Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi All-


Does anyone know the Southwark Council policy on open fires. Just wondering as we live near a fire which has been burning for several days now and is left to burn overnight unattended. This is in the old semi-abandoned garages on Stuart Road - it looks like the site is being cleared. There is a skip there but most of the items to be cleared are just being thrown on the fire spewing ash all over the neighbourhood. Apparently the Council have visited the fire and nothing seems to have changed. The fire has been going since last week (Thursday 8/11/12) and is surely a public fire hazard.


Thanks, Vandam

Hi-


It is not related to the school building work opposite.

It is at 85 Stuart Road. I reported it to southwark Council Environment Officers this morning and they have just come around to visit me and are going to the site now. So hopefully this will have an effect. Will await further developments. One thing they said is that if the fire is unattended at night we could call the Fire Brigade.


Thanks

The council policy- which was once written in a green leaflet called 'Bonfires' -said you are allowed a bonfire in your garden for 1 hour at dusk once a month and one on Guy Fawkes. You are not allowed to burn noxious stuff like paint. I had one of these leaflets given to me because of a nuisance neighbour about 8 years ago.
  • 3 weeks later...

Hi Renata,


Do you know what's happening at this site? I've checked the planning applications on the Southwark Council website and the last mention of 85 Stuart Road was back in 2009, though there doesn't appear to be any update since then.


Thanks,


Matt

I have been in contact with council officers in relation to the onging problem with fires (hopefully this is now sorted!) demolition is currently going on the site, so environmental health are keeping an eye on what is happening here.


In terms of planning Stuart, I don't know, I will check, I am assuming that it is the 2009 plan that is being implemented.

Renata

Thanks for the update, Vandam.


I've looked at the planning application you mentioned above and it says that Southwark refused permission in 2008, though there are details mentioned about an appeal in 2009. Do you know if this means it's been approved? Compared with the development of the old H R Denne building and the new Bredinghurst School, this one seems to be happening without much notification - apart from the burning beacon, of course!

this makes.me so mad. if there's potentially asbestos then there are local residents and its a walking route to primary and secondary schools. I'm a museum union health and safety rep and this work would not be allowed to happen without risk assessments, method statements etc for the work. is there asbestos on the roofs or is it just a suggestion that there might be? what has been burnt? have all chemicals and other toxic substances been dealt with properly? I walk my kids near, but have started avoiding it sometimes as the fire has been on and off, mainly on, for weeks. sometimes my eyes have felt sore and i have put it down to contact lenses but I wonder...... hope this is being properly checked out.

Hi HP Saucy,

this was reported to me by a resident as a potential asbestos containing site (they were concerned about the garage roofs). I reported it to council officers and they have been there to investigate what is going on. I hope to have an undate tomorrow about the site, I shall post on here when I do.

Renata

I have been getting a bit despondent about this site. On two occasions I have got the Environmental Officers from the Council down to the site when the fire was burning. On the first accasion they agreed the fire was unacceptable and spoke to the very unco-operative labourer on site. He stopped that day but then carried on burning intermittently. The second time the Environmental Officers came down they said that even though there was a fire burning, it was not serious enough for them to ask him to stop?! That was frustrating. Then the demolition began and I called a Building Inspector from Planning to come down. He had a look at the site and said that I was to await any construction notices from the Developer. I was not even thinking about asbestos but now I am worried as it seems that some of these Developers basically do what they like and we all stand aside watching. Who do our lawyers speak to when we get asbestos poisoning?

the problem here is planners allow cowboys planning permission

they dont check to see what they are doing they have had a fire every day except weekends

since 11th or 13th november,i am frightened to burn my private papers bank statements etc

in case it upsets somebody or wrecks their washing.

and now we are subjected to asbestos spread all over our gardens roads etc

because they want a CHEAP job.

i wish they were regulated

Council Officers have got back to me again today:

The above site was visited by Environmental Enforcement Team (EET) and the Council's Regulatory Health and Safety Team on Tuesday 4th December 2012. The site has also been visited three times previously.


Asbestos: There is asbestos on site in the form of asbestos cement roofing sheets to the garages being dismantled. At the time of the visit some of these roofing sheets had been removed and placed inside the garages. The asbestos roofing sheets had been removed with suitable precautions and protection in place, as per Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidelines. The asbestos is also to be disposed of as hazardous waste. The EET are monitoring.


Fire: There is a fire burning on the premises, however it is a controlled wood fire in a metal container and in the middle of the site on cleared ground. In order to establish nuisance the environmental enforcement team officer visited the immediate adjacent property No 83 Stuart Road. No nuisance was observed.


In summary, so far as was resonably practicable to assess, there is no imminent risk to safety or health or nuisance to the residents or passers by in the vicinity.


As the site is technically a construction site and thus enforced by the HSE, they have also been made aware for any further intervention if they wished.



In terms of planning, there was a planning application in 2005 for 2 houses, approved. In 2008 there was a new application for 3 houses and a bungalow. This was turned down, but won on appeal in early May 2009.


Was anything being done on the site prior to November 2012?


Lameduck, if an application is correct, doesn't breach any planning/building regs, affect residents ammenities etc it is likely to be approved. The planning department doesn't know who will be doing the building work. In fact people often buy vacant sites, get the planning permission and then sell the site on to someone else.


I am still keeping this one continuously under my radar.


Renata

Hi all,


When I walked past on Sunday it seemed that the asbestos roofing was stacked to the right of the gate in one of the garages there - or what was left of it.


Historically I believe the main issue with this development was that the builders wanted to pack too many houses into the space to make the necessary profit. They also wanted to purchase the bungalow on the end/corner, but were not willing to pay the price the owners required to obtain it. So a stalemate was reached and the garages have sat there rotting ever since.


Annoying for those of us who enjoyed having access to a lock up on our doorsteps, as we were 'evicted' only to see nothing then done with the site - but such is life.


I would love to see the site developed as long as the job is done right, and with a suitable number of houses or flats. I guess only time will tell, but very much hope the council don't allow anything sub standard to get through planning.

Seems odd to me that the developers would want to build a bungalow when a two-storey house would presumably offer more in the way of profit, unless, of course, a bungalow was the only way they could get a fourth building past Southwark council.


It's no particular loss for those crumbling garages to be demolished but shouldn't the plans for the new buildings be available for local people to see? There have been a few examples of poorly designed developments being proposed for nearby streets in recent years so it would be good to get an idea of what's in store before the building works begin.

Hello Renata-


"Fire: There is a fire burning on the premises, however it is a controlled wood fire in a metal container and in the middle of the site on cleared ground. "

The fire has been on open ground, not in a metal container. It is usually left burning unattended overnight!



"Was anything being done on the site prior to November 2012?"

As I live very close by, I am fairly sure nothing was being done prior to November.


I too am not opposed in princilple to the garages being developed, just wanting to see proper procedures being respected.


Thanks,

Vandam

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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