Scrapped fire service takeover cost West Midlands Combined Authority £114,000
More than £100,000 was spent on a failed plan for the West Midlands Mayor to take over the running of fire services in the region.
The scheme, which would have seen the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) assume governance of West Midlands Fire Service (WMFS), was due to be officially scrapped at a meeting today.
The WMCA said it would offer better value for money for taxpayers, but it was opposed by the Fire Brigades Union which described it as a "power grab" from Conservative Mayor Andy Street that would "revoke democratic control" of the service.
The plan was first put forward before Mr Street was elected mayor in 2017 and was initially backed by WMFS.
Papers from the combined authority's board meeting show the failed scheme cost £114,000, with the cash spent on consultation fees, legal advice and administration costs.
The takeover needed the consent of all seven constituent councils for it to move forward.
It was supported by Tory-run councils in Dudley, Walsall and Solihull, as well as Mr Street.
But Wolverhampton Council, Birmingham Council and Coventry City Council, all of which are Labour run, opposed it, while Sandwell Council failed to respond to the request for consent.
A spokesperson for the WMCA said the plans had been developed "over more than two years with the support of all parties involved and the majority of those who took part in the public consultation".
“However, the transfer will not proceed at this time as to lay the legislation in Parliament it would have needed all of the constituent authorities giving their consent to the Home Office.
“Unfortunately it was not possible to achieve this.
"Although we remain two separate organisations, we intend to continue to work very closely with the fire authority as we do with other partners and achieve some of the benefits of joint working.”
The proposed final order from the Home Office was sent out in January with a request to provide consent.
However, it contained an amendment that led the Chief Fire Officer to advise councils to oppose it on the basis that the change was "too significant" and compromised the intent of the proposed governance changes.
