Upland Road / Crystal Palace Road junction

[edhistory]

> Council Officers are happy

Who are they?

[RobMiller]

Thanks for following that up James. This really is crackers - on what planet is that a reasonable situation to endorse as OK?

The pavement was blocked again today with collections from the Old Police station site, and my family and I were nearly hit the other day by a car reversing quickly away after being blocked by the forklift (my take was that the driver got frustrated and didn't think to check behind him before accelerating).

Grr

[first mate]

James,

Could you post in here the emails where Councillors say they are "happy" for the road to be intermittantly blocked on a regular basis, and large swathes of oath, both sides, to be blocked almost permanently? Are Councillors also "happy" about the real health and safety risks the developers pose to road and path users as well as the impact on residents and shop owners?

[adonirum]

In fairness to James Barber, he did state "officers", and this refers to employees of council's.

Councillors are known as "members" of a council. As they are elected, their names are obviously available. In my experience officers names tend not to be given out (other than executive positions) and they enjoy an almost privileged anonymity, even having their names redacted in F.O.I. requests. I suspect James B would be in breach of some rule or other should he release their names.

Agreed the situation is very bad there, though.

[RobMiller]

Looks like Cosmur are in league with Occupy the Streets. Amazing...

[Siduhe]

James Barber posted this on the other Conway thread about this junction, for those who haven't seen it:

NB. the Conway machinery left on Upland Road by Crystal Palace Road junction. Officers agree it was parked incorrectly. Conways have been told that even when they're working on private work in Southwark they have to apply by the same H&S rules as when working for Southwark Council.

Which means this inconsiderate unsafe parking shouldn't occur again.

So one of the things that does seem to work to get Southwark's attention is photos of poor/bad practice, like the one RobMiller just posted. Every time I see it at this junction, I'll be posting it here (and there's plenty of it in my experience) and would encourage others to do the same.

[edhistory]

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Do the secret council employees have a potential personal legal liability in these circumstances?

John K

[ed_pete]

Has anyone tried contacting Cosmur's head office or the Considerate Constructor Scheme (as I had previously suggested) rather than whinging on here ?

[nxjen]

Problem is the front elevations of the new houses are very close to the pavement (wouldn't like to live there when built) and I don't see how they can be physically built without intruding onto the footpath during construction. I always walk on the other side now.

[first mate]

Pretty outrageous this got through planning,past our local Councillors and anyone else meant to have some kind of oversight. I am guessing that the pavement will be moved out more to the road otherwise people literally fall out of their front door onto the path. Was this setup in the orginal plans?

[RobMiller]

So, here is the other side of the junction this morning at school drop off time. Just. Brilliant.

@JamesBarber - surely you can get the Council to do something more effective about this?

[intexasatthe moment]

Nothing will be done . And I wonder what could be done .Apparently it's not so much a busy road junction and footpath but a building site with deliveries .

I suppose Southwark could have added conditions to the planning permissions for the sites ,but I doubt they have the manpower or will to enforce them .

At least it's so outrageous and intrusive that vehicles have no option but to take it very slowly ,thus reducing potential for motor accidents .And I guess pedestrians aren't important .Or bikes .

[RobMiller]

Sadly vehicles aren't all taking it carefully. Some frustrated drivers are racing round the corner, accelerating off quickly after being held up, and in one case reversing rapidly when they got fed up waiting for some loading to stop (nearly mowing us down in the process).

But I share the pessimism about anything being done. Although I think they should consider diverting traffic (but leaving it open to pedestrians and cycles - ref: the impact on the Upland Road businesses).

Roll on April / May 2016...

[squash]

This was the junction this afternoon. The van was parked across the footpath causing pedestrians to walk onto the road at what is already a dangerous crossing.

[edhistory]

What are the names of the council employees who allegedly condone this?

[RobMiller]

@squash - looks like my suggestion of closing the road has been put into action! That's just beyond... How on earth can anyone think this is OK??

@James Barber, do you think this is reasonable?

[edhistory]

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06296402/filing-history

Are these they.

[RobMiller]

The photo from @squash is the development opposite. I wondered about a letter to the CEO of Cosmur though...

[Pat Lanips]

The developers on the other side (the old small glass front shop) are MYN Developments and I mentioned this on the subject "No banksman on Upland Road/ Crystal Palace Road" and how the same was happening near us on L.L. where they are building.They had in the past improvement notices from southwark council and prohibition notices from islington council.I mean this with the best possible intention but you need to let this go.We did.The big boss of this company is driven around in a blacked out windows new range rover with two big blokes driving him.Sometimes you just know and realise when to withdraw if you understand my point.i bet that this is the same with the council people and Mr. Barber who didnt do anything after the last topic.

[civilservant]

i'm sorry I don't understand your point, Pat Lanips

are you saying that MYN http://www.mynproperties.com/index.php/contact have put the frighteners on you, on the council and on James Barber, so that they can make a public nuisance of themselves with impunity?

[Abe_froeman]

MYN are also developing the houses / flats at 240 Lordship Lane. This was land that Southwark agreed to sell in April 2013 (together with 236 Lordship Lane) according to council minutes on southwark.gov.uk, but details of the sale don't show up on the land registry's website house price data.

[mikeb]

Two interesting mentions of Southwark Council here - click on bottom right photo to enlarge.

http://www.mynproperties.com/index.php/about-myn1

[Pat Lanips]

@#civilservant i see what you mean and it could read that way but no i mean what isaid that sometimes you just know cant put my finger on it, just a feeling and a sense that you dont wanna be getting involved. Thats it really.

[edhistory]

mikeb Wrote:

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

> Two interesting mentions of Southwark Council here

> - click on bottom right photo to enlarge.

>

> http://www.mynproperties.com/index.php/about-myn1

Oh what sharp eyes you have.

What does this on the MYN Properties web-site mean?

"Our partners: VAN OS Architecture [...] Southwark Building Control"

[first mate]

How can Southwark Building Control be a partner with a private developer? Surely building control has to be separate/independent? How can a Council Body, funded( presumably?) by taxpayer money seem to have such a close relationship with private company?

Think this is a question for Councillor James Barber and Councillor Charlie Smith.