The incident demonstrated the strength and maturity of the Local Resilience Forum (LRF), with effective multi-agency engagement, timely activation of Response to Major and Critical Incidents (RMCI) arrangements, and sustained partner commitment enabling a coordinated and resilient response throughout.

RMCI arrangements are North Yorkshire’s locally agreed framework for managing major and critical incidents. They set out how agencies notify, escalate and coordinate a response through defined structures such as the Tactical Coordinating Group (TCG) and Strategic Coordinating Group (SCG), reflecting Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Principles (JESIP) and supporting shared situational awareness, joint decision making and effective multi-agency working. Decision-making within these forums was, in the main, collaborative in nature, with outcomes reflecting collective ownership and shared accountability across agencies.

The response was further supported by the establishment of a number of specialist multiagency cells, which added capacity, coordination and subject matter expertise:

• Communications Cell
• Evacuation and Shelter Cell
• Scientific, Technical and Advice Cell
• Logistics Cell
• Multi Agency Information Cell (MAIC)
• Vulnerable Persons and Humanitarian Assistance Cell

The scale, pace and duration of the incident highlighted opportunities to further strengthen arrangements for complex and prolonged events, particularly in maintaining a clear distinction between strategic intent and tactical delivery.

At times, this distinction became less clear, with elements of tactical discussion emerging within strategic forums. While this reflected strong engagement and a shared desire to resolve issues, it created a risk of strategic groups becoming drawn into operational matters. This may, in part, have reflected variations in how information and decisions were communicated within individual organisations, leading to requests for clarification or discussion at a strategic level. Maintaining clear role boundaries, supported by JESIP principles, remains important, with operational tactics led on the ground, TCG coordinating activity, and SCG focused on setting strategic direction and parameters.

Attendance at SCG and TCG meetings was consistently high, with up to 40 participants at times. This ensured strong representation and supported collaboration, challenge and shared understanding. However, levels of contribution varied, highlighting an opportunity to reinforce expectations around active engagement. All partners should feel confident to contribute, offer challenge and play a full role in collective decision-making. It is important that the SCG is understood to operate through shared, joint decisions. Where partners have the opportunity to contribute at the time, there should be a shared understanding that decisions are owned collectively going forward.

The incident also highlighted the importance of maintaining a proportionate and sustainable battle rhythm. At times, the frequency of meetings and the volume of information requests reduced the time available to implement agreed actions on the ground. This was particularly evident during periods of rapid escalation and reflects the inherent lag in situational awareness between on scene, tactical and strategic levels.

As the battle rhythm adapted and relaxed, it reduced pressure on command functions and supported more effective delivery. Continued emphasis on aligning meeting cadence, purpose and information requirements to risk and operational need will support both coordination and delivery. Consideration of organisational capacity and the cumulative impact of concurrent demands across partner agencies will further support effective decision making and system resilience during prolonged incidents.

It was also evident that a number of agencies not routinely involved in the LRF had limited familiarity with JESIP principles. Enhancing awareness and preparedness for these partners will help ensure consistent integration into established command, control and coordination arrangements in future incidents.

The response benefited from strong partnership working, including positive operational input from landowners. There is, however, an opportunity to further clarify expectations at a strategic level, ensuring that all partners understand their roles, contributions and accountabilities within SCG and wider LRF structures.

More broadly, the incident reinforces the importance of ongoing strategic dialogue around land management practices, recognising that wider system decisions can influence operational risk and demand on emergency services.

Overall, LRF arrangements provided a strong foundation for the response. The learning identified reflects the increasing complexity of such incidents and provides a clear opportunity to further strengthen coordination, clarity and resilience across the partnership.

What Worked Well
• Strong and mature LRF response with effective multi-agency engagement
• Timely activation of RMCI arrangements
• High levels of partner commitment throughout a prolonged incident
• Broad representation at coordination groups enabling collaboration,
challenge and shared understanding
• Ability to adapt and establish a more effective battle rhythm as the incident
developed.

Learning Opportunities

• Reinforce clear strategic, tactical, operational roles and accountability
  across all partners through LRF training and exercising
• Strengthen JESIP awareness and multi-agency readiness, ensuring all partners (including non-routine organisations) can operate effectively within command structures
• Ensure disciplined focused meeting cadence and decision-making grounded in system-wide risk.