North Yorkshire 2021/22

North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service requires improvement at understanding risk.

North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service required improvement in its 2018/19 assessment.

Each fire and rescue service should identify and assess all foreseeable fire and rescue-related risks that could affect its communities. Arrangements should be put in place through the service’s prevention, protection and response capabilities to prevent or mitigate these risks for the public.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service is taking steps to improve how it identifies risk

The service’s current IRMP, known locally as its community safety plan, hasn’t changed since our 2019 inspection. The IRMP was due to expire in 2021, but the service extended it until September 2022 to allow for the development of a new IRMP. At the time of our inspection, the IRMP hadn’t been updated. But the service had carried out a risk assessment about the extension and was keeping associated incident data under review. The service didn’t undertake any consultation about extending its IRMP.

During our 2019 inspection we found that the service hadn’t fully assessed the risks it faced as part of its integrated risk management planning process. This was due to its limited use of data. The service recognises this and has developed a new CRP. The CRP uses a range of data and information, such as local authority insights, county council data, indices of deprivation and historic incident data.

At the time of our inspection, the office of the police, fire, and crime commissioner (PFCC) had started a 12-week public consultation about a new IRMP proposal, known locally as the risk and resource model (RRM). The CRP has helped the service improve its understanding of the risks it faces. It has also informed how the service has developed the RRM, which it expects to introduce in September 2022, if approved. We look forward to understanding how successful the RRM and CRP are in addressing identified risks.

We found evidence that the service engages positively with partners to better understand local risk. For example, community connect partnerships are in place in each of the seven districts. Organisations in the partnerships share information and risks to make sure they all have a common awareness.

It is unclear how effective the service’s current IRMP is

The service’s IRMP doesn’t fully identify the risks to the public. The service recognises that the IRMP is informed by demand rather than risk. It also doesn’t align with the PFCC’s fire and rescue plan.

The IRMP does say how the service intends to use its prevention, protection and response resources to mitigate or reduce the risk and threats its community faces, both now and in the future. For example, staff in each of the districts carry out prevention and protection activities, such as safe and well visits and fire safety audits. And the service uses various crewing arrangements and resources to support its response to emergency incidents.

The service should publish an annual report and action plan, as detailed in its IRMP, to show what it has achieved and what it intends to do in the next year. But the service has not done this, so it isn’t clear how effective its current IRMP is.

The PFCC produces an annual report on the progress of its fire and rescue plan.

The service has improved how it gathers and shares risk information

The service routinely collects and updates the information it has about the people, places, and threats it has identified as being at greatest risk. Since our first inspection, the service has made improvements to the processes and systems it uses to gather and record site-specific risk information.

Staff carry out familiarisation visits to premises to gather risk information. And the service has a process to gather short-term risk information, for example, at community events in the county. It also has a procedure to record risk information about vulnerable members of the community, such as oxygen users.

All this information is readily available for the service’s prevention, protection and response staff, helping it to identify, reduce and mitigate risk effectively. For example, the service communicates information via mobile data terminals on fire engines and through weekly staff bulletins. Where appropriate, it passes on risk information to other organisations via forums such as the community connect partnerships and safety advisory group.

The service should improve the way feedback from operational activity informs its IRMP

We found some evidence that the service learns from and acts on feedback from either local or national operational activity. For example, following an incident at a thatched-roof property, the service changed the appliances it sends to similar events to include a water bowser (mobile water tank). The service has also developed a plan to act on the national learning from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

But we found limited evidence that the service is using this information to regularly update risk assessments or inform the assumptions in its IRMP. There is some evidence that the service reviews national learning and incidents involving a fatality. But it is unclear how these activities have informed the current IRMP, given that it hasn’t been updated.

The service has used learning from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to reduce risk

During this round of inspections, we sampled how each fire and rescue service has responded to the recommendations and learning from Phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service has responded positively and proactively to the learning from this tragedy. The service has assessed the risk of each high-rise building in its service area.

It has carried out fire safety audits, and it has collected and passed relevant risk information to its prevention, protection and response teams. This information is about buildings identified as high risk and all high-rise buildings that have cladding similar to that installed on Grenfell Tower.

North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service is good at preventing fires and other risks.

North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service required improvement in its 2018/19 assessment.

Fire and rescue services must promote fire safety, including giving fire safety advice. To identify people at greatest risk from fire, services should work closely with other organisations in the public and voluntary sector, and with the police and ambulance services. They should provide intelligence and risk information with these other organisations when they identify vulnerability or exploitation.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service’s prevention strategy is linked to its IRMP

The service’s 2020–2025 prevention strategy is clearly linked to the risks identified in its IRMP. In addition the strategy details the service’s prevention aims and objectives, how it will deliver them and measure success. There are five key areas where the service will focus on reducing vulnerability in its communities: domestic safety, business safety, road safety, water safety and safeguarding. There are community safety officers in each district, delivering most of the service’s prevention activities. Operational crews also carry out safe and well visits. Workloads and priorities are determined locally, linked to each district’s plans.

The service’s teams work well together and with other organisations on prevention, and it passes on relevant information when needed. It uses information to adjust planning assumptions and to direct activity between its prevention, protection and response functions. For example, operational and fire control staff can access information about vulnerable members of the community to help them respond to incidents.

In our 2019 inspection report, we said the service should ensure it allocates enough resources to target prevention work at people most at risk. This was an area for improvement. Although the service has acknowledged there is more work to be done, we are encouraged to see that operational staff are now carrying out safe and well visits, increasing the service’s capacity.

The service is also leading a PSO pilot, in partnership with North Yorkshire Police and Yorkshire Ambulance Service. PSOs work to prevent vulnerability before it can cause harm across a range of health, fire, and crime problems. They promote fire safety and health and well-being, and they help address local anti-social behaviour concerns. The PSOs are also on-call responders for the fire service and deal with some medical response emergencies for the ambulance service.

Data-sharing agreements established during the pandemic continue

We considered how the service had adapted its prevention work during our COVID-19-specific inspection in November 2020. At that time, we found it had adapted its public prevention work appropriately. Since then, we are encouraged to find that the service has continued with data-sharing arrangements established during the pandemic to help identify vulnerable members of the community.

The service is taking steps to prioritise safe and well visits according to risk

The service doesn’t currently have a clearly structured risk-based approach that helps it direct prevention activity towards the people most at risk from fire and other emergencies. It carries out most of its safe and well visits in response to a referral from a partner or following an incident. It meets all referrals and doesn’t have a process for prioritising them according to risk. The service has plans to introduce a new system to improve the way it prioritises safe and well visits according to risk.

The service is developing the way it uses information and data to target its prevention activity at vulnerable individuals and groups. It is carrying out ongoing work with partner organisations, sharing data in support of this.

It provides a range of interventions, which it adapts to the level of risk in its communities. Staff carry out activities aligned with the risk identified in their areas. For example, staff have been focusing on suicide in a specific location, and they have been working with communities there. And they target water safety advice at the age groups and locations linked to water-related incidents.

The service doesn’t carry out quality assurance of safe and well visits to make sure staff perform them to an appropriate standard

Staff told us they have the right skills and confidence to make safe and well visits. These checks cover an appropriate range of hazards that can put vulnerable people at greater risk from fire and other emergencies. Safe and well visits include giving information on fire safety and advice on slips, trips and falls.

We reviewed a sample of safe and well visit records and found evidence that in some cases, the service isn’t consistently carrying out follow-ups and referrals to other agencies and partners. Staff told us there is no quality assurance process in place.

Staff understand vulnerability and have the confidence to respond to safeguarding concerns

We were pleased to find an improvement since our 2019 inspection in the way staff understand safeguarding. The staff we interviewed told us they feel confident and trained to act appropriately and promptly in response to safeguarding concerns. They are familiar with how to identify safeguarding issues and aware of the processes they need to follow.

The service works well with others to prevent fires and other emergencies

The service works with a wide range of other organisations, including North Yorkshire County Council’s stronger communities team, to prevent fires and other emergencies. Staff within the districts engage with the local community safety hubs, which involve various partners organisations, to make the most of prevention and collaboration opportunities.

We found some evidence that the service refers people at greatest risk to organisations that may be better able to meet their needs. These organisations include Warm Homes and North Yorkshire County Council.

Arrangements are in place to receive referrals from others, such as Age UK, medical oxygen suppliers and district nurses. The service generally acts appropriately on the referrals it receives, for example, giving oxygen users fire safety advice.

The service also leads the York and North Yorkshire Road Safety Partnership. Staff in several different districts told us they had been involved in road safety campaigns in their communities.

The service routinely exchanges information with other public sector organisations about people and groups at greatest risk. It uses the information to challenge planning assumptions and target prevention activity. For example, in some districts the service works with partners such as GP surgeries. They refer people they identify as at risk and those who would benefit from a safe and well visit.

The service acts to tackle fire-setting behaviour

The service has a range of suitable and effective interventions to target and educate people of different ages who show signs of fire-setting behaviour. This includes the fire-setter intervention programme. The service has several ‘fire safe’ officers who are trained to deal with fire-setting behaviour. When appropriate, it routinely shares information with partners, such as the police and local councils, to support a multi-agency approach.

The service would like to increase its evaluation and performance management of prevention activity

We found some evidence that the service evaluates how effective its activity is or makes sure all its communities get equal access to prevention activity that meets their needs. For example, an independent evaluation of the PSO pilot shows that the overall gross potential savings are estimated to be around £509,000 per year. The social value analysis estimates that for every £1 invested, there is a return of £4.50 in social benefits across all the organisations involved. The service should carry out more evaluation of its prevention activities, but told us that they don’t have enough resource to do this.

The service reports its prevention performance – the number of activities (such as safe and well visits and youth engagement events) it carries out – at the service delivery meeting and through the PFCC’s public accountability meetings. It is also developing dashboards for staff to view this information. But it is unclear if the activity in each district is proportionate to the risk and/or at the expected level. We found that district action plans are inconsistent. Some have targets, while others don’t. The service recognises it needs to oversee and direct district activities more effectively so it can manage performance consistently.

North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service requires improvement at protecting the public through fire regulation.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service should ensure its protection strategy and approach align with national guidance

The service’s 2020–2025 protection strategy is clearly linked to the risk it has identified in its IRMP. The strategy also details the service’s protection aims and objectives, how it will deliver them and measure success. The service carries out fire safety audits:

• at a sample of high-risk and very high-risk properties;
• following an incident;
• in response to fire safety complaints; and
• according to any themes identified, such as in houses of multiple occupation.

Staff across the service are involved in this activity, with information effectively exchanged as needed. Information is in turn used to adjust planning assumptions and direct activity between the service’s protection, prevention and response functions.

Protection staff qualified to Level 4 Certificate or Diploma in Fire Safety undertake fire safety audits at ‘complex’ commercial properties. Crew and watch managers qualified to Level 3 Certificate in Fire Safety carry out audits at ‘simpler’ properties. While this should mean resources are properly aligned to risk, we found some evidence of staff qualified to Level 3 carrying out audits at high-risk or very high-risk properties. This approach doesn’t align with the National Fire Chiefs Council’s Competency Framework for Fire Safety Regulators.

The effect of the pandemic on protection

We considered how the service had adapted its protection activity during our COVID-19-specific inspection in November 2020. At that time, we found it had temporarily changed its protection strategy from the traditional regulatory and enforcement model to a business support model, offering advice and guidance. We are pleased to find that the service has now reverted to its previous approach.

The service needs to ensure all the high and very high-risk properties identified in its risk-based inspection programme are audited

The service’s RBIP is focused on its highest-risk buildings. However, it is limited in scope as only a sample of high-risk and very high-risk properties are audited.

It uses National Fire Chiefs Council guidance to define its risk categories, then carries out audits on a sample of properties. It applies weighting to some types of establishments. For example, it audits more schools to reduce the potential risk and impact on communities. It also carries out thematic audits for certain property types where the need is highlighted locally and/or nationally – for example, in houses of multiple occupation.

Once the service has audited a property, it sets a reinspection frequency depending on the level of fire safety compliance it finds. However, a review of a sample of audits showed that the service isn’t consistently auditing the buildings it has targeted in the timescales it has set.

After our 2019 inspection, we said the service should ensure its systems can manage fire protection data more effectively. This was an area for improvement. The service told us data-cleansing work is underway to address audit frequency issues. It expects a new system will be available by the end of 2022.

The service is carrying out fire safety audits at all its high-rise buildings

The service has carried out audits at all high-rise buildings it has identified as having cladding similar to that installed on Grenfell Tower. It makes information gathered during these audits available to response teams and control operators, so they can respond more effectively in an emergency.

The service is taking action to make sure it carries out audits in a consistent and systematic way

We reviewed a range of audits of different premises across the service. This included audits as part of the service’s RBIP, after fires at premises where fire safety legislation applies, where enforcement action had been taken, and at high-rise, high-risk buildings.

Not all the audits we reviewed were completed in a consistent, systematic way, or in line with the service’s policies. For example, we found that staff don’t always carry out fire safety activities after incidents. The service knows about this problem and is working to resolve it.

The service is working to introduce quality assurance for its protection activities

Only limited quality assurance of the service’s protection activity takes place. There was some evidence of managers checking and signing off enforcement activity, but nothing beyond this. The service acknowledges that quality assurance has been sporadic. It has used grant funding to invest in resources to improve this and to develop a new process.

The service doesn’t have good evaluation tools in place to measure its effectiveness or to make sure all sections of its communities get equal access to protection services that meet their needs. It gives an overview of its protection activity at the service delivery and public accountability meetings. But without targets or objectives, there is little sense of what it has achieved.

The service carries out enforcement activities

The service consistently uses its full range of enforcement powers, and when appropriate, prosecutes those who don’t comply with fire safety regulations. The service works alongside other regulators, such as Trading Standards and Environmental Health.

In the year to 31 March 2021, the service issued 40 informal notifications, 2 enforcement notices and no prohibition or alteration notices. The service completed 13 prosecutions in the 5 years to March 2021.

The service has made some progress in making sure protection resources are in place, but it should improve out-of-hours arrangements

Our 2019 inspection report said the service should make sure it allocates enough resources to a prioritised, RBIP. This was an area for improvement. It has made some progress. It currently has enough qualified protection staff to meet the requirements of its RBIP. We found that it has used protection uplift grants to support a team restructure. There are two additional members of protection staff on fixed-term contracts, and the service hopes to make them permanent, should finances allow. At the time of our inspection, it had also advertised a further two posts. But some staff expressed concern that workloads have increased and that the benefits of the additional resources weren’t clear to them.

We also found that the service doesn’t monitor fire safety complaint emails over weekends. And it can’t always guarantee out-of-hours provision of a suitably qualified protection officer to carry out enforcement duties.

Protection staff get the right training and work to appropriate accreditation.

The service works with other agencies to regulate fire safety

The service works with other agencies to regulate fire safety and routinely exchanges risk information with them. It works with building regulators and takes part in safety awareness groups, dealing with community event planning.

The service has improved the time it takes to respond to building consultations

The service responds to most building consultations on time. This means it meets its statutory responsibility to comment on fire safety arrangements at new and altered buildings. We found the time the service takes to respond to building consultations has improved since our 2019 inspection. In 2020/21 the service dealt with 93 percent of building consultations within the required time frame, compared with 78 percent in 2019/20.

The service is carrying out some work to promote fire safety compliance

The service proactively engages with local businesses and other organisations to promote compliance with fire safety legislation. For example, it engages with hotels and attends landlord forums to discuss legislation and good practice. The service has two primary authority schemes in place, but it is unclear how active they are.

The service is acting to reduce its attendance at unwanted fire signals

An effective risk-based approach is in place to manage the number of unwanted fire signals. Fire control operators challenge calls associated with automatic fire alarms. The service doesn’t attend incidents initiated by an automatic fire alarm between 8am and 6pm unless the incident is residential, has a specific risk flagged at the property or there is a confirmed fire. Staff also work with building owners to reduce false alarms.

Fewer unwanted calls mean fire engines are available to respond to a genuine incident rather than responding to a false one. It also reduces the risk to the public if fewer fire engines travel at high speed on the roads.

North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service requires improvement at responding to fires and other emergencies.

North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service was good in its 2018/19 assessment.

Fire and rescue services must be able to respond to a range of incidents such as fires, road traffic collisions and other emergencies in their area.

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service responds flexibly, but resource availability is a challenge

The service’s response strategy is linked to the risks identified in its IRMP. Its fire engines and response staff, as well as its working patterns, are designed and located to help the service to respond flexibly to fires and other emergencies with the appropriate resources. There is a response model, which sets out thresholds of fire cover for the service based on the number of appliances. This means the service understands how many resources it needs and where. But we found that it is a daily challenge to make sure resource availability aligns as closely as possible to this model.

The service has yet to establish any response standards and doesn’t routinely review performance

There are no national response standards of performance for the public. And unlike many services, North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service hasn’t defined or published its own. This was an area for improvement we highlighted in our 2019 inspection report. But the service hasn’t yet addressed it. The service’s new RRM includes proposals to introduce response principles, which aim to show the service’s commitment to mobilising the right resources safely and at speed. We look forward to understanding how the service uses these principles to manage and report response time performance, should they be introduced.

Home Office data shows that in the year to 31 December 2021, the service’s response time to primary fires was 11 minutes and 39 seconds, which is exactly a minute slower than the average for predominantly rural services. The service doesn’t routinely review response time data or performance.

The service doesn’t always have the minimum number of fire engines available

To support its response strategy, the service has a fire cover model that sets thresholds for the number of fire engines it needs. The thresholds are:

• maximum (46 fire engines);
• optimum (38 to 45 fire engines);
• minimum (32 to 37 fire engines); and
• critical (fewer than 32 fire engines).

We found the number of fire engines available to the service sometimes falls to the critical level at certain points in the day. We also found evidence of operational staff not having the right skills and/or having to carry out dual roles.

Staff have a good understanding of how to command incidents safely

The service has trained incident commanders who are assessed in line with service policy. Incident commanders are qualified to national standards and accredited by Skills for Justice. This helps the service safely, assertively, and effectively manage the whole range of incidents it could face, from small and routine ones to complex multi-agency incidents.

As part of our inspection, we interviewed incident commanders from across the service. The incident commanders we interviewed are familiar with risk assessing, decision-making and recording information at incidents in line with national best practice, as well as the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Principles (JESIP). But the service should consider how it can assure its incident commanders’ performance when they are actively dealing with emergencies. It doesn’t currently do this.

Fire control’s involvement with the service’s command, exercise, debrief and assurance activity has started to improve

We are disappointed to find that the service doesn’t always include its control staff in its command, training, exercise, debrief and assurance activity. But staff told us this has recently started to improve. Although control staff aren’t routinely involved at the outset, they are included in any subsequent communications to share learning and/or feedback.

The service hasn’t yet implemented a policy or process to help fire control give fire survival guidance to multiple callers

The service hasn’t reviewed its ability to give fire survival guidance to many callers simultaneously. We would have expected it to do this as it was identified as learning for fire services after the Grenfell Tower fire. Although the service has updated its training to include fire survival guidance to multiple callers, there is currently no policy or formalised process in place.

Control has good systems in place to exchange real-time risk information with incident commanders, other responding partners and other supporting fire and rescue services. Maintaining good situational awareness helps the service communicate effectively with the public, giving them accurate and tailored advice. The service has taken the lead in national talk-group exercises, which support communications between different fire control rooms across England.

The service has improved the way it shares risk information with staff

The service has improved the way it gathers risk information and shares it with staff. It has reviewed guidance and introduced new templates. We sampled a range of risk-information records associated with a small number of properties involving long and short-term risks. These records included what is in place for firefighters responding to incidents at high-risk, high-rise buildings, and what information is held by fire control.

The information we reviewed was up to date and detailed. It could be easily accessed and understood by staff. But some staff told us the mobile data terminals they use to view the information (which are on the fire engines) sometimes malfunction.

Encouragingly, the information had been completed with input from the service’s prevention, protection and response functions when appropriate.

The service has improved the way it evaluates operational performance

Our 2019 inspection report included an area for improvement stating the service should ensure it has an effective system for staff to use learning and debriefs to improve operational response and incident command. We are pleased to see that the service has developed a system and process for debriefs. It systematically follows them to gather learning.

As part of this inspection, we reviewed a range of emergency incidents and training events. We are pleased to see the service routinely follows its policies to assure itself that staff command incidents in line with operational guidance. It updates internal risk information with the information it receives. For example, following the debrief of an incident involving a water rescue, the service identified that its personal protective equipment (PPE) needed improving. It subsequently changed the PPE its staff use.

The service has responded to learning from incidents to improve its service for the public. For example, after a debrief of a cave rescue exercise, it identified that a high-volume pump (used to pump water out in this scenario) should be mobilised in this type of incident. This resulted in the service changing the types of appliances it automatically sends to these incidents.

We are encouraged to see the service is contributing towards, and acting on, learning from other fire and rescue services or operational learning gathered from other emergency service partners. This includes sharing national operational learning. For example, following an exercise carried out with fire control room staff from other fire and rescue services, the services shared learning about how they could improve staff training.

The service has systems in place to communicate incident-related information to the public

The service has systems in place to inform the public about ongoing incidents and help keep them safe during and after incidents. It has processes in place with the local resilience forum (LRF) to share information with the public. It also gives relevant information to the public via the internet and social media. But it currently doesn’t oversee the individual social media accounts used by stations, so it can’t make sure messages are consistent.

North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service is good at responding to major and multi-agency incidents.

North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service was good in its 2018/19 assessment.

All fire and rescue services must be able to respond effectively to multi-agency and cross-border incidents. This means working with other fire and rescue services (known as intraoperability) and emergency services (known as interoperability).

We set out our detailed findings below. These are the basis for our judgment of the service’s performance in this area.

The service should make sure staff can access risk information for neighbouring fire and rescue services

The service has effectively anticipated and considered the reasonably foreseeable risks and threats it may face. These risks are listed in both local and national risk registers as part of its integrated risk management planning. For example, it makes sure it has the capacity and capability to respond to local and national events and incidents.

It is familiar with some of the significant risks in neighbouring fire and rescue service areas, which it might reasonably be asked to respond to in an emergency. But it has more to do. For example, the service told us firefighters now have access to risk information from neighbouring services for areas within a 10 km radius of the North Yorkshire border. But staff weren’t aware of this.

The service has some arrangements in place to respond to major and multi-agency incidents

We reviewed the arrangements the service has in place to respond to different major incidents, including wildfires and flooding. The service has some arrangements in place, which staff understand well. Since our inspection in 2019, the service has introduced plans to deal with marauding terrorist attacks.

But although the service has developed processes and procedures for incidents in high-rise buildings, it hasn’t yet implemented them. It is carrying out ongoing discussions with trade unions.

The service works well with other fire and rescue services

The service supports other fire and rescue services responding to emergency incidents. It has effective arrangements in place with neighbouring fire and rescue services to supplement operational resources in the event of extraordinary need. It is intraoperable with these services and can form part of a multi-agency response.

The service has successfully deployed to other services and has used national assets.

Staff don’t consistently carry out cross-border exercises

The service has a cross-border exercise plan with neighbouring fire and rescue services so they can work together effectively to keep the public safe. The plan includes the risks of major events at which the service could foreseeably give support or request assistance from neighbouring services. Staff at stations near the county’s border arrange some cross-border exercises with other fire and rescue services. But we found this doesn’t happen consistently enough.

We were encouraged to see the service uses feedback from these exercises to inform risk information and service plans. For example, after North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service attended an incident with a neighbouring service, a problem was identified with the different radio channels they used. They subsequently issued guidance about it.

Staff demonstrate a good understanding of JESIP

The incident commanders we interviewed had been trained in and were familiar with the JESIP. These are national principles that help all emergency services work together at incidents. The service could provide us with strong evidence that it consistently follows these principles, and most staff showed a good understanding.

The service is an active member of the North Yorkshire Local Resilience Forum

The service has good arrangements in place to respond to emergencies with other partners that make up the North Yorkshire LRF. These arrangements include a ‘response to major and critical incidents’ procedure used in the event of a major incident being declared. The procedure instigates several activities, such as establishing a dedicated communications group responsible for developing and standardising messages for the public. This means all partners and agencies can share a consistent message through their channels.

The service is a valued partner in the LRF and engages well. It is represented on several LRF groups, including strategic co-ordination and risk assessment groups, and it chairs the exercise and training subgroup. It takes part in regular training events with other members of the LRF and uses the learning to develop planning assumptions about responding to major and multi-agency incidents. Staff told us that several multi-agency exercises had taken place in the past year around themes such as wide-area flooding and marauding terrorist attacks.

The service works with neighbouring fire and rescue services to adopt national operational guidance

The service keeps itself up to date with national operational learning updates from other fire services and joint operational learning from other emergency services partners, such as the police service and ambulance trusts. It uses learning to inform planning assumptions that have been made with other partners. It is also part of a regional team that includes neighbouring fire and rescue services and deals with implementing national operational guidance.