Contact Us

Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service

Headquarters

146 Bolton Road

Swinton, Manchester

M27 8US


Tel: 0161 736 5866

For a FREE Safe and Well visit please call:

0800 555 815

Corporate Plan 2016-20 Consultation Outcomes

What did we do?

The formal consultation of the draft Integrated Risk Management Plan (IRMP) and Corporate Plan 2016 took place betweeb February 11, 2016 and May 5, 2016 (over a 12 week period).

During this time -

  • 82 local people took part in a three hour Citizen Forum. This equaled a total of nearly 250 direct contact hours between community representatives and Principal Officers of GMFRS.

  • A total of 15 hours of ‘live tweeting’ took place during the five citizen forums.

  • An online survey was launched and received a total of 72 responses, with 531 individual responses to questions. We also received other email comments from members of the public.

  • Formal responses were received from Salford City Council, Stockport Metropolitan Borough and Greater Manchester Police.

  • Fire Brigades Union issued a response to the draft plan.

  • Our webpage promoting the consultation was viewed 2,327 times and people stayed on the page for over 3 minutes (145% longer than other GMFRS sites).

  • Two dedicated Facebook posts had a combined reach to 4,513 accounts (through 25 shares and 184 clicks through to our website).

  • Using the hashtag #GMFRSconsults, one tweet made 5,377 impressions on twitter and another resulted in 66 total engagements.

From the consultation, we found that -

  1. There was a wide understanding and appreciation of the challenges GMFRS face with our current and forecast budgets from Central Government.

  2. There is a general understanding of planning for crewing levels based on demand, but with the caveat that this needs constant review and recognition that we can never fully predict when incidents will occur. There were several comments through which strongly reject demand curve.

  3. People support of the introduction of the Community Response Vehicles (CRVs), although comments that these should be trialled and evaluated continuously.

  4. People agreed that GMFRS should have a statutory duty to respond to flooding and that our budget should reflect this.

  5. There was many positive comments about our partnership working and collaboration with other agencies, with wide recognition that this is a value for money approach.

As a result of these, we will -

  1. Continue with talking to the Government about our budget so that we are as prepared as possible for the future.
  2. Ensure that any changes that are made to crewing arrangements will be reviewed and evaluated continually.
  3. Introduce Community Response Vehicles across GMFRS but with a plan to monitor their implementation.
  4. Lobby Government, where it is appropriate to broaden our statutory duty to include flooding.
  5. Continue to develop partnerships, both within Greater Manchester and beyond.

Some of the specific things that were said - 

On mapping risk -

  •  ‘risk mapping seems sensible in particular use of MOSIAC data to help identify at risk groups’ and we ‘can only assess the risks based upon historical facts’.
  • ‘Enormous efforts have obviously been made [to map risk] but still feel uneasy about the enormous reduction in man power and appliances that have been made and are still to be made’.

On the demand curve -

  • 'I would agree that it makes sense to have more fire engines available at the times they are most needed and to fewer available during quieter periods. However, robust plans do need to be put in place in order to cope with larger scale incidents and emergencies which can occur at any time’.

On funding -

  • ‘your hands are tied by the reductions in funding, so [the proposal] looks like a reasonable way of going about it’ 
  • ‘I believe that the proposed cuts imposed on your budget are extreme, reckless, vindictive and lack public support. In the circumstances your plans make the best of a very bad job’.

On Community Response Vehicles (CRV's) -

  • ‘it makes sense to use CRVs to respond to smaller incidents and non-emergencies’, but that ‘the use of CRV’s is a promising option, but must be live trialed before being implemented force wide’. 

On partnership working -

  •  ‘It is crucial that collaboration and partnership working are fundamental to future working to enable efficiencies across the public sector landscape’. 
  •  ‘I am wary of GMFRS working with collaborators or partners outside the public sector’ 
  • ‘Partnerships have become a smoke-screen for mis-appropriate use of funding and plugging gaps in essential services which the people of Manchester believe they are paying for.’ 
  • ‘More evaluation and greater focus should be made in reviewing how effective current collaboration and partnership arrangements are’.

On flooding - 

  •  ‘With less fires to attend, I think the role of the fire service has had to evolve over the years and being versatile is what keeps the fire service at the forefront. I see no reason why responding to floods should not be part of this repertoire’.

The full report can be accessed here

If you require further information on the consultation, please contact the Consultation and Engagement Officer by emailing consultation@manchesterfire.gov.uk

Last update: 09/06/2016 16:25:28
Subscribe to the Latest News feed Bookmark and Share