The inquest jury at the Lakanal House fire tragedy has been told that key works undertaken to refurbish the flats in 2006-07 – which the inquest jury had heard were implicated in the spread of the fatal fire – would have been compliant with Approved Document B of the Building Regulations on fire resistance.
It is thought the replacement panels under the window in Flat 79 burned through in less than five minutes, a factor which apparently accelerated the spread of the fire.
Catherine Hickman died in Flat 79 and while the other five victims – Dayana Francisquini and her two children aged six and three, and Helen Udoake and her three-week-old baby Michelle – died after sheltering next door in Flat 81.
The inquest had also heard that neither Southwark council as client nor main contractor Apollo submitted a building control application for the works, due to confusion over their respective responsibilities.
Expert: panels were compliant
And last week, the inquest jury heard from building surveyor and expert witness David Walker, who said he believed the works should have triggered a full plan submission, rather than simply a building notice.
But this week, the inquest heard from Brian Martin, an authority on the Building Regulations at the Department for Communities and Local Government who had been responsible for drafting updated versions of Approved Document B in 2006, 2007, 2010 and 2013.
Martin was asked to consider a hypothetical situation where plans for the 2006/07 refurbishment had been put to building control. His interpretation was that exterior walls – including the key panels – would not need to be fire-resistant as they are permitted to form an “unprotected area”, in other words there are no adjacent buildings less than 24m away from which fire could spread. This was the case at Lakanal House.
On the other hand, if installed above a height of 18m, the panels did need to be “Class 0” rated on their external face to inhibit the surface spread of flame.
Expert witness David Walker had also given the inquest jury his opinion that the balcony balustrade panels should have had 30 minutes’ fire resistance. However, Martin said there could be “no black and white judgement” on that point, and that different experts might have different views.
Martin’s evidence was greeted with some incredulity by John Hendy, barrister for relatives of three of the victims.
The transcript reads:
Q: The premise so far in this Inquest has been that the panels were at least 30-minute fire resistance, and it may be that the jury — indeed, the wider public — might be horrified to learn that there was no requirement for fire resistance in high rise residential buildings more than 24 metres from the relevant boundary — I’m leaving aside Class 0, flame spread — but no fire resistance at all.
A: I can’t predict what the public would think —
Q: No.
A: But that’s the situation.
Martin went on to explain that insisting on 30 minutes’ fire resistance for exterior walls would mean “the end of windows”.
