Talk:Lakanal House fire

Points of verifiable fact
The article currently says that the block has twelve storeys, however it's clearly visible in both Google Street View and Bing Maps bird's eye view, as well as the photos in numerous news publications, that the block has got fourteen floors, not twelve. A row of balconies is visible on every other storey on the eastern and western sides of the building. Also, seven windows are visible at both the northern and southern ends of the building. 79.70.98.91 (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article currently says that the block has 92 flats. There have been conflicting counts of the number of flats in different media sources, however, according to the Valuation Office Agency, there are 98 domestic dwellings in the London Borough of Southwark billing authority area in which "Lakanal" and "Sceaux Gardens" form part of the address - and all 98 of these flats are in Council Tax Band B. I personally am of the opinion that the Valuation Office Agency is a more reliable source on the question of whether a given domestic dwelling in the UK exists or not than the BBC, and quite probably a more reliable source than a local residents association too. 79.70.98.91 (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And besides - the fact that you can see 14 columns on the side of the building, as well as 14 floors, does suggest that the number of flats is very likely to be a multiple of 14. 98 is a multiple of 14, but 92 isn't. Then again, perhaps some of the flats might have been split into two, or two or more flats may have been combined into one - but the fact that they can all currently be verified to be council tax band B suggests this probably hasn't happened. 79.70.98.91 (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay - that's the verifiable stuff; here's where it gets speculative. At the moment, there's an estate agent offering a flat for sale in Sceaux Gardens for an asking price of £125,000, and which is described as being in a 13-storey block, and which I think is almost certainly either in Lakanal House or in the nearby identical Marie Curie House. The particulars include a floor-plan which shows very clearly the nature of the "scissor section" style which is described in this article from the London Evening Standard. If this plan is typical, then it means that each split-level flat would be the width of two of the columns that are visible on the side of the building, but only on the flat's lower level - that is, the level of the central access corridor. On the upper balcony level, the flat is only one column wide, but extends above its access corridor over to the opposite side of the building. 79.70.98.91 (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, I reckon that including the estate agent's floor plan would probably violate copyright. And I'm not sure that linking to an estate agent web page as a source is really a good idea. But there's no reliable sources that contradict this info about the layout, and it could be verified by actually visiting the block. Thoughts? Thanks. 79.70.98.91 (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've amended the floor count based on this, [image 2 shows what you say is true. Number of flats has been amended per reference found that 98 families were affected. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've found a very good article from the Architect's journal - which reprinted its coverage of the orginal construction of the estate, focusing on what became Lakanal and Marie Curie. This has good diagrams explaining the layout of the block, as built. What, if any, changes have been made since then it is hard to say.

On a relatively minor fact, the windows in Lakanal were metal, not uPVC - as was misreported earlier. I've added a reference for this. I have also had it confirmed personally to me by a Southwark Council officer.

For what it's worth the AJ article says the building is 15 storey - ground and floors 1-14

Jpmaytum (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section on the political control of the council and the decision to demolish or not. I am not sure that the two can really be shown to be related. It feels like unnecessary party political posturing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpmaytum (talk • contribs) 14:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Overall tone of article
Sometimes wikipedia's requirements that information is referenced is not enough. In the early stages of any incident such as the Lakanal tragedy, there is a lot of news reporting where members of the public give a load of unverified statements 'I was told that.....' which may or may not be reliable.

I think we'll need to go through this article and refresh the content once a number of months have passed since the event so that we can tell better what is fact and what is speculation. 20.138.246.89 (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Like any disaster article that is current news, thing are quite fluid at first, but the article settles down as time passes and more facts become known. This is where the article currently is. There are probably many months still to pass before the final report into the fire is published. Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Politics
This edit removed references to the politcal parties involved in the decision not to demolish Lakanal House. Whilst not wishing to get involved in a discussion about who was right and who was wrong, the facts were accurately reported before the names of the parties were removed. Is the consensus that the parties should be named or not named? Mjroots (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

uPVC windows
This edit removed a reference to the windows being replaced by uPVC windows, which Southwark Council denies happened. The source reports that an architect inspected the building after the fire and found that the windows and wall panels were uPVC. This seems to be relevant to the spread of the fire to lower floors. Is the consensus that this should be included or not? Mjroots (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference quoted a guy who was just plain wrong. I've spoken to council officers who confirmed the windows were metal. Also PVC windows don't melt - they degrade (ie break down and turn to nothing). I've referenced the technical expert in the story itself. (sorry for not including this earlier, as previously promised)

Jpmaytum (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I presume that this means the window frames were made of uPVC/metal rather than the windows themselves?? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Parking a reference June 2019
Gives a very full report of the warnings, events and promises for reform- written with post Grenfell hindsight. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)