Guidelines recommend guardian for three-storey timber-framed projects
Fire-ravaged Peckham site had no watchman
The Peckham building site where a huge fire began in a timber frame housing development did not have a night watchman, breaching industry guidelines.
The fire, which broke out on 26 November, spread to flats owned by Southwark Council and a housing association, forcing the evacuation of more than 300 people.
Fire safety guidelines from industry body the UK Timber Frame Association recommend that sites over three storeys should have an out-of-hours watchman and movement-sensitive security lighting as well as non-climbable perimeter fencing and locked site and building access.
But the four-storey structure on the Peckham site, which was owned by housing association London & Quadrant and being developed by Green Acre Homes, did not have a night watchman, according to insurance loss adjusters assessing the case.
Tony Ryan, construction loss adjuster at GAB Robins, said: ‘There was no night security onsite and the security was hoarding around the site itself and then chain link fencing and high garden fencing to the back and timber hoarding.’
He believes the lack of a night watchman would not affect Green Acre’s insurance claim as the directors had taken normal precautions in protecting the site.
The insurance claim, which would include damage to the site and surrounding homes, is expected to hit the £5m policy limit.
Green Acre Homes was also ordered to stop work on another site because of inadequate fire safety precautions. The Health and Safety Executive slapped a prohibition notice on the site in Selhurst Road, south London, because it did not have any fire extinguishers onsite and the only alarm was in the site cabin.
The notice was served on the site on 10 June 2009. It is believed Green Acre rectified the problems.
The firm failed to respond to contact from Inside Housing.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment





Readers' comments (1)
Jim Paton | 11/12/2009 6:14 pm
No, of course it didn't. Any sort of 24/7 presence on building sites virtually disappeared many years ago. It is probable that this fire could either have been prevented or extinguished at an early stage if there had been such a presence.
It should also be remembered that the possibility of arson is still under investigation (as far as I know) and witnesses speak of the unsafe presence of gas cylinders and of explosions.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment