Lakanal House Coroners inquest procedings

[Mike Buckley]

The problem is not in the purpose built flats where there is proper compartmentation etc. the stay put policy should be fine there.

The problems come in the big houses that have now been converted into flats where the owners want a stay put policy because they don't want the problems with communal fire alarms and the purpose built blocks of flats that probably were ok when they were built, but have now been knocked about by electricians, plumbers, occupiers and the owners so that they have the compartmentation of a swiss cheese.

My view is if the compartmentation and MOE are not adequate, you cannot have a stay put policy. The owner has two choices either have work done to improve the compartmentation and/or MOE, or fit a fire alarm system and have a full, phased etc. evacuation policy. Either way the occupiers have to be informed of what is going on and what they should do. If the occupiers decide to stuff the sounders full of socks etc. then that is their choice and the outcome will be on their heads, provided the owners have maintained the system and can prove it.

What is wrong is putting a stay put policy into a building that cannot support it because of the problems with a communal alarm system.

[wee brian]

"Either way the occupiers have to be informed of what is going on and what they should do. If the occupiers decide to stuff the sounders full of socks etc. then that is their choice and the outcome will be on their heads, provided the owners have maintained the system and can prove it."

So, it don't matter to you that they die, as a result of an unworkable fire strategy.

If there's a problem with the building, fix it.

[Midland Retty]

"Either way the occupiers have to be informed of what is going on and what they should do. If the occupiers decide to stuff the sounders full of socks etc. then that is their choice and the outcome will be on their heads, provided the owners have maintained the system and can prove it."

So, it don't matter to you that they die, as a result of an unworkable fire strategy.
If there's a problem with the building, fix it.

Easier said than done sometimes Wee Brian

[Golden]

The pre 1991 conversions (and any others that have insufficient compartmentation) require a communal fire detection and alarm system (LACORS guide) to comply with current guidance and should have a simultaneous evacuation policy. If they don't want a communal alarm and/or disable the system then they should get the builders in to fix the separation issues and pay the price. Modern alarm systems, when properly specified, fitted and maintained do not cause the problems that led to numerous false alarms - and for the average converted house or Victorian purpose built without compartmentation are reasonably inexpensive.

As Wee Brian has pointed out the fire strategy has to be workable and its not reasonable to bury your head in the sand just because its 'too difficult' to make it work. What is reasonable is to use an ALARP principle where all of the issues cannot be fixed according to the best advice/guidance available.

[colin todd]

The 1991 cut off is way too prescriptive and is not supported in the LGA guidance.  Its relevance (to the extent there is any) is that MoE was not universally required under building regs in E&W in conversions until 1992.  However, stay put is primarily predicated on compartmentation, which unlike means of escape is a principle as old as the hills. Many 1960s conversions in London were very strictly required to have one hour enclosure of flats.

[Owain]

However, stay put is primarily predicated on compartmentation, which unlike means of escape is a principle as old as the hills.

Or at least as old as the London Building Act of 1667

[colin todd]

Kurnal must remember that- he was about to join the fire service in that year.

[Northern Uproar]

CLG  repsonse to coroner:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lakanal-house-response-to-coroners-recommendations