OFFICE OF THEDEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Future of Fire and Rescue Service Control Rooms in England and Wales

Update 2003

Executive Summary

The Future of Fire and Rescue Service Control Rooms in England and Wales

Update 2003

Executive Summary

Contents

1 The Changed Environment 3

2 Current Arrangements 6

3 UK & International 7

Case Studies

4 Options Analysis 9

5 Vertical Integration 14

6 Conclusion 21

& Recommendations

Index of Tables

UK & International 7Case Studies

Options Long-List 9

Options Shortlist 10

Horizontal Vs Vertical 11Analysis

Cost Analysis 13

Vertical Integration 14

Vertical Requirements 15Analysis

Ongoing Savings 18

NPV Ranking 19

NPVs after Revised 19Redundancy Payments

Index of Figures

Cost per Incident 14

Summary Capital/One 17Off Costs

NPV Summary 18

Index of Maps

Regional Fire and Rescue 22Service Control Rooms

The last two years have seen significant changes to theenvironment in which fire and rescue services operate.A major contributor to this being the impact of NewDimension and its associated planning assumptions, as well as the findings and recommendations of theIndependent Review of the Fire Service and Governmentpolicy as set out in the White Paper, Our Fire andRescue Service (June 2003).

The scale of the changes is significant and has led toan array of new requirements, which the fire and rescueservice must meet.

This report considers the impact of these changes onthe control room function of fire and rescue servicesand explores alternative arrangements that better meetthe requirements of the changed environment. Thisreport is an update of a previous report, ‘The Future of Fire Service Control Rooms and Communications in England and Wales’ (April 2000), which identified thatan optimum arrangement for fire and rescue servicecontrol rooms would be 9 regional controls. The finalrecommendation of that report would have resulted in a reduction to 21 control rooms. Although sub-optimal, it was felt that this was far more achievable within thethen current constraints.

Having established the drivers for change in relation tocontrol rooms and the new requirements that flow fromthese, this report analyses the various options availableto meet current and future needs. In doing the analysis,three options were immediately discarded, includingcontinuing as now, outsourcing the function to theprivate sector and fully integrating the emergencycontrol rooms of the primary emergency services into a single emergency function. Two broad options remained:

Fire-Fire(Vertical integration) provided by amalgamating currentfire and rescue emergency control rooms.

Fire – other emergency service(s)(Horizontal integration) provided by co-locating theemergency rooms of the three primary emergencyservices, (at levels below full integration).

Within these two broad options there are severalvariations, primarily relating to scale. In consideringthese options against the broad requirements ofmodernisation, the response to New Dimension scaleincidents and increases in efficiency, it has becomeclear that vertical integration best meets the requirements.In terms of scale, it has also become clear that regionalscale fire and rescue emergency control rooms would be optimal.

Regional scale control rooms would be best delivered if they follow Government Office boundaries in Englandresulting in 9 control rooms, including London. In Walesthe optimum solution is one control room.

A regional arrangement will enable any New Dimensionscale incident responses to be better handled and willalso go some way to achieving the modernisationoutlined in the Independent Review of the Fire Serviceand the subsequent Government White Paper, as wellas the objectives set out in the more recent EfficiencyReview of public services led by Sir Peter Gershon.

In addition, the efficiencies to be gained will amount toa considerable net saving over a five-year period withfurther ongoing savings thereafter.

The report goes on to recommend that regional controlrooms should be implemented as a matter of urgency to harmonise their delivery with the Firelink timetable. It also offers an outline of how regional emergencycontrol rooms could be achieved and includes costsand timetables for implementation.

Since the report was completed, the conclusion thatWales should have a single control room as part of anintegrated set of regional control rooms will in fact be a matter for the devolved assembly for Wales. Althougha single control room for Wales is optimal, it is onlyfeasible if the Welsh control room remains in partnershipwith the regional control rooms in England, (as eachacts as a fallback for the others). Further considerationby the Welsh Assembly Government will be necessary.1

1 A similar situation occurs for Scotland. It may also be appropriate to consider Northern Ireland, as although geographically remote, in functional terms it could still be considered as a regional control room. However, Scotland and Northern Ireland were not included in the study work or the conclusions and recommendations.

1

Executive Summary – Document Outline

Introduction The ODPM commissioned a review of the MottMacDonald report, ‘The Future of Fire Service ControlRooms and Communications in England and Wales’(April 2000) to verify, amend, and update therecommendations and proposed implementation plan set out in the first report.

A dedicated review team from Mott MacDonald wassubsequently established, comprising appropriateprofessional, technical and operational expertise,supported by staff from HM Fire Service Inspectorate.Using the original report as the baseline, this teaminvestigated the changed environment of the fire andrescue service and the impact of new informationand data on the original recommendations.

The full report can be viewed or downloaded from theODPM web site (www.odpm.gov.uk).

BackgroundThe original Control Room report concluded thatmaximum efficiency could be achieved from a reductionin the number of fire service control rooms from 49 to nine regional controls by means of fire-fireamalgamation. However, balancing efficiency andeconomy with a realistic and achievable outcome, thereport recommended rationalisation to 21 controlrooms.

Since the publication of the original report there havebeen significant changes in the environment in whichthe fire and rescue service operates, not least thoseresulting from the tragic events of September 11 2001.There is also increasing pressure on the fire and rescueservice to modernise its organisational structure toachieve the most efficient and effective delivery of alocal service, that also meets regional and nationalobjectives.

Terms of ReferenceThe agreed Terms of Reference for this report are,

To review the Mott MacDonald Report, ‘The Future of Fire Service Control Rooms andCommunications in England and Wales’ (April 2000), to verify, amend and update therecommendations and proposed implementationplan for the rationalisation of fire and rescueservice control rooms in light of the changedoperational environment.

2

3

1 The Changed Environment

There has been considerable change in the operational,political and technical environment in which the fire andrescue service operates since the publication of theoriginal control room report in April 2000. The drivers for change in the ways in which the fire and rescueservice is organised, managed and delivered aregreater today than ever before.

The following issues have been considered in thecontext of their impact on the fire and rescue service.These issues have driven new requirements that mustbe met if the fire and rescue service is to continue toprovide a critical public service saving lives, protectingproperty and securing the safety of the public. The newrequirements for a modern fire and rescue service are shown in the shaded boxes alongside the issuewhich has driven them.

1.1 Best ValueIt is apparent that contrary to the expectations of theoriginal control room report, Best Value has failed as a driver for change in the fire and rescue service. There has been no significant progress made towardssecuring efficiency and economy in fire and rescueservice control rooms as a consequence of the BestValue regime.

A regional or national approach to control rooms

that does not rely on local decision-making

1.2 9/11 & New DimensionThe tragic events of September 11 2001 and thesubsequent planning under New Dimension to secureUK emergency preparedness and resilience havefundamentally changed the operational environment ofthe fire and rescue service and are driving change inthe management and organisational arrangementsaccordingly.

Commonality in equipment, procedures and

practices at control & operational levels

Central direction and funding with appropriate

statutory and legal powers

The new level of threat demands new ways of working,new equipment, training, operational procedures andworking practices that require effective inter-workingbetween brigades and across the emergency serviceson a national scale. Disparity between current brigademanagement standards, operational protocols, shiftpatterns, resource availability, conditions of service and financing, impede a common national responsecapability.

Commonality of controls to facilitate fall-back

arrangements

Enhanced collaboration between the

emergency services

Control rooms capable of dealing

with large-scale incidents

1.3 FirelinkFirelink will provide a common national wide-area radionetwork for the fire and rescue service in Great Britainby the end of 2007. Control rooms and fallback facilitiesare an integral and technically strategic interface for thenew radio system. Early integration will offer furtheropportunities to optimise both Firelink and thecommunications infrastructure necessary for theregional control rooms. Any change to the currentorganisation of control rooms must be synchronisedwith the roll-out of Firelink if optimum economies are to be achieved and unnecessary implementation costs avoided.

Deliver Changes in accordance

with the Firelink timetable

1.4 The Fire and Rescue Service The recent dispute between staff and employers overpay, conditions of service and modernisation has majorimplications for the future of the UK Fire and RescueService. The agreement reached between staff andemployers embodied increased pay in exchange formajor reform and modernisation of the service.

Support reform to working practices and reduce costs

4

2 ‘The Future of the Fire Service: Reducing Risk, Saving Lives’, the Independent Review of the Fire Service (Dec 2002)3 Shared infrastructure and facilities but no integration of service operations4 Our Fire and Rescue Service June 2003

1.5 The Independent Review of the Fire Service

The Independent Review of the Fire Service2, wasinitiated by Government in response to a proposal byfire service employers to consider the issues facing theservice and to assist in discussions regarding fireservice pay. The final report, published in December2002, proposed a major programme of reform andmodernisation for the fire service to improve efficiencyand effectiveness in service delivery. It is essential that the rationalisation of control rooms should supportand integrate, where appropriate, with the widermodernisation agenda. This is fully in line with therecent Efficiency Review of public services led by Sir Peter Gershon.

A national strategy to support integration

with other fire initiatives

Increased public safety for large scale incidents

1.6 Joint Operational Control Centres (JOCCs)

‘Joint Operational Control Centres’ were set up during periods of industrial action to provide temporarymobilising arrangements for the dispatch of military fireresources during periods of fire strike. They were notfully integrated control rooms, rather an example of a situation in which the principles of Shared3 controlswere applied.

Improve information sharing between the services

Whilst investigation of the merits of JOCCs does notsuggest a similar arrangement as a model for the fireand rescue service in normal circumstances, they doprovide valuable lessons for future inter-service co-operation. The main principle employed was to make abetter assessment of each individual incident rather than following a pre-defined attendance.

Risk based decision making

1.7 Changes in LegislationThe Government is committed to establishing a newlegislative framework for the fire and rescue service as soon as parliamentary time allows. This frameworkwill put on a proper statutory footing what the fire andrescue service currently does, and recognise theirexpanded role in dealing with emergencies and the new terrorist threat. The legislation will also deliverother reforms set out in the fire and rescue serviceWhite Paper,4 for example the establishment of the new National Framework.

The Government is also in the process of consideringthe response to a consultation on a draft CivilContingencies Bill, which would provide a nationalframework for emergency response to civil contingencies.

1.8 Integrated Risk Management

Upgraded Control room functionality to

support integrated risk management

Enhanced training to support risk based

decisions by control room operators

Integrated Risk Management will significantly changehow the fire and rescue services plan to provide anemergency response. It will create a much more flexiblerisk assessment based approach and allow for increasedefficiency and effectiveness.

It is likely that the implementation of Integrated RiskManagement Plans (IRMPs) will have a significantimpact on the role of control room staff and will requireenhanced training and a greater level of expertise thanbefore. In order for IRMPs to operate effectively,supporting technology will be needed. Local budgetsprevent many brigades from being able to procure thenecessary systems, which would have the effect ofundermining an effective integrated risk basedapproach to mobilisation and operations. In addition,IRMP will require a more specialised response to fireand rescue calls, which may introduce greaterdivergence than already exists in the control roompractices of the three primary emergency services.

5

1.9 Modernising Public Service DeliveryThe principle of ‘Joined-up Government’ identified as a driver for change in the previous report remains astrong theme in the delivery of public services. Itremains true however, that until recently there havebeen relatively few examples in which the fire andrescue service has acted in a joined-up or corporatemanner.

Commonality in equipment, procedures and

practices at control & operational levels

Organisational structures developed over the last 50 years may no longer be appropriate to therequirements of today’s service. The diversity inoperational practice between brigades, particularly in the context of control rooms, is not appropriate for a modern and forward-looking service.

Support for national/regional structures

1.10 Technology & New Methods of Working

Control room technology continues to develop rapidlyand there is some evidence of brigades being unable to demonstrate a sound business case in the adoptionof new and service enhancing technology due to a lackof sufficient scale. Smaller brigades are significantlydisadvantaged in this area due to limited budgets.

In addition, the role of control room staff has evolved toinclude more specialised duties, such as the provisionof fire survival guidance. There is a need to ensure thatappropriate technology is available to support thesespecialist functions.

Support tools for specialist functions

Use of best available technology

to secure optimum performance

1.11 Electronic Service Delivery Electronic Service Delivery (ESD), or e-government, is a key part of the government’s modernising agenda.To meet the government’s targets, CACFOA is leadinga dedicated project to implement an ESD capability forthe fire and rescue service. For this to operate effectivelyappropriate technology and support mechanisms mustbe in place. It will also require a level of standardisationin the data used and made available by fire and rescueservices.

National standards in data

1.12 Initiatives Within the Fire and Rescue Service

There have been no significant new initiatives in the context of fire and rescue service control roomssince the publication of the original report. There is notangible evidence to suggest that initiatives such as theproposed regional control rooms in the North West andWest Midlands, as discussed in the previous report,have made any significant progress.

Nationally agreed and driven initiatives

1.13 ConclusionThe new requirements driven by the changedenvironment mean that change in the currentorganisational arrangements of control rooms isessential. Further investigation has been undertaken to determine an optimum solution to meet the evolvingneeds of the fire and rescue service and the public it serves.

2 Current Arrangements

There has been little change in the call handlingprocesses employed by the primary emergencyservices since the publication of the original report.Whilst there have been some tentative initiativestowards same-service and inter-service collaboration in control rooms, as well as the ongoing Invest to Saveshared control room projects, these have notencouraged fundamental change in the workingpractices of the three services.

The emergency call handling processes of the fire,police and ambulance services remain significantlydifferent in terms of response times and call informationrequirements. Each service is currently engaged insignificant internal change which detracts from anyserious consideration of inter-service initiatives.

2.1 The Ambulance ServiceThe NHS is currently undergoing a major programme of reform and reorganisation, which has seen thereplacement of 95 Health Authorities with 28 new, largerstrategic health authorities (StHA) which are at presentnot aligned to ambulance trust borders. The currentfocus of the health service is to encourage closer co-operation between various elements within its ownorganisation to enable the delivery of effective servicesat local level.

The ambulance service is viewed in the context of thewider NHS plan, which is focused on the delivery oflocal services to meet local health needs. It is unlikelythat fewer ambulance controls would fit with thisconcept.

2.2 The Police ServiceIn response to the recommendations of HM Inspectorateof Constabulary and the Audit Commission following thedisasters of Hungerford and Hillsborough in the late1980’s, the police have undertaken a programme ofcontrol room rationalisation from a divisional structureresponsible for controlling local resources to larger,centralised controls responsible for controllingresources over a much larger geographical area. It remains the case however, that no national callhandling strategy exists for the police service, allowingindividual forces to develop their own solutions andarchitectures. Several initiatives are underway torationalise individual force control room arrangements,although these are not part of the national plan.

It is unlikely that police forces will look toward either fire or ambulance controls as a means to improve theirservice.

2.3 Multi-Service Initiatives There have been some initiatives towards achievingenhanced inter-service working although these havelargely been local in focus and often isolated. With theexception of the Shared Control projects, funded underthe Invest to Save Budget programme (ISBs), there has been no significant initiative towards shared or jointcontrol room arrangements at a local or regional level.

Whilst the police, ambulance and fire service recognisethe merits of inter-service working, they acknowledgethe diverse operational requirements of each. Inaddition, all three emergency services are polarised interms of their political and statutory obligations, eachwith different employers and government sponsors andfunding arrangements, making the management ofeffective inter-working difficult. The emphasis is on‘collaboration’, not ‘integration’.5

5 ‘Three Distinct Services – Shared Ambitions for a Healthier and Safer Community’, CACFOA, ACPO & ASA (2001)

6

In order to develop a full understanding ofcontemporary control room practice and actual orplanned changes post September 11 and to identifyappropriate options for the future of the UK fire andrescue service, the study looked at several differentcontrol room models from throughout the world.

TABLE 3-1 UK & INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDIES

The following table describes those considered and thefollowing section summarises the findings:

7

3 UK Case & International Studies

Site Summary

Joint Operational Control Centres set up to provide temporary controlfunctions during periods of fire strike. Services were not fully integratedalthough a common call taker was in place.

Amalgamation of three brigade control rooms into one as part of theamalgamation of fire brigades in 1996.

One of three Invest to Save Budget Project’s (ISB’s) funded by the DoH to pilot shared control rooms.

The amalgamation of 6 control rooms to one through a progressiveapproach. Selected as an example of private sector experience.

Combined Fire and Emergency Medical Service control room which dealt with the response to the attack on the WTC on Sept 11 2001.Selected to assess the lessons learned and associated initiatives resulting from their experience of 9/11.

Multi-service control room that dealt with the response to the attack on the Pentagon on September 11 2001. Selected to assess the lessonslearned and associated initiatives resulting from their experience of 9/11.

Brand new multi-agency control room across river from Arlington County,selected as a convenient site to view multi-service arrangements.

One of 3 regional control centres (CAMP-East, CAMP-West and Munster) being developed. RCC provides single contact point for calltaking and mobilising across Dublin region. Selected as model of a single control serving multiple brigades.

A private sector out-sourced arrangements. Selected to assess progressand relative success.

International Case Studies

UK & International Case Studies

UK Case Studies

Location

JOCCs(Sample Selection)

South Wales

Wiltshire

Eastern Electricity

New York – FDNY

Arlington County,Washington

Montgomery County

Dublin – CAMP East

Victoria, Australia

Services Provided

Fire, police, military

Fire

Fire, police, ambulance

Internal control amalgamation

Fire, EMS

Fire, EMS, police

Fire, Police, EMS, Traffic

Fire, EMS

Fire, police, ambulance

3.1 Summary of FindingsService Delivery• Service Performance is not accurately and

consistently measured.• Amalgamation tends to result in high quality

facilities being provided and technologies being implemented that may not have been possible as individual facilities.

• ‘Intelligent’ call taking can improve service response.

• Shared or Joint arrangements enhance the sharing of information between the services.

• Rationalisation of procedures and practices enables the adoption of best practice.

Organisational Development• Progression to Joint Integrated Control rooms

from separate fire/police/ambulance facilities is high-risk.

• The requirements and operational practices of each service are diverse.

• Different cultural and working conditions may present a barrier to an effective working environment.

• Common call taking is possible but mobilisingis best managed by individual services.

• A regional mobilisation and command and control system can effectively control the resources of multiple, distinct fire authorities.

Cost Savings/Efficiency• Efficiency savings have been delivered in

many amalgamations. • Significant cost savings are available in fire-

fire amalgamation. Shared or Joint control rooms offer less as the opportunity for efficiencies of scale cannot be realised.

Implementation• To achieve significant change strong drivers

are required.• Communication and consultation at all levels

is essential in implementing change.• There is always resistance to change.

This can be overcome by gaining early involvement and ownership.

• Enhanced working conditions may help to reduce staff resistance.

• Appropriate funding must be available.• Robust contractual arrangements must be

in place to support the change.• The time and effort required and the

complexity of implementation is often underestimated.

8

4 Options Analysis

4.1 ApproachThe potential arrangements for the future of fire andrescue service control rooms in England and Waleswere subjected to comprehensive analysis covering four key areas;

Requirements Analysis Ability to meet the requirements of the changedenvironment.

Experiential AnalysisLessons learned from outcomes of various controlarrangements in the UK and internationally.

Qualitative AnalysisService delivery impact, organisational developmentimpact, barriers to implementation and other associatedissues and opportunities.

TABLE 4-1 OPTIONS LONG-LIST

Cost AnalysisFull cost analysis with possible savings.

A long-list was then generated covering the full range of options available to the fire and rescue service fromwhich a short-list was selected discounting thoseoptions that were not considered viable.

4.2 Options Long-ListThe previous report identified a number of options or models that were considered as potential ways to improve the existing fire and rescue control roomstructure in England and Wales. This study has refinedthese options and identified further opportunities forcontrol room rationalisation. Table 4-1 describes the fullrange of options available to the fire and rescue servicein the context of control rooms.

9

Do-Minimum The continued existence of 49 discrete control rooms in England and Wales

Outsourcing Outsourcing the management and operation of fire and rescue service control rooms to a private sector organisation

Transfer of responsibilities Giving the Public Telecommunications Operator responsibility for emergency service call handling to the PTO

‘Fire-Fire’ The amalgamation of fire and rescue only control rooms to incorporate a number of brigade control rooms in a single host control. This may range from a simple integration of two existing brigade controls to a larger (perhaps regional) consortia

Shared Control Rooms A control room in which different emergency services are co-located and share facilities and infrastructure but in which each service retains its own dedicated staff for dealing with calls. This would not significantly reduce the number of fire and rescue control rooms

Joint Control Rooms A control room in which the call taking element is common to all emergency services but thereafter command and control is taken over and operated by discrete personnel dedicated to a particular service. This would not significantly reduce the number of fire control rooms

Fully Integrated A control room in which the processes and procedures of all services are fully integrated with Control Rooms multi-disciplined staff operating under a common management structure. Call taking, mobilising

and command and control is common for all three services. This would not significantly reduce the number of fire control rooms

Horizontal Integration

Vertical Integration

Options Long-List

4.3 Options Discardedi) Do MinimumThe requirements of the changed environmentdetermine that change in the ways in which the fire andrescue service operates and is managed is essential ifthe service is to continue to serve the public effectively. The maintenance of the status quo is therefore not aviable option.

ii) Outsourcing & Transfer of Responsibility to a PTO6

Disadvantages associated with cost, ownership andtechnology as discussed in the previous report identifieddifficulties in implementation and management and anunacceptable level of risk to fire and rescue operations.

iii) Fully Integrated Control RoomsAs discussed in the original report, the barriers toimplementation and management are so onerous as todiscount this option. The organisational dynamics anddiverse operational practices and requirements of theservices make fully integrated controls unwieldy andcontentious. The timescale to deliver this option wouldbe long and likely to be in excess of ten years.

4.4 Options ShortlistThe options taken forward for further analysis are as follows;

TABLE 4-2 OPTIONS SHORTLIST

6 Public Telecommunications Operator – the provider of the 999 emergency call service.

‘Fire-Fire’

Shared Control Rooms

Joint Control Rooms

Vertical Integration

Horizontal Integration

10

Control rooms capable of dealing with very large incidents

Commonality in equipment, procedures and practice at control and operation levels

Commonality in scale to facilitate fallback arrangements

Increased public safety for large scale incidents

Enhanced collaboration between the emergency services

Risk based decision making

Use of best available technology to secure optimum performance

A regional or national approach to control rooms that does not rely on local decision making

Central direction and funding with appropriate statutory and legal powers

Control room arrangements and conditions of service to cope with complex and sustained incidents

A national strategy to support integration with other fire initiatives

Supports reform to working practices and reduces costs

Improved information sharing between the services

Upgraded control room functionality to support integrated risk management

Enhanced training to support risk based decisions by control operators

Support for national/regional structures

Support tools for specialist functions

National standards in data

Deliver changes in accordance with Firelink timescale

Cost savings

Total

Requirement

Control Room Options

Vertical HorizontalIntegration Integration

Fire-Fire Shared Joint

Eff

icie

ncy

Org

anis

atio

nal

Dev

elop

men

t R

equi

rem

ents

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y R

equi

rem

ents

4.5 Requirements AnalysisThe following table summarises the extent to whicheach viable option meets the new requirement forcontrol rooms in light of the changed environment7;

TABLE 4-3 HORIZONTAL VS VERTICAL ANALYSIS

7 Grouped into the broad headings of service delivery, organisational development and efficiency.

11

4.6 Qualitative AnalysisEach option was considered in the context of the positive aspects, negative aspects, barriers toimplementation, opportunities and issues associatedwith it. The following summarises the report’s findings:

4.6.1 Vertical Integration (Fire-Fire)Positive:• Improved Service Delivery due to access to

a wider pool of cross-brigade resources and common standards in information exchange, operational procedures and working patterns.

• Improved ability to handle surge demands through larger numbers of staff and resources.

• Enhanced career progression and opportunities for staff.

Negative:• Reduced local contact.• Further divergence from current Police

and Ambulance boundaries.

Barriers to Implementation:• Resistance from control room staff

and unions.• Diverse operational procedures, working

practices and information/data between brigades.

Issues & Opportunities:

Local KnowledgeAll control rooms will have a modern, comprehensive and high quality system providing full mapping, location data and on line caller identification.

Different brigade operational and working practicesRationalisation will provide the opportunity to eradicate differences and introduce common standards to enhance service delivery and inter-brigade working.

Skills levelsLarger controls handling a higher volume of incidents increases the likelihood of operator exposure to complex control requirements increasing their ability to respond effectively to major incidents.

4.6.2 Horizontal Integrationi) Shared Control Rooms

Positive:• Enhanced inter-service communications

with potential for more effective response to multi-service incidents.

• Potential for further integration in the future.

Negative:• Limits further development of inter-brigade

delivery of services and maintains difference in working and operational practices betweenbrigades.

• Constrained by a willingness to migrate on behalf of all services.

Barriers to Implementation:• Institutional and cultural barriers associated

with all three services.• Diverse operational procedures and

requirements.• Disparity in the number of control rooms per

service and non-coterminous boundaries.• Lack of statutory obligation.• Extended timescales – due to larger

stakeholder community involved.

Issue & Opportunities:

In-service development Should rationalisation of fire and rescue service control rooms be achieved by means of shared control rooms, organisational development within the wider, national service would be difficult.

ii) Joint Control Rooms

Positive:• As for shared.• Improved information exchange between

the services.• Improved ability to cope with surges and

extended incidents by having a larger pool of multi-skilled call takers.

Negative:• As for shared.• Potential to reduce fire and rescue service

performance due to different service requirements.

12

Barriers to Implementation:• As for shared.• Diverse technology and equipment.• Extended timescales – likely to take in

excess of 10 years to implement.

Issues & Opportunities:

CommonalityAssuming the barriers relating to diverse technology and operational practice could be overcome, joint control rooms would offer the potential for common control systems, which would introduce economies in procurementand optimise staff levels.

Inter-service co-operationAs identified in the original report joint/shared control rooms may encourage greater collaboration between the services in other areas such as support services, procurement and training, which may produce further cost savings.

New ways of workingAs illustrated in the original report joint/shared control rooms may introduce new ways of working to the emergency services and may encourage a multi-functional approach to emergency response.

4.7 Cost AnalysisThe following provides a summary of the Net PresentValue for each option. The analysis highlights all thematerial cash flows and savings associated with eachoption and then discounts them at 3.5% cost of capital,in accordance with approved methodology forevaluating public sector projects.

TABLE 4-4 COST ANALYSIS

Figures in brackets ( ) are negative.

Cost savings for the Vertical option are based on aregional control arrangement.

4.7.1 Vertical Integration • Significant cost savings are available in

infrastructure, equipment and staffing.

4.7.2 Horizontal Integration i) SharedLimited cost savings in infrastructure and equipment are available as there would be a very small reduction in control rooms, probably reducing to match the number of police force controls.

Investment required with minimal long-term cost savings.

ii) JointCost savings are available in staff at the call taking point, infrastructure and equipment.

Investment required but with some long-term savings.

Likely increase in implementation costs due to operational and cultural barriers.

4.8 ConclusionsHorizontal integration is sub-optimal in terms ofefficiency, in delivering the necessary modernisationand for dealing with large-scale incidents. It is also amuch higher risk strategy, with real potential for risingcosts and delay. Therefore, Vertical integration by theamalgamation of fire and rescue control rooms is theoption of choice. The scale of the vertical integrationmust be optimised to meet the new requirements.

13

Vertical Integration Horizontal Integration

Do Minimum ‘Regional’ Shared Joint NPV (£m) (£72m) £43m (£79m) (£44m)Rank 3 1 4 2

Vertical vs. Horizontal NPV

5 Vertical Integration

Three ‘Vertical Integration’ options are considered viable;

TABLE 5-1 VERTICAL INTEGRATION

These options were subjected to comprehensiveanalysis.

5.1 Options RationaleThe options identified above were selected for analysison the following basis,

Sub-regional Controls – Based on the amalgamationof brigades dealing with less than 30,000 incidents peryear to secure optimum savings as depicted below.Figure 5-1 demonstrates that control rooms dealing with more incidents are significantly more cost efficientthan those dealing with fewer incidents8.

FIGURE 5-1 COST PER INCIDENT

Regional Controls – Considered the next step towardsgaining maximum efficiency and effectiveness throughappropriate organisational arrangements (not minimumthresholds). For the purposes of implementation,funding and ownership issues, the regional boundariesmatching the Government Offices for the Regions inEngland are the appropriate configuration for regionalcontrols (9, including London). In Wales the optimumsolution is one control.

8 2002 data taken from CIPFA 2000 01

14

Supra-Regional Controls The amalgamation of fire control rooms in England and Wales to create 3 Supra-regional controls

Regional Controls The amalgamation of fire service control rooms in England and Wales to create a regional arrangement in accordance with the Government Offices for the Regions

Sub-Regional Controls The amalgamation of fire service controls in England and Wales on the basis of a 30,000 call threshold. This would result in 18 sub-regional controls

Vertical Integration

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000

Co

st

pe

r In

cid

en

t (£

)

Isle of Wight

London

Number of Incidents

15

Control rooms capable of dealing with very large incidents

Commonality in equipment, procedures and practice at control and operation levels

Commonality in scale to facilitate fallback arrangements

Increased public safety for large scale incidents

Enhanced collaboration between the emergency services

Risk based decision making

Use of best available technology to secure optimum performance

A regional or national approach to control rooms that does not rely on local decision making

Central direction and funding with appropriate statutory and legal powers

Control room arrangements and conditions of service to cope with complex and sustained incidents

A national strategy to support integration with other fire initiatives

Supports reform to working practices and reduces costs

Improved information sharing between the services

Upgraded control room functionality to support integrated risk management

Enhanced training to support risk based decisions by control operators

Support for national/regional structures

Support tools for specialist functions

National standards in data

Deliver changes in accordance with Firelink timescale

Cost savings

Total

3

3

3

3

2

1

3

1

1

3

3

3

2

2

3

2

3

3

3

3

50

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

25

2

1

2

2

3

3

2

1

1

2

2

1

3

3

2

3

2

1

2

1

39

Requirement

Control Room Options

VerticalIntegration

Eff

icie

ncy

Org

anis

atio

nal

Dev

elop

men

t R

equi

rem

ents

Ser

vice

Del

iver

y R

equi

rem

ents

Sub- Regional Supra-Regional Regional

(18) (9) (3)

Supra-Regional Controls – This option was selectedas the largest possible amalgamation of fire-fire controlrooms to be technically feasible and capable ofproviding the necessary level of resilience. The analysisin this report does not attempt to predict what the likelygroupings would be. In broad terms this is likely tomean three control rooms each capable of dealing withapproximately 325,000 incidents per annum.

TABLE 5-2 VERTICAL REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS

5.2 Requirements AnalysisEach option will meet the new requirements for controlrooms in light of the changed environment to a greateror lesser extent as illustrated in the following table. Theoptions have been analysed on a comparative basisand not on their overall ability to meet therequirements9.

9 The analysis is based on the following key:1 = High capability to meet requirement 2 = Medium capability to meet requirement 3 = Low capability to meet requirement. The lowest score therefore is the one that meets the requirements best.

5.3 Qualitative AnalysisAs before, each option was considered in the context of the advantages, disadvantages, opportunities andissues associated with it. The following summarises the report’s findings;

5.3.1 Supra-Regional Controls (3)Positive:• Improved ability to deal with large-scale

incidents and manage cross-border operations.

• Potential to rationalise control practices on national scale and adopt best practice.

Negative:• Reduced resilience, since failure of one

centre would result in a significant increase in workload for the two remaining centres.

• Organisational linkages between control and brigades would be significantly weakened and control and accountability will be less direct.

• Potential management difficulties since the control room would act as a central facility for a larger number of brigades with different operational practices.

• Would require a national management structure with appropriate legislation, which could take time and resources to establish and would limit brigade input.10

• Will restrict future multi-service arrangementssince fire and rescue service control boundaries would be non-coterminous and would vary largely in scale to those of the current police and ambulance arrangements.

Barriers to implementation:• Staff and union resistance due to inevitable

job losses.• Implementation would be highly complex.

Issues & Opportunities:• With the legislative and management issues

to be resolved, it is unlikely that this option could be completed in accordance with the Firelink timetable.

• ISBs would not be able to continue in their current state. Similarly, the necessary changeto the existing Welsh arrangement would not necessarily fit the English/Welsh political borders that now exist.

5.3.2 Regional Controls Positive:• Provide a regional response capability and

improved cross-border operations whilst maintaining a local focus.

• Would provide enhanced career opportunitiesand job satisfaction since there would be a greater range of management roles and broader responsibilities and experience.

• Would secure effective resilience through similar scale for new controls enabling a ‘meshed fall-back arrangement’ rather than dedicated fall-back facilities.

• Would maintain some opportunity for future shared or joint arrangements, as fire controls would be of a similar scale (number of calls/incidents) as police or ambulance.

Negative:• Would require central/national direction with

appropriate legislative power to implement.• Would require integration of the Invest to

Save Budget projects at some point.

Barriers to Implementation:• Some resistance likely as a result of

anticipated job losses and changes in staff conditions such as location. May be mitigatedby improved working conditions and redeployment.

Issues & Opportunities:• Potential for future joint/shared arrangements

since the Government Offices for the Regions may play a part in the future arrangements of other emergency services.

• Regions in England have been based on the Government Offices for the Regions reflecting Government policy on regional boundaries set out in the regional White Paper.

• It is recognised that Wales is not within the scope of the Government Offices of the Regions, although it has been included in theanalysis contained in this report. An optimal solution for Wales would be one control room, resulting in 10 control rooms throughout England and Wales, including London.

10 The involvement of brigades can be implicit in the implementation by following a similar approach to Firelink.

16

17

5.3.3 Sub-Regional Controls – 30,000 Threshold (18)11

Positive:• Scale and borders mean a shared or joint

arrangement is possible with other emergency services.

• Sub-regional controls represents the least disruption of all Vertical models and thereforeoffers the least resistance to implementation.

• Maintains stronger links between brigades and control.

Negative:• Less able to provide regional/national

response capability. • May maintain some diversity between

brigades since would retain differences between brigades.

• Limited impetus for changes in working practices.

• Management based on a local structure, maybe source of contention between brigades.

Barriers to Implementation:• Management arrangements between

brigades may be difficult to deliver.

Issues & Opportunities:• Invest to Save Projects can coexist relatively

easily within this model.

FIGURE 5-2 SUMMARY CAPITAL/ONE OFF COSTS

5.4 Cost Analysis The cost model used in the original report has beenupdated and developed to provide a tool to identifypotential costs and savings arising from variousamalgamation scenarios.

i) One Off/Capital CostsThe table below summarises the expected oneoff/capital costs anticipated over the 10 year life of the project.

The table shows that although the total costs of ‘DoMinimum’ and the first two amalgamation options arebroadly similar there is a fundamental differencebetween the breakdown of these costs. Analysisestimates that the cost of upgrading the systems ofeach of the existing 49 controls once over the 10 yearperiod is significantly in excess of similar costs associatedwith building new controls. Systems costs reduce as the scale of amalgamation increases.

ii) Staff Costs and Other Ongoing SavingsThe most significant savings from amalgamation resultfrom staff savings. This analysis uses efficiency levelsof existing arrangements to predict the likely costs ofoperating larger controls in the future.

11 Excluding London and ISBs

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Do Minimum 30,000 Threshold Regional Supra

£ m

illio

ns

Building Costs System Costs Project Management Costs Redundancy Costs

Vertical Integration

Do Minimum 30,000 Threshold ‘Regional’ 3 ‘Supra Controls’Non-staff ongoing savings £1m £2.4m £3.3m £4.1mNet Staff Savings per annum * £0m £11.6m £18.2m £19.9m Approximate Reductions in FTE 0 365 570 625

Ongoing Savings

The following table summarises potential annualsavings for the different Vertical Integration options,splitting them down into staff savings and other non-staff related costs (largely maintenance and telephonycharges).

TABLE 5-3 ONGOING SAVINGS

5.4.1 Results of Costing The Table below shows the Net Present Value (NPV) of each option. (Negative values indicate costs positivevalues indicate savings.)

FIGURE 5-3 NPV SUMMARY

* the figures in this table exclude allowance foradditional staff required for non-core work estimated at 40fte (£1.4m per annum)

note: existing staff levels is 1,357 fte.

(Note that these NPVs have been constructed tofacilitate evaluation of the options only and do notrepresent expected cash flows over the life of theproject).

18

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

Do Minimum 30 000 Threshold Regional Supra

NP

V (

£m

)

19

This gives the ranking of options according to NPV asshown below.

TABLE 5-4 NPV RANKING

It can be seen from Table 5-4 that as the scale ofamalgamation increases so do the financial benefits.From a financial perspective the ‘Supra’ control optionis the preferred option followed by the ‘Regional’ option.

The analysis contained within this report has beenparticularly cautious when predicting expectedredundancy costs. However, we believe that with soundplanning and effective management of the issues,higher levels of redeployment and retirement arepossible, reducing redundancy payments for all options by about 30%. This would result in the

TABLE 5-5 NPVS AFTER REVISED REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS

following revised NPVs showing the amalgamatedoptions as producing even greater benefits thanoriginally envisaged.

A range of sensitivity analyses has been undertakendemonstrating the robustness of the two preferredoptions. In the event of reduced numbers of incidentsresulting from adoption of Integrated Risk Management,the financial drive towards change becomes stronger asthe move towards amalgamated controls allows forincreased efficiencies.

Vertical Integration

Do Minimum 30,000 Threshold ‘Regional’ 3 ‘Supra Controls’NPV (£m) (£72m) £0m £43m £85mRank 4 3 2 1

NPV Ranking

Vertical Integration

Do Minimum 30,000 Threshold ‘Regional’ 3 ‘Supra Controls’NPV (£m) (£72m) £6m £51m £93m

NPVs after Revised Redundancy Payments

5.4.2 Costing ConclusionDespite adopting a prudent approach to cost andsavings estimates for the ‘change’ options the differencebetween the NPV of the ‘Do Minimum’ option comparedto the ‘Regional’ or ‘Supra’ options is highly significant.

The analysis shows that the costs associated withestablishing and continuing to operate fewer (but larger) control rooms is less than the costs ofmaintaining and upgrading control rooms in the existingarrangement. Combining this with staff savings resultingfrom increasing economies of scale the analysisconcludes that amalgamating control rooms to either‘Supra’ or ‘Regional’ level is likely to result in the freeingup of major capital and revenue funds within the fireand rescue service over the 10 year period and beyond.

5.5 ConclusionOverall, the results of the analyses stronglydemonstrate that a regional approach is the optimumsolution for the future of fire and rescue service controlrooms in England and Wales. This would secure andmaximise the realisable efficiency gains, whilst enablingfire and rescue services to work effectively together toprovide a local, regional or national response toincidents of any scale and complexity.

The Government Offices for the Regions have beenselected as an appropriate configuration that will realise maximum gain with the minimum barriers toimplementation. It will also simplify issues such asfunding, ownership and accountability. Regional controlrooms would realise significant savings in on-goingcosts (in the region of £20 million per annum) whilstproviding a critical opportunity for future organisationaldevelopment.

Whilst it is recognised that Wales is not within thescope of the Government Offices for the Regions, it is considered that it should be included in the nationalstrategy. The optimum arrangement would include onecontrol room for Wales.

20

21

This report concludes that the optimum solution tosecure efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of fire and rescue service control rooms to meet therequirements of the changed environment is throughVertical Integration to form a regional arrangement. It is considered that the most appropriate regionalconfiguration in England would be one matched toGovernment Offices for the Regions. In Wales the optimum solution is one control room.

A national strategy with appropriate statutory authorityand funding will be required to deliver regional controlrooms to ensure a cohesive outcome and deliver thebenefits identified.

It is recommended that

The Government initiate a national strategy toreduce the number of fire service control rooms by means of fire-fire amalgamation to form regionalcontrols matched to the Government Offices of the Regions12.

6.1 A National ApproachA national approach will be required to deliver thestrategy and should include;

• Central direction, statutory authority and funding.

• User Engagement.• Integration of the ISBs.• Common Systems.• Open interfaces to the other services. • Synchronisation with other fire and rescue

service initiatives (in particular Firelink).

6.2 ImplementationIt is recommended that in order to deliver the nationalstrategy, whilst matching it with other initiatives such asFirelink, early and firm decisions on the way forward arerequired.

Further and urgent investigation will be required todetermine the optimum location of the regional controls,management arrangements, funding arrangements,operational implications and detailed implementationstrategy.

It is considered that this work should commenceimmediately to maintain momentum and ensuresuccess.

6.3 Longer TermIn the longer term, the introduction of regional fire andrescue control rooms would make joint emergencyservice control rooms realisable.

12 Whilst Wales is not within the scope of the Government Offices for the Regions, it has been included in this report and is considered a separate entity in its own right. An optimum solution would include one control for Wales, integrated within a national strategy.

6 Conclusion & Recommendations

Regional Fire and Rescue Service Control Rooms13

Indicative number of incidents in thousands

REGIONAL AUTHORITIES

13 Whilst Cleveland, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire (ISBs) appear in this map, they were considered as separate entities and have therefore not been included in the analyses contained in this report.

22

Northumberland

Durham

Tyne & Wear

ClevelandCumbria

NorthYorkshire

WestYorkshire

Lancs

SouthYorkshire

GreaterMancs

Merseyside

North Wales

Cheshire Derbyshire

Notts

Stafford-shire

WMidlands

Shrop-shire

Hereford &Worcester

Warwick-shire

Lincolnshire

LeicestershireNorfolk

SuffolkCambs

EssexHerts

Beds

Bucks

Northamp-tonshire

Oxford-shire

Gloucester-shire

Mid & WestWales

South Wales

AvonWilts

Somerset

Devon

Cornwall

Dorset

Hampshire

Berkshire

Surrey Kent

Isle of Wight

WestSussex

EastSussex

GreaterLondon

Humberside

145

59

96

75

58

93

62

77

129 176

Printed on paper that is 50% recycled and 50% from renewable sources

Crown Copyright Reserved

The Fire and Rescue Service and Fire Authorities may copy this document without further permission