Bordeaux wildfires: What we know so far

by Aerial FirefightingBreaking NewsEvacuationIncidentsWildland FireWildland Fire

Bordeaux wildfires force thousands to evacuate as firefighters battle to contain flames

Firefighters are continuing efforts to contain wildfires across the Gironde region in south-west France as extreme weather conditions fuel one of the country’s most serious wildfire emergencies in recent years.

Driven by a combination of extreme heat, prolonged drought and strong winds, the fires have spread rapidly through areas of dry vegetation and pine forest, forcing mass evacuations and placing communities across the region on alert.

Here’s what we know so far about the Bordeaux wildfires.

Where are the Bordeaux wildfires?

The largest fires are burning in the Gironde department, west of Bordeaux, where extensive areas of pine forest have provided significant fuel for the flames.

Authorities have reported that the main fire front has moved to within around 15 kilometres of the Bordeaux metropolitan area. Several nearby communities have been evacuated.

How many people have been evacuated?

More than 250,000 have been evacuated across the Gironde region as the fires have intensified.

How large is the fire?

Authorities estimate that approximately 42,000 hectares of land have been affected by the fires.

The combination of dry vegetation, resin-rich pine forests and strong winds is said to have allowed the flames to spread quickly.

Firefighting response

More than 2,500 firefighters have been deployed, supported by water-bombing aircraft, helicopters and military resources.

France has also received assistance from European partners as crews work to slow the spread of the fires, defend homes and critical infrastructure and prevent further expansion towards populated areas.

The scale of the response highlights the growing challenge posed by wildland-urban interface (WUI) fires, where fast-moving vegetation fires increasingly threaten communities, businesses and essential infrastructure.

What is causing the fires?

Authorities have linked the severity of the fires to a combination of prolonged drought, exceptionally high temperatures and strong winds, creating conditions where fires can ignite and spread rapidly.

While investigations into the causes of individual fires are ongoing, officials have warned that weather conditions remain the biggest challenge for firefighting operations.

Forecasters expect temperatures to remain high this week, with parts of south-west France approaching 40°C. Any increase in wind speed could further accelerate the spread of active fire fronts.

Travel disruption

The wildfires have caused widespread disruption across the Gironde region.

Several roads have been closed, with travellers advised to check the latest transport updates before setting out. Bordeaux Airport remains operational, although precautionary measures have been introduced in surrounding areas.

Government response

French President Emmanuel Macron has chaired crisis meetings as the government coordinates the national response to the wildfire emergency.

Emergency services remain on heightened alert, with additional resources deployed to protect communities and critical infrastructure as conditions continue to change.

A growing challenge for fire and rescue services

The Bordeaux wildfires are part of a wider wildfire crisis affecting several countries across southern Europe.

For fire and rescue services, the incident highlights the increasing operational challenges created by prolonged heatwaves, drought and more extreme fire behaviour. It also reinforces the need for robust wildfire preparedness, effective inter-agency coordination, aerial firefighting capability and stronger protection for communities located at the wildland-urban interface.

With hot and dry conditions expected to continue, firefighters face a challenging task in containing the fires and preventing further destruction in the days ahead.

Hochiki Europe launches FIREscape Nepto Black Edition emergency lighting

by Breaking NewsBuilding ManagementEvacuationHospitalityLightingLightingPublic Events

FIREscape Nepto Black Edition emergency lighting has been introduced by Hochiki Europe to provide a discreet emergency lighting solution for theatres, cinemas, nightclubs and other design-conscious venues

Hochiki Europe has expanded its emergency lighting portfolio with the launch of the FIREscape Nepto Black Edition emergency lighting range, offering a discreet solution for entertainment venues where maintaining the visual atmosphere is a priority.

The new FIREscape Nepto Black Edition emergency lighting has been developed for theatres, cinemas, nightclubs and similar venues where traditional white emergency lighting can stand out in darkened spaces. Its black finish is designed to blend into contemporary interiors while delivering the same performance as the standard FIREscape Nepto range.

The addressable system is built around a control panel connected to self-contained LED luminaires and exit signs using screened, extra-low voltage cabling. Each luminaire features an intelligent back-up battery capable of providing the required three hours of emergency operation in the event of a power failure.

According to Hochiki Europe, the low-voltage design and continuous self-testing and monitoring capabilities help simplify installation and maintenance while reducing associated costs compared with central battery or mains-powered emergency lighting systems.

The luminaire batteries have an expected lifespan of 10 years, helping to minimise replacement and maintenance requirements over the lifetime of the installation. The luminaires are certified to BS EN 60598-2-22 and BS EN 62034 Type PERC, while exit signs comply with BS EN ISO 7010. The complete system also meets the requirements of BS 5266.

The FIREscape Nepto range is designed to be scalable, with each control panel supporting up to two lighting lines and 127 devices per line. Up to 12 panels can also be networked together and controlled from a single keypad, making the system suitable for both single-site installations and larger estates.

The system includes adjustable lighting levels, day and night operating modes and the ability to configure luminaires as maintained or non-maintained, allowing users to tailor operation outside emergency situations.

While aimed at entertainment venues, Hochiki Europe said the Black Edition is also suitable for other environments where aesthetics are important, including premium retail spaces, gyms and modern office developments.

The FIREscape Nepto Black Edition is available now from Hochiki Europe.

Euralarm publishes new guidance to support lockdown procedures

by Breaking NewsEvacuationSafety

Euralarm has published new guidance on the use of Fire Detection and Alarm systems to support lockdown and invacuation procedures.

The company said that this marks an important step forward in the evolution of multi-hazard safety strategies across Europe.

Advanced risk landscapes

Traditionally, FD&A systems have been designed and implemented to ensure safe and rapid evacuation in the event of fire.

However, today’s risk landscape increasingly requires buildings to respond effectively to a broader range of threats, including intruders, violent incidents, external hazards or environmental risks.

This new guidance demonstrates how existing FD&A infrastructures can be used to support both evacuation and lockdown scenarios in a safe, compliant and coordinated manner.

Guidance document

According to Euralarm, the document emphasises that while integration is possible and often beneficial, fire safety must always remain the highest priority. Any use of FD&A systems for non-fire purposes must ensure that fire detection, alarm transmission and evacuation signalling are never compromised.

Clear differentiation between signals is essential with distinct tones, messages and procedures to avoid confusion among building occupants.

A key principle highlighted in the guidance is that lockdown signalling can share FD&A infrastructure – leveraging its reliability, monitoring and resilience – provided that the system is carefully engineered. Fire alarm signals must remain clearly distinguishable and cannot be masked, delayed or overridden by other alerts .

The guidance also explores how different European countries are addressing this topic.

While there is no harmonised EU regulation, national frameworks increasingly support a multi-hazard approach.

Examples include the Netherlands, where evacuation alarm systems are explicitly intended for “fire or other emergencies,” and recent updates in the United Kingdom that allow fire alarm sounders to be used for lockdown with distinct signalling.

Beyond regulatory context, the document provides practical engineering and design recommendations.

These include conducting thorough risk assessments, defining clear cause-and-effect logic, ensuring signal intelligibility and establishing priority hierarchies between evacuation and lockdown functions.

The importance of integrating these strategies into the overall fire protection concept and gaining approval from the relevant authorities is also strongly emphasised, Euralarm added.

The guidance further highlights the importance of human factors. In emergency situations, occupants must be able to quickly understand what action to take.

This requires clear, intelligible messaging, regular training, and well-rehearsed procedures. Whether evacuating a building or securing it, the effectiveness of the response depends not only on technology, but also on preparedness.

Increased complexity and risks

Euralarm said that as buildings become more complex and risks more diverse, integrated emergency communication systems are becoming increasingly important.

This new guidance provides a harmonised framework to help stakeholders design and implement systems that support both evacuation and lockdown strategies without compromising safety or compliance.

With this publication, Euralarm continues to support its members and the wider industry in adapting to evolving safety challenges, promoting best practice and enhancing the protection of people and property across Europe.

Advanced’s deploys alert system to protects John Street, Newham

by Breaking NewsEvacuation

John Street, Newham, a high‑rise residential development comprising Blocks A and C, has been equipped with a comprehensive life safety solution from Advanced.

According to the company, this deployment has incorporated the SmokeGo smoke control and EvacGo evacuation alert systems to support a stay‑put fire strategy and enhance resident safety.

Advanced said that the project, delivered as part of a wider life safety installation by Simple Life Safety Systems Limited, required a robust and compliant approach to smoke control and evacuation alert across two buildings with different heights and risk profiles.

Block A is a 14‑storey, high‑rise residential block, while Block C is a smaller, four‑storey building. Each block was equipped with one SmokeGo panel and one EvacGo panel, providing dedicated control tailored to the specific needs of each structure.

SmokeGo

SmokeGo was specified to deliver active smoke control via the fire system, supporting the management of smoke in common escape routes and critical areas.

Designed to comply with EN 54 Parts two and four, as well as BS 7346‑8 and ISO 21927‑9, SmokeGo enables automatic and manual control of smoke control fans and dampers from a single, intuitive interface.

Advanced said that its simple matrix‑based configuration allowed the project team to clearly define smoke compartments and cause‑and‑effect relationships, helping ensure smoke is contained and extracted effectively in the event of a fire.

EvacGo

EvacGo was installed as a fully independent BS 8629-compliant evacuation alert system, giving the fire and rescue service a reliable and secure means of alerting residents if evacuation beyond the affected flat is required.

Each EvacGo panel is housed within a robust, tamper‑proof enclosure and is designed exclusively for use by the fire and rescue service, helping prevent misuse while ensuring clear, decisive control during an incident, Advanced added.

“The tools they need”

John Newton, Director Life Safety at Simple Group commented: “John Street was a complex residential project that required careful coordination between smoke control and evacuation alert systems.

“Using SmokeGo and EvacGo allowed us to deliver a fully compliant solution that aligns with the fire strategy while giving the fire and rescue service the tools they need to manage incidents safely and effectively,” he concluded.

“They deliver confidence”

Shaun Scott, Applications Engineer at Advanced added: “Projects like John Street highlight the importance of implementing smoke control and evacuation alert systems correctly.

“SmokeGo makes complex smoke control logic far simpler to configure and manage, while EvacGo provides a clear, compliant evacuation alert solution. Together, they deliver confidence for installers, building managers and emergency responders alike.”

Dedicated life safety systems

The SmokeGo smoke control system and EvacGo evacuation alert system operate as separate dedicated life safety systems, ensuring smoke movement can be actively controlled while evacuation decisions remain firmly in the hands of the fire and rescue service.

This layered approach supports resident safety without undermining the stay‑put strategy that underpins the building’s fire design.

With one SmokeGo panel and one EvacGo panel installed in each block, the John Street development now benefits from a coordinated life safety solution that addresses both smoke management and evacuation alerting in line with current best practice and regulatory guidance.

The company said that this project demonstrates how Advanced’s specialist systems can be combined to meet the evolving safety requirements of modern residential buildings, delivering compliant, practical solutions that prioritise both resident safety and operational simplicity.

Secure Information Boxes ensure fire services have critical data

by EvacuationFeatured NewsSafety

Guidance for information boxes

The Fire Industry Association (FIA) and the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) have published an updated Code of Practice for the provision of secure information boxes (SIBs) in residential buildings.

This revised document responds to legislative changes and recommendations from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

The guidance supports the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 and the Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025.

It provides a framework for responsible persons, designers and regulators to manage SIBs, which were formerly known as Premises Information Boxes (PIBs).

The Code outlines recommendations for the specification, location and maintenance of these enclosures.

It also details the management of Emergency Response Packs (ERPs) to assist fire and rescue services during an incident.

Technical requirements and resident safety

The Code of Practice requires the ERP to include UK contact details for the responsible person and a logbook for tracking access.

It specifies that the pack must contain “Off the Run” notices for any defective fire safety equipment.

Two sets of A3-sized encapsulated plans must be provided within the box.

These plans include orientation maps showing water supplies and floor-by-floor layouts identifying firefighting facilities.

The guidance states: “It highlights the importance of ensuring that fire and rescue services have access to reliable, up-to-date information to support effective decision-making during an incident.

“There is a strong emphasis throughout on the needs of residents, particularly those who may require assistance to evacuate.

“The guidance incorporates the requirements for Resident Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (RPEEPs) and promotes the importance of handling sensitive information securely while ensuring it remains accessible when needed.”

Physical enclosures must be certified to standards such as LPS 1175 or STS 205 to resist unauthorised access.

Siting for the SIB is recommended at the primary arrival point between 1.4m and 2.5m from the floor.

The document introduces a colour-coded system to identify residents requiring assistance, with Category 1 (Red) for those needing three or more people for rescue.

Residential risks and responsibilities: Are you ready for the new RPEEPs regulations?

by Breaking NewsBuilding ManagementEvacuationSafety

With RPEEPs coming into force in England this month, residential evacuation planning is shifting from building-level assumptions to resident-level assessment, decision-making and record keeping

From 6 April 2026, responsible persons in England will be under a new statutory duty to identify residents in certain residential buildings whose ability to evacuate without assistance is compromised, offer them a person-centred fire risk assessment and, where an approach is agreed, record that in writing.

The Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 place individual evacuation planning on a statutory footing for the first time.

They bring high-rise buildings and some mid-rise buildings with simultaneous evacuation strategies into scope.

They also respond directly to recommendations made after the Grenfell Tower fire.

What changes is the point at which decisions are made.

Evacuation planning is now carried out at resident level, with decisions recorded through residential personal emergency evacuation plans (RPEEPs).

From evacuation strategy to individual risk

The regulations require a shift in how risk is understood.

Stay put and simultaneous evacuation strategies remain in place, while evacuation planning also addresses how residents who need assistance will move if conditions change.

During a webinar called ‘RPEEPs: One month to go!’, Elspeth Grant, CEO of Triple A Solutions pointed out that this is less a niche issue than an operational reality: “For these in-scope buildings it would be highly unlikely to have any building that has nobody evacuation impaired.”

That matters because building strategies do not remove the need for individual planning.

Drawing on her experience, Grant said even in stay put buildings, the key question is what happens if a resident cannot remain safely in their flat, noting that the expectation is to “move away” rather than remain in place.

Her framing brings the regulations into practical focus.

The requirement centres on how a named resident would move if conditions inside their flat changed.

Core duties and ongoing process

The regulations apply to buildings in England that meet defined height or storey thresholds, or operate a simultaneous evacuation strategy.

Within those buildings, responsible persons must use reasonable endeavours to identify residents whose ability to evacuate without assistance is compromised by a physical or cognitive condition.

Once identified, the process moves into engagement.

A person-centred fire risk assessment must be offered and carried out if the resident agrees.

The responsible person must then consider what measures are reasonable and proportionate, attempt to agree an evacuation approach and record that approach where agreement is reached.

This is an ongoing process.

Residents move in and out of buildings, health conditions change and some individuals will only come forward after initial contact.

The duty remains active, which means systems need to stay current.

Identification challenges in practice

On paper, identifying relevant residents appears straightforward.

In practice, it is one of the more complex parts of compliance.

Guidance suggests identification at move-in, alongside regular reminders.

That relies on residents engaging with the process and disclosing information.

Some will not respond.

Others may not recognise that their condition affects evacuation.

In larger buildings, maintaining accurate records becomes a continuous task.

Grant’s view is that the starting point should be existing data, advising responsible persons to begin with “what information you already have within your systems.”

That reflects what was already known before Grenfell.

She pointed out that building managers were “already fully aware” of many residents’ needs through existing records, including lease information.

Identification therefore includes using current data alongside internal reporting routes.

Grant described this as “network fire safety,” where contractors and others on site can raise concerns as they arise.

Consent and information sharing

The regulations require explicit consent before prescribed information about a resident is shared with the local fire and rescue authority.

This introduces a clear procedural step and sits alongside wider legislation on emergency response and data use.

Grant explained that RPEEPs sit within a wider legal framework, including the Fire Safety Order and the Equality Act, alongside what she described as the “consent minefield” of data legislation.

She added that in emergency or safeguarding situations, the Data Use and Access Act can remove the need for consent.

Consent requirements within the regulations remain in place.

Emergency response may be governed by a different legal threshold.

For responsible persons, the task is to manage both.

Consent must be handled carefully within the RPEEPs framework, while recognising how emergency provisions apply.

Handling sensitive resident data

Even where information sharing is lawful, storing and managing resident data introduces its own risk.

The information recorded may indicate where vulnerable residents live and what assistance they may require.

Guidance supports digital storage because it allows updates to be made more easily.

Some fire and rescue authorities may still require physical information boxes on site, which creates variation between local areas.

Grant’s warning on this point is direct: Information should not be stored in a way that exposes residents, and instead should be “coded” to reduce risk if accessed by the wrong people.

The regulations require compliance with data protection law.

Responsible persons need to develop systems that reduce exposure while keeping information accurate.

Cost and legal exposure

The regulations allow mitigating measures to be funded in different ways, depending on circumstances and lease arrangements.

This flexibility creates uncertainty when it intersects with duties under the Equality Act.

Grant highlighted the constraint clearly: “The Equality Act specifically prohibits the charging of a disabled person for a reasonable adjustment.”

This limits how costs can be allocated in practice.

A measure identified through a RPEEPs process may still fall within the definition of a reasonable adjustment, which affects who can be asked to pay for it.

Alongside cost sits personal liability.

Duties under the Fire Safety Order apply to individuals as well as organisations.

Decisions made during the RPEEPs process may later be examined in enforcement or legal proceedings.

Delivering and evidencing the process

Government estimates suggest around a quarter of residents in high-rise buildings may be evacuation impaired, which places ongoing demands on identification, assessment and review.

Records need to remain current as residents move and circumstances change, requiring a system that reflects the building as it is, not as it was.

The regulations do not require specialist consultants, and the resident-facing work is expected to sit with building staff.

Grant drew a distinction between strategy and delivery: “A consultant might be able to help you develop a strategy,” but added that it would be “counterproductive” for unfamiliar assessors to carry out person-centred conversations.

She also pointed to a core principle in guidance, that evacuation planning should enable residents to leave without relying on rescue services.

Compliance will be judged on evidence.

Responsible persons need to show how residents are identified, how decisions are made and how records are maintained.

As Grant put it, the test is whether you can prove what is “reasonable.”

Conclusion

RPEEPs introduce a clear expectation that evacuation planning must account for individual residents.

The regulations define what responsible persons need to do, while leaving key questions to be worked through in practice.

The shift to resident-level planning brings practical challenges.

Identification is continuous. Data handling requires care.

Decisions on measures may carry legal implications.

The purpose remains straightforward: Residents who cannot evacuate independently should be identified and supported through a recorded plan.

The difficulty lies in delivering that requirement across changing populations, with systems that stand up to scrutiny and reflect real conditions inside each building.

This was originally published in the April 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

When disasters drive change: Evac+Chair on anticipatory fire duty

by Breaking NewsEvacuationSafety

Emergency evacuation specialist Evac+Chair on why inclusive evacuation can no longer be an afterthought

In the UK, major advances in public safety have often followed tragedy.

From terrorist attacks to catastrophic fires, large-scale incidents have repeatedly exposed loopholes in the systems designed to protect people inside buildings.

While these events have prompted regulatory reform and heightened expectations of those responsible for safety, turning lessons into lasting improvements has often proved slow and complex.

The key question remains: has emergency planning evolved enough to ensure everyone can evacuate safely?

Tragedy as a catalyst for reform

In May 2017, a terrorist attack at Manchester Arena following a concert killed 22 people and injured hundreds more, exposing serious vulnerabilities in how publicly accessible venues plan for, assess and manage risk.

The UK’s terrorism threat level has remained at ‘substantial’ for several years, meaning that an attack is likely.

Since 2017, security services have intercepted 43 late-stage attack plots, while around 15 terrorist attacks have taken place in the UK.

Counter Terrorism Policing continues to make hundreds of terrorism-related arrests each year, underscoring the persistent nature of the threat facing publicly accessible spaces.

Following the Manchester Arena attack, the subsequent campaign led by Figen Murray OBE, the mother of one of the victims, Martyn Hett, resulted in the introduction of Martyn’s Law – formally the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 – which received Royal Assent in April 2025.

The legislation places a statutory duty on those responsible for publicly accessible premises to assess terrorism risk and implement proportionate protective measures.

Venues are tiered according to capacity, ensuring that requirements scale appropriately.

Crucially, the Act embeds risk assessment, emergency planning and staff training into operational responsibility.

Full implementation of those who fall into the tiers must comply by April 2027, reinforcing the principle that preparedness must be demonstrable.

That same year, the Grenfell Tower fire exposed systemic failings in building safety and evacuation strategies.

The tragedy claimed 72 lives, including 15 residents with mobility impairments.

The ‘stay put’ policy, reliant on effective compartmentation and fire-resistant construction, suppression and up to date fire risk assessments proved catastrophic when those systems failed.

The central lesson was clear: evacuation models dependent on multiple safeguards are vulnerable if any one element collapses.

Nearly a decade on, concerns around high-rise residential evacuation remain.

Following consultation, the government introduced the Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025 which will come into force on 6 April 2026.

These require responsible persons to identify residents who may struggle to self-evacuate and offer a Person-Centred Fire Risk Assessment (PCFRA) to inform appropriate evacuation arrangements.

Other sectors have faced similar scrutiny.

In 2017, a fire at Newgrange Care Home in Hertfordshire led to two fatalities and significant fines for fire safety breaches, highlighting failures in compartmentation and evacuation preparedness.

Even where fatalities have been avoided, expectations are shifting.

When wheelchair user Lucas Vezza-O’Brien was unable to evacuate during a school fire, he was instructed to wait in a refuge area whilst other students evacuated due to no evacuation equipment, this prompted the #NoStudentLeftBehind campaign and triggered parliamentary debate about the preparedness of schools and colleges.

Too often, evacuation procedures are designed around the needs of the majority rather than the realities of a diverse population.

From reactive response to anticipatory responsibility

Responsibility is increasingly framed around planning and anticipation rather than response.

However, effective anticipation requires a clear understanding of who may be at risk during an evacuation – and what support they may need.

In 2024, around 16.8 million people in the UK were living with a disability – nearly a quarter of the population.

More than 5.5 million are in employment, and with more people working beyond traditional retirement age, organisations must plan for a more diverse workforce.

Around 80% of disabilities are invisible, including chronic health conditions, cognitive impairments and temporary mobility restrictions.

These figures challenge traditional assumptions about who may require assistance in an emergency.

Mobility impairment is not confined to permanent wheelchair users; it can include individuals recovering from surgery, those in late-stage pregnancy, people whose conditions fluctuate or individuals experiencing cognitive or mental health challenges that may affect their ability to respond quickly in an emergency.

As workplaces, residential and public spaces become more inclusive in everyday use, emergency planning must reflect the same level of consideration.

Accessibility is only half the story

Significant progress has been made in improving accessibility across buildings and public spaces, with ramps, lifts, widened doorways and accessible facilities now widely expected.

Yet while the focus has been on helping people enter buildings, far less consideration has been given to whether everyone can safely evacuate them in an emergency.

In most multi-storey buildings, staircases remain the primary means of escape.

When lifts are unavailable during a fire, individuals with mobility impairments are therefore dependent on assistance or left waiting.

The Grenfell Inquiry highlighted the risks of relying on a single evacuation strategy.

The “stay put” approach can be effective when compartmentation, alarms and suppression systems work as intended and fire remains contained.

When these safeguards fail, evacuation quickly becomes urgent and complex, particularly for those unable to leave independently.

Embedding inclusive preparedness

Legislation provides the framework for safety, but preparedness depends on implementation.

Effective evacuation planning requires alignment between equipment, training and maintenance.

Evacuation equipment should suit the building’s layout and accommodate the diverse mobility needs of its occupants.

In publicly accessible and multi-storey premises, this often requires adaptable solutions for a range of evacuation scenarios.

Manufacturers specialising in evacuation solutions are increasingly designing equipment to accommodate a wider range of mobility needs and payloads, supported by structured training and servicing to ensure readiness.

As the original manufacturer, with more than 40 years of experience, Evac+Chair proudly manufactures its evacuation chairs in the UK and emphasises that inclusive evacuation is about far more than simply installing equipment.

However, equipment alone cannot ensure safety.

In high-pressure environments, confidence and competence are critical.

Staff must understand how to deploy Evac+Chairs correctly and safely, maintaining composure while supporting individuals who may already be vulnerable or distressed.

Maintenance is equally essential.

As Class I medical devices, Evac+Chairs must be inspected and serviced annually in accordance with the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) UK.

Failure to maintain equipment introduces avoidable risk and may expose organisations to compliance failures under workplace safety regulations.

An effective evacuation strategy therefore rests on three interdependent elements: appropriate equipment, trained personnel and ongoing servicing.

Together, these provide demonstrable evidence of preparedness.

Learning before the next crisis

Each major disaster that has shaped reform was preceded by identifiable vulnerabilities.

The introduction of Martyn’s Law and RPEEPs marks important progress, but legislation alone cannot eliminate risk.

Expectations placed on organisations have evolved.

Responsible persons must anticipate foreseeable threats, assess individual needs and ensure evacuation procedures are practical, tested and inclusive.

Inclusive evacuation is no longer a niche consideration; it is becoming central to responsible risk management and modern building safety governance.

Preparedness is measured not by documentation but by outcomes.

When an emergency occurs, systems must function, equipment must perform and people must act with confidence.

The responsibility is clear: protection must extend to everyone.

When the alarm sounds, no one should be left behind.

This was originally published in the April 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

LearnPro wins London Fire Brigade contract for risk information platform

by CommunicationsEvacuationFeatured NewsProjectsSearch and Rescue

LearnPro selected for OneRisk platform

London Fire Brigade (LFB) has selected Prevent + Protect from LearnPro Group, working with Softcat, for its OneRisk project to modernise and integrate building-related fire risk information.

LearnPro announced that the platform was chosen through LFB’s competitive OneRisk procurement process after a tender for a commercial off the shelf platform to replace multiple legacy systems.

LFB identified Prevent + Protect as its preferred system for prevention, protection, operational risk and hydrant management.

The project is intended to consolidate risk information systems and bring risk data into a single cloud hosted platform.

According to LearnPro, the system is designed to remove data silos, improve mobile capability and give teams across departments access to shared risk information.

What the platform will replace

The source material states that LFB sought a sector-ready platform to replace multiple legacy systems and support work across Prevention, Protection and Hydrant Management teams.

Prevent + Protect is described as a mobile-first system with specialist CRM functionality that keeps touchpoint and job history records where individuals move location or are linked to more than one premises or business.

It also supports the management of parent and child premises structures.

LearnPro said the platform includes workflow automation and Microsoft integration, including support for artificial intelligence capabilities.

Comments on the contract award

Pamela Oparaocha, London Fire Brigade Assistant Commissioner for Prevention and Protection, said: “We are committed to strengthening how we manage, share and use risk information across our organisation.

“We have a unified and accurate picture of risk is essential for the way we plan our work, engage with communities and support our firefighters on the ground.

“This new platform will replace several legacy systems and give our teams a more consistent and accessible view of the information they need.

“This is a long term investment in innovation, digital capability and improved service delivery for London, and an important part of our ambition to build a more modern, data enabled fire and rescue service.”

Costi Karayannis, Chief Executive Officer of LearnPro Group, said: “We are incredibly proud that Prevent + Protect has been selected by London Fire Brigade to deliver its OneRisk vision.

“We look forward to partnering closely with LFB as part of their continuous effort to reduce risk and optimise the critical services they provide to the public across our capital city.”

Russell Wood, UK Market Lead at LearnPro Group, added: “This award reaffirms Prevent + Protect as the leading modern Prevention and Protection platform for Fire and Rescue Services and follows several additional new FRS contracts secured in recent months.

“We are excited to support London Fire Brigade on its transformative OneRisk journey.”

PPE under pressure: Semmco LPS shows how placement determines EEBD effectiveness

by Breaking NewsEvacuationPPESearch and Rescue

In hazardous atmospheres, escape is shaped by route design and movement, with Semmco LPS EEBDs supporting withdrawal under pressure

Emergency Escape Breathing Devices (EEBDs) sit in a narrow part of life safety.

They come into use at the point air becomes unsafe.

They give a wearer enough breathing time to leave a space after smoke has spread or oxygen levels have fallen, which places them between PPE and escape planning, where route length and delay shape the outcome.

In practice, that moment rarely arrives in ideal conditions.

Alarm signals, reduced visibility and uncertainty around the route all affect how quickly a person can act.

Semmco LPS designs short-duration oxygen breathing apparatus for escape and working rescue across marine and industrial settings.

EEBDs sit with escape PPE

An EEBD supplies breathable oxygen for a short escape window so the wearer can keep moving through unsafe air.

In Semmco’s range, that is delivered through a closed-circuit oxygen re-breather system.

A starter supply covers the first breath as the unit leaves its case, then exhaled moisture activates the KO2 canister, which absorbs carbon dioxide and releases oxygen.

That distinction needs to stay clear in site procedures because EEBDs belong with escape PPE.

Fire attack and extended work in a hazardous atmosphere call for other breathing apparatus.

This separation affects decision-making during an incident, as a worker reaching for an EEBD is committing to withdrawal rather than intervention.

The same distinction carries through into specification.

A short-duration escape set serves a worker heading for an exit, while a working set supports a crew moving into danger for a defined task.

In Semmco’s range, both the Marine 15 and Industrial 20 are designed around withdrawal from the area, with durations set for escape rather than work inside the space.

Duration starts with route time

That distinction becomes more concrete when duration is considered in practice.

Rated duration is often the first figure people look for, but route time needs to come first.

A 15-minute unit may suit a shipboard escape route, aligning with the Marine 15 EEBD.

A 20-minute unit may suit a larger industrial site where travel distances are longer, reflected in the Industrial 20.

The difference becomes clearer when mapped against real layouts.

A worker in a lower deck machinery space, or deep within a plant room, may face direction changes and vertical movement before reaching open air.

Stress changes the picture quickly.

Breathing rate rises.

Visibility falls.

Movement slows on stairs or ladders.

Obstacles and congestion at exits can extend that time further, especially for contractors or visitors.

A usable margin comes from the longest credible route under poor conditions, with calm drills on a clear route giving a starting figure rather than the final answer.

Both versions also have a 60-minute at-rest duration, though escape planning still centres on the rated escape time, with room for delay once visibility drops.

Placement shapes use

If duration defines how long a worker has, placement defines whether they can use that time at all.

A device helps only when it can be reached without hesitation.

In machinery spaces, plant rooms and tunnels, that usually means positioning the EEBD along the natural line of travel to the exit.

On ships, it often means locations near ladder bases, with escape trunk access points needing their own coverage.

That positioning reduces the need for decision-making under pressure, where a worker follows a known route and encounters equipment where it is expected.

In Semmco’s range, the storage bracket supports that approach by keeping the unit visible and ready for quick removal.

Belt clips and waist-mounted options meet a different need by placing the device on the wearer where fixed storage would leave too much distance between the person and the set.

Storage has to follow the route out, and the viability indicator needs a clear line of sight during routine checks.

Hidden equipment adds delay, and delay cuts into breathing time.

Training needs repeated handling

Training needs more than a single demonstration.

People need repeated handling so the order of use feels familiar before an alarm sounds.

Semmco’s EEBD training set supports that approach by providing a replica unit for repeated drills, with a mouthpiece and hose that can be cleaned between sessions, allowing live sets to remain in service.

This matters on sites where a worker may have to climb a ladder or pass through a hatch while visibility drops.

It also applies in smoke-affected corridors, where the user needs to understand how the EEBD sits around the neck and how the breathing bag moves during escape.

That familiarity reduces hesitation, as even a short pause while recalling the sequence can affect available escape time.

Contractors need the same level of familiarity when work takes them into enclosed areas or temporary shutdown zones, where confidence in both the route and the device can shorten the pause between alarm and movement.

How this plays out in practice

Consider a worker in an enclosed engine room when a fire starts in an adjacent space.

Smoke begins to spread before the full extent of the incident is clear, and visibility drops as the alarm sounds.

The worker reaches the nearest EEBD positioned along the escape route, activates it and begins moving toward the exit.

The route includes a ladder and a change in direction, with a short delay where other personnel converge on the same access point.

Breathing rate rises with exertion, and movement slows as visibility reduces.

The rated duration of the unit is no longer an abstract figure, it is being used against real time lost to movement and uncertainty.

In that situation, placement and training shape the outcome as much as the specification of the device itself.

The EEBD provides the breathing window, but the plan determines whether that window is enough.

Standards and approvals still matter

Marine rules remain the clearest reference point for EEBD provision.

SOLAS and the IMO Fire Safety Systems Code set minimum expectations for carriage and use in shipboard spaces, while ISO 23269-1 defines performance requirements and keeps the escape purpose of the category in view.

Semmco’s Marine 15 EEBD sits within that framework with UKCA and CE Wheelmark approval, while the Industrial 20 holds UKCA and CE approval for land-based use.

These approvals tie the products to recognised test routes, with site selection then resting on local risk assessment, route length and expected escape conditions.

They also keep marine and industrial use clearly separated.

Shipboard environments carry defined carriage and operating duties, while industrial sites rely on local assessment, permit systems and escape planning linked to layout.

Shelf life and inspection sit in the same discussion

Storage life affects replacement planning and ongoing checks.

In Semmco’s range, storage life extends up to 15 years with regular visual inspection during that period, bringing the viability indicator and storage position into the same operational discussion.

The requirement remains simple.

The unit must stay visible and accessible, and it must stay within its service window.

Inspection routines carry more weight where equipment is distributed across large or complex sites, where missed checks can leave gaps in coverage.

A unit that passes inspection but sits out of sight still introduces delay during an evacuation.

Placement returns to the front here as well, as a unit mounted away from the natural exit route may remain compliant on paper, then lose time when it matters.

Device choice works best when the plan is site-based

EEBD selection works best when device choice follows the route out and the pace of movement during escape, with the likely air hazard shaping that choice.

In Semmco’s range, the Marine 15 and Industrial 20 reflect that approach, each built around a defined escape context.

Supporting equipment such as storage brackets and belt-mounted options earn their place when they reduce access time or support repeated practice.

Used in that way, the EEBD becomes working safety equipment with a defined role when breathable air is lost, with its value shaped by planning, placement and training as much as by the device itself.

This was originally published in the April 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.

Redefining escape: Hochiki outlines how England staircase law changes tall building safety

by Breaking NewsEvacuationFire DetectionSafety

Hochiki outlines what the UK’s second staircase mandate means for global fire safety design

England’s decision to mandate second staircases in all new residential buildings over 18 metres represents one of the most significant shifts in high-rise fire safety design in a generation.

More than a technical update to Approved Document B, it signals a fundamental change in how tall residential buildings are designed, occupied and managed.

The new mandate applies to England only, with changes to Approved Document B expected to take effect from 30 September 2026.

While this brings England’s regulations into line with existing standards in Scotland, it does not currently apply to the whole of the UK.

Emerging from the post Grenfell regulatory landscape, the requirement reflects a wider emphasis on resilience, redundancy and demonstrable occupant safety.

While the mandate applies specifically to England, its implications extend well beyond the UK.

In an interconnected construction industry, regulatory reform at this level influences global expectations around tall building design.

As the sector gathers at The Fire Safety Event in Birmingham, the discussion is no longer about whether a second staircase is necessary.

The real issue is how this change reshapes fire strategy, system integration and operational management.

From compliance to resilience

For many years, UK residential buildings above 18 metres were commonly designed with a single protected stair supported by robust compartmentation and a stay put evacuation strategy.

Fire resisting construction, smoke control and phased evacuation principles formed the backbone of this approach.

The introduction of a mandatory second staircase does not invalidate those principles.

It strengthens them by embedding redundancy into the building’s physical design.

A second protected route provides an alternative means of escape should one stairwell become compromised by smoke or fire.

It improves separation between evacuation and firefighting operations and introduces greater flexibility into evacuation planning.

This reflects a shift in mindset.

Increasingly, regulators and building owners are asking not simply whether a design meets code but whether it can withstand unforeseen conditions.

Resilience is about maintaining safe outcomes even when systems are placed under stress.

The second staircase mandate makes that resilience visible.

Upcoming Webinar: How the UK second staircase mandate affects evacuation systems and building design – Register Now!

Reframing fire strategy

Adding a second stairwell is not just a spatial decision. It reshapes the entire fire strategy.

Evacuation philosophy must be reconsidered.

In a single-stair building, the route is obvious.

In a multi-stair configuration, occupants are presented with choice.

Designers must consider how evacuation sequencing operates across separate stairwells and how congestion is avoided if both routes are used simultaneously.

The continued role of stay put strategies must also be carefully evaluated within the new context.

Compartmentation and system zoning become more complex.

Each additional stairwell introduces new interfaces between fire resisting elements, services and access routes.

Fire detection and alarm systems require clear zoning to reflect the building’s geometry, and cause and effect programming must ensure that occupants receive consistent and unambiguous information.

From Hochiki’s experience in high-rise environments, complexity without coordination increases risk.

As escape routes multiply, life safety systems must be designed as a cohesive whole with detection, alarm, smoke control and emergency lighting aligning with the intended evacuation strategy from the outset.

Operational performance over time

A second staircase enhances design resilience, but its value depends on long-term operational performance.

The Building Safety Act has reinforced accountability for building owners and duty holders.

In multi-stair buildings, operational demands increase and additional stairwells mean more devices, more circuits and more interfaces to maintain.

Testing regimes must reflect the expanded infrastructure and documentation must clearly explain zoning and system interaction so facilities teams can respond effectively.

Redundancy in escape provision must be matched by reliability across all supporting life safety systems.

Fire detection should respond promptly and accurately, while emergency lighting must deliver the required minimum illumination levels along escape routes and at key decision points.

Wayfinding signage must remain visible and intelligible even under reduced visibility conditions, ensuring that occupants can move confidently towards safety.

For facilities managers, building owners or indeed the responsible person, compliance at handover is only the starting point.

The true measure of safety is sustained performance throughout the building’s life.

Guiding human behaviour

The second staircase mandate also changes the behavioural dynamics of evacuation.

In an emergency, occupants rely on instinct and visual cues.

They tend to follow familiar routes or other people.

The stress of an emergency is proven to reduce analytical thinking and in a single-stair building, behaviour is channelled by layout.

In buildings with two stairwells, behaviour must be guided.

Emergency lighting plays a critical role in guiding behaviour within multi-stair buildings and its function extends far beyond simply meeting minimum illumination levels.

It should clearly reinforce direction of travel, highlight changes in level and emphasise entrances to protected stairwells so that occupants instinctively understand where to move.

Attention must be given to decision points, where clarity is essential to prevent hesitation, confusion or backtracking.

There is also growing international interest in adaptive signage systems capable of responding to developing conditions.

In buildings with multiple escape routes, the ability to influence flow away from a compromised stairwell can enhance overall evacuation efficiency.

Hochiki’s approach is grounded in simplicity and reliability.

Technology should reduce cognitive load, not increase it.

Clear, consistent information across detection, alarm and lighting systems is essential to support safe decision making under pressure.

International perspectives

Although the mandate is specific to England, similar themes are visible internationally.

Across Europe, regulations already require two means of escape once residential buildings exceed certain heights.

France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands all introduce additional escape provisions as buildings become taller and more complex.

While the thresholds and technical details differ, the principle is consistent.

As height increases, reliance on a single vertical escape route becomes harder to justify.

In contrast, some jurisdictions continue to permit single-stair arrangements under performance-based frameworks.

In Sweden, high-rise residential projects such as Turning Torso have operated with engineered smoke control solutions supporting a single-stair configuration.

In parts of North America, including cities such as New York and Seattle, single-stair mid-rise residential buildings remain permissible within defined height limits where sprinklers and other protective measures are provided.

However, these approaches are under active review.

Policymakers in several US states and Canadian provinces are reassessing whether existing provisions strike the right balance between design efficiency and life safety resilience.

England’s explicit adoption of mandatory second staircases has therefore attracted attention beyond its borders.

The broader trajectory is clear.

Expectations around redundancy and visible safety measures are rising.

Engineered mitigation alone may no longer provide sufficient reassurance in higher risk residential settings.

A defining moment

The second staircase mandate represents a defining moment for tall residential design.

It challenges established assumptions and reinforces the importance of resilience within both physical layout and system architecture.

For architects, it requires early integration of escape strategy into spatial planning.

For developers and asset owners, it demands commitment to long-term maintenance and system integrity.

For fire safety professionals and installers, it underscores the importance of coordinated design and robust commissioning.

For Hochiki, the direction of travel is unmistakable.

Whether through prescriptive reform or performance-based evolution, the future of tall building safety lies in integrated life safety systems, operational reliability and clear communication that supports occupants when it matters most.

Escape can no longer be treated as a static compliance requirement.

It is an evolving discipline shaped by regulation, technology and human behaviour.

The government has taken a decisive step.

The wider industry now can lead in redefining what safe escape truly means.

Learn more about Hochiki by visiting our team on Stand 4/E97 at the Fire Safety Event to discuss this topic further and understand how the legislation might impact your future fire safety projects.

This was originally published in the April 2026 Edition of International Fire & Safety Journal. To read your FREE copy, click here.