Firefighter jobs will be cut from East Sussex Fire and Rescue as £7 million savings are made

One in six city firefighters will lose job in cuts

One in six city firefighters will lose job in cuts

First published in News by

One in six of Brighton and Hove’s firefighter positions will be axed now that cost-saving proposals have been approved.

East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service has announced plans to cut 24 full-time posts across the city and remove a fire engine from either Hove or Preston Park fire stations.

The proposals were approved on the same day that firefighters in Sussex announced they would be striking for 24 hours – the longest period of strike action taken yet – against Government changes to pensions.

At the crunch meeting, held at East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service headquarters, ten fire authority members voted to remove the fire engine with eight voting against.

A total of 12 members voted in favour of losing the full-time posts and six voted against.

Those who campaigned against the plans have described them as “putting the lives of the firefighters and the public at risk”.

The proposals will also mean one fire engine and 12 retained firefighter posts will be lost from The Ridge in Hastings.

Des Prichard, chief fire officer for East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, said: “I’m not happy with the changes because we’ve lost firefighters and no one is happy about the fire appliance leaving, but cuts are inevitable.

“We had a goal of keeping 24 fire stations open before the meeting and after the meeting we still have 24 fire stations open.”

But Jim Parrott, executive member of the Fire Brigades Union, said: “We oppose these cuts because they will endanger the lives of firefighters and the general public.”

Nancy Platts, parliamentary candidate for Labour in Kemp Town and Peacehaven, said: “This is a terrible decision and I cannot believe the voicesof residents have been ignored.

“There are other money saving options and I urge a rethink before it’s too late.”

A motion was put forward to review the public consultation, which received just 665 responses, after it was criticised by members of the panel for failing to reach members of the public.

A vote on the motion was tied, but a casting vote from Phil Howson, chairman of the East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service, meant it was denied.

Three petitions were put forward at the meeting, arguing against the removal of the fire engine.

Councillor Garry Peltzer Dunn, Brighton and Hove Conservative member for Wish ward, pointed out during the meeting that according to the consultation, only 50 people in Brighton and East Sussex strongly agreed with removing the fire engine from the city.

There will now be a further consultation on the proposals with staff and representative bodies.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:06am Fri 6 Jun 14

Fercri Sakes says...

I constantly moan about the 2.9% rise in council tax that the Greens imposed. I vote Tory as they know how to deal with the real financial problems this country faces by allowing corporations to pay no tax and implementing austerity on public services.

But I shall conveniently blame the Green Party for this news even thought it is no fault of theirs, as politically I'm very partisan and like to blame it all on left wing political groups. This has nothing to do with those nice chaps at Westminster at all.
I constantly moan about the 2.9% rise in council tax that the Greens imposed. I vote Tory as they know how to deal with the real financial problems this country faces by allowing corporations to pay no tax and implementing austerity on public services. But I shall conveniently blame the Green Party for this news even thought it is no fault of theirs, as politically I'm very partisan and like to blame it all on left wing political groups. This has nothing to do with those nice chaps at Westminster at all. Fercri Sakes
  • Score: 8

9:20am Fri 6 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

The Green, Labour and Tory councillors from Brighton and Hove all voted against the removal of a firefighting appliance in Brighton but our Tory representatives were happy to vote with UKIP for equivalent cuts in Battle and Hastings so sadly their outlook seemed parochial rather than based on any moral stance.

Only Greens and Labour voted consistently against the cuts across East Sussex. These Labour members are now officially rebels (good for them) as the national line from Labour is that the budget cuts will not be reversed if they take office at Westminster next year - austerity is here to stay whoever wins.
The Green, Labour and Tory councillors from Brighton and Hove all voted against the removal of a firefighting appliance in Brighton but our Tory representatives were happy to vote with UKIP for equivalent cuts in Battle and Hastings so sadly their outlook seemed parochial rather than based on any moral stance. Only Greens and Labour voted consistently against the cuts across East Sussex. These Labour members are now officially rebels (good for them) as the national line from Labour is that the budget cuts will not be reversed if they take office at Westminster next year - austerity is here to stay whoever wins. Eugenius
  • Score: 22

9:25am Fri 6 Jun 14

Max Ripple says...

I hope my house doesn't catch fire.
I hope my house doesn't catch fire. Max Ripple
  • Score: 18

9:38am Fri 6 Jun 14

Hove Actually says...

Eugenius wrote:
The Green, Labour and Tory councillors from Brighton and Hove all voted against the removal of a firefighting appliance in Brighton but our Tory representatives were happy to vote with UKIP for equivalent cuts in Battle and Hastings so sadly their outlook seemed parochial rather than based on any moral stance.

Only Greens and Labour voted consistently against the cuts across East Sussex. These Labour members are now officially rebels (good for them) as the national line from Labour is that the budget cuts will not be reversed if they take office at Westminster next year - austerity is here to stay whoever wins.
You are transforming from a TROLL into something far more dangerous.
No one believes any word you say anymore as it is clearly green garbage which like your useless council, you will fail to collect or re-cycle
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: The Green, Labour and Tory councillors from Brighton and Hove all voted against the removal of a firefighting appliance in Brighton but our Tory representatives were happy to vote with UKIP for equivalent cuts in Battle and Hastings so sadly their outlook seemed parochial rather than based on any moral stance. Only Greens and Labour voted consistently against the cuts across East Sussex. These Labour members are now officially rebels (good for them) as the national line from Labour is that the budget cuts will not be reversed if they take office at Westminster next year - austerity is here to stay whoever wins.[/p][/quote]You are transforming from a TROLL into something far more dangerous. No one believes any word you say anymore as it is clearly green garbage which like your useless council, you will fail to collect or re-cycle Hove Actually
  • Score: -19

9:50am Fri 6 Jun 14

Andy R says...

Hove Actually wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
The Green, Labour and Tory councillors from Brighton and Hove all voted against the removal of a firefighting appliance in Brighton but our Tory representatives were happy to vote with UKIP for equivalent cuts in Battle and Hastings so sadly their outlook seemed parochial rather than based on any moral stance.

Only Greens and Labour voted consistently against the cuts across East Sussex. These Labour members are now officially rebels (good for them) as the national line from Labour is that the budget cuts will not be reversed if they take office at Westminster next year - austerity is here to stay whoever wins.
You are transforming from a TROLL into something far more dangerous.
No one believes any word you say anymore as it is clearly green garbage which like your useless council, you will fail to collect or re-cycle
Ha ha! You couldn't make it up. ACTUALLY trolling to falsely accuse someone else of trolling.
[quote][p][bold]Hove Actually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: The Green, Labour and Tory councillors from Brighton and Hove all voted against the removal of a firefighting appliance in Brighton but our Tory representatives were happy to vote with UKIP for equivalent cuts in Battle and Hastings so sadly their outlook seemed parochial rather than based on any moral stance. Only Greens and Labour voted consistently against the cuts across East Sussex. These Labour members are now officially rebels (good for them) as the national line from Labour is that the budget cuts will not be reversed if they take office at Westminster next year - austerity is here to stay whoever wins.[/p][/quote]You are transforming from a TROLL into something far more dangerous. No one believes any word you say anymore as it is clearly green garbage which like your useless council, you will fail to collect or re-cycle[/p][/quote]Ha ha! You couldn't make it up. ACTUALLY trolling to falsely accuse someone else of trolling. Andy R
  • Score: 16

9:51am Fri 6 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

It is incredibly distressing. At the same time as the government is demanding that we create 30,000 new homes in the city they are slashing the East Sussex Fire Service budget by £7 million. That combination is going to stretch our local Fire Service to breaking points.

The Chief Fire Officer says he has presented the least worst option but admits that response times will suffer as if there are multiple fires or a fire and a road traffic accident simultaneously as a fire engine may need to come from Lewes or Newhaven.

Their projection is that this is going to result in one extra person dying every 5.3 years but if there is a major fire in a high rise building or student halls of residence then we could witness a major catastrophe.

Jim Parrot from the FBU pointed out at the Brighton public meeting last week that there will also be an increased death toll from firefighters putting their lives at risk: although the Health & Safety regulations they should not enter a fire in a high rise building unless 4 appliances are in attendance the reality is that they would risk their lives to save people - "We will come in even though it is against our rules"
It is incredibly distressing. At the same time as the government is demanding that we create 30,000 new homes in the city they are slashing the East Sussex Fire Service budget by £7 million. That combination is going to stretch our local Fire Service to breaking points. The Chief Fire Officer says he has presented the least worst option but admits that response times will suffer as if there are multiple fires or a fire and a road traffic accident simultaneously as a fire engine may need to come from Lewes or Newhaven. Their projection is that this is going to result in one extra person dying every 5.3 years but if there is a major fire in a high rise building or student halls of residence then we could witness a major catastrophe. Jim Parrot from the FBU pointed out at the Brighton public meeting last week that there will also be an increased death toll from firefighters putting their lives at risk: although the Health & Safety regulations they should not enter a fire in a high rise building unless 4 appliances are in attendance the reality is that they would risk their lives to save people - "We will come in even though it is against our rules" Eugenius
  • Score: 18

9:53am Fri 6 Jun 14

fredflintstone1 says...

What sums this up is that our political masters would rather pay to hire sheep than firefighters. A clear question of warped priorities.
What sums this up is that our political masters would rather pay to hire sheep than firefighters. A clear question of warped priorities. fredflintstone1
  • Score: 0

10:04am Fri 6 Jun 14

s_james says...

Eugenius wrote:
It is incredibly distressing. At the same time as the government is demanding that we create 30,000 new homes in the city they are slashing the East Sussex Fire Service budget by £7 million. That combination is going to stretch our local Fire Service to breaking points.

The Chief Fire Officer says he has presented the least worst option but admits that response times will suffer as if there are multiple fires or a fire and a road traffic accident simultaneously as a fire engine may need to come from Lewes or Newhaven.

Their projection is that this is going to result in one extra person dying every 5.3 years but if there is a major fire in a high rise building or student halls of residence then we could witness a major catastrophe.

Jim Parrot from the FBU pointed out at the Brighton public meeting last week that there will also be an increased death toll from firefighters putting their lives at risk: although the Health & Safety regulations they should not enter a fire in a high rise building unless 4 appliances are in attendance the reality is that they would risk their lives to save people - "We will come in even though it is against our rules"
30,000? I agree with your sentiments but that figure is incorrect
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: It is incredibly distressing. At the same time as the government is demanding that we create 30,000 new homes in the city they are slashing the East Sussex Fire Service budget by £7 million. That combination is going to stretch our local Fire Service to breaking points. The Chief Fire Officer says he has presented the least worst option but admits that response times will suffer as if there are multiple fires or a fire and a road traffic accident simultaneously as a fire engine may need to come from Lewes or Newhaven. Their projection is that this is going to result in one extra person dying every 5.3 years but if there is a major fire in a high rise building or student halls of residence then we could witness a major catastrophe. Jim Parrot from the FBU pointed out at the Brighton public meeting last week that there will also be an increased death toll from firefighters putting their lives at risk: although the Health & Safety regulations they should not enter a fire in a high rise building unless 4 appliances are in attendance the reality is that they would risk their lives to save people - "We will come in even though it is against our rules"[/p][/quote]30,000? I agree with your sentiments but that figure is incorrect s_james
  • Score: 5

10:12am Fri 6 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

s_james wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
It is incredibly distressing. At the same time as the government is demanding that we create 30,000 new homes in the city they are slashing the East Sussex Fire Service budget by £7 million. That combination is going to stretch our local Fire Service to breaking points.

The Chief Fire Officer says he has presented the least worst option but admits that response times will suffer as if there are multiple fires or a fire and a road traffic accident simultaneously as a fire engine may need to come from Lewes or Newhaven.

Their projection is that this is going to result in one extra person dying every 5.3 years but if there is a major fire in a high rise building or student halls of residence then we could witness a major catastrophe.

Jim Parrot from the FBU pointed out at the Brighton public meeting last week that there will also be an increased death toll from firefighters putting their lives at risk: although the Health & Safety regulations they should not enter a fire in a high rise building unless 4 appliances are in attendance the reality is that they would risk their lives to save people - "We will come in even though it is against our rules"
30,000? I agree with your sentiments but that figure is incorrect
I think you may be right, I probably misheard - letter from the Planning Inspector in December is demanding 20,000 new homes, is that your figure?
[quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: It is incredibly distressing. At the same time as the government is demanding that we create 30,000 new homes in the city they are slashing the East Sussex Fire Service budget by £7 million. That combination is going to stretch our local Fire Service to breaking points. The Chief Fire Officer says he has presented the least worst option but admits that response times will suffer as if there are multiple fires or a fire and a road traffic accident simultaneously as a fire engine may need to come from Lewes or Newhaven. Their projection is that this is going to result in one extra person dying every 5.3 years but if there is a major fire in a high rise building or student halls of residence then we could witness a major catastrophe. Jim Parrot from the FBU pointed out at the Brighton public meeting last week that there will also be an increased death toll from firefighters putting their lives at risk: although the Health & Safety regulations they should not enter a fire in a high rise building unless 4 appliances are in attendance the reality is that they would risk their lives to save people - "We will come in even though it is against our rules"[/p][/quote]30,000? I agree with your sentiments but that figure is incorrect[/p][/quote]I think you may be right, I probably misheard - letter from the Planning Inspector in December is demanding 20,000 new homes, is that your figure? Eugenius
  • Score: 3

10:20am Fri 6 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
What sums this up is that our political masters would rather pay to hire sheep than firefighters. A clear question of warped priorities.
No the fire service does not hire sheep to fight fires - that would clearly be a stupid idea.

Sheep did not evolve to climb ladders and their wool catches fire too easily, at which point they are liable to explode due to the methane in their bellies.

The council does hire sheep to mow grassland in order to save tax payers money.

You seem to be confusing the fire service with the council. They are separate organisations with separate budgets.

I suspect your confusion arises because they share some of the same democratic representation, with the Fire Authority being the political body for the Fire Service, consisting of a proportionate number of councillors nominated from the councils across East Sussex. Hence Tories and UKIP have a majority on the Fire Authority.
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: What sums this up is that our political masters would rather pay to hire sheep than firefighters. A clear question of warped priorities.[/p][/quote]No the fire service does not hire sheep to fight fires - that would clearly be a stupid idea. Sheep did not evolve to climb ladders and their wool catches fire too easily, at which point they are liable to explode due to the methane in their bellies. The council does hire sheep to mow grassland in order to save tax payers money. You seem to be confusing the fire service with the council. They are separate organisations with separate budgets. I suspect your confusion arises because they share some of the same democratic representation, with the Fire Authority being the political body for the Fire Service, consisting of a proportionate number of councillors nominated from the councils across East Sussex. Hence Tories and UKIP have a majority on the Fire Authority. Eugenius
  • Score: 8

10:27am Fri 6 Jun 14

clubrob6 says...

This is dreadful news,we had the same problem in Cumbria but there was massive public outcry and ALL fire engines were saved.In Cumbria to save money the combined Ambulance and fire engine stations so that facilities such as vehicle maintenance ETC was shared.I find it difficult to understand why safety of residents is being put at risk,in a fire time is the most important issue.The fire service does more than fight fires it attends road accidents and many more different emergencies.I hope they have not been cut too much like our police force has,a perfect example with our police was the last bank holiday when they did not have the manpower to stop a rave and could only monitor and stop new arrivals.Our nightlife is policed and backed up by private security in cars parked where once police cars used to park.What would happen if we had a major incident where response time is the major issue?I think to save the essential emergency services we should be looking elsewhere for savings,for example the council should be housed in one complex except for local offices then facilities could be shared.
This is dreadful news,we had the same problem in Cumbria but there was massive public outcry and ALL fire engines were saved.In Cumbria to save money the combined Ambulance and fire engine stations so that facilities such as vehicle maintenance ETC was shared.I find it difficult to understand why safety of residents is being put at risk,in a fire time is the most important issue.The fire service does more than fight fires it attends road accidents and many more different emergencies.I hope they have not been cut too much like our police force has,a perfect example with our police was the last bank holiday when they did not have the manpower to stop a rave and could only monitor and stop new arrivals.Our nightlife is policed and backed up by private security in cars parked where once police cars used to park.What would happen if we had a major incident where response time is the major issue?I think to save the essential emergency services we should be looking elsewhere for savings,for example the council should be housed in one complex except for local offices then facilities could be shared. clubrob6
  • Score: 10

10:28am Fri 6 Jun 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

Let's hope it's the Tory house owners homes that catch fire - that would be just desserts.
Let's hope it's the Tory house owners homes that catch fire - that would be just desserts. getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: 3

10:36am Fri 6 Jun 14

s_james says...

Eugenius wrote:
s_james wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
It is incredibly distressing. At the same time as the government is demanding that we create 30,000 new homes in the city they are slashing the East Sussex Fire Service budget by £7 million. That combination is going to stretch our local Fire Service to breaking points.

The Chief Fire Officer says he has presented the least worst option but admits that response times will suffer as if there are multiple fires or a fire and a road traffic accident simultaneously as a fire engine may need to come from Lewes or Newhaven.

Their projection is that this is going to result in one extra person dying every 5.3 years but if there is a major fire in a high rise building or student halls of residence then we could witness a major catastrophe.

Jim Parrot from the FBU pointed out at the Brighton public meeting last week that there will also be an increased death toll from firefighters putting their lives at risk: although the Health & Safety regulations they should not enter a fire in a high rise building unless 4 appliances are in attendance the reality is that they would risk their lives to save people - "We will come in even though it is against our rules"
30,000? I agree with your sentiments but that figure is incorrect
I think you may be right, I probably misheard - letter from the Planning Inspector in December is demanding 20,000 new homes, is that your figure?
Yes. Although I don't think the inspector is demanding that figure be reached, just that more effort is made to get close to it.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]s_james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: It is incredibly distressing. At the same time as the government is demanding that we create 30,000 new homes in the city they are slashing the East Sussex Fire Service budget by £7 million. That combination is going to stretch our local Fire Service to breaking points. The Chief Fire Officer says he has presented the least worst option but admits that response times will suffer as if there are multiple fires or a fire and a road traffic accident simultaneously as a fire engine may need to come from Lewes or Newhaven. Their projection is that this is going to result in one extra person dying every 5.3 years but if there is a major fire in a high rise building or student halls of residence then we could witness a major catastrophe. Jim Parrot from the FBU pointed out at the Brighton public meeting last week that there will also be an increased death toll from firefighters putting their lives at risk: although the Health & Safety regulations they should not enter a fire in a high rise building unless 4 appliances are in attendance the reality is that they would risk their lives to save people - "We will come in even though it is against our rules"[/p][/quote]30,000? I agree with your sentiments but that figure is incorrect[/p][/quote]I think you may be right, I probably misheard - letter from the Planning Inspector in December is demanding 20,000 new homes, is that your figure?[/p][/quote]Yes. Although I don't think the inspector is demanding that figure be reached, just that more effort is made to get close to it. s_james
  • Score: 1

11:01am Fri 6 Jun 14

cookie_brighton says...

can someone explain to me.........they cut back on the emergency services, but yet our council tax rises every year...im confused.
can someone explain to me.........they cut back on the emergency services, but yet our council tax rises every year...im confused. cookie_brighton
  • Score: 4

11:19am Fri 6 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
can someone explain to me.........they cut back on the emergency services, but yet our council tax rises every year...im confused.
It's the same deal as the council budget - Fire Service budget is made up of a direct revenue grant from the Department for Communities and Local Government at Westminster plus an amount which is added to council tax and business rate bills (in this case bills across East Sussex).

The Fire Authority vote each year on what percentage increase (if any) to apply. This year they voted for 2%.

Tthe amount added on to the council tax bills for each council in East Sussex for 2014/15 starts at £56 a year for a band A property. Median band D property pays £83 a year.

It's the direct revenue grant which is subject to austerity cuts, so unless the Fire Authority votes to raise their council tax share, their overall budget will be down. They are subject to the same referendum rule as local councils - above the threshold (2% this year) a referendum must be called, which in the case of the Fire Service immediately wipes out the the cost benefit of raising council tax. This is quite intentional of course.
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: can someone explain to me.........they cut back on the emergency services, but yet our council tax rises every year...im confused.[/p][/quote]It's the same deal as the council budget - Fire Service budget is made up of a direct revenue grant from the Department for Communities and Local Government at Westminster plus an amount which is added to council tax and business rate bills (in this case bills across East Sussex). The Fire Authority vote each year on what percentage increase (if any) to apply. This year they voted for 2%. Tthe amount added on to the council tax bills for each council in East Sussex for 2014/15 starts at £56 a year for a band A property. Median band D property pays £83 a year. It's the direct revenue grant which is subject to austerity cuts, so unless the Fire Authority votes to raise their council tax share, their overall budget will be down. They are subject to the same referendum rule as local councils - above the threshold (2% this year) a referendum must be called, which in the case of the Fire Service immediately wipes out the the cost benefit of raising council tax. This is quite intentional of course. Eugenius
  • Score: 11

11:27am Fri 6 Jun 14

fredflintstone1 says...

Eugenius wrote:
fredflintstone1 wrote:
What sums this up is that our political masters would rather pay to hire sheep than firefighters. A clear question of warped priorities.
No the fire service does not hire sheep to fight fires - that would clearly be a stupid idea.

Sheep did not evolve to climb ladders and their wool catches fire too easily, at which point they are liable to explode due to the methane in their bellies.

The council does hire sheep to mow grassland in order to save tax payers money.

You seem to be confusing the fire service with the council. They are separate organisations with separate budgets.

I suspect your confusion arises because they share some of the same democratic representation, with the Fire Authority being the political body for the Fire Service, consisting of a proportionate number of councillors nominated from the councils across East Sussex. Hence Tories and UKIP have a majority on the Fire Authority.
At least do people the courtesy of reading their posts before replying with your Green diatribes. The actual point of my post was to highlight the fact that with limited public funds available, it's a question of deciding how that money is spent, in the public interest.

I made no mention of the council/councillors in my post. You obviously have sheep and councillors equated in your mind. Is that how you see your role as a councillor - full of gas and unable to achieve much of benefit to the community?

Just for the record, having sheep doesn't save money - mowing was £20,000 per annum, but as reported elsewhere on this site (figures obtained under a Freedom of Information request), sheep have cost £140,000 over two years - which also does not include any of the costs of council staff involvement etc...
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: What sums this up is that our political masters would rather pay to hire sheep than firefighters. A clear question of warped priorities.[/p][/quote]No the fire service does not hire sheep to fight fires - that would clearly be a stupid idea. Sheep did not evolve to climb ladders and their wool catches fire too easily, at which point they are liable to explode due to the methane in their bellies. The council does hire sheep to mow grassland in order to save tax payers money. You seem to be confusing the fire service with the council. They are separate organisations with separate budgets. I suspect your confusion arises because they share some of the same democratic representation, with the Fire Authority being the political body for the Fire Service, consisting of a proportionate number of councillors nominated from the councils across East Sussex. Hence Tories and UKIP have a majority on the Fire Authority.[/p][/quote]At least do people the courtesy of reading their posts before replying with your Green diatribes. The actual point of my post was to highlight the fact that with limited public funds available, it's a question of deciding how that money is spent, in the public interest. I made no mention of the council/councillors in my post. You obviously have sheep and councillors equated in your mind. Is that how you see your role as a councillor - full of gas and unable to achieve much of benefit to the community? Just for the record, having sheep doesn't save money - mowing was £20,000 per annum, but as reported elsewhere on this site (figures obtained under a Freedom of Information request), sheep have cost £140,000 over two years - which also does not include any of the costs of council staff involvement etc... fredflintstone1
  • Score: -4

11:37am Fri 6 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

That FOI request on the sheep wasn't specific enough so the figure given in return included a lot of fencing repair and maintenance which would have happened anyway plus some initial investment costs. Additional staff costs would have been minimal - the council already employs rangers and the shepherds (besides the flock owner) are volunteer "lookerers".

I shouldn't have described it as a money saving measure though, according to the committee paper it is cost-neutral, just a more ecological alternative.
That FOI request on the sheep wasn't specific enough so the figure given in return included a lot of fencing repair and maintenance which would have happened anyway plus some initial investment costs. Additional staff costs would have been minimal - the council already employs rangers and the shepherds (besides the flock owner) are volunteer "lookerers". I shouldn't have described it as a money saving measure though, according to the committee paper it is cost-neutral, just a more ecological alternative. Eugenius
  • Score: 3

11:38am Fri 6 Jun 14

cookie_brighton says...

Max Ripple wrote:
I hope my house doesn't catch fire.
im looking for a house for sale.......next door to a fire station....would be just my luck to find and buy that house, to have a fire one day to find out that the engines had all left to fight a fire.....at your house lol..
[quote][p][bold]Max Ripple[/bold] wrote: I hope my house doesn't catch fire.[/p][/quote]im looking for a house for sale.......next door to a fire station....would be just my luck to find and buy that house, to have a fire one day to find out that the engines had all left to fight a fire.....at your house lol.. cookie_brighton
  • Score: 1

12:28pm Fri 6 Jun 14

cookie_brighton says...

Eugenius wrote:
cookie_brighton wrote:
can someone explain to me.........they cut back on the emergency services, but yet our council tax rises every year...im confused.
It's the same deal as the council budget - Fire Service budget is made up of a direct revenue grant from the Department for Communities and Local Government at Westminster plus an amount which is added to council tax and business rate bills (in this case bills across East Sussex).

The Fire Authority vote each year on what percentage increase (if any) to apply. This year they voted for 2%.

Tthe amount added on to the council tax bills for each council in East Sussex for 2014/15 starts at £56 a year for a band A property. Median band D property pays £83 a year.

It's the direct revenue grant which is subject to austerity cuts, so unless the Fire Authority votes to raise their council tax share, their overall budget will be down. They are subject to the same referendum rule as local councils - above the threshold (2% this year) a referendum must be called, which in the case of the Fire Service immediately wipes out the the cost benefit of raising council tax. This is quite intentional of course.
thank you for the explination.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: can someone explain to me.........they cut back on the emergency services, but yet our council tax rises every year...im confused.[/p][/quote]It's the same deal as the council budget - Fire Service budget is made up of a direct revenue grant from the Department for Communities and Local Government at Westminster plus an amount which is added to council tax and business rate bills (in this case bills across East Sussex). The Fire Authority vote each year on what percentage increase (if any) to apply. This year they voted for 2%. Tthe amount added on to the council tax bills for each council in East Sussex for 2014/15 starts at £56 a year for a band A property. Median band D property pays £83 a year. It's the direct revenue grant which is subject to austerity cuts, so unless the Fire Authority votes to raise their council tax share, their overall budget will be down. They are subject to the same referendum rule as local councils - above the threshold (2% this year) a referendum must be called, which in the case of the Fire Service immediately wipes out the the cost benefit of raising council tax. This is quite intentional of course.[/p][/quote]thank you for the explination. cookie_brighton
  • Score: 2

12:33pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Eugenius says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
Max Ripple wrote:
I hope my house doesn't catch fire.
im looking for a house for sale.......next door to a fire station....would be just my luck to find and buy that house, to have a fire one day to find out that the engines had all left to fight a fire.....at your house lol..
One of the most telling comments reported from the public meeting in Brighton last week was that a woman living next to the Preston Circus station said that she nothing about the consultation...

Across East Sussex, only 665 responses were returned. Out of a total population of 844,200 that's a response rate of just 0.08%.

Complaints voiced at the public meetings included the questions being leading, forcing respondents to choose between negative options, containing confusing technical language, and respondents not being allowed to register an objection against the cuts proposals unless you provided a fully costed alternative(!)

Apart from the fact that they plainly failed in their duty to make residents aware that there was a consultation the obvious conclusion is that most of the public who did attempt to respond gave up in frustration.

And yet at the meeting yesterday a motion to conduct a retrospective review of the consultation for improvements next time round was defeated.
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Ripple[/bold] wrote: I hope my house doesn't catch fire.[/p][/quote]im looking for a house for sale.......next door to a fire station....would be just my luck to find and buy that house, to have a fire one day to find out that the engines had all left to fight a fire.....at your house lol..[/p][/quote]One of the most telling comments reported from the public meeting in Brighton last week was that a woman living next to the Preston Circus station said that she nothing about the consultation... Across East Sussex, only 665 responses were returned. Out of a total population of 844,200 that's a response rate of just 0.08%. Complaints voiced at the public meetings included the questions being leading, forcing respondents to choose between negative options, containing confusing technical language, and respondents not being allowed to register an objection against the cuts proposals unless you provided a fully costed alternative(!) Apart from the fact that they plainly failed in their duty to make residents aware that there was a consultation the obvious conclusion is that most of the public who did attempt to respond gave up in frustration. And yet at the meeting yesterday a motion to conduct a retrospective review of the consultation for improvements next time round was defeated. Eugenius
  • Score: 13

1:43pm Fri 6 Jun 14

rolivan says...

Eugenius wrote:
It is incredibly distressing. At the same time as the government is demanding that we create 30,000 new homes in the city they are slashing the East Sussex Fire Service budget by £7 million. That combination is going to stretch our local Fire Service to breaking points.

The Chief Fire Officer says he has presented the least worst option but admits that response times will suffer as if there are multiple fires or a fire and a road traffic accident simultaneously as a fire engine may need to come from Lewes or Newhaven.

Their projection is that this is going to result in one extra person dying every 5.3 years but if there is a major fire in a high rise building or student halls of residence then we could witness a major catastrophe.

Jim Parrot from the FBU pointed out at the Brighton public meeting last week that there will also be an increased death toll from firefighters putting their lives at risk: although the Health & Safety regulations they should not enter a fire in a high rise building unless 4 appliances are in attendance the reality is that they would risk their lives to save people - "We will come in even though it is against our rules"
Of those 30,000 new homes how many would be filled by Students when there are 16,000 on the waiting list to be homed. How many homes have the Green Led Council built since they have been in Office and please don't include the overpriced containers.
[quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: It is incredibly distressing. At the same time as the government is demanding that we create 30,000 new homes in the city they are slashing the East Sussex Fire Service budget by £7 million. That combination is going to stretch our local Fire Service to breaking points. The Chief Fire Officer says he has presented the least worst option but admits that response times will suffer as if there are multiple fires or a fire and a road traffic accident simultaneously as a fire engine may need to come from Lewes or Newhaven. Their projection is that this is going to result in one extra person dying every 5.3 years but if there is a major fire in a high rise building or student halls of residence then we could witness a major catastrophe. Jim Parrot from the FBU pointed out at the Brighton public meeting last week that there will also be an increased death toll from firefighters putting their lives at risk: although the Health & Safety regulations they should not enter a fire in a high rise building unless 4 appliances are in attendance the reality is that they would risk their lives to save people - "We will come in even though it is against our rules"[/p][/quote]Of those 30,000 new homes how many would be filled by Students when there are 16,000 on the waiting list to be homed. How many homes have the Green Led Council built since they have been in Office and please don't include the overpriced containers. rolivan
  • Score: 0

2:24pm Fri 6 Jun 14

wippasnapper says...

rolivan wrote:
Eugenius wrote:
It is incredibly distressing. At the same time as the government is demanding that we create 30,000 new homes in the city they are slashing the East Sussex Fire Service budget by £7 million. That combination is going to stretch our local Fire Service to breaking points.

The Chief Fire Officer says he has presented the least worst option but admits that response times will suffer as if there are multiple fires or a fire and a road traffic accident simultaneously as a fire engine may need to come from Lewes or Newhaven.

Their projection is that this is going to result in one extra person dying every 5.3 years but if there is a major fire in a high rise building or student halls of residence then we could witness a major catastrophe.

Jim Parrot from the FBU pointed out at the Brighton public meeting last week that there will also be an increased death toll from firefighters putting their lives at risk: although the Health & Safety regulations they should not enter a fire in a high rise building unless 4 appliances are in attendance the reality is that they would risk their lives to save people - "We will come in even though it is against our rules"
Of those 30,000 new homes how many would be filled by Students when there are 16,000 on the waiting list to be homed. How many homes have the Green Led Council built since they have been in Office and please don't include the overpriced containers.
That’s a good question and the simple answer is NUN because many home building projects where started under the conservative council before the greens but it was the greens that got the news paper credits the only home building projects under the greens is Student accommodation, cycle lanes and bus lanes and lets not forget what Bill R stated “where are we to house the poor” i.e. the only housing projects they have stated was the shipping containers witch is not exactly resolving the housing crises in B&H
[quote][p][bold]rolivan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eugenius[/bold] wrote: It is incredibly distressing. At the same time as the government is demanding that we create 30,000 new homes in the city they are slashing the East Sussex Fire Service budget by £7 million. That combination is going to stretch our local Fire Service to breaking points. The Chief Fire Officer says he has presented the least worst option but admits that response times will suffer as if there are multiple fires or a fire and a road traffic accident simultaneously as a fire engine may need to come from Lewes or Newhaven. Their projection is that this is going to result in one extra person dying every 5.3 years but if there is a major fire in a high rise building or student halls of residence then we could witness a major catastrophe. Jim Parrot from the FBU pointed out at the Brighton public meeting last week that there will also be an increased death toll from firefighters putting their lives at risk: although the Health & Safety regulations they should not enter a fire in a high rise building unless 4 appliances are in attendance the reality is that they would risk their lives to save people - "We will come in even though it is against our rules"[/p][/quote]Of those 30,000 new homes how many would be filled by Students when there are 16,000 on the waiting list to be homed. How many homes have the Green Led Council built since they have been in Office and please don't include the overpriced containers.[/p][/quote]That’s a good question and the simple answer is NUN because many home building projects where started under the conservative council before the greens but it was the greens that got the news paper credits the only home building projects under the greens is Student accommodation, cycle lanes and bus lanes and lets not forget what Bill R stated “where are we to house the poor” i.e. the only housing projects they have stated was the shipping containers witch is not exactly resolving the housing crises in B&H wippasnapper
  • Score: 0

2:25pm Fri 6 Jun 14

wippasnapper says...

Its one thing to cut numbers in the NHS or the Police but to cut jobs in the Fire Service is putting peoples lives in danger say for instants there a big industrial fire somewhere and many engines from all over attend but then u get a house fire in your district but your only crow is at this big industrial fire somewhere ells what do u do?

Why is this government slowly reducing our public services more or less to a shadow public service there in name but lacking the ability’s required for the gob in hand and if they are not cutting them they are selling them off and privatizing them.
Its one thing to cut numbers in the NHS or the Police but to cut jobs in the Fire Service is putting peoples lives in danger say for instants there a big industrial fire somewhere and many engines from all over attend but then u get a house fire in your district but your only crow is at this big industrial fire somewhere ells what do u do? Why is this government slowly reducing our public services more or less to a shadow public service there in name but lacking the ability’s required for the gob in hand and if they are not cutting them they are selling them off and privatizing them. wippasnapper
  • Score: 6

4:53pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Innocentbystander65 says...

wippasnapper wrote:
Its one thing to cut numbers in the NHS or the Police but to cut jobs in the Fire Service is putting peoples lives in danger say for instants there a big industrial fire somewhere and many engines from all over attend but then u get a house fire in your district but your only crow is at this big industrial fire somewhere ells what do u do?

Why is this government slowly reducing our public services more or less to a shadow public service there in name but lacking the ability’s required for the gob in hand and if they are not cutting them they are selling them off and privatizing them.
Sorry I don't understand your logic, cuts to NHS & police don't cost lives?? Of course they do, especially as the NHS has never been busier.

The fire service has to make cuts but NOT to the front line. They have large numbers of VERY expensive fire officers & administrators. Also due to the archaic way the fire services are set up in this country with almost every town, city or county having there own fire service, for example East AND West Sussex, there is bound to be duplication of roles (at management level!) and facilities. There hasn't been a separate county of East Sussex for, what?, 20+ years. Sadly the individuals that are taking the hit are the firefighters and subsequently the communities that loose the protection they offer.

Finally, I have to say (IMO) some of the blame for this situation lies at the feet of the FBU. Their inflexibility & apparent lack of willingness to compromise on appropriate changes to help modernise & therefore reduce costs has finally hit home. A strong union is one thing but sticking your head in the sand and hoping the recession isn't going to affect you is daft.
[quote][p][bold]wippasnapper[/bold] wrote: Its one thing to cut numbers in the NHS or the Police but to cut jobs in the Fire Service is putting peoples lives in danger say for instants there a big industrial fire somewhere and many engines from all over attend but then u get a house fire in your district but your only crow is at this big industrial fire somewhere ells what do u do? Why is this government slowly reducing our public services more or less to a shadow public service there in name but lacking the ability’s required for the gob in hand and if they are not cutting them they are selling them off and privatizing them.[/p][/quote]Sorry I don't understand your logic, cuts to NHS & police don't cost lives?? Of course they do, especially as the NHS has never been busier. The fire service has to make cuts but NOT to the front line. They have large numbers of VERY expensive fire officers & administrators. Also due to the archaic way the fire services are set up in this country with almost every town, city or county having there own fire service, for example East AND West Sussex, there is bound to be duplication of roles (at management level!) and facilities. There hasn't been a separate county of East Sussex for, what?, 20+ years. Sadly the individuals that are taking the hit are the firefighters and subsequently the communities that loose the protection they offer. Finally, I have to say (IMO) some of the blame for this situation lies at the feet of the FBU. Their inflexibility & apparent lack of willingness to compromise on appropriate changes to help modernise & therefore reduce costs has finally hit home. A strong union is one thing but sticking your head in the sand and hoping the recession isn't going to affect you is daft. Innocentbystander65
  • Score: 2

5:54pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Dillon2009 says...

East Sussex Fire Service managed to get 665 responses to there Public Consultation!!, Fire fighters managed to get approximately 10,000 signatures opposing the removal of a fire engine in Brighton and Hove, of the 665 responses only 50 said to remove a fire engine the rest disagreed can anyone explain to me.....
Why the fire authority bothered to have a public consultation if they just completely ignore it?
Why the Fire Authority decided to increase fire deaths rather than decease them?
Do you feel safer with this decision?
East Sussex Fire Service managed to get 665 responses to there Public Consultation!!, Fire fighters managed to get approximately 10,000 signatures opposing the removal of a fire engine in Brighton and Hove, of the 665 responses only 50 said to remove a fire engine the rest disagreed can anyone explain to me..... Why the fire authority bothered to have a public consultation if they just completely ignore it? Why the Fire Authority decided to increase fire deaths rather than decease them? Do you feel safer with this decision? Dillon2009
  • Score: 10

10:40am Sat 7 Jun 14

clubrob6 says...

Dillon2009 wrote:
East Sussex Fire Service managed to get 665 responses to there Public Consultation!!, Fire fighters managed to get approximately 10,000 signatures opposing the removal of a fire engine in Brighton and Hove, of the 665 responses only 50 said to remove a fire engine the rest disagreed can anyone explain to me.....
Why the fire authority bothered to have a public consultation if they just completely ignore it?
Why the Fire Authority decided to increase fire deaths rather than decease them?
Do you feel safer with this decision?
I agree the public consultation was just going through the motions a pointless exercise are they have taken no notice of it,Brighton and Hove is very densely populated with the Victorian houses now converted into multiple flats,we have high rise buildings ETC to cut emergency frontline services WILL cost lives.You cant cut such services when the population is increasing.
[quote][p][bold]Dillon2009[/bold] wrote: East Sussex Fire Service managed to get 665 responses to there Public Consultation!!, Fire fighters managed to get approximately 10,000 signatures opposing the removal of a fire engine in Brighton and Hove, of the 665 responses only 50 said to remove a fire engine the rest disagreed can anyone explain to me..... Why the fire authority bothered to have a public consultation if they just completely ignore it? Why the Fire Authority decided to increase fire deaths rather than decease them? Do you feel safer with this decision?[/p][/quote]I agree the public consultation was just going through the motions a pointless exercise are they have taken no notice of it,Brighton and Hove is very densely populated with the Victorian houses now converted into multiple flats,we have high rise buildings ETC to cut emergency frontline services WILL cost lives.You cant cut such services when the population is increasing. clubrob6
  • Score: 3

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree