Minutes:
The Chair invited Charles Loft, Senior Adviser, to introduce the report.
Charles outlined the proposed LGA response to the Home Office consultation on Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) and explained that this had come about as a result of the recommendation from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry that a PEEP should be prepared by the Responsible Person for every resident in a high-rise residential building who self-identifies as unable to self-evacuate. In addition, this information should be kept up to date and placed in an information box on the premises to assist fire and rescue services in carrying out effective evacuations.
Charles then ran through the proposed LGA response to the consultation. This supported the proposal to introduce a legal requirement for PEEPs in buildings with simultaneous evacuation policies and recognised the value they could have in buildings with a Stay Put policy. However, there would undoubtedly be significant resource implications for councils which hadn’t been adequately considered by the Home Office. The LGA was supportive of discussions around making volunteer-based PEEPs work but the Government had to clarify whether any legal liability would fall upon the Responsible Person in the event of the failure of a volunteer-dependent evacuation plan. There were also issues around capacity, competence and assurance for councils which would have resource implications and would need to be addressed. A balance needed to be struck between councils’ distinct roles as landlord and regulator.
Mark Hardingham, NFCC Chair, added that the NFCC had been working closely with the LGA on the response and he agreed that more guidance was needed on how they could be made to work in practice. In particular, there were questions about the role of FRSs in assessing and monitoring PEEPs and the difference between an evacuation and a rescue situation. Geographical variation in resourcing of FRSs would also need to be taken into account.
Members comments and questions:
· Support was expressed for the principles outlined in the response but there were concerns about its tone and strident language in places, particularly in its criticism of the Government. It was felt that this wouldn’t help the LGA moving forward. Could these sections be redrafted and circulated to Lead Members (and Lord Porter) for final sign off? Charles agreed to make these adjustments and said that he would recirculate the revised document to lead members of FSMC, EEHT and SSC Boards as well as the Grenfell Task & Finish Group. He advised members that Lord Porter had taken on a new role at MHCLG and was therefore, no longer the LGA Building Safety Spokesperson.
· The response did not properly address the question of the responsibility for enforcing PEEPs to ensure they would comply with legal requirements. Could this be added in?
· New and modern ways of occupying buildings, such as Air bnb, were creating significant issues for fire safety and how vulnerable people could be kept safe. Mark Hardingham agreed that this was an emerging trend in the built environment and said that the NFCC were talking to Air bnb and others, and giving them advice on fire safety. This was a difficult regulatory area as the FRS role only applied when premises were in use as a business.
· It was suggested that the LGA’s fire suppression system work be resurrected to complement the work on PEEPs. Members agreed that this would be a good idea.
Decision:
· FSMC endorsed the proposed LGA response to the PEEPs consultation subject to the changes outlined above being made.
Actions:
· Charles to redraft response as directed and recirculate to lead members and the Grenfell Task & Finish Group for final approval.
· Officers to look at revisiting fire suppression system work.