Government releases Regulations: Residential Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (‘Residential PEEPs’)

On 4 July, the Government laid The Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 (‘the Regulations’). These Regulations, which will come into force on 6 April 2026, aim to improve the fire safety and evacuation of residents in specified residential buildings in England who are unable or find it difficult to self-evacuate, and by the mandating of building emergency evacuation plans. 

As part of the Phase 1 Grenfell Tower Inquiry Report, it was recommended that that Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) and building evacuation plans were implemented by the owner and manager of every high-rise residential building. The Grenfell disaster disproportionately impacted the vulnerable and disabled residents, sparking calls for evidence, workshops and consultations into how best to address this issue. 

The first consultation in 2021 considered a requirement similar to workplace-style PEEPs, which are intended to allow the safe evacuation of persons in a workplace in advance of a fire and rescue authority attendance; this is normally achieved through the use of trained, on-site staff to support the evacuation of workers as required. However, following the consultation, it was concluded that there were substantial difficulties with operating a workplace-style PEEP in residential buildings – with no cases being successfully implanted. Therefore, at that time, it was considered unadvisable to mandate similar residential PEEPs.

Since the disaster in 2017 and the first consultation, numerous fire safety improvements (including legal requirements) had been introduced, such as fire door checks, information sharing with residents and the fire and rescue authority and increased punishment for offenders. Therefore, at the end of 2024 following a further extensive consultation, the recommendations were revisited and the Government promised new legislation mandating residential personal emergency evacuation plans (which take the form of the Regulations). 

What do the Regulations require?

The Regulations will apply to all buildings in England that contain two or more sets of domestic premises and:

1. is at least 18 metres high or at least 7 stories (measured in accordance with the Approved Document B); or 
2. is a building that is more than 11 metres high that has a simultaneous evacuation strategy. 

Where a building fall within that category, the Responsible Persons (“RP”), as the party with control of the premises, to take reasonable steps to identify ‘relevant residents’, carry out person-centred fire risk assessments for all relevant residents that ask for one, discuss with the resident potential measures to support their evacuation and then implement those measures. Information regarding those measures must be written into a statement and provided to the resident so they know what to do in the event of a fire. Certain information regarding those measures will need to be shared with the local fire and rescue authority.

A relevant resident is a person that uses the premises as their principal or only residence, and their 'ability to evacuate the building without assistance in the event of a fire is compromised as a result of a cognitive or physical impairment or condition’.

Steps the RP must take

• Identification of relevant residents: the RP must use reasonable endeavours to identify the relevant residents within the specified residential buildings. However, the decision regarding whether or not a relevant resident is to participate in the residential PEEP sits with the resident. Consent will be needed throughout every stage of the PEEP process, and a resident cannot be compelled to engage against their wishes.
• Person-centred fire risk assessment: the RP must offer a person-centred fire risk assessment to every relevant resident they identify within their buildings. Where the resident accepts the offer, person-centred risk assessments must include an assessment of the risks relating to the resident and their premises, taking into consideration their particular cognitive or physical impairment or condition and their ability to respond to an evacuation situation in the circumstances.
• Mitigation of risks: consistent with the push towards resident engagement in their safety in buildings, the RP must have a discussion with the resident (or their representative) to identify reasonable and proportionate measures for the RP to take to mitigate the identified risks – subject to costs considerations. While the relevant resident will be involved with the process, the responsibility for the decision as to which measures are reasonable and should be introduced falls upon the RP.
• Emergency evacuation statements: following the discussion with the resident regarding the reasonable and proportionate measures, the RP must use ‘reasonable endeavours’ to agree with the resident what they should do in the event of a fire and that this agreed action is formalised in a written ‘emergency evacuation statement’; this statement is intended to be a clear, brief aid for the residents so that in an emergency they can refresh themselves of the steps to take in an emergency.
• Review: as with all risk assessments under the new building safety regimes, the person-centred risk assessment, the mitigating measures and the emergency evacuation statement will need to be reviewed periodically. This review will need to occur no later than 12 months after it is created, annually thereafter, if there is reason to believe it requires amending or at the reasonable request of the relevant resident.
• Provision of information to local fire and rescue authority: the RP must share various prescribed information on all relevant residents (with their explicit consent) to the local fire and rescue authority in order to assist their operational response. These details will include the flat and floor number, basic information about the level of assistance required and whether they have an emergency evacuation statement. This information should be brief and accessible, given the limited amount of time the fire and rescue authority will have to read the information in an emergency situation. It is a matter for the local fire and rescue authority to decide if this information is to be shared digitally, or to be stored in a safe box on-site.
• Building emergency evacuation plans: a separate building emergency evacuation plan must be prepared, including confirmation of relevant residents, a copy of the instructions given to residents under the other fire safety regulation and any other related evacuation arrangements. This must also be shared with the local fire and rescue authority.

Next steps and Potential Complications

These Regulations mark a significant shift in how housing providers must approach fire safety. Practical considerations for housing providers and RPs ahead of 6 April 2026 include; auditing their buildings to identify relevant residents, engaging with these residents to explain their options and, establishing clear procedures for updating, reviewing evacuation plans and liaising with the local fire and rescue authority. 

The Government has planned to release statutory guidance in ‘Autumn’ this year, in advance of the Regulations coming into force. This guidance should provide more clarity as to how residential PEEPs will work in practice, as there we already foresee scope for complications arising.

A significant issue is that of cost. Measures to be introduced must be reasonable and proportionate for the RP to take on where that cost is to be borne by the RP or passed down to all residents in the building. In circumstances where residents share the costs, it can only be implemented if the measure would benefit the majority of the residents in the building. Otherwise, the cost would need to be met by the resident. While private landlords will likely pass the cost to leaseholders (subject to reasonableness and the measure benefitting the majority of residents), social housing landlords face restrictions on what can be recovered from residents. It is likely that RPs will incur significant costs in implementing these measures or, in the alternative, measures will be considered unreasonable due to their cost – with a result of no improvement in safety for the resident. It has been indicated that funding may be made available to mitigate costs, and some measures may be eligible for means tested disabled facilities grants; the Government guidance will likely provide an indication upon its publication.

What ‘proportionate mitigation’ means for RPs is open for interpretation. Enforcing authorities will likely have a different interpretation of what is reasonable and proportionate measures are the circumstances compared to RPs, so teething problems are likely to occur until more guidance is provided or enforcement test cases are publicised. The wording of the Regulations appears to require a positive mitigation step, more than simply providing the fire and rescue authority with information. 

RP are likely required to up-skill themselves in order to properly provide the necessary person-centred risk assessments. A relevant resident will have a ‘compromised’ ability to evacuate as a result of physical or mental impairment but is unclear how ‘compromised’ a person must be to qualify as a relevant resident. It cannot only mean ‘unable’, or the Regulations would have stated as such. There will therefore be a spectrum of compromised ability to which an RP must make a judgment call as to when assessments and mitigation measures are necessary – which is a difficult line to draw without further guidance.

Similarly, identification of cognitive impairments is defined by reference to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. RPs will need to be sufficiently aware of the relevant definitions and be conscious when making an assessment that capacity can be decision specific or fluctuating and that certain assumptions on capacity is prohibited. This is another area where there is a risk that vulnerable residents may go overlooked or miscategorised, so it is vital that ‘reasonable endeavours’ are used. It is currently unclear how far RPs must go to achieve reasonable endeavours; there is no requirement for the sharing of medical information, so RPs will be relying on residents to engage and self-identify as well as their own ability to correctly identify those with compromised ability. 

As resident consent is always required, it is entirely possible that relevant residents elect to not receive any assistance, putting themselves at risk. RPs cannot force measures upon residents or share information without their consent. Therefore, it will be vitally important for RPs to hold meticulous records to show to show the steps that it has taken and the measures that have been offered to residents. 

We will be holding a Breakfast Briefing to review these Regulations, do watch this space for an invite.

If you would like further information or be kept up to date with future developments please contact Lee Russell or Mark London.