Last week’s narrative verdicts from the inquest into England’s worst high-rise residential fire has brought the ‘stay-put’ principle into question.
Jurors found that the deaths of six people at Lakanal House in 2009 could have been avoided if those who became trapped had left their flats in good time. Instead, fire brigade operators instructed them to stay put under the clear belief that firefighters were on their way to rescue them.
The coroner has written to the Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, asking his department to publish consolidated national guidance on the ‘stay-put’ principle, and specifically its relation to the ‘get-out-and-stay-out’ policy.
The coroner has asked that guidance be disseminated to residents, citing ‘insufficient clarity’ about advice given to residents of high-rise buildings in the event of a fire.
The stay-put principle relies on the idea that a flat should have sufficient passive fire protection measures to contain a fire for at least 60 minutes. People are sometimes encouraged to stay in their flats so as not to impede firefighters tackling the fire. In theory, a fire could be tackled without a resident having to leave a nearby flat.
A fire alarm system should alert those in immediate danger to leave the building, at which point the get-out-and-stay-out policy takes effect.
In practice, though, people usually evacuate relatively swiftly, often due to their interest in the scene unfolding and concerns they will be unsafe remaining in the building.
Failures in the compartmentation of the flat in which the fire broke out in July 2009 led to the fire spreading more quickly than firefighters expected.
Work on the building throughout the years provided ‘numerous opportunities’ to consider whether fire protection at Lakanal House was adequate, and asbestos removal work had a ‘significant impact on the fire resistance of the external wall’ according to jurors.
Sprinklers
Coroner Frances Kirkham also echoed a judgement from an inquest into the Shirley Towers fire where two firefighters died, recommending that all towers over 30 meters should have sprinklers retrofitted.
She wrote to Mr Pickles:
It is recommended that your Department encourage providers of housing in high rise residential buildings containing domestic premises to consider the retro fitting of sprinkler systems.
No new inspections
London Fire Brigade has also been written to by the coroner, also recommending that the brigade look into ways in which they can improve communication with residents. The coroner wrote:
A number of former residents of Lakanal House gave evidence. There was little awareness of fire safety advice published by London Fire Brigade, whether through leaflets, the website or home fire safety visits. Residents of high rise residential buildings need to be aware of the dangers associated with fire in such buildings and to have a clear understanding of what they should do in case of fire. Whilst this is a matter which concerns housing providers, it is recommended that your Brigade also consider how to improve dissemination of fire safety information to achieve effective communication with residents of such buildings.
Coroner Kirkham also recognised that the brigade had taken steps to improve cooperation with London boroughs, and to carry out familiarisation visits in flats with unusual layouts.
Insufficient communication of Lakanal House’s unusual layout was one of the reasons that firefighters struggled to get to those who perished. Since that incident, familiarisation visits have increased, and appliances have been fitted with mobile computers to enable more efficient sharing of data from visits.
In a story published this morning by the BBC, however, LFB has been accused of not having made visits to tower blocks rated as ‘high risk’ by councils within the past 12 months.
At least 21 high-risk tower blocks were not inspected in the past 12 months, but the brigade said that its judgement of high risk differed from that of council inspectors.
Fire commissioner Ron Dobson told the BBC:
The way in which a local authority would [judge] a block as being high risk might be different to the way a fire service does it.
They might decide that given the layout of the building, the height of the building, the way it’s designed, it’s sufficient to record that information and put it on a mobile data terminal – and not necessary to go back and visit very frequently.
Related posts:
Download the Fire Safety in 2023 eBook, keeping you up to date with the biggest news and prosecution stories from around the industry. Chapters include important updates such as the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 and an overview of the new British Standard for the digital management of fire safety information.
Plus, we explore the growing risks of lithium-ion battery fires and hear from experts in disability evacuation and social housing.
Not sure about the fire alarm comments, is this referring to a communal system? who is going to manage it, the residents? Will they be testing it? silencing and resetting it? How effective will that be? How long before it is disabled? Then where does that leave the owners/Landlords in terms of liability They say that if aircraft seats faced backwards towards the cockpit it would save lives in a plane crash, not seen a rush to do that following a plane crash, I’ve also heard somewhere that there are over a million people in the air at any… Read more »
Of course Ron Dobson is right, how do we expect any Fire and Rescue Service to inspect every building or site in their area on what others want to classify as ‘risk’. The only way that this can be done is by using past experiences that forms the current intelligence. F&RS cannot predict the future so crystal ball gazing is not part of their operations. I see the sprinkler argument is getting momentum again and I am not against this, but I see F&RS and others using the arguments of sprinklers as the ultimate panacea. I also hear other arguments… Read more »
As I said, the Coroner is questioning it, and also he is reinforcing previous coroner judgments on retrofitting sprinklers in high rises. There doesn’t seem to be many rumblings from Government on either of these, yet, though.
I do think it’s tough on FRS being criticised for not visiting a building the council deems ‘high risk’ which simply might not be. It’s possible, of course, that the councils in question are being a little cautious, especially in the wake of tragedies such as that at Lakanal.