Meeting to be held on Monday 21 September 2026
Contact for further information – Steve Healey, Deputy Chief Fire Officer
Tel: 01772 866261
Executive SummaryThis report provides the Combined Fire Authority (CFA) with an overview of the decision to trial a change to the crewing model at Fleetwood Fire Station from the current wholetime 2/2/4 duty system to a Flexible Day Crewing (FDC) system.
Following a report at the CFA meeting on 15 June 2026, the Authority granted the Chair of the Authority and the Chief Fire Officer approval to take a final decision on the implementation of the Fleetwood Flexible Day Crewing trial, taking account of public consultation outcomes and further analysis.
A decision to proceed with the trial was made by the Chair and Chief Fire Officer on 10 July 2026, following a detailed review of operational evidence, community risk data and feedback received through the consultation.
At the request of the Chair, a meeting was held at Fleetwood Fire Station on 6 August 2026 involving a number of local councillors to discuss and review the supporting evidence, operational rationale, matters raised in the consultation and anticipated outcomes ahead of implementation.
The 18-month trial started on 7 September 2026 and will be closely monitored and evaluated at regular intervals to ensure no adverse impacts on public safety.
In the Annual Service Plan for 2026-27, the Service stated its intention to review all services to meet changing risk and demand in Lancashire, including trialling different ways of working that make better use of resources and inform the approach to delivering services in the future. This is the first trial.
RecommendationsThe CFA is asked to: 1. Note the contents of the report and evidence supporting the decision. 2. Approve monitoring of trial evaluation at 6, 12 and 18 months by the Performance Committee.
|
Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (LFRS) allocates resources based on risk through its Community Risk Management Plan, risk modelling, and service reviews. Emergency cover must reflect the most effective and efficient use of resources for the whole of
Lancashire. Some areas have more resources than others because there are greater community risks and activity levels are higher.
Fleetwood Fire Station had two fire engines: one wholetime fire engine crewed by firefighters working the wholetime 2/2/4 duty system and one on-call fire engine crewed by on-call firefighters. The trial affects the wholetime fire engine which has changed from 2/2/4 to flexible day crewing (FDC) for a period of 18 months. The trial is to change a crewing system, not to reduce the number of fire engines covering the area, and there is no change to the on-call fire engine.
The decision to proceed with the trial was informed by a detailed review of operational evidence, community risk data and feedback received through the consultation. Views from employees, representative bodies, local residents, and other stakeholders were carefully considered before a decision was reached.
The FDC duty system is already operating successfully at five other Lancashire fire stations, providing valuable experience and evidence to support this trial.
The trial is designed to:
· Confirm that FDC can meet operational risk and demand in Fleetwood.
· Improve workforce sustainability and reduce reliance on compulsory transfers and significant detachments into the station under the current crewing model.
· Support wider service resilience by releasing wholetime resources.
The anticipated impacts are:
· At night, the response time from call receipt to crews attending the incident is expected to increase slightly as firefighters will need to travel to the station within five minutes before mobilising.
· Emergency response standards are maintained with FDC crewing arrangements.
· No overall reduction in firefighter posts.
· Prevention and protection activities will be maintained.
Consultation with stakeholders began at the start of 2026 and public consultation took place via an online survey and public events during June 2026. The Consultation Document is available at Appendix 1.
The proposal received the support of the Fire Brigades Union and a majority of employees who responded during the consultation period. A public survey was conducted and a public information event was held at the fire station to give residents the opportunity to share their views and ask questions directly. 8 people attended the public event and there were 148 responses to the public survey. In response to a question about the trial in principle:
· 18% strongly agreed or agreed with the proposed trial in principle
· 2% neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposed trial in principle
· 80% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposed trial in principle
Further details are available in Appendix 2.
Consultation respondents who disagreed with the trial expressed concerns about the potential impact on response times at night and community safety. These concerns were carefully considered and assessed against operational evidence. A predominantly low risk area, Fleetwood has some medium risk areas and one high risk area. There are no very high-risk areas. The FDC duty system aligns firefighter availability with community risk and incident levels in Fleetwood, and maintains the Service’s ability to meet its emergency response standards, both locally and across Lancashire.
There are also robust systems in place to monitor and manage risk and incident levels across the county in real-time, enabling the Service to move fire engines and firefighters to where they are needed at any given time. The closest fire engines are always mobilised to critical incidents. This may not be those based in the nearest fire station, which may already be attending an incident or involved in training or other activities. There are 58 fire engines and 45 specialist appliances in Lancashire and they are moved around the county to meet risk and demand.
Importantly, emergency response deals with the consequences of risk, while prevention activity reduces or removes the risk in the first place. Dedicated prevention services will continue in Fleetwood communities throughout the trial to keep reducing the likelihood of fires and other emergencies occurring. These include the home fire safety check and business fire safety services, fire safety education, and prevention campaigns.
It was identified in the consultation that some people held a perception that the trial could lead to the loss of the on-call fire engine at Fleetwood or the closure of the station. This is not the case.
The trial started on 7 September 2026. The staffing model is 12 wholetime firefighter posts, aligned to FDC duty system arrangements, with all posts ultimately being filled from existing wholetime staff living within a five-minute radius of the station.
Firefighters displaced from Fleetwood have been placed at stations with crewing requirements across the county. This has largely resulted in a reduction in travel time and distance for these members of staff. Fleetwood is now crewed by firefighters living within a five-minute radius of the station, which is predicted to give a more sustainable crewing model, using members of the local community.
There is no change to the on-call crewing arrangements at Fleetwood and there has been no reduction in the overall number of firefighters in the Service.
The 18-month trial will be subject to robust monitoring and formal evaluation at 6, 12 and 18 months, providing assurance that public and firefighter safety remain paramount throughout. The evaluation will assess emergency response performance, appliance availability and operational resilience, incident demand, prevention and protection activity, operational preparedness and competence, any actions identified in the equality impact assessment and workforce sustainability. It will also consider staff and stakeholder feedback and any unintended consequences arising from the change.
Performance will be considered against appropriate pre-trial baseline data and agreed measures, enabling any emerging issues to be identified and addressed at the earliest opportunity.
It is proposed that an evaluation report is taken to the next Performance Committee meeting following 6, 12 and 18 month points in the trial:
1. 7 March 2027
2. 7 September 2027
3. 7 March 2028
The final evaluation will provide members with a comprehensive evidence base to inform any decision regarding the future crewing arrangements at Fleetwood Fire Station. A copy of the evaluation criteria is included as Appendix 4.
Potential risk to emergency response performance will be mitigated through modelling, monitoring, and staged evaluation points. In addition, focused community safety and wider prevention activity will take place across the Fleetwood station area to support a ‘prevention first’ approach to community safety.
Workforce risks (availability, recruitment, retention) are a key driver of the proposal and are expected to improve under FDC.
Public confidence risks are being managed through transparent consultation and evidence-led decision making. Should the trial be successful, any final proposed change to crewing at Fleetwood station would be subject to wider public and stakeholder consultation as part of a future Service-wide emergency cover review.
Less carbon emissions as ultimately all members of staff working from Fleetwood will be local to the area and therefore no requirement for excessive vehicle use to travel to / from the workplace.
Sustainable, as recruitment from local area.
Potential indirect benefits through more efficient use of resources and workforce deployment.
An Initial Equality Impact Assessment has been completed and this indicated that there is no negative impact on any equality group. This was updated further to the consultation which identified no negative impact. However, the assessment will be reviewed further to the completion of the trial.
The pilot provides an opportunity to support more flexible working arrangements and potentially broaden access to roles.
Will the proposal(s) involve the processing of personal data? N
Temporary contractual variations have been put in place for employees participating in the Fleetwood Flexible Day Crewing trial. These arrangements are time limited to the 18-month trial period and are being managed in line with agreed duty system provisions terms and conditions, existing policies and relevant employment requirements.
The trial will release wholetime capacity to support broader service pressures.
There is no intention to reduce the Service staffing levels on the basis of the trial.
Within the term of the trial the additional allowances paid to staff equate to circa £100,000 per annum however these costs are offset by vacancy management across the Service.
The Authority is required to consider consultation outcomes before implementation, and this delegation was provided to the Chair and Chief Fire Officer following the CFA meeting of 15 June 2026.
Changes to duty systems require appropriate contractual and employment law compliance.
Consultation relating to pilot duty system change at Fleetwood Station
Planning Committee, Monday 13 July 2026
Pilot flexible day crewing at Fleetwood Fire Station
Combined Fire Authority, Monday 15 June 2026
To change the crewing arrangements at Fleetwood Fire Station for a trial period.
Fleetwood Fire Station is located on Radcliffe Road in the town and has two fire engines:
1. One wholetime fire engine crewed by firefighters working the wholetime 2/2/4 duty system.
2. One on-call fire engine crewed by on-call firefighters.
We propose changing the duty system for the wholetime fire engine from 2/2/4 to flexible day crewing (FDC) for a trial period. FDC is the best system to meet Fleetwood's community risk and incident levels. It would mean the fire station is completely staffed by local people.
This would mean no change to emergency cover during the daytime however firefighters would respond from their home at night (as per on-call arrangements), instead of from the station. A change to FDC will increase the time it takes to respond to emergencies during the evenings (approximately four minutes) but does not affect our ability to meet our response standards.
In our Annual Service Plan for 2026-27, we stated our intention to review all our services to meet changing risk and demand in Lancashire, including trialling different ways of working that make better use of our resources and inform our approach to delivering services in the future. This proposal is the first of a series of trials we
are planning.
If agreed, the trial would begin in summer 2026 for a period of 18 months and
would be evaluated every six months to measure any impacts on emergency
response, fire engine availability, prevention activity and business fire safety
services.
Wholetime 2/2/4
Firefighters provide 24-hour cover from the station. Four watches of six firefighters.
Flexible Day Crewing
Firefighters provide cover from the fire station during the day (8am - 6pm) and respond from their home address within five minutes of the station outside of these hours (6pm – 8am) in the same way as on-call firefighters (see below). One watch
of 12 firefighters.
On-call
On-call firefighters live or work very close to the fire station (within five minutes of the station) and often have another job outside Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (LFRS). They respond to emergencies in the community from home or work. They receive the same training as wholetime firefighters and attend the same incidents.
Day Crewing Plus
Firefighters provide cover from the station during the day (8am- 8pm) and from
purpose-built accommodation based within the station grounds in the evenings
(8pm-8am).
A predominantly low risk area, Fleetwood has some medium risk areas and one high risk area. There are no very high-risk areas.
The locations, numbers and types of fire stations, vehicles, equipment and skills with
which we operate are matched to community risks and incident levels across the
county. Our prevention and protection services are also targeted at reducing incidents in the areas of highest risk.
Lancashire is split into small geographical areas and risks are calculated for each area based on the probability of an incident occurring and the consequences if it does. This calculation grades each area as one of four risk levels, from low to
very high.
Risks are identified annually in our Strategic Assessment of Risk and our Community Risk Management Plan and supporting strategies set out how we respond to them. Each year we aim to reduce overall fire risk in Lancashire and over the last 15 years we have seen risk go down by 18%.
Emergency cover must reflect the most effective and efficient use of resources for the whole of Lancashire. Some areas have more resources than others because there are greater community risks and activity levels are higher.
We always send the closest fire engines to critical incidents which may not always be those based in your local fire station, which may be at an incident already or involved in training or other activities. There are 58 fire engines and 45 specialist appliances in Lancashire and we move them around the county to meet risk and demand, positioning firefighters and fire engines in precisely the locations they
are needed.
Fleetwood has an average of 636 incidents per year within its station area, the lowest of any of Lancashire’s wholetime 2/2/4 crewed stations. Incident numbers align with FDC crewed stations.
There are 44 critical fire incidents per year in Fleetwood on average which also
aligns with FDC crewed stations.
Fleetwood's 2/2/4 fire engine is mobilised 710 times per year on average. This makes it the least utilised 2/2/4 fire engine and aligns it with FDC crewed stations.
The majority of incidents take place during daytime hours when FDC crewing provides immediate response from the station.
· Response standards are maintained with FDC crewing arrangements.
· FDC crewing aligns with community risk and incident levels in Fleetwood.
· FDC already works effectively at five other fire stations in Lancashire.
· No change to emergency cover during the daytime.
· Station retains two fire engines.
· Challenges maintaining 2/2/4 staffing due to location at the tip of the Fylde Coast peninsula – FDC is more sustainable.
· FDC will mean the station is crewed by firefighters who live in Fleetwood and all surplus firefighters will be redeployed to other stations.
· Prevention and protection services will be maintained to continue lowering risk.
There will be an on-call response to incidents between 6pm and 8am
(+ approximately 4 minutes).
Response:
· This does not affect our ability to meet our emergency response standards.
· Home fire safety and business fire safety check services will be maintained.
· FDC crewing arrangements meet community risk and incident levels reflecting better use of resources and value for money.
· The trial will be closely monitored and evaluated at regular intervals to ensure no adverse impacts.
Crewing Fleetwood in line with risk and demand in the area would make more efficient use of our resources while maintaining sufficient emergency cover in the area, with two fire engines retained and a total of 10 fire engines available on or near the Fylde Coast.
Each fire and rescue service sets its own emergency response standards; ours are some of the most challenging in the country and our performance is among the best.
Critical fires
We have response standards in relation to critical fires, which are incidents involving a significant threat to life, structures or the environment.
· Response time: the time from the initial call to our control centre to the arrival of the first fire appliance at the incident.
· Response standard: the response time we must achieve which is determined by risk levels in the area (see below).
Very high risk area – 6 minutes
High risk area – 8 minutes
Medium risk area – 10 minutes
Low risk area – 12 minutes
Critical special service incidents
We also have a response standard for critical special service incidents, which are not fires but still present a risk to life, such as road traffic collisions and rescues.
All critical special service calls – 13 minutes
We have achieved our response standards when the response time of the first fire engine arriving at critical fires and critical special service incidents, averaged over each quarter of the year, is within the relevant number of minutes.
There are 39 fire stations across Lancashire. Service headquarters is located in Fulwood and our Leadership and Development Centre is located in Chorley.
The Service has 58 fire engines with different purposes and equipment carried onboard. We also have numerous special vehicles and equipment ranging from aerial ladder platforms to rescue boats.
Prevention
Making safety interventions in the homes of those most at risk of fire and supporting people to adopt safe practices. We constantly endeavour to prevent fires and other emergencies from happening. Prevention is always preferable to response and is by far the most effective way to make Lancashire safer. We identify those who are
most vulnerable in our communities, and design and target our prevention activities
to support people to reduce their risk. Our core prevention service is the Home Fire
Safety Check service where we make practical interventions in the homes of those
most at risk of having a fire.
Protection
Supporting businesses and landlords to keep their buildings safe and taking action if they do not. Our fire protection services aim to reduce the number of fires that occur in commercial premises and the impact on life, property, and business disruption when fires do occur. We support businesses, employers, and landlords to meet their legal duties and keep people safe in their buildings with a county-wide inspection programme including our Business Fire Safety Check service.
Response
Responding to fires and a wide range of other types of emergencies quickly and
competently. Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service strives to deliver the highest standards of operational response by focussing on availability, preparedness, and operational competence. Risks in communities are changing and the types of emergencies we attend are increasingly varied. We constantly review and adapt our approach to ensure we have the right appliances, equipment, skills, and technology to respond to any incident quickly and competently.
Service support
Specialist functions that support the delivery of frontline prevention, protection and
response services. Support services are essential and incorporate a wide range of vital functions, from human resources to fleet and engineering, that support the delivery of prevention, protection and response services. Support services ensure that operations run smoothly behind the scenes and our frontline staff are equipped to deliver services.
Our budget is made up of government grants, council tax, and business rates.
Lancashire residents pay £94.73 per year for our services which means that LFRS is one of the lowest-cost services in the country, at £1.82 per week (on a band D property).
Find out more at www.lancsfirerescue.org.uk/funding.
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services independently assesses the effectiveness and efficiency of fire and rescue services in the public interest.
In our last inspection in 2025, the Service was awarded six ‘outstanding’ and five ‘good’ ratings across 11 inspection areas.
We also has a number of challenging targets for a range of key performance indicators which help us to monitor and measure our performance in achieving success and meeting our priorities.
Find out more at www.lancsfiresrescue.org.uk/performance.
We welcome your views on our proposals through our consultation. Your feedback will be considered before any decisions are made.
Why are we consulting?
We have considered data, met with staff and trade unions, and looked at new and emerging risks to ensure our emergency cover is fit for the future. We believe that the proposal will enable us to trial more effective and efficient crewing arrangements.
But we want to know what you think of our proposals. Do you agree with them? What impact might they have on you? Is there anything else we should consider?
Who are we consulting with?
We have identified a range of different stakeholders we feel could have important feedback on our proposals. This includes residents, businesses, partners, staff and elected representatives.
How do people take part?
We are also talking to people in the community and we have also put together a set
of questions in a survey to help us collect feedback. This is available for anyone to complete online on our website at www.lancsfirerescue.org.uk/fleetwood.
What will we do with the feedback?
Once the consultation closes, all the feedback will be reviewed and we will consider how we can mitigate any areas of impact or act on suggestions given.
When will the consultation close?
The consultation closes on 30 June 2026.
Further information
For further information visit www.lancsfirerescue.org.uk/fleetwood or email consulation@lancsfirerescue.org.uk.
All incidents in station area – average / year
Wholetime 2/2/4 stations
· Blackburn – 1672
· Preston – 1273
· Burnley – 1226
· Blackpool - 1209
· Hyndburn – 1044
· Lancaster – 993
· South Shore – 789
· Morecambe – 764
· Skelmersdale – 702
· Fleetwood – 636
All incidents in station area – average / year
Flexible Day Crewing stations
· Fulwood – 806
· Fleetwood – 636 (inserted in FDC for comparison)
· Leyland – 618
· Ormskirk – 543
· St. Annes – 356
· Bacup – 312
Matters consulted on:
Stakeholders whose views were sought:
Objectives
Consultation period and activity
W/c 1 June – 1 July 2026
Responses
A total of 148 responses were received.
Q To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed trial provides effective and efficient emergency cover given risk and incident levels in Fleetwood?
|
Strongly agree |
Tend to agree |
Neither / nor |
Tend to disagree |
Strongly disagree |
Don't know |
Total |
|
20 |
6 |
3 |
13 |
105 |
1 |
148 |
|
13.6% |
4.1% |
2.0% |
8.8% |
71.4% |
0.1% |
100% |
Q Please tell us why you feel this way
Analysed 148 responses; 134 included comments, 14 were blank.
|
Theme |
Indicative count |
|
Response time / delay concerns |
82 |
|
Risk to life, safety or property |
62 |
|
On-call staffing practicalities |
53 |
|
Local risk / geography / incident profile |
48 |
|
Need for 24/7 or wholetime cover |
41 |
|
Cost-cutting / reduced service concern |
37 |
Q To what extent do you agree it is appropriate to trial this change and evaluate the impact?
|
Strongly agree |
Tend to agree |
Neither / nor |
Tend to disagree |
Strongly disagree |
Total |
|
23 |
9 |
1 |
18 |
97 |
148 |
|
15.5% |
6.1% |
0.7% |
12.2% |
65.5% |
100% |
Q To what extent do you agree that 18 months is an appropriate trial period with evaluation carried out every six months?
|
Strongly agree |
Tend to agree |
Neither / nor |
Tend to disagree |
Strongly disagree |
Don't know |
Total |
|
19 |
9 |
13 |
11 |
94 |
2 |
148 |
|
12.8% |
6.1% |
8.8% |
7.4% |
63.5% |
1.4% |
100% |
Q [If you answered in disagreement] Please tell us how long you think the trial should last.
148 responses reviewed, 108 included comments, 40 were blank
|
Theme |
Indicative count |
|
No trial / should not proceed |
68 |
|
Conditional safety concerns / stop if unsafe |
21 |
|
Shorter trial up to 6 months |
11 |
|
12 months suggested |
5 |
|
Longer than 18 months |
4 |
|
Trial seen as predetermined / permanent |
6 |
Q We intend to monitor emergency response standards, fire engine availability, and community safety services during the trial. Is there anything else you would expect us to evaluate?
148 responses reviewed, 96 included comments, 52 were blank
|
Theme |
Indicative count |
|
Safety outcomes / life / property risk |
28 |
|
Fire engine availability / cover resilience |
25 |
|
Response times / mobilisation |
24 |
|
Public / resident / community feedback |
21 |
|
Firefighter welfare / workforce impact |
20 |
|
No trial / do not proceed |
19 |
|
Independent review / transparency |
8 |
Q Are there any alternatives to this proposal that you think we should consider?
148 responses reviewed, 97 included comments, 51 were blank
|
Theme |
Indicative count |
|
Keep current service / leave as is |
44 |
|
Maintain 24/7, wholetime or fully manned cover |
21 |
|
Do not proceed / reject proposal |
15 |
|
Find savings or funding elsewhere |
15 |
|
Alternative shift / crewing models |
14 |
|
Avoid increased response times |
11 |
|
Evidence, modelling or risk assessment first |
8 |
|
No alternative / none stated |
8 |
Q Do you have any further comments on this proposal?
148 responses reviewed, 74 included comments, 74 were blank
|
Theme |
Indicative count |
|
Safey / life / property risk |
26 |
|
Local service loss / community impact |
25 |
|
Do not proceed / stop proposal |
21 |
|
Cost-cutting / cuts concern |
14 |
|
No further comment / “No” |
14 |
|
Staffing / firefighter availability |
11 |
|
Response-time delay concerns |
10 |
|
Trust / consultation concerns |
8 |
Overall position of respondents
Public drop-in event feedback
Fleetwood Town Council meeting feedback
Staff feedback
Fire Brigades Union feedback
|
Consultation webpage |
Views: 3,447 |
|
Combined social media coverage (including advert targeted to Fleetwood postcodes) |
Reach: 45,000+ Link clicks: 2,165 Social media sentiment was consistent with consultation feedback. The strongest recurring concern was the reported increase in night-time response times, particularly in the context of the recent large fire on Lord Street. |
|
Media coverage |
Number of articles – 11 including Fleetwood Weekly News, Blackpool Gazette and BBC Radio Lancashire Media sentiment was largely negative |
|
In the Know to subscribers in Fleetwood |
Emails delivered: 3,051 Emails read: 1,157 Link clicks: 155 |
|
Stakeholder communications |
Consultation emailed to 24 stakeholders (partners, housing providers, local authority, representative bodies etc) plus the Community Safety Partnership |
|
Public drop-in event (18 June 2pm – 7pm) |
7 residents attended and 1 MP |
|
Fleetwood Town Council meeting (30 June, attended by AM McCreesh and GM West) |
15-20 residents attended |
|
Internal communications |
Station visits with all Fleetwood watches and on-call unit Promoted on Service intranet Inclusion in service-wide Team Brief |
|
Respondent connection to Fleetwood/LFRS |
Count |
Share |
|
I am a resident of Fleetwood |
116 |
78.4% |
|
I work in Fleetwood |
10 |
6.8% |
|
My family / friends live in Fleetwood |
32 |
21.6% |
|
I am an employee of LFRS |
8 |
5.4% |
|
I live or work in another part of Lancashire |
14 |
9.5% |
|
Gender identity |
Count |
Share |
|
Female |
69 |
47.3% |
|
Male |
61 |
41.8% |
|
Non-binary |
1 |
0.7% |
|
Prefer not to say |
15 |
10.3% |
|
Ethnicity |
Count |
Share |
|
Any other White background |
1 |
0.7% |
|
Any other mixed or multiple ethnic background |
2 |
1.4% |
|
English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British |
128 |
87.7% |
|
Gypsy or Irish Traveller Roma |
1 |
0.7% |
|
Prefer not to say |
12 |
8.2% |
|
Other |
2 |
1.3% |
|
Sexual orientation |
Count |
Share |
|
Bisexual |
7 |
4.9% |
|
Gay |
2 |
1.4% |
|
Heterosexual/straight |
113 |
79.0% |
|
Lesbian |
1 |
0.7% |
|
Prefer not to say |
19 |
13.3% |
|
Age |
Count |
Share |
|
16-19 |
1 |
0.7% |
|
20-24 |
2 |
1.4% |
|
25-29 |
6 |
4.1% |
|
30-34 |
11 |
7.6% |
|
35-39 |
12 |
8.3% |
|
40-44 |
12 |
8.3% |
|
45-49 |
14 |
9.7% |
|
50-54 |
10 |
6.9% |
|
55-59 |
23 |
15.9% |
|
60-64 |
16 |
11.0% |
|
65-69 |
17 |
11.7% |
|
70-74 |
11 |
7.6% |
|
75 or over |
10 |
6.9% |
|
Disability |
Count |
Share |
|
No |
87 |
59.6% |
|
Prefer not to say |
22 |
15.1% |
|
Yes |
37 |
25.3% |
|
Religion/belief |
Count |
Share |
|
Christian |
77 |
53.1% |
|
Jewish |
1 |
0.7% |
|
Muslim |
1 |
0.7% |
|
No religion |
47 |
32.4% |
|
Prefer not to say |
18 |
12.4% |
|
Other |
1 |
0.7% |
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed trial provides effective and efficient emergency cover given risk and incident levels in Fleetwood? Please tell us why you feel this way.
· Fleetwood contains significant risks and requires full time provision, however a FDC approach would cover these risks in a more cost effective and efficient way.
· To slow a response during a time when responses need to be quicker is a mistake that could cause the loss of life
· Any incident that does occur at night would then impact the response times for a given period of time during the next day
· Fleetwood in my opinion cover a large area. I personally believe there should be constant 24/7 coverage for at least the one appliance. The four minute extra response time could make all the difference between life and death. We have just had a large fire on lord street and that was at the start of an evening. Lancashire fire and rescue also seem to rely on other stations to support at big incidents. We the community pay for a service and I believe it should be staffed for the quickest response time day and night.
· More cutbacks and increased response times. Beginning of the end for a vital service that taxes pay for.
· Reduces response times however. Station is very quiet at night however reduces response times into the wider fylde area. reducing an immediate response from only Blackpool Southport and Bispham at night. One or two large scale incidents and response times are hugely affected
· Fleetwood is out of the way and due to resent fire on the main shopping street fire engines could get there faster if we don't have a full man station then fires like this could be detrimental to this town by time fire men was dispatched to fleetwood more damage would be done we have lots of shops and hotels in fleetwood and feel it would not be appropriate to cut back on the running of fleetwood Station
· In the case of a house fire with persons reported, reducing the station to one pump is going to cause serious delays before a BA team can enter the property.
· I believe it will lead to a reduction in firefighters and leave us vulnerable to late night arson attacks
· It's as if LFRS are treating the people of Fleetwood like second class citizens.
· I had a house fire recently and luckily the engine arrived within 4.5 minutes which saved my life and those of 2 of 3 of my pets. Without the quick response I dread to think what would have happened.
· Incidents at night will have worse response times, increasing the risk of injury or property damage.
· Always super fast to my employment when our alarm is triggered.
· It will meet the needs of the community and help with crewing issues
· A large town that isn't easily accessible from nearby busy tourist areas/ towns, should have a fully 24hr operational fire service which can also service/support neighbouring towns.
· Services are already at stretching point, this would have higher Rick to the residents of Fleetwood and the surrounding areas
· We should keep it manned 24/7.
· Fleetwood don’t turn out enough to be a Full whole time station, FDC is more than adequate for this level of activity and wouldn’t even matter if the service removed the on call pump
· Fleetwood was previously staffed on the dcp system which was hugely popular and effective for the staff who worked it - albeit disliked by the trade unions at a national level. Changing to FDC reduces staff numbers to previous levels allowing these staff to be deployed elsewhere in the county, providing an effective value for money for Lancashire’s residents
· Incident levels in Fleetwood:
· Fleetwood has an average of 636 incidents per year within its station area, the lowest of any of Lancashire’s wholetime 2/2/4 crewed stations. Incident numbers align with FDC crewed stations. Do these 636 incidents per year in the Fleetwood Station Area include incidents in the Thornton and Cleveleys area?
· There are 44 critical fire incidents per year in Fleetwood on average which also aligns with FDC crewed stations. Do these 44 critical fire incidents per year include critical fire incidents in Thornton and Cleveleys?
· Fleetwood’s 2/2/4 fire engine is mobilised 710 times per year on average. This makes it the least utilised 2/2/4 fire engine and aligns it with FDC crewed stations. How many of these 710 incidents are involving house fires with persons reported, road traffic incidents with persons trapped, and how many of these 710 incidents happen in the evening, night time and early morning.
· The majority of incidents take place during daytime hours when FDC crewing provides immediate response from the station. So exactly, how many of these incidents do happen in the evening, the night time and early morning?
· There are 58 fire engines and 45 specialist appliances in Lancashire and we move them around the county to meet risk and demand, positioning Firefighters and fire engines in precisely the locations they are needed. Isn’t the real reason you move these fire appliances and Firefighters around due to a shortfall in staffing levels?
· How many fire appliences covered Lancashire 15 years ago?
· How many operational Firefighters are presently employed in Lancashire? How many operational Firefighters were employed 15 years ago?
· I believe other Fire Services struggle recruiting on call Firefighters which could compromise fire appliance availability.
· A six minute or more delay, in a fully staffed fire appliance turning out from the Fire Station can be the difference between a life and a death, consequently, I believe your proposals would mean a worsening of the present fire protection of the Fleetwood community.
· Crewing levels remain the same during daytime hours when most incidents occur, and maintain an acceptable level of response time during nighttime hours. Also saves taxpayers money.
· I feel that to take away full time service at the fire station would be detrimental to Fleetwood and all other council tax payers in the area. The fire service provide an almost immediate service 24/7- to ask people to come from home, get their kit on then attend a fire is adding precious minutes do an urgent-often life threatening- incident. Given the fires in Fleetwood recently then it’s a big NO from me….. what cost is life??
· The nearest fire service is Bispham which would then have to cover Bispham, Cleveleys, Thornton, Fleetwood and maybe some areas near Poulton. How would Bispham Station cope if there was more than one/two fires at the same time. There has been a rise in fires in Fleetwood over the last couple of years, likewise in Blackpool. Blackpool has had some large fires which has needed crew from both Bispham and Fleetwood. Peoples lives will be put at risk if this goes ahead.
· Increasing the time taken to reach an emergency is risking lives
· Risk to public safety
· Fleetwood has a large number of elderly residents and many empty buildings in the town centre next to occupied ones I worry that any extra time being called out would be fatal
· Clearly if FF are at the station already they will respond immediately, the suggested 4 minute delay is a joke
· 4 minutes may not sound allot but if that costs a life you should be held personally responsible, shame on you penny pinching people.
· Being a retired police officer I am well aware how crucial it is to attend emergencies as quickly as possible. I fear that the delay in on call firefighters travelling to their base would be detrimental to public safety.
· Night time is when you have sleeping risks and response times matter
· Many fires occur after 6pm. Lives are at risk if you implement this change. Response times increase, people die.
· I DON'T THINK FIRESERVICE HOURS OR CREW SHOULD BE SCALED DOWN TO SAVE MONEY LIVES WILL BE RISKED
· Response time and the fact only lately we have had 3 fires in a short time scale 1 extremely serious
· This is a blatant erosion of a critical emergency service.
· The population of the town has increased massively over the years, as has the number of buildings and cars on the roads, so the suggestion that any reduction in emergency services is even remotely acceptable is laughable.
· More residents means more council tax. Service should be going up, not down. If Lancashire Fire and Rescue are unable to adequately fund the same fire station that's been here for decades, then they are clearly doing something terribly wrong.
· Should be manned all the time
· Why change something that already works. If it changes lives would be put as risk as response times would lengthen
· Because fdc require firefighters to come from the local community. I feel this builds stronger connections between the crew and the local community they protect. Also provides more incentive for on call recruitment
· Various industries nearby including vitrex. Numerous serious fires in the area and frequent incidents where Fleetwood have been needed to help with other serious fires
· Putting people's lives at risk
· Crew should be ready 24 hours day
· I've had a house fire and they were there in minutes if it took longer a lot more off the property would off been damaged
· Longer response time at night, meaning fires will develop more, putting more people at risk
· It makes sense to use local people to cover this area as they have local knowledge.
· Fleetwood needs a local station as it takes too long to get to us from Bispham and especially Blackpool (during the lights) lives are at risk over attendance times
· Our fire station has always worked perfectly well. Dont try to fix what isnt broken!!!
· An emergency response by on call will never be as fast as on site duty crew, those lost 8 minutes can be the difference in a positive outcome
· Putting lives at risk not being manned 24 hours a day.
· Number of both residential premises and business premises in the area are increasing and not increasing, therefore potential increase in out of hours call out, which doesn't appear to have been considered in the proposals, which seems very short sighted, and seems to solely be money saving exercise to detriment of potential life saving, 4 minutes delay could be difference between life and death, and 1 fatality is 1 too many to save a few pounds
· How much longer would it take firefighters to get from their house and fully prepped and at the fire, compared to when they are already located at the fire house
· Fire crews in Fleetwood are busy and very helpful with advice at all times. I would not feel safe with the proposal. They saved me once before but I have had family die in a fire.
· Worked out on statistics no problem
· Fleetwood is a large town and the residents need a fire service to respond to all emergencies and the firemen should be in attendance at all times.
· I don’t feel the information provided is balanced. It reads heavily weighted in what the service wants as opposed to what shift system is best suited to the community and crew.
· For 1 we have just had a major fire in the town. Which prob would have be worse if we didn't have our own fire brigade. Then there was another incident a few days later.
· Until the trial is initiated, it is not possible to see if it is effective and efficient
· I believe you can’t put residents safety on trial. The government website states that in the UK, over 50% of all accidental house fires occur in the evening, peaking heavily between 5:00 PM and 9:00 PM. Midday and Midnight: Data indicates that roughly 74% of all home fires occur during the midday to midnight window, which using the FDC strategy, would mean that a large portion of this window would not be covered.
· Being an emergency service it needs to be manned 24/7
· We need a full time fire station
· Because if there is a fire then you have to wait for the staff to get the station and then there uniforms etc before ever setting off to the emergency and the amount of time they been called out especially lately you can see how quickly an emergency can turn to life threatening and the delay that it will take from them coming from home to the station before setting off instead of been there all ready could be the difference between life and death in some cases
· Minutes of delay can be lethal, recent fires in fleetwood have demonstrated the need for immediate fire services.
· Reducing emergency services and expecting the community to allow for longer response times is unacceptable.
· There have been fires recently that have proved demand is there.
· The police station has already been shut.
· If this is taken into action will the council tax be reduced to reflect this?
· Only station near enough to attend quickly as the last week has shown. The town is being gradually degraded as it is. The poor relation who doesn't matter.
· The response time for crews leaving there home could put significant lives at risk when fires spread quickly.
· The exposure across the region warrants the whole time stations we have now including Fleetwood Fire Station
· Local firefighters will still be able to reach the fire station in a timely manner without it causing a problem to the service.
· I think it will serve Fleetwood better. But let's find out what the trial period finds.
· The benefits to the local people
· Attendance times (as you are aware) will be affected more than people realise. A whole time crew can be going out of the doors before on call firefighters arrive and then have to take more time waiting for a full crew and to get dressed etc.
· Would the local people be called in only when there is a fire fallout like in the RNLI? Or would they be full time staff at the station? Is the flexitime based on the number of call outs in Fleetwood?
· I think the station should be manned 24 hours a day irrespective of the number of incidents.
· Firefighters must be at the station day and night, every second counts and this puts lives at risk. Even a trial could result in a tragedy for some family. For a fireperson to get to the station then get into their gear would take to long and could not meet the required call out requirements.
· Recent events have proven we need permanent cover. It is a town with a lot of problems and less affluent than surrounding areas with a lot of anti social behaviour. Nuisance fires are a common problem. On a peninsula with basically one way in and out so help from other fire stations means increased time pressures risking lives. Close to a very dangerous landfill that is at risk of fires starting and is a major accident waiting to happen due to historical unknown hazards that have been buried. A lot of empty properties that are forever being broken into like the recent large one on Lord St as one example
· They should be fireman on duty at all times to respond quickly
· You are increasing response times. This is an efficiency for your organisation, not the people of Lancashire and specifically the people of Fleetwood. The current arrangement is effective. I strongly object.
· It has been trialled in other brigade and doesn't work
· With the amount of industries that are in the area of Fleetwood should be staffed full time as they will be able to attend incidents quicker than waiting for Blackpool to respond
· Worsening fire cover is a disgrace and should not be happening.
· Reducing operational cover
· You cant predict an incident not happening just because of lower call numbers. The call out time will then increase as you rely on people coming from further afield just to get to the station as they arent directly at the station, they then have to get to the incident.
· Your taking a full time assessment and adding unsessary variables
· A reduction in fire cover cannot be passed, delayed turnout at night means a reduction which we strongly oppose
· Minutes count in fires both from death & injury, also damage. The minutes lost in attending from homes critically increase these risks. Fire by its very nature is often a fast accelerating process and it’s effects time critical.
· The extra 5 minutes could mean life or death, you can't put money first.
· any extra delay could cost lives or property loss fleetwood population has increased.
· Statistically, Fleetwood is aligned to other FDC stations, it will allow staff to be placed elsewhere due to shortages, and longer term has the potential to reduce revenue expenditure
· If you consider the location of the existing fire stations in the north fylde area and actually measure the radius of their reach and response times, it makes much more logic to keep Fleetwood with a full time response engine and the covert Bispham to a voluntary crew. Additionally, from information available online, Fleetwood has more call outs than Bispham. Fleetwood should maintain a full time crew 24 hours, together with Blackpool. It makes no sense when considering the facts. Please actually look the location on the map together with access roads/routes/response times. The Thornton-Cleveleys area can be covered from Fleetwood with good response times. The Bispham and Poulton areas covered from north (Fleetwood) and south (Blackpool), with additional support from the voluntary Bispham site. Please actually consider this constructive feedback. I believe the proposed plans put lives in danger and do not provide adequate covered with in the North Fylde. Fleetwood should remain with a full time crew on site to provide coverage for the North Fylde.
· Arson attacks are on the up in the changing climate. Your proposed change is based on old statistics. Arson attacks are being committed all across Lancashire currently and beyond and this crime is unfortunately at the forefront of the cases on a day by day basis currently within the Court system where I am an employee.
· Changing staffing patterns at this time is a risk with the growth of this type of crime
· Our town needs a fire service to be there. Look for businesses to sponsor individual staff based on their personalities and work related achievements. The money could be used to fund their training, equipment and the businesses get their advertisements or logos on clothing or at the station for the public to see.
· Having the crew on site means faster response times to emergency call outs. It’s ridiculous to think otherwise!
· The town needs all the emergency services available 24 hours a day, those extra minutes it takes to get from home to the fire station could very easily cost a life.
· Because every second can matter for someone potentially trapped in a burning building. I can't believe that you can even think it's a good idea to not have a 24/7 fire crew and engine. So you're putting people lives at risk for a cost saving exercise. It's like when towns lose their fire station as cost cutting measures. Safety should be number 1 priority above any costs.
· There are lots of care and nursing homes in Fleewood and the surrounding area with a massive sleeping risk. The time it takes to respond from home and get to an address is to long and will result in unnecessary fatalities. The old ICI site in Thornton still has many factories with a large work force, it would take far too long to respond to a major incident there. Also bear in mind Rossell school is a boarding school and in the north part of town there is an area full of houses in multiple occupation. The town also has variety of holiday accommodation with two large caravan sites, not forgetting the Euston and Savoy hotel's and numerous airb/bns. Let's not forget the recent tragedy where a woman became trapped between boulders being used as sea defence in a coastal town, she drowned because Police and Coast Guard could not free her, the Fire Brigade did but did not arrive in time (not their fault). But time was crucial this type of sea defence is present at Roswell Beach.
· Reducing the number of staff is not the best solution to any problem.
· I think we need the fire station and people 24 hours. It's an important part of the community and with the fires lately it proves how quickly they git there being just around the corner as it would have been a lot worse with more businesses affected if the fire people were not in fleetwood to start the control
· Every town deserves a fire station manned!!
· Proposals primarily cost driven rather than anything else
· Makes better use of resources
· Fire growth is exponential. A delay of even one minute can be the difference between a room‑contained fire and a fully involved structure. Slower response times increase the likelihood of injury, smoke inhalation, and fatalities.
· Insurance and fire‑engineering data show that every minute of delay significantly increases structural loss, rebuild costs, and the likelihood of total property destruction.
· Older adults, disabled residents, and those living in flats or terraced housing are disproportionately affected by slower evacuation and higher smoke‑spread risk.
· UK fire‑service benchmarks (e.g., attendance within 8 minutes for life‑risk incidents) exist because delayed intervention is known to cause preventable deaths. This proposal moves response times in the wrong direction.
· Crews arriving later face hotter, more unstable structures, increasing the danger of collapse and flashover.
· Larger fires mean higher insurance claims, longer business closures, and greater public‑sector recovery costs. Any short‑term savings from this proposal will be outweighed by long‑term financial losses. (see loss of tram access after the current fire in Lord St).
· Fire authorities have a statutory duty to protect life and property. A proposal that knowingly worsens response capability risks breaching that duty
· The fire service should be 24 hrs a day and day and night 7 days a wk regardless of costs there should be no price on someones life
· An extra 4 minutes can be the difference between a good outcome and a tragic one. Traffic is also getting worse in Fleetwood which will have an ongoing impact on response times, day or night and leave the town and nearby areas at risk.
· Need a full time crew on call time save lives
To what extent do you agree that 18 months is an appropriate trial period with evaluation carried out every six months? If you answered in disagreement, please tell us how long you think the trial should last.
· Shouldn’t be introduced in the first place.
· I do not think this should be trialled
· Shouldn’t be a trial
· I think all are aware this is not a trial. it is for pensionable reasons and allows staff not staying on FDC to be relocated where the service sees fit
· Not at all if it has too 6 months max
· 12 months maximum
· No time
· There should be no trial in the first place
· I don't think there should be a trial. There is a clear need for tbe service in this town, both as a resident and an employee of a local high school.
· Zero months but if there really isn't any other option 12 months or less.
· Fleetwood is a deprived area which has an increase in issues which requires the support of the Fire Services
· It shouldn’t it puts lives at risk
· We should not trial it. We need a fire station
· Two years would provide more comparable data and provide enough time to qualify all new staff in the specialist skills, so the same incident requirements can be met.
· The trial is dangerous and should not take place
· There should be no trial, don’t fix what isn’t broken!
· If there had to be a trial it would need to be of a reasonable length to get a true picture however I think it should also be terminated immediately if at one time there was not a crew available to attend an incident, be it a fire or RTC etc, within the required time scale.
· No trial should take place
· It should not happen at all public safety
· Not at all
· It shouldn't
· Do not change what works
· See answer to Q4
· Trailing could have negative impact
· There should be no trial. The station should be manned 24/7
· I dont agree with any trail
· 3 months if at all
· There should be no trial, because this change is clearly unacceptable!
· No need to trial, disagree completely
· There should not be any trial time just leave alone
· Shouldn’t happen at all. The amount of residents and risks increase yet you propose this, it’s insane
· At least 5 years
· 3 months
· N/A
· There shouldn’t be a trial period
· There shouldn't be a trial period. Its too late when somebody dies to decide it isnt working
· I don't think it should be trialled
· Never
· Abandoned the idea and leave status quo
· I don’t think there should be one.
· Never
· Not at all
· I don’t believe in trialling something that could cost lives. I also feel that on e you have made the change you are likely to keep it even if it’s not proven successful.
· We shouldn't have a trial. It should stay as it is.
· Although it may be possible to evaluate over 12 months, depending when the trial started and if it mainly covers greater need
· I don’t think residents safety should be put in trial at all.
· No trial at all
· No trial at all
· You dont need to trial an easily computer modelled statistic, putting lives in danger is never a reason to trial something.
· This shouldn’t happen at all. Not even a trial.
· Not at all.
· I don’t think you should be trailing any change, we pay our council tax for a fully supported service this proposal does not fully support the service with quick response times.
· 24 months
· 12 months should be sufficient to cover all seasons etc. Although being on the coast we're not as affected as some outlying stations.
· No trial should take place.
· It should not happen
· Shouldn't even start as we all know a trial will mean a permanent change
· I strongly object to the change. The trial could be for 6 months or 2 years and there be a fatal fire the week after where the engine being mobilised earlier would have made a difference.
· Shouldn't happen
· I think that the trial should not go ahead
· The trial should not exist at all. Trialling a duty system outside the recognised grey book duty systems is outrageous.
· 18 months is far too long a gamble.
· Any trial period puts resident risk even for 1 single night
· Should not be considered, for the reasons answered in Q4.
· I don't think it needs trialling at all. Shift patterns should not be something that can be used to play about with.
· No trial. This station needs to remain manned at all times.
· no trial. have normal night crew present but don't use them. what happens when night call out and then they are on day shift
· Trial should not proceed. This cost cutting exercise is not appropriate and puts lives and properties in danger. The proposed plans does not consider the coverage and location of other stations. Bispham could instead make this trail to ensure better coverage for north fylde
· I think it should be put on pause due to recent events and the increasing popularity of this crime in our area in the current climate.
· There should be no trial, you are putting lives at risk.
· It shouldn’t even be considered in the first place. Leave things alone as they are.
· There should be NO TRIAL period as once that happens it is afait accompli
· I don't think the trial should even be on the cards.
· Shouldn't be even considered
· 3 months
· No trial you shouldn't be taking away such public services
· There should be no change to 24 hour cover.
· No trial
· I don't agree it be trialled.
· Never
· An eighteen-month trial may conclude with few, or even no, significant fire or emergency incidents. However, the absence of a major event during that limited period cannot be taken as evidence that the reduction in immediate Fire and Rescue Service provision is safe or without risk. There remains the possibility that a serious incident could occur after the trial has ended, potentially placing lives at risk or, in the worst-case scenario, resulting in a loss of life. A short-term trial cannot accurately predict when such rare but devastating emergencies may arise, and therefore should not be relied upon as a definitive measure of the long-term impact on public safety. In my opinion, decisions involving the protection of life must be based on preparedness for the worst possible circumstances, not solely on whether those circumstances happen to occur during a trial period.
· DCP not FDC has already been implemented and was shown to work for the area. FDC impacts response times at night and part of the day.
· No time as I've said previously there are more properties being built in the wyre area so realistically there is no reason to go to on call hours overnight.
· 18 months is a fair amount, however reviewed quarterly
· It shouldn't happen at all
· Not in agreement with trial in first place
· Dont Do A Trial At All it Works Well As It Is To Save So Many Lives
· It shouldn’t be happening in the first place.
· There should not be one
· I don't consider a trial in reduced cover is appropriate. Can it be guaranteed that call outs can cover any possible emergency cover after hours?
· Well I think it is risky trialling this change, a lot could happen in that trial time and I also believe that it is easy to let the trial slide on for much longer.
· This should not be trailed under any circumstances.
· It shouldn’t residents are been put at risk
· if the trial goes ahead it should be evaluated every six months
· Don’t agree with proposed changes
· Not at all leave it as it is. Firefighters do a fantastic job as it is
· No trial period is appropriate. The proposal should not proceed. Fleetwood should not be used to test slower night-time attendance at life-risk incidents. Public safety is not a pilot scheme. If the change cannot be proved safe before implementation, it should not be implemented.
· 6 months
· There shouldn't be a trial at all, as 27000 people living in Fleetwood deserve a fire station which is fully manned at all times.
· 4-6 months if you go ahead with a trial which I disagree with
· There shouldn't be a trial, a big mistake and a stupid idea.
· No trial at all. This is just a cost cutting exercise.
· 0 years, 0 months, 0 weeks, 0 days, 0 minutes, 0 seconds
· 6 months
· 12 MONTH TRIAL EVALUATED EACH MONTH TO AVOID DELAYS IN EVALUATION AND CHANGE TO SYSTEM IF NEEDED
· shoud not start
· It just shouldn’t happen
We intend to monitor emergency response standards, fire engine availability, and community safety services during the trial. Is there anything else you would expect us to evaluate?
· Get independent analysis
· How about how many people’s lives are put at risk or property damaged due to increased response times
· Its people and staff should be the priority amongst the safety of the community. Are the staff happy with the new shift system does it work? are those not staying on FDC looked after as it is a forced move after all barring in mind the majority at fleetwood are there from previous forced moves and have had constant rejections of transfers to be closer to home
· Yes distance to fleetwood from other stations could mean safety of high street and people are put at risk with despatch time at distance
· There appear to be more fires recently why change the hours when you’re already doing so well keeping us safe. If it isn’t broken don’t fix it. I’m proud of our firefighters and their dedication to the safety of us residents. Please don’t change
· There should be no trial in the first place
· You are excellent in my opinion
· Towns reasurrance, regular understanding of the towns vibe and safety. Fleetwood have experienced significant fire and safety issues over the last couple of years. We have no Ambulance base here and the Fire service offers some forms of safety.
· Impact on local community
· Actual benefit of it being a crewed station vs 1 pump on call
· What effect will it have on incident numbers for Bispham. With the delayed response during nightime hours will it increase bisphams incidents numbers due to them having a faster turn out time compared to the 5 minute delay of FDC stations?
· Specialised skills availablity, staff recovery time compared to other established FDC stations.
· The trial is dangerous and should not take place
· n/a
· Emotional welfare of crews. Rest/eating time of crews throughout their shift. Response times. Are injuries/fatalities of public/crew increasing?
· Should not be happening
· You should not be putting lives at risk at any time
· Disagree with the changes
· So some one paying with there life is how you justify this trial shame on you.
· NO CHANGE and NO TRIAL
· Efficiency as causes crewing problems
· There should be no change at all.
· The risk of any change in the system that works on life should a fire crew take longer to get to a fire
· Yes!
· Your own bias!
· From your posts and information, you're clearly already sold on this blatant penny-pinching exercise. I have no confidence whatsoever that you will conduct a fair, open and honest analysis.
· What are you going to do if the evidence shows that these changes are not suitable?
· Do you have the funding to carry on as you are if needs-be, or is this already a done-deal and you're trying to soften the blow with an elaborate show of "trialling"" your proposed reduction in service to convince the public?"
· No need to trial if manned all the time
· Ask yourself the question why you are actually doing this. We all the know the answer to save money!!!!
· Suggest you evaluate the proposal and consider the increase in population
· Would need to evaluate people's feelings about this as many people already feel very vulnerable
· Has the risk in fleetwood or surrounding areas reduced? Fires at the moment seem to be increasing
· No
· Management jobs should go not front line fire fighters
· Yes. The impact on fleetwood could be massive. Especially given the recent incidents
· Time difference to depart the station from initial call and changes in the intensity of fires on arrival on scene
· Why change something that's not broken
· Neglect by doing this trial
· Why change what is keeping us safe
· N/A
· Crew morale, community opinion, impact on neighboring areas e.g. 2nd pump turn out time.
· No
· Leave it as it is lives being put at risk
· Have no trial especially with the amount of emergency calls there has been lately especially towards fires
· How many peoples lives are effected by letting a fire burn longer, loss of life and property. Impacts of longer burning fire on the community and health.
· Reduction in council tax to reflect the reduced services available in the community
· Town moral.
· The fire stations do not operate in isolation so the key element here is the avoidance of the loss of life in the first instance wherever it may occur. The review needs to reflect the correlation between direct station response and the provision of support st other incidents, wherever they may occur.
· Nothing to add.
· How it affects staff efficiency and moral
· Do not agree with the trial.
· Monitoring is only a numbers game.
· Just reconsider, this is just a money cutting exercise risking lives
· Yes, evaluate whether your employees are supportive of increasing response times as well and seek the views of your fire authority and local MP's. Are senior officers not fighting to protect our service.
· Any hazardous industries should be checked more often to make sure that they are safe
· Evaluate the person/s who came up with this idea as they’re not suitable for the position they hold.
· Staff feedback
· Response times. Injury and death ☠ especially when they go up.
· Rds availability cannot be guaranteed how many times has the RDS been unavailable in the past year?
· You are putting peoples lives at risk by gambling on probabilities!
· stress fatigue of workforce
· As above.
· Recent statistics as in the past month Arson attacks are on the up across Lancashire.
· The impact upon the community. Its not a community fire station if it doesn't serve the community.
· Monitoring does not save lives firemen do
· The abilities for the fire fighters to get to their vehicles and if there vehicles don't start you have 1 less firefighter than would normally be there. If a beeper malfunctions, there's one less firefighter, If it's an IT error that all beepers fail you don't have any fire fighters for the emergency. It's just a crazy situation to think it's a good idea.
· Whether this should even be considered
· The impact on staff morale - we need firefighters who feel valued and not having to worry about their jobs.
· Listen to local people who know how necessary and protective we feel just knowing you are there and trying to keep us safe not like all the other services that have left us
· Yourselves for even thinking about this
· The ability to respond to other areas when their appliances are already responding so making them unavailable
· No
· Actual response‑time changes — Not just “standards”, but the real minute‑by‑minute change in attendance times for life‑risk incidents, compared with historic baselines.
· Impact on life‑risk incidents — How many incidents during the trial involved people reported trapped, smoke‑logged properties, or delayed rescues.
· Fire severity on arrival — Whether crews are arriving to more advanced fires (e.g., beyond room of origin), which is a direct consequence of slower attendance.
· Near‑miss reporting — Incidents where a delayed response almost resulted in serious harm must be captured, not ignored.
· Community risk profile changes — Whether the trial increases risk in specific neighbourhoods.
· Economic and insurance consequences.
· Public confidence and complaint data — Residents’ trust in emergency cover is a measurable safety factor and should be monitored."
· No
· Your greed in try in to cut this service
· In addition to emergency response standards, fire engine availability and community safety services, I would expect the evaluation to consider the wider impact on vulnerable residents, particularly those living in care homes, sheltered accommodation and housing for elderly and disabled members of our community.
· The assessment should include whether any increase in response times could affect the safe evacuation of residents who may have limited mobility or require additional assistance during an emergency. Consideration should also be given to the confidence and reassurance provided to staff working within these facilities, who rely on the knowledge that prompt professional assistance will be available when needed.
· Furthermore, I believe the evaluation should acknowledge the limitations of a short-term trial. The absence of a major incident during the trial period should not automatically be viewed as evidence that the changes are safe or sustainable in the long term. The potential consequences of a single serious incident, however rare, should form a key part of the overall risk assessment.
· Ultimately, any evaluation should place the protection of life and the safety of Fleetwood’s most vulnerable residents at its heart.
· Withdraw of water rescue provision
· Response times and qualitive data to include support to other incidents in Cleveleys, Poulton, Over Wyre and Blackpool
· Good you need to monitor it but properly not rubber pencil recording.
· We have already lost a manned police station, ambulance service and now your on about having volunteer firemen. Take the locals word for it when we say our service is needed.
· Take Notice What The Residents Of Fleetwood Are Saying That They Dont Want A Trial To Be Done At All
· Will you be able to staff emergency call outs or is there a danger that you may lose full time staff as a result of changes.
· How will this affect training? Training in the normal course of events can take place evenings and weekends when necessary!
· I believe those staff on call need to live with a 5 minute response time - is this realistic?
· I am also concerned about fire cover in places other than Fleetwood: scenario where Bispham is engaged elsewhere, serious domestic fire in Thornton, the first two pumps will take some time to arrive. I also recall seeing many TV fire safety messages saying how every second counts? Fleetwood has some deprived areas, 'vulnerable at risk communities' and once again are being neglected.
· Pay scales for middle management and directors. Deaths and serious injuries directly linked to the withdrawn provisions.
· I do not believe this trial should go ahead.
· How many residents suffer because of the trial
· number of times the service is needed in Fleetwood and number of times it is called to help other areas leaving Fleetwood vulnerable
· No it should be left as it is. What would be evaluated in the trial, how many lives were lost in what timescale. Minutes and seconds count in these situations
· Just dont do this its cutbacks again for fleetwood residents
· Welfare of firefighters, working in the station and on call.
· I do not accept that the trial should proceed. If it does, evaluation must go beyond routine averages.
· LFRS should assess resilience: the ability to respond when events are not normal, predictable, or convenient. Emergencies do not occur to timetable. Severe weather, flooding, arson, road traffic collisions, medical incidents, rescues, simultaneous calls, major incidents, seasonal demand, and lithium-ion battery fires can all place sudden pressure on cover.
· The evaluation should publish incident-level data, not only quarterly summaries: call time, mobilisation, turnout, travel, first attendance, second-appliance arrival, time of day, incident type, casualties, rescues, fire spread, property loss, and whether delay affected outcome.
· It should separately examine night-time incidents, life-risk incidents, vulnerable people, delayed discovery, absent alarms, simultaneous incidents, reliance on neighbouring stations, whether neighbouring cover is itself degraded, crewing shortfalls, firefighter fatigue, and any reduction in prevention, or business safety work.
· There must also be clear, public stop criteria. If the model worsens attendance, weakens resilience, reduces cover, or adversely affects any life-risk incident, the trial should end immediately.
· Yes not to do it
· As an ex retained firefighter at Fleetwood I know from experience that it takes at least 3 minutes for a retained pump to be despatched on a shout. If you are to solely depend on this mobilisation method those 3 minutes could mean the difference between property damage and a lot worse. I know the importance of a full time manned pump at Fleetwood.
· Emergency response times and if the ‘retained’ vehicle always has a enough staff available in an emergency
· Give the Fire Crew more respect
· Don't do it at all. Lives will be put at risk.
· If this working is it the right thing as your leaving other areas without operational appliances because they are over here which might leave other areas short which could be an arsonist s day which will make their firefighters job even more hard than it already is
· Public satisfaction. Level of Council Tax you can reduce by not needing as much money for the hourly rate of a firefighter staying in the station.
· I would also expect careful consideration to be given to how these changes will affect your firefighters. It is important to understand the impact on their current shift patterns and overall wellbeing.
· In addition, I would be interested to know how firefighters who do not live within the proposed five-minute response area will be affected. Will they be disadvantaged or penalised as a result of where they live? It is important that any new arrangements are implemented fairly and do not place undue pressure on existing staff or negatively affect morale and retention.
· ON GOING VIEWS OF RESIDENTS AND COMMUNITY, AND VIEWS OF STAFF
· No, just don’t do it
Are there any alternatives to this proposal that you think we should consider?
· Look at any shift pattern that doesn’t increase any response time
· Don’t play with fire
· Should it really of ever been changed to 2-2-4? is there learning been had over the money wasted on trying to make 2-2-4 work?
· Yes rethink all of it we need a fully working 24hr service
· Keeping the fire station as it is now.
· No
· 1 pump on call only
· Do we have the technology to predict map what incidents/activity levels would look like if fleetwoods wholetime appliance was removed and bispham was changed to 224? Is it a possibility to move Bispham to a better location to suite covering the northern end of the Fylde coast and change fleetwood to 1 on call appliance only?
· Nucleus crewing, would achieve greater savings and provide staff with more flexibility of shift choice. It would require the On-Call availability to be guaranteed in evenings and weekends.
· Yes, leave the Fleetwood Service as it is!
· Leave things as they are.
· Carry on as at present
· Yes make both engines full cover. We are paying for the service!
· Talk to your loyal workforce and listen to how they would change anything it’s them on the front lines not you!
· Leave it as it is
· If it works leave it alone, Get rid of the top brass instead, would love to know there earnings and saving from cutting them.
· Keep as whole time
· Don't change anything. Leave the station manned 24/7
· Why change a system that works as proven by the fast response to situations in Fleetwood
· Yes!
· Secure proper funding and retain full service as normal!
· No, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it
· Again it should not be happening in the first place
· No, the decision is unacceptable and many people aren’t even aware of this proposal
· Just crazy how you are putting people's lives at risk
· Keep the same standard of fire cover as we have now, what are council tax increases covers
· No
· Scrapping it
· Peoples lives. Loss of property. Loss of support to other services
· 24 / 7 crewed pump
· Don't do it.
· Keep system as is
· Leave it as it is
· Yes. No change to how it is now
· This should be answered by your own evaluation
· Yes, do not do it
· No
· Dont change something that works as it is
· Computer modelling, data anaylsis and impact studies. Actual trial and error should never involve something that could involve the loss of life. Those few minutes for a crew to travel, prepare and set off can make all the difference from it being a small to a huge fire.
· Leave the emergency services as they are and look at cutting other services that aren’t needed if you’re looking to save money.
· The community shouldn’t suffer
· Leave as is.
· No change to the service
· None.
· Leave the station manned
· Yes, find savings elsewhere.
· Stay on 2/2/4
· None
· Sticking to recognised 2-2-4 duty system. Immediate response in the evenings/night and better work life balance for firefighters.
· This should remain a wholetime station
· Look at 4 on 4 off with crew on station whole tome
· No
· Yes discount the proposal and remain manned overnight.
· Stay where you are. You can't put a cost on lives, it's not worth the savings to increase the chance of death by delayed response.
· Leave this fire station fully manned 24/7
· stay as present increase crews for the bad fires that happen not too often.
· As above
· Remain as you are for the next 6 months monitor recent statistics and see if the ongoing criminal trend reduces
· Utilise staff to cover more community work. Teaching in schools, educate future generations like we were when we were kids.
· Leave things as they are not everything is about money
· I believe alternative ways of saving money should be looked into first. This could include sharing specialist resources with nearby stations, reviewing administrative costs, seeking additional funding. The priority should be maintaining a fully staffed 24/7 response capability for Fleetwood rather than reducing emergency cover and putting peoples lives at risk.
· Leave things alone
· Yes, leave things as they are currently- subject to staff and union agreement.
· Leave things alone!
· No
· 24 hour coverage as is current
· No
· Leave as is.
· Keep it as it is
· Before proceeding with any reduction in immediate Fire and Rescue Service provision, I believe all possible alternatives should be fully explored. This could include identifying other areas where efficiencies or savings may be achieved without increasing potential risks to public safety, particularly in a community such as Fleetwood with a high proportion of elderly and vulnerable residents.
· Alternative approaches could include retaining a level of full-time cover, exploring revised staffing models, increasing recruitment and retention initiatives for retained firefighters, or implementing other measures that do not result in longer response times during critical emergencies.
· Any proposed changes should be supported by robust, long-term evidence and a comprehensive risk assessment that fully considers the needs of care homes, sheltered accommodation, disabled residents, and those who may be less able to evacuate quickly without assistance.
· While I appreciate the financial challenges faced by public services, cost-saving measures should not compromise the ability to protect life. I believe that maintaining the highest possible level of emergency response for Fleetwood’s residents should remain the priority."
· Day Crewing Plus
· One Watch System with self rostering.
· No it should be kept open due to increase in properties in wyre area.
· Don't take the current service away
· Full time crew at station at all times
· Time Costs Lives The Firecrews In Fleetwood an Surrounding Areas Do A Great Job As It Is if It's Not Broken Leave It ALONE PLEASE
· Change the station back to dcp as it was prior to the emergency cover review.
· Its the same staff needed as flexible day cover. Without the reduction in night time emergency response.
· Keep the staff full time
· It's proven time and again - cost cutting can kill - why change what works.
· if you are proposing a form of day crewing, why not use the expensive accommodation that was provided for the previous 'flexi crewing' system? Surely this would reduce turn out times
· Yes, save money elsewhere. Let's stop this cuts and austerity obsession because it's absolute madness and, as pointed out before, we have learnt nothing from the fire disasters of the past.
· Keep things as they are currently. The risk to life is not worth it just to save some money. Look at other services where cuts can be made where necessary but you should not be changing an emergency service to an on call service.
· Keep things exactly as they are we have had several fires in the last year, the crews attend call outs to our sheltered accommodation to help move people, the crews attend car accidents as well as routine work
· leave it as is
· Things remaining as they are now
· The alternative to this is to leave well alone and have the station manned the way it is now.
· No just leave it as it is lives will be lost if u dont
· Combined emergency response as we have lost our ambulance station.
· Yes. Do not slow emergency response.
· First, cut or pause non-essential spending before touching night-time cover.
· Second, review daytime crewing if LFRS says demand is lower at certain times, rather than weakening the period when discovery may already be delayed.
· Third, seek national reform so emergency cover cannot be compromised by industrial action.
· The alternative is simple: protect 24-hour station-based response at Fleetwood and find savings elsewhere.
· Keep it the same, put one of the Blackpool ones on it instead.
· A population in the town of 27000 warrants a full time manned pump at Fleetwood.
· Keep manned 24 hrs
· Put all ideas in the bin and shut the lid tight.
· Keep it as it is.
· Keep Fleetwood operational and manned around the clock as Bispham is already unmanned from 20:00 til 08:00 which is putting more pressure on the only full-time manned station forest gate in Blackpool so it doesn't make sense as it could be risking lives making the changes that's being proposed
· Keeping the firefighters in the station or just enough for to fill one fire engine
· Remain whole time crewed.
· NO
· Remain a 24hr cover station. I believe there are other shift systems that provide this.
· Either leave it as it is or change back to DCP
Do you have any further comments on this proposal?
· I don't agree with any of it
· Yes stop it before it gets going
· These services are vital to the local community, this will put lives at risk
· The trial is dangerous and should not take place
· I truly hope I’m wrong, but it seems to me that it’s a tragedy waiting to happen
· No
· Not in the interest of the public!
· I understand it’s all about money and cutting costs ,but it’s only one step away from shutting it down completely and that would be a tragedy waiting to happen
· No
· Stop this now
· The fire service is like a insurance service you need it asap when required not waiting for them to get to station
· Fleetwood is increasing in size and population. Any cuts to fire services are detrimental to the people, homes and businesses of the town.
· Yes refuse to scale down there has been recent increase in fire in Fleetwood this needs a increase in goverment funding for emergency services and less on mp and counciliors expenses
· It's a joke. At least I hope it's a joke!
· Leave well alone, it’s a good and necessary requirement,
· What is the point nobody listens to residents anyway
· Ludicrous
· Lobby mps and government for extra funding
· No
· No
· No
· If it is to save money then will this be shown in council tax payments. I would rather keep paying
· N/A
· No
· It can take approximately 4-5 minutes for a house to become fully engulfed in flames. 4-5 minutes for your life to be changed, for you to loose everything.
· You have stated that this change would add on an additional 4 minutes to your response time. That’s an additional 4 minutes.
· I admit my knowledge is limited on your strategies and your timings however I believe that this change does not benefit the residents of this town.
· Crews that are on call should be paid the same as if they are in the station as it still impacts on their lives, so there should be no cost savings with not having a crew on site. Cutting service has never made things better
· Strongly disagree with the whole premise
· Not good enough for a growing town. More houses means more possible safety issues.
· No
· Fleetwood fire station I would assume doesn't just serve the fleetwood area, surely Thornton, cleveleys and Poulton are factored in to this as they don't have their own stations and are close to fleetwood
· No
· No.
· Are there many of your wholetime firefighters actually living within 5 minutes of the station? for those that aren't, will they be expected to move closer or be relocated to other stations?
· Am I correct in understanding that this is already going to happen? as I've heard that job vacancies have already been posted.
· I've worked at a day manning/retained station in the past in another county so do have some understanding of response times etc.
· Please keep us informed say every 6 months as to how it seems to be working and whether it is affecting staff moral
· I get the impression that it is only being considered to save money.
· We have already lost ambulance station and police station is part time hence increased crime in town
· Don't do it. I will be speaking to councillors and MP's to try and stop this.
· It should not go ahead
· This is a risk to the community,
· Strongly disagree that this has even made it to consultation
· The broad costs of loss of lives and injuries should not be compared to cost savings.
· how did the lord street fire get so bad station half a mile away.
· As above.
· No
· It’s putting lives at risk, creating delays to response times. Crews need to be on site for immediate response.
· None that are printable
· Fleetwood is a coastal town with residential areas, businesses, industrial sites and a busy road network. Residents deserve confidence that a fully staffed fire engine is immediately available whenever an emergency occurs. While I appreciate the need to manage budgets, public safety should come first. I am concerned that once emergency cover is reduced, even as a trial, it could become permanent. I would urge the Fire Authority to keep Fleetwood’s current level of fire cover and look for other solutions that do not increase risk to the public.
· By reducing the service you are risking lives.
· The incident at commercial premises on Lord Street recently demonstrates the need for firefighting staff to be available- even if we are ‘medium risk’
· What on earth do you think k your doing to fleetwood no police now no fire your just killing the town!
· No
· This proposal introduces avoidable and foreseeable harm. Fire does not wait for administrative convenience. When seconds matter, any policy that slows emergency response is not merely inefficient—it is dangerous. I urge decision‑makers to reject this proposal and instead prioritise measures that maintain or improve current response times, ensuring the safety of residents, firefighters, and the wider community.
· You are putting lives at risk with this plan
· My overriding concern is that this proposal appears to place too much emphasis on achieving financial efficiencies without giving sufficient weight to the potential consequences for public safety.
· Fleetwood is a town with a significant elderly population, numerous care homes, sheltered accommodation and residents living with disabilities or reduced mobility. In an emergency, these individuals may be unable to evacuate quickly without the immediate assistance of trained emergency personnel. A delay of even a few minutes can have devastating consequences.
· I fully recognise and appreciate the dedication of retained firefighters and the vital role they play within our Fire and Rescue Service. However, the reality remains that a retained response system cannot provide the same immediate availability as a fully crewed fire engine already stationed and ready to respond.
· I also believe that a six-month trial cannot provide a true reflection of the long-term risks involved. A period without a major incident should not be interpreted as proof that reduced cover is safe. Emergency services exist to be prepared for the incidents we hope never happen.
· I respectfully ask that the decision-makers carefully consider not only the financial implications of this proposal, but the human cost of getting this decision wrong. The safety and protection of Fleetwood’s residents — particularly the most vulnerable — should be the paramount consideration."
· It's OK doing trials but these services never usually come back. They are cut in many ways.
· As a resident of Fleetwood i feel this proposal if implemented will be detrimental to the safety of our town. Full stop.
· Yes let the fire crest carry on doing what they do now that is Saving Lives
· Stop putting money and budgets before lives
· I have absolutely no idea why you think my age, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation is relevant to your procedure trial.
· You say that it will only affect night time cover: what about day cover after the night crew have been at an incident during the night and are taking compensatory time off - ie starting later than normal
· Make sure you read my comments out and have it noted down that the person who even dreamt up this idea should not hold any position of responsibility whatsoever. How dare you gamble with the lives of myself and my family like this. Also, it's quite damning that the letter of the Blackpool North and Fleetwood MP was not considered, or read out, in the authority meeting.
· Our Fire Station needs to be manned 24/7, 365 days per year. It is an EMERGENCY SERVICE with a risk to people's lives. What next? An on call emergency ambulance service? This is disappointing to say the least.
· It’s disgusting taking more services from a area that is already struggling and so cut of
· Fleetwood is getting more and more isolated with regard to services and this would be one more example
· What will happen to the Fleetwood fire cadet unit?
· The fire service need to be left as is, it is not worth the risk of lives being lost due to it taking longer for emergency services to reach incidents. Fleetwood has already lost its ambulance station, the police station is not as it was and this would be the start of it losing its fire station.
· Do Not Let Fleetwood Residents Down With Cut Backs if its a matter of money no ones life is worth losing
· Yes. This proposal is playing with fire — and Fleetwood residents may be the ones burned.
· It knowingly accepts slower attendance at night, when emergencies may already be advanced before anyone calls 999. That is the central danger. The delay is not theoretical; it is built into the model.
· If harm follows, it will not be unforeseeable. It will be the consequence of a deliberate decision to reduce immediate night-time cover.
· No quarterly average can rescue a person who needed help four minutes earlier. The proposal should be rejected.
· SAVE OUR FIRE STATION
· No
· No
· Who's the new manager to bring in such nonsense change?
· Also why do you need the next few questions about a person? In protest I've lied on each question relating to my gender, religion, sexual orientation, age etc
· Really concerned that this is already decided as the way to cut operating costs and will be implemented regardless
· For many years the fire service has maintained that the speed and weight of attack is key to a positive outcome at a fire or road crash, so any system that slows this response time down can only impact negatively on the safety of the residents of Fleetwood and the wider area.
|
Title of activity being evaluated |
Flexible Day Crewing Pilot at Fleetwood Fire Station
|
|
Overview of activity |
Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service (LFRS) is undertaking an 18-month pilot of a Flexible Day Crewing (FDC) duty system at Fleetwood Fire Station, replacing the previous 2-2-4 shift system for the duration of the trial. Under the FDC arrangement, a single unit of firefighters provides positive hours at the station during the daytime and emergency response cover through on-call arrangements overnight. The model is intended to better align operational resources with identified risk and demand while maintaining an effective emergency response capability and supporting the delivery of prevention, protection, training and other station-based activities. The pilot will be formally evaluated at 6, 12 and 18 months to understand its impact and inform a decision regarding future crewing arrangements at Fleetwood. |
|
Evaluation Level |
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 YES |
|
Statement of purpose |
This evaluation will provide Executive Board and the Lancashire Combined Fire Authority with evidence regarding the effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the Flexible Day Crewing pilot in order to determine whether the FDC arrangement should be retained, amended or discontinued at Fleetwood Fire Station following the 18-month pilot period. The evaluation will specifically consider whether the crewing system of FDC maintains operational response performance and resilience, appropriately matches resources to risk and demand, enables effective prevention and protection activity, provides a sustainable working arrangement for staff, and delivers anticipated organisational benefits. |
|
Evaluation activity |
The evaluation will run concurrently with the 18-month FDC pilot and will establish a baseline using an appropriate period prior to implementation Performance will be monitored throughout the pilot with formal evaluation points at 6 months, 12 months and 18 months. The evaluation will combine: · Response standards · comparison against pre-pilot baseline performance · incident and demand analysis · appliance availability and crewing information · prevention and protection activity; · training and operational competence data – performance against District Plan · workforce information including absence, overtime and staff turnover · financial information · staff surveys/focus groups · feedback from relevant managers and departments · consideration of community/stakeholder feedback where appropriate · recording of unintended positive or negative consequences |
|
Resources |
Resources required will include operational performance and incident data, Service Improvement support, HR/workforce information, finance data, availability and crewing information, prevention and protection performance information, operational competence/training records, staff time to complete surveys or participate in focus groups, station and district management input, and appropriate analytical support to compare pre- and post-implementation performance. |
|
Outputs |
The evaluation will directly deliver: · agreed pre-pilot baseline dataset (used for decision making and consultation) · 6-month interim evaluation report · 12-month interim evaluation report · 18-month final evaluation report · staff feedback findings · analysis of operational performance, resilience and response · analysis of prevention/protection and productive activity · financial and workforce impact assessment · lessons learned and identification of unintended consequences · final recommendations on whether FDC should be retained, modified or discontinued |
|
External Factors |
A number of factors may affect performance during the pilot and should be recorded so that changes are not automatically attributed to FDC. These include significant or prolonged incidents, seasonal variation in incident demand, extreme weather - flooding or wildfire periods, changes in Fleetwood's local risk profile, changes to neighbouring appliance availability or crewing, organisational changes elsewhere within LFRS; recruitment, vacancies or long-term absence, industrial relations issues, changes in national or local policy, major community events and changes to prevention/protection programmes. |
|
Evaluation question |
SMART outcome |
SMART indicators |
Evaluation tools |
Timescales |
|
1. Has FDC maintained an effective emergency response from Fleetwood? |
Throughout the 18-month pilot, operational response performance will remain within agreed LFRS standards/tolerances. |
First appliance response times, % incidents meeting LFRS response standards, response performance by day/night, comparison with baseline/equivalent previous periods. |
Incident data and pre-pilot baseline comparative analysis. |
Continuous monitoring, formal review at 6, 12 and 18 months. |
|
2. Has the FDC model maintained appropriate appliance availability and operational resilience? |
Fleetwood appliance availability and crewing will remain at or above the agreed organisational requirement throughout the pilot, with any periods of unavailability understood and addressed. |
% appliance availability, number/hours unavailable, reasons for unavailability, occasions minimum crewing cannot be achieved (detachments/overtime), appliance movements/standbys required to maintain cover |
Availability data, mobilising data, rota |
Monthly monitoring; 6, 12 and 18 months. |
|
3. What impact has FDC had on the wider LFRS response model? |
Implementation of FDC will not create a significant adverse impact on neighbouring stations, appliance movements or wider operational resilience. |
Number of incidents attended by neighbouring appliances in Fleetwood (to be compared against previous data set), any changes in neighbouring response performance. |
Mobilising data and incident data. |
6, 12 and 18 months. |
|
4. Does the FDC model appropriately align resources with Fleetwood's risk and incident demand? |
The deployment of resources under FDC will demonstrate an appropriate alignment between staffing arrangements and the pattern of risk and operational demand throughout the pilot. |
Incident volumes by hour/day, day vs night demand, incident types, risk profile and comparison with data sets used when developing the proposal. |
Incident analysis, Strategic Assessment of Risk/District Intelligence profile, risk mapping. |
Baseline plus 6, 12 and 18 months. |
|
5. Has FDC affected the delivery of prevention and protection activity? |
Fleetwood crews will maintain or improve appropriate levels of risk-led prevention and protection activity during the pilot, taking account of agreed local priorities and operational demand. |
Home Fire Safety Checks/targeted interventions, prevention activities, community engagement, protection activity undertaken by crews (BFSC numbers), comparison with baseline and planned activity. |
Prevention/protection systems, district plan monitoring, activity records. |
Quarterly, formal assessment at 6, 12 and 18 months. |
|
6. Has FDC affected operational preparedness and competence? |
Staff operating FDC will maintain required operational competence and preparedness throughout the trial. |
% completion of required training, maintenance of core skills, exercises, risk information/site-specific activity. |
Training/competence systems (eLMS), station records & District Plan, audit/assurance activity. |
Monthly/quarterly; 6, 12 and 18 months. |
|
7. Is the FDC duty system sustainable for the workforce? |
The FDC model will provide a sustainable staffing arrangement, with workforce indicators showing no significant adverse trend attributable to the duty system over the 18-month period. |
Sickness absence, vacancies, retention, overtime/detachments - ability to maintain crewing, requests to leave FDC, welfare issues, working-hours compliance. |
HR data, crewing records, management information, staff survey/focus groups. |
Baseline; 6, 12 and 18 months. |
|
8. What is the staff experience of FDC? |
Staff participating in the pilot will be given structured opportunities at each evaluation point to provide feedback regarding the effectiveness, benefits and challenges of FDC. |
Staff satisfaction, work-life balance, fatigue, morale, teamwork, perceived operational effectiveness, willingness to continue under FDC. |
Anonymous survey, focus groups, exit feedback where staff leave the pilot. |
6, 12 and 18 months. |
|
9. Has the change had an impact on the service provided to the Fleetwood community? |
There will be no evidence of a significant adverse impact on the accessibility or quality of emergency response and risk-reduction services provided to the Fleetwood community attributable to FDC. |
Complaints/compliments, response performance, prevention activity, stakeholder feedback, relevant consultation/community feedback, significant issues raised by elected members/partners. |
Corporate feedback systems, stakeholder engagement, performance data, consultation records. |
6, 12 and 18 months. |
|
10. Have there been unintended consequences arising from FDC? |
Positive and negative unintended consequences will be systematically identified, recorded and assessed throughout the pilot, with mitigating actions implemented where required. |
Issues identified, near misses/operational learning, workforce issues, benefits not anticipated, mitigating actions and completion, learning captured. |
Evaluation, debriefs, staff feedback, health & safety reporting, operational assurance. |
Continuous; reviewed at 6, 12 and 18 months. |
|
11. Is FDC an effective and sustainable future crewing model for Fleetwood? |
By the end of the 18-month pilot, sufficient evidence will be available to make a documented recommendation regarding the future duty system at Fleetwood. |
Overall performance against agreed evaluation criteria, benefits achieved, risks/issues, staff sustainability, operational effectiveness, stakeholder impact. |
Consolidated evaluation report drawing on all evidence streams. |
Final evaluation at 18 months. |