Firefighting guidance compiled after the Lakanal House fire in 2009 didn’t suggest “stay put” advice for residents in tower blocks should be dropped in some circumstances, the Grenfell Tower inquiry has heard.

The 2017 Grenfell Tower disaster, which took the lives of 72 people, saw residents follow so-called “stay put” advice and remain in place for some time as the blaze tore through the building.

The strategy is commonplace for tower blocks where flames are expected to be contained by elements of building design – a system known as compartmentation – but if the systems fail residents should be evacuated.

A report previously compiled for the inquiry found residents should have been given the advice.

The inquiry heard on Wednesday that even though the Lakanal blaze, in Camberwell, south London, had demonstrated the need to drop the stay put tactic, guidance had not been updated.

The Lakanal House fire claimed the lives of six people and injured at least 20 others.

The inquiry heard on Wednesday that Sir Ken Knight, chief fire and rescue adviser to the Government until 2013, did not include advice to re-consider the stay put strategy in generic guidance issued after the Lakanal incident despite it having been abandoned in that event.

When asked about the decision by Andrew Kinnier QC, he said: “My understanding was, at that time, that it was covered in the other guidance, for example incident command guidance.”

Mr Kinnier QC also asked if anything would have been lost with the addition of the explicit guidance, to which Sir Ken said: “No, there would not have been anything lost.”

When asked if there was much to be gained with its inclusion, he said: “I agree.”

However, Sir Ken went on to say that advice was implied by the report.

He said: “I think this report does identify it in that it’s found necessary to evacuate residents of the block, as it says.

“So there was a need to identify it and to evacuate on those occasions that the strategy wouldn’t work because of compartmentation breakdown.”

However, he agreed the guidance had emphasised the “rarity” of such instances and that it was “underplaying” the likelihood it could happen.

The inquiry continues.