FRAEW peer review: when to get an FRAEW, EWS1 or fire strategy checked

Why reports need checking

The quality of fire safety reports varies widely. Since 2017, demand for FRAEWs, EWS1 forms, fire strategies and safety cases has far outstripped the supply of experienced specialists. Some reports are excellent. Others are generic, lean on assumptions, or recommend far more – or less – than the evidence supports.

An independent peer review is a structured check by another competent professional. It's cheap compared with the decisions these reports drive.

When a peer review is worth it

• An FRAEW recommends major remediation, and you want to be sure the scope is proportionate before spending – or applying for – public money
• A lender, valuer or buyer questions an EWS1 or the FRAEW behind it
• Two reports disagree about the same building
• A fire strategy is going into a Gateway 2 application, or relies on engineered solutions – see Gateway 2 rejections
• A safety case report is about to go to the Building Safety Regulator – see why safety cases get refused
• You're buying or lending and the key reports will shape the price – see fire safety due diligence
• A report just doesn't read right – vague, contradictory or full of caveats

What the government says good looks like

In September 2026 the government published guidance on recognising quality in an FRAEW report, aimed at building owners, managing agents and residents. It sets out 18 checks under four themes:

1. Understanding the assessment – scope, limitations, the building description, its height and the build-up of each wall type
2. Competence and evidence – named authors and reviewers with stated qualifications, declared conflicts, and evidence linked to conclusions
3. The risk assessment – fire strategy, fire performance, façade configuration, secondary fires, external fire spread, and a reasoned overall judgement
4. Recommendations and outcomes – proportionate interim measures, remediation tied to the risks, expected residual risk and clear next steps

Red flags

• No named author, no competency statement, no peer review
• Several wall types treated as one, or roof plant included in the height
• Assumptions presented as facts
• Test certificates included without explaining why they're relevant
• Generic recommendations, such as "replace all cladding", copied from templates
• No clear overall outcome for each wall type

What a peer review checks

• FRAEW peer review: the method against PAS 9980:2026 – see what changed – the evidence behind each conclusion, and the proportionality of recommendations
• For an EWS1: whether the option selected matches the evidence, and whether the signatory's competence suits the building – see EWS1 forms
• For a fire strategy: the guidance applied, justification for departures, and consistency with the drawings
• For a safety case: whether it shows how fire spread and structural risks are actually managed, with evidence

What happens next

A review usually ends in one of three places:

1. The report stands – you can act on it with confidence
2. The report needs revising – the reviewer sets out what's missing; often the original author can address it
3. More investigation is needed – for example intrusive opening-up before remediation is scoped

Choosing a reviewer

Choose someone independent of the original author and of any contractor who might carry out the works, and competent for the building type. Ask for a fixed fee and a clear timescale.

Our peer review service covers FRAEWs, EWS1 forms, fire strategies and safety case reports.

Sources

• GOV.UK – Recognising quality in your FRAEW report
• GOV.UK – Fire risk appraisals of external walls (FRAEWs)

This guide is general information based on the law and guidance in England as at 8 November 2026. It isn't legal advice – for advice on a specific building, get in touch.