London's burning
They say that lightning never strikes twice. That's probably not the view in Southwark at the moment. For the second time this year a dramatic fire has rendered uninhabitable dozens of council flats.
This time fire broke out on a construction site. It was neither the direct responsibility of the Local authority or under the regulatory eye of the London Fire Brigade.
But with nearly 40 flats burnt out it is unquestionably a bigger fire than the one that happened at Lakanal House in July.
The site looks like a war zone. The cause of the inferno was the timber framed construction being used on a new build by one of the largest Housing Associations in the country.
Many people will be asking how safe they are in their homes when a fire in an adjacent building can spread so easily to their block and then move so rapidly through their block so that the fire brigade was unable to save a stitch of their belongings.
Sir Christopher Wren knew 350 years ago that roads acted as fire breaks and buildings needed construction materials to prevent the spread of fire. Common sense tells us that is a lesson we appear to be un-learning!
The stark reality is that what happened in Southwark is not the first time. After a massive fire in Colindale in July 2006, where over 2500 people needed evacuating, there were calls for the construction industry to abandon timber framed structures in heavily populated areas.
Moreover as well as being vulnerable to fire during the construction phase, some architects believe that despite improvements in passive fire protection measures, these buildings are fundamentally unsuited to multiple occupancy premises. It's too easy for fire to start, take hold and then there is nothing left for the fire brigade to do but watch.
But another issue has been raised by such an inferno so close to the Lakanal fire. Just who is making sure the building control regulations are being enforced, either when buildings are being constructed or undergoing major refurbishment.
Until the demise of the Greater London Council some 20-odd years ago, the building surveyor in each local authority was sovereign. What they didn't like didn't get done. In the absence of that guiding, often draconian, local hand there is a case to be made that the issue of fire safety in buildings has been neglected.
We reported back in September that there were hundreds of uncompleted fire risk assessments for council owned blocks. Whilst this is not the case in this latest calamity, it will be interesting to see how thorough the fire risk assessment carried out in July this year was.
There are already complaints that residents weren't sure what to do in the panic. There are some suggestions that the tremendous heat meant that their refurbished blocks may have been more vulnerable to the heat radiating from the main source of the fire on the construction site.
Southwark is still trying to complete work on blocks where they were served with enforcement notices in August. Some deadlines have already been missed and there have been a catalogue of errors in the works that have been carried out.
Southwark is even threatening to gag residents who complain "too much" when the principal reason for complaints is anxieties over fire safety.
Sometimes it appears even the Fire Service are not clear about what complying with the fire regulations actually requires. It is becoming clearer by the week that there are not enough people trained to the right standard to ensure that fire safety is both a priority and effectively managed.
As the latest fire shows it not good enough to have things mostly right; there appear to be an awful lot of accidents waiting to happen. It certainly makes me wonder whether the fire safety regime established by the Fire Regulatory Reform Order of 2006 is robust enough.
The inquest into the Lakanal fire cannot come soon enough.
Perhaps then, when the causes of that fire and the consequences of an inadequate regime are fully explored with public scrutiny, will we get a cultural shift to make fire safety an absolute priority and not an afterthought, as it so often appears to be.
I’m Kurt Barling, BBC London’s Special Correspondent. This is where I discuss some of the big topical issues which have an impact on Londoners' lives and share stories which remind us of our rich cultural heritage. 
Comment number 1.
At 15:45 30th Nov 2009, janet yatak wrote:It is concerning that at a time when Southwark say they are spending millions on fire safety improvements, and constantly saying they are putting residents safety first, that another lot of residents in their blocks were not safe, and even more concerning is that the fire started on another part of the area, which was derelict yet the residents some miles away were not safe. The fire ripped through two blocks , residents complained again that they struggled to get out of their flats, they were left in the street in their nightclothes at 5 am in the morning for hours, some went to bus shelters, where was Southwark, then they were left in the Damiola Taylor Centre at 11pm at night when they should have all been in B&Bs , hotels or temp housing and had good hot food and a warm bed to sleep in, have Southwark learnt nothing from the last time.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 15:34 3rd Dec 2009, janet yatak wrote:I have discovered that the council did give planning permission for this site , Cllr Humphreys the Deputy Leader told the BBC that the council had refused planning permission and that it was the government that gave it, Southwark did refuse the original outline application which was only an in principle application then it got over turned on appeal. After that the developer put in the FULL planning permission, and details etc, and Southwark council passed it, it was passed at a Community Council meeting, at Peckham in 2008. Interestingly enough the first time they refused it it was only refused on the grounds of loss of amenities, not anything to do with the timber framed construction, and when they passed the full application Southwark were obviously happy then with there being loss of of amenities, etc, Cllr Humphreys agreed with the Chief Fire Officer who was on the BBC with him that he did not agree with Timber framed construction and did not think it would be right in a urban area , but blamed it on the government for passing it when it was Southwark council, Ifind it incredible that at this stage the Deputy Leader of the council is misleading the public over this and what it suggests to me is that they are not taking the issues of our lives and safety seriously, It does not matter who gave the permission that is irrelevant what is irrelevant is that the council are still not being open and truthful about anything and if the Deputy Leader of the council misled the public over an issue which was irrelevant, they will surely misled us over the bigger and relevant issues. I am sure if the BBC got something wrong or inaccurate the council would read them them the riot act yet they are allowed to mislead the BBC and the public like this and get away with it. and it's disgraceful
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 16:10 11th Dec 2009, perronetblogger wrote:Once again Southwark’s incompetency is exposed and residents lives put at risk. Thankfully no one was seriously hurt - but let’s not forget this has caused devastating loss to many families.
Well spotted JYatak - Cllr Humphreys has long bleated incomplete truths, it seems his only real skill.
Southwark's building regulations tsars must have been distracted by the job of adding further works to our building - as we are told it is they who are adding to the scope of works ‘ to comply with regulations’.
We can only hope the Lakanal inquest doesn't insult us with a glib 'series of procedural failures' finding but has the courage actually brings to account and convict if necessary those whose long term negligence and incompetence has tragically taken lives and continues to threaten them.
The consequent necessity to retrospectively fix the mess caused by their continued negligence should not be used by councillors for positive spin nor should it be allowed to financially cripple those who remain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 14:37 12th Dec 2009, janet yatak wrote:Thanks Perronetblogger the council are not only incompetent as you say they then lie over their incompetence and on the BBC as well, Also I have now been told that I am on the Habitual complaints policy, and I can not phone the council in any way I can only email through a one point of contact They have put me on this because they have estimated that I will sent a lot of emails that will drive them all mad and tell them things they do not want to hear, , it is not on what I have cost the council but what I may cost them in the future, this is despite the fact that I have not sent an email for 9 weeks. Apparently I am hindering the councils ability to respond to other Perronet residents so now I am not able to send anything hopefully you and others in Perronet will get a better service, although it will be by the same incompetent officers and how me not sending any emails will improve their brains is beyond me The only thing they have failed to say is that I am not restricted in the number of emails I send to this one officer so what I will do is give her a load of work instead of sharing it around
If you are LH perronet blogger what you should be asking is how much are the LHs paying towards the Solicitor that is helping the council defend them if any charges are brought they have already spent over 100K and they have the cheek to complain that I may cost the council too much in the future.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)