Weaknesses found in fire death tower block
The London tower block where six people were killed in a fire earlier this month has a design weakness which could allow fires to spread, the government has warned.
Terrie Alafat, the Communities and Local Government department’s head of housing delivery and homelessness, has written to all local authorities warning them of the safety issue at Lakanal House which would also create a hazard in similar blocks.
The letter asks them to inform CLG how many similar blocks they have in their ownership, but adds that the need to take action is ‘a matter for your judgement’.
The Tenant Services Authority will send a similar letter to all housing associations in England.
The hazard at Lakanal House relates to the positioning of a timber staircase inside each two-level flat, which cuts across the top of a communal corridor and creates a potential breach of the fire resisting construction in the ceiling.
This could allow a fire in one of the flats to burn through the timber stair and spread into the ceiling void of the corridor, Ms Alafat explains.
The problem ‘may not be readily apparent from visual inspections’, she adds.
‘The need to take action in relation to buildings of this type, and the nature of the action, is a matter for your judgement.
‘You will need to consider this both in your capacity as a social landlord, where you will be the “responsible person” under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, and more generally in relation to your responsibility for the health and safety of housing as a whole.’
Lakanal House, in Southwark, was built in 1959 and contains 98 two storey flats over 14 floors.
The fire, which broke out on the ninth floor, has called into question the safety of tower blocks.
Three of the victims were children. They died on the 11th floor of the flats after becoming trapped, as the only exit from the block was via the single central stairwell.
In a letter sent to the chief executive of every English council this week, housing minister John Healey said he would ‘appreciate your authority offering some reassurance to tenants’.
Landlords could remind tenants about steps they could take to protect themselves from fire, he said.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (6)
kass | 14/07/2009 10:15 am
So who is being taken to court for this breach? And who is going to pay compensation for the victims?... Or do the victims friends and relatives as usual have to give up jobs and family and any other pursuit to spend the rest of their lives trying to get any justice?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sharon | 14/07/2009 5:01 pm
How on earth did this tower block get built? Who is going to take responsibility for this and any other blocks that have been built with the same defect because someone knows! Many identical blocks were built around the time that this particular one was constructed so it shouldn't take long to find out. How much cheaper can life get in this country?
Sharon
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Fred | 15/07/2009 0:00 am
It's easy to blame cheapness - however, Lakanal and Marie Curie were actually more expensive per apartment to build than some of the tower blocks in Roehampton that were built a year or two earlier. Being "expensive" unfortunately does not guarantee that a building will not have this particular design fault.
There are still unanswered questions, though. I can see how the wooden internal staircases that cross over the access corridors can cause a fire to spread from a flat to an access corridor, and from an access corridor to a flat, and from a flat on one floor to another flat on the same floor via the access corridor - however, even this particular design fault does *not* explain how a fire can jump from a flat on a particular floor to the flats above and below.
In other words, with this design flaw, a fire could spread along a corridor - but it should nevertheless still be contained within its two floors. You'd hope there were fire doors where the corridor meets the stairwell too.
But that's not what happened. The fire doesn't seem to have spread *along* the corridor to other flats, at least not to the extent that it's obvious from the outside photos. True, it's plainly obvious from the photos of the sides of the building that the sixth corridor up from the bottom - that's the second from the top - is completely charred. But the fire seems to have spread more *up and down* the building than *along* the building - which this particular design flaw does not explain.
Does this mean that the fire could have entered the stairwell column, then? Or the lift shaft?
Having said all that, just because I think this particular design flaw doesn't totally explain how the fire has spread, that doesn't mean I think it's unimportant.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ian Bennett | 15/07/2009 4:24 pm
Fred & co
See my comments after " Fatal blaze prompts plea to councils" of 10/07/09 where from the very good film recorded by someone over a 30min period seen on www.nce.co.uk/video or channel 4 news .
You can see debris falling from the flats and the open windows below, then that flat's contents catching fire. Bedroom window design looked like bottom hung & for "ease of cleaning" they were also side hung which also allowed a means of external escape on that floor rather than the balconies serving just the living rooms of the "even numbered" floors.
Only if you had a firemans tower there!
Hot day so tenants opened them in side hung mode! If they only opened in bottom hung mode less of a problem.
The maisonettes bedrooms where also not protected by external balconies so each one of those floors 5th, 7th, 9th & 11th were at risk & suffered.
Very difficult lessons to be learnt by refurbishment designers, but they must to avoid this tragic loss of life again.
Easy to say fire safety should never be compromised, and bridging the fire integrity of the corridor with timber stairs may only be a problem on this type of Laing design high rise.
However we await the report on the contribution to the fire of the design of that facade which could have significant consequences to many other type of building's fire integrity around the country!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andrew | 17/07/2009 12:41 pm
I think it is only right that the authorities and managing agent conduct a thorough assessment of the fire precautions in tower blocks. It was only a matter of time for such a tradegy to raise the important of risk assessment . I do like tower block and I do believe when they were built they were fit for purpose in tackling houses crisis , but as population increase risk has become more acute. Lesson can be learnt , and our condolences must go out to the victims.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gary Bond | 04/08/2009 1:25 pm
I have been inside this block on many occasions and can confirm that the ceiling has wooden panels screwed to it. This is a very poor design even for the 1950s and is a an unecessary feature that simply allows fire to spead along the communal corridor which would then prevent anyone from escaping down it.
Lets face it if you are on the 11th floor and a fire breaks out and your one and only exit is blocked then that's it there is no way out. Not only that, how can anyone rescue you so high up. As previously mentioned the lounge in these properties does indeed traverse the communal stairwell which is a poor design feature. Service ducts could also allow the fire to spread up and down as well.
The reality is that the higher up you live the less chance you have of escape in a fire. Unpalatable maybe but true.
I live less than a mile away from this building and have never seen anything like the scene of total devastation of property and more importantly life that took place in this terrible fire.
Sincere condolences to all those who lost loved ones in such terrible circumstances.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment