Overall summary

Overall summary

Our judgments

Our inspection assessed how well Surrey Fire and Rescue Service has performed in 11 areas. We have made the following graded judgments:

In the rest of the report, we set out our detailed findings about the areas in which the service has performed well and where it should improve.

Changes to this round of inspection

We last inspected Surrey Fire and Rescue Service in March 2021. And in December 2021, we published our inspection report with our findings on the service’s effectiveness and efficiency and how well it looks after its people.

This inspection contains our third assessment of the service’s effectiveness and efficiency, and how well it looks after its people. We have measured the service against the same 11 areas and given a grade for each.

We haven’t given separate grades for effectiveness, efficiency and people as we did previously. This is to encourage the service to consider our inspection findings as a whole and not focus on just one area.

We now assess services against the characteristics of good performance, and we more clearly link our judgments to causes of concern and areas for improvement. We have also expanded our previous four-tier system of graded judgments to five. As a result, we can state more precisely where we consider improvement is needed and highlight good performance more effectively. However, these changes mean it isn’t possible to make direct comparisons between grades awarded in this round of fire and rescue service inspections with those from previous years.

A reduction in grade, particularly from good to adequate, doesn’t necessarily mean there has been a reduction in performance, unless we say so in the report.

This report sets out our inspection findings for Surrey Fire and Rescue Service.

Read more about how we assess fire and rescue services and our graded judgments.

HMI summary

It was a pleasure to revisit Surrey Fire and Rescue Service. HM Inspector Matt Parr CB was in place for the majority of the inspection, and I have led on completing the report. I am grateful for the positive and constructive way the service worked with our inspection staff.

I am satisfied with some aspects of the performance of Surrey Fire and Rescue Service in keeping people safe and secure from fire and other risks, but the service needs to improve in some areas.

We were disappointed to find that the service hadn’t made the progress we expected since our 2021 inspection. But we recognise that the service has had significant change in its service leadership team and around 20 percent of the wholetime operational workforce transferred to London Fire Brigade last year.

The principal findings from our assessment of the service over the past year are as follows:

• Service culture has improved. I was encouraged by the cultural improvements that were evident in the service. Staff understand the values well and demonstrate positive behaviours. We saw that service leaders have improved their visibility and approachability. There is a positive working culture throughout the service, with staff empowered and willing to challenge poor behaviours. And there are improved relationships with representative bodies.

Although the service has made some improvements since our last inspection, other areas have deteriorated or are unchanged.

We recognise the service has faced challenges over recent years, and there is a clear commitment from staff and service leaders to improve. There are some good foundations in place, but it is important the service gains momentum and moves forward.

• Improvements are required in protection. I was disappointed to find that the service wasn’t doing enough to make sure its protection work was effective, and I have given a new cause of concern. This relates to the service not being able to accurately identify how many high-risk premises it has. It is unable to display at what risk level fire safety audits are being carried out. The highest-risk premises aren’t always being selected to be audited. The targets set for audits won’t be achieved, and the service can’t always provide specialist protection advice out of hours.
• The service should demonstrate value for money. Despite the service not adequately allocating its resources to meet its prevention and protection priorities, it is well funded and has a sustainable financial position. But it needs to continue its improvement work to make sure it is getting value for money.

Given the nature of some of the problems we have identified, we will keep in close contact with the service to monitor its progress. Additionally, we will revisit to review its improvement plans.

Roy Wilsher

HM Inspector of Fire & Rescue Services

Service in numbers

Percentage of firefighters, workforce and population who are female as at 31 March 2022

Percentage of firefighters, workforce and population who are from ethnic minority backgrounds as at 31 March 2022

References to ethnic minorities in this report include people from White minority backgrounds but exclude people from Irish minority backgrounds. This is due to current data collection practices for national data. Read more information on data and analysis in this report in ‘About the data’.

Understanding the risk of fire and other emergencies

Surrey Fire and Rescue Service is adequate at understanding risk.

Each fire and rescue service should identify and assess all foreseeable fire and rescue-related risks that could affect its communities. It should use its 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.

Main findings

The service continues to work with communities, partners and local councils to identify risk

The service has assessed a suitable range of risks and threats using a thorough community risk management planning process. In its assessment of risk, it uses information it has collected from a broad range of internal and external sources and datasets. The service uses its community risk profile to assess historic incident and activity data. This now includes more detailed datasets to help understand risk across the county.

The community risk profile also includes information about where the most vulnerable people live and their lifestyles. The service uses this, with local and national statistics, to help it understand local risk.

The service also works with other fire and rescue services, health providers, local authorities and other partner agencies. Together they form the Surrey local resilience forum (LRF) to prepare and plan for emergencies across Surrey. The service also uses the community risk register to highlight potential risks.

When appropriate, the service has worked with its communities and other relevant parties to understand risk and explain how it intends to mitigate it. For example, it takes part in the Surrey wildfire resilience forum where it works with landowners and managers to manage risk.

At the time of our inspection, we found the ICT system used to identify risk could be more effective. The service has recently procured a new system that will recalculate risk levels and better inform how the service manages risk. We look forward to seeing the benefits of this.

The service has an effective community risk management plan

During our previous inspection, we found that, once it had assessed risks, the service recorded its findings in an easily understood community risk management plan (CRMP). This is called the Making Surrey Safer Plan (MSSP) 2020–2024. It describes how the service intends to use its prevention, protection and response activities to mitigate or reduce the risks and threats the community faces both now and in the future.

For example, the service’s MSSP for 2020–24 sets out how the service will:

• do more to prevent emergencies from happening in Surrey;
• make sure it has the right resources in the right places at the right time to respond when needed;
• continuously assess ways to improve effectiveness and efficiency;
• strengthen collaboration with other organisations;
• invest in people by making sure they have the best training and development and are as motivated as possible; and
• create a culture that is collaborative, inclusive and diverse to maximise understanding of its communities’ needs.

The service reports quarterly to the cabinet members of Surrey County Council’s fire and rescue authority. These reports detail the service’s performance and progress against important indicators, which are aligned with the priorities in the MSSP.

The service is taking significant steps towards its new CRMP, which will be implemented in 2025. We were pleased to find that ahead of the formal consultation, the service had carried out surveys with the public and its workforce and had held awareness events.

The service could improve the way it gathers, maintains and shares risk information

The service collects some information about the highest-risk people, places and threats it has identified. But some of the information we reviewed was limited, inaccurate or out of date. For example, it was unclear whether initial action plans were in place for some high-rise buildings.

In our previous inspection, we found that a high proportion (51 percent) of risk information about premises was out of date. This has improved. However, we found that several premises (9 percent) still had out-of-date risk information.

Staff we spoke to told us they have limited capacity to identify new and emerging risks and limited skills to quality assure and challenge the risk information they receive.

The service doesn’t make all information it collects on risk readily available to prevention, protection and response staff, and not all staff we spoke to understood it. The service needs to do more so that staff in prevention, protection and response roles can access the information they need. For example, training to identify and record risk (the site-specific risk inspection process) is ineffective and inconsistent. Not all buildings identified as a risk have the appropriate information attached to the record, and the service isn’t meeting its own standards for how often buildings are reinspected. This means it can’t effectively identify, reduce and mitigate risk.

We found that the service had improved its risk information sharing with neighbouring services, and it shares a page on the Resilience Direct website. The national inter-agency liaison officers from Surrey, East Sussex and West Sussex all train together and share risk information across their services. Since our last inspection, East Sussex has joined Surrey and West Sussex fire control to make a tri-service joint fire control. This has further enhanced the risk-sharing capability.

We also found that the service was effectively sharing short-term risk information with its staff.

The service uses understanding from operational activity to inform its future planning

We found some evidence that the service is communicating risk information effectively. It also routinely updates risk assessments and uses feedback from local and national operational activities to inform its planning assumptions. For example, the service has a single point of contact within its organisational assurance department whose responsibility is to share knowledge from national operational learning and joint organisation learning. The service also holds regular meetings between departments to share information and is involved with community risk identification and assessment through the Surrey LRF.

Preventing fires and other risks

Surrey Fire and Rescue Service requires improvement at preventing fires and other risks.

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 sectors, and with the police and ambulance services. They should share 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.

Main findings

The service’s delivery of services strategy identifies its key risks

The service’s delivery of services strategy is clearly linked to the risks it has identified in the MSSP. This shows that the main areas of focus for community safety activity are:

• safer roads;
• better integration of fire stations into communities for community use;
• improving the collection and sharing of information about the most vulnerable members of its communities;
• broadening prevention work to include water and wildfire safety work;
• increasing safe and well visits (SAWVs) for vulnerable people;
• introducing a lifelong learning concept through schools, colleges and universities to provide key safety messages;
• expanding the Surrey Fire Volunteer Service; and
• working with partner agencies to help reduce the effect of issues that can increase fire risk, such as alcohol and drug dependency.

The service’s teams work well together and with other organisations on prevention, and they share relevant information when needed. The service also has good partnership working to implement local campaigns to improve road safety, for example. The chief fire officer is the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) lead for road safety and road rescue. The service shares learning from other fire and rescue services. And it works with the council, the Department for Transport and the police to implement road safety campaigns such as Safe Drive Stay Alive (an initiative for young people).

The service took part in nine out of the ten national fire safety weeks. And it has worked with the Royal Life Saving Society and borough and district councils to develop a water safety management plan. It also ran a junior citizens scheme. This was a multi-agency safety event for year six pupils and aimed to give children life skills to help keep themselves and others safe.

Plans and some activities target those most at risk, but ICT systems, staff understanding and their implementation need to improve

The service uses a risk-based approach to clearly prioritise its prevention activity towards people most at risk from emergencies. For example, it has adopted the NFCC person-centred approach, which measures risks related to characteristics of vulnerability. The service prioritises delivery of services using these, which include:

• age;
• residential status (living alone);
• mobility issues;
• hearing loss;
• drug and alcohol dependency or abuse; and
• smoking.

However, we found the service wasn’t always prioritising prevention work according to identified risk. The service has a target of one SAWV per station per day. But it isn’t meeting this.

Overall, it carries out fewer SAWVs per 1,000 population than the national average. But it does visit a higher number of vulnerable people than the national average.

We found that when crews completed SAWVs, they didn’t actively and routinely liaise with partnership agencies or the prevention team to further mitigate risks. We also found post-fire prevention work to be ineffective. None of the incident files we reviewed had an SAWV recorded, and no communication had been made with the prevention team about risk.

The service’s ICT system for allocating and monitoring SAWVs isn’t effective. The email notification system can’t easily identify outstanding SAWVs, meaning there is the potential that visits will be missed or delayed. We weren’t able to verify if the service is effectively tracking SAWVs to make sure they are completed as a priority and recorded effectively. We do recognise that, during our inspection, the service procured a new ICT system that will improve how it manages SAWVs. We look forward to seeing the benefits of this.

Staff we spoke to felt confident to carry out SAWVs. But they were unclear about what they should focus on during prevention work and the activity targets they are expected to achieve. Operational staff try and respond to emails sent to them within a time limit, but this isn’t always possible. For example, an urgent referral was sent to an on-call station with limited capacity and resources, and so appropriate timely action wasn’t taken.

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

Staff understand safeguarding and vulnerability issues well and take appropriate action. They know when and how to raise concerns and can do this 24 hours a day. Staff told us they feel confident and trained to act appropriately and promptly.

We found that since our last inspection, crews had changed their approach to vulnerable people. Any safeguarding concerns are passed to the partnership officers during daytime hours. These staff also have access to shared internal adult safeguarding information via Surrey County Council. Outside office hours, trained safeguarding officers are available to give advice. Staff told us that a serious safeguarding concern would never be ignored, and they would seek support from the police when necessary.

The service is working with others to reduce risk

The service works with a wide range of other organisations to prevent fires and other emergencies. This includes extensive road safety work with Surrey County Council, the Department for Transport and Surrey Police. The county has more road deaths than deaths caused by fire per year. The service is involved in several road safety initiatives aimed at improving road safety across the county, including Road Peace, Project Edward and Safe Drive Stay Alive.

We found evidence that it refers people at greatest risk to organisations that may better meet their needs. For example, it makes fire safety interventions through the multi-agency safeguarding hub and partner services for domestic abuse support. Arrangements are also in place to receive referrals from other partners, such as adult social care and healthcare providers.

The service takes part in the community safety partnership and has a dedicated community safety co-ordinator. It carries out work with partners including other emergency services, integrated care system providers, Surrey County Council, the NFCC and government departments.

Many of these partners come together through the Surrey LRF, and this partnership working provides an increased and shared understanding of risk.

The service is tackling fire-setting behaviour

The service has interventions to target and educate people about fire-setting behaviour. This includes the Firewise scheme, which addresses fire-setting in children and young people under 18. The scheme accepts referrals from parents, carers, schools, police and other partners and professionals. It also educates adults about the potential reasons why fire-setting occurs and signs to look out for. It is easily accessible through the service’s website, by email or by a 24-hour telephone helpline.

The service should quality assure and evaluate all the prevention activity it delivers

We found limited evidence that the service evaluates how effective its prevention activity is. It doesn’t make sure all those in the community have appropriate access to prevention activity that meets their needs. We highlighted this in our last inspection and, while the service has improved, more still needs to be done.

We saw evidence that the service had carried out evaluation of some prevention campaigns, including the Safe Drive Stay Alive road safety initiative. But the service doesn’t currently quality assure or evaluate SAWVs. We also found that the service carried out only limited evaluation of partnership working and information sharing and looked only at referral numbers.

The service has visited other fire services to see how they evaluate SAWVs. But it told us it hadn’t seen a suitable methodology or framework. The service has its own draft evaluation framework, which it should make sure is put in place soon.

We also found that limited assurance was taking place for the service’s own targets for SAWVs. When a case has been assigned to a watch via the prevention administrator, the watch officers should make sure that work is complete and to a good standard. In the outstanding cases we reviewed, it was clear that cases weren’t being quality assured, and many visits were overdue. Staff also told us that managers aren’t carrying out assurance on their completed SAWVs and that they “all do it differently”.

Protecting the public through fire regulation

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

All fire and rescue services should assess fire risks in certain buildings and, when necessary, require building owners to comply with fire safety legislation. Each service decides how many assessments it does each year. But it must have a locally determined, risk-based inspection programme for enforcing the legislation.

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

Main findings

The service has a delivery of services strategy, but this doesn’t always inform protection activities

The service has a comprehensive delivery of services strategy. But we found evidence it isn’t currently on track to achieve its priorities. For example, the service has recently restructured its protection teams to increase available resources. However, we were told that inspecting officers are” left to their own devices” as to how they approach risk and the related work. They also determine the time frames in which to complete that work.

The service can’t easily search its current systems, and these don’t automatically generate follow-up visits within appropriate time frames. The service has targets for activity levels, but it isn’t on track to achieve these. Staff told us workloads are unmanageable. And it isn’t clear how the service evaluates what benefit its protection activity gives the public.

Protection work generally happens in isolation rather than across the whole service. For example, operational crews are responsible for local business SAWVs. We found that the service carried out a large amount of protection work reactively. Staff also told us there is limited specific targeting other than using the risk-based inspection programme data. This means the service can’t assure itself that work activities are appropriately aimed at the service’s highest-risk areas.

The service can’t assure itself that its risk-based inspection programme prioritises the highest risks and includes proportionate activity to reduce risk

The service’s risk-based inspection programme is focused on the service’s highest‑risk buildings. These are buildings that include a sleeping risk (premises where people sleep, except for single private dwellings) and those used by vulnerable people. This is linked to the MSSP.

There is no clear guidance on how to prioritise risk identified in the programme. Instead, inspecting officers use their own initiative to identify those premises with a sleeping risk. However, there is no clear direction or performance management for staff on how the highest risk is prioritised.

Inspecting officers cover rural locations, where they are proactive in inspecting buildings they consider to present risk, and urban locations, where they also need to react to complaints or information received from the service’s administration team. We found that staff couldn’t accurately identify how many of the buildings on the risk‑based inspection programme are high-risk. This means the service can’t assure itself that all high-risk premises are inspected or that it has targeted its resources appropriately.

We also found that the service wasn’t consistently auditing the buildings it has targeted in the times frames it has set and that it needs to be better at selecting buildings for its risk-based inspection programme.

We found a general lack of performance oversight within protection. The service isn’t recording the risk level of fire safety audits it carries out. This means it can’t be sure it is targeting the highest-risk buildings. The service told us performance figures are only reported to the community resilience department.

The service needs to assure itself that audits are being carried out to a consistent standard with the required level of detail

We reviewed a sample of audits that the service had carried out at different buildings across its area. This included audits carried out:

• as part of the service’s risk-based inspection programme;
• after fires at premises where fire safety legislation applies;
• where enforcement action had been taken; or
• at high-rise, high-risk buildings.

We found there wasn’t enough detail recorded in risk-based inspection programme files. For example, we saw a file for a high-rise building that stated “evacuation strategy changed”, but it didn’t state what this had changed to or from.

There are no time frames for when a fire safety audit should be completed after a fire. One audit we viewed had no post-fire safety audit information recorded, and another was carried out over three weeks after the fire.

The service also doesn’t have time frames for handling complaints. Instead, officers use their own discretion. Due to system constraints, reasons for complaints aren’t detailed in the programme files. For example, we looked at registered complaints against a high-rise building and a hotel. The system didn’t identify the reasons for the complaints, whether they were from members of the public or fire crews or what the nature of the complaints were.

We also found that fire safety inspectors could change the outcome of a fire safety audit without having to justify why. Following a fire safety audit, the information is added to the service’s community risk management system. Depending on the level of issues found, the system will provide the outcome required, such as formal or informal action.

Two out of six files that we sampled showed the results being changed, but there was no justification for the amendments shown. The two records showed “enforcement notice consider prosecution”, but these were downgraded to an “informal notice”. The rationale wasn’t detailed due to system constraints. We recognise that quality assurance has only recently been introduced, but if a premises has serious defects and failings, any changes to outcomes should be recorded. The recently introduced quality assurance process should resolve this, and we look forward to seeing its progress.

The service doesn’t adequately quality assure the protection work it undertakes, and there is no quality assurance policy or guidance for protection activity

The service carries out limited quality assurance of its protection activity.

Station commanders should carry out quality assurance. But staff told us that this is ad hoc and done orally instead of being recorded.

We were told that limited peer reviews are taking place for fire safety activity, but we could find no evidence of this. There is a draft quality assurance policy that is awaiting publication. And the service is also creating a new role of quality assurance peer review and support manager, which should help progress this.

We highlighted this area during our previous inspection. Therefore, we encourage the service to make sure that the quality assurance process is formalised at the earliest opportunity.

The service could do more to enforce fire safety legislation

In the year ending 31 March 2022, the service issued 0 alteration notices, 687 informal notifications, 308 enforcement notices and 0 prohibition notices. It carried out no prosecutions during this time period. In the five years from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2022, it completed one prosecution.

The service doesn’t consistently use its full range of enforcement powers. We found it doesn’t always take appropriate opportunities to prosecute those who don’t comply with fire safety regulations. We were told that in the past, due to its working relationship with Surrey County Council’s legal team, investigations weren’t always taken on with a view to prosecution. Positively, this relationship is now changing and there is a dedicated fire lead in the council.

At the time of our inspection, the service had two ongoing prosecutions that were due to reach court soon. In the last 18 months, it has carried out two other investigations that haven’t progressed. An example was provided where a prohibition notice had been breached but the county council didn’t take legal action.

The service needs to make sure it can consistently and effectively deal with fire safety

The service has increased the number of qualified protection staff to meet the requirements of its risk-based inspection programme.

Since our last inspection, the service has increased the number of competent fire safety inspectors. At the time of this inspection, 24 out of 29 staff were competent inspectors, compared to 15 out of 28 in 2020/21. The protection department has also recently been restructured in line with geographic areas rather than risk. Each area will have:

• six fire safety inspectors;
• three fire safety advisers; and
• one business education officer.

One station commander will manage each area, and staff can work across locations depending on the risk. This will help the service provide the range of audit and enforcement activity needed, both now and in the future.

Staff get the right training and work to appropriate accreditation. The service told us that “staff are trained to their potential and not their role” and that it trains various staff to gain a Level 4 Diploma in Fire Safety. This includes those who show an interest, as well as fire safety inspectors, which will help with resilience. There are 15 staff qualified to this level, but they don’t all carry out fire safety inspections as they work on other activities. The service has also invested in its administration staff, who are completing their Level 3 Certificate in Fire Safety.

We found that the service didn’t have enough fire safety cover 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And only two out of four flexible-duty rota systems have sufficient fire safety cover. An area commander is on-call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but the service told us it is difficult to get enough qualified people on the rota. There are six officers in training, which will bring the total to eight during the next six months. The service doesn’t use neighbouring services to help provide cover. It should make sure it addresses this issue promptly.

The service is adapting to new legislation

Since our last inspection, the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Fire Safety Regulations 2022 have been introduced to bring about better regulation and management of tall buildings.

The Fire Safety Regulations 2022 introduced a range of duties for the managers of tall buildings. These include a requirement to give the fire and rescue service floor plans and inform them of any substantial faults to essential firefighting equipment, such as firefighting lifts.

We found that the service had good arrangements in place to receive this information and is using the NFCC process. There are approximately 90 high-rise buildings in the county. The service has created data forms to record information in accordance with building safety regulations. Owners or responsible persons for tall buildings can submit any changes directly to the service using the form available on its website. When completed, the form is sent directly to the risk management team, station commanders and fire control who update the mobilising system. This information is available for firefighters to view within 15 minutes.

The service works effectively with partners and other agencies

The service works closely with other enforcement agencies to regulate fire safety, and it routinely exchanges risk information with them. Its protection strategy details collaborative working, and protection staff work with the Care Quality Commission, building regulations authorities, licensing departments, local housing officers, Pub Watch and the environmental health department. It regularly shares information with these agencies and carries out joint visits.

The service has carried out fire safety inspections with other agencies, which include:

• targeting licensed premises with Waverly Borough Council;
• a joint enforcement project with the Border Agency reviewing modern slavery in car washes and takeaways;
• working with London Fire Brigade on a joint prosecution; and
• collaborating with partners, including Trading Standards and food agencies.

The service has improved its response to building and licensing consultations

The service responds to all building consultations on time. This means it consistently meets its statutory responsibility to comment on fire safety arrangements at new and altered buildings.

Inspecting officers prioritise the completion of building regulation and licensing consultations within statutory time frames. The service uses an external engineer to assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of fire safety systems at new and altered buildings. We found it was up to date with consultations as follows:

• 99.1 percent of building consultations had been responded to in 2021/22 (compared to 93.9 percent in 2020/21 and 91.4 percent in 2019/20).
• 99.4 percent of licensing consultations had been responded to in 2021/22 (compared to 89.4 percent in 2020/21 and 90.9 percent in 2019/2020).

The service works well with businesses to mitigate risk

The service works proactively with local businesses and other organisations to promote compliance with fire safety legislation. The service is an active partner in the primary authority scheme, which is a way for businesses to get assured compliance advice and guidance. For example, Surrey County Council Trading Standards department refers requests for fire safety advice to the service.

The service employs three business education officers. Their primary role is to provide support and work with businesses across the county. Firefighters carry out business SAWVs to low-risk premises. Data provided to us by the service shows that in the past year:

• response teams completed 885 visits; and
• business education officers carried out 710 visits.

Information about visits is available on the service website, and responsible persons can complete an online business safety visit. This can lead to a referral being sent to the fire safety manager who may provide additional support. The service has also produced a video that provides further information about fire safety compliance.

The service has introduced measures to reduce unwanted fire signals

An effective risk-based approach is in place to manage the number of unwanted fire signals. The service receives fewer calls due to robust call challenge, which helps filter out unwanted calls. It has also reduced its attendance at certain premises by investigating alarm calls before responding. The service told us that in the six months following October 2022, there was an average of two unwanted fire signal turnouts per month. This has reduced from 75 per month.

From October 2022, the service also stopped responding to automatic fire alarms at commercial and industrial premises. It assessed the number of calls it attended from October 2022 to January 2023 compared to the same period in the previous year. The service told us that it had seen a sizable reduction in attending these types of calls (97 percent), which has also saved it time and money.

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.

Responding to fires and other emergencies

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

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 areas.

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

Main findings

Response standards and availability

The service’s delivery of services strategy is linked to the risks it has identified in its MSSP. Its fire engines and response staff are located, and its working patterns are designed, to help the service respond flexibly to fires and other emergencies with the appropriate resources. It has also reviewed the crewing models it uses to make sure appropriate numbers of staff are available when needed. The MSSP clearly details appropriately placed resources, equipment and response models to best respond to the risks identified.

Response standards are being met

There are no national response standards of performance for the public. But the service has set out its own response standards. The response standards and measures the service has set for itself are:

• an average first response to critical incidents in less than 10 minutes;
• an average second response to critical incidents in less than 15 minutes; and
• an average first response to other emergency incidents in less than 16 minutes.

The service consistently meets or exceeds its own standards. Data supplied by the service shows that in the year ending 31 March 2022, it achieved:

• an average first response to critical incidents of 7 minutes 3 seconds;
• an average second response to critical incidents of 12 minutes 7 seconds; and
• an average first response to other emergency incidents of 7 minutes 43 seconds.

Home Office data shows the service had an average overall response time of 9 minutes and 42 seconds for primary fires in 2021/22. This is within the typical range nationally.

Availability is low, but service targets within the MSSP are being met

To support its delivery of services strategy, the service has set the following requirements, based on risk, for fire engine availability:

• daytime weekday minimum requirement, 20 out of 25 fire engines (80 percent);
• daytime weekend minimum requirement, 20 out of 30 fire engines (66 percent);
• night-time minimum requirement, 16 out of 23 fire engines (70 percent).

There are more on-call resources available at weekends, hence the difference in maximum number of fire engines.

Data we collected from the service shows that during 2021/22:

• wholetime availability was 65.3 percent; and
• on-call availability was 52.1 percent.

This gave an overall availability of 61.7 percent. Although these figures appear low (particularly for on-call stations where it is the third lowest rate in the country), they are in line with the service’s planning and what it requires based on risk. Data supplied to us by the service for the financial year 2022/23 confirms low on-call availability but shows that the service consistently meets the minimum requirements it has set itself.

As we saw in our last inspection, the service uses an electronic system to maintain fire engine availability. When fire engines respond to an incident, the system suggests which fire engines should be moved from their base locations to maintain cover across the area. This tool is still being used effectively in the service.

The service has effective incident commanders

The service has trained incident commanders, who are assessed regularly and properly. In line with national guidance, the service has robust incident command assessments every two years.

In 2021/22, 94 percent of incident commanders were accredited. 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.

The service is Skills for Justice accredited and provides training and assessment to make sure incident commanders are trained effectively and are up to date.

We interviewed incident commanders from across the service and found they were familiar with national best practice and the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Principles (JESIP). This includes knowledge of risk assessing, decision-making and recording information at incidents.

All control staff need to be regularly involved in training, exercise and debrief activities

We were disappointed to find that the service’s control staff weren’t always included in its command, training, exercise, debrief and assurance activity. Since the time of our last inspection, East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service has joined the joint fire control collaborative arrangements. This has led to the development of new ways of working, and it will take some time to integrate and stabilise these new teams. Increasingly, joint fire control staff are being included within exercising and debriefing processes. This makes sure learning is shared across the whole service, but more should be done for consistency.

The service has recently appointed a dedicated training officer to fire control. At the time of our inspection, they were in the process of identifying what was needed before developing a training plan. We look forward to seeing its implementation.

Risk information isn’t sufficiently comprehensive and up to date

We sampled a range of risk information for residential and commercial premises, including the information in place for firefighters responding to incidents at high-risk, high-rise buildings and the information held by fire control.

The information we reviewed wasn’t always up to date or detailed. We found a range of issues, including lapsed review dates and missing site-specific risk information, initial action plans and inspection dates. Staff were, however, able to demonstrate how to access available information via mobile data terminals.

The service needs to improve how it records, evaluates and shares learning from its operational performance

As part of this inspection, we reviewed a range of emergency incidents and training events. These included fires in domestic and commercial premises and road traffic collisions. We found the service attends 8 road traffic collisions per 1,000 population, compared with 5.4 nationally.

We found that some learning wasn’t identified, and the sharing of learning across the service was inconsistent, especially for lower-level incidents. Some staff aren’t involved in debriefs and some learning isn’t widely available, sufficiently accessed or understood by all staff. Staff told us that hot debriefs (immediate debriefs) take place but the recording and sharing of learning is poor. We were told that a system to record learning and data exists but isn’t always completed. This means information doesn’t always reach the operational assurance or learning and development teams. The service should make sure that all incidents are debriefed in line with policy, all relevant staff are involved in the debrief and that learning is shared.

The service should implement national operational guidance promptly

Since our last inspection, the service has started to implement national operational guidance, and we found that it had made insufficient progress in this area. In December 2022, the service decided to reset this project and deliver it with East Sussex and West Sussex fire and rescue services. This means the guidance won’t be in place until December 2024 – five years after the national project was completed. At the time of our inspection, an officer hadn’t yet been appointed to lead the project. This is disappointing.

The service is good at keeping the public informed

The service has good systems in place to inform the public about ongoing incidents and help keep them safe during and after incidents. The service works with Surrey County Council, which takes the lead on ‘warn and inform’ in conjunction with information passed by relevant agencies. Out of hours, the council’s media team and joint fire control take over the responsibility.

Responding to major and multi-agency incidents

Surrey Fire and Rescue Service requires improvement at responding to major and multi‑agency incidents.

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.

Main findings

The service identifies and shares risks with neighbouring services, partners and other organisations

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 community risk management planning. For example, the service identifies and grades risks and shares information from protection and prevention teams.

We found that the service worked closely with partners to make sure risks were identified and shared and that information was kept up to date. For example, we saw the service taking this approach for the high-rise construction in progress at Victoria Square in Woking. It also identifies and assesses community risk, including flooding, through the Surrey LRF.

The service understands the significant risks neighbouring fire and rescue services may face, and which it might reasonably be asked to respond to in an emergency. It works closely with neighbouring services and trains regularly at over-the-border locations. These include one significant COMAH (Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations) site – the aviation and fuel storage site for Heathrow Airport. And it also manages risk associated with Gatwick Airport. Staff can access risk information from neighbouring services through a shared Resilience Direct page that details risks.

The service needs to do more to prepare and train for incidents in tall buildings

In our last inspection, we focused on how the service had collected risk information and responded to the Government’s building risk review programme for tall buildings.

In this inspection, we have focused on how well prepared the service is to respond to a major incident at a tall building, such as the tragedy at Grenfell Tower.

We were disappointed to find that the service had only developed a limited number of policies and procedures for safely managing this type of incident. It has procedures in place detailing the role of the evacuation officer but no effective tall buildings evacuation policy for operational and control room staff.

The service should address these policy gaps as a matter of urgency.

Not all staff at all levels properly understand the policies and procedures the service does have in place. We found mixed levels of understanding among control staff, incident command officers and firefighters.

The service has carried out only a limited amount of realistic training and exercising at tall buildings. This training and exercising haven’t included all staff groups that would be expected to respond to an incident of this nature. We found some training carried out on an individual watch basis, but no formal training had been given across the service.

The service should arrange practical training and exercises for all staff who would reasonably be expected to use the immediate building evacuation procedure. This would fully test the procedure and allow staff to learn how to use it in practice.

At this type of incident, a fire and rescue service would receive a high volume of simultaneous fire calls. We found that the systems in place in the service weren’t robust enough to receive and manage this volume of calls. The service doesn’t use an electronic system to transfer information to the incident ground, and we found that not all control staff were familiar with its current manual procedures.

The service relies too heavily on manual systems when sharing information about people trapped in a tall building. These systems are too open to operator error. They also mean that staff in the emergency control room, at the incident and in assisting control rooms can’t share, view and update actions in real time. These systems could compromise the service’s ability to safely resolve a major incident at a tall building.

The service works with other fire services, locally and nationally

The service supports other fire and rescue services responding to emergency incidents. For example, it works particularly closely with East Sussex and West Sussex fire and rescue services and has a tri-service control room with these services. It is intraoperable with these services and can form part of a multi-agency response. We saw other close working and information sharing with Kent Fire and Rescue Service and London Fire Brigade.

The service is responsible for national resilience assets including a detection, identification and monitoring vehicle and a high-volume pumping unit. Control staff are familiar with using these resources and requesting national resources. The service has identified locations within the county to use as parking areas for large-scale incidents if required.

Cross-border exercising has improved in the service

During our last inspection, we identified that there was a lack of cross-border exercising. This was an area for improvement. We were pleased to see that this is now taking place. We saw details of 23 cross-border exercises held since September 2022.

Cross-border exercises are included in the service’s exercise framework, the latest version of which is still in draft. We encourage timely publication so that all exercises can be planned, tracked and debriefed and the learning shared. The service currently uses limited learning from these exercises to inform risk information and service plans. Only 2 of the 23 exercises we saw on the current tracker had associated learning recorded.

Understanding and application of JESIP could be improved across the service

Most of the incident commanders we interviewed had been trained and were familiar with JESIP. We also found some evidence of understanding and use of JESIP principles across the wider service. JESIP training forms part of the promotional development process and is assessed. Officers take part in multi-agency exercises, but we found limited understanding among other staff. Some on-call staff we spoke to told us they had no JESIP training and weren’t involved in multi-agency exercises. And some staff told us that because the service doesn’t have a specialist marauding terrorist attack capability, they believe they don’t get the opportunity to attend training and exercises. Control staff also lacked knowledge about the actions they should take following a terrorist attack. They told us they haven’t been involved in exercises for this type of incident.

The service should make sure it is well prepared to form part of a multi-agency response to all major incidents including terrorist incidents. It should make sure that procedures for responding are understood by all staff and well tested and that learning is identified. This would also help the service identify any problems it has with applying JESIP and take appropriate, prompt action with other emergency services.

We highlighted gaps in both the service’s multi-agency and terrorist incident response during our last inspection. The service has made limited progress. We look forward to seeing improvements in the future.

The service is an integral part of the Surrey LRF

The service has good arrangements in place to respond to emergencies with partners that make up the Surrey LRF. The forum is in the same building as the service headquarters, and this helps create good working relationships. The arrangements include regular testing and exercising for major events such as the Epsom Derby. Multi-agency days are held where the service and partners work through different scenarios together.

The service is a valued partner, and it chairs the LRF risk assessment working group. The service takes part in regular training events, such as its annual ‘exercise comet’, with other members of the LRF. It uses learning to develop planning assumptions about responding to major and multi-agency incidents.

The service makes use of national learning

The service makes sure it knows about national operational learning updates from other fire services and joint organisational learning from other organisations, such as the police service and ambulance trusts. It uses this learning to inform planning assumptions that it makes with partner organisations. Learning is shared through a single point of contact in the service in operational assurance, who also feeds back into national operational learning.

Making best use of resources

Surrey Fire and Rescue Service requires improvement at making best use of its resources.

Fire and rescue services should manage their resources properly and appropriately, aligning them with their risks and statutory responsibilities. Services should make best possible use of resources to achieve the best results for the public.

The service’s revenue budget for 2023/24 is £38.7 million. This is an increase of 17 percent from the previous financial year.

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

Main findings

The service’s financial plans support its objectives, but it needs to be better at allocating resources

The service works closely with Surrey County Council to make sure it is sustainable. The 2023/24 revenue budget has increased by £5.6m compared to the previous financial year. Some of this additional funding is being used to retain and recruit wholetime firefighters to improve the service’s resilience. We found suitable financial controls through the county council monitoring and scrutiny arrangements. This reduces the risk of misusing public money.

Financial plans are linked to the objectives in the MSSP. But the service could better allocate its existing resources to meet its prevention and protection priorities and manage risk. The service should assure itself that it has targeted its existing resources appropriately so it is better able to achieve its aims. The service sometimes uses its resources well to manage risk, but there are several weaknesses that need addressing. For example, the service:

• lacks capacity and support within the risk team;
• needs to assure itself that prevention work adequately identifies and mitigates risk;
• can’t assure itself that the risk-based inspection programme prioritises the highest risks and includes proportionate activity to reduce risk; and
• doesn’t have current effective arrangements for providing specialist protection advice out of hours.

The service has evaluated its mix of crewing and duty systems. It has analysed its response cover and can show it deploys its fire engines and response staff to manage risk efficiently. The service uses different firefighter duty systems, including wholetime, day crewing and on-call as well as a hybrid approach at several stations. Following an analysis of demand, it has removed night-time cover where this wasn’t required and added weekend cover at other fire stations.

The service is taking action to improve on-call availability. For example, it has introduced new, more flexible contracts. This means on-call firefighters can commit to fewer hours during a week. The service has also changed its approach to resourcing on-call fire stations. For example, on-call staffing is now resourced one week in advance. Minimum numbers of staff are made available to respond to incidents. This reduces costs and helps the service manage resources more effectively.

The service is also restructuring the learning and development team and increasing its resources to support service delivery.

We look forward to seeing the results of this work.

The service should assure itself that its workforce is as productive as possible

In our previous inspection, we identified an area for improvement that the service should have effective measures in place to assure itself that its workforce is productive. The service hasn’t made enough progress in this area.

The service has a performance management framework and dashboards for managing performance. There is a meeting structure in place to monitor performance, which includes a service leadership team assurance meeting and various working groups chaired by members of the leadership team. Targets are set against the priorities in the MSSP and included in team plans. All staff can access a productivity tool that shows how each station and watch is performing.

Despite the monitoring of performance, we found there was insufficient management of performance across the service’s core functions. This means the service isn’t meeting its prevention and protection targets. For example, the service expects one SAWV to be carried out by operational staff on each day shift at a station. But the service can’t assure itself that this is taking place. The service told us it currently carries out approximately 60 fire safety audits a month, but its target is 90 audits. Inspectors and operational staff select their own fire safety audits and business SAWVs respectively. This means protection activity isn’t targeted at the highest-risk buildings.

The service should do more to make sure its workforce is as productive as possible. For example, the service told us that operational staff completed activities that don’t need to be carried out at a specific time, such as e-learning, during the evening shift. This is to allow more time during the day shift to carry out prevention and protection activities. But we found it wasn’t clear whether operational staff were routinely following this approach during their shifts.

The service recognises that inefficient ICT systems are limiting productivity. We found that the system used for SAWVs is ineffective. At the time of our inspection, the service had placed an order for a new system, which it anticipates will be introduced later in 2023.

We were surprised to find that the service still relied on several paper-based systems, including for protection and fleet systems. This is inefficient and doesn’t support productive working.

The service collaborates with others but needs to evaluate its benefits adequately

We were pleased to see the service meets its statutory duty to collaborate. It routinely considers opportunities to collaborate with other emergency responders. It has a range of collaborative arrangements including:

• joint fire control, which since our last inspection has expanded to become a tri‑service with the inclusion of East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service;
• occupational health provision in conjunction with East Sussex and Surrey fire and rescue services and Sussex Police; and
• joint procurement of replacement breathing apparatus sets and an incident command unit is currently taking place with neighbouring services.

The service monitors, reviews and evaluates the benefits and results of its collaborations in some areas, such as the joint fire control staffing evaluation. But this is limited in scope, and it doesn’t use the findings to learn from or to change decisions. We highlighted this in our last inspection, and there has been limited progress. The service has experienced difficulties in developing and implementing an evaluation methodology. It tried to recruit an evaluation officer but received no applications. However, the service told us that it is carrying out an evaluation exercise to introduce a model from another service. We look forward to seeing the results of this.

The service has effective, well-tested business continuity arrangements

The service has good continuity arrangements in place for areas in which it considers threats and risks to be high. It regularly reviews and tests these threats and risks so that staff know the arrangements and their associated responsibilities.

Just before our inspection, the service was focusing on industrial action. However, it has also planned for wildfires and flooding and has carried out national exercises for power outages.

The service has appropriate business continuity plans in place for industrial action. It has assured itself and can demonstrate that it has adequate resources available for any future periods of industrial action. The plan is detailed and comprehensive and sets out its planning assumptions. These include where fire engines will be located, the actions to be taken during industrial action and the recovery phase and the communication channels to be used with the workforce. It has been tested, and learning has been used to update the plan.

Control staff remain confident in the continuity arrangements for control. These are tested regularly, including the fall back arrangements with Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service.

The service needs to continue to focus on how it is providing value for money

There are regular reviews to consider all the service’s expenditure, including its non‑pay costs. For example, regular monitoring meetings are held between budget managers and the county council finance team. Capital expenditure is monitored by the infrastructure board.

As part of a wider value for money project, the service is working with the county council’s finance and procurement teams to develop its approach to benchmarking. We look forward to seeing the results of this.

The service also uses a working group called 4F, which includes West Sussex, East Sussex and Kent fire and rescue services, to identify joint procurement opportunities.

Making the FRS affordable now and in the future

Surrey Fire and Rescue Service is adequate at making the service affordable now and in the future.

Fire and rescue services should continuously look for ways to improve their effectiveness and efficiency. This includes transforming how they work and improving their value for money. Services should have robust spending plans that reflect future financial challenges and efficiency opportunities, and they should invest in better services 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.

Main findings

The service needs to improve how it demonstrates value for money

The service has a sound understanding of future financial challenges. Surrey County Council has supported the service with increased funding to mitigate its main or significant financial risks.

For example, the 2023/24 budget has been increased by 17 percent compared to the previous financial year. The budget includes additional funding to cover contract, price and pay inflation pressures, including the firefighter pay award agreed for 2022/23 and 2023/24. It also includes additional funding to support the recruitment and retention of wholetime firefighters. This aims to mitigate the risk of the service losing large numbers of firefighters at the same time.

Despite the service not adequately allocating its resources to meet its prevention and protection priorities, it is well funded and has a sustainable financial position. But it needs to continue its improvement work to make sure it is getting value for money.

At the time of our inspection, the service had identified savings or income generation opportunities of £0.9m that it can make in 2023/24. This includes reducing the amount of overtime used and generating income from its new training facilities.

The service is developing its approach to benchmarking so it can more easily compare its costs in particular areas against those of other fire and rescue services. It is also making progress with the development of a capability that assesses future demand and risks. This is in an effort to improve its approach to scenario planning for future spending reductions. Specific areas under consideration include:

• a shared fleet maintenance facility;
• fleet rationalisation using telematics;
• more effective use of property such as co-location with other services; and
• a review of learning and development provision.

The service is planning a wider review for when it develops its next MSSP.

This was an area for improvement from our last inspection, which will remain. We look forward to seeing the results of this work.

The service has clear arrangements for the use of reserves

Reserves are held by the county council. There is a robust process for the service to access reserves if they are needed.

The service needs to improve its fleet and estate plans

The service has an assets strategy, but it doesn’t always exploit opportunities presented by changes in fleet and estate provision to improve efficiency and effectiveness.

The service is in the final phase of a three-phase fire engine replacement programme. Several design faults have delayed progress and increased costs. These include breathing apparatus set brackets not being fit for purpose, which caused a health and safety issue. This means that fire engines were sent back to the manufacturer for the issues to be resolved. This has created an additional cost for the service.

The service told us it has set up a working group to avoid similar problems in the future. It should make sure it fully evaluates what went wrong with this project and applies any lessons learned.

At the time of our inspection, the service was in the process of developing a 10–15-year plan for its fleet. This will allow the service to align its plan with its next MSSP.

We found that the service mainly used paper-based systems for fleet management. Some vehicles have the technology to track use (telematics), but the service doesn’t know how well used its other vehicles are.

The service has withdrawn from a project to develop a workshop facility on a partner site. This project wasn’t beneficial for the service and the funding could be better used. Another project to redevelop the Wray Park site in Reigate, which now includes a workshop, has been split into distinct phases. This has improved how the project is managed. We look forward to seeing how the service continues to improve its estate function.

The service is taking steps to transform but needs to do more to improve efficiency

The service actively considers how changes in technology and future innovation may affect risk. It also seeks to exploit opportunities to improve efficiency and effectiveness presented by changes in technology.

The service has developed a five-year ICT plan to digitalise and improve the systems it uses. This includes a project to make sure the right digital systems are in place to measure and enhance workforce productivity.

The project has been delayed due to issues with procurement and additional work pressures with the maintenance of current ICT systems. This means the service hasn’t achieved its project target date of March 2023.

At the time of our inspection, new laptops were being rolled out across stations. The service had also upgraded its HR system. And it had placed an order for a new prevention and protection system, which it expects to introduce later in 2023.

Considering the delays already faced, the service should assure itself that it has the capacity and capability to complete this work and meet its new project end date.

Securing external funding and income generation isn’t a priority for the service

The service considers options for securing extra funding internally. But considering and exploiting external funding opportunities or options for generating income is less of a priority. For example, as part of Surrey County Council, the service receives capital funding for new vehicles and equipment. This includes £0.2m ‘clean person’ funding to alter fire engine bays, which the service secured based on the results of research into contamination.

Promoting the right values and culture

Surrey Fire and Rescue Service is good at promoting the right values and culture.

Fire and rescue services should have positive and inclusive cultures, modelled by the behaviours of their senior leaders. Services should promote health and safety effectively, and staff should have access to a range of well‑being support that can be tailored to their individual needs.

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

Main findings

There is an improving culture, with positive behaviours and values understood and demonstrated

The service has well-defined values, which staff understand.

Of those who responded to our staff survey, 98 percent (139 out of 142) were aware of the statement of values that reflects the Core Code of Ethics. We found that staff at all levels of the service demonstrated behaviours that reflect service values. And 83 percent (116 out of 139) of staff who responded to our survey felt that their colleagues model and maintain the service’s values. The same proportion felt that their managers model and maintain the service’s values. We saw these behaviours displayed throughout our fieldwork. Staff were very accepting and positive about the new service leadership team, particularly the chief fire officer.

We were encouraged by the cultural improvements the service has made. The service is displaying more visible leadership, and the area for improvement we described during our last inspection has been discharged.

Staff told us that the visibility and approachability of senior leaders have improved. For example, the service leadership team has increased its visits to stations and put in place other activities to get staff feedback.

There is a positive working culture throughout the service, with staff empowered and willing to challenge any poor behaviours they encounter. There are also improved representative body relationships due to more regular meetings and early involvement.

We found that the service had robust discipline procedures and was challenging unacceptable behaviours. In the last 12 months, several individuals have been dismissed from the service for not following the service values. And the service takes swift action against individuals and groups when unacceptable behaviours are displayed.

There is effective workforce well-being provision

The service has well-understood and effective well-being policies in place, which are available to staff. A significant range of well-being support is available to support both physical and mental health.

There is a collaborative occupational health provision with East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service and Sussex and Surrey police forces, which is improving incident and post-incident welfare. For example, a ten-point wildfire plan was created in response to negative feedback received about staff welfare during the wildfires in summer 2022. And the service has also increased the number of critical incident debriefers.

The service has other provisions to promote staff well-being, including:

• a well-being hub on the service’s intranet with relevant signposting;
• an employee assistance programme; and
• access to ‘wellness champions’.

Of those who responded to our survey, 79 percent (112 out of 141) agreed that they can access services to support their mental well-being.

There is effective health and safety management, but some areas could be improved

The service has effective and well-understood health and safety policies and procedures in place. And, since our last inspection, it has improved its monitoring of health and safety. Regular formal and frequent monitoring of health and safety is now in place.

The service’s policies and procedures are readily available and well promoted to all staff. Of those who responded to our survey, 94 percent (133 out of 141) said that they understand the policies and procedures the service has in place to make sure they can work safely.

We also found an improved reporting culture, which is due in large part to the introduction of the QR codes on stations. Of those who responded to our survey, 90 percent (127 out of 141) said that they are encouraged to report all accidents, near misses and dangerous occurrences.

The service also makes sure that staff are qualified in health and safety to a level that is appropriate for their roles.

The service doesn’t monitor staff who have secondary employment or dual contracts to make sure they comply with the secondary employment policy and don’t work excessive hours. The service recognises this is an area where it needs to improve. It should make sure it introduces effective arrangements for monitoring and recording the working time of staff on secondary or dual contracts.

There is a lack of understanding and adherence to the working time directive amongst on-call staff. The service told us that 80 percent of its on-call staff are on dual contracts, but its secondary employment policy isn’t explicit about rest periods. Working hours are managed locally, and the service can’t assure itself that working time directives are followed.

Absence is managed well

We found that there were clear processes in place to manage absence. The service has effective absence management reporting tools. The monthly report shows the various reasons why staff are absent and includes on which day of the week most staff report their absence. The service can outline the number of days and shifts it has lost in a rolling year for both wholetime and on-call staff.

The service manages absences well and in accordance with policy. Staff told us they feel supported during periods of absence, and systems are in place to make sure absences are adequately managed. This prevents a backlog and makes sure work is still being carried out. The service has introduced support to help those returning to work.

In 2021/22, the number of days that firefighters were unable to work due to long-term sickness decreased by 5 percent compared to 2020/21. This shows a continuing decline as 2020/21 also had a lower rate of sickness than the previous year.

Getting the right people with the right skills

Surrey Fire and Rescue Service is adequate at getting the right people with the right skills.

Fire and rescue services should have a workforce plan in place that is linked to their community risk management plans. It should set out their current and future skills requirements and address capability gaps. This should be supplemented by a culture of continuous improvement, including appropriate learning and development throughout the service.

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

Main findings

The service’s workforce planning is effective

The service has good workforce planning in place. This makes sure skills and capabilities align with what it needs to effectively carry out its MSSP.

The service regularly monitors its workforce planning, and it is subject to consistent scrutiny in the form of regular meetings to discuss requirements.

The service has a monthly report which makes forecasts, such as predicted retirement ages, up to January 2028. This covers all roles including corporate staff, fire control and the operational workforce. The report is completed monthly and includes details of protected characteristics. Senior leaders monitor this.

A workforce working group meets monthly and is chaired by two members of the service leadership team. There are representatives from the equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) team, area and group managers, the HR department and representative bodies.

The service should make sure it has the appropriate mix of workforce skills and capabilities in all areas

We found that the service provided regular training for risk-critical operational skills, such as using breathing apparatus and attending road traffic collisions. This makes sure staff have the core skills they need.

We found evidence of inconsistent recording of training and competence. Systems don’t communicate with each other. This means the learning and development department can’t fully understand how competence is maintained on stations or effectively identify gaps in workforce capabilities and resilience.

Although the service provides e-learning about tall buildings, we found that staff had limited knowledge about fire survival guidance and little opportunity for practical training in this area.

Most staff told us that they can access the training they need to be effective in their roles. Of those who responded to our survey, 67 percent (95 out of 142) agreed or tended to agree that, overall, they receive enough training to effectively do their jobs. However, the service told us that some staff aren’t accessing learning and managers aren’t monitoring this. For example, we found that if staff hadn’t completed an e‑learning course and it was overdue, it wouldn’t show on the system as late unless it had already been started.

We were pleased to see that the service has appointed a dedicated training officer in fire control. We would urge the service to make sure this individual puts an effective training plan in place as soon as possible.

The service is improving its learning and development provision

The service promotes a culture of continuous improvement throughout the organisation, and it encourages staff to learn and develop. For example, the service is proactive in developing and training staff who are seeking promotion, before they move into a new role.

Of those who responded to our survey, 73 percent (104 out of 142) said that they can access the right learning and development opportunities. This includes e-learning modules and mentoring.

The service is using apprenticeships effectively. All trainees now undertake an apprenticeship, and they are being undertaken at other levels too.

The service is expanding its learning and development department. It is creating several new roles to support areas such as training for new recruits, incident command programmes and national operational guidance. We look forward to seeing the benefits of this.

Ensuring fairness and promoting diversity

Surrey Fire and Rescue Service requires improvement at ensuring fairness and promoting diversity.

Creating a more representative workforce gives fire and rescue services huge benefits. These include greater access to talent and different ways of thinking. It also helps them better understand and engage with local communities. Each service should make sure staff throughout the organisation firmly understand and show a commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion. This includes successfully taking steps to remove inequality and making progress to improve fairness, diversity and inclusion at all levels of the service. It should proactively seek and respond to feedback from staff and make sure any action it takes is meaningful.

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

Main findings

The service has improved the way it seeks and acts on staff feedback and challenge

The service has developed several ways to work with staff on issues and decisions that affect them. This includes methods to build all-staff awareness of fairness and diversity as well as targeted initiatives to identify matters that affect different staff groups. Service leaders are now more visible, and communications have improved in several ways, such as:

• increased frequency of all-staff newsletters;
• increased frequency of service leadership team visits to stations;
• virtual mess table events, which are online events held by service leaders and open to all staff; and
• ‘empty chair’ where a space is available at senior leadership team meetings for a member of staff at any level, for which there is a waiting list.

The service has addressed matters staff have raised, such as:

• restrictions being removed from the annual leave policy;
• staff rotation systems being removed; and
• improved provision of ICT with laptops on stations with better software.

Most staff have received these actions positively. However, we found a few staff members who felt the service hadn’t addressed their feedback. The service should make sure formal feedback is addressed and actioned as appropriate.

Representative bodies and staff associations reported that the service works well with them. This is a marked improvement from our last inspection and can, in part, be attributed to a change of personnel on both sides. There is now more regular and effective collaboration.

The service needs to do more to tackle bullying, harassment and discrimination

Staff have a good understanding of what bullying, harassment and discrimination are, and their negative effects on colleagues and the organisation. However, we still found some staff members who were unwilling to challenge inappropriate behaviour.

Of those who responded to our survey, 27 percent (39 out of 142) told us they have felt bullied or harassed at work in the last 12 months. And 23 percent (39 out of 142) of respondents told us they have felt discriminated against at work in the last 12 months. The main reason for not reporting this was a belief that nothing would happen.

The service has a clear fairness and respect policy in place. Of those who responded to our survey, 87 percent (123 out of 142) said they are treated with respect by those they work with.

The service needs to do more to address disproportionality in recruitment and retention

There is an open, fair and honest recruitment process for staff or those wishing to work for the fire and rescue service. The service has an effective system to understand and remove the risk of disproportionality in recruitment processes. For example, the service has implemented initiatives such as the ‘fire fit’ fitness programme, which it feels has been particularly successful. This has been recently expanded to the north of the county. The service also schedules additional all-inclusive boot camps that focus on gender and ethnicity. These are developed using data from previous campaigns about those who didn’t pass the recruitment drive and analysis of specific points of failure to identify where support is needed.

The service has developed its recruitment processes so that they are fair and potential applicants can understand them. Recruitment is open, transparent, inclusive and accessible at all levels. The service uses a ‘roles for all’ recruitment process. For example, traditionally operational (grey book) roles in protection are advertised to all staff. And new learning and development instructor roles are offered as a role rather than a rank, so all staff are eligible to apply.

However, the service still needs to do more to increase staff diversity and make sure these initiatives are effective. There has been little progress in improving ethnic and gender diversity. And there is limited recruitment from diverse backgrounds with low numbers of staff having protected characteristics compared to local demographics.

Service data shows that over the last 12 months, 2 recruits were female and 1 was from an ethnic minority background. In 2022, there were 98 recruits in total.

For the whole workforce, in 2021/22:

• 6.7 percent were from an ethnic minority background compared to 22.3 percent in the local population and 8 percent throughout all fire services; and
• 17.4 percent were women compared to an average of 18.6 percent throughout all fire services.

The proportion of firefighters that were from an ethnic minority background increased from 4.6 percent (26 people) in 2020/21 to 5.9 percent (33 people) in 2021/22.

The proportion of female firefighters increased from 4.4 percent (26 people) to 5.3 percent (31 people) over the same period.

The service needs to prioritise its approach to EDI

The service needs to prioritise and improve its approach to EDI. Since our last inspection, the service has appointed an EDI lead and set up network groups. But their benefits so far are unclear, and not all staff are aware of them.

The service leadership team recognises that EDI is a work in progress and more needs to be done. Progress is currently graded amber on the service’s progress chart. We found limited evidence of training, and we saw no records of refreshed EDI training since 2021. We found a mixed level of understanding around positive action and awareness of when it had been used. The service told us that only 33 percent of staff were willing to share their diversity data. This means the service doesn’t have the data it needs to drive future changes.

The service commissioned a staff survey, which found that the main reason people don’t declare their diversity data is because they aren’t confident the data will be used positively. They also felt it could be used against them when applying for promotion opportunities.

Although the service has a process in place to assess equality impact, it doesn’t properly assess or act on the impact on each protected characteristic.

Managing performance and developing leaders

Surrey Fire and Rescue Service requires improvement at managing performance and developing leaders.

Fire and rescue services should have robust and meaningful performance management arrangements in place for their staff. All staff should be supported to meet their potential and there should be a focus on developing staff and improving diversity into leadership roles.

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

Main findings

The service isn’t always consistently managing individuals’ performance

During our last inspection, we highlighted an inconsistent approach to performance and development. While this has improved, the service needs to do more work in this area. Not all staff have specific and individual objectives or have had their performance assessed in the past year.

Of those who responded to our staff survey, 75 percent (107 of 142) told us that they have had a formal personal development review or appraisal in the last 12 months. However, the staff survey results should be viewed in the context of the response rate, which was 19 percent.

The service told us that the percentage of individuals having performance conversations has increased since our last inspection to:

• 79 percent of wholetime staff;
• 89 percent of on-call staff (dual contract staff);
• 56 percent of control staff; and
• 80 percent of support staff.

This is more positive. But there is still an inconsistent approach across the service, especially for control staff.

The service has fair promotion and progression processes

The service has put considerable effort into developing its promotion and progression processes so that they are fair and all staff can understand them. There is a clear promotions framework, which is comprehensive and covers opportunities in all roles. Promotion processes are clear and accessible. Our staff survey indicated that over half of respondents (76 out of 142) thought the process is fair. And staff we spoke to during fieldwork also stated it was a clear, transparent process. Feedback is given throughout the process to provide individual development and support.

However, the service doesn’t have strong succession planning processes in place, and there is no formal succession plan for senior roles.

All members of the service leadership team are multi-agency gold incident command trained. While this will help support and develop the leaders of the future, it is primarily an operational course and doesn’t contribute to career progression.

We identified this gap in our last inspection. We recognise that there are defined career pathways at some levels in the service (currently only in the service leadership team and joint fire control), but it needs to do more work across its whole workforce.

The service needs to continue to improve diversity among its future leaders

The service knows it needs to do more to increase workforce diversity, especially in middle and senior management. It is working to address this. For example, it has appointed a non-operational assistant chief fire officer, introduced non-operational (green book) posts in the protection department and advertises vacancies both internally and externally.

The service hasn’t used the NFCC direct entry scheme due to the costs associated with it. But it has committed to using this scheme in the future. This will help the service recruit from a wider pool of skills and experience.

The service is improving the way it develops future leaders

The service has changed from a traditional, reactive approach to promotion to being more proactive. It now forward plans, and this helps people to prepare and develop more effectively.

The service is also considering different ways to develop its staff by offering a choice of promotion routes. For example, for promotion to crew commander, individuals now have two options: they can complete the service’s potential crew commander courses, be put into the talent pool and then apply for positions; or they can go on a four-week aspiring leaders’ course and then be placed on station, which is a quicker process. Newly promoted station commanders told us that they were well prepared before taking up their roles.

The service is also looking more closely at its development processes. These are reviewed annually or sooner if required.

Further information

Download the PDF report

Surrey Fire and Rescue Service 2023-2025

More about Surrey Fire and Rescue Service

You can find more about Surrey Fire and Rescue Service on our dedicated service page.

Get the press release

Surrey Fire and Rescue Service requires further improvement

Our work

Find out more about HMICFRS’s work and other inspection areas.

Other services

Find out how well other services have performed during their FRS assessment.

Inspection programme and framework

Detailed information about the inspection methodology.

Useful links

Fire and rescue national framework for England 
National Operational Guidance website
National Fire Chiefs Council website