An evacuation plan must begin with the person

An evacuation plan can look complete on paper while still failing the person who needs it.

Since 6 April 2026, the Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 have placed new duties on Responsible Persons in specified residential buildings. The requirements include identifying residents who may have difficulty evacuating without assistance, offering a person-centred fire risk assessment, considering reasonable and proportionate measures, preparing an emergency evacuation statement where agreed, and providing information to the Fire and Rescue Authority with the resident’s consent.

The administrative steps matter, but the central idea is simpler: effective evacuation planning begins with a conversation.

A resident may be unable to use stairs, but mobility is only one consideration. A visual or hearing impairment may affect how a warning is received. A cognitive condition may affect how instructions are understood. Medication, fatigue or a fluctuating health condition may change what someone can do at different times. A standard form cannot discover these matters unless the process allows the resident to explain them.

That distinction is important because a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan should not become a generic list of equipment. An evacuation chair may be suitable in one setting and impractical in another. An alarm device may provide warning but not solve the subsequent movement problem. Reliance on the Fire and Rescue Service may form part of the overall arrangements, but it should be understood and recorded rather than assumed.

The assessment must also connect the individual to the building. The evacuation strategy, stair configuration, availability of staff, reliability of communication systems and location of the resident all influence what can reasonably be achieved. A measure that works on the first floor may be of little value on the fifteenth. A plan that depends on trained staff cannot be treated as reliable if those staff are not consistently present.

Proportionality remains necessary, but it must not become a convenient explanation for doing nothing. The decision should consider the degree of risk, the likely effectiveness of the measure, its practicality, its cost and any benefit to other residents. Most importantly, the reasoning should be recorded and capable of being revisited.

Consent is equally significant. The new process requires the resident’s participation and, where information is to be shared with the Fire and Rescue Authority, their explicit agreement. This is not fire safety being done to someone. It is fire safety being developed with them.

The strongest evacuation plans are therefore not those with the most detailed templates. They are those that connect a real person, a real building and a realistic response. [Government guidance explains the scope and operation of the Residential PEEPs requirements](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residential-personal-emergency-evacuation-plans-residential-peeps/residential-peeps-guidance-for-responsible-persons).

The test is straightforward: if the resident cannot recognise themselves and their circumstances in the plan, it probably is not yet personal.

Pyrology Insight provides commentary on contemporary fire safety topics. It is intended to stimulate professional discussion and should not be relied upon as project-specific advice.