Lakanal House Coroners inquest procedings

[jayjay]

For those who are following the coroners inquest there are transcripts of each days proceedings published on this web site.

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/CouncilDemocracy/LakanalHouseCoronerInquest.htm?sl=lakanal

The witnesses include fire fighters and residents and it is interesting reading.

[jayjay]

The Corner has finished the inquiry and the Jury have now retired to consider their verdict.

Day 44 and 45 at the above link give a transcript of the coroners summery to the jury.

The inquest transcripts have been quite revealing with some interesting discussions on the whole incident one issue which had prolonged discussion was on the "Stay Put" advice which is well worth reading.

[Mike Buckley]

Jury's verdict in

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21964325

It is not yet up on the inquest website but it should be interesting reading.

[jayjay]

The verdicts and recommendations are now on the web site


http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/Services/CouncilDemocracy/LakanalHouseVerdicts.htm


Some of the daily transcripts are well worth reading even though they are quite long. There is a list of each days witnesses so if there is a particular area of the interest such as fire fighting, fire separation, fire control the day can be identified from the witness list.

[colin todd]

The transcripts are very good CPD and certainly worthy of a read, though incredibly sad to read of the victims plight and the genuine and selfless attempts by many to save their lives. I hope that seminars and conferences will soon allow every fire safety practitioner to learn from this tragic fire.

Nice to see a calm, objective, impartial and balanced view on the findings on the part of the bruvvers: http://www.fbu.org.uk/?p=6513.  (I thought they were a little hard on LFB in terms of their fire risk assessment training though. When LFB delivered a one day training course in fire risk assessment, I would imagine that they were endeavouring to impart everything they knew about the subject.)

[jokar]

Interestingly, a 1 day "introduction to risk" course has turned into a 1 day fire risk assessment course in some peoples eyes.  Need to do more and better research.

[Tom Sutton]

To under stand the layout of Lakanal House check out, http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/sceaux-gardens-camberwell-the-original-1960-aj-building-study/5204667.article

http://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDoXzH4GJRXHsALD9WBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBpaWt1dXN1BHNlYwNmcC1leHAEc2xrA2V4cA--?back=http%3A%2F%2Fuk.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dlakanal%2Bhouse%2Bimages%26fr%3Dyfp-t-702&w=468&h=692&imgurl=highrisefirefighting.co.uk%2Fcase%2Flacanal2009%2Farticle-1201475-05CE3730000005DC-608_468x692.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fhighrisefirefighting.co.uk%2Fcslakanal.html&size=135.9+KB&name=%3Cb%3ELakanal+House+%3C%2Fb%3E2009.&p=lakanal+house&oid=ae6accdf4e6a01507c9475215fabfad9&fr2=&fr=&tt=%253Cb%253ELakanal%2BHouse%2B%253C%252Fb%253E2009.&b=30&ni=140&no=35&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=11g0scufc&sigb=12ecg5uet&sigi=12sabici4&.crumb=4tVtTo22D2t&

[Tom Sutton]

Do you think the terminology “Stay Put” is the right one, other than those who practice the black art, it may be assumed everybody should remain in their flat until the fire is extinguished and not to evacuate, when they are threaten by the fire. It could easily be confused with “Defend in Place” which I would see as a procedure for places like hospital ICU’s were it is likely the patients cannot be moved and have to remain until the fire is extinguished.

Maybe a term like “Delayed Emergency Evacuation” should be used which would indicate evacuation may be required when anybody is threatened by the fire or smoke?

[Golden]

Tom, I'm reposting a response I made last week to a similar question on the 'Stay put brought into question' thread.

No the correct term is 'stay put' or the US version being 'defend in place' - if this is successful other residents in the block may be blissfully unaware of there ever being a fire and certainly not evacuate because of it.

I quote from the Local Government Group fire safety in purpose built flats guide "This principle is undoubtedly successful in an overwhelming number of fires in blocks of flats. In 2009-2010, of over 8,000 fires in these blocks, only 22 fires necessitated evacuation of more than five people with the assistance of the fire and rescue service."

Lets not confuse things even further by trying to adopt new terminology for quite a simple concept.

[nearlythere]

I think the key issue here is that Stay Put could well be a successful strategy provided the building is purpose built in accordance with Building Regs.
Many, I believe, are not due to poor construction.

[Golden]

NT it should only ever be used as in purpose built accommodation or those converted post 1991 in England and Wales - and in both cases where the separation between flats can be assured. I'm currently writing up reports for many 6 storey purpose built blocks constructed in approximately 1880 but unfortunately these cannot be stay put due to doubts about the separation between flats; most post war blocks I've surveyed have been fine with a few adjustments. There can be no hard and fast rules in my opinion and it all depends on what you come across.

With respect to modern buildings its sometimes scary where short cuts have been taken and fire separation disregarded - and that's only where I've been able to find it on Type 1 inspections plus a bit of experience and curiosity.

[nearlythere]

I have come across some poor building which went up within the last 15 yrs during the free for all. 
One in particular where the rubbish chutes had been installed after the refuse enclosures had been completed. Feckin great holes were hacked out for the chutes and not sealed around after and I'm not talking about a couple of centimetres space. This defect was as obvious as an elephant in a fridge and I can't help but wonder what is lurking elsewhere behind the gloss.

I had reported the matter to BC which did not seem the least bit interested.

[Mike Buckley]

Surely the point must be the degree of seperation, not necessarily the date it was built.

If a block was purposebuilt post 1991 then it should be ok for a stay put policy, except if you go in and find that someone has destroyed the fire seperation, in which case stay put is out, unless the fire seperation is restored.

On the other hand if the building is pre 1991, then you need to look to see if the fire seperation is sufficient to introduce a stay put policy.

The other side of the stay put policy must be that it is an option not a directive. So that if a fire occurs then for the average fire it will not be necessary to evacuate the whole block, this should not stop the residents getting out if they so wish or the Fire Brigade deciding that the whole block or part of it needs to be evacuated as the circumstances demands.

[Golden]

Mike, you're right the date is merely a clue to the separation likely to be found and is not the absolute answer. One of the points I was trying to make is that some pre-1991 blocks have better separation in my opinion than their modern counterparts.

With respect to "residents getting out if they so wish" this is one of the problems I've encountered with tackling high rise fires. If you are confronted with hundreds of residents on a single staircase its impossible to start fire fighting actions promptly and can result in a small fire growing. if the staircases then fill with smoke when you make an entry it can cause even more problems. Add to this the danger of people milling around outside the entrance and it becomes problematic and dangerous. The best for high rise if the other tenants are blissfully unaware of any FB intervention, of course its not possible to order people to stay in their flat.

[Mike Buckley]

I would agree that in high rise blocks you don't want floods of residents leaving the building whilst you are starting fire fighting, but the essence of the stay put policy is that most of the residents will not know about the fire, particularly whilst it is still small.

One of the issues that came from Lakanal House was the instructions given to some of the people in the flats which was to stay where they were when they might have been able to get thmselves out.

Again it comes down to fire separation, if the compartmentation has been compromised to the extent that the means of escape will become impassable then a stay put policy would not be suitable and a full or phased evacuation policy will be required.

The crucial factor in my view is the compartmentation, if it is good and the means of escape will remain available then stay put is a good answer, if however the compartmentation is not up to scratch and the means of escape will become smokelogged or made impaasible by fire, then the only answer is to evacuate, communal alarm systems the lot.