Agenda item

Before discussion of the report commenced, the Chair proposed a motion in respect of the duty system for the second fire appliance at Crewe Fire Station. The motion was seconded by Councillor Nelson and was as follows:

‘The introduction of the Nucleus Duty system for the second fire engine at Crewe’.

The Chief Fire Officer and Chief Executive then presented the report which provided detailed information on the findings of the review into the Authority’s plans to change the duty system from wholetime to on-call for the second fire engines at Crewe and Ellesmere Port Fire Stations; and to agree a timescale for any changes to be implemented.  Michael Wright, Greenstreet Berman was in attendance at the meeting and summarised the outcomes of the independent assessment. 

Councillor Merry stated that she could not support the motion proposed and proposed an amendment to the motion presented at the meeting as follows:

‘Members consider the findings of the review and determine that the future duty system for the second fire engine at Crewe Fire Station should be wholetime, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.’ The amendment was seconded by Councillor Marren.

Note: as this had the effect of negating the original motion it was subsequently treated as an alternative motion.

Members held detailed discussions and a lengthy debate on the content of the report and a number of comments were made.  A number of questions were raised including:

A Member raised concerns over the on-call availability figures provided and the proposal to use the same model to improve availability that was used at Wilmslow.  He asked officers about the projected figure of 85% availability and the appliance average attendance time of 4 minutes 27 seconds for the second fire engine at Crewe.

The Head of Service Delivery informed Members that the Service had committed to meeting the 85% availability target for the on-call appliance at Wilmslow and it was proposed that the same commitment would be given at Crewe. He referred to the details in the report which demonstrated that the availability figures for Crewe were based on using the same model as that at Wilmslow which would ensure that the target would be achieved.  He added that the availability figure for Ellesmere Port was modelled on the actual availability at other similar on-call stations.  He also explained that response times for the second fire engine, as shown in the report, were based on the premise that, if the second fire engine at Crewe changed to on-call it would be mobilised from Crewe Fire Station.  Currently the response times for the second fire engine at Crewe were an average of 7 mins 38 seconds due to the fact that the second fire engine was often from one of the surrounding fire stations (rather than Crewe Fire Station).

A Member was concerned about COMAH sites and what would happen if there was a major incident: What level of support would be required from CFRS and neighbouring fire services?

The Chief Fire Officer and Chief Executive explained that the Service had national mutual aid arrangements in place for major incidents and the Section 13/16 agreements provided additional support from neighbouring services. The Service worked closely with COMAH sites and there were regular tests of the major incident arrangements.

A Member stated that there was no need to continue the debate about having an on-call duty system at Crewe as it was obvious there was little support for this.  There were two proposals to consider; Nucleus or Whole Time and he asked for the Chief Fire Officer’s advice on the operational consequences of the two proposals and also the budget implications.

The Chief Fire Officer and Chief Executive explained that the position he held meant that he had a legal responsibility to ensure that Members had the information they need to make the decisions required.  He explained that the wholetime duty system did provide the best response.  However it was also his responsibility to ensure that the Authority set a legal budget. The report stated that the plan to change the duty systems from wholetime to on-call at Crewe and Ellesmere Port was still appropriate. Whilst he understood the views expressed and the alternative proposals, officers were trying to present the least worst option to balance the budget which would be to implement the changes previously agreed as part of the Emergency Response Review to change the duty systems for the second fire engine at Crewe and Ellesmere Port.  If the changes were not implemented then the savings of £900k, already reflected in the MTFP, would need to be found from elsewhere. Alternatively Members could look at the option to hold a referendum to increase the Council Tax by more than 2.99%.

Members discussed the proposal in respect of the Nucleus crewing duty system for Crewe and it was stated that Cheshire East Councillors would not support any change to the duty system for the second fire engine at Crewe.  Members were urged to look again at other alternatives for savings and, in the meantime, the wholetime duty system would continue to be funded from reserves.

Members then moved to vote on the motion and alternative motion. 

In accordance with paragraph 4.44 of the Authority’s constitution a request was made that the voting should be recorded to show how each Member present, and voting, cast their vote or whether he/she abstained.  The voting was recorded as follows:

Motion proposed by Chair (seconded by Councillor Nelson)

‘The introduction of the Nucleus Duty System for the second fire engine at Crewe’

For: Councillors Beckett, Biggin, Harris, Mercer, Mundry, Nelson, Polhill, Rudd, Tarr and Wright.

Against: Councillors Bailey, Flude, Jones, Mahon, Marren, Merry, Parker, Saunders, Sherlock, Simon and Weatherill

The motion was lost by 10 votes for to 11 votes against.

Alternative motion proposed by Councillor G Merry (seconded by Cllr D Marren)

‘Members consider the findings of the report and determine that the future duty system for the second fire engine at Crewe Fire Station should be wholetime 24 hours a day, 7 days a week’.

For: Councillors Bailey, Biggin, Flude, Jones, Mahon, Marren, Merry, Parker, Saunders, Sherlock, Simon and Weatherill

Against: Councillors Beckett and Rudd

Abstained: Councillors Harris, Mercer, Mundry, Nelson, Polhill, Tarr, Wright

The amendment was carried by 12 votes to 2 with 7 abstentions.

Following the vote Councillor Sherlock proposed a motion, which was seconded by Councillor Bailey, in respect of the future duty system for the second fire engine at Ellesmere Port:

‘Continue 24/7 52 weeks of the year with two pumps at Ellesmere Port’

The Chair proposed an amendment to the motion, seconded by Councillor Nelson:

‘Instruct officers to determine if the second fire engine at Ellesmere Port could be relocated to another area or station in order to satisfy the sustainability question and value for money challenge presented by the review’

Members discussed the two options proposed and then moved to the vote.  The motion proposed by Councillor Sherlock was lost (3 for, 15 against) and the amendment proposed by the Chair was carried by 18 votes to 3.

RESOLVED That:

[1]      the findings of the review be noted;

[2]      the future duty system for the second fire engine at Crewe Fire Station remains wholetime 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; and

[3]      officers be instructed to determine if the second fire engine at Ellesmere Port could be relocated to another area or station in order to satisfy the sustainability question and value for money challenge presented by the review.

Note: Resolution No [3] followed a vote intended to secure the continuation of the existing wholetime duty system for the second fire engine at Ellesmere Port. The vote was lost.