Save Windsor Fire Station?

Should we have a 24 hour fully-crewed fire station in Windsor? Yes No View results Version 2.03

Dear Secretary of State,

I hereby request that the Secretary of State utilise her powers under Part 2 section 22 (3) (a) public safety of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 requesting the Secretary of State to exercise her powers under Part 2 section 22 (2) (b) of the same act requiring the fire authority 'to stop doing something'.    
In this case to stop the closure of Windsor Fire Station between 2000hrs and 0800hrs. which follows a decision taken by the Berkshire Fire Authority without due regard to public safety or the efficiency and effectiveness of the fire and rescue service for Windsor and its environs.

Background
I have previously identified the potential for the Secretary of State becoming involved when I contacted  Mr. Raphael Smith of the Dept. of Communities & Local Govt, in August 2007

…….an appeal can be made under Part 3 Administration section 22 (2)  of the Fire & Rescue Services Act 2004 Chapter 21 Section 22 (3) on the grounds of (a) public safety (b) efficiency and effectiveness of the fire and rescue service and (c) efficiency and effectiveness in connection with the matters in relation to which fire and rescue authorities have functions  and of which  the Secretary of State has power to determine certain actions or stop actions being taken.

Given this has direct implications for the life safety of thousands of people in the greater Windsor area, I would ask that your office would treat this issue with the utmost importance as the implementation of the fire authorities decision is due to come into effect in late 2008.

I have enclosed copies of both the immediate past and recent editions of the Windsor Observer and Windsor Express newspapers noting the enormity of the issue as it affects not just in the town but in the surrounding Windsor the communities, together with a copy of my report to the Marketing Research Society requesting the current consultation process be suspended on the grounds it breeches the MRS’s own Code of Practice      It is in particular reference to the latter communities that the Berkshire CFO is failing in his duties in the persistence of his attempts to remove and now downgrade the emergency response.    This was made possible by the IRMP  

The IRMP document has also had a very important amendment since it was first published.   The original copy states that the “standard (or guaranteed) response standard of 10 minutes for the first appliance and 12 minutes for the second appliance is set for dwelling fires”.   At the meeting it was made clear that the term “guaranteed” has now been omitted.     What seems to have emerged is the RBF&RS will not guarantee any attendance times for its attending  fire appliances.     By this important alteration this allows the brigade to close Windsor Fire Station as the attending appliances from elsewhere will not have to meet any guaranteed attendance times to emergency incidents.   In answer to councillors questions ACO Tidbury of the RBF&RS stated that the proposed standard attendance times of 1 appliance in 10 minutes and 1 appliance in 12 minutes would probably not be met on over  20% of occasions.  
These response times only apply to attending fires in dwellings and not to commercial, industrial, health care, local authority or educational premises for which there are no proposed attendance times. 

 

The “public consultation” was limited to the single question posed by the market research company hired by the fire and rescue service (see appendix one below)    As can be seen from the copy of my report in the Windsor Express of December 15th 2006 (enclosed) the MRS consultation was deliberately biased to give the result required by Chief Officer Cox.       Although following challenges made to the Market Research Society, the MRS stated that there were areas that were not entirely objective, the MRS supported the findings of Opinion Research Services (ORS) of Wales.
However continual study of emergency responses to fire and rescue incidents in the Windsor town and greater Windsor communities clearly show that without the fire appliance at Windsor fire station manned 24hrs a day the safety of the public is at serious risk.
As  various organisations and local politicians have pointed out over the last two years the town of Windsor has over 6 million visitors a year and the number is growing.    Since the original IRMP study was initiated two additional major hotels have been built in Windsor and are now fully operational, with a third planned.
The full effect of the result of closing Windsor fire station at night on both the town of Windsor and its supporting communities has never been put to the fire authority (see my report to the fire authority of 23rd June 2006 at appendix two)

I have attached a number of press reports, the latest from the 22nd February 2008, that clearly demonstrate the positive effect on life safety that the attendance of the Windsor fire appliance has during the hours of darkness to specific emergency incidents and that if that appliance is withdrawn then lives will be lost because the next nearest fire appliances fail time after time to meet the attendance times for domestic property being ‘aimed’ for by the Chief Fire Officer in his IRMP timed response that only covers domestic property and RTC’s.    
I have also attached 4 specific incident logs to calls where the Windsor fire appliance was in attendance and providing fire fighting operations well before the next nearest fire appliances arrived.   In addition a study of the logs shows just how many times the Windsor pump (note: Windsor is stn 13  Slough is stn 17 and Langley is stn 18) has to be mobilised when a fire of any duration, such as that at Legoland occurs. 
Here is a typical example of the real time delays when Windsor is not available:- On 29th November 2007 the Windsor crews were sent off their ground on a large Incident Control Unit call.
Slough was therefore ‘covering’ Windsor as well as their own ground.
At 17-03 they received a call to a TV fire at Church Road, Old Windsor.
Ordinarily, Windsor would be there in 4 minute.
BUT Sloughs appliances took 9 minutes 24 seconds and 9 minutes 48 seconds respectively to arrive and that’s before detection (not so easy at night!) and the making of the call.

It should also be noted that originally the alternative for the Windsor fire station was to have a retained crew during the hours of darkness (see Windsor Express 29th September 2006 enclosed).  This was quietly scrapped by the chief fire officer when the response to the initial press advertisements for retained personnel was negative.  This was never reported to the fire authority and never subject to further public consultation, albeit it was one of the opinions the public was asked to vote on (see ORS extract below in appendix one).

Additionally the Windsor Fire & Rescue Service puts lives at risk in its continued policy of refusing to provide stand-by pumps not only when the Windsor appliance is committed but when the next nearest appliances at Slough are on a call (see my supplementary question to the fire authority meeting of  10th October 2007at appendix three ).   Despite the authorities standing instructions requiring a verbal reply at the meeting the chief fire officer refused to give a reply.      The current standby policy will be a major additional threat to public safety to those in the Windsor communities if the Windsor station is closed at night.    

For all the reasons outlined in this letter, the attachments and enclosures I request the Secretary of State to use her powers under Part 2  section 22 (3) (a) public safety of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 whereby the Secretary of State can exercise his powers under Part 2 section 22 (2) (b) of the same act to stop the Berkshire Fire Authority from closing Windsor Fire Station between 2000hrs and 0800hrs and retaining the station on a 24hr manned basis with a minimum of one pump.  

 
Yours sincerely

 

 

• J.  COATES (Mr)

Horton Parish resident
CC:

1. Prime Ministers office Downing Street
2. Adam Afriyie MP
3. CEO RB Windsor and Maidenhead BC
4. Betty Marlow Chair of Horton Parish Council
5. Councillor Colin Rayner  (R.B.W&M Borough councillor)
6. Windsor Express newspaper
7. Windsor Observer newspaper  

 

Enclosures to Secretary of State only.

• ORS Questionnaire
• Local newspaper cuttings
• Incident reports logs (4)

 

Appendix one

 

Excerpt from the 6 page questionnaire dealing with issues arising from the Berkshire Fire & Rescue Service IRMP studies and action plan

 

 

Windsor Windsor currently has one Wholetime fire engine, which is crewed on a 24-hour basis, and is also covered by fire engines from Slough. RBFRS has found that the Windsor fire engine has excess capacity since it only attends an average of three calls per week in Windsor during the period 20.00hrs-08.00hrs. The average utilisation for Wholetime fire engines (in their own areas) during these hours is seven calls per week. Therefore, RBFRS proposes to adopt one of three possible crewing options. Options a) and b) will enable enhancements to be made in areas where improvement is needed. Which of the following options do you think is the most suitable?

Please select one option only

	a) 12-hour day crewing — with night-time cover from Slough
	b) 12-hour day crewing — with night—time Retained cover
	c) 24-hour crewing (as now)

 

Appendix two
Report to the Berkshire Fire Authority 23rd June 2006

 

                                                                                                7B Daisymead
Horton Gardens
Datchet Road
Councillor Dr. Paul  Bryant Chairman                                     Horton, Berkshire
Berkshire Combined Fire & Rescue  Authority                       SL3 9PX                     
West Berkshire District Council offices,                     Tele. 01753 682097/680128
Market Street,
Newbury,                                                                                 23rd June 2006
Berkshire RG14 SLD

Dear Sir,

 

Proposed closure of Windsor Fire Station

Further to our letter of the  11th May 2006  we, the residents of Horton Gardens  would place in front of you for consideration at the full meeting of the Royal Berkshire Fire Authority on 28th June 2006 the following information in support of retaining a front line fire appliance in the town of Windsor.

The reasons stated for closure of  Windsor,  Dee Road and Sonning are  to provide additional operational fire cover in the Wokingham and Bracknell area at the expense of that currently provided to the villages and communities, particularly in the east of Windsor, namely Horton, Colnbrooke, Poyle, Wraysbury and Old Windsor.   “Wokingham is the key issue” was stated on three occasions by ACO Tidbury during his 40 minute presentation at the meeting of the Fire Authority  Executive committee on the 15th May.    ACO Tidbury further stated that  statistical analysis of turnouts and attendances using the governments IRMP (Integrated Risk Management Plan) model was the prime tool utilised by the 6 person team from RBF&RS  in reviewing the standards of fire cover and arriving at the proposals tabled and presented a single page of selected turnout statistics to support his case.

• The one page statistics presented to executive members of selected turnouts for Slough into Windsor was very selective and gave a distorted picture of attendance times, as a subsequent study of a full 12 months statistics proved.
• The slide presented on number of turnouts to 2 pump incidents by all RBF&RS stations shows Slough as already attending the most such calls of any of the RBF&RS stations across the whole of Berkshire.  This was glossed over.
• Slough and Langley together attend over 370 calls that require 2 fire appliances, which is the same number as the 2 Reading stations combined.    While there is a proposal to merge the Reading stations no crews will be reduced,  whereas Slough and Langley are expected to take over all of Windsor’s calls, including the 100 that require immediate attendance of 2 pumping appliances.
• No statistics were shown as to the total number of turnouts of pumping appliances per station, rather than just the 2 pump calls.     This is vital in understanding what spare capacity, if any, there is at Slough and Langley, since it is these two stations with only 3 pumping appliances that will have to answer all the calls currently covered by Windsor.     The reality is that Slough station turn out over 3,000 times a year and Langley over 1,100 which means that their combined capacity to cover Windsors  additional 700 calls is severely limited.     The importance of the total number of calls per station cannot be over emphasised as the brigades own records, shown on page 25 of the IRMP, clearly show the periods when the highest number of emergency calls can be expected across the entire brigade area and hence when all fire appliances are more likely to be busy on attending emergency call outs.      Taking on Windsor’s calls will represent an 18 % increase in operational incidents to be handled by Slough and Langley.     Therefore to close Windsor fire station means that there is a higher probability of Slough and Langley’s first line pumps not being available at these peak times to answer calls in Windsor and its surrounding communities, at the very times they will be most required.   

 

The area will be left with only 3 operational front line fire engines to cover Slough, Langley, Windsor and all the outlying communities including those of Horton, Colnbrooke, Poyle, Wraysbury and Old Windsors residential, commercial and industrial area.
ACO Tidbury noted that additional fire appliances could be called in from Egham in Surrey, but as can be seen from the incident on the 22nd, May this year when a pump from Egham took 23 minutes to attend Datchet after taking a wrong turn in Horton, this is a totally impractical suggestion..   

• A copy of the Brigades Integrated Risk Management Plan Year III was made available to me at the meeting.  A closer examination of the document shows:-
• A failure on 78% of occasions for whole time crews to meet the self imposed time target for being mobile to the incident, from the time the crew has been alerted at the station.   The time should be 70 seconds, whereas during the periods identified as the busiest across the county i.e. between 1600hrs and 2000hrs the target time is met in only 28%.     As “The time it takes for an operational crew to reach an incident is critical in many circumstances” [the words taken from page 26 of the IRMP document] this acknowledged failure further increases the time taken for fire crews to reach the incident scene.   It should also be noted that for the period of eight hours during the night, a period critical for quick attendances to domestic fires where persons are at high risk from any outbreak of fire, the failure to meet the target times to turnout in 70 seconds rises to  91%.   No figures were presented as to how long it does take to turnout.
• The IRMP document has also had a very important amendment since it was first published.   The original copy states that the “standard (or guaranteed) response standard of 10 minutes for the first appliance and 12 minutes for the second appliance is set for dwelling fires”.   At the meeting it was made clear that the term “guaranteed” has now been omitted.   Two councillors queried the proposed ‘optimum’; and ‘standard’ times to seek clarification.    What seems to have emerged is the RBF&RS will not guarantee any attendance times for its attending  fire appliances.     By this important alteration this allows the brigade to close Windsor Fire Station as the attending appliances from elsewhere will not have to meet any guaranteed attendance times to emergency incidents.   In answer to councillors questions ACO Tidbury stated that the proposed standard attendance times of 1 appliance in 10 minutes and 1 appliance in 12 minutes would probably not be met on over  20% of occasions.  
• These response times only apply to attending fires in dwellings and not to commercial, industrial, health care, local authority or educational premises for which there are no proposed attendance times.    However the serious fire at the Berkshire Antiques shop in Thames Street in Windsor on Tuesday 30th May 2006 required all 4 front line pumps from Windsor, Slough and Langley and is a good example of why this level of speed and weight of attack is need to prevent potential conflagrations taking place in Windsor centre.    Above the shops are residential accommodation, yet under the current IRMP proposed attendance times, this would count for nothing as the call was to commercial premises
• Any serious dwelling house fire requiring rescues by the brigade will need additional resources to be successful and the  house fire in Alma Road, Windsor at 0041hrs on the 12th May 2005 is a very good example – Windsor pump was in attendance within 6 minutes of the time of call and immediately sent a message “make pumps 4” which brought all the remaining pumps from Slough and Langley.    This fire needed 8 firemen in breathing apparatus, with the additional supporting personnel and one person was successfully rescued from the  blaze.   It can be argued this would not have been possible without the Windsor pump and the close support of the other 3 pumps in the immediate area.  Indeed an excellent letter in this weeks Windsor & Eton Express from PC 5179 Cameron McKenzie, as the first police officer on scene graphically illustrates the potential outcome if Windsor had not had a fire appliance to send.

The objective is to get away from a national prescriptive formula to a localised risk based approach in determining the times at which fire engines will arrive at emergency incidents.   The previous formula at least had minimum set times for attendances, whereas the current proposals now appear to have none.

• When asked to respond to the items noted in the report from the Horton gardens residents, the RBF&RS agreed that in the proposed re-distribution of operational fire cover that some communities would be less well covered than previously.      The RBF&RS also agreed that the Motorway areas encompassing the M25 and M4 abutting the parishes of Horton, Datchet, Colnbrooke and Poyle are, in ACO Tidbury’s words “already a hot spot for road traffic collisions”  and that there would likely be some increase in such incidents.   There was no comment on how “the attendance time of 11 minutes to road traffic collisions (RTC’s) with the necessary resources to commence extrication of casualties” in these areas would be met once the Windsor Fire Station was closed.   It is patently obvious from current attendance times that with a reduced number of pumping appliances the 11 minute “time of call to action at the scene” will rarely if ever be met.     Again PC Cameron McKenzie, in the Express newspaper,  illustrates from first hand experience the likely outcome if Windsor cannot respond to RTC’s with a fire appliance.

 

• When asked by councillors as to whether future development plans, such as those outlined by the residents of  Horton Gardens as regards Heathrow T5,  the additional 10,000 dwellings at Bracknell, 10,000 at Wokingham and 5,000 in the RB of Windsor & Maidenhead had been included in the fire modelling exercise,  the reply was “no, they had not been placed in any models”..       Councillor Jeff Brooks stated that “he would not want to come back in 4 years time and be confronted with problems if the proposed IRMP plan had not been robust enough to consider these issues” and the councillor urged the RBF&RS to go back and consult with the Unitary authorities and other parties and then re-submit any revised proposals to the Combined Berkshire Fire Executive,  before they are placed before the full fire authority members.

Alternatives that should be considered include the cost of providing the finance to support the additional fire cover requirements in Wokenham and at the same time allow Windsor fire station to continue to function with one pumping appliance by a levy of 1 pence on each council tax payer in the county in respect of the Fire & Rescue Service precept [this equals a raise of 8% in that individual fire precept] and a fraction of a % rise in the overall County precept.    This alternative was not presented.
Neither was there any proposal to incorporate a smaller basic fire station in any re-development on the existing site to house just one front line fire appliance, an approach undertaken in other fire authorities when seeking to capitalise on fire station land. 

 

Building of warehouses, industrial and commercial units to support T5, including at least two major hotel developments with sleeping risks are already assigned to the Berkshire villages of Colnebrook, Polye, Horton and Wraysbury .
Therefore to consider removing a key fire and rescue resource to this area, from Windsor at this time, without waiting to see the impact of all the building, housing and transport infrastructure resulting from the T5 development, would be tantamount to gross negligence, if allowed to go ahead.

Fire appliance attendance timings to the Parish of Horton & Datchet
.Even with the current fire appliances a house fire in Datchet on 14th May 2005 - Windsor just made the 10 minute but Langley took 13 minutes.    The call to a farm at Horton village on 24th February 2006 at 0048hrs, although in Langley’s area (they were not available) and Windsor and Slough again provided the first 3 of 6 pumping appliances with Slough taking 14 minutes from the time of callout and Windsor 13 minutes – showing yet again even with the current provision the standard response times cannot be met.

The attendance timings set out under the new localised RBF&RS objectives using the results of the IRMP system are:-
The aim under normal conditions is for:
08 minutes for the first arriving fire appliance to property fires
10 minutes for the second arriving fire appliance to property fires
However the agreed standard attendance times are:-
10 minutes for the first arriving fire appliance to property fires
12 minutes for the second arriving fire appliance to property fires
For road traffic accidents the aim is for one fire appliance to arrive in 11 minutes from the time of call.

From the above it can clearly be seen that even with the current 4 fire engines and crews available at Windsor, Langley and Slough it is totally impossible to meet the timings aimed for when two appliances are required for a property fire in Horton, Datchet and surrounding districts and extremely difficult to meet the agreed standard times.
It will be impractical within either the optimum or the standard response attendance times for any pumping appliances from Berkshire stations other than these 3, to attend any emergency incident within the times set out.     This was evidenced in the two incidents on 22nd and 23rd May 2006.      In the first at 0551hrs on the 22nd, Windsor attended in 10 minutes from time of call, as Langley and Slough were not available and the 2nd pump from Egham took 23 minutes after taking a wrong turn in Horton.     In the 2nd incident at 1446 hrs on the 23rd again Windsor was the 1st pump on scene in Datchet Common road in 6.5 minutes from time of call as Langley were in Maidenhead and this was a serious fire requiring 5 pumping appliances and lasting some 5 hours.

Many large buildings across the area served by Windsor, Slough and Langley require 3 pumping appliances as the first attendance i.e. Wexham and Heatherwood hospitals, ICI paints, Legoland, Windsor castle which results in multiple times during the year when there will be no fire appliance immediately available to attend additional calls if the Windsor fire engine is re-located.    A look at any one months RBF&RS statistics shows this statement to be true.

If the Windsor fire appliance and crew are re-deployed, then the possibility of meeting the standard agreed attendance times with the additional workload falling on just 3 fire engines and crews covering the same geographical area becomes virtually impossible due to the myriad of practical issues raised in this paper, but which are not covered by the theoretical nature of the IRMP statistical study.   

 

 

Conclusions and Recommendations

• The IRMP does not adequately address the practical needs of fire cover in East Berkshire in relation to the multiple changes now being carried out to various elements of fire control rooms, downsizing and re-distribution of fire appliances and personnel and the transport and building infrastructure related to Heathrow T5 as it impacts on the Horton, Colnbrooke, Poyle and Wraysbury area.
• The additional information obtained since the presentation by the RBF&RS and resulting discussion at the meeting of the Combined Fire Authority on 15th May 2006,  revealed the serious and worrying gaps in attendance times that will result in fire and emergency cover to the parishes surrounding Windsor if the single whole time crewed fire appliance is withdrawn from Windsor.
• The IRMP Year III document on which the proposals being discussed above, contains a number of statements that are incorrect and as a result misleading.       The document  does not adequately address the practical needs of fire and emergency cover in East Berkshire as it impacts on the Horton, Colnbrooke, Poyle Wraysbury and Old Windsor areas.
• The presentation to the Executive Committee of the Fire Authority by the RBF&RS on 15th May 2006, failed to present any alternative strategy to closing Windsor Fire Station, was misleading in presented selective statistical information, failed to provide the full amount of data necessary to enable such a key decision to be taken as the closing of Windsor Fire Station, being totally biased towards increasing operational fire cover in the Wokingham area.

• Alternative financial strategies, including a rise in the Fire & Rescue precept of one pence per council tax payer across the county or a smaller station to accommodate one fire engine as part of any redevelopment, should be put forward in addition to the closing of  Windsor fire Station as the sole methodology in raising sufficient capital to increase fire cover at Wokingham.
• It is requested that as a minimum all proposals to close Windsor fire station and move its crews to the west of Berkshire be placed on hold until 2009 when the various issues outlined in the paper above become clear as to the impact on the areas of Horton, Colnbrooke, Poyle, Wraysbury and Old Windsor.

 

Historical note
139 years ago and the town of Windsor faced a similar problem to that of today
The Windsor and Eton Express reported on January 26th 1867   “ the idea of forming a volunteer fire brigade is being revived as Volunteer fire brigades have proved their worth in other towns and Windsor should not be left behind.  
This newspaper went on to commend the idea to its readers and believed that properly organised and disciplined such an organisation would be of great service to the town”.

On March 16th 1867 the Windsor Town Corporation gave unqualified support to form the Windsor Volunteer Fire Brigade of 40 towns people who appointed the first Captain of the Brigade Mr. William Mason.
A  new fire engine was ordered from Merryweather & Co for the volunteer fire brigade to take charge of, once they were trained and capable of operating the machine.    The costs for uniform and equipment resulted in an “appeal to the Town and neighbourhood” and a list of 40 persons and their donations was published in the Express.
The appeal requesting support was headed by the Mayor of Windsor and the Towns two Members of Parliament.
Despite there being fire engines in the Windsor Barracks and Town Brewery plus one in each of the communities of Eton and Colnebrook, the Town Corporation recognised that that the growing population of Windsor could not rely on resources being deployed in a reasonable time from outside the Town – sound familiar ?

This year also marks the 100th anniversary of the opening of the first purpose built fire station in Windsor, which for the previous 40 years had no purpose provided building in which to house the Towns fire engine and Escape ladder.
Once again in 2006 as in 1867 and 1906  Windsor and its surrounding communities  are having to fight to retain a minimum of one front line fire engine .
Do you really want to be marking the 100th anniversary on 30th October 2006 of the opening of the first Windsor fire station, with the closure of the second station ? 

We, the residents of Horton gardens, therefore urge all members of the authority to vote against the removal of the front line fire appliance from the town of Windsor.

Yours sincerely

 

• J.  COATES (Mr)

Cc:-      1  24 Members of the Royal Berkshire Fire Authority
            2  Residents of 2; 3; 5; 6; 7; 7A; 8 Horton Gardens, Datchet Road, Berkshire SL3  
            3 Councillor Colin Rayner  (R.B.W&M Borough councillor)  
            4 Betty Marlow Chair of Horton Parish Council

References:-

• CIPFA Fire & rescue Statistics 2005
• R.B. Fire Authority Integrated Risk management plan Year III
• Statistics for 12 months 2005/2006 R.B. F. & R.S.
• Fire prevention and fire engineers Journals 2006
• Press reports Windsor & Eton Observer and Express Newspaper groups
• Berkshire County Records Office

 

Appendix three
Question to the Berkshire Fire Authority 21st September 2007

 

                                                                                                7B Daisymead
Horton Gardens
Datchet Road
Rosemary Lansdowne                                            HORTON
Clerk and Monitoring Officer                                 Berkshire
Royal Berkshire  Fire & Rescue  Service                  SL3 9PX
103 Dee Road,                                                      Tele. 01753 682097/680128
Tilehurst, Reading                                                  21st September 2007
Berkshire RG30 4FS                                    (amended 7th October 2007)

Dear Ms Lansdowne,

Question reference proposal to close Windsor Fire Station
For submission to the Berkshire Fire & Rescue Authority meeting
 Wednesday 10th October 2007

 

Following the multi fatality hotel fires in Newquay and Blackpool in which the provision of fire service resources was widely questioned in the media and which has resulted in both the fire authorities concerned re-considering their decisions to cut night time fire cover, will the Berkshire Fire Authority re-consider its decision to close Windsor Fire Station during the hours of darkness, being the very time period in which the aforementioned tragic fires occurred. 
 
Supplementary question

Fire engines responding to both the aforementioned hotel fires were in attendance within 9 minutes of the initial call and despite the total of 4 fatalities many other lives were saved,  such a response time will be impossible at night in both Slough and Windsor if the Windsor fire station is closed at night due to the current brigade policy of refusal to immediately send standby fire engines to Slough.
Therefore will the Berkshire Fire Authority scrap the current policy of waiting 15 minutes before sending a standby engine to Slough at normal road speeds when both Slough engines are sent out on an incident ?
As without the Windsor engine this policy leaves both Slough and Windsor communities without any immediate fire cover for periods of 20 minutes at a time which total amounts to 6 nights per year based on current brigade turnout statistics between the hours of 2000hrs and 0800hrs.

(based on 223 occasions April 2006 till April 2007 when both Slough pumps are mobilised together  - 20 mins x 197 + 74hrs).

The non- Windsor turnouts are as follows:-

17P1 had 97 calls
17P2 had 348 calls
17P1 & 17P2 together had 197 calls

The type of incidents attended included :- 51 code 6's,  25 code 2"s, 2 code b2's, 3 code b3's, 4 code c's, car fires, van fire, kitchen
fires, bedroom fires, flat fire, field fires, fire in football stand seating,
letterbox fire, domestic garage fire, coach crash involving 30
casualties and 12 rescues, RTC's, lift rescues, lock in/lock out and
flooding.

Turnouts to Windsor during the same period of time are as follows:-

17P1 had 14 calls
17P2 had 38 calls
17P1 & 17P2 together had 26 calls.

Type of incidents attended included:- 8 code 6's, 4 code 2's, 2 code
4's, 1code 1, lift rescue (12 persons rescued), legoland roof fire,
RTC persons trapped, person assisted from bath, person in river, persons
reported.

(Manor hotel, Blackpool 17th Sept 2007 at 0300hrs spread to the Waverely hotel and other hotels alarms sounded as the smoke came back through the open windows.   Had eight pumps in attendance in 15 mins, total of 12 pumps and 60 firemen.   Further serious hotel fires have occurred in the recent past).

I will attend the Authority meeting on 10th October 2007.
Yours sincerely

 

• J.  COATES (Mr)

CC,  

2  Councillor’s John Lenton and Colin Rayner  (R.B.W&M Borough councillor) 
3  Betty Marlow Chair of Horton Parish Council

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------