The closure of 12 fire stations went under public consultation this week as London Fire Brigade looks to save almost GB pound 30 million (US$45 million).
Under the fifth draft of the London Safety Plan (LSP5) around 520 firefighter jobs will go, and there will be a net reduction in fire engines of 18.
London Fire Brigade Commissioner Roy Dobson believes that this reduction can be achieved without any compulsory redundancies. He said:
Compared to ten years ago, the Brigade attends half as many fires, a third fewer house fires and almost a third fewer incidents overall. But there is always more to be done. In the future, the resources available to the Brigade will reduce and the number of people who can work for the Brigade and provide our services will also reduce. We have passed the point where we can make the necessary level of savings without any impact on our fire stations.
The cuts will see a reallocation of various resources, with four fire stations actually gaining an additional fire engine.
However, as well as the 12 earmarked for closure, there will be seven fire stations that will each be downsized from two appliances to just one.
The plan has drawn much criticism and has been held up by infighting within the London Assembly. LSP5 was originally scheduled to be under public consultation by February 13, but an extraordinary meeting of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) supported a resolution to stop the consultation just two days before this.
The Mayor of London was forced to seek “legal redress” to force his direction that the plan should go to consultation, which was eventually authorised.
James Cleverly, who is chair of the LFEPA, said that the proposals will ensure that more London boroughs “will fall within the six-minute average attendance time target for the first fire engine to arrive at an emergency.”_
He added:
The Commissioner’s plan is based on the best possible information and his decades of experience as a firefighter spent keeping Londoners safe. I am pleased to be able to give it my full support.
FIA Conference to hear from FBU
In the face of this spectre, former London firefighter and current assistant general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union has been announced to speak at the upcoming Fire Industry Association Conference.
Andy Dark will be presenting a speech on March 14th titled “The Fire & Rescue Service – What Future?”
This will be in response to the ongoing pressure on fire service budgets, which has seen Cleveland Fire and Rescue Service moving to form an employee-led mutual, something critics are calling privatisation by the back door, as well as the latest cuts from the London Authority.
Andy Dark’s colleague in the DBU, regional secretary for London Paul Embery, reignited the rhetoric he first deployed last year, comparing the threat facing London Fire Brigade to the threat of the blitz:
The starting gun has been fired, and we want Londoners to join with us in defending their fire service. These cuts are reckless and wrong.
These cuts represent the biggest threat to the ability of the London Fire Brigade to function since the days of the Blitz. It is incumbent on all of us to do what we can to fight them.
Download the Fire Safety in 2023 eBook, keeping you up to date with the biggest news and prosecution stories from around the industry. Chapters include important updates such as the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 and an overview of the new British Standard for the digital management of fire safety information.
Plus, we explore the growing risks of lithium-ion battery fires and hear from experts in disability evacuation and social housing.
thank you, Rob, it sad to see in Canada we have almost the same problem…
as example city of Toronto, Ontario Canada… trying to save downsizing fireman and merging fire stations… end result in the case of big fires… firefighter from other city have to be called in for help… delayed response for the true emergency…
in my books when city try to save city end up paying twice as much in safety and security of it residents…
These cuts will will promote the charges for unwanted alarms and the use of the Localism Bill to do this.
Once charging is introduced will the brigades then become a profit making organisation resulting in further reducing of any core funding?
Could we quickly find our brigades then having to charge just to function?
I’m a big believer, however, in systems being set up to better share resources. Very often there might be a fire just over the border of a fire authorities ‘jurisdiction’.
The incident might happen just a mile away from a fire engine that is close by, but because the fire is in another region they wouldn’t be called. I know there’s some systems in place to make this sharing better, but I confess I know little about them. Anyone?
right on the money… in Canada we have simular problem… and it could not be resolved for now as each city separated by border… and city’s bosses always argue how is responsible for what… once in Toronto they try to take approach just ask fireman whos is close to the fire deal with fire… but after they got in the hot argument – how (city) will pay for the services…
@ Rob..the predicament could be countered with the help of better networking and integration. Best utilization of resources could only be possible if a good and comprehensive network was established. Till the time things are executed in isolation…we would not be able to fetch the maximum dividends out it our existing paraphernalia.
This is not new,the plans were inplace as far back as 1986, I saw them in an office and on the wall at Brigade HQ in Lambeth. The proposal has always been to downsize and reduce appliances, and to close a few stations, it has nothing to do in real terms with thenumber of incidents attended. I remember also at incidents in the 80’s asking for a make up to 12 appliances and only getting 8 as there was another serious fire across London and they had to maintain minmimal cover at the stationsinbetween. We did eventually get 12 when… Read more »
See: the merging of the Scottish fire services into one single service. Smaller scale than Canada or other countries perhaps, but I think this is part of what it will achieve (that and huge savings…)
A cynic by your own admission Bill! Yes, I’m sure the idea of downsizing isn’t new, but the case for it now, with shrinking budgets, seems to be impossible for authorities to resist now.
As one that was in this firing line for 26 years – The cost savings will eventually come back to bite. BUT over the years and because of the high cost of living in central London their firefighters commute great distances, in my time, some from 200 miles away – travelling down for their four shifts then back – But sleep on night shifts was expected. But this lack of affordable living has prevented the LFB from exploring the ‘retained’ system used here in the backwoods – firefighters who only respond to a pager – this could be effective… Read more »
Fascinating scenario, Mike. I think you’re probably right, as well. It’s the disaster/emergency response that is beyond your everyday where the fire and RESCUE service will ultimately be called upon to provide unique skills and equipment. Incidentally, I think it’s 6 minutes is the target, but not 100% sure on that.
could not agree more… very interesting, thank you… in Canada before it was a big hype 5-07 min. response time… but now… it get longer and longer as everyone operates at the skeleton crew… City try to save money… and we pay for it on the long run…
I really object to that as a member of the public too. The argument that I’ll conceivably listen to is ‘We can still get there in 6 minutes with less firefighters’ for instance, but I don’t want to hear ‘we’ll be there in 9 minutes from now on’. The magic 6 minute figure can’t have been arrived out by coincidence: It’s clearly an important time in which fire fighters can still save someone. Beyond 6 minutes it’ll just get riskier and riskier.