Key findings

The following tables set out the key findings from 2026’s Assessment of Risk (AoR) by layer. These tables are intended to provide a quick reference. Further information and context is available in the detailed report for each layer.

Users intending to use the AoR for decision making should access the detailed report for the layer of interest. Where decision making regarding risks from the London Risk Register is required, users should access the detailed scenario descriptions for each risk available to authorised users through Resilience Direct.

Key themes identified are;

changing baseload demand; an increasing proportion of non-fire, physical and mental health related incidents
increased volatility and malicious threats; peaks in demand driven by climate change and geopolitics
enduring chronic risk; Risks inherent in the complex built environment and the development of new technologies

These themes are not separate, they interact, shaping both day-to-day activity and exposure to extreme events. It is plausible for acute risks identified in this report, such as large complex-building fires and high volumes of people in crisis, to occur within the context of more chronic risks such as extreme heat, widespread flooding, or civil disturbances caused by social and political tensions. The concurrent nature of acute and high-impact incidents with chronic environmental or societal stressors, increases demand on response functions. This is the basis of the 2030 Plausible Operating Environment presented in the layer four assessment, “New and Emerging Operational Risks: 2030 Horizon Scan”.

Key findings Layer One: Public Concerns and Public Risk Perception

Risk: Crime

Level of public concern:

High

Key findings:

Members of the public expressed high levels of concern about crime, including knife crime, attacks, theft, burglary and drug activity. In polling, crime was rated as being of equal or greater concern as fire and rescue risks highlighted by LFB.

Implication:

Because concern regarding crime may exceed concern regarding threats such as fire, this may impact public engagement with fire and rescue safety messaging.

Risk: Fires in flats and shared living

Level of public concern:

High

Key findings:

Fires in flats and shared living are perceived by participants to be the most concerning risk of during community workshops and in YouGov polling.

Implication:

Fires in purpose-built-flats are the highest risk property fire type in the measured data for 2026. This indicates public perception of risk reflects measured risk at a pan-London level, although not necessarily individual/personal risk.

Risk: Malicious threats and terrorism

Level of public concern:

High

Key findings:

Malicious attacks and terrorism consistently rank as a high‑concern risk, appearing as the second highest perceived threat in community workshops. However, this risk also shows the greatest variation between groups perception, indicating uneven levels of concern across communities

Implication:

Different communities may require targeted communication and/or engagement regarding malicious threats. The persistence of this threat amongst higher public concerns indicates that the public will expect activity from LFB in this area, but interest will fluctuate.

Risk: Water rescue

Level of public concern:

Key findings:

Water rescue consistently appeared as the lowest perceived threat in both community workshops and YouGov polling. There was lower traffic on LFB’s ‘Water Safety’ webpage than other topics. This low perception of risk contrasts with the high casualty and fatality rates associated with water incidents in London.

Implication:

The consistent gap between perceived and measured water-related risk indicates that, although non-statutory, water safety may be a suitable target for risk communication and engagement.

Risk: Flooding and wildfires

Level of public concern:

Key findings:

Both flooding and wildfires are perceived as low‑threat by community workshop participants and YouGov respondents. Flooding information also attracts relatively little engagement on LFB safety information webpages (bottom 25% website traffic). This contrasts with the assessed risk of these hazards.

Implication:

The gap between perceived and assessed risk for flooding and wildfire indicates that where the assessed background threat is rising, driven by climate change, but individual exposure and personal experience remain low, the public perceive the threat to be limited. This finding has implications for risk communication and public preparedness work.

Key findings Layer Two: Day-to-day Risks relating to property, place and incident type

Fire risks

Reduced likelihood of fires in houses and Bungalows

Risk level:

Very high

Key findings:

Reductions are observed in the likelihood of fires in Houses and Bungalows based on 5 years incident data. The risk remains very high due to consequence score.

Fires in Purpose Built Flats

Risk level:

Very high

Key findings:

Fires in Purpose built flats remain the highest risk fire type by location and have not followed the downward trend in numbers of fires overall or in the reduced severity scores noted in other locations.

Fires in care and supported living

Risk level:

Very high

Key findings:

Increase in severity score; based on casualties and resources used in five calendar years

Fires on other non-residential buildings

Risk level:

Very high

Key findings:

Increase in severity score; based on casualties and resources used in five calendar years

Special Service (non-fire) risks

B11 and B3, collapsed behind locked door incidents and effecting entry

Risk level:

Very high

Key findings:

Remain the joint highest non-fire risk incidents from 2025 no change in likelihood or consequence score. B11 remains 5/5 for likelihood and consequence

Persons Trapped in Road Traffic Collisions (RTCs)

Risk level:

Very high

Key findings:

Remain the second highest non-fire risk incidents from 2025 likelihood 4/5, consequence 5/5.

B12 Incidents, persons threatening to jump

Risk level:

Very high

Key findings:

Maintained the raised risk noted in 2025 indicating a sustained increase in this risk rather than a fluctuation.

Geographic disposition of risk

Dwelling fire risk

Key findings:

Dwelling fire risk largely aligns with areas of most population density.

Non-dwelling building fire risk

Key findings:

Non-dwelling building fire risk is concentrated in areas of higher development but has a wider distribution than dwelling fire.

Road Traffic Collision Risk

Key findings:

Road traffic collision risk is concentrated towards the periphery, most notably around arterial and ring roads entering and circling London.

High and Very High-risk incident types

A1: Fire - including large vehicle fires

Risk level:

Very high

Geographic distribution:

North Kensington, Tottenham, Plumstead, Paddington Dagenham

B11: Person Collapsed or Injured behind locked door when called by LAS or MPS

Risk level:

Very high

Geographic distribution:

Tottenham, Paddington, Dagenham

A1HR: Fire in High Rise Flats/Commercial Buildings - 6 flrs & above

Risk level:

Very high

Geographic distribution:

Paddington, Poplar, Lambeth, Shoreditch

B3: Effecting Entry - Person Locked Out/In & Person Collapsed Behind Locked Door

Risk level:

Very high

Geographic distribution:

Stoke Newington, North Kensington, Tottenham, Holloway

PERSONS: Persons trapped - RTC

Risk level:

Very high

Geographic distribution:

Hayes, Orpington, Croydon, Enfield, Heathrow

B2: Reduced Special Service - including ceiling plaster/trees/roof tiles/bldg fascia/aerials etc in precarious position & person collapsed or injured in street etc.

Risk level:

Very high

Geographic distribution:

Paddington, Hammersmith, Soho

MAKE: Make safe - RTC

Risk level:

Very high

Geographic distribution:

Croydon, Ilford, Southgate, Stanmore

B19: Assist Ambulance with Bariatric/Difficult removal of Patient

Risk level:

Very high

Geographic distribution:

Barking, Plumstead, West Norwood, Woodside

C1: HazMat - including cylinders/refrigerant leaking/Fuel Spill over 100 litres - inside or outside

Risk level:

Very high

Geographic distribution:

Lambeth, Paddington, Lewisham

B12: Person Threatening to Jump or Assisting MPS with Persons at Height

Risk level:

Very high

Geographic distribution:

Ilford, Poplar, Lambeth, Euston

A4: Fire Involving HazMat - including cylinders and explosions

Risk level:

Very high

Geographic distribution:

Tottenham, Southall, Plumstead, Old Kent Road, Ilford, Dagenham, Bethnal Green

B1: Person Trapped (Not RTC)

Risk level:

Very high

Geographic distribution:

Soho, Tooting, Stoke Newington, Erith

B10: Person in Precarious Position requiring immediate rescue

Risk level:

Very high

Geographic distribution:

Soho, Tooting, Holloway

B1T: Person under Train/Tram or Person Struck by Train/Tram

Risk level:

Very high

Geographic distribution:

Soho, Paddington, Lambeth, Holloway, Euston

C3: Acid Attack on Person

Risk level:

Very high

Geographic distribution:

Orpington, West Hampstead, Willesden, Stratford, Lambeth, Fulham

J1: Midstream Incident on the Thames

Risk level:

Very high

Geographic distribution:

Lambeth, Dowgate, Twickenham, Soho, Dockhead

J3: Person/Animal in Waterway/on Foreshore

Risk level:

Very high

Geographic distribution:

Poplar, Lambeth, Dockhead, Stratford, Millwall

VEHICLE: Vehicle fires - Small/Large & Incidents involving vehicles

Risk level:

Very high

Geographic distribution:

MULTI: Multi lane make safe - RTC

Risk level:

High

Geographic distribution:

Hayes, Enfield, Poplar, Hendon, Ilford, Mill Hill, Barking

B93: Collapse of Building/Structure (Level 3) - Persons involved

Risk level:

High

Geographic distribution:

E3: Aircraft Accident/Aircraft Accident Imminent

Risk level:

High

Geographic distribution:

Hillingdon

FSG: 1 or more FSG calls in any premise type

Risk level:

High

Geographic distribution:

J8: Vehicle in Waterway accessible from land

Risk level:

High

Geographic distribution:

Chiswick, Hillingdon

PERSON: Person on Fire - Out in the open

Risk level:

High

Geographic distribution:

Paddington

A10: AFA Commercial Premises

Risk level:

High

Geographic distribution:

Soho, Euston, Dowgate

A11: AFA Residential Premises - for High Rise use A1HR

Risk level:

High

Geographic distribution:

Paddington, Chelsea, Hammersmith, North Kensington, Euston, West Hampstead

A2: Reduced Fire Attendance - including electrical junction box

Risk level:

High

Geographic distribution:

Dagenham, Soho, Wennington, Orpington, Ilford, Plumstead

B4: Flooding

Risk level:

High

Geographic distribution:

Bethnal Green, Paddington, North Kensington, Lambeth, Stoke Newington, Tottenham

C5: Natural Gas Leak - commercial or residential

Risk level:

High

Geographic distribution:

Paddington, Stoke Newington, Tottenham

Highlighted Risks

Lithium-ion fires including e-bikes and e-scooters

Lithium‑ion battery fires, including those involving e‑bikes and e‑scooters, were identified in the Brigade’s 2025 Assessment of Risk as an emerging risk, reflecting public and professional concerns about battery safety and the wider adoption of lithium‑ion energy systems. The continued rise in incidents confirms this developing trend, although the overall number remains low relative to total fire activity in London. Where these incidents occur, they may intersect with existing vulnerability factors, particularly in domestic settings. Given the increasing use of lithium‑ion powered transport and energy storage, the risk profile is expected to remain dynamic and will continue to be considered within the broader category of risks associated with new fuels and emerging technologies.

Key findings Layer three: Extraordinary risks and risks from the London Risk Register

Increasingly complex malicious threat picture

Risk level:

Very high risk

Key findings:

The number of malicious act threats recorded on the London Risk Register increased notably in 2024. A further increase in likelihood and severity of individual malicious threats occurred in 2025. The five risks which have increased from the 2025 assessment to the 2026 assessment all relate to malicious acts. This prevalence of malicious threats on the 2026 London Risk Assessment (LRA), previously London Risk Register, reflects the current partnership assessment of threat level across a spectrum of attack methodologies. LFB will be required to respond directly to incidents involving malicious acts where it capabilities are required or where statutory duties exist.

Critical service disruption concurrent with response demand

Risk level:

Very high risk

Key findings:

Reasonable-worst-case scenarios from the London Risk Assessment, such as R89 High Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse, R50a National Electricity Transmission Failure and R21 Attack on UK electricity infrastructure are likely to pose business continuity challenges for LFB through critical service disruptions as well as potentially triggering concurrent need for response services.

LFB-lead, High-Risks on LRA

Risk level:

High risk

Key findings:

Fires in purpose-built high-rise flats. Fires in purpose-built high-rise flats remain a high risk, reduced from very high, with a reasonable-worst-case scenario scale incident assessed as having between 5% and 25% likelihood of occurring in any 12 month period. On 1st March 2026 there were 949 buildings in London known to LFB over 18 meters high, (high-rise buildings) that had a simultaneous evacuation strategy. These buildings are likely to perform in such a way during a fire that a stay put strategy is untenable.
Major fire in care homes and hospitals. Fires in care homes and hospitals remain a high risk unchanged from 2025, with a reasonable-worst-case scenario scale incident assessed as having between 1% and 5% likelihood of occurring in any 12-month period.
Accident involving high consequence dangerous goods. Accidents involving high consequence dangerous goods remain a high risk, unchanged from 2025 with a reasonable-worst-case scenario scale incident assessed as having between 1% and 5% likelihood of occurring in any 12-month period.
Civil Nuclear Accident. This risk remains unlikely with a less than 0.2% chance of occurring each year. However, due to high consequence this remains a high risk on the assessment.

Highlighted Risks

Heritage Fires. Falling within the broader category of, “Fires in large public and commercial buildings.” -assessed as a medium risk in the LRA, Heritage fires are highlighted in layer three of the AoR due to the number and prominence of London’s approximately 40,000 listed buildings and four UNESCO World Heritage Sites - Westminster Abbey, Palace of Westminster, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Maritime Greenwich and the Tower of London.

Key findings Layer four: New and Emerging Operational Risks: 2030 Horizon Scan

2030 Plausible Operating Environment

Key findings:

In 2030 LFB is plausibly operating in an environment characterised by three inter-related themes; changing baseload demand, increased volatility, and enduring chronic risk. These themes are not separate, they interact, shaping both day-to-day activity and exposure to extreme events. It is plausible for acute risks identified in this report, such as large complex-building fires and high volumes of people in crisis, to occur within the context of more chronic risks such as extreme heat, widespread flooding, or civil disturbances caused by social and political tensions. The concurrent nature of acute and high-impact incidents with chronic environmental or societal stressors, increases demand on response functions.

2030 Operating environment contingent on deterioration in international conflicts

Key findings:

Contingent on a deterioration in international conflicts and geopolitical instability; It is plausible that within the planning horizon of 2030 LFB may be required to support wider civil resilience, national resilience arrangements or Home Defense, in line with established frameworks such as the Civil Contingences Act. Should these demands occur, they will occur alongside and interact with the impacts of climate, demographic and built environment change described in the plausible 2030 operating environment, not in isolation from them.

Individual Findings

Key findings:

LFB has robust pumping appliance capacity. Projected increases in day-to-day demand to 2030 remain within existing pumping appliance capacity for modelled day-to-day demand, assuming current availability levels. However, short-duration extreme events, particularly large wildfires or concurrent incidents during heatwaves, could temporarily test capacity, particularly where incidents are sustained over multiple days.
Day to day demand is changing. Day-to-day demand is shifting from predominantly fire-dominated to an increasing volume of special services, particularly incidents linked to physical and mental ill-health. Scenarios indicate sustained growth and significant projected volumes of these services. Incidents involving people in crisis potentially exceed 8,000 per annum by 2030 and collapse-behind-locked-door incidents potentially exceed 16,000. Fires are declining overall, however, fires in high-rise buildings and flats remain a persistent risk, associated with higher potential casualty rates and have not followed the downward trend seen in other fires.
Demand is seasonal. Both day-to-day demand and the frequency of high demand days increase between June and September. Peaks most often occur in July driven by fires outdoors and rainstorms. This effect is likely to become increasingly marked by 2030.
Outlier days. Since 2022, the number of days above historical average mobilisation levels has increased. Increased volatility and more frequent high demand days are expected to continue. Recent outlier events have been preceded by red extreme-heat and amber wind warnings. This indicates actionable warning periods for wildfire and windstorms.
Climate Change is an increasing seasonal threat with significant uncertainty about impact scale. There is a divergence between climate risk identified in PESTLE, from Met Office and Environment Agency analyses, and LFB incident data. Across both surface-water flooding and rural/vegetation fires, recorded incidents show high year-to-year variability with a seasonal peak, but no consistent trend upward or consistent increase in peak severity. However, climate projections indicate increasing frequency and intensity of heat and heavy rainfall hazards. Recorded incidents in this context should be taken as lagging indicators rather than indicative of future severity.
Periods of extreme heat are forecast to become more extreme and more common. Risks, such as wildfires, drought, piped water supply failures (referenced on national and local risk registers), large structural fires, and public disorder have a seasonal pattern with more demand in the summer. Combinations of these and similar events are plausibly magnified by extreme heat. Extreme heat also imposes physiological load on LFB staff concurrent with demanding incidents.
An increasingly complex built environment. Rapid adoption of new fuels, technologies and construction methods plausibly outpaces regulatory change and assurance. This creates long-term exposure to system failures and to novel fire behaviours in complex premises, tall buildings and the wider built environment.
There is increasing potential for fire service incidents resulting from, or concurrent with, malicious acts. Acts linked to, or inspired by, international events and geopolitical tensions may result in demand for fire service capabilities. These threats include terrorism, civil unrest, cyberattacks, and acts by malicious state and non-state actors as reflected in national and London risk registers.

Back to Assessment of Risk 2026