 |
| Anyone can register with the Considerate Constructors Scheme...but does it mean anything? |
Perhaps the problem is a developer wanting to cram so much onto a site that construction is only possible by using areas outside the site to facilitate it.
Either way, the inconvenience caused to any neighbours of a construction site are not considered relevant when making objections to a planning application. Existing residents may be extremely inconvenienced for up to two years without compensation.
The logistics of construction are included in an application, but generally sorted out after planning is granted. A Construction Methodology Statement is also submitted, the detail of which is generic and could apply to any site. Such statements usually include the following nebulous promises:
• Coordinated delivery times and efficient traffic management to prevent queues of traffic accessing the site.
Yeah, right. See previous posts here and here.
• Ensuring all plant has sound reduction measures (mufflers, baffles or silencers)
The noise can be relentless, and exceeded reasonable decibel levels on many occasions during demolition at Faircharm. There was and is no sound reduction employed – if there is, it is not enough.
• Utilising construction techniques that minimise the production of noise.
See above. During demoliton, the machines used to break up concrete caused buildings to shake. Vibrations equivalent to mini earthquakes were felt by residents and those working nearby. Cracks appeared in brickwork. Ornaments fell off shelves.
• Using Acoustic hoarding where necessary.
No Acoustic hoardings have been erected on Creekside to protect residents. Taller hoardings are required to prevent dust as well.
 |
| Faircharm, February 2016 |
• Ensure that all materials transported to and from site are in enclosed containers or fully sheeted. Ensuring loads are covered where spoil or demolition material is being removed.
Covered or not, at Kent Wharf back in November 2015, the road looked like this for a whole month before it was cleaned up and wheel washing was finally introduced.
 |
| No wheel washing at Kent Wharf |
Outside Faircharm, the trucks and cement mixers can't get in or out of the site without driving on the pavement and spreading their loads. Wheel washing as they leave the site makes very little difference.
The road and pavement are almost white with dust. The
dust lies several microns deep on all the parked cars and reaches into
the communal recesses of Wilshaw and Holden House up as far as the
fourth floor. The caretakers have
complained that there is ten times as much dust to clean up on communal
stairs and walkways.
 |
| A car vacates a parking space after a rainy period, revealing the dust it's been concealing. |
Residents, local workers and pedestrians are breathing in all that dust. Potholes are growing daily. The wheels of passing trucks kick up the dust when it's dry.
After rain, the street cleaner has to shovel mud. The rubble and dust goes down the drains, potentially blocking them.
• During dry periods the works are to be damped down to control the generation of dust.
Asbestos removal took place without full cover. This was reported to Lewisham Environmental Health who took no action and did not even respond. The construction site manager had tests conducted that vindicated the lack of cover, but extreme health worries were engendered among residents and local workers in the meantime. See previous post.
• Provide regular road cleaning using road sweepers or brushes to control dust and mud.
Once in a blue moon...
 |
| A bit of sweeping up outside the entrance – last witnessed in March |
With so many sites like this in the area, a cash-starved local authority is unable to monitor the work. It is also likely that any Section 106 money clawed from the developer by the Council (in mitigation, to benefit the local neighbourhood) will not be spent around here – if it is, it will probably be used to fix the road that has been thoroughly ruined by construction.
No comments:
Post a Comment