Weak case for closing fire station

After reading the report about the potential closure of Collingham Fire Station (Write To Save Fire Station, Says MP, Advertiser, August 7) I read the consultation document produced by Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service, Balancing The Budget 2014.

Given that they accept their proposals will have an impact on the service they provide, it is a remarkably superficial document.

For example, expenditure on consultancy is included under the heading “organisational fees” but no information as to what that represents is given. When you propose reducing front line services, what is the logic of spending any money on consultants?

I started to fill in the online questionnaire but gave up when it quickly became apparent that the lack of information in the document made it impossible to complete the tick-box form on an informed basis.

The proposal to close Collingham Fire Station appears to be especially weak.

In the context of the Fire Service’s overall budget, the saving is small and the impact of the closure would have a disproportionate effect on the local community.

Collingham is the only one of the stations being considered for closure or reduced service where the number of fires attended has actually increased.

A claimed response time from Newark Fire Station to Collingham is nine minutes, but it is unclear whether that is a minimum, average or maximum time — a very important distinction.

The most noticeable weakness of the document is the absence of any assessment of the impact on people or property that will be affected by increased response times.

Unless Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service can produce a far more robust business case for closing Collingham Fire Station they should withdraw their proposal to do so.