LBTH, Riney and Preston Paving get it wrong!

Q.  Why does Mile End Residents Association have to keep highlighting the various ways in which statutory authorities and their contractors keep ignoring local residents?

A.  Because LBTH Highways and Utilities and their contractors continue to IGNORE ignoring the rights and needs of local residents - and the relevant legislation!

Pavement dug up BUT
no permit for highways works,
no permit for works vehicles in the street,
no permit to suspend pavement,
no safe alternative for pedestrians marked out.

This morning we've had yet another incident which blocked access into and out of Brokesley Street - while  Preston Paving Services Ltd, on behalf of the Riney, on behalf of the Council dug up a pavement to create a new pavement.

Large Riney JCB registration number GN06 NZO
parked on double yellow line on 19th March 2012

You can see photographs on Flickr of:

• a total lack of any permits in the street to notify residents and local businesses BEFORE OR DURING THE WORKS that:
• parking bays are suspended
• a pavement is suspended
• where to walk instead
• a large JCB parked on double yellow lines\
• a large JCB stationery and blocking the road

Large JCB registration number GN06 NZO
totally blocks Brokesley Street on 19th March 2012.
This is planned work - not emergency work!
Just the planning and the permits which are totally lacking

• a Preston Paving Services Vehicle parked in a parking bay which it has no permit to use - according to the lack of permit displayed

No parking permit for this truck displayed in the street. 
No suspension of parking bay displayed

One lady we spoke to - who was sat in her car waiting to leave the street - said she'd been blocked while trying to enter the street and was now blocked again while trying to exit it!

The man from Telfords (who have built the new homes for EastendHomes) had absolutely no knowledge of the works - which completely blocked access to one of the homes which they were still working in.  They had to cancel works they had planned.

The works also presented difficulties for the families trying to love into the new homes.

It is essential that the Council recognises that:

• ALL WORKS cause problems for access into and out of Brokesley Street
• ALL WORKS in Brokesley Street require adequate notice to be given to residents (if they are planned works)
• ALL WORKS in Brokesley Street need to be closely monitored by Parking Control

[Update - the works continued on Tuesday 20th March.  The Council appears to have taken no action whatsoever despite being notified and the continued parking of vehicles on double yellow lines went unmonitored by Parking Control]

We will keep highlighting these issues until we finally get to a situation where no planned works occur without proper notice being given to residents and without damage to residents' cars or pockets.

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

A prompt response from Tower Hamlets Street Works

MERA has had two responses to the blog posts and emails sent to various council officers, councillors and Optimise

• On Friday, MERA received an email and photos (see below) from a Tower Hamlets Street Works Officer following the despatch of emails to various parties within LB Tower Hamlets
• On Thursday we got an acknowledgement of our email from Optimise - but no proper response to date.

We're grateful for the prompt response -  but have some issues we still want to pursue.  Read the Street Works email and our comments below.

Brokesley Street 16.45pm (after the contractors had gone home)
- the work is still not complete,
the road has not been cleaned to remove soil debris as required by the planning conditions
Street Works photo

Footpath Closed - but does this have a current permit?
Street Works Photo 26 January 2012

Hello Mile End Residents, following the receipt of your concerns and complaints yesterday I visited Brokesley St and took the attached photos.

These are TW-Optimise works - being undertaken by the section known as 'Developer Services', carried out by a Statutory Undertaker under the terms and conditions of NRSWA - New Roads and Streetworks Act.

As a Statutory Undertaker TW have the right to place and maintain apparatus within the Highway - and under their governing body, OFWAT, have the duty to maintain this supply, and also the duty to respond to a reasonable request for a supply connection.

These works are however monitored generally by the Highways Authority and subject to the Codes of Practise. These codes require the Undertaker to Notice these works, carry them out to a standard of reinstatement and again generally to complete works without undue delay, minimise disruption to road users, and where the access to a frontage is affected to allow for consultation before works start, (unless works are deemed to be 'Emergency' or 'Urgent').

Following discussion with Optimise personnel I understand these works were to have been carried out without closing the road formally and best maintain access for residents by suspending Parking Bays. To minimise the time on site the JCB 'Digger' was used where possible, the gang being aware of the need to maintain Emergency Service access at all times and able to move this vehicle if required.

It does appear that works were carried out after the formal Bay Suspensions were removed and this is a matter that will be discussed with Optimise to establish what went wrong here and how they propose to avoid a repeat in future.

We will continue to be aware of these works and the potential to cause concern to residents and the works will be monitored for any failing with regard to the specification following reinstatement.

Please let me know if you have any comments, and if you have further concerns regarding future Statutory Undertakers works in Brokesley St do not hesitate to contact the Streetworks section - if you can attach photos it does help, thanks, regards, CNH.

Charlie Harrison
Street Works Officer
CLC Streetworks
London Borough of Tower Hamlets
e-mail charlie.harrison@towerhamlets.gov.uk

The officer does not address:

• the planning conditions relating to no access/no parking allowed by vehicles associated with construction (as these are - even if they are a utility company)
• the parking of vehicles on double yellow lines as indicated in previous posts (which as the Council's own policy highlights cannot be suspended)
• the parking of vehicles within suspended parking bays - not allowed as per the Council's own policy (ie the bays were suspended for access not for use by vehicles working on site)
• the lack of consultation with residents about how the works were to be conducted and the potential for the road to be completely obstructed 
• the inconvenience caused to residents by works taking place AFTER the parking bay suspension finished.  He recognises that requires further enquiry.

The Works are not Complete - but have no completion date
No permit number displayed re pavement closure
How does this comply with the Code of Practice? 
Compare to photo (below) of sign as at 26 January 2012 8.47am 
(Street works photo)

Optimise Notice photographed 26 January 2012 8.47am
Stated Completion date 27 January 2012
Permit Number 74YSYF

In addition three more matters not previously raised will also be pursued 

1. the fact that the Optimise Notice now has no permit number and no completion date despite the fact the pavement is still closed (which was not the case prior to the works)
2. the absence of any Notice of the Council order to close the pavement (Should it be closed at all?  When will it be open again?)
3. the failure to mark the Optimise road works in the manner as required by the planning permission / Code of Practice (no lights at night earlier in the week when they were in the road, fences fell over on a regular basis)

We're also still wondering why none of the irregularities in relation to parking bay suspensions and parking on double yellow lines got picked up by the parking wardens.


We'll be corresponding further to ensure there are no further repercussions of this serious disregard of the interests of local residents and the contractor's breaches of the law and the Council's own policy on parking suspensions.

To date MERA has not received any acknowledgement or reply from any of the Ward Councillors or Development Control.

DO PLEASE TAKE PHOTOS / EMAIL TO MERA

IF YOU SEE ANY OTHER WORKS CAUSING PROBLEMS FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

Suspension of Parking in Tower Hamlets - Policy and Rules

Highway Maintenance - parked on yellow lines
following several days of water works in 
Brokesley Street 26 January 2012
(There is no notice of suspension and no dispensation in force
and planning conditions prevent access by construction vehicles)

MERA has been looking up Tower Hamlet Council's Policy on Parking and Traffic Enforcement.

For the benefit of residents in the Mile End Area and all those who seek suspensions of parking bays we've reproduced the section relevant to the suspension of parking bays in this blog post.  (It starts on page 40 of the document which you can access by clicking this link)

We've highlighted the parts of most interest to local residents.
__________________________________________

This section reviews -

• The exemptions included in the Council's Traffic Management Orders (parking and moving traffic)

• The availability of dispensations from the waiting and loading restrictions

• The ability to suspend certain parking regulations

Suspensions, dispensations and exemptions all seem very similar, but in parking they have quite specific meanings and uses, not only in relation to CPZs but more generally (and they are not the same as permits, which are explained in Section 5)

Suspensions


Having introduced (or "designated") a permitted parking place (permit holder, shared use, pay and display, doctor, disabled, etc.), it may be necessary to suspend it for a short time. (If the parking place is no longer required, or it is deemed that it would be better utilised for another purpose, it should be revoked. A Traffic Management Order is required to revoke a designated parking place).

Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the Council will only suspend a designated parking place in the following circumstances:-

a) to facilitate maintenance and repairs to the highway
b) to facilitate maintenance and repairs to services (gas, water,
electric, telecoms etc.) buried within the highway
c) business or domestic removal
d) building works
e) filming
f) at the request of the Police (events and public safety)

Anyone can request the suspension of a parking place (or part of a parking place), provided it is for one of the reasons stated above. The suspension is provided to help carry out a task or event but clearly causes inconvenience to those motorists who are then not permitted to use the parking place; and in extreme circumstances a long-term suspension (for example, to facilitate a major redevelopment) can impact on the viability of a small business.

To minimise the inconvenience caused by suspensions the Council will:-
a) only grant a suspension when absolutely necessary
b) restrict the suspension to the minimum space required to perform the task or carry out the event
c) restrict the duration of the suspension to the shortest possible amount of time ) consider the size of suspension in conjunction with the duration (i.e. a long term suspension is more acceptable if only a short
length of kerb is taken)
e) normally make a charge for each suspension based on number of bays/number of days plus administration charge, to encourage the speedy return of the parking place to its designated use. (These charges are reviewed annually and a “parking bay” is defined as 6 metres in length)
f) where there is a choice (and usually there is not), choose to suspend "pay and display only" bays rather than "permit holder only" or "shared use" bays
g) ensure that suspensions are correctly and clearly signed
h) monitor suspensions to ensure they are removed when no longer required

Generally, no more than ten car parking spaces will be approved per day for a suspension.

For a domestic removal a total of three car spaces only will be suspended (approximately 18 metres) and there is no charge for this type of suspension. If the applicant considers this to be insufficient space, additional space may be agreed and the normal suspension charges will apply.

Applications for suspensions should be made no later than five days in advance as the Council will give at least three days advance notice of the suspension for the benefit of residents in the area. However, this is not always possible as emergencies will require priority suspensions and the Council will be unable to give advance warning. Residents are advised to check that there are no suspensions in place on a daily basis if they are leaving their car in a permit or multi use bay.

All documents supplied to holders of permits issued by the Council will include advice to the holders of the need to check their vehicle every day and to ask a neighbour, friend or relative to do this for them if they go away for any length of time, leaving their car in a designated on-street parking bay (that might have to be suspended). All designated parking bays in the Borough might be suspended at some time.

Enforcement action will be taken against any unauthorised vehicle parked in a suspended bay, even if it is displaying a resident permit. Some residents believe that if a bay has been suspended for their use, to facilitate a house removal for example, they may park their own vehicle in the bay if it is not being used by the removal vehicle. This is not the case as a suspension is authorised for a specific purpose and may only be used by the vehicle engaged in that purpose.

Any vehicle parked in a suspended parking place will be issued with a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and authorised for removal to the Council's car pound. Removal is appropriate because the parking bay is required for another use during the period it is suspended

It is also important to note that a suspension is actually in force at any time, even if the bay would normally be in force during a shorter period. Where times are specified on the suspension notice this will not be the case, but if there are no times shown, enforcement action may be taken at any time during a 24 hour period.

A vehicle displaying a disabled person's parking exemption, parked in a suspended parking place, will be ticketed (PCN) and relocated to the nearest safe parking place.

There are occasions when suspensions are introduced without warning (usually urgent repairs to underground services). Any vehicle that is illegally parked in the bay at the time the suspension comes into effect will be ticketed and removed to the car pound. Any legally parked vehicle will also be ticketed (this creates a unique reference number for the enforcement action) and whenever possible be relocated. The Penalty Charge Notice will be subsequently cancelled.

Where a suspension is required for such a considerable time that the Council must reconsider whether the parking place should be re-designated (as it becomes apparent that the carriageway in question is again required for the passing of vehicles), it becomes inappropriate to levy a daily charge to encourage the early return of the parking bay since this is actually outside the control of the contractor/utility company.

We are committed to giving residents and other drivers as much notice of the suspension as possible, ensuring that the signs indicating that a suspension is in place are clear and give full details of the duration, location and nature of the suspension, to regular checking of suspensions and prompt removal when they are no longer required.

There are three further key points to parking suspensions:-
a) It is not possible to suspend a parking place to permit parking, e.g. the Council can suspend a parking place so that a wedding car can wait for the bride (or groom), but will not suspend a parking place so that guests can come to the celebrations after the wedding.
b) The suspension process can be open to abuse, e.g. a builder may request the suspension of a parking place to assist with delivery of materials to the site, and then use the suspended area to park his own van. Suspensions therefore need to be properly monitored and the Council will issue PCNs in these circumstances.
c) It is not possible to suspend a waiting restriction (yellow line) or waiting and loading restriction (yellow line and kerb blips). If this is what is (in effect) required, then it may be appropriate to grant a "dispensation".

Construction vehicle related to
Telford Homes Development and Thames Water Works in
Brokesley Street on 26 January 2012 (1.49pm)

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

RESULT! Brokesley Street open again

Following this morning's blog post and various reports to the "powers that be" (see Optimise continue to ignore regulations in Brokesley Street), cars are now able to park again in the "suspended parking bays" at the top of Brokesley Street.

That's because the bays were NOT suspended for the 25-26 January 2012.

Brokesley Street 2pm 26 January 2012

The reality is that Thames Water - via its agent Optimise - OBSTRUCTED the street for two days without the necessary authority. 

There was no emergency which necessitated this obstruction.  These are planned works for a new housing development project - managed by Telford Homes - and as such should have been completed within the time allotted ie within the time allowed by the permits.

However the parking bays were rendered inaccessible by the fencing in the road and the works by Thames Water and its agents which took far too long to be completed.  Difficulties were caused for residents trying to get in or out of the street and delivery vans got stuck while trying to make deliveries.  Deliveries were taking place because of course there should have been no obstruction in the street!

Proper permits for suspending parking should have been in place at all times if required - but neither the developers Telford Homes nor the utility company Thames Water, nor their agenct Optimise made sure this happened.

Proper notice should also have been given to householders - but this did not happen.

Despite overhearing a contractor this morning stating that the fencing would be moved at the end of today, by midday the fencing had been moved back to the pavement - but not before it had succeeded in blocking a very large van making a delivery to the street.

We will now wait to hear from the Council what actions they will be taking for the fact that the road was obstructed without permit and construction vehicles are still parked in the street - on double yellow lines - which are not suspended!

Construction vehicle NJ57 GDF - parked on yellow lines in Brokesley Street

This vehicle has been reported to Tower Hamlets Parking and Transport for London - as will all construction vehicles which are parked in the road.  The place for parking is the Approved Access Route to Site 10 - via the old St Clements Hospital site

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

Optimise continue to ignore regulations in Brokesley Street

Thames Water's contractors Optimise (which combines contractors Clancey Docwra and J Murphy and Sons) are currently breaching:

• the suspension of parking in Brokesley Street which was limited to 23-24 January 2012
• the ban on construction traffic in Brokesley Street as per the planning conditions for the development on Site 10 (1 - 14 Brokesley Street).

It's worth repeating - that says "No Construction Traffic in Brokesley Street"

Roadworks are complete - so why is the fencing still there?

Where is the parking control notice
for 25-26 January 2012?

This follows on from the post on Monday when access to the street was blocked by contractors vehciles - see Clancey Docwra block Brokesley Street to emergency vehicles

The photographs in this post were taken just before 9am this morning.

The road should be clear of all fencing - because the holes in the road were completed yesterday.  There is now no reason for fencing to be protecting the area of road they have been working on.  

The other reason the fencing should not be there is because cars are now allowed to park on the other side of the street according to the suspended parking notice!

There are works to do to the pavement but:

• they do not require the fencing which remains and 
• if they do - then they need to apply for an extension of the parking suspension

The road should also be clear of all construction and contractors vehicles - as per the planning conditions - but it is not.  

• There is a lorry parked at the top of the street 
• an Elm Surfacing Van (Transit Connect - Vehicle Reg. HK57 FLC) - which is parked within the "suspended parking area".  Which means it's definitely breaching parking controls as it has neither a permit if the parking is not suspended and it's parked in an area of suspended parking (ie required for access in and out of the street) if the controls are still in force.

Our understanding is that the suspended parking bays are not suspended unless there is a clear notice and the area is marked on the pavement.

Elm Surfacing Van Reg. No HK47 FLC
reported to parking control and TfL

Brokesley Street has had a series of suspended parking bays - ostensibly for works - when nobody has turned up and nothing has happened.

We now have work occurring which ignores both the planning conditions and the parking controls.  This is completely unsatisfactory.

Luke, the Telford Homes Project Manager, knows all about this as he was present on site this morning when we arrived to take photographs.  He disappeared very rapidly from the scene as the camera appeared.  We wonder why.........

Reports of the very poor management of these utility/road works by Thames Water, Optimise and Telford Homes are being lodged by MERA with:

• Transport for London - the Reportit website for reporting unauthorised or badly managed road works.  
• FixMyStreet - which we have found works very well as it records on a website things which need fixing fast.

You can also send in your own reports.

UPDATE: Click on image to read report filed 10am on 26 January 2012

MERA will also be sending emails again to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (Parking Control and Development Control)

This is the standard which Thames Water SHOULD be working to - over and above the requirements re planning conditions and parking controls.  

The Mayor of London's Roadworks Pledge

Roadworks should...

• Be tidy and safe with a clutter-free site so it is safe for pedestrians, cyclists and other road users
• Always explain what's happening through detailed, clear and consistent signage
• Always have activity on site or, if not, explain why (e.g. concrete is drying)
• Take up as little road/pavement space as possiblewith a compact working area and eliminating the unnecessary use of cones, safety barriers and storage of materials
• Help keep London moving by working outside peak hours, re-opening the road to traffic at peak times and, where this is not possible, working 24/7 or extended hours to complete works as quickly as possible. Diversion routes should be clearly signed

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

Clancey Docwra block Brokesley Street to emergency vehicles

ClanceyDocra are ignoring requirements to maintain 24/7 access for emergency vehicles into Brokesley Street by repeatedly blocking it with their vehicles during works to Site 10.

JCB blocks access of emergency vehicles to
Brokesley Street 23 January 2012
(right click image to see a larger version)

One of the conditions of the planning permission for the Eric/Treby Street Regeneration project was that there should be NO CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES in Brokesley Street due to the difficulties this presents for access by residents and, more importantly, to the 24/7 access required by emergency vehicles

Parking has been suspended at the top end of Brokesley Street over a number of days recently due to the need for water works relating to the new development on Site 10

In other words these are utility works which are directly related to the construction of the houses on Site 10 - 1-14 Brokesley Street

The suspension of parking was to allow vehicles to pass up and down the road as part of the road was cordoned off to allow works to drains.

The suspension of parking does NOT permit the road to be blocked by construction or utility companies.

Two separate incidents were witnessed within a period of 30 minutes at lunchtime on 23 January 2012 by a MERA Committee Member.

Firstly a truck was parked in the road - completely blocking the road - while it removed material. The line of the driver was that he could move at any time.  He ignores how long it takes him to get out of a street where he has to reverse up the street and into a main road to allow access by a fire engine or an ambulance.  There is no reason why a very large truck was required to remove the material.  A much smaller vehicle could have been used as has occurred elsewhere on the other regeneration sites which are part of this development.

Clancey Docwra Block access to emergency services
and local residents of Brokesley Street

Next a JCB set up - and became immobile - while it helped dig a trench.  This effectively blocked the road to emergency vehicles or local residents needing to leave their homes by car.  Hence photographs were taken.

The trench did not need to be dug by a JCB.  Trenches are dug all the time all over London without the use of a JCB.

This vehicle is being reported to Tower Hamlets Street Services
for blocking Brokesley Street on 23 January 2012

This vehicle and this infringement of the planning permission will now be reported to Parking Services and Decelopment Control respectively.

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

Demolition Assistance from Tower Hamlets Environmental Health Team

Yesterday MERA learned two things

1.  Tower Hamlets needs to protect buildings in Conservation areas as well as design!

First, Tower Hamlets Planning needs to address a major deficit in its practices in relation to protecting Conservation Areas.

Unfortunately the approved construction management plan (condition 5) of the planning permission granted does not have control over the effects of vibration and potential for damage to neighbouring properties resulting from the demolition process. You are correct in taking the matter up with environmental health.

It would seem that Planning is more interested in the design impact rather than whether the buildings are maintained in good order while demolition and construction takes place!

Some questions:

• What on earth is the point of Tower Hamlets Council having a Conservation Policy for its heritage if buildings are going to be shaken severely due to very poor demolition practice by the contractor?
• WHY does the Construction Management Plan not offer adequate protection to nearby buildings in a Conservation Area?
• WHY does the permission for demolition affecting buildings in a Conservation Area not have planning conditions which outlaw the type of adverse outcomes which result from poor demolition practice?
• What's the point of having a Council planning function if developers can do what they like?

2.  Tower Hamlets Environmental Health continue to be very helpful!

The Health and Environment Team personnel which MERA spoke to yesterday were very helpful in providing support for the local residents and the Mile End Residents Association.

Environmental Health officers continue to assist with the very poor practices being adopted by the demolition contractors employed by Telford Homes (see Demolition starts - and so do breaches of controls for an earlier example of poor practice)

• The Telford Homes Construction Director was contacted very quickly and the problem explained.  MERA understands he was planning to make a visit to ensure there were no repeat offences.
• Vibration machines have been offered to homes in block severely affected by the impact vibration from demolition on the Brokesley Street site in order to the record the extent of the impact vibration should it continue

To date, demolition practice seems to have improved and there has been no reasons to contact Environmental Health to make an appointment for the installation of the vibration machines.

We hope by now that both Telford Homes and the Construction contractors have learned that MERA will not put up with any poor practices when demolition is occurring.

Should poor practice continue in relation to demolition practices MERA will again be contacting the Health and Safety Executive (London - Construction sites).

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

Telford Homes Demolition shakes buildings in Conservation Area

The demolition of 1-14 Brokesley Street by Telford Homes started yesterday.

The impact vibration from the demolition is currently causing serious concerns for the wellbeing of the building at 644-648 Mile End Road which is connected to 1-14 Brokesley Street via party walls

Impact vibration caused by the method used for demolition is causing the 1848 building to shake significantly and concerns are being expressed about the risks to the original plaster ceilings.

We thought Conservation Areas were supposed to protect our heritage and health!

Planning and Environmental Health have both been contacted as has Cllr Rachael Saunders, who is both the ward councillor and a Board member of EastendHomes who are responsible for the development.  Let's see how long it takes to get some action to prevent this irresponsible approach to old buildings in this Conservation Area.

The yellow arm of the digger machine being used to demolish the flats at 1-14 Brokesley Street.
This is being dropped from a height onto the roof and causing 
very significant vibration to the building siuated on Mile End Road 
which is connected to the flats via party walls
The party wall between site 10 and St Clements Hospital was the subject of 
a Conservation Act planning application to allow access for the digger

The simplest solution would seem to be that the connection between the two buildings must be removed as soon as possible.

This means the demolition of the end wall of 1 Brokesley Street needs to be executed as soon as possible to separate it from the party wall and thus disconnect the significant level of vibration.

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

Inconsiderate deliveries and ineffective parking controls

Photo taken 11.00am on 22nd October 2010 in Brokesley Street. 
This delivery lorry is completely blocking Brokesley Street

Registration Number FJ56 VWV - parked next to the double yellow lines
next to the Hanover Place gates and on top of the Keep Clear Notice

Many residents in Brokesley Street - a very narrow cul de sac - are more than a bit fed up with the way parking controls are constantly ignored by those making deliveries and parking very badly in the street.  

Vans blocking the road make it impossible for residents to enter or exit the road by car - or for emergency vehicles to get in or out either.

Hearing a car making repeated use of the horn, our Brokesly Street representative took these photos this morning of a lorry which was completely blocking the road while making a delivery to a household in Hanover Place (the gated development).

A resident of Brokesley Street was trying to exit the street and drive his daughter to an important appointment.  He was completely unable to pass this unattended lorry for several minutes. 

These photos and a link to this blog post and the photographs on the Flickr site Brokesley Street - Controlled Parking Infringements - including a very clear photograph of the registration plate - will now be sent to Tower Hamlets Parking Control

FJ56 VWV - Caught on Camera!

WARNING!

All other deliveries which are seen to behave with similar lack of consideration for local residents will also be photographed and the photo sent to Parking Control.

This action will be repeated every time a truck blocks the street and we "hear about it".  There is space for trucks to park in the two red route parking bays on Mile End Road.  You can also get parking restrictions lifted by contacting Parking Control  

Advice to Residents

Please use your common sense and be considerate to neighbours.  Next time it might be you who is blocked from getting into or out of the street.

• DO make sure when you order goods that the company knows they will NOT be able to access Brokesley Street using a large vehicle or else will risk getting photographed and fined
• DO tell delivery companies about the red route parking bays on Mile End Road for deliveries via truck.  It's perfectly feasible for delivery men to wheel goods down the street.
• DO arrange with Parking Control for the restrictions to be lifted to allow a lorry to park in the street - if you have a major delivery or are moving house.  You will however need to give them notice.

These are links to:

• Parking bay dispensation application  Parking bay dispensation – a limited suspension service available to residents for special circumstances such as moving house.
• Parking bay suspension  Parking bay suspension

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

Parking suspensions and access: MERA wants better communication

9th August 2010: 

Suspended parking and road works in Brokesley Street

This is an extract from a letter we've sent to the officers of Tower Hamlets Council asking about matters relating to the suspension of parking bays in Brokesley Street.

We've also separately asked Planning to provide some reassurance about the quality of the liaison between Parking and Planning in relation to development works.

Let's see what they have to say......

Could you please answer the following questions:

• Normal notice period for all planned utility work:  What is the standard notice period given to local residents for suspension of parking bays due to planned works by utility companies?
  

• Notices - allowance for summer holiday period:  What is the normal notice period given to residents about suspensions of parking bays during the summer holiday period when people are likely to be away on holiday?  (We would regard at least 14 days for all planned works as an acceptable standard)
  
• Application date:  On what date did you receive the request from Transco for the suspension for planned development works in connection with the development of site 10 of the Eric & Treby Estate development
• Works to comply with Council Planning Permission/Conditions:
• Were you aware that the planning permission for the development at site 10 of the Eric & Treby Street development requires that the Construction Management Plan MUST be approved before any development works can take place? 
• Did you check to see whether the development had complied with all pre-commencment planning conditions and developmnents works could proceed BEFORE you granted permission to suspend the parking bays.
• Adequate Notice: 
• On what date did council officers fix the notices and mark up the pavement relating to the suspensions of parking for this planned work in the street?  
• Did this comply with the standard notice period required before planned works by utility companies can commence?
• Why did local residents not receive a letter as we have done in the past for lengthy suspensions of parking in most of the road?
• Why did the notice not state what would happen to cars which remained and how much it would cost to retrieve them?
• Customer Services/Queries:  Why did the suspension notice not provide a telephone number for queries?
• Customer Service/Comunication:  Why did the suspension notice not say which organisation had requested the suspension?
• Hours of working in residential areas:  When granting permission for the suspension of parking
  
• Do you require limitations on hours when works/noisy works can take place? 
• Do all utility works relating to a developent need to be compliant with standard hours for constructions works in residential areas imposed by the Council re planning applications?  (eg no works at all before 8am)
  
• For the record works had started in Brokesley Street BEFORE 8am this morning (breaching Planning Condition 14) and a very noisy machine (requiring ear protection for the operative) was being used between the hours of 8am and 8.30am (apparently breaching Planning Condition 15 which limits noisy work to between 10am and 4pm). 
  
• Liaison:  Are you satisfied that Highways/Parking Services Liason with the Planning/Development Control is adequate for the purposes of ensuring that all suspensions of access to streets and pavements for the purposes of necessart works associated with a development ONLY takes place in complete compliance with the Council's planning conditions?

Our principal aim in writing to you is to AVOID any repetition of:

• lack of adequate notice to local residents about parking suspensions
• lack of adequate communication with residents as to who to contact in relation to the suspension of parking
• avoidance of any fines being levied on any resident who has not received adequate and approrpriate notice
• apparent lack of awareness by Parking of the terms of the planning permission and pre-commencement planning conditions
• works which do not comply with the terms of the planning permission (eg unapproved works prior to the approval of all pre-commencement planning conditions)
• specifically impact breaking and noisy work outside the hours as stipulated in planning condition 15 of the Decision Notice for this development

We also want reassurance that proper consideration will be given to the requirements for 24/7 emergency access and disabled access EVERY TIME parking bays are suspended for holes to be dug in the road during the course of this development

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

No noisy development work before 10am unless you're Transco?

Eastendhomes Site 10: Gas works in Brokesley Street

This morning Transco started work relating to gas supply right outside Site 10 in Brokesley Street before 8am.  This involved use of noisy machinery well before the 10am start date which is a condition of all noisy works associated with the redevelopment. 

This work is connected to the EastendHomes development being undertaken by Telford Homes although being undertaken by a utility.  As such to our mind it's covered by the planning conditions for the development for hours of work and that relating to noisy work .

CONDITION 14 - Construction Hours Building works must only be carried out between 8am and 5pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturday.  No works can be carried out on Sunday or Bank Holidays unless agreed by Council in writing.

CONDITION 15 - Piling and Impact Breaking Hours: Hammer driven piling and impact breaking only to be carried out between the hours of 10am and 4pm.  Not allowed on Sunday or Bank Holidays unless agreed by Council in writing

However the worker concerned felt the need to wear ear defenders while using noisy machinery immediately outside 1-14 Brokesley Street to damp down and seal the tarmac which was laid before 8am.  This photograph was taken a few minutes after 8am.

What a pity he didn't have similar consideration for the residents of Brokesley Street!

Today MERA will be:

• reporting this infringement of planning conditions to Tower Hamlets Planning Enforcement
• asking Tower Hamlets Planning why any of the utility works associated with this development are being allowed in advance of the approval of the Construction Management Plan
• asking Tower Hamlets Highways / Planning asking why permits to close streets are allowed which then lead to works before 8am. 
• asking Transco why planned works (ie non-emergency works) are being done at anti-social hours.

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

Parking suspended in Brokesley Street 2nd - 10th August 2010

Suspended parking from here to the top of the Residents Parking Bay in Brokesley Street

About 60% of the residents' onstreet parking bay between 62 and 75 Brokesley Street is to be suspended between 2nd and 10th August according to three notices attached to lamp posts in the street.

THE PROBLEM

• Inadequate notice has been given for planned maintenance works
• the notices are all in English and assume an ability to read English
• This is the summer holidays and some of the cars in the street will belong to people who are away on holiday
• Cars will be removed to the Car Pound if they are not moved by the owners.  The cost to retrieve the car even if done promptly is astronomical and if left there for a few days could mean the fine exceeds the value of the car for some families.
• there is no information on the notice about what happens to cars which are towed.

Tower Hamlets completely FAILS to advise car owners of the cost of retrieval for the parking infringement and removal from the car pound and the cost for every extra day it is in the pound.

MERA is reporting this problem to:

• Tower Hamlets Planning Department.  We wrote back in February asking that any works due to happen in the street in connection with the new development should be the subject of adequate notice to all those who park in the street.  MERA requested an extended period of notice (of at least 14 days notice) during the period when most people take their summer holidays.  This gives people the best chance possible of avoiding fines.
• Tower Hamlets Parking Control - asking why residents' parking spaces are being suspended with no contact telephone number on the notice or information about how to retrieve cars which have been towed and how much this can cost.  We will also be asking for a copy of the order and why there is no explanation on the Tower Hamlets website of the fines which will be incurred by families whose cars are removed
• the Ward Councillors - we'd like to see a Members' Enquiry as to why families could be impoverished due to a failure of public agencies to think about the impact on family finances.  Failing to give adequate notice discriminates against the poorer members of the community.

KEEP UPDATED: Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

MERA comments on Foul and Surface Water "Scheme"

Tower Hamlets Planning now have MERA's comments on Telford Homes' proposed "Scheme" to address Planning Condition 21 relating to the disposal of Foul & Surface Water from new residential units on the Eric & Treby Estate redevelopment. 

Just so everybody knows what we're talking about....

• Foul drainage removes the waste from the toilet, bath, basins, sinks, washing machines, dishwashers and showers. 
• Surface water drainage deals with rainfall as it collects around a property (eg roofs, gutters and land) 

Planning Condition 7 (application for approval not yet submitted) deals with the required scheme of water and sewerage infrastructure delivery for the whole development.  In short whether the existing water supply and sewerage system can cope with delivering an effective supply of drinking water and the disposal of waste water and sewerage (ie what needs checking before any homes can be occupied) 

Planning Condition 21 deals with the micro site level aspects (pipes and connections required and planned)  and is worded as follows

Prior to commencement of the development, with the exception of site investigation works and the digging of foundations, a scheme to dispose of foul and surface water shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The Development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance the particulars so approved.

Reason: To protect and conserve water resources and to prevent increased risk of flooding and pollution of the water environment in accordance with:

• policy 4A.16 of the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004),
• policies U2 and U3 of the Unitary Development Plan 1998 and
• policies DEV5, DEV7 and DEV21 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007): Core Strategy and Development Control.

Summary of MERA Comments

MERA consider that this Application fails to satisfy as to the adequacy of arrangements for foul water and surface water drainage at a specific site level.  It is inadequate for the purposes of discharging this planning condition.

REASONS INCLUDED:

• This pre-commencement planning condition has already been breached at Site 14 through unlawful development in advance of the discharge of ALL pre-commencement planning conditions.  Note the drains and manhole covers in place on Site 14 on Monday evening - when the consultation did not even finish until today.
  

Drains and Manholes - development contravenes planning permission/conditions

• A Scheme is a plan of action. A Scheme requires explanation. A set of drawings is not a Scheme.  Drawings support the narrative text of a Scheme, they do not explain it.  PA/10/1159 is the application for approval of details PRIOR to commencement of the development.  If you click the link in the Application Reference you can see the quality of the documentation submitted.
• The application for approval of details fails on the grounds of accessibility for the purposes of consultation.   Technical drawings and no report renders this application completely inaccessible to most people.
• The Scheme does not revisit issues raised in the Flood Risk Assessment Scheme - as recommended in that report.  
• The Scheme for Site 10 fails to indicate how the drains connect to the main sewer.  However, in doing the research to respond to the proposal we have identified a probably reason why Brokesley Street has problems with drainage.  This is because the main drain under the road is only 300mm wide according to the documents submitted, making it the smallest drain in the area by quite some way.  It's very unlikely that Planning Condition 7 (Water and Sewerage Infrastructure) which covers capacity issues can be satisfied without a comprehensive review of what a 500+% increase in people living on Site 10 will have on the rest of Brokesley Street given the tiny size of the drain.  We will be keeping a very careful eye on this issue which generated several comments from local residenrs during the course of consultation.

As noted in section 3.1.2, there is a residual risk of sewer flooding as a result of the increase in foul sewerage requirements for the new properties on the site.
Flood Assessment

• The Scheme fails to demonstrate any awareness of the implications for pipework underground  resulting from remarks about and recommendations arising from the Expert Report on Site Contamination.   (see Eric & Treby Estate: Site Contamination)  The nature of the contamination requires protective sleeves for the pipework underground to avoid any contamination transferring into the water.  
  
• The drawings give no indication to the layman of how greywater is captured for recycling - which contravenes planning policy as well as being very silly if no effort is being made! 
• This "scheme" gives inadequate consideration to how surface water drainage will change following the soft landscaping.    

The risk of surface water flooding to and from the development will be increased as a result of the conversion of permeable to impermeable land cover.
Flood Assessment

MERA considers that the nature of concerns raised by residents (particularly those near Site 10) means that these need to be adequately addressed by the developer

• BEFORE submitting a Scheme for the disposal of foul water and surface water
• BEFORE the proposals for meeting this planning condition can be approved; and
• BEFORE the planning condition can be discharged

________________________________

If you want to be kept updated why not subscribe to this blog.    
You can do this by clicking the link below 
  Subscribe to MERA - Mile End Residents Association Blog by Email

Unacceptable Brick proposed for Brokesley Street (site 10)

MERA has been trying to see what the materials proposed for the various Eastendhomes newbuild sites actually look like for quite some time. 

In fact ever since consultation started in April on PA/10/00720 relating to condition 10 (material samples) and the request to vary the materials to be used for NEW BUILD at Site 10 (Brokesley Street), site 12 (Beckley House), site 14 (Ropery/Eric Street) - on the Eric & Treby Estat.

Below is the schedule of proposed materials for Site 10 (right click to see a larger version).  Links in the brick names below are to the photographs of the specific brick as part of the Site Materials Set on the MERA Flickr account.

Our initial conclusions were that the proposed brick for Site 10 in Brokesley Street (Ibstock Funton Orchard Mix was unsuitable as it was far too red.  It failed to reflect the yellow London stock brick used for the nineteenth century houses opposite and the terraced houses on the eastern side of the street - next to the site of the proposed new family houses.

This was stated in MERA's formal response to the planning application (see below)  We also asked to see a better presentation of the building materials.

Site 10 Brokesley Street:    The suggested brick Ibstock Funton Orchard Mixture (no stock code listed but stock no. 4051 ) is unsatisfactory as it does not appear to us to provide a close match to the brick of the adjacent maisonettes or the (cleaned) houses opposite ALL of which are built in a brick with a distinct yellowish cast associated with London Stock. Based on the sample brick supplied, it appears to have much more of a reddish cast. Google also says there is no such thing as Funton Orchard Mixture 4051. We were also unable to identify the brick proposed on the manufacturer's site. We haven't been able to identify any buildings or see any photographs of buildings which have used this exact brick (bearing in mind there are several with similar names). 

In order to avoid mongrelisation of the street ("any old brick will do") we'd want to see a brick being used which provides a good match with the predominantly yellow London Stock bricks in the street. The 1960s development sought to have bricks which 'fit' with the Victorian Buildings and the new "pastiche" houses need to do the same.  We've managed to identify a brick on the Ibstock site which appears to us to look a lot more like the brick used in Brokesley Street - this is Ibstock Funton Orchard Mixture - Yellow. (ie the critical word is Yellow!) The Stock ID is 4211 . 

We'd be interested to know English Heritage's views about the proposed bricks
MERA response to PA/10/00720 (materials)

After waiting for some weeks, two small brick walls have appeared in Brokesley Street and we can now show you what one of the proposed materials look like.  However......

• The walls are not labelled in any way.  
• No information is provided as to how residents can comment on the proposed materials.

 The brick on the left is Ibstock Funton Orchard Mix.  It is WRONG and UNACCEPTABLE

The brick on the right is Danehill Yellow Facings.  This is a reasonable match - and is acceptable

However the two walls have demonstrated very clearly the point we made in response to the application for approval of details re planning condition 10 (site materials)


Brokesley Street forms part of the Tower Hamlets Cemetary Conservation Area.  The priority for the street is a development which is sympathetic to the houses which have contributed to this area being designated a Conservation Area.  The residents of Brokesley Street do not want bricks which look out of place.

BOTH of the existing terraces are built in a traditional yellow London Stock brick.  (see the photo of the bricks on Lincoln House opposite)

The bricks for the new houses MUST be a good fit with

• the existing brick of the terrace of early Victorian houses on the west of the street and 
• the terrace of 60s houses on the east side of the street.  

Thus the proposed brick - the Ibstock Funton Orchard Mix is totally UNACCEPTABLE.  It has the appearance of a reddish fletton brick.

The Danehill Yellow Facings brick appears to be a much better fit and a more acceptable brick.

The proposed brick for the string course is Ibstock Atlas Smooth Blue. In principal this is a good proposal given the string brick used in the Hanover Court entrance and building opposite Site 10. It looks like it might be a good fit. However we have still not seen in this brick in situ.

Entrance to Hanover Court development - opposite Site 10, Brokesley Street

dark grey/blue bricks used for string course

What you now need to do

We suggest the residents of all the properties in Brokesley most affected by the choice of bricks for Site 10 should now write and comment on the proposals.

You can:

• either contact the Planning Case Officer Richard Murrell in writing ie his email is his name with a dot in the middle plus @towerhamlets.gov.uk  (I'm not writing it in full to avoid him being swamped with spam!)
• or you can leave a comment on the website for the particular application - follow this link and then write your comments where it says "Make a general comment."