DMFD129 Community Risk Management Plan 2022

1.1 Report LFC-0558 to the LFC sets out the background for the request to approve expenditure for the LFB to produce a TOM.

1.2 The transformation of LFB initiated through the LFB’s Transformation Delivery Plan (TDP), published in early 2020, created the platform for the longer-term change required to achieve its purpose and vision. It also created the direction of travel for addressing recommendations from Phase One of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, and the 2018-19 inspection report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS). Among the issues raised by these reports were the need to improve the LFB’s strategic planning, project and portfolio management, prioritisation of projects, and alignment with the budget. The development of the Community Risk Management Plan (CRMP) is being undertaken in this context, and the approach LFB officers are taking this time is intended to address issues raised by the Inquiry and HMICFRS.

1.3 As a result, the CRMP will be LFB’s strategy for how it intends to achieve its purpose and its vision over the next five years; and will describe the strategic changes the LFB will make over that time to meet the needs, wants and expectations of the communities it serves. It will also describe how it will mitigate risk in London, as expressed in its Assessment of Risk.

1.4 The publication of an integrated risk-management plan is a requirement of the Fire and Rescue National Framework for England, for every fire and rescue authority. The CRMP is the working title for the new plan; LFB’s existing plan and its previous iterations are known by the title ‘London Safety Plan’ (LSP).

1.5 LFB will work with communities, stakeholders and LFB staff to agree the best way to achieve its purpose and vision; and to produce a coherent, phased programme for change which is specifically designed to deliver the strategic changes to meet the needs, wants and expectations of the public.

1.6 The LFB is proposing to use a full Target Operating Model (TOM) to develop this programme for change. The TOM would comprise a detailed organisation design, or end state, and implementation plans for each of the five years in the CRMP. It would describe the organisation at the end of each year; the services it provides; the ways in which it provides them; and how the organisation functions internally and works with communities and partners to deliver those services. The implementation plans would describe the specific changes that the organisation will make within that year to achieve the design in year five.

1.7 LFB has already produced a high-level TOM in April 2021, which set out the overall strategic shifts required in the organisation. The full TOM will develop the high-level TOM by describing the changes the LFB will take each year over the next five years to achieve its purpose and vision.

1.8 The TOM would provide more detail about of each of the strategic changes already set out in the high-level TOM. It would describe the change required from each of the following areas:

• technology and assets

• data and reporting

• people and organisation

• governance and decisions

• internal business methods and processes

• culture and leadership

• partners and networks.

1.9 This design of the TOM would be scalable, so that it can flex depending on the level of funding available to the organisation. This would allow the implementation plans to be adapted accordingly. This would mean that the TOM would inform where efficiencies could be made while enabling the LFB to achieve its vision.

New approach

2.1 The first step towards the development of the TOM has been the production of a high-level TOM, developed in Q1 of 2021-22. This has enabled the organisation to describe its direction more fully, start developing its service-led strategy and identify the strategic changes the organisation needs to make.

2,2 The new approach will be a marked change from that used to develop previous LSPs, which identified potential areas for improvement within each department or functional area without an overarching vision or end state to work towards. Whilst the goal was to improve services, the absence of a stated vision or purpose made it difficult to assess which improvements were the most important, and to produce a coherent plan for change.

2.3 This constrained the scope of the LFB’s change activities to tactical, incremental improvement. It meant that different areas of the service changed at different speeds, and not necessarily in the same direction.

2.4 In previous LSP consultation exercises, the LFB consulted on a final draft of the LSP. This time the LFB is consulting much earlier in the process and will follow that up with further internal and external engagement to inform the content of the CRMP.

2.5 Having set out its vision for the future, the LFB is engaging much earlier in the process than has previously been the case. This is because it is crucial that it involves the communities it serves in designing its transformation so that it can meet their needs, wants and expectations. It will be equally important that the TOM is developed with input from staff across all parts and all levels of the organisation. The intention is to create a shared vision of what the organisation will become, one that all staff can own and commit to delivering.

Progress to date in delivery of CRMP

2.6 The high-level TOM has delivered the strategic intent and service-led strategy for the organisation for the next five years. Additionally, it has started to allow the LFB to communicate its potential future, its aspirations and what the LFB wants to mean to Londoners.

2.7 The work was completed at pace, in just six weeks, with the support of consultants, who adapted their established methodologies to suit the LFB’s context and meet its needs. Taking their steer from interviews with the LFC, LFB Directors and the Assistant Commissioners with responsibility for front-line service delivery, the consultants helped the LFB survey over 800 Londoners; ran three focused workshops with community groups; held seven intensive design workshops with senior leaders; and involved over 80 members of staff in the development process.

2.8 The results of the survey and workshops were particularly valuable and have informed the development of the strategy. Londoners told the LFB that whilst they have a high degree of trust in it, this appears to be largely based on the reliability of its response service and they have a poor understanding of the broader services it offers. They want the service to be more visible; many people are unaware of the location of their nearest fire station and, of those that do, many consider them to be unwelcoming and inaccessible. People want services to be provided locally and only around half of those surveyed think the LFB understands the diverse needs of London’s communities.

2.9 In light of these views, the LFB has developed its service-led strategy and its four new strategic pillars, which focus on the areas that are key to achieving its vision and replace the existing strategic pillars in the TDP. Within each of these it has identified two areas where a strategic change is needed. The LFB is referring to the purpose, vision, pillars and strategic changes collectively as “Our Direction”.

2.10 The LFB will be asking the public and its staff for their views on how important it is that these areas should inform its strategy as part of the formal consultation it is conducting in September. This consultation will also seek views on its draft Assessment of Risk. The outputs of this consultation will inform the further development of the CRMP.

Next steps for CRMP development

2.11 For the LFB to move to its next stage of transformation, it requires a clear plan that sets out what changes the organisation must make to create a service-led organisation, and a shared understanding of where it is headed that everyone will be able to describe and buy into. This will need to be informed by its understanding of risk, the communities’ views of risk and the services it needs to provide to reduce that risk. This will demonstrate the LFB’s intention to put communities at the centre of what it does and enable them to hold it to account.

2.12 To do this effectively the LFB will need to develop a full TOM. Without it, the LFB will not be able to describe the future state of the organisation, nor what it means to its staff and the public. It will also be difficult to identify the actions it needs to take to deliver the changes the LFB is seeking and reduce risk to the public.

2.13 By way of example, one of the strategic changes identified in the high-level TOM is about providing the right channels for people to access the LFB’s services, taking their needs and circumstances into account. This could involve digitising its services and building on the approach it has taken recently with online home fire safety visits; it could mean increasing the in-person provision of services from fire stations and/or in people’s homes or places of work. There are significant implications for each of these approaches in terms of cost, staff, training, facilities and equipment, so it will be important to identify and agree the way forward.

2.14 The process of defining the organisation the LFB is seeking to become will enable it to: understand the preferences of different communities, the views of its staff, and the benefits and costs of each possible option; and agree its preferred service model.

2.15 These preferences will inform the creation of the detailed implementation plans that describe who will provide those services, and how they will be funded, recruited, trained and supported. It will identify the infrastructure changes required to enable it, and the changes to processes and systems. The TOM will give the LFB a description of what it is aiming to achieve; and from there, it will be able to identify the actions that are needed each year to get us to its goal. Without it, it will not be possible to create a cohesive plan for change.

2.16 In summary, the TOM will aim to deliver:

• the identification of opportunities to improve value for money, especially in public-facing services

• a clearly stepped journey to becoming the organisation Londoners want the LFB to be

• clarity about what changes the LFB can invest in to deliver the vision, and what the LFB can stop

• a clear articulation of the value of each of the LFB’s services, and the most efficient and effective way to deliver them

• an annual implementation plan with clear actions that will be achieved in each year

• a shared understanding with the LFB’s workforce and Londoners of the changes the LFB will deliver

• a framework for future strategic decisions

• a strategy that puts the LFB at the centre of the communities it serves, delivering the services they need, want and expect

• a strategy that earns the trust of London’s diverse communities.

Value for money and return on investment

2.17 The TOM will require significant investment by LFB, as the consultancy costs are anticipated to be between £400,000 and £530,000. LFB officers consider this level of investment to be good value for money for the reasons set out below.

2.18 The TOM will enable the LFB’s decision-makers to identify projects that offer greatest value for money, because it will provide an end state to measure them against. It will provide a greater understanding of the relationships and dependencies between activities to enable the organisation to invest in the right change at the right time, and in the right order, to achieve the LFB’s vision as efficiently and effectively as possible. The TOM will enable the LFB to better support the front-line and enable it to focus its services on those that meet the needs, wants and expectations of the public.

2.19 The TOM will make it possible to align the LFB’s budget to its vision and, in doing so, it will identify areas where efficiencies could be made. It will mean that budget proposals can be assessed against the extent to which they move the Brigade towards delivery of the vision.

2.20 Through a process of cost/benefit analysis, the design and implementation plans included in the new TOM will identify what will change, how it will change, what the benefits will be and how it will feel different to what the LFB does now. This clear articulation of its portfolio of change will allow the Mayor to hold the LFB to account at every stage of its transformation.

2.21 There will be financial benefits arising from the production of the TOM, as it will result in the LFB having a clear path to achieving its vision, with a clearly identified implementation plan. This will allow the Board to optimise investment decisions and align expenditure with its strategic intent.

2.22 The TOM will also identify how the LFB will produce a balanced budget and so it will identify opportunities for savings in the longer term. Published comparators are rare, but LFB officers understand that a similar-sized police force undergoing a large-scale transformation is anticipated to produce a return on investment of 15.4 per cent. It is too early to be certain of the efficiencies that could be generated from this investment. However, as part of developing the value case for the transformation, parameters can be set for its anticipated return on investment.

Options considered

2.23 An options analysis has been undertaken and market research to estimate the potential costs. The options are set out below.

Option 1: produce the CRMP without a TOM

2.24 This option would entail using the high-level TOM and the outputs of the consultation on the LFB’s direction to produce the CRMP. The LFB would produce an action plan as part of the CRMP, similar to those produced for previous LSPs.

2.25 The benefits of this approach are:

• It would meet the requirements of the Fire and Rescue National Framework for England to have an integrated risk management plan.

• Improvement actions would be identified over the life of the strategy that could contribute to delivery of the vision.

• The CRMP could be delivered within existing budgets.

2.26 Concerns about this approach are:

• There would be no clearly defined end state and no pathway to its delivery. Improvements would need to be identified at a departmental level that could demonstrate a contribution to achievement of the vision.

• Without a clearly defined end state, it would not be possible to identify the clear priorities and the order in which those actions must be delivered to enable the LFB to move to its desired state. This would also mean that stakeholders would not have a full implementation plan to hold the LFC to account and give stakeholders confidence that the transformation is both sustainable and achievable within the identified budget and timescales.

• It would mean that the LFB would be unlikely to transform into the organisation that satisfies its stated purpose and vision. This would limit the scope of change to incremental and tactical improvements to the service and the LFB would continue to change in an uncoordinated and incidental way.

• Should financial efficiencies be required during the life of the CRMP, without a TOM, a strategy for delivering reductions in funding would need to be developed separately.

Option 2: develop a team to produce the TOM in-house

2.27 This would entail producing the design and the implementation plans in-house without the support of consultants. This would require additional capacity and skills. Based on the work the LFB has done to create the high-level TOM, it estimates that it would require an additional team of five people: a senior operating model strategist, a senior operating model lead (together: 2 x full unit cost of £130,000) and three operating model analysts (3 x full unit cost of £90,000). The full year-cost of this team is estimated at £530,000.

2.28 The LFB’s experience of working with consultants on the high-level TOM has informed its expectations of the roles that it would require to undertake a full TOM in-house. The LFB would expect that the requirements for strategic insight and expertise in developing target operating models would be greater than that for the high-level TOM, so it has allowed for both senior roles to be full time. In addition, it anticipates a need for more in-depth analysis, hence the creation of three analyst roles. These skills are found largely in the private sector and the LFB would be seeking candidates with private-sector skills and experience of their application in both the private and public sectors. The LFB’s research into the salaries commanded by such strong candidates in this field has informed the costings for these roles.

2.29 This team could be created as a task-and-finish group – in which case, the LFB anticipates needing the team for a full year, allowing three months to produce a full project plan, six months for delivery and three months to finalise the TOM during the approval process. Alternatively, the team could be established on a permanent basis to offer internal consultancy services across the GLA functional bodies. The LFB has not assessed the internal demand for those services, and further work would be necessary to determine the extent to which this would provide value for money.

2.30 The benefits of this approach are that a clearly defined end state would be produced in the light of the results of the consultation, and further engagement with communities and staff. This, together with the supporting implementation plans would inform the development of the CRMP.

2.31 Concerns about this approach are:

• Bringing the team on board would take time. Recruiting the right team with the requisite levels of knowledge and experience is likely to take around six months from the point of budget approval. The LFB cannot be certain of the availability and market rate of staff with the required levels of experience, but it would hope to have the team in place by the beginning of March 2022 with most employed consultants of the right seniority requiring six months’ notice. Additionally, there would be a period of bedding in, understanding the previous work of the high-level TOM and project mobilisation before work on the design and implementation plans could commence.

• This recruitment would require significant input from the small team that is delivering the CRMP. It would redirect resources that would otherwise be focused on supporting the level of internal and external engagement required to inform the CRMP.

• The alternative would be to employ contractors through an agency, though this also comes with additional costs of agency fees and a risk of not being able to obtain the right level of knowledge and experience to deliver such a complex project, retention of agency staff would also be a risk in a growing market. The recruitment process itself would still require significant input.

• In terms of capability, this would be the LFB’s first attempt at producing a TOM and the LFB anticipates it would take more time as a result, meaning that the Brigade would continue to hold greater levels of risk. The lack of internal experience could also mean that it requires several iterations to produce coherent plans. This could in turn, place higher demands than should be necessary from already busy departments. The LFB has assessed that it could have a first draft design by late summer 2022 and implementation plans by the end of that year.

• It would not be possible to replicate the access to the range of capabilities that would be offered by working with a consultancy. It is possible that the LFB would still need to buy in external expertise in specific areas of the design (for example in relation to digital services, technology and innovation), to meet this target date.

• Without the TOM available to inform the CRMP this year, the CRMP would focus on the outputs of the high-level TOM, with no supporting detail about how the strategic changes would be delivered. The implementation plan for the first year of the strategy would set out the steps for designing the future organisation and producing the plans to achieve it. It would also be possible to identify tactical improvement actions at a department level that could take place in the absence of an overall plan for transformation.

• Under this approach LFB would aim to issue a new CRMP in 2022; however it is likely that, once the TOM was complete, LFB would want to issue a revised CRMP to commence from 2023. An alternative approach would be to extend the existing LSP 2017 for a further year and release the first CRMP from April 2023.

• This would provide more time to develop our strategy with the public but would mean that significant transformation will begin from 2023.

Option 3: produce the TOM with support of consultants

2.32 This option would require the LFB to tender for the support of consultants to produce the TOM as a one-off piece of work.

2.33 A clearly defined end state would be produced in the light of the results of the consultation, further engagement with communities and staff. This, together with the implementation plans, would inform the development of the CRMP.

2.34 The benefits of this approach are:

• The advantage of the use of consultants would be to access a breadth and depth of experience that can only be provided by a large consultancy used to delivering this work at pace. This would include a variety of subject-matter experts as and when required to supplement the core delivery team at specific stages of the project.

• The tender would also include a requirement to transfer sufficient knowledge and skills to the LFB to enable us to adapt and revise the design and the plans over the period of delivery, as needed.

• The tender would be issued as soon as possible after budget approval is secured. The appointment of the consultants for the high-level TOM, from issue of the tender to start on site, took six weeks. LFB officers would hope that the work would commence as soon as possible to maximise the information available for the CRMP’s development. It is expected that the work would take between four and five months, so is likely to continue to at least the end of the 2021/22 financial year.

• Careful phasing of the work will be required to provide the LFB with sufficient certainty around the design to be able to produce the CRMP to the existing timetable. Priority will be given to developing a prioritised design and implementation plan that covers the first year of the CRMP. This will allow us to deliver the CRMP on time with a clear plan for high-priority changes and quick wins for the first year, with further work undertaken in the new year to complete the detail for years two, three and four.

• This option reduces the impact on departments and the risks of abortive work that could result from option 2, as the consultants will be expected to enable the LFB to get it right first time and to bear the brunt of the work.

2.35 Concerns about this approach are:

• The tender process will need to be rigorous and also completed quickly so that the consultants could be brought on board in time to meet deadlines. LFB officers intend to follow the proven approach taken in tendering for the high-level TOM work to reduce this risk.

• It would be crucial to select consultants who are a good fit with the organisation and can work from the existing starting point of the high-level TOM. This would be included as a requirement within the tender specification.

• Delivering the work at pace could have an impact on departments’ other work and the tender will require bidders to describe the steps they will take to minimise that impact.

Recommended option

2.36 The third option is recommended.

2.37 The LFB’s journey so far in delivering the TDP, and its learning from the development of its high-level TOM, have enabled it to begin to understand the scale of the transformation required for it to fulfil its purpose, deliver its vision and become the organisation Londoners want us to be.

2.38 Officers had hoped that it would be possible to develop the full TOM in-house without the need for additional resources, but it became apparent through working with the consultants on the high-level TOM that the organisation has not yet developed the capability and capacity required to take the work to the final stage. Completion of the high-level TOM demonstrated the benefits that could be achieved from producing a full TOM, which is now the recommended next step.

2.39 To enable LFB to sustain this scale of change and momentum, it is seeking approval for additional one-off expenditure of £400,000 to procure strategic consultancy services to deliver the next stage of the TOM development. LFB officers recognise the challenges that such a level of investment and consultancy spend may raise. However, it is considered to offer better value than creating the recurring cost that would arise from establishing a permanent team, given that this is a task-and-finish piece of work.

2.40 This will allow the LFB to accelerate its transformation by designing the future organisation it is seeking to become, and the implementation plans to deliver it. It will also ensure that the LFB becomes the sector leader in the UK fire and rescue service and is held to account by its key stakeholders.

2.41 This sum is based on the results of market testing and on the level of investment in consultancy support (£122,000) that was required for the high-level TOM. This decision was taken by the Director of Transformation in accordance with the LFB’s Scheme of Governance. The LFB has spoken to a number of consultancies to understand the work involved and the likely timescales. It has taken a cautious approach to the estimate, providing some risk tolerance, and it understands that work will provide the information necessary to develop the CRMP and its supporting plans. Specifically, it expects to:

• produce a TOM, that is, a detailed description of the organisation and the services it provides for each year of its five-year strategy

• produce implementation plans that set out the actions it will take to reach each annual phase of the change

• produce a value case for change setting out the deliverable benefits and improvements to productivity that will result in better value for Londoners

• enable knowledge transfer, that is, the development of the current strategy and planning team to upskill them in long-term strategy development and transformation processes.

2.42 The funding can be provided from unspent monies within the LSP reserve, which was established to support the implementation of the previous LSP. The reserve has a remaining balance of £2,700,000 and it is proposed that this reserve is transferred into a new CRMP reserve to support the preparation and implementation of the new plan. LFB officers acknowledge that this level of expenditure in the plan itself is significant and consider it to be worthwhile as it will enable the LFB to better prioritise and align its budget to those activities which will achieve the vision and deliver services that meet the needs, wants and expectations of the public.

2.43 The LFB has sought to benchmark its proposals for investment in transformation. Whilst it has been unable to find much comparative information on costs, it is clear that many public-sector organisations have taken this approach to transformation. Some, including the Metropolitan Police Service, the National Crime Agency and West Midlands Police, have even entered long-term partnerships with consultants to support them through both the development and the delivery of their TOM. Scottish Fire also used consultants to assure them on their transformation and portfolio of work.

2.44 The capability building in portfolio, programme and project management; business change; continuous improvement; and business assurance that is already being developed by the Transformation Directorate will enable it to deliver the CRMP in a controlled and sustainable way. However, these are different and very specialist skills to those that are needed to develop the end state design and detailed implementation plans, which is why the LFB is seeking consultancy support for the work.

2.45 The LFB will require an outline project plan as part of the tender submission and full project plan to be delivered during the start-up phase of the work once the tender is awarded. It knows that these timescales are tight; however, it has delivered under such time pressures before, with the high-level TOM being delivered in six weeks, within budget and to the required standard. The LFB is therefore confident that it can do this again with the next stage of the development of its long-term strategy.

Procurement and timing

2.46 To achieve value for money from the contract, the tender process will take a similar approach to that for the high-level TOM.

2.47 Collaborative procurement through the GLA has been explored by the LFB’s Procurement department and is not an option in this instance. Instead, this requirement will be procured through the Crown Commercial Service Management Consultancy framework – Lot 4, which includes an extensive list of suppliers that can support our service requirement ensuring competition from a range of large and small suppliers.

2.48 This is the framework through which the LFB secured the consultants for the high-level TOM. The LFB generated a significant amount of early interest by holding a breakfast briefing for bidders prior to the launch of the tender. This provided a platform for it to ensure its requirements were properly understood by the bidders and to encourage submissions from appropriate suppliers. This enabled tenderers to produce bids that were more tailored to its specific needs and meant that the successful tenderers were able to start on site within a week of their appointment.

2.49 Tenderers will be required to demonstrate how their work will inform the CRMP that will be published in April 2022. The CRMP will be written towards the end of November/December 2021 to ensure sufficient time for the governance processes of scrutiny and approval. As the work to produce the whole TOM and the implementation plans for each of the five years is expected to take between four and five months, tenderers will need to produce a schedule of work that produces the necessary input for the CRMP itself and the implementation plan for the first year of the plan to meet this timetable.

3.1 The LFC and the Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience are required to have due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (section 149 of the Equality Act 2010) when taking decisions. This in broad terms involves understanding the potential impact of policy and decisions on different people, taking this into account and then evidencing how decisions were reached.

3.2 It is important to note that consideration of the Public Sector Equality Duty is not a one-off task. The duty must be fulfilled before taking a decision, at the time of taking a decision, and after the decision has been taken.

3.3 The protected characteristics are: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, marriage and civil partnership (but only in respect of the requirements to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination), race (ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality), religion or belief (including lack of belief), sex, and sexual orientation.

3.4 The Public Sector Equality Duty requires decision-takers in the exercise of all their functions, to have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other prohibited conduct

• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it

• foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

3.5 Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to:

• remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic where those disadvantages are connected to that characteristic

• take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it

• encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.

3.6 The steps involved in meeting the needs of disabled persons that are different from the needs of persons who are not disabled include, in particular, steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities.

3.7 Having due regard to the need to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to:

• tackle prejudice

• promote understanding.

3.8 The recommendations set out in this paper aim to ensure that the LFB meets its legal duty set out in the Equality Act 2010 and Public Sector Equality Duty through a number of means.

• Firstly, through engaging with the public in the development of the TOM and the CRMP, the LFB expects to gain a stronger understanding of the needs, wants and expectations of the people it serves and in particular, will seek to give voice to under-represented and seldom heard communities in the LFB’s engagement.

• Secondly, by engaging directly with LFB staff, and also the staff networks and trades unions, to ensure their perspectives are included in the TOM.

• Thirdly, both the CRMP and the TOM will be developed within the framework of the Togetherness Strategy with the intention of eliminating discrimination, unfairness and inequality in the services we offer and within the LFB itself.

3.9 The Equalities Impact analysis that is being used to support and inform the development of the CRMP is appended to LFC-0558.

Workforce comments

4.1 There has been no specific workforce consultation on this proposal, although workforce consultation has been central to the development of the CRMP and the TOM to date and this will continue throughout the project.

Sustainability implications

4.2 Consideration of other responsible procurement requirements will be undertaken as standard process as part of the tender. This includes ensuring suppliers are compliant with the Modern Slavery Act, with a published statement.

4.3 The LFB Procurement team is involved with the development of this tender, and the Sustainability team is considering the requirements for the sustainability impact assessment for the CRMP.

5.1 This report recommends that revenue expenditure is approved of £400,000 to support development of the CRMP 2022. This expenditure is expected to be in the 2021-22 financial year but some may be incurred in early 2022-23.

5.2 The cost will be funded from the LSP reserve, which was established to support the implementation of the previous LSP. The reserve has a remaining balance of £2,700,000; it is proposed that this reserve is transferred into a new CRMP reserve to support the preparation and implementation of the new plan.

5.3 There are no direct financial implications for the GLA.

6.1 Under section 9 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017, the LFC is established as a corporation sole with the Mayor appointing the occupant of that office. Under section 327D of the GLA Act 1999, as amended by the Policing and Crime Act 2017, the Mayor may issue to the Commissioner specific or general directions as to the manner in which the holder of that office is to exercise his or her functions.

6.2 By direction dated 1 April 2018, the Mayor set out those matters, for which the LFC would require the prior approval of either the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience (the Deputy Mayor).

6.3 Paragraph (b) of Part 2 of the said direction requires the LFC to seek the prior approval of the Deputy Mayor before “[a] commitment to expenditure (capital or revenue) of £150,000 or above as identified in accordance with normal accounting practices…”.

6.4 The Deputy Mayor's approval is accordingly required for the LFC to commit the revenue expenditure requested in this report.

6.5 The production of the CRMP is a requirement of the National Framework issued by the Secretary of State under section 21 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. Section 21(7) of the Act requires the Commissioner to have regard to the Framework in carrying out their functions.

6.6 The value of the proposed procurement will require that any procurement activity is undertaken in compliance with the LFC’s Standing Orders Relating to Procurement and the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. The LFC General Counsel confirms the proposed procurement routes set out in this report would be compliant with these requirements

• Report LFC-0558 – Development of the Community Risk Management Plan 2022