Thread by @PeteApps

Update from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry:

Any fire risk assessor who does not make the increased risk to disabled high rise residents clear is not making a "suitable and sufficient" assessment, says expert

A large part of this morning spent on the issue of evacuation plans - and what should have been done for residents who were unable to use the stairs to evacuate

As we now know, at Grenfell no specific provisions were made for many disabled people in the tower, and reliance was placed on 'stay put' (something that was and remains true of many other tower blocks)

"It's completely wrong to think that stay put means no one leaves the building," says Lane. Those who are in flats affected by the fire still need to evacuate in a building with stay put, including disabled residents. This is a "reasonable scenario" which needs to be planned for.

"It can be a difficult problem to resolve, I'm very aware of that. But any risk assessor that doesn't make that clear isn't making a suitable and sufficient risk assessment because they've not expressed the different risk level to a person who can't evacuate"

She notes, delicately, that this is not always a "popular opinion" with her clients, but says she would "absolutely" advise them that it is necessary and that she is "not unique" in this regard

So what should have been done? We see guidance (British Standard 9991 and PAS 79) which makes it clear that all occupants of a building should be able to evacuate without the assistance of fire fighters, and specifically include disabled residents.

But we also see a guide published for owners of high rise residential blocks by the Local Government Association in 2011. This one said the preparation of evacuation plans was "usually unnecessary". Lane is asked if she can "reconcile" the two pieces of guidance.

"No I can't reconcile this [the LGA guide] with 9991 or any other guidance document," she says. "The technical significance of (the LGA) is that the risk caused by not making any other arrangement is acceptable to the responsible person. So a risk level is fixed in the building..

... for any vulnerable person who cannot use the stairs. I am not able to explain the thinking or the consideration of risk acceptance and risk consideration that went into writing that."

The LGA guide was endorsed by govt, and very influential in the social housing sector

This is going to be tricky for the inquiry to untangle, because the prior expert witness, Colin Todd - whose consultancy prepared the LGA guide - said it was not "practicable" to provide evacuation plans for residents with disabilities in general needs flats

Asked if an assessor's training might have meant they felt the need to escape without fire fighters didn't apply to disabled residents, Lane says: "Are you really asking me if you're trained to ignore disabled people? If people are I don't consider it to be acceptable practice."

At Grenfell, risk assessor Carl Stokes put the below statement (or a version of it) into all his assessments from 2012 - 2016. He said he expected the TMO to tell him about any affected residents and was not told that the 'tracker' system he referred to was discontinued from 2013

"In my opinion, it's not acceptable. He didn't have access to the [tracker] system and what it contained and he needed to make that clear," says Lane. But adds that the TMO should have pointed out that he was referring to an obsolete system

Incidentally, it took the threat of a judicial review to force the government to follow the inquiry's first phase recommendation that the existing requirement for PEEPs should actually be implemented for high rise blocks. Consultation outcome due next month.

Dr Lane also asked about various other matters. She said Carl Stokes (the Grenfell risk assessor) cavaeting the required date for remedial works by when they should start (not complete) "fell below the standards of a competent risk assessor"

She also said a competent risk assessor should not have been "pressured" to change actions he had identified as "high priority" to the less stringent "strong advice" (TMO witnesses denied doing this, but Mr Stokes said they did)

She also said that while Stokes' training was sufficient, it is only "one strand" of being competent which also depends on real world experience, which Stokes had little of when he took over in RBKC. She also said he should have found a way to have his work peer reviewed

She continues after lunch.