Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ref: 539360

Bentley Amankwah

Delivery and Coordination Manager

Public realm projects

[email protected]

0207 525 2180


Qassim Kazaz

Group manager - transport

Public realm projects

160 Tooley Street

PO Box 64529

London

SE1P 5LX

[email protected]

  • 2 weeks later...

Conclusion of investigation.

1. HGVs are travelling above the speed limit down EDG despite the ramps

2. The ramps are the correct specification

3. "the Council considers traffic noise is excluded from Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This means that the Council has no direct responsibility in relation to either the investigation or mitigation of noise from traffic. The act treats noise and vibration as the same"


So any new works carried out by the council that cause an increase in noise pollution and vibrations in a private residential property are not considered to be the responsibility of the Council to either investigate or resolve.


Any thoughts?

Hmm, it sounds like residents need to learn about traffic calming tactics and then unite to have proposed schemes tweaked accordingly, before they're even built, which is exactly what we're trying to do on Melbourne Grove.


One thing you might consider is liaising with a sympathetic councillor and submitting a Cleaner Greener Safer bid for a pedestrian island to be implemented in the middle of that ramp, as was originally intended. You may be told that this is now contrary to highway policies, but I think it might be worth fighting with councillor support and devolved funding as it may be the only way to slow the HGVs down.


On a positive note, I noticed the other day that that ASBO drain cover at the edge of the ramp that I'd photographed, had been re-cemented and had cones around it, so hopefully the repair will at least address that particular aspect of the noise?


Let me know, as I'm a bit of a geek.

Hang on, one more thought... I think EDG is actually a TfL controlled road, not council controlled? It might be worth escalating a complaint to TfL, as they would have had to approve the works, to see if they can oblige the council to act.


But funding will be the problem, so it's still best to get the CGS bid in place in order to circumvent that excuse. The bidding process opens on Sept 7th.

Michael Mitchell supported my complaint.


The recommendation from the Council officer was "If you are concerned about damage to your property, you are encouraged to consider an insurance claim" from Southwark Council.


The Council officer also said "The road surface in this location will continue to be regularly inspected as part of our cyclic maintenance regime and should any failing of the road surface that meets our intervention criteria be found, reactive repairs will be undertaken regularly", I find it hard to believe that regular inspections take place as the drain was repaired only because Michael and I asked for an investigation, the road cannot have been inspected for over a year.

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> 3. "the Council considers traffic noise is excluded from Part III of the Environmental

> Protection Act 1990. This means that the Council has no direct responsibility in relation to either

> the investigation or mitigation of noise from traffic. The act treats noise and vibration as the same"


That traffic noise is not specifically deemed a "statutory nuisance" seems to be borne out by s.79 of EPA1990, unless there's any case law to the contrary.


"s.79(1) Subject to subsections (1A) to (6A) below, the following matters constitute ?statutory nuisances? for the purposes of this Part, that is to say?

.....

(ga) noise that is prejudicial to health or a nuisance and is emitted from or caused by a vehicle, machinery or equipment in a street

......

6A) Subsection (1)(ga) above does not apply to noise made?


(a) by traffic, ...

.....

(7) In this Part?

.....

?noise? includes vibration; "

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/79


I don't know if there are any other heads under which a council might be responsible.


A part of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges ( DMRB ) dealing with noise and vibrations, is at http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/vol11/section3/hd21311.pdf (826kB ).


It does mention an EEC Directive requirement to assess the effects of noise from projects, and also provides guidance on monitoring and the legislative framework, including provisions for compensation. Where it itself fits in the legislative framework, if at all, I've no idea yet.

heartblock and ianr, the TfL route is probably the next logical step.


Go back to Michael Mitchell and ask him to step you through this, plus put in a CGS bid in tandem.


Yes, your insurance company is another route... if the insurance company identifies that the ramp vibrations are causing damage to your home then they can require the council to address this... this is what happens with tree roots damaging foundations. But it's a long process, as it requires building evidence over time and can be quite expensive.


If there are several of you then it would be best to stick together and take group action, otherwise you'll just be told that no one else is having problems and therefore your problem doesn't exist.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...