Making evacuations safe for those who need more help

The government’s Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing + (EEIS+) consultation closed on 21 August and the government is now analysing the feedback. Government Business takes a look at the intention, the questions and some of the responses that have been published

In August 2017, an inquiry was launched to look into the Grenfell fire. There were two phases of the inquiry. Phase 1 looked at what happened on the night of the fire, including what the emergency services did. The Phase 1 report was published in October 2019.
    
Phase 2 of the inquiry started in January 2020 and looks at why the fire could have happened and what happened after the fire.
    
The report from Phase 1 recommended that the responsible person for each high-rise building where people live must make a plan for each of their residents who would have problems leaving the building in the case of a fire. This plan is called a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP). The report also recommended that the PEEP, along with other information about these residents should be up to date and kept in a box in the building, so fire and rescue services can access them in the event of a fire.
    
In summer 2021, the government ran the Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) consultation asking how they could make sure the above two recommendations happened. In response to the feedback, they published a report in May 2022, that said that they would not be able to make the recommendations happen. The government said: “The PEEPs consultation raised significant issues covering 3 broad areas – practicality, proportionality and safety, which means we are currently unable to mandate PEEPs in high-rise residential buildings.”
    
They then launched another survey, Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing + to ask for feedback on different proposals to keep vulnerable residents safe in a fire.

Responses
In response to the consultation, the National Fire Chiefs Council said: “It is NFCC’s view that, although the EEIS proposals represent a step forward, the current proposals do not go far enough, nor do they meet fully the intent of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase One recommendations. NFCC very much appreciate that evacuations pose a challenging policy area, but we believe there is more that Government should be doing in this area to ensure that all residents are able to evacuate safely without the need to wait, in the hope of being rescued by the FRS.”
    
The Local Government Association (LGA) said: “The LGA recognises the practical challenges of delivering PEEPs and has raised these with government, but does not believe it is acceptable to have buildings in which residents who can do so are told to evacuate immediately if there is a fire, but disabled residents are left in a burning building in the hope of rescue by the fire service. Such buildings are simply not suitable for disabled residents and they should be offered the opportunity to move.”

The proposals apply to residential buildings where there are two or more households.

Simultaneous evacuation strategy
Step 1 focusses on which buildings the proposals should apply to. Most buildings have a ‘stay put’ strategy, as for these buildings it is safer to stay in one’s own home until the fire has been put out. However, due to the way they have been built, some buildings can be assessed as less safe or more at risk of a dangerous fire – these buildings will have a “simultaneous evacuation” strategy to follow if there is a fire. In this case, if there is a fire in the building, everyone needs to leave the building. The government plans to focus the majority of its plans on buildings with simultaneous evacuation strategies.
    
The consultation asks if the proposals should only be applied in buildings with simultaneous evacuation strategies.
    
The National Housing Federation said: “Disabled and mobility-impaired residents should feel and be safe in their homes, and no resident should be discriminated against when it comes to their personal safety. We therefore disagree that the government’s proposals provide an adequate approach to support people who otherwise couldn’t evacuate independently, given that buildings with simultaneous evacuation strategies have been identified as having a known building safety risk that requires residents to leave in an emergency. “
    
The proposals include making a document to help responsible persons keep their residents safe from fire, including examples of what other responsible persons are already doing to protect their residents. The consultation asks if this document is a good idea and whether respondents have any examples that could be included in this document.
    
The NFCC said: “It is the view of NFCC that the proposed toolkit does not go far enough.
    
“The FSO needs to ensure that there is a clear and consistent approach, with no room for ambiguity on what the requirements are for RPs, and provide safeguards for residents of all tenures from disproportionate treatment across relevant buildings. Relying on individual RPs to make these judgements risks creating a multi-tiered system of protections for those residents that may require assistance to evacuate safely from their home.”

Responsible person
Step 2 aims to identify the residents who need help to get out. The government has suggested the responsible person ask residents to identify themselves if they would need help to get out of the building if there was a fire. The responsible person would need to make a list of these people and ensure it is up to date. The consultation asks if it is a good idea for responsible persons to ask residents who need help to self-identify and if not, what would be another way.
    
The National Housing Federation said that responsible persons should be required to provide disabled and mobility-impaired residents with the opportunity to identify if they would need support.

Person-centred fire risk assessment
Step 3 is the person-centred fire risk assessment checklist. For every resident that self-identifies as needing help, the responsible person needs to carry out a person-centred fire risk assessment to look at the risk of fire inside that person’s flat. The assessment will also look at common areas like corridors and stairs to assess if changes could be made to help that person get out of the building safely – such as signs, ramps, handrails or a special fire alarm. The consultation asks for feedback on the person-centred fire risk assessment.
    
The NFCC said: “Whilst NFCC agree that a PCFRA is a viable way to identify fire safety risks to the individual and barriers to evacuation, we strongly advocate that this is not limited to those residents in buildings with temporary simultaneous evacuation strategy.”
    
The LGA said: “PCFRAs are a useful tool, however, they should not only be limited to temporary simultaneous evacuation or only for residents with mobility impairments. Where it is known that there are or could be residents who need support to evacuate, irrelevant of the tenure, height or evacuation strategy of their building, they should be offered a PCFRA.”
    
The NFCC also said: “NFCC also recommend that PCFRAs are made available to all residents regardless of their impairment of vulnerability.”
    
The LGA expressed a similar view, saying: “Proposals should not be limited to those with mobility impairments. Whilst mobility impaired residents are most likely to require physical assistance or equipment to assist them in evacuating their building, there are a multitude of other impairments that can affect an individual’s ability to evacuate or become aware that an evacuation is taking place.”

Sharing information
Step 4 is about sharing information with the local fire and rescue service. Following the risk assessment, there may be nothing “reasonable” that can be done to help vulnerable people get out of the building. In this case, the government wants the responsible person to share information about these residents with the local fire and rescue services. The consultation asks the respondents’ opinion on sharing information with fire and rescue services.
    
The LGA argues that this plan does not go far enough, saying: “We do not believe simple flat and floor numbers are sufficient, and this approach arguably risks transferring responsibility from the duty-holder to the fire service and disabled individuals. Operational crews would require more information on things including type of impairment and any equipment, medication etc. that will need to be taken with them when evacuated. Without this kind of information, residents or firefighters risk being injured. Due regard should be given to the FIA/NFCC Code of Practice for Premises Information Boxes.”
    
The NFCC has a similar view, saying: “NFCC strongly disagree that simply providing FRSs with a flat and floor number of the resident requiring assistance will be sufficient to enable the FRS to assist a resident who may find themselves in a vulnerable position to exit safely from the building.”
    
Finally, step 5 is about how the fire and rescue services would use this information, with the intention of them using it to help residents who need more support to get out of the building if there is a fire. The consultation asks whether this is a good idea.
    
The government has also suggested that the responsible person for each building produces a plan informing residents what to do in the case of a fire.
    
The final part of the consultation asks for the respondent to share any ideas that work well to keep vulnerable residents safe.