Contact your Parish Council
![](https://meetings.maidstone.gov.uk/SiteSpecific/mbc_files/mobbutton.jpg)
Decision details
Proposed Changes to the Kent Fire and Rescue Service
Decision Maker: Cabinet Member for Community and Leisure Services (Cttee)
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: Yes
Purpose:
To consider the implications of the Kent Fire and Rescue Service consultation proposal on changes to their service.
Decision:
That
Maidstone Borough Council’s support of the proposals to the
current service provided by Kent Fire and Rescue Service in the
Maidstone area, which state no change to the current level of
service provision, be agreed.
Reasons for the decision:
Background
In 2008
Kent Fire and Rescue Service (KFRS) commissioned a project to look
at how it provides emergency services in Kent and
Medway. The aim of the project was to
identify the way KFRS delivers its services to the community by
matching the right level of response to risk in the
area. To achieve this, stations were
grouped into ‘strategic review areas’ so that detailed
analysis could be completed to build an understanding of the risk
in the area and the type of activity currently being
attended.
At the
same time KFRS started to go through a restructure which sees
traditional station boundaries replaced with a new concept of
‘cluster working’ where stations work together in
groups to best meet the risk in the area. A cluster includes two or more stations which have
been grouped together based on operational response. A ‘strategic review area’ may contain
more than one cluster and/or cut across cluster
boundaries. The outcomes of the review
were used to inform the definition of cluster boundaries.
A
number of options were developed for the Maidstone cluster by
drawing on the findings of the review for Maidstone and also the
Weald strategic review areas, including comments and suggestions
received through focus groups held with staff in the
area.
An
impact assessment of the cluster area was completed and considered
when developing the options. In order
to make a comparison between each of the options, strengths and
weaknesses of the current arrangement were also explored; this
includes costs associated with each option.
Base
Option: Existing Arrangements
Each
area within the review of emergency response provision has a base
option of the fire engines in the cluster as at 31 March 2011,
against which any changes can be compared. In the case of the Maidstone cluster, the base
option is shown below. The review team looked at the available data
for the Maidstone cluster, and is of the opinion that minimal
change is required in this area in terms of the number of response
bases needed.
Fire engine Distribution
|
Fire Engine |
Based at |
On Call |
3 |
Marden, Lenham and Headcorn |
Positive |
2 |
Maidstone |
Positive/on-call |
|
|
Total |
5 |
|
Special Appliances
|
Appliance |
Based at |
On call |
|
|
Positive |
2 |
Command Support Unit and Detection, Identification & Monitoring [DIM] vehicle at Maidstone |
Positive/on-call |
|
|
Total |
2 |
|
Current demand pattern
Between 2005 and 2009, overall demand in the Maidstone cluster reduced by 15.7%. When 2010 is added, the reduction becomes 29.3%. The graph below shows how it has changed on a year by year basis in key incident types. The level of false alarms, the vast majority of which are caused by automatic fire alarms (AFA) and require no fire-fighting activity, have dropped as well. Another KFRS project seeks to reduce these numbers significantly and this has the potential to have a significant impact on how busy Maidstone fire station is, which may in time make the provision of two full-time fire engines an over-provision and an unnecessary cost to the taxpayer. 2,464 calls to automatic fire alarms were responded in the Maidstone cluster between 2006 and 2010 and only 40 (1.6%) of those turned out to be either fires or special service incidents.
Demand reduction
Operational response is an important and very visible contribution that the Fire & Rescue Service makes to keep the community safe. It is however only one element of what the service does. In the Maidstone area, in the period 2007-10, the Service has:
· completed 4,035 home safety visits, which is where staff go into people’s homes and provide safety advice and can fit smoke alarms free of charge;
· 23.3% of the home safety visits were carried out in households which were considered above average risk;
· Visited schools 538 times delivering education programmes at all key stages.
Across the county, since 2009,
KFRS have attended 615 fetes to give out fire and road safety
advice, given 439 community safety talks to local groups, and run
409 campaigns on home safety, 81 on arson prevention and 143 on
road safety.
In assessing the cover
requirements within the cluster the review team was mindful of the
demand within Maidstone’s station ground, which is the second
busiest ground in the county, and dismissed any proposals which
result in fewer fire-fighting resources being immediately available
from Maidstone fire station. However
the significant drop in activity levels since 2005 were noted and
the potential impact of the project to reduce calls to AFAs was acknowledged.
Within two years, the impact of this project should be quantified
as two full-time fire engines may by then be an over-provision,
although at the moment it is justified.
In considering Maidstone, the
review team briefly debated the advantages of moving Maidstone fire
station. It quickly became clear that
there was no benefit in doing so, as it is close to risk areas in
the town, and has a reasonable run towards the M20 in a number of
directions. Although there is demand
towards the north of the town, the movement of Medway fire station
to a new location near the Rochester Airport site would give a
better coverage to this area compared to the impact of moving
Maidstone fire station.
The surrounding part-time stations remain important to the Service in maintaining strategic emergency cover, but would rarely be deployed into Maidstone’s ground, as Larkfield and when operational, Rochester, provide a quicker response due to them being on station [during the day in Larkfield’s case].
The review team also considered
placing a fire engine in Staplehurst. Staplehurst is the largest
built up area in Kent without a fire station in its locality.
However, analysis of the length of time it takes fire engines to
travel to Staplehurst revealed that both Maidstone and Marden can
reach the area in a time similar to other areas in the County, and
therefore this was not progressed any further as a
proposal.
Alternative options considered:
Maidstone Borough Council could
choose not to respond to the consultation but it is important that
the Council considers the implications for the borough and its
residents and comments on the proposals.
Wards Affected: South Ward; (All Wards);
Details of the Committee: KFRS Consultation - http://www.kent.fire-uk.org/about_us/plans,_policies__performance/risk_management_plan-1.aspx
Contact: Zena Cooke, Director of Regeneration and Communities Email: zenacooke@maidstone.gov.uk.
Report author: Zena Cooke
Publication date: 05/01/2012
Date of decision: 05/01/2012
Decided: 05/01/2012 - Cabinet Member for Community and Leisure Services (Cttee)
Effective from: 13/01/2012
Accompanying Documents: