ÖйúPÕ¾

Summary

This executive summary outlines the key findings from the 2025 Community Risk Profile (CRP), highlighting both ongoing and emerging risks that inform the Community Risk Management Plan (CRMP). The analysis confirms that the trends identified in 2023 remain relevant, with no significant shifts in risk patterns.

People-related risks focus on vulnerable populations, particularly older adults, individuals with mobility or mental health issues, and those who live alone or smoke. These groups are more susceptible to accidental dwelling fires, which remain a significant concern despite a general decline in fire incidents. The presence of working smoke alarms continues to be a critical factor in reducing fatalities.

Place-based risks include Road Traffic Collisions (RTCs), wildfires, and flooding. ÖйúPÕ¾’s extensive road network, including major motorways like the M25, experiences a high volume of traffic and associated RTCs, especially involving younger drivers. Wildfires are increasingly likely due to climate change, particularly in the northwest and west of the county, while fluvial and surface water flooding also pose threats to tens of thousands of households, especially in northern boroughs.

Premises risks are primarily associated with commercial buildings, high-rise structures, and heritage sites. New businesses and buildings with overnight occupancy or vulnerable populations are at higher risk of fire. High-rise buildings require specialised firefighting strategies, and heritage sites present unique challenges due to their construction and cultural value.

Product-related risks stem from both the misuse of everyday items (such as cooking appliances and candles) and faulty or emerging technologies (such as lithium-ion batteries and electric vehicles). The proliferation of new energy technologies and alternative-fuel vehicles introduces complex risks that demand updated response strategies.

Introduction

Welcome to ÖйúPÕ¾ Fire and Rescue Service’s Community Risk Profile (CRP). As part of ÖйúPÕ¾, we are committed to safeguarding our communities.

The Fire and Rescue Services (FRS) Act of 2004 mandates our fire and rescue service to:

• Protect life and property during fires within our region.
• Extinguish fires within our area.
• Rescue and protect individuals involved in road traffic collisions.
• Respond to other emergencies as needed.

These additional emergencies may include, but are not limited to:

• Natural disasters, such as flooding.
• Incidents related to terrorism.
• Hazardous materials incidents.
• Transportation-related emergencies.National emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.Our CRP assesses the risks faced by communities in ÖйúPÕ¾.

By analysing available data, we gain insights into potential threats. Fires, floods, and other emergencies can have devastating consequences for individuals, businesses, and communities. Understanding these risks allows us to allocate resources effectively and minimise the impact of incidents. Our efforts align with ÖйúPÕ¾’s vision of: “No one left behind”. In assessing risk, we consider various factors, both obvious and less apparent. The CRP incorporates data on population, past incidents, the natural environment, and local buildings. We identify trends and predict future challenges, such as demographic changes. As we review the CRP, we explain the use of specific information and its implications for risk. The impact may affect ÖйúPÕ¾ residents, passersby, or our own ÖйúPÕ¾ Fire and Rescue Service staff.

While data analysis evolves over time, we commit to annual reviews and updates of this document. It’s important to note that the CRP does not include information on how we manage the risks identified; for that, we rely on our Community Risk Management Plan, our strategies, which outlines prevention, protection, and response activities to reduce risk for both firefighters and communities.

This CRP is updated annually and has been updated following the release of new data since April 2025.

Methodology and data sources

Identifying risk levels involves various methodologies tailored to specific scenarios. For example, the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) has developed an approach specifically for identifying and weighting risks in relation to accidental dwelling fires and for identifying roads at higher risk of Road Traffic Collisions (RTCs). The Service also has a well-established methodology for assessing the risk levels of business premises.

In upcoming chapters, we will define these methodologies in more detail and their application to relevant risk types.

Types of risk

We allocate risks in ÖйúPÕ¾ to one of four major categories (as visualised in the picture below)

• People: These risks are associated with specific characteristics of individuals. For example, different age groups may face varying fire risks. Mobility levels, people with limited mobility may have specific risks. Smoking habits, smokers face unique fire hazards
• Places: These risks relate to features in the built and natural environment. For example, some roads are more prone to road traffic collisions or land with housing developments, certain areas are more susceptible to flooding
• Premises: These risks are tied to specific features within buildings or sites. For example, non-domestic premises with on-site sleeping facilities have a higher risk due to potential fire incidents. High-rise developments, risks related to safe exit and building access. Heritage sites, valuable in terms of both fabric and contents
• Products: Risks arising as a result of the following - New product developments: Unique risk profiles or recalls (for example, overheating mobile phones, faulty tumble dryers). Existing products: Hazards if not used with care (for example, candles, cigarettes).

Data sources

Risk assessments rely on a combination of historical incident data and information about other contributing factors. By analysing past patterns, we can predict future likelihood. Additionally, identifying known risk factors, preferably at a localised level, helps identify potential incident locations. For a comprehensive list of our data sources, please refer to our documentation in Appendix 1.

Some of our data sources, maps and figures refer to fire station callsigns rather than locations. These are listed in Appendix 2.

Ordnance Survey mapping and data have been used throughout the document and is copyrighted accordingly. The full copyright notice is in Appendix 3.

People risks

When we refer to “people risks,” we are addressing the danger individuals face from fires, especially accidental fires within their homes. These incidents can significantly impact both their physical well-being and their material possessions. In addition, this section also considers the risk of deliberate fires.

The Home Office collects data from every Fire and Rescue Service in England and Wales on a range of incidents including dwelling fires. When we compare the number of dwelling fires per 1000 people with those reported by other services, ÖйúPÕ¾ (0.36) is below the England average (0.44) for 2023/24. In 2002 the number of primary dwelling fires in ÖйúPÕ¾ was 1.5 fires per 1,000 dwellings; in 2024 it had reduced to 0.9 dwelling fires per 1,000 dwellings.

Understanding people’s vulnerability to fire involves considering factors such as age and health. We therefore look at data about the population of ÖйúPÕ¾ to assess risk. In this section we examine the population of ÖйúPÕ¾, where people live, who is vulnerable to a fire, what are the main causes of a fire in a home and where those vulnerable to a fire live.

The population of ÖйúPÕ¾ and where people live

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates the population of ÖйúPÕ¾ was around 1.23 million in 2023, a 2% increase on the last 2021 Census and roughly the same rate of population growth as England as a whole. According to the 2021 Census, there were approximately 481,000 households in ÖйúPÕ¾.

provide a general summary of 2021 Census data specific to ÖйúPÕ¾. The ONS has also published an .

Understanding where people live in ÖйúPÕ¾ is crucial for effective prevention efforts and timely incident response. By strategically positioning our resources, we can better serve the community.

The largest local authorities within ÖйúPÕ¾ by population from the 2023 ONS estimates are Reigate and Banstead (156,000) and Guildford (149,000). Epsom and Ewell (82,000) is the smallest by population, but it is the most densely populated with an average of over 2,300 people per square kilometre of land.

The highest concentration of domestic dwellings is found around larger towns and villages, particularly in the northern part of the county and towards London.

ÖйúPÕ¾ has an increasingly diverse population. In 2021, 17.9% of ÖйúPÕ¾ residents were born outside of the United Kingdom (UK), compared with 14.2% a decade before. Within ÖйúPÕ¾, there is variation across boroughs, with around 1 in 4 Woking residents being non-UK born compared to around 1 in 10 in Tandridge. There is no evidence that country of birth impacts on incident risk.

People vulnerable to a fire

When examining historic fatal fires, several factors significantly impact an individual’s vulnerability to fire and the risk of injury or death during such incidents. These factors include:

• Smokes in their home.
• Is 65 or older.
• Lives alone.
• Having limited mobility, a hearing impairment or is blind or partially sighted.
• Would have difficulty responding to, or escaping from, a fire.
• Has had a fire previously or shows signs of burns or scorching in the home.
• Has learning disabilities.
• Is supported by family, carers and friends.
• Shows signs of neglect or abuse by others.
• Has a mental health condition such as dementia or depression.
• Has drug or alcohol dependencies.
• Lack of smoke alarms in all areas where a fire might start.
• Collects or hoards in their home.
• Shares a home with a child or young person who sets fires.

The number of domestic dwelling fire fatalities in ÖйúPÕ¾ every year is very low compared to other Fire Services; between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2025 fires resulted in the deaths of 3 people (3 separate fire incidents). All these deaths were accidental.

The following characteristics tend to occur more in people aged over 65: living alone; unable to self-care; having a limiting long-term illness; and potentially having dementia. An increase in the number of residents aged over 65 is expected and this will also increase the number of people with one or more of those other characteristics. In ÖйúPÕ¾, in around 50% of all one-person households, the person is over 65. In 2035, ONS estimates suggest this figure will be around 58%.

People with illness and other mobility issues may find it harder to self-rescue and may suffer from slips, trips and falls. At a national level, around 1 in 6 of the adult population live with a major illness and this is expected to increase to 1 in 5 by 2040.

Poor mental health also is a contributory factor to fire deaths. Those with dementia may be more at risk of causing accidental fires and may be less able to self-rescue or respond to smoke alarms. Dementia is an increasingly prevalent condition, and one that is expected to rise. The number of people living in ÖйúPÕ¾ with dementia in 2025 is estimated to be around 21,000 and this will likely increase as the population continues to age.

A Home Office report using data from April 2023 to March 2024, found that the fire-related fatality rate per million is higher for men and older people. For men aged 65-79 the fatality rate was 9.6 per million population, while the equivalent rate for women was 5.1 per million. For those aged 80 and over, the rate for men was 14.4 per million and for women 8.4 per million. This compares to the ‘all age’ rates of 5.6 per million for men and 2.5 per million for women. The same report states that someone is 12 times more likely to die in a fire if there is no working smoke alarm in their home.

For younger residents (18 to 24), common mental disorders, physical and learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorders are factors that increase their vulnerability to fire. While the picture is complex, the prevalence of mental health diagnoses among young people is a growing concern.

Causes of fire in the home

According to Home Office statistics, in 2023/24 the most common ignition source of accidental dwelling fires in England was cooking appliances, which accounted for 44% of fires but only 6% of fire-related fatalities. Smoking materials were the ignition source in only 7% of all accidental dwelling fires but were involved in 25% of fire fatalities.

Smoking is a high-risk factor in causing fires. Looking at both ÖйúPÕ¾ and the national picture, the percentage of adults who smoke has declined since 2011. The percentage of adult smokers was around 20% in 2011 and steadily declining to around 11% in 2023. For ÖйúPÕ¾, the equivalent percentages are 15% and 7%. This may be correlated with an increase in the use of e-cigarettes or ‘vapes’. At a national level, around 6% of adults in Great Britain (GB) reported using e-cigarettes daily in 2023.

Types of dwelling and their construction

Multiple factors influence the risk of a dwelling fire and we cannot establish a causal link using this data. However, we can observe the highest share (12%) of accidental dwelling fires between 2019/20 and 2023/24 in England occurred in houses with a couple with dependent children.

When reviewing the data by dwelling type, the highest share of accidental dwelling fires occur in these combinations:

• Lone persons over pensionable age in ‘other buildings’ or bungalows
• Three or more adults under personable age, with no children, in multiple occupancy homes
• Lone persons under pensionable age in converted flat/maisonette

This does not prove causation and may be driven by the prevalence of these combinations of living arrangements.

Smoke alarms and dwelling fire damage

Smoke alarms play a crucial role in reducing fire-related deaths and injuries. Properly installed and maintained smoke alarms provide early warnings, allowing occupants to exit quickly. Since April 2010, in fires where no significant damage occurred, functioning smoke alarms were present in the home about half the time. However, for fires that caused extensive damage (such as affecting the whole building or more than two floors), functioning smoke alarms were present in only 18% of cases.

Assessing the risk of dwelling fires in ÖйúPÕ¾

Most dwelling fires are accidental. Between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2025, there were 2,366 accidental dwelling fires in ÖйúPÕ¾—an average of 470 incidents per year. During the same period, there were an average of 20 deliberate dwelling fires per year (94 in total), indicating that deliberate fires are relatively rare. These include fires intentionally set to harm others or initiated by the victims themselves.

The more we know about where domestic dwelling fires are likely to happen, the better we can target our resources to prevent them or minimise their impact. Several models and methodologies allow us to predict which areas and individual houses are most at risk of a dwelling fire. (A dwelling refers to any permanent domestic housing structure but does not include other types of sleeping accommodation such as nursing homes, boarding schools or hotels.)

Fires in the home and work location trends

The COVID-19 pandemic and associated measures, including lockdowns, created a shift in work locations. Before the pandemic, around 12% of the workforce worked from home at least part of the week. During the pandemic, this figure rose significantly, according to the Office for National Statistics’ Opinion and Lifestyle Survey.

The percentage of people working from home has remained higher than pre-pandemic levels. As of March 2025, 40% of people said they worked from home all or some of the time in the last week. While this increase in home working may lead to a change in the location of premises and electricity use, there is no evidence linking it to an increase in home fires.

NFCC National Risk methodology for UK Fire and Rescue Services - Domestic dwelling fires

The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) developed a risk methodology to identify at-risk homes within communities using publicly available data. This methodology assigns a risk score to each home by assessing both likelihood and consequence of a fire. The likelihood score represents the probability of a fire occurring, while the consequence score reflects the extent of damage, injury, or death resulting from a fire. Factors such as property age, type, ownership, and various measures of deprivation are considered.

The NFCC's model uses data from sources like the Incident Reporting System (IRS), Census 2021, and the Indices of Deprivation. We have applied this model to premises in ÖйúPÕ¾ to give every domestic home a likelihood score and a consequence score, which are combined to give an overall risk score. The top 5% of these scores are considered 'very high' risk. This does not imply these homes are inherently dangerous, thankfully dwelling fires remain a rare event, but simply that properties with similar characteristics tend to experience more fires.

Generally, there is a greater number of very high-risk homes in more populated areas such as towns and cities, due to more people living in these areas. Urban areas also tend to have greater levels of deprivation and more people living in socially rented accommodation or flats, which are some of the factors known to influence the risk of a fire. Although rural areas have a lower population density, we acknowledge very high-risk homes are located across the whole county, including in some of the more remote areas

Results show that the model effectively identifies risky homes: the top 5% of high-risk homes accounted for 12% of dwelling fires over the past five years. In contrast, very low and low-risk homes make up 60% of properties but accounted for only 48% of fires during the same period. However, some properties that experienced fires were not identified as high risk, highlighting the complexity of predicting fire locations due to factors such as human behaviour and unforeseen events.

Relying solely on publicly available data has its limitations. While we lack insight into individual vulnerability factors and behaviours that could impact fire risk, exploring additional relevant data sources may provide valuable insights and improve the accuracy of our risk assessments.

Deliberate fires

Although most fires are an accident, some are started deliberately. Many of these incidents are outdoors, for example, bin fires or setting fire to vehicles. In ÖйúPÕ¾, Home Office data suggests that around 1 in 20 dwelling fires in the last 5 years was set deliberately.

When comparing our incident rate for all types of primary fire with those of other Fire and Rescue Services, we have fewer deliberate fires than the national average: an average of 0.5 incidents per 1,000 people in ÖйúPÕ¾ compared to the England average of 1.2 incidents per 1,000 people between 2019/20 and 2023/24.

Conclusion

The number of annual dwelling fires ÖйúPÕ¾ experiences has been broadly stable since 2018. Although there appears to be a slight downward trend since 2010, analysis shows this is not statistically significant. One reason could be that the population of ÖйúPÕ¾ has grown during this time and is forecast to continue growing. While we have seen a decline in factors correlated with fire, such as smoking status, ÖйúPÕ¾ has a significant proportion of residents over 65. The population is expected to continue ageing meaning the number of people particularly vulnerable to a dwelling fire may increase.

Our analysis shows that ÖйúPÕ¾ is generally a safe place to live but we will continue to develop modelling techniques to identify areas of greatest risk. This will enable us to target our resources to help prevent fires and make homes safer.

Place Risks

These risks relate to both natural environments and built features in ÖйúPÕ¾. They include:

1. Travel on roads and other transportation infrastructure.
2. Fires in heathlands and woodlands.
3. Rescues from rivers, bodies of water, and flood plains.

Risk of road traffic collisions

ÖйúPÕ¾ has approximately , most of which are minor roads or A and B roads. However, the county also includes some of the UK’s busiest arterial routes, such as the M3, A3, M25, and M23. ÖйúPÕ¾’s roads carry nearly twice the national .

The Department for Transport (DfT) collates data on the number of road collisions and casualties. Between 2019 and 2023, ÖйúPÕ¾ recorded an average 2,740 collisions per year across all severity levels.

During the same period, the average number of including those killed or seriously/slightly injured of any casualty type or road user type. Between 2019 and 2023, the average number of deaths caused by Road Traffic Collisions (RTCs) each year was 27. These figures are subject to revision as DfT updates its estimates retrospectively.

In 2023, ÖйúPÕ¾ recorded more RTCs than the national average for local authorities (2,740 verses 501). However, when adjusted for the high volume of miles driven, ÖйúPÕ¾’s collision rate per mile is lower—approximately 324 collisions per billion vehicle miles, compared to the national average of 480. Vehicle collisions accounted for 8.2% of all incidents attended by ÖйúPÕ¾ Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) in 2024/25.

Between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025, SFRS attended a high concentration of incidents on the M25, M3, and A3. These incidents were generally concentrated in the north of the county, particularly around the M25 and more densely populated towns and cities.

Data from the ÖйúPÕ¾ and Sussex Police Road Safety Team (including RTCs not attended by SFRS) shows similar trends, with high concentrations on the M25, M3, A3, and major A-roads connecting towns. The latest available data covers April 2023 to January 2024. It’s important to note that while these roads have high RTC counts, they are also among the busiest in the county.

Data shows that RTC locations are spread across ÖйúPÕ¾, indicating that the risk of incidents can occur on any road. There is no obvious pattern to fatal incidents, as they are thankfully a relatively rare occurrence and are distributed throughout the county.

National Risk Methodology for UK FRS: Road Traffic Collisions

The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) has developed a risk methodology to identify roads at higher risk of Road Traffic Collisions (RTCs) within communities. This methodology assigns a risk score to each road by assessing both the likelihood and consequence of RTCs. The likelihood score represents the probability of an RTC occurring, while the consequences are measured by factors such as fatalities, injuries, and whether vehicles skid or overturn.

All roads in England and Wales were divided into segments and assigned a risk score based on likelihood and consequence. Factors influencing risk include road class (e.g. motorway, A road), type (e.g. dual carriageway, roundabout), speed limit, and whether the road is urban or rural.

Key findings show that RTC likelihood is generally higher on motorways, major roads, roundabouts, and roads with higher speed limits—especially in urban areas. In contrast, the consequence of RTCs tends to be higher on rural roads, likely due to narrow lanes, higher speeds, and poor visibility.

Each road segment is scored from 1 to 5 for both likelihood and consequence, producing a combined risk score from 1 (lowest) to 25 (highest). In ÖйúPÕ¾, the highest risk score recorded is 16.

Although a significant portion of the M25 runs through ÖйúPÕ¾, much of it is not categorised as the highest risk. Instead, many high-risk roads are fast rural routes connecting towns and cities. Minor roads in areas such as Guildford, Walton-on-Thames, and Redhill are generally assigned the lowest risk scores.

When comparing RTC locations with the NFCC model, results are mixed. The model correctly identifies motorways and A roads as high-risk, which aligns with incident data. However, it also assigns high risk to some roads in the south of the county where few incidents have occurred. This may be due to the model not accounting for incident severity or casualty numbers—or simply because incidents have not occurred during the analysis period.

Driver age and risk

Between 2019 and 2023, 2,059 drivers aged 17–24 were casualties in road accidents in ÖйúPÕ¾. This group represented 20% of all driver casualties, despite making up only 11% of the population aged 17 and over. This suggests that younger drivers are overrepresented in RTC statistics.

Risks related to transport

ÖйúPÕ¾ borders both of UK’s busiest international airports—Heathrow and Gatwick—and contains several smaller airfields. Farnborough Airport is also located just outside the county. Plans for a third runway at Heathrow remain under review, while the current government has expressed support for a second runway at Gatwick. Both developments would likely increase air traffic and road congestion.

Another transport-related risk is the Hindhead Tunnel, one of the UK’s longest road tunnels. Most major towns in ÖйúPÕ¾ are connected to central London by rail. While rail incidents are rare, they can have significant consequences.

Risk of wildfires

ÖйúPÕ¾ boasts a diverse landscape, including flat areas in the Thames Basin, the rolling hills of the North Downs and Wealden Greensand, expansive open heathlands, secluded wooded gills, small scale farmland, open meadows, river valleys, and serene water bodies. Woodland covers 22% of the county, while heathland and chalk downland also contribute to its distinctive character. Farmland, including that of the Low Weald, plays a significant role in shaping the landscape. Over 25% of the county is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), home to the ÖйúPÕ¾ Hills and the High Weald AONBs. ÖйúPÕ¾’s rich biodiversity and historically significant parklands further enhance its natural appeal.

The countryside’s mix of natural fuels—such as pine needles, moss, fir trees, leaves, and twigs—creates the potential for wildfires. A “wildfire” is defined by specific criteria, including a damage area over 10,000 square metres, minimum flame height, and the number of fire appliances deployed. We therefore monitor outdoor fires in certain types of vegetation, as all have the potential to escalate into wildfires. These fires are often caused by human activity, including BBQs, discarded smoking materials, glass, shooting, or prescribed burning for land management. Due to their nature, it is often difficult to determine the exact cause or whether the fire was accidental or deliberate.

Approximately 15,500 hectares of land have been identified as at risk of wildfire- equivalent to around 60 square miles. ÖйúPÕ¾ itself covers about 642 square miles. Much of the land at risk is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Special Protection Area (SPA).

The risk of wildfires increases during prolonged spells of hot, dry weather which makes vegetation more combustible. Climate change is a pressing global issue, and its effects are already evident in the United Kingdom.

According to the Met Office analysis, we can expect several changes across the United Kingdom in the future:

• Warmer, wetter winters
• Hotter, drier summers
• More frequent and intense weather extremes

These projections indicate that the right conditions for wildfires (and flooding) are likely to be present in future. The provides more information.

In terms of location, there is some clustering of wildfire hotspots, with many of our largest fires in the northwest and west areas of the county towards Camberley. The areas in the north of ÖйúPÕ¾ include stretches of motorway where use might be impacted by a nearby wildfire. However, the risk is present across other green spaces of the county including some of our largest fires in areas such as the area surrounding Leith Hill.

Between 2020/21 and 2024/25 we estimate there have been around 118 outdoor fires in vegetation causing damage over 500m². Although most of these are unlikely to meet the criteria for being classified as a wildfire, this represents a large area of damage and without timely intervention these could have turned into larger incidents. In addition, after a fire has been contained, estimating the precise extent of damage poses challenges.

The particularly hot summer of 2022 saw the highest number of large fires in the past five years. That year alone, 15 fires caused damage exceeding 10,000m²- almost 60% of the 5-year total.

Larger fires can cause more damage to the environment and pose greater threat to people and properties. They also place significant demand on the fire and rescue service resources, including appliances and personnel. During such incidents, these resources are unavailable for other emergencies, increasing risk elsewhere.

In addition to the large fires, we estimate there were a further 1,900 fires with damage over 500m². Of these, almost 80% were very small, with a maximum damage size of 10m². However, fires of all sizes can still require significant resource commitments and must not be overlooked, particularly where our attendance prevents smaller fires from spreading or posing a risk to lives and property.

Risks related to flooding and water rescues

There are two main types of water related risk:

• Flooding: Caused when rivers overflow their banks or surface water overwhelms drainage systems, affecting areas that include residential properties.
• Person in distress/difficulty in water: Involving individuals encountering difficulties while in reservoirs, lakes, or rivers.

Flooding incidents

ÖйúPÕ¾ is vulnerable to both inundation of floodplains by river water (fluvial floods), and local flooding of the drainage networks when overwhelmed by intense rainstorms (surface water floods).

Nearly 64,000 households in ÖйúPÕ¾ are at risk of fluvial flooding, predominantly from the rivers Wey, Mole and Thames. 24,000 of these households are high risk. The most significant fluvial flood zones are in the north of ÖйúPÕ¾ around the boroughs of Spelthorne, Elmbridge and ÖйúPÕ¾ Heath.

Surface water floods could occur anywhere, often without warning. While water levels are generally no more than 1 metre deep. They do not usually present a threat to life and usually subside quickly; However, can cause a lot of economic damage and disruption to transport and businesses.

In 2013/14, ÖйúPÕ¾ experienced prolonged flooding, leading to a sharp increase in incidents for flooding and water rescue - particularly in Elmbridge, Runnymede, Mole Valley, Spelthorne and Guildford boroughs.

Between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2025 the number of incidents has varied. SFRS attended 303 incidents in 2020/21 compared to over 495 incidents in 2022/23. In 2024/25 the service responded to 334 incidents - 17% decrease from the previous year.

According to Home Office data, ÖйúPÕ¾ experienced a below-average number of flooding incidents per 1,000 people in the year ending 31 March 2021. That year, flooding accounted for 2.61% of all incidents attended by SFRS. (Note: this includes flooding from both natural causes and other sources, such as burst pipes.)

Weather is a key factor in flooding, and climate change is expected to increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. Rising levels of man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are contributing to global climate shifts. In ÖйúPÕ¾, this means a higher likelihood of prolonged heatwaves, increased flood risk, and reduced availability of drinking water.

Rescues from water

Between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2025, SFRS attended 255 water rescues. Annual figures ranged from 36 in 2020/21 to 83 in 2023/24. In 2024/25, the service attended 50 rescues—a 40% decrease compared to the previous year.

In the UK in 2023:

• Inland waterways (rivers, canals, lakes, reservoirs, and quarries) accounted for 63% of accidental drowning deaths.
• Males represented 83% of accidental fatalities.
• Of the 236 accidental fatalities, 28 occurred in June, 20 in July, and 21 in August.
• Many victims were not intending to enter the water—88 fatalities (37%) involved people who were walking or running before the accident.

Although ÖйúPÕ¾ has no coastline, it contains several rivers, lakes, and reservoirs used for transport and recreation. The River Thames presents additional risks due to the number of dwellings located on islands within the ÖйúPÕ¾ stretch.

Between 2011/12 and 2024/25, SFRS responded to 4,957 water-related incidents. Of these, 669 involved rescues, and 50 involved the recovery of fatalities. Over the same period, there were 58 fire-related deaths—showing that water and fire fatalities are comparable in number.

Conclusion

ÖйúPÕ¾ has some of the busiest roads in the country, particularly in the north near London and the M25. While the county experiences more RTCs than many other local authorities, the collision rate per mile driven remains below average. Wildfires are most common in the northwest, while flooding incidents are more frequent in the northern boroughs. Data also shows that fatalities from drowning are comparable to those caused by fire.

Premises Risks

Premises are mainly buildings that are owned commercially, which include hospitals, schools, shops and offices, and can be known as commercial premises. The fire safety requirements for non-domestic premises are regulated by legislation, which also applies to residential blocks including high-rise, therefore are being considered in this section

The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) has developed a risk methodology to support fire and rescue services to build a robust Risk Based Inspection Programme (RBIP) this support FRS’s to identify and evaluate the safety of premises, supporting ‘Responsible Persons’ (RP’s) to ensure that their buildings are safe for people to visit, work, and live in.

This methodology assigns a risk score to each premises by assessing both the likelihood of a fire occurring and the potential consequences. The likelihood score reflects the probability of a fire incident, while the consequence score considers the impact in terms of damage, injury, or loss of life. This assessment helps to understand the risks associated with different types of premises and the implications of fire incidents. This scoring mechanism helps us to build a relative risk rating for each premises, based on visit outcomes.

The risks associated with fire incidents can arise from several factors:

1. Overnight Occupancy: commercial premises, such as hospitals, hotels, and hostels, accommodate people who sleep overnight.
2. Higher Risk Equipment or Materials: Businesses that store chemicals or highly combustible materials pose an increased risk due to the potential for fires to start or the severity of their impact.
3. Specialist Firefighting Considerations: Certain premises, like high-rise buildings, may require specialised firefighting strategies or equipment in case of a fire.
4. Heritage Value: Premises with significant heritage value, such as listed buildings, need careful fire safety measures.

Many commercial premises are fitted with fire alarm systems that may activate even when no fire is present. Responding to false alarms can divert resources and delay responses to genuine emergencies. Managing false alarms effectively is therefore essential to maintaining efficient emergency services.

How likely is it that a fire will happen?

Generally, we see a reducing rate of both primary fires and other incidents per 1000 premises. We hold and produce data referencing the location and risk levels of the 31,560 commercial premises in ÖйúPÕ¾. This derives from our Risk Based Inspection Programme. Many of these premises are in areas of high-density population as they are there to serve the population. The Risk Based Inspection Programme data rates premises on the likelihood of fire occurring. There are 7,229 premises classified as either very high, high risk or medium risk.

Analysis carried out on fires that occurred in commercial premises highlighted that the percentage of new businesses which experienced fires, was significantly higher than the percentage of established businesses that experienced fires. In terms of anticipating where future incidents might occur, we know they are more likely to be at the premises of new businesses.

What are the consequences if a fire does occur?

We consider there to be a high risk to life in commercial premises where people sleep who are deemed vulnerable due to factors such as age, physical or mental impairment, unfamiliarity with the premises, or other characteristic that presents risk to those individuals. Or, where the premises present risk to the occupants due to the type of construction, its use, or other inherent characteristic (such as high-rise residential buildings). Awareness and reaction times are greatly reduced during sleep and if the correct fire safety measures are not in place, occupants may be subject to a much higher risk of death or injury in the event of a fire.

A distinct aspect of risk around business premises fires, is the risk to safety of firefighters attending such premises in the event of a reported incident. Our operational crews gather risk information for firefighter safety by visiting high-risk premises. This is available to crews attending incidents via the mobile data terminals on our frontline appliances.

High-rise premises

High-rise buildings are designed to resist fire and limit smoke spread. While most fires remain contained within the unit of origin, the height of these buildings necessitates specialised firefighting strategies and equipment. ÖйúPÕ¾ has over 80 high-rise buildings with 15 requiring remediation, mainly concentrated in urban centres.

Heritage premises

ÖйúPÕ¾ is home to 109 Grade I and 349 Grade II* listed buildings and structures of historical, architectural, or cultural significance. Some features of these buildings may allow fire to spread rapidly. Coordinated planning is essential to prevent fires and mitigate their impact. Clusters of heritage properties are found around Guildford, Godalming, and Farnham.

Fire false alarms and risk

In the year ending 31 March 2024, the proportion of fire false alarms in ÖйúPÕ¾ was similar to that of other fire and rescue services in England. The number of false alarms attended per 1,000 non-domestic properties has decreased from 271 in 2002 to 136 in 2024.

Over 98% of fire alarm activations, including domestic alarms are false activations. Malicious or equipment-related false alarms can also disrupt our proactive prevention and protection work.

When resources are dispatched to false alarms, they become unavailable for genuine emergencies, increasing the risk of delayed response. To reduce this impact from automatic systems, we call challenge to promote self-investigation and encourage domestic property and business owners to manage their activations more effectively. This ensures those that do need us can be assured of a swifter response.

Data shows that malicious false alarms are rare and have minimal impact on resource availability. However, false alarms caused by faulty or overly sensitive equipment accounted for 62% to 74% of all fire false alarms over the past five years. In 2002, there were 195 such alarms per 1,000 non-domestic properties; by 2024, this had dropped to 84.

Conclusion

Using data from the Risk-Based Inspection Programme, we know the location and risk levels of commercial premises that are most likely to experience a fire, or where the consequences of a fire would be most severe or require specialised firefighting strategies. Having detailed information about the location and layout of specific buildings—such as complex or high-rise premises—helps us plan effectively to mitigate the impact of fire.

A significant proportion of all incidents attended by the Service are fire false alarms caused by equipment. While the total number of fire false alarms has remained consistent over the past five years, the number per 1,000 commercial premises continues to decline. By call challenging we have reduced the number of turnouts, but the number of incoming calls has remained constant. Suggesting that the newer commercial properties are unaware of our response model to unwanted fire signals (UWFS.)

Product Risks

There are three main categories of products that create fire risks:

• Existing products that can pose a risk if not used with proper care (e.g. candles, cigarettes).
• New product developments that introduce unique risk profiles.
• Specific makes or brands of products that have been recalled due to known incidents (e.g. overheating mobile phones or chargers, faulty tumble dryers, alternative-fuel vehicles).

Safe products, unsafe use

The Home Office identified the following as the cause of accidental dwelling fires:

• 29% from misuse of equipment or appliances
• 14% from placing articles too close to heat
• 5% from chip/fat pan fires.

In these cases, the issue lies not with the products themselves, but with how they are used.

Unsafe products

The Home Office identified the following factors as the cause of accidental dwelling fires across England in 2023/24:

• 15% due to faulty appliances and leads
• 11% due to faulty fuel supplies.

The remaining 26% of accidental fires were caused by playing with fire, careless handling, or other/unknown causes. Many unsafe products of concern involve fuel sources—most commonly electrical, but sometimes gas.

Our Fire Investigation Team monitors product safety alerts through the following channels:

• NFCC Fire Investigation Workplace site
• Fire Investigations
• Trading Standards investigations.

Emerging trends or issues are flagged for joint investigation with partners and shared with our media team to inform the public when appropriate.

One example involved a fire caused by a gas barbecue. The Fire Investigation Team traced the cause to a faulty regulator purchased from Amazon. The case was referred to Trading Standards, which successfully had the product removed from sale.

Emerging and alternative technology

We monitor national and international trends, best practices, and developing risks associated with new technologies. These include, but are not limited to, the following areas:

• Renewable energy generation as per (over 150kW) from landfill gas, solar PV (powered vehicle), anaerobic digestion, and advanced conversion technologies:
• ÖйúPÕ¾ has 18 operational or under-construction sites with a combined capacity of 46 MW.
• An additional 36 sites are awaiting construction, with an estimated 122 MW of capacity—mostly small-scale rooftop solar PV.
  • ÖйúPÕ¾ currently has one site with 6 Megawatt (MW) capacity.
  • Eight more are in planning, including one at 100 MW. Others total 13 MW, with some capacities yet to be confirmed.
• Ultra-Low Emission Vehicles (ULEVs), including battery electric, plug-in hybrid, hydrogen, and gas-powered vehicles:
  • The UK now has around 1.5 million electric cars, with 1 in 5 new cars being fully electric.
  • All new vehicles sold from 2035 must be zero-emission.
  • Electric Vehicles (EV) are less likely to catch fire than internal combustion vehicles.
  • Large volumes of water are needed to extinguish EV (Electric Vehicle) battery fires. Best practice is to allow the battery to burn out unless this poses a greater risk.

• Grid-scale battery storage facilities (over 150kW):
• Domestic or small industrial battery storage units
• Light electric vehicles (e.g. e-scooters, e-bikes)
• Top-loading storage and fulfilment centre technologies
• Modular construction and cross-laminated timber
• Automated car parks
• Lithium-ion battery-powered products, which have led to a sharp rise in fire-related injuries and fatalities

Reporting is critical to understanding these risks, but data is limited—especially for newer technologies. It’s likely that more incidents are occurring than are currently reported.

Conclusion

Nationally, the leading cause of accidental dwelling fires remains the unsafe use of otherwise safe products, accounting for around half of all incidents. Unsafe products account for about a quarter. Understanding which products cause fires enables the Service to educate residents on safe usage and support the removal of dangerous products from sale. Monitoring emerging technologies allows the Service to adapt its procedures and equipment to manage new risks effectively.

Broader Risks

Some risks fall outside the four Ps (People, Place, Premises, Products) classification used in this profile. These broader risks are captured in the National Risk Register (NRR) and the ÖйúPÕ¾ Local Resilience Forum (SLRF) Community Risk Register. The Service monitors both registers and works with partners to understand and prepare for risks that may have widespread consequences, even if they are lower in probability.

Changes in demographics and the risk profile from large-scale developments are also considered in this section.

The National Risk Register

The (NRR) is developed by the UK government in collaboration with stakeholders through rigorous assessment. It identifies the most severe risks that could impact the UK and provides information on their potential consequences. However, it does not account for evolving risks such as those related to climate change or emerging technologies.

Higher-likelihood and high-impact risks identified in the NRR include:

• Pandemic
• Failure of the national electricity transmission system
• Large-scale chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear (CBRN) attacks
• Civil nuclear accidents
• Radiation release from overseas nuclear sites
• Conventional attacks on infrastructure
• Severe space weather
• Emerging infectious disease outbreaks
• Low temperatures and snow
• Nuclear miscalculation (not involving the UK)
• Failure of gas supply infrastructure
• High temperatures and heatwaves
• Coastal, fluvial, and surface water flooding
• Deliberate disruption of UK space systems and services

Lower-likelihood but high-impact risks include:

• Major outbreak of foot and mouth disease
• Loss of Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) services
• Reservoir or dam collapse
• Aviation collision

Moderate-impact, higher-likelihood risks include:

• Terrorism, including marauding terrorist attacks (MTA)
• Technological failure at UK financial infrastructure
• Disaster response in Overseas Territories
• Attacks on UK allies outside North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)
• Northern Ireland-related terrorism
• Assassination of a high-profile public figure
• International terrorist attacks
• Major outbreaks of plant pests (for example Xylella fastidiosa)

The Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Principles (JESIP) and MTA Joint Operating Principles support a coordinated multi-agency response to MTAs, involving both specialist and non-specialist responders. Local Resilience Forums play a key role in managing wider consequences.

The ÖйúPÕ¾ Local Resilience Forum Community Risk Register

The ÖйúPÕ¾ Local Resilience Forum (SLRF) is a multi-agency partnership that helps organisations plan and collaborate in preparation for major incidents and emergencies. While such events are rare, understanding the risks is essential.

The SLRF reviews national risks and assesses those specific to ÖйúPÕ¾, producing a Community Risk Register that highlights potential hazards in our area.

Risks categorised as very high or high include:

• Major social care provider failure
• Simultaneous loss of fixed and mobile communications
• Failure of national electricity or gas infrastructure
• Radiation release from overseas nuclear sites
• Reservoir or dam collapse
• Food supply contamination
• Wildfire
• Volcanic eruption
• Severe space weather
• Storms, heatwaves, and cold weather
• Fluvial and surface water flooding
• Poor air quality
• Pandemic and emerging infectious diseases
• Major outbreaks of foot and mouth, avian influenza, and African swine fever
• Industrial action affecting fuel supply
• Reception and integration of British nationals returning from overseas

New Developments

Planning applications in ÖйúPÕ¾ are managed by the county’s 11 district and borough councils. Each has an existing or emerging local plan outlining development priorities and supporting infrastructure.

The estimates an increase of 3,510 new homes per year, while government projections suggest 5,600 homes are needed annually.

An overarching strategy, ÖйúPÕ¾ 2050 Place Ambition aims to support sustainable and proportionate growth. It identifies eight strategic opportunity areas and four new communities: Dunsfold, Longcross, South Godstone, and Wisley.

Nationally significant infrastructure projects in ÖйúPÕ¾ include:

• M25/A3 Wisley interchange improvement (approved and underway)
• Gatwick Northern Runway (in planning)
• River Thames Scheme (in planning)

M25 and A3

Junction 10 is the busiest section of the M25 with over 300,000 vehicles passing through every day. Improvements will reduce congestion, create a smoother flow of traffic and provide safer journeys for thousands every day.

The scheme will see:

• New and safer routes for cyclists, pedestrians and horse-riders
• An additional lane on the A3 in both directions from Ockham and Painshill junctions towards the M25
• A larger roundabout with extra lanes to increase capacity
• Free flow left turns at all four corners of the junction
• Improvements to the A245 Seven Hills junction and Painshill roundabout
• Safer access to Old Lane, Elm Lane, Heyswood campsite and San Domenico
• Improvements to the local environment and wildlife

Gatwick Runway

The Northern Runway at Gatwick Airport is currently limited to acting as a taxiway, only available when the Main Runway is out of use. The planning application proposes repositioning the centre line of the Northern Runway 12 metres north to allow dual runway operations, aligning with international safety standards.

River Thames Scheme

The River Thames Scheme proposes an 8 km flood relief channel to reduce flood risk to homes, businesses, and infrastructure. It will also create new wildlife habitats and public green spaces.

The channel will carry excess water during high river levels, helping to keep the Thames within its banks. Once the channel reaches capacity, the Thames may begin to flood, but the additional space provided by the channel and upgraded weirs (at Sunbury, Molesey, and Teddington) will significantly reduce the risk.

The is currently undergoing a mid-project review. If approved, a construction partner is expected to be appointed in Autumn 2025. No further fixed timescales have been confirmed.

When Do Incidents Occur?

In addition to identifying who is at risk and where, it is also important to understand when people are most at risk. Analysing the time of day and time of year when incidents have occurred in the past can help predict when they are most likely to happen in the future.

The following analysis covers incidents attended in ÖйúPÕ¾ between April 2024 and March 2025.

There are three main categories of incidents:

• Fires – 19% of all incidents in 2024/25
• Non-fire incidents – 39% in 2024/25
• Fire false alarms – 42% in 2024/25

Each category is further broken down by factors such as extent of damage, cause (e.g. deliberate vs. accidental), property type, and nature of the incident.

All incidents

Analysis for hour of day: there is an uneven distribution of incidents over the course of a typical 24-hour period. The volume noticeably takes an upturn between the hours of 6am and 7am. The peak demand occurs between 4pm and 6pm, whilst the downturn noticeably happens between 6pm and 7pm. 62% of incidents occur between the hours of 7am and 7pm, and 38% occur between 7pm and 7am.

Analysis for day of week: there is no big variation in incident numbers between different days of the week. The highest number occurred on a Friday (15% of incidents), with Monday having the lowest number (14% of incidents).

Analysis for month of year: there is no strong seasonal variation, however the is a moderate trend, for example, the three months with the highest numbers all occur in the summer season. The month with the lowest number of incidents is February (7%) and the month with the highest is August (9%). The seasonal distribution is as follows:

• Summer (June, July and August) = 27%
• Autumn (September, October and November) = 26%
• Winter (December, January and February) = 23%
• Spring (March, April and May) = 24%

The summer increase is largely due to more outdoor fires (both primary and secondary), as well as rises in road vehicle fires, good intent false alarms, animal rescues, and other rescue/release incidents.

Hour of the Day Five-Year Trend: There is a general decline in incident numbers. The COVID-19 pandemic caused a sharp drop in 2020/21 due to reduced travel and activity. Incident numbers rose in 2021 to 2022 but have not returned to pre-pandemic levels.

Fire incidents

Fire incidents are categorised into:

• Primary fires – 38%
• Secondary fires – 60%
• Chimney fires – 2%

Primary fires are the most serious type of fire incident. They involve fires to owned property and fires that have caused significant damage in any property. Secondary fires are all other fires apart from chimney fires, which are separately identified.

Primary fire analysis for hour of day: this is very similar to the distribution for all incidents above. The only differences are that there are triple peaks around the hours of 1pm, 5pm to 7pm and 11pm and that the downturn occurs at a slightly earlier time between 7pm and 11pm.

Primary fire analysis for day of week: there is little variation in incident numbers on different days of the week. The highest number occurred on a Monday (15% of incidents), with Tuesday having the lowest number (13% of incidents).

Primary fire analysis for month of year: there is stronger seasonal variation compared to all incidents. There is a peak in June (11%). The month with the lowest number of incidents is February and October (7%). The seasonal distribution is as follows:

Summer (June, July and August) = 26%

Autumn (September, October and November) = 26%

Winter (December, January and February) = 23%

Spring (March, April and May) = 25%

Primary fire analysis volume trend over last five financial years: there may be a slight downward trend in these numbers.

Secondary fire analysis for hour of day: in contrast to primary fires this has a clearer single peak around 4pm to 5pm. The highs and lows are generally more distinct than with primary fires, suggesting that there is a greater correlation between secondary fires and when most people tend to be actively out and about.

Secondary fire analysis for day of week: there is little variation in incident numbers between different days of the week. The highest number occurred on a Saturday (16% of incidents), with Thursday having the lowest number (13% of incidents).

Secondary fire analysis for month of year: there is a stronger seasonal variation than for primary fires. The peaks in June (14%) with the lowest number of incidents is January (2%). The seasonal distribution is as follows:

Summer (June, July and August) = 37%

Autumn (September, October and November) = 27%

Winter (December, January and February) = 12%

Spring (March, April and May) = 24%

Secondary Fire Five-Year Trend:No clear long-term trend in secondary fire numbers.

Non-fire incidents

Non-fire incidents include all other situations where the Service is called upon to provide specialist support. These are categorised into 21 types. The five most frequently occurring non-fire incidents in 2024/25 were:

• Road Traffic Collisions – 26%
• Effecting Entry/Exit – 21%
• Assisting Other Agencies – 16%
• Flooding – 7%
• Lift Release – 6%

Non-fire analysis for hour of day: this is very similar to the distribution for all incidents. The only difference is that the downturn occurs at an earlier time between 5pm and 6pm.

Road traffic collisions have an initial peak at the start of the typical commuting period at around 8am, this then tails off but begins to climb again around 3pm and has the highest peak at around 5pm in the middle of the typical commuting period.

Non-fire analysis for day of week: there is little variation in incident numbers between different days of the week. The highest number occurred on a Thursday (16% of incidents), with Monday having the lowest number (12% of incidents).

Non-fire analysis for month of year: there is no strong seasonal variation. The peak is in January (10%). The seasonal distribution is as follows:

Summer (June, July and August) = 26%

Autumn (September, October and November) = 24%

Winter (December, January and February) = 17%

Spring (March, April and May) = 24%

Non-fire Five-Year Trend: there is no clear trend showing in these numbers for an increase or decrease in incidents long term.

Fire false alarm incidents

We receive false alarms for fire incidents for three main reasons:

• Due to Apparatus – For example, an automated signal sent by a fire alarm system (67% in 2024/25)
• Good Intent – For example, the caller genuinely believed there was an uncontrolled fire (32% in 2024/25)
• Malicious – For example, the caller knowingly reported a fire that did not exist (2% in 2024/25)

False alarm analysis for hour of day: this is very similar to the distribution for all incidents.

False alarm analysis for day of week: there is little variation in incident numbers between different days of the week. The highest number occurred on a Monday (15% of incidents), with Wednesday having the lowest number (14% of incidents).

False alarm analysis for month of year: there is weaker seasonal variation compared to all incidents. There is a peak in September (10%). The month with the lowest number of incidents is February (6%). The seasonal distribution is as follows:

Summer (June, July and August) = 27%

Autumn (September, October and November) = 29%

Winter (December, January and February) = 21%

Spring (March, April and May) = 23%

Conclusion

The time of day rather than the day of the week is more significant in helping us forecast when our services might be needed. Almost twice as many incidents occur between the hours of 7am and 7pm as occur between 7pm and 7am (1.7 times the number). Time of year does not have a major influence on incident numbers, but slightly more incidents occur in the summer months.

Overall Conclusion

As a Fire and Rescue Service, our primary goal is to prevent unnecessary loss of life. The greatest threats to life in ÖйúPÕ¾ arise from road traffic collisions (RTCs), water-related incidents, and domestic dwelling fires.

While the number of RTCs has declined in recent years, those that do occur are most common on motorways and A roads in the northwest of ÖйúPÕ¾. Drivers under the age of 25 are at greater risk of injury in RTCs than other age groups. Although water-related incidents are less frequent than fire incidents, the number of fatalities is comparable.

The presence of working smoke alarms significantly reduces fire damage and improves the chances of self-rescue. Senior residents, those with physical or mental health conditions, alcohol or drug dependencies, smokers, and individuals who live alone are more likely to experience fire and suffer worse outcomes. As ÖйúPÕ¾’s population ages, the number of vulnerable residents is expected to increase.

Certain types of commercial premises are more susceptible to fire, with newer businesses showing a higher risk. The design and construction of some buildings—particularly heritage properties—can increase the likelihood of fire spreading rapidly.

Major incidents affecting national infrastructure such as motorways, rail networks, and airports would have severe consequences. We also recognise the importance of preparing for other risks identified in the National Risk Register and the ÖйúPÕ¾ Local Resilience Forum Community Risk Register.

Fluvial and surface water flooding has the potential to impact many residents and businesses. Additionally, a significant portion of land in ÖйúPÕ¾ is susceptible to wildfires. Weather plays a major role in creating the conditions for these incidents, and the effects of climate change may increase their frequency in the future.

Appendices

Appendix 1 – data sources

People

Places

Premises

Products

Broader risks

When do incidents occur?

Appendix 2 - ÖйúPÕ¾ Fire and Rescue Service fire stations

Acknowledgements

Ordance Survey acknowledgement

In relation to maps with the license number Ordnance Survey AC0000823108. Use of this data is subject to terms and conditions. You are granted a non-exclusive, royalty free, revocable licence solely to view the licensed data for non-commercial purposes for the period during which [insert name of Licensee] makes it available. You are not permitted to copy, sub-license, distribute, sell or otherwise make available the Licensed Data to third parties in any form. Third party rights to enforce the terms of this licence shall be reserved to Ordnance Survey.