Residential Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (RPEEPS)

Assembly Member Bokhari OBE moved, and Assembly Member Roberts seconded the following motion:

“The Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 are due to come into effect on 6th April 2026. They aim to improve the fire safety and evacuation of disabled residents in specified residential buildings in England who would have difficulties evacuating a building by themselves in the event of a fire. 

This Assembly notes numerous concerns held by Deaf and Disabled Peoples’ Organisations (DDPOs) across London regarding the incoming regulations. The Government’s plans for Residential Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (RPEEPs) fall far short of what is needed – and what has been called for by the Grenfell Inquiry -  to ensure the safety of Deaf and Disabled people in London and across the country. 

This Assembly notes the following issues with regard to the incoming regulations: 

•    DDPOs were assured that the term “best endeavours” would be used to describe the duty of a Responsible Person (RP) to identify residents who may need PEEPs. However, “reasonable endeavours” is the term that has been used throughout the regulations, these terms carry different legal implications, and the change is a significant weakening of the duty placed on building owners and managers.

•    The regulations assume RPs know their residents and have engaged with them to establish their needs, and require RPs to offer Person-Centred Fire Risk Assessments (PCFRAs) to residents who may need them.

•    However, the regulations only require an RP to produce a RPEEP statement if the resident gives explicit consent. While RPs are required to offer a PCFRA, they are under no obligation to actually carry one out unless the resident requests it. This places the entire burden of initiating protection onto the individual at risk. Consent must never be used as a barrier to protection, especially as no framework is outlined as to how consent should be obtained, and many RPs do not communicate with their residents in an accessible way.

•    The regulations do not require the PCFRAs to be carried out by trained or accredited professionals, and RPs are only required to share very minimal information about what support the resident might need in case of a fire.

•    There is no obligation for RPs to provide equipment or support. The regulations could lead to situations in which RPs deem a mitigation measure “reasonable and proportionate” only if the Disabled resident pays for it, meaning if they cannot, it will not be implemented.

•    They are restricted only to certain types of housing, arbitrarily basing safety planning on such aspects as building height, rather than purely on individual need.

•    Disabled residents in private and leasehold housing are set to be left behind, with funding only provided for those in social housing.

Therefore, this Assembly resolves to: 

•    Request the Chair of the Assembly writes to the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), asking him to urgently re-think these regulations regarding RPEEPs, and in consultation with DDPOs, formulate a new set of regulations that addresses the issues outlined above. 

•    Call upon the Mayor to join the Assembly’s  request to MCHLG by also writing to the Minister calling for the Government to re-think these regulations on behalf of London’s Deaf and Disabled community. 

•    Call on the Mayor to write to RPs, requesting they work in good faith and in the best interests of Deaf and Disabled Londoners when it comes to interpreting less clear elements of the RPEEP regulations. 

•    Also call upon the London Fire Commissioner to write formally to MHCLG to explicitly remind them of the recommendation made by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry: a call for a new legal duty on owners or managers of high-rise residential buildings to prepare a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) for all residents who might find it difficult to “self-evacuate”. These regulations fall far short of this.”

Following debate, and upon being put to a vote, the motion was agreed with 13 votes being cast in favour and 0 votes being cast against.