The LGA believes the Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing (EEIS+) proposal could form the basis of a useful backup to the requirement for Responsible Persons to identify residents who are unable to self-evacuate and make every reasonable adjustment to ensure that they can do so, through the provision of a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan.
1. Do you agree or disagree that the initial change in legislation should be focussed on the buildings with the greatest fire safety risk i.e. buildings with simultaneous evacuation strategies in place?
Tend to disagree
If you disagree, what category of buildings do you propose should be included? Please consider and address the information in the Impact Assessment (including the analysis of costs) before formulating your response. If you consider that the costs would be different to those set out in the Impact Assessment please set this out and explain why.
The LGA believes the Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing (EEIS+) proposal could form the basis of a useful backup to the requirement for Responsible Persons to identify residents who are unable to self-evacuate and make every reasonable adjustment to ensure that they can do so, through the provision of a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan. However, EEIS+ should never be Plan A and we are aware that the NFCC has significant reservations about the detail of the proposal in the consultation. We urge the Home Office not to impose on the fire service any form of EEIS+ which does not have the support of those with operational responsibility for making it work. To do so would be to shift responsibility from RPs to the fire service and fundamentally undermine the principles underpinning the Fire Safety Order.
Where a building has a simultaneous evacuation strategy, the needs of those who cannot self-evacuate must be met and we unequivocally support EEIS+ being put in place in these buildings, including where the simultaneous evacuation policy is temporary. However, this approach should not be limited to only buildings with simultaneous evacuation. We believe all buildings should be included in the initial change of legislation, especially including buildings where there may be a particularly high number of vulnerable persons or where the risk to them from fire is heightened, e.g., sheltered housing or high-rise residential buildings with a single staircase.
Our view is that RPs should have an obligation to ensure that those who are unable to self-evacuate can do so in buildings with a simultaneous evacuation strategy.
We go further and say that social landlords are in law under an obligation already to consider what reasonable adjustments can be made to ensure those residents who, because of disability, cannot self-evacuate, can do so in buildings with a stay put evacuation strategy (in such buildings the advice to residents is to leave the building if the fire is in their flat or threatens them). Part 3 of the Equality Act 2010 imposes an anticipatory duty on councils and housing associations in relation to allocation of tenancies and the management of let properties: see Nur & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council [2021] EWHC 1138 (Admin) (04 May 2020) (Nur). This means that they are under an anticipatory duty to consider the requirements of their disabled residents without those residents having to ask.
Where no reasonable adjustment can be made to allow self-evacuation, we believe that the option of neighbour assistance should be explored, although there remain some issues to address in order to make this a reality. However, we consider that more proactive steps will be needed and these include offering to move the resident to another flat either at a lower level where they can be more easily evacuated or to another building where there is not the same problem.
This duty to disabled residents applies in all blocks, not just those with simultaneous evacuation. Due to this existing duty for social landlords, the LGA believes that the Home Office, in order to meet its duty under Article 50 of the Fire Safety Order and provide appropriate guidance to social landlords, must produce guidance that covers duties under Equality Act 2010 as well as any fire regulations. We have shared with government details of Leading and Junior Counsel’s opinion which explain the Part 3 Part 4 Equality Act legislation. The option in the Impact Assessment that suggests expanding the application of EEIS+ to all buildings over 18m as well as simultaneous evacuation buildings, remains problematic due to its reliance on height. As was expressed in the previous consultation on PEEPs, height is not a good indicator of risk for residents who cannot self-evacuate: a resident on the sixth floor who cannot self-evacuate is not at significantly lower risk in a 6-story block than in a 30-storey block. Treating disabled residents differently in buildings of different height is likely to be unsustainable in the face of legal challenge under equality law. Height should not be a decisive factor in deciding whether a building should be mandated to enact EEIS - rather all buildings should be included.
If we do not mandate EEIS+ in buildings with stay-put policies, this legislation represents a step backwards in terms of regulation of the built environment. Given that PEEPs were previously a requirement in social housing but would not be replaced with EEIS under these proposals in this category of building, disabled residents would be left with less legal protection than before.
2. Do you agree or disagree that the toolkit, as described, would be a suitable resource to support Responsible Persons in fulfilling their duties under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005?
Tend to agree
3. Call for evidence - Are you aware of any initiatives that enhance the fire safety of mobility impaired residents, that could be considered for inclusion as case studies in the toolkit?
Yes
If yes, please provide details below. If you are happy to be re-contacted to understand these case studies further, please also provide your contact details. If you disagree, please explain why. What alternative resources do you think could support Responsible Persons in this regard instead?
The LGA will promote the CFE to our members – which we are doing presently and can continue to do. We broadly support a toolkit for Responsible Persons to implement interventions and strategies to improve the fire safety of their mobility impaired residents.
4. Do you agree or disagree that the proposed identification process laid out i.e. the Responsible Person asking residents to self-identify (when resident first moves in, via comms to all residents on an annual basis and via residents coming forward themselves outside of those times) strikes the right balance of responsibilities between a Responsible Person and an individual resident?
Neither agree nor disagree.
If you disagree, please explain why and outline what your alternative approach would be. Please consider and address the information in the Impact Assessment (including the analysis of costs) before formulating your response. If you consider that the costs would be different to those set out in the Impact Assessment please set this out and explain why.
The Home Office should seek advice from those with lived experience as we are concerned that this proposal does not address reluctance/ignorance among disabled residents on in what circumstances they can seek help.
5. Do you have any additional comments on the proposed identification process?
Yes
If yes, please give as much detail as possible.
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. Many individuals with disabilities and or impairments will not require cost intensive or substantial alterations, and their safety could be greatly improved through consideration as part of the EEIS proposals.
The Grenfell Phase 1 Report noted that residents’ ability to evacuate may be compromised because of disabilities relating to both mobility and cognition. The legal advice we have received is that inviting residents to self-identify would not comply with the Equality Act 2010 (see above and the citation to Nur). There is a general anticipatory duty on social landlords under Part 3 of the Equality Act 2010 (and not merely a personal one) to make reasonable adjustments to all housing management plans and policies to make them suitable for disabled service users including residents.
A second point is that many social landlords will already have information sufficient to identify when residents are disabled, perhaps because of decisions to award tenancies or place residence that have been taken by them. Some residents may have disabilities which affect their ability to communicate.
The LGA recognises the importance of having appropriate systems and mechanisms in place to ensure people with disabilities can navigate challenges and are not placed at a disadvantage due to impairments. This underlines the importance of being proactive in terms of identifying people, which would also better fulfil the Equality Act considerations, as well as offering comprehensive support to people with a range of disabilities.
Government guidance on this question is urgently required.
6. Do you agree or disagree that this approach is a viable way to identify fire safety risks, including barriers to evacuation?
Tend to agree
If you agree, whilst viable, are there still issues to consider in implementing this approach? Please give details. If you disagree, please explain why and outline what your alternative viable approach would be. Please consider and address the information in the Impact Assessment (including the analysis of costs) before formulating your response. If you consider that the costs would be different to those set out in the Impact Assessment please set this out and explain why.
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.
Consideration needs to be given to the fact that PCFRA may only be the start of a process and may include engaging with other competent professionals, such as a care provider or the local FRS, to ensure that the needs of the resident are fully being met with a holistic approach to their health, wellbeing and safety.
Consideration of measures such as refuge areas and evacuation lifts, particularly for those with mobility impairments is outlined in detail within the Article 50 guide, Fire Safety Risk Assessment: Sleeping Accommodation.
This approach raises the question of who pays for PCFRAs. In council housing, if the landlord pays then ultimately the cost falls on rent-payers; in private housing it would fall on freeholders or leaseholders. Either of these outcomes can be represented as unfair. The question of who pays to provide equitable treatment for residents who are unable to self-evacuate is perhaps wider than this consultation, but the absence of a clear answer to this question means such treatment is not provided at all.
7. Do you agree or disagree that this approach is an adequate way to identify suitable measures to mitigate against fire safety risks, including barriers to evacuation?
Tend to disagree
If you agree, whilst adequate, are there still issues to consider in implementing this approach? Please give details. If you disagree, please explain why and outline what your alternative adequate approach would be. Please consider and address the information in the Impact Assessment (including the analysis of costs) before formulating your response. If you consider that the costs would be different to those set out in the Impact Assessment please set this out and explain why.
Responsible Persons currently have no statutory fire prevention related duties to implement in-flat prevention or suppression measures. Fire and Rescue Services and Local Authorities cannot enforce these measures either, so this raises the question of how we can be sure the findings of the PCFRA have been implemented and the resident is safe in their own home. Implementing reasonable measures should not be discretionary – rather it should be enforced following a PCFRA.
The proposal that Responsible Persons of buildings with a simultaneous evacuation policy in place are required to assess the needs of their most vulnerable residents yet only consider what might reasonably be done to mitigate any risks to fire safety, is not something we support. It does not require the responsible person to act and have a plan on how the resident would evacuate in the event of a fire. The Equality Act 2010 does have this effect and it is important that nothing is done in fire safety regulation that undermines the scope and reach of that Act.
We note the costings in relation to the presence of a concierge or similar but we did not see any discussion of other steps such as moving residents to safer and therefore more appropriate housing.
The absence of this requirement means that the occupants of the building are told it is so dangerous that if there is a fire they should evacuate immediately, but disabled residents are told to wait to be rescued. This is transferring responsibility from the duty-holder to the fire service and disabled individuals; while rescue is a back-up option, which is facilitated by EEIS; it cannot be the first and only option in a block with simultaneous evacuation. In addition, this policy would in our view be unlawful under the Equality Act if adopted by a local authority.
In addition, there is no requirement for the Responsible Person to demonstrate that they have considered all options and demonstrated due diligence. Consideration should be given as to whether this is something that can be evidenced as part of the fire safety duties under the Building Safety Act via the Resident Engagement Strategy and Safety Cases.
This could result in high costs for residents, and according to the proposals in this consultation, the default approach is for disabled residents to pay for their own adjustments in the common parts (see p.6 of the PDF under Summary of Policy). We have concerns about dispute resolution and residents having to choose between potential high costs and their own safety, with their only option for redress where there is no agreement being legal action.
We believe that following a PCFRA the RP should be obliged to consider what reasonable adjustments can be made to enable the resident to self-evacuate and implement them. If no reasonable adjustments can resolve the issue, then consideration should be given to neighbour or carer assistance schemes and, in social housing, an alternative housing offer made. We are open to other suggestions, and we acknowledge the cost of these proposals. Government grant funding must be made available to ensure disabled residents are safe and feel safe in their homes and that the costs of doing so do not fall on their neighbours.
8. Do you foresee any issues with the provision of a PCFRA checklist (by the Responsible Person) AND the provision of a home fire safety visit from the Fire & Rescue Service?
Yes
If yes, please give as much detail as possible.
A PCFRA will be a far more detailed and comprehensive assessment carried out by a competent person on behalf of the Responsible Person compared to a HFSV. Often HFSVs cannot be completed due to the FRS not being able to gain access, e.g., because residents are unable to get to the door. The PCFRA can not only assess how the resident will be warned of a fire, but also what assistive technology/equipment or mitigation measures they may need. FRS crews do not have the authority or training to do this but can complement this approach by referring people to appropriate services.
As a result, if PCFRAs are done properly, you may not always need a HFSV as well. The checklist they link to in the consultation has been superseded by the Online Home Fire Safety Check tool.
In addition, we would need to be cognisant of costs, not only for residents and RPs, but resource costs for the FRS. If everyone is sent to the FRS for a HFSV, this could be very hard for FRSs to process in the short term, primarily for LFB, who have the highest number of buildings in temporary simultaneous evacuation. FRS staff undertaking visits will not only need to be competent to do so, but also be competent to recognise what existing fire safety provisions are in place, if any, and be able to help the RP and resident to identify what additional safety measures would be most beneficial.
9. Do you agree or disagree that this approach is sufficient to allow the Fire & Rescue Service to execute an emergency evacuation, if required?
Tend to disagree
If you disagree, please specify what further information should be required. If this is personal information, how do you propose it is kept secure?
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 Fire Risk Assessment – Means of Escape for Disabled People guide says that the ‘evacuation plan should not rely upon the intervention of the Fire and Rescue Service to make it work.’ (p.4) and there is similar wording on p.24 of the Fire Safety Risk Assessment – Sleeping Accommodation guide. We therefore believe that these proposals water down the existing duties on RPs.
If adjustments can’t be made that would be sufficient in allowing the resident to self-evacuate, a PEEP may need to be considered. Reliance on evacuation must not be viewed as a mitigating measure against other fire safety issues.
10. What are your views on the use of the information by FRSs, including to support the emergency evacuation of mobility impaired residents?
There is a significant danger that EEIS transfers existing responsibility held by the Responsible Person to ensure that disabled residents are safe, to the fire service. Any introduction of EEIS should only be as a backup plan to a plan A which allows the resident to evacuate without the assistance of the fire service where that is possible. The fire service is not equipped to conduct multiple rescues of disabled residents in the event of a fire – in particular in a building with compromised compartmentation. To expect it to do so will hugely increase the levels of attendance at fires with significant cost implications.
Government should be taking into account the range of potential response times, rather than the average. There may be outliers outside of urban areas where response times may exceed the times quoted by enough to be problematic.
In addition, FRSs will not usually be able to start fighting the fire or rescuing people with only one appliance in attendance. You will need multiple crews to actually get to the fire/individual, which could increase response times to more like 20 minutes. FRSs may not have resources in place to rescue disabled people immediately and will not be able to rescue all disabled residents at once. In this scenario, extra information on impairments would be essential as well as considering the needs of people with other types of impairments.
As per Article 50 guidance, evacuation should not rely on the intervention of the FRS.
11. Do you have any additional comments on the EEIS proposal as laid out in Steps 2 - 5 in the EEIS+ consultation document?
Yes
If yes, please give as much detail as possible.
This approach does not rule out PEEPs, but it does foreclose the discussion of the proposed working group which intends to discuss with representatives of disabled residents in what way a PEEP could function. The LGA believes that neighbour assistance can be made to work although there are issues that need to be considered before it can be introduced, notably around liability.
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.
We support EEIS in these buildings as a back-up safety measure (subject to the concerns of the NFCC about the details), but it cannot be the first option. We do not believe this is what the inquiry intended in making its recommendations, we question its legality, and we are aware that the fire service has serious reservations about the practicality of relying on rescue in the first instance. There needs to be an obligation on landlords to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of disabled residents. The government’s proposals do not go far enough.
There is a need for comprehensive guidance on this issue from the Government – who have a legal obligation to ensure it is provided – and that guidance needs to take full account of the obligations arising from the Equality Act which we have recently advised our members to seek legal advice on.
Ensuring buildings with stay-put policies have effective compartmentation, fire doors and AFSS protects all residents, including those who are unable to self-evacuate. These measures give greater safety than EEIS+ can by reducing the risk of a fire spreading beyond its flat of origin virtually to zero. It is important to recognise that once a fire has broken out of the flat in which it began any resident seeking to use the stairs or lobbies to evacuate is at risk from smoke inhalation of being cut off by the fire. In some cases, fire can then spread so quickly via cladding or balconies that by the time a resident who cannot self-evacuate realises that there is a fire in the building it may well be too late. Making all buildings safe in the first place provides the best protection.
English building standards need to be brought in line with other countries to support safe evacuation, including multiple staircases, with new buildings having a minimum of two staircases, evacuation lifts, refuge areas with communications, and detectors linked to FRS alarm receiving centres. If buildings were built correctly and to higher standards, Government could effectively design out the need for evacuation measures which are complex or costly to implement in a large proportion of residential buildings. Accessibility is considered, but we need to be thinking about ‘egressibility’ as well, to make sure people are able to get into their buildings but also get out. The Home Office needs to work in tandem with DLUHC, which has responsibility for the Building Regulations, to ensure the issue of evacuation is built into new buildings, rather than leaving the fire and rescue service to cope with the problems that arise from shortcomings in building regulation.
12. Do you agree or disagree that the addition of this on-site individual adds enough value to the EEIS proposal to justify the associated costs?
Tend to disagree
Please consider the information in the Impact Assessment (including the analysis of costs) before formulating your response. If you consider that the costs would be different to those set out in the Impact Assessment please set this out and explain why.
If the on-site individual has responsibilities described in the impact assessment, they would not bring enough value to justify costs. If they cannot assist with physical evacuation, and can only direct evacuees out of a building, we do not think that this provides value for money.
It is essential this proposal is discussed with disabled resident representatives at the proposed working group mentioned in the consultation. For example, Claddag believe the costs of requirements like waking watch is financially damaging for everyone involved, disabled or otherwise. They argue that any costs associated with a disabled person’s safety are taken out of the hands of leaseholders and should be centrally funded, to avoid a sense of resentment and hostility to specific individuals blamed for any additional costs in the service charge.
13. Call for evidence – We are interested in examples of PEEPS in residential buildings, but which fully or partially avoid the concerns over safety, proportionality and practicality.Therefore, can you provide examples of existing PEEPs for residential buildings, agreed between resident and RP, that provide for evacuation from a building, that at least partially:
- avoids the staffing up of buildings to enact the PEEPs;
- avoids the liability issues for RPs and third parties who are enacting the PEEPs such as friends or neighbours;
- avoids the safety issues in enacting them e.g. the blocking of stairwells.
If you are aware of any examples, please share them (redacted for data protection purposes if necessary) and provide as much supporting detail as possible, including the resources required to implement them and the costs involved. Or explain below:
The LGA will promote the CFE to our members – which we are doing presently and can continue to.
14. Call for evidence – We are also interested in examples of buildings where staff have been installed on-site to support the enacting of PEEPs or other fire safety initiatives (outside of waking watch). Are you aware of any such examples? If yes, please share details and if possible, be explicit as to what that person(s) is expected to do in the event of a fire and the costs involved.
The LGA will promote the CFE to our members – which we are doing presently and can continue to.
15. Call for evidence - Are you aware of any other initiatives for how mobility impaired residents can be made safer in their homes or be evacuated from a high-rise residential building in a way which is safe, proportionate and practical? If yes, please provide as much detail as possible including how the initiative works in practice, the resources required and the costs involved, and, if you are willing, a contact email address to discuss further.
The LGA will promote the CFE to our members – which we are doing presently and can continue to.
16. Call for evidence - Do you have any evidence on the numbers of residents in your building(s) who are mobility impaired and would likely have difficulty self-evacuating? If yes, please provide as much detail as possible.
The LGA will promote the CFE to our members – which we are doing presently and can continue to.
17. Do you agree or disagree that the provision of separate evacuation plan documents should be focussed on the buildings with the greatest fire safety risk i.e. buildings with simultaneous evacuation strategies in place?
Tend to disagree.
If you disagree, please explain why and outline what your alternative adequate approach would be. Please consider and address the information in the Impact Assessment (including the analysis of costs) before formulating your response. If you consider that the costs would be different to those set out in the Impact Assessment please set this out and explain why.
Only having evacuation plan documents in temporary simultaneous evacuation is too limited. These buildings should all eventually be remediated, and we think there is an argument to have these plans in stay put buildings as well, for when people do want to leave the building.
Feedback from residents and disabled groups at the Grenfell Tower Inquiry have focused on the wording of ‘stay put’ giving people a false sense that they shouldn’t leave under any circumstances. Evacuation plans for all multi-occupied residential building types could help to address this.
It is important to remember however that in a stay put building an evacuation will only take place in unforeseen circumstances. These are inherently difficult to plan for. Plans will need to be made by a competent individual and encourage residents to always defer to instructions from FRS personnel.
18. Do you have any further comments on the proportionality of applying the EEIS proposal and the requirement to create separate evacuation plan documents, only to simultaneous evacuation buildings at this time?
Yes
Please consider and address the information in the Impact Assessment (including the analysis of costs) before formulating your response. If you consider that the costs would be different to those set out in the Impact Assessment please set this out and explain why.
More effort needs to be made to consider how this issue is addressed in other countries.
We wish to reiterate the need to address the question of evacuation in the guidance on building regulations provided by the Approved Documents. It is absurd that so much effort is being given to overcoming past failures to design buildings on an inclusive basis, while continuing to allow new buildings to be built with no thought of inclusive design.
There are parts of the country where the demand for social housing so outstrips supply that it is not always possible to offer accessible housing to all who need it. We think it is unlikely that the government will fund social landlords to retrofit the necessary measures to allow PEEPs in all cases that can guarantee evacuation. Thought needs to be given to increasing the provision of accessible social housing to overcome this problem (although the long-term solution should be inclusive design). This requires central government funding.