The coroner at the ongoing inquest into the Lakanal House tragedy has told the jury that the fire performance of replacement cladding installed under a Decent Homes programme in 2006-07 “could become a legal issue”.
The possibility was raised following evidence that the fire could have spread upwards after a composite panel burned through in just five minutes, setting light to curtains in flat 79.
The original panels were made of “aluminium-faced plasterboard”, and the coroner Frances Kirkham told the jury that there could be “a legal issue as to whether a better degree of fire-proofing had replaced the original or a worse degree of fire-proofing”.
This is not a paywall. Registration allows us to enhance your experience across Construction Management and ensure we deliver you quality editorial content.
Registering also means you can manage your own CPDs, comments, newsletter sign-ups and privacy settings.
Six people died in the fire in July 2009, including Catherine Hickman, who died in flat 79 an hour after calling the fire brigade.
The inquest this week heard two days of evidence from Dr David Crowder, a fire safety expert at BRE Global. Much of Dr Crowder’s evidence was based on a reconstruction of the fire staged at the BRE’s “burn hall” at its Watford campus.
Dr Crowder told Lambeth court that the Southwark Council block had undergone a series of modifications since it was completed around 1960, the most recent being a re-clad in 2006-07.
He said that the new skin consisted of doubled-glazed units framed with UPVC-coated aluminium, above insulated “sandwich panels” with an insulation core.
In the controlled fire that reconstructed the conditions of the fatal fire as far as practical, he said that the composite panel failed before the glazing above it broke under heat pressure – something he would not have expected.
Dr Crowder also discussed an earlier fire at the block in 1997, which had been contained within the flat where the fire began.
Barrister Zahra Al Tai, representing Mark Bailey, the partner of Catherine Hickman, later pressed Dr Crowder for clarification.
The transcript reads:
Ms Al Tai: I just wanted to clarify the matter, because it appears as though you give an opinion here on the point. If I read aloud, you state here that:
“During the reconstruction modelling, it was demonstrated that under direct flame impingement the panels in the window sets of flat 79 that were installed during the 2006 to 2007 refurbishment could have burnt through and allowed the fire to enter the flat within five minutes.”
Which is what we understand from the evidence you’ve given this morning and yesterday?
Mr Crowder: Yes.
Ms Al Tai: And “Following the fire at Lakanal in 1997, the window frames and panels were still in situ despite severe damage having been sustained by the flat. Whilst information regarding the 1997 incident is scant, damage on photographs in my opinion indicate that it is highly likely that these panels were able to survive a fully flashed over fire for some time, possibly 30 minutes or more.”
And that’s your evidence, Mr Crowder, is it?
Mr Crowder: Yes, it is.
The re-clad would have had to comply with Part B of the Building Regulations, table 40, which says that in a building in excess of 18m the cladding should be non-combustible.
The inquest has also heard about a number of other factors that could have led to the spread of the fire and deadly smoke, including the cross-ventilation strategy that was part of the original design, a ventilation duct that linked the flats’ bathrooms, and a problem with the maisonettes’ internal wooden staircases.
The inquest is scheduled to continue until 30 March.
