Firefighters tackle building site blaze
Firefighters battled a blaze at a Southwark construction site through the early hours of this morning and evacuated 150 nearby residents.
London fire crews were called at 2.28am to the unfinished five-storey building, believed to be a timber-frame construction, that was badly damaged by the fire.
Fifteen fire engines, four aerial appliances and around 75 firefighters went to the site in Camberwell Station Road in Camberwell, south London, and the blaze was under control by 6.15am.
The 150 evacuated residents – from buildings including the council-owned Mitcham House - have been allowed back to their homes.
The people were sheltered at a rest centre set up nearby while the fire was tackled and the Red Cross and council officers provided food, drinks and support. Firefighters are investigating the cause of the blaze and will then hand the information over to the police to decide whether it is suspicious.
Police set up road blocks and helped with the evacuation.
The blaze follows a fire on a construction site in nearby Peckham in November last year. Here a fire on a development of unfinished timber frame houses being built for housing association London & Quadrant spread to nearby flats, prompting concerns about the safety of timber frame building sites.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (8)
ancient Greek | 06/01/2010 1:17 pm
What lessons if any were learned from the previous fire(s) remains unclear?
Are staff shortages and cutbacks contributing.
Unless and until legal action is pursued against ALL (including politicians and departmental directors) responsible, why would anyone sit up and take notice or care about the outcome?
Is private prosecution the last or only resort to action on this?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 06/01/2010 1:57 pm
Anyone reading this site would think it is only the capital that has house fires. Or even exlosions in properties (is the explosion in Shrewsbury last week reported here?)
While house fires that affect social housing may 'fit in' with (very worthy) campaigns started here (safe as houses) the selective reporting of house fires actually dimishes from such worthy campaigns by being seen as opportune and selective journalism
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
kass | 06/01/2010 2:16 pm
Joe Halewood | Wed, 6 Jan 2010 13:57 GMT
I do agree with you... There are a hunge amount of horrors going on, with victims being social tenants which go unreported. However I seems to remember IH editor explaining in another occasion that IH is not the BBC and they do have limited resources.
But I am saying this because it is very worthy of you to report anything not already reported here, like the explosion in Shrewsbury.
It should greatly help to educate a bit those housing professionals who live in a cocoon of box ticking without little knowing social tenants lives are at risk and often their lives arte taken for being nothing else but social tenants.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
THe ONLY One | 06/01/2010 3:51 pm
Kass - I would doubt your ability to 'educate' anyone with your one-sided negative view of the world. The article doesn't mention it was a social housing development, but does state that Police are investigating. Maybe Housing Officers should be re-allocated as security guards on development sites!!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
passions | 06/01/2010 4:29 pm
There has been two fires recently in southwark on the new building sites for there new housing i live opposite wear the fire happened last night and somebody must off set that
fire off as it started on staion road which is quiet street at those times. the most dangerous thing about that fire as we watched in horror there is a crane. Very high crane a foot a under the box under the crane seat had flames and looked like it would fall down . Near by the crawfords estate tennants which i am off could have been hurt if that crane had fallen down. And it could have landed on the mitcham house.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 06/01/2010 5:20 pm
My point was that the "Safe as Houses" campaign takes reflection in how its promoters, Inside Housing, deal with linked issues. So, if selective reporting of fires and wording within them too ("...believed to be a timber frame construction") can detract from the very worthy campaign that is Safe as Houses.
Hence, if IH reporting on fires is seen as selective and/or opportune then very worthy campaigns like Safe as Houses could suffer as the good work done so far is undermined by such comments and perceptions as "well IH would say that wouldnt they" etc.
As an aside, it seems that the councils emergency plan for such disasters worked well - but congratulating them for such is noticably absent in the article.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Editor's comments
Joe, when we covered the Peckham fire you complained we shouldn't be covering it because it wasn't social housing (which it was), now you are complaining we haven't covered the explosion in Shrewsbury (which we have looked into, and which wasn't social housing). This seems rather contradictory.
If you know of any other cases we should be looking into let me know, but we are not selectively covering some stories and avoiding others to give any kind of false impression, as you seem to suggest.
As for whether we should be congratulating Southwark or not, the purpose of a good news article should be to report the facts, not to offer an editorial opinion.
Tom
kass | 06/01/2010 6:25 pm
passions | Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:29 GMT
Thanks for that. It would be good to have more eyewitnesses like you reporting here.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Halewood | 14/01/2010 5:58 pm
Editor - I said the selective reporting could damage IH campaign for safe as houses and I maintain that point still holds.
Believed to be timbe framed is not fact either, it is just assumption and can only be so unless it is known.
Peckham was a building site in development and not social housing, it only becomes social housing when it is tenanted.
However, my main point is that safe as houses is a very worthy campaign and if it can be perceived that its promoters are selectively reporting (or that charge could be argued) then that worthy campaign can be damaged.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment