National review of community risk methodology across UK Fire and Rescue Service

When determining the types of risk types FRSs plan their Response, Prevention and Protection (RPP) activities around there was a heavy focus on incident types and frequency when determining risk. However, the greatest drivers for determining risk types has been the requirements placed upon FRSs through legislation, government frameworks, codes of practice and guidance. Whilst in many submissions these have not been broken down into granular incident types (i.e. RTC, Fire, SSC), a consistent approach was to theme the risks based on the following:

• Infrastructure
  • Buildings (domestic, non-domestic, commercial, heritage etc.)
  • Transport (Road, air, rail, water)
  • Industry (manufacturing, chemical, energy, agriculture, construction)
  • SRS
• People
  • Communities
  • FSP
• Geographical factors
  • Coastal
  • Wildfire
• Environmental
  • Weather related (Flooding)
  • HazMats
• Business
• National Resilience
  • Local
  • Regional
  • National
• National Risk Assessments
  • National Risk Register
  • Community Risk Register

Whilst this provided an overview of the incident types considered within RMPs, a number of English FRS responses made specific reference to national frameworks and the term ‘Foreseeable FRS related risk’. How this has been interpreted by the TWG overall is that outside of the traditional well known risk types FRS plan there RPP around, there is a view that there is significant ‘gray’ areas caused by a FRSs interpretation of what foreseeable FRS risk is. How FRSs seem to approach this is the incorporation of risk types that are considered part of the strategy or priority for that individual FRS when reducing the risk. In addition to this, FRSs also includes multi-agency guidance regarding roles and responsibilities of Fire, Police and Ambulance Services when determining risk types. There was evidence that this has become somewhat more complex as the risks associated with the risk types has seen activities in RPP being undertaken through MOUs, Commissioned activities or work undertaken across agencies. In one submission, and has been singled out due to the discussion points it raises, was the comment around what is the public expectation of what the FRS will attend. Where this makes interesting topics for discussion is the gap between what the public expect from the FRS in relation to risk and what government expectation is through the current legislative and framework requirements.

In summary therefore, whilst FRSs draw heavily from statutory and frameworks when determining risk types to plan for these, there is local divergence based upon individual FRSs priorities as part of their strategic planning processes, driven by partnership working driven by areas of common interest where risk is seen to be common between services.