RPEEPs: Intention, Reality, and the Risk of Getting It Wrong

There are few areas of fire safety that expose the gap between policy ambition and operational reality quite as starkly as Residential Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans.

RPEEPs are rapidly moving from consultation into expectation. The intent is clear and entirely legitimate: ensure that residents who cannot self-evacuate are not left behind in a fire.

Few would argue with that objective.

The difficulty lies in how that intent translates into practice.

At its simplest, a RPEEP is an individualised plan that sets out how a person requiring assistance will evacuate a building in an emergency. In principle, this aligns with long-established approaches in workplaces and public buildings.

But residential buildings are not workplaces.

They are not staffed environments. They do not operate under controlled occupancy conditions. And, critically, they are not designed on the assumption that evacuation will always be simultaneous or assisted.

The UK’s residential fire safety model, particularly for purpose-built flats, has historically been based on stay put, compartmentation, and progressive intervention by the fire and rescue service. The growing emphasis on person-centred evacuation planning begins to test that model in ways that are not yet fully reconciled with building design, management capability, or operational response.

This is where proportionality matters.

There is currently no universal statutory requirement to prepare RPEEPs for all residents. However, the direction of travel is clear: dutyholders are expected to understand who may be at risk, how they might be assisted, and whether the building’s fire strategy remains credible for them.

That is a very different challenge from simply writing plans.

Not every resident requires a RPEEP. Not every building can support one in a meaningful way. And not every plan that can be written can actually be delivered when it is needed most.

There is a real risk here of confusing documentation with capability.

A written plan that relies on staff who are not present, equipment that is not available, or conditions that cannot be assured under fire scenarios is not a plan. It is a liability.

Equally, doing nothing is not defensible.

The correct position sits between these extremes. It requires a clear understanding of:

• the building’s fire strategy

• the characteristics and distribution of residents who may require assistance

• the realistic availability of support

• and the role of the fire and rescue service in intervention

In some cases, this will lead to robust, deliverable arrangements. In others, it may point towards alternative measures: enhanced management controls, targeted risk mitigation, or, in certain circumstances, a more fundamental review of the fire strategy itself.

This is not a problem that can be solved generically.

It demands building-specific thinking, grounded in first principles rather than policy aspiration.

RPEEPs are a necessary evolution. But unless they are approached with honesty about what can and cannot be achieved, there is a danger that the industry creates the appearance of safety without the substance.

And in fire safety, that distinction matters.