Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Is anyone else getting fed up with builders leaving their rubbish on the pavement or even road outside the houses that they are working on?


Apart from being dangerous- bits of wood with nails sticking out, sheets of single glazed glass, old toilets & rubble bags filled with bricks- they are physically blocking the pavement. Anyone old with a walking stick, in a wheelchair or with young kids & a pram has to walk into the road to get past


If the house owners (who are aware that this has been left outside & clearly don't care- don't get their builders to remove it, is there anything else that can be done? Clearly they could pay someone with a van to come and collect it, or even take it to the tip themselves...


We have called the council to pick up stuff that has been fly tipped on corners in the past, but I don't see why our council tax should pay for someone elses home improvements


As well as being dangerous, it also looks really horrible...

Yes, I spoke to a builder on my road last week as there was barely room to get a small pushchair through, let alone a wheelchair. He looked at me like there was something wrong with me and told me he he would be moving it when he?d finished?and yes, flytipping is definitely increasing.

To be fair, if a builder is blocking the pavement temporarily to complete a task it?s reasonable that he gets left to it - especially if he?s using heavy tools, machine tools, or materials that may splash, like cement and paint.

It?s often less hassle to cross the road with a pram than it is for a builder to stop his task, mind his tools, clear a path, then start all over.

Obvs pavements are a right of way, but sometimes an objective approach is needed rather than just obsessing on ?rights?, especially when it?s a temporary situation.


rachp Wrote:

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

> Yes, I spoke to a builder on my road last week as

> there was barely room to get a small pushchair

> through, let alone a wheelchair. He looked at me

> like there was something wrong with me and told me

> he he would be moving it when he?d finished?and

> yes, flytipping is definitely increasing.

Maybe but it had been like that over a number of days and it didn?t take much effort to rearrange the various bags so they were closer to the edge of the pavement rather than strewn all over the place. If everyone starts taking the ?it doesn?t really matter? approach, the pavements become inaccessible for wheelchairs, visually impaired etc


KidKruger Wrote:

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

> To be fair, if a builder is blocking the pavement

> temporarily to complete a task it?s reasonable

> that he gets left to it - especially if he?s using

> heavy tools, machine tools, or materials that may

> splash, like cement and paint.

> It?s often less hassle to cross the road with a

> pram than it is for a builder to stop his task,

> mind his tools, clear a path, then start all

> over.

> Obvs pavements are a right of way, but sometimes

> an objective approach is needed rather than just

> obsessing on ?rights?, especially when it?s a

> temporary situation.

>

> rachp Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Yes, I spoke to a builder on my road last week

> as

> > there was barely room to get a small pushchair

> > through, let alone a wheelchair. He looked at

> me

> > like there was something wrong with me and told

> me

> > he he would be moving it when he?d finished?and

> > yes, flytipping is definitely increasing.

Someone in my road has had a large bag of sand standing in the road outside their house for weeks (possibly months, I can't remember when it first appeared).


At first I assumed this was to save a space for the arrival of a skip, or for builders' vehicles etc, but the bag of sand is never moved, so vehicles delivering or collecting materials from the house have to park alongside the bag of sand, blocking the road.


Meanwhile, nobody can park there.


Is that a) allowed and b) reasonable?

Sue Wrote:

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

> Someone in my road has had a large bag of sand

> standing in the road outside their house for weeks

> (possibly months, I can't remember when it first

> appeared).

>

> At first I assumed this was to save a space for

> the arrival of a skip, or for builders' vehicles

> etc, but the bag of sand is never moved, so

> vehicles delivering or collecting materials from

> the house have to park alongside the bag of sand,

> blocking the road.

>

> Meanwhile, nobody can park there.

>

> Is that a) allowed and b) reasonable?


Report it to Southwark highways department and they?ll deal with it. We had a builder taking up over three parking spaces with a couple of skips and building material stored on the road. Southwark dealt with it really quickly.

alex_b Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Someone in my road has had a large bag of sand

> > standing in the road outside their house for

> weeks

> > (possibly months, I can't remember when it

> first

> > appeared).

> >

> > At first I assumed this was to save a space for

> > the arrival of a skip, or for builders'

> vehicles

> > etc, but the bag of sand is never moved, so

> > vehicles delivering or collecting materials

> from

> > the house have to park alongside the bag of

> sand,

> > blocking the road.

> >

> > Meanwhile, nobody can park there.

> >

> > Is that a) allowed and b) reasonable?

>

> Report it to Southwark highways department and

> they?ll deal with it. We had a builder taking up

> over three parking spaces with a couple of skips

> and building material stored on the road.

> Southwark dealt with it really quickly.



I keep thinking surely they will remove it soon, but they don't.

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...