When 94% Say No: Getting Emergency Service Consultations Right

What is the Challenge?

When planning major changes to emergency services, the stakes are significant. Decisions such as closing fire stations or adopting new policing models affect public safety and trust. A poorly managed public consultation can backfire, leading to community backlash, delays, or even legal challenges. For Chief Fire Officers, Police and Crime Commissioners, and communications leads, consultation is not a bureaucratic tick-box. It is a process discipline that underpins operational credibility. The following three principles 1. transparency, 2. early involvement, and 3. feedback – illustrate how to manage consultation on emergency service changes to avoid pitfalls and build public trust.

1. Transparency and “No Surprises” in Proposals

The Principle: Be upfront and clear about what is proposed and why. Decision-making transparency means sharing all relevant information – data, rationale, criteria – so the public can engage intelligently. In consultation law this aligns with Gunning Principle 2: providing sufficient reasons and facts for people to consider the plans properly. Lack of transparency not only frustrates stakeholders, it poses legal risks. In one high-profile policing consultation in London, the process was challenged in court for failing to reveal the criteria behind decisions and for providing insufficient information for Londoners to respond. In other words, residents felt kept in the dark, undermining the credibility of the consultation.

Real-world example: The MOPAC station closures

In 2017, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) consulted on closing dozens of police front counters. The confusion over basic facts and criteria led a local resident to mount a judicial review, claiming the public hadn’t been given enough information to comment meaningfully. The Divisional Court agreed, with Lord Justice Lindblom and Mr Justice Lewis finding the consultation process unsatisfactory and criticising both its content and structure as markedly less helpful than such documents should be for a matter of great significance. This illustrates how opaque proposals erode community engagement and invite courtroom drama.

What this means in practice

Make transparency your default. Publish clear proposal documents with unfiltered evidence and options. Explain the problem, the alternatives considered, and the decision criteria in plain English. Ensuring decision-making transparency meets the “intelligent consideration” test of Gunning Principle 2 – it not only keeps you on safe legal ground, but also treats the public as partners rather than obstacles. In practice, this could mean sharing response time data behind a fire station closure plan or openly admitting financial pressures driving a policing model change. The more honestly you frame the context, the more constructive the public debate will be.

2. Early Involvement and No Predetermination

The Principle: Involve communities early, when plans are truly open to influence. Consultation should begin at a formative stage – before decisions are made, not after the fact. Nothing provokes public cynicism more than a fait accompli dressed up as consultation. Consultees presented with an outcome that appears pre-decided are far more likely to react negatively or feel misled. Moreover, going through the motions late in the game violates Gunning Principle 1 and can render the process unlawful if challenged for “predetermination.”

Cautionary tale: London fire station cuts

The closure of 10 London fire stations in 2014 (part of the Fifth London Safety Plan) became a textbook warning. The public consultation saw 94% of respondents oppose the cuts, yet the plan went ahead largely unchanged. Local councils and the Fire Brigades Union cried foul, accusing the Mayor of having made up his mind regardless of input – an affront to the consultation process. Multiple boroughs even prepared a judicial review, citing that the mayor did not listen to consultation responses and alleging the outcome had been pre-determined. Ultimately, while two stations were spared, the sense of a rubber-stamp process damaged trust and sparked bitter public criticism.

Positive contrast: West Midlands Fire Service

Some agencies have learned that early community engagement pays off. West Midlands Fire Service recently adopted a two-phase consultation to shape its future strategy – first canvassing ideas and concerns from the community, then consulting formally on refined proposals. By opening up options early, they signaled that public voices would genuinely shape the outcome. This proactive approach aligns with what the National Fire Chiefs Council advises: maintain ongoing dialogue and canvass opinion at an early stage so people aren’t hit with sudden, non-negotiable plans.

What this means in practice

Engage early and often. Before any “official” public consultation, consider informal engagement: public forums, stakeholder workshops, online idea boards – whatever gets people talking while options are still options. Be explicit about what is on the table and what isn’t. If certain constraints (e.g., legal duties or budget limits) mean some decisions are fixed, explain that openly. Otherwise, keep proposals flexible and invite communities to co-create solutions. Early involvement not only improves the substance of plans (locals often spot practical issues professionals might miss), it also builds buy-in. Stakeholders who see their input reflected in draft proposals are less likely to resist final decisions. And from a compliance standpoint, this demonstrates you have genuinely kept an open mind (honouring Gunning’s first principle).

3. Feedback, Conscientious Consideration, and Closing the Loop

The Principle: Treat consultation as a two-way street – listening is as important as informing. Once you’ve gathered responses, the real work is to show how that input influenced the decision. Gunning Principle 4 requires that “the product of consultation” be conscientiously taken into account. For leaders, this means reading the room – understanding public sentiment and evidence submitted – and being willing to adjust your plans or justify them in light of what you heard. Equally crucial is feeding back to participants: reporting on what you learned and what will happen next. This traceability from public comment to decision builds legitimacy.

Exemplar: Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service

Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service recently provided a masterclass in closing the loop. After consulting on a new resource model, they received 1,300 responses and actually used that feedback to shape a revised plan (dubbed “Model A”). The revised model improved emergency cover (adding more fire engines at peak times) and was backed by extra funding – directly addressing concerns raised by the community. As the fire portfolio holder noted, having listened to the feedback, Cabinet approved this new operating model. By visibly incorporating public input, Warwickshire’s leaders not only arrived at a better plan, they earned public trust that the consultation was genuine. Staff and residents can trace how their comments led to specific changes – a powerful outcome in terms of transparency and accountability.

The cost of ignoring feedback

Conversely, consider the London fire cuts saga. The overwhelming public opposition fell on deaf ears, prompting an elected councillor to lament that legal action was “the only way we can stop this” since arguments had been disregarded. The perception that officials simply ignored the evidence inflicted lasting reputational damage. It’s a caution that failing to close the loop – whether by not altering plans or not explaining why you can’t – can turn a public consultation into a public relations crisis.

What this means in practice

Demonstrate conscientious consideration. As emergency service leaders, once you have gathered views, set aside time and resources to truly weigh them. Commission an impartial analysis of responses if needed, and map the themes that emerged. Then respond – in your final decision report or announcement, explicitly address the main points raised. Which proposals were changed or dropped due to input? What new ideas or mitigations came from the community? Even if your core decision (e.g., to reconfigure policing teams) remains, explain how consultation influenced implementation details or future commitments. By closing the feedback loop, you make the process defensible and traceable – anyone can see the lineage from community engagement to final outcome. This not only reduces the risk of legal challenge (because a court can see you followed Gunning Principle 4), but also increases public acceptance. People may not agree with every decision, but if they see their voice was heard and respected, they are more likely to trust in the decision-maker’s integrity.

Conclusion: Consultation as Risk Management and Leadership

High-stakes changes in emergency services will always invite scrutiny – and rightfully so, as they affect public safety and community confidence. By approaching public consultation as a core leadership process rather than a necessary evil, senior leaders can turn a potential flashpoint into an opportunity. Robust consultation, done right, protects against legal, political, and reputational risks. It yields decisions that are better informed and more widely accepted, because they were shaped with citizen input.

In the end, following these principles of transparency, early involvement, and feedback isn’t just about avoiding judicial review or tick-marking the Gunning Principles (though you will achieve a lawful, defensible result). It’s about upholding the credibility of your service. An open and honest consultation process signals that you value public trust as much as operational efficiency. It shows that even “under blue lights” pressures, you are committed to decision-making transparency and community engagement.In return, you earn the public’s buy-in for tough choices and reinforce your reputation as a trusted steward of vital services. In an environment where credibility can save lives, investing in a disciplined consultation process is not red tape – it’s smart, assured leadership.

---

---

How tCI Can Help

Quality Assurance
Independent review at critical stages, from evidence protocol design through to final reporting. Our seven stage QA process ensures your approach to qualitative data meets legal and good practice standards, assessing analysis methods, interpretation fairness, and compliance with Gunning principles, PSED and ICO requirements. Gives you confidence your evidence will stand up to scrutiny.

Early Assurance
Snapshot review during planning to sense check your evidence framework, codebook design and proportionality rationale before fieldwork begins. Helps you avoid costly missteps and strengthens your approach from the start.

Charter Workshops
Practical, interactive half day session introducing teams to good consultation principles. Grounded in the Consultation Charter and Gunning Principles, participants learn through expert input, case studies and group discussion. Build consistent approaches to engagement that are fair, transparent and defensible. Delivered online or in person, tailored to your sector.

Whether you’re preparing for a high stakes service change or building defensible evidence for complex decisions, we can help.

Contact tCI: hello@consultationinstitute.org