Agenda item

Crewe Fire Station

Appendix 1 to this report is to follow.


This item was considered first at the request of a Member and with the consent of the Chair.


The Director of Governance and Commissioning introduced the report which presented an overview of the feasibility work relating to the Crewe Fire Station site.  He informed Members that there had been two major challenges that had extended the feasibility work: how to secure a suitable temporary fire station arrangement during the build that was achievable for an acceptable cost; and whether the bungalow building on the site should be retained or demolished.


The Director explained that there were still two challenges that had the potential to impact upon work at the Crewe Fire Station site: a restrictive covenant concerned with building height needed to be relinquished; and the potential impact of HS2 development work needed to be clarified with absolute certainty.  Unless these were both brought to a satisfactory conclusion the project could not proceed.


Members were reminded that the previous feasibility report exploring a joint fire and police facility on the Crewe Fire Station site concluded that the facility could not be created without spending well in excess of what was felt to be value for money. The Head of Estates and Facilities explained the options for the Crewe Fire Station site that were contained within the recently completed feasibility report from IKG Consulting Limited, Appendix 1 to the report supplied with the supplementary agenda pack.


Members considered all options within the feasibility report, noting that Option 4 was expected to be the cheapest and that Option 6 was expected to achieve the shortest construction period.


A Member queried whether additional environmental enhancements such as electric charging points had been considered within the options. The Head of Estates and Facilities assured Members that there had been consideration of the enhanced environmental performance measures that could be achieved.  The plans were intended to include the installation of charging points as it was not only sensible to do so, it would help to meet any aspirations to deliver a zero carbon rated building.


A Member required further clarification on the term “partial replacement” used within the feasibility report and raised concerns that this could be misinterpreted.  The Head of Estates and Facilities confirmed that the term was used as the bungalow was intended to be retained for those options where the word ‘partial’ had been used.  However, the fire station would be replaced and the bungalow incorporated into the design.  The Director of Governance and Commissioning agreed that the term ”partial” was probably unhelpful; a new fire station would be created regardless of the option selected.


Another Member queried the market value of the bungalow. The Director of Governance and Commissioning stated that the market value had not been calculated.  At this point the main concern was the environmental value of the bungalow.  Was it better to retain it, or demolish it and use the spoil on site, e.g. for some of the foundations.


Members raised concerns about the impact of HS2 upon the site. The Director of Governance and Commissioning stated that the communications received did not make it clear whether there would be any impact and confirmed that he was seeking further information from HS2 Ltd.


Members reviewed all information contained within the report and agreed that Option 6 should be the preferred option. However, if a suitable site could not be found for the temporary fire station, then Option 4 should be pursued.  Members also recommended that further capital funding should to be allocated to the project by the Fire Authority.




[1]       Option 6 within the feasibility report be adopted as the preferred option – more properly described as complete replacement of the fire station, but incorporating the existing bungalow building; and


[2]       Option 4 be pursued if a suitable alternative site for the temporary fire station cannot be secured in order for Option 6 to proceed.




[3]       The Fire Authority allocated additional capital funding (£2m) for the Crewe Fire Station project.

Supporting documents: