Grenfell f ire chiefs ‘had no Plan B’ after Stay Put advice failed
FIRE chiefs tackling the Grenfell Tower blaze have been accused of having no ‘Plan B’ when the infamous ‘Stay Put’ advice failed.
Firefighters told residents to remain in their homes as flames consumed the 24-storey block in June 2017, but strict rules meant there should have been an alternative written plan to help families escape.
Instead, people were forced to flee the building ‘sporadically’ as it became clear it was too dangerous to remain inside.
Firefighters tackling blazes in high-rise buildings were advised that ‘contingency plans for particular premises should cover: an operational evacuation plan being required in the event the “Stay Put” policy becomes untenable’, according to Government rules.
But the London Fire Brigade’s socalled Operational Risk Database (ORD) for Grenfell Tower, which was submitted to the inquiry into the disaster, makes no mention of a contingency plan.
In evidence at the inquiry, Grenfell Tower’s fire risk assessor Carl
Stokes said: ‘There can be no doubt that GRA 3.2 [ a section of the Generic Risk Assessment] required the LFB to have an operational contingency plan in the event that the Stay Put policy became untenable… the ORD template has a space for t he “Operational Contingency Plan”, which it seems, for the Tower, was not completed. No evidence about the existence of an Operation Contingency Plan has been given.’ He added: ‘On one view of the evidence, when Stay Put was changed, the alternative employed was a sporadic call to self-evacuation which relied on residents calling into the LFB, rather than the LFB having an operational means of contacting them.’
The revelation comes ahead of the publication on Wednesday of the long-awaited first report from the inquiry in which the LFB is likely to be heavily criticised.
This weekend, survivors and the f amilies of t he 72 who di ed demanded the report be as hard-hitting as that of the Macpherson Inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence which branded the Met as ‘institutionally racist’.
But sources at the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) expressed fears the report will not only criticise bosses such as Dany Cotton, the Commissioner of the LFB, but also individual rank-and-file firefighters.
The inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick is also likely to criticise the LFB’s 999 call handling centre which was not given ‘real time’ information from the ground. As a result, call handlers wrongly told people that the fire was confined to the fourth floor.
Earlier this month, Ms Cotton admitted the Stay Put advice was unsuitable for Grenfell, despite previously insisting it had been right.
Grenfell United, an organisation set up to help the survivors and families of victims of Grenfell, said they hoped Sir Martin would rule in his first report that the tower had been ‘non-compliant’ with fire regulations, allowing the flames to engulf it so quickly.
The LFB said: ‘ It is important that we understand the full detail of this report and any recommendations it may make, and it would be premature to comment on specific issues… at this stage.’
Matt Wrack, FBU general secretary, said: ‘Firefighters and emergency fire control room staff acted heroically on the night of the fire. Firefighters did not cause the fire and must not be scapegoated.’
‘Firefighters must not be scapegoated’