-emergency response.

HFRS staff were initially eager to class all calls as emergencies. However, the majority of staff supported the current classification - as did the public when explained to them.

Staff feel that any new targets should be realistic and future-proofed for the introduction of Regional control centre (RCC). Attendance times for retained duty system (RDS) and wholetime (WT) stations are different and should be considered.

Conclusion

Opinions varied but the vast majority of the public and staff are happy with the current classification of emergency and non-emergency calls.

Objective 2

Review the delivery of our services in the area covered by Bishop's Waltham, Botley, Droxford and Wickham fire stations

Summary

Once staff and the public were assured that this objective centred around improving the delivery of our services and not closing fire stations - they could see the benefits of the objective and commented that such a review was `business as usual'.

Public felt that HFRS should raise its profile to the public. Suggestions to do this included:

· Firefighters and/or stations to adopt a school

· Open RDS stations as community bases

· Host post offices

· Adverts in local/parish newsletters/magazines

· Combined presence with the police

· Parking appliance in community and allowing communities to meet firefighters

Conclusion

Staff and public welcome this as a good idea - focus on safer communities

Objective 3

Develop a community resilience strategy

Summary

The public look to the Fire and Rescue Service (FRS) more than any of the other services during a major incident, but the consensus was that FRS should work with partners in this area (police, environment agency, ambulance).

The public would like to have advice leaflets about what they should do before, during and after a major emergency. This would need to cover inner city areas as well as rural locations.

Some staff commented that we are stretch with current resources and equipment - will doing this be biting off more than we can chew.

Not as simple as handing out leaflets at home fire safety visits (HFSV), as the targets groups are likely to be different.

Conclusion

Public and staff welcome the objective - although some staff feel this will stretch our resources possible too wide.

Objective 4

Efficient and flexible crewing

Summary

There were two main areas of concern from staff:

1) The practicalities: how the system will work, how it will be managed, will jobs be lost, the impact on team/watch morale.

2) The objective has time scales for implementation prior to trails are carried out and evaluated. Led to a feeling that it is a `done deal'. Perception that the objective has changed in nature during the consultation; therefore how can it be consulted on properly? Some loss of trust in SMT.

Environmental considerations: instead of having one central pot of resources it would be better for the system to be based on groups/areas to minimise travelling distances.

The public and other stakeholders have a more open view and realise that the staffing system could work better. There are comments on how other public bodies have bought in flexible working for staff - where service delivery has continued seamlessly and with efficiency gains.

Conclusion

Staff want the proposals to be more transparent. While there were staff who could see the benefits, the majority at present are opposed to changes on this scale.

The public and other stakeholders can see the benefits.

Objective 5

Review of Service transportation

Summary

Most saw this proposal as `business as usual'.

Staff keen to reduce our impact on the environment and made suggestions:

· Creating a pool of cars for all staff

· Car sharing

· Reduce meetings at SHQ if closer for everyone to go elsewhere

· Sponsorship of vehicles

· Release vans from RDS stations (where they can sit for weeks with out moving)

· Use of alternative fuels

Conclusion

Business as usual

Objective 6

Strategy for resolving our buildings' maintenance needs

Summary

Most saw this as `business as usual'. Fire stations are in need of modernisation - female toilet and shower facilities needed on many stations.

Many staff suggested we employ an `in-house' maintenance person.

Work with community groups to assist with basic maintenance - e.g. painting/decorating.

Conclusion

Business as usual

Objective 7

Developing `intelligence led' delivery of services

Summary

Most saw this as `business as usual'.

Staff feel that stations need information on the vulnerable/high risk properties. They would also like more information on the turn out sheet - can MOSAIC provide this?

Staff were very keen on developing partnership working - can we get information on vulnerable people from social services/police etc?

Havant Borough Council currently working on a `customer insight' project, which helps data sharing amongst partners.

Conclusion

Supported by all with very positive feedback

Objective 8

Improving the core skills of our firefighters

Summary

The general feedback for this is good from staff, representative bodies and other stakeholders. It is felt there is an imbalance of training time for RDS and WT staff.

Concern that the objective reads that if improvement is needed then basic skills are currently lacking. Sends out a worrying message. Could the wording be changed to `enhancing' or `developing' instead? It was felt that because the range of and type of incidents attended has widened dramatically over the years, it is not that the core skills have diminished, its that the training need is different and more demanding.

Results of the staff survey to follow.

Conclusion

Positive - supported by all

Objective 9

Develop response vehicles to better meet our risks

Summary

The general feeling of staff is that vehicles should not be replaced unless it would greatly improve standards of practise; although some saw the benefits of having one vehicle that carries all equipment, rather than strategically placed vehicles around the county.

Strong links were made with the need to reduce the impact on the environment (by both staff and the public): suggestions made that this would reduce vehicle numbers and journeys by conventional larger and less economical vehicles.

The FRV has received mixed feedback from staff. The main question raised is whether the FRV is always suitable to attend an incident; feeling that pressure is put on the crews because equipment needed for some incidents is not available on the FRV. However, where the FRV is sent to appropriate incidents, then staff support its use.

One member of the public questioned whether this objective should be put back until RCC is in place - then review what we need then.

Conclusion

Majority of comments positive - main concern on the appropriate type of vehicle to respond.