St Clement's Hospital Site - Tower Hamlets Council considers planning application 11 December 2013

Councillors will consider the report on the planning application

REDEVELOPMENT OF ST CLEMENT’S HOSPITAL SITE

At the meeting of the Council’s Development Committee

On Wednesday 11^th December

In The Council Chamber

At Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London E14 2BQ

The meeting is open to the public

MERA will be representing the views of local residents as one of the two people selected to speak on the application at committee

The meeting starts at 7pm and finishes when all business is done or 11pm

However The report on this planning application is the last one of the agenda and

consideration may not start until as late as 10pm

The MERA Brokesley Street Representative will be there from 8.30pm

MAIN COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS:

Concerns about the impact on local residents living in Brokesley Street with respect to:

·      Noise from 4 years of construction in particular late night deliveries to the site and impact on children’s sleep

·      Overshadowing and loss of light due to building new units up to the boundary wall separating Brokesley Street homes from the hospital site. Omission of Brokesley Street housing from lighting assessment

·      Adequacy of local school provision to meet demand from people coming to live in the new housing

·      Impact of construction traffic on safety of entry/exit from Brokesley Street

DETAILS OF DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA 

AND OFFICERS REPORT  pages 165 – 212 of the publicreports pack

EXTRACTS FROM THE FORMAL MERA RESPONSE TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION

Below you can read the summary of our detailed response which was submitted in August

Overall conclusions

In general, we are broadly supportive of the proposed development. 

·       It’s very important to increase the amount of affordable social housing in the borough

·       It’s important to integrate social housing with opportunities for shared ownership and private accommodation to promote better communities

·       We welcome new initiatives involving the Land Trust and the Ricardo Trust and see these both as positive new initiatives.  We trust they will grow and develop to fulfil their aspirations.

·       We very much endorse the use of the building fronting onto Mile End Road as a suitable place for community focused activities.

·       We agree it’s very important to preserve the character of our local heritage – particularly that within a recognised and existing Conservation Area. 

However we remain concerned about a number of aspects of the planning application.  Some of these can be dealt with under delegated powers as part of the Construction Management Delivery Plan. 

Others need a clear steer from the Committee as to what is and is not acceptable in relation to assessing

·       The impact of the construction contract on local residents

·       The assessment of the impact of the development given some serious omissions of data and serious misunderstandings about the nature of the neighbouring properties

Clearly, it’s inappropriate to build new quality homes while having a serious impact on the quality standards of recently built new homes and other neighbouring properties.

Our concerns – in summary

Matters that concern us about the planning application for the proposed development on the St Clements Hospital site include:

·       Noise control:  It’s expected this project will be on site for up to 4 years. We are now much more aware than we used to be about how intrusive and wearing noise can be when experienced on a daily basis over a period of years. It’s vital to the wellbeing of the community to ensure that the disruption to amenity and people’s quiet enjoyment of their homes is minimised during the construction process.  We’re not yet convinced that the developer has thought through how this can be as considerate a construction process as is possible.

·       Site traffic management and site deliveries:  In our view it completely inappropriate and insensitive to ask for an extension in normal working hours for site deliveries.  Some 30+ children live in Brokesley Street and the proposals means intrusive levels of noise when parents should be able to reasonably expect that they can get their children to bed and to sleep. There is no option appraisal presented the planning application with respect to alternatives and it’s clear other alternatives have either not been examined or need to be revisited.

·       Overshadowing and impact on natural light and sunlight levels

o   There are very serious inaccuracies and omissions in the data used in the report with respect to the lighting assessment. It excludes both residential units and back gardens which will be seriously affected by the development.

o   Adding height and building up to the boundary wall has considerable implications for light. Overshadowing has an impact on the wellbeing of families and their ability to provide fresh vegetables for their families

o   The development also appears to place more priority on retaining a low level building of extremely limited heritage value over the needs and wellbeing of existing local residents. 

·       Opening up the site – and use of gates: we need to recognise that this development proposes a change of use from long-term incarceration to habitation.  It’s imperative that this site is also opened up to promote integration with the rest of the local area. The use of gates in this context is inappropriate and we would like to see the gates only retained as heritage features rather than as ways to create a boundary around the site.  We’d also like to see more reduction in the height of the boundary wall next to the British Street estate and Hamlets Way.

·       Design and usage of the buildings at the front (John Denham Building and Bungalow): We think this aspect needs to be looked at again so that it better supports the objectives of the core strategy for this area.

·       Adequacy of local school provision:  We’re concerned that the development may aggravate the existing deficit in provision of local primary school places for local children who are currently being schooled all over the borough.  We can find nothing in the application that identifies the impact on demand for local schools and we can see nothing from Education that identifies scope to meet demand.  The failure to make a connection between creating homes for families and checking to see whether local infrastructure can meet the demand it creates is irresponsible.

 

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

Eric & Treby: Telford Drivers breach law yet again

It is against the law to use a mobile phone while driving ANY vehicle.  Nevertheless the drivers employed by Telford Homes appear to think they are exempt from the law and other construction/health and safety regulations which prevents them driving within the Eric and Treby Estate without paying due care and attention to other road users and pedestrians - and observing the law!

Telford Homes Driver on mobile phone
in front of Ennerdale House - a high traffic area
while driving a JCB 535 125 Telescopic Handler and moving supplies
around the Eric and Treby Estate

Recently residents witnessed the Return of dangerous vehicle manoeuvres by Telford Homes - which also involved the driver of this yellow vehicle performing dangerous manouvres on the public highway (Hamlets Way).

Telford Homes driver photographed driving while using a mobile phone
at 9.28am on Friday 20th May 2011

The vehicle in question is a JCB 535 125 Telescopic Handler supplied by B&T Plant Hire

B&T Planthire Ltd, Surrey (Head Office). 71-75 Amenity Way (off Garth Road) Morden, Surrey SM4 4AX
Tel: 020 8335 3477 Fax: 020 8330 1330
E-mail: sales@bandtplanthire.co.uk


B&T Planthire Ltd, Kent. Thames Side Terminal, Salt Lane, Cliffe, Kent, ME3 7TA
Tel: 01634 221 496 Fax: 01634 222 539


All machines comply fully with HSE Regulations.

It was driven by a driver wearing a Telford Homes jacket who was not complying fully with all relevant HSE regulations.

A link to this post and the previous post about poor driving on the Eric & Treby Estate is now going to be sent to

• Tower Hamlets Council Planning Enforcement 
• the Health and Safety Executive 
• the Considerate Contractor Scheme, 
• B&T Plant Hire, 
• the Project Manager for East End Homes and 
• the corporate head office of Telford Homes - as clearly the project manager for Telford Homes is not doing his job properly
• local ward Councillors who are on the East End Homes Board - Councillor Rachael Saunders and Councillor Motin Uz-Zaman 

It is OUTRAGEOUS AND UNLAWFUL for ANY driver of ANY PLANT to drive at ANY TIME on public highways or in any highway area used by the public in a dangerous manner or without due care and attention and which breaches relevant traffic safety law and ALL regulations relating to construction sites and health and safety.  

• There can be no exceptions.  
• This is a densely populated housing estate with lots of small children.

The next time we see this happen we will also report Telford Homes and the driver to the Metropolitan Police.

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

Quality control by Telford Homes Banksmen? NOT!!!

Gate to Telford Homes Site Office demolished by a truck....and where were the banksmen?

Says it all really!

Despite promises from Telford Homes about the use of banksmen and the effectiveness of "modern reversing cameras" a driver visiting the Telford Homes site office and compound in Hamlets Way managed to hit and comprehensively demolish their own compound gates.

Let's all hope that the driver responsible receives further training before he leaves the relative safety of the Telford Homes compound right next to the entrance to multi-storey Ennerdale House.

In the meantime, the site compound remains open to children - as can be seen in this photo.

We also noted yesterday that the gates to the St Clements Hospital site had been left wide open - again making it easy for children to access the site.


Not all children can read "keep out" notice.

We had rather hoped that all site operatives could and knew that they need to keep gates to site compounds closed at all times.

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

Site 14: Site contamination and remediation - our comments

The process for investigating the extent of site contamination on the Eric & Treby Estate and making proposals for how it should be dealt with continues.

Tower Hamlets Planning have recently agreed that:

• (Stage 1 Desk Research) the report commissioned by Telford Homes from Herts and Essex Site Investigations has satisfied the Stage 1 requirements of Planning Condition 3 relating to the investigation of site contamination on the land included in proposals for the Eric & Treby development
• Stages 2 (Site Investigation) and Stage 3 (Site Remediation):  Approval is now required for all proposals for site investigation; the results of investigation must be produced and the plan of remediation approved IN ADVANCE OF DEVELOPMENT on:
• EACH individual numbered area of site development and
• EACH numbered area of landscaping strategy

It's important to note that NO CONSTRUCTION WORK CAN COMMENCE ON SITE UNTIL PROPOSALS RELATING TO THIS PLANNING CONDITION FOR THAT SITE HAVE BEEN APPROVED

To date Telford Homes have submitted an application for approval of details to satisfy Planning Condition 3 for ONE site only.

The site in question is Site 14 on the corner of Eric Street and Ropery Street.

This is the site which was closed down after the investigation by Planning Enforcement found that Telford Homes had proceeded to commence construction and thus had breached both the planning permission and the terms of the Planning Condition 3 relating to site remediation works

On Friday MERA submitted its comments on PA/10/01560 - Application for Approval of Details re Site 14 ONLY.

Here's a summary of the points made:

Overview
We remain very seriously concerned about Telford Homes' approach and attitude to health and safety regulations and requirements and general duty of care owed to others - which have been repeatedly disregarded to date. 

Site Investigation:

BREACH OF PLANNING PERMISSION AND PLANNING CONDITION 3

• We noted that the site was only properly investigated AFTER the foundations had been dug and pipes laidie in breach of planning permission / planning condition 3

SITE CONTAMINATION

• We are pleased to see that it is now being fully recognised that the identified contaminants are prevalent across the site including those sites not properly tested previously - such as Site 14.

Site Remediation

PROTECTIVE CLOTHING

• We have not seen any evidence that workmen were using appropriate protective clothing in relation to the contamination while working on Site 14  (as opposed to general protective clothing used on all construction sites)

Site 14: No protective clothing re soil contamination

REMOVAL OF SOIL / SOIL CERTIFICATION

• We don't understand why we are now seeing different depths proposed for the removal of soil compared to the original report from the same firm. We expect to see 0.5 metre of soil removed from ALL communal landscaped areas - as per the original report on this topic and 0.9 metres of soil in areas of private gardens
• We suspect the developer is in some difficulty in connection with certifying the soils which have already been removed from the site and we doubt very much whether these can now be identified.  We suspect they have already been mixed with other soils or already removed from the site altogether - as has happened with soil removed from Open Space 2.

Site 14 - Where's all the soil gone?
Was it certified before it left the site?
What do you think?

WASHING/CLEANING PRIOR TO LEAVING SITE: 

• The Decontamination proposals relating to Site 14 are completely inadequate.  The workforce need to be decontaminated BEFORE they leave site 14 NOT before they leave the Eric & Treby Estate.

Do we have to make the point yet again that this is a residential estate with a high proportion of families with small children - many of whom play on the streets?  


It is ESSENTIAL that no contaminating material finds its way on to the streets or pavements. 

• How exactly do the workforce get from Site 14 to the washing and cleaning facilities at the site office?
• How exactly does Telford Home prevent contaminants from the site transferring via boots and clothing to the streets and pavements? 
• Are workers going to be taken back to the Site Office in a vehicle?  This needs to be made clear.

We expect the scheme to be compatible with the standards listed in INFO-PM2    Key Information Sources : Project Management – Health and Safety and Quality Management on page 188 of Model Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land  

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND CONTROLS

• We visited the site on a number of occasions and there has been no evidence to date of damping down of dust generation caused by the excavation or regard for people living near the site.  

Eric & Treby - Site 14 (Eric Street):  the latest play structures
very large unattended vehicles for children to play on
plus contaminated soil which is not covered

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN

• A Traffic Management Plan exists for this site but is not included with this application.  As stated the traffic management plan is inadequate as it fails to be sufficiently specific as to streets and flows and specific places where lorries will be queued. 
• A key concern in relation to this site has been the construction vehicles parked unattended on the street where they are accessible to children - we have witnessed workmen on the site completely oblivious to anything happening to the vehicles in the street

If any resident has any concerns relating to the Site Investigation and/or proposals for Site Remediation please get in touch with MERA.  Details of how to contact us are included in the right hand column.

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