London SE1 community website

The Shard - noise nuisance

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Current: 3 of 10
Thursday 23 September 2010 12.14pm
going back to the issue of noise and desperately trying to avoid sounding patronising we do live in Zone 1...this isnt the suburbs. the centre of a city is a noisy place at any time. the advantages of living where we do far outweigh the negatives from the noise at such a significant construction site, and lets not forget the increase in our property prices we will all benefit from by having developments like the shard taking place
ADT
Thursday 23 September 2010 12.29pm
boroughpaul wrote:
lets not forget the increase in our property prices we will all benefit from by having developments like the shard taking place

...because everyone who can hear the construction owns property in the area?
Thursday 23 September 2010 12.48pm
boroughpaul....I don't know where you live and I appreciate you love this building...and i also happen to like it very much too...but construction work in an area where there is a residential element during the night is a completely different topic to whether its a great building or not...its a discussion about enviromental disturbance and noise pollution...and while we do live in very central London there are rules (which in this case seem to have been suspended) to deal with issues like this because they are a nuisance...so the question has to be asked why did Southwark Council give this building special dispenasation contrary to their own rules on this issue?
Thursday 23 September 2010 1.07pm
i assume that was because they were keen for the development to go ahead and agreed certain rules could be bent to get the project underway and finished as soon as possible. the issue of who is to blame for excessive noise is therefore Southwark's, and not the developers. i guess the idea was to speed the work up which of course would lead to less noise in the long term
Thursday 23 September 2010 1.35pm
Less noise in the long term is relative to when its produced...more (longer term) daytime noise would be acceptable at the "cost" of less night time noise...simply SC have dispensed with its residents needs to be protected from noise pollution for the benefit of the developers.
Thursday 23 September 2010 2.57pm
we do live in the centre of town but that doesn't mean we have to put up with unacceptable noise-yes higher levels of street noise from cars etc are a cost of city living but it still does not mean that people should be disturbed or kept awake by this noise nor should the rules be bent to allow developers to work at unsociable hours. I would contact your local council member and Simon Hughes as it sounds like this building work is being pushed along at the cost of residents well being.
Thursday 23 September 2010 3.22pm
To be fair, apparently, it's only really inconveniencing people who don't own "property" nearby. And who cares about them?

[A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself not owning a "property" can count himself as a failure]

...if you press it, they will come.
Friday 24 September 2010 2.07pm
Shard = good.

Night construction noise = bad.

I hope it's a case of some work needing to be done constantly (the core pour perhaps), and so this sec.61 will be limited. It shouldn't be the routine - it only makes it harder to get local support for other developments if contractors don't work with due care.
Friday 24 September 2010 3.29pm
boroughpaul wrote:
this reminds me of people who live near heathrow complaining about noise from planes...its not really that important an issue folks!

It's not at all the same. Nearly all people near Heathrow have moved there AFTER the advent of noisy planes, and so should have factored that issue in their decision to buy (and in fact the planes are much less noisy than they wee 40 years ago).

However, the Shard has been dumped upon existing SE1 residents because various politicians, developers and architects all thought it was a good idea, regardless of the traffic restrictions, congestion and other issues caused during its construction. It might actually be a good idea as a finished product but its implementation surely has to take some account of these issues, doesn't it?
Friday 24 September 2010 4.26pm
dee dee wrote:
I would contact your local council member and Simon Hughes as it sounds like this building work is being pushed along at the cost of residents well being.

Because you think that either will care beyond sending a kindly worded e-mail?

Time and time again Southwark Council or its Planning Committee have disregarded the concerns and objections of the local residents. All in the name of regenerating the borough and providing jobs, of course… This applies equally to the LibDems or Labour, I am making no distinction here.

The original poster wonders how could such an exemption be granted in the first place? In my opinion, it's because the decision makers are not accountable.

Despite most of the heavy construction work taking place in the north of the borough (Borough & Bankside, Shad Thames), no councilors from the most affected wards sit on the Planning Committee.

No. Instead it is councilors who live in Nunhead, the Lane or Village who call the shots. Their constituencies will benefit from the work generated by these new developments, yet why would they care for residents who will not vote for them at the next election? Actually, why would a Labour Councilor do a favor to an area that is predominantly Libdem? Once more, this is not an attack on Labour. There are plenty example of the reverse during the previous administration.

Just read James's account of the latest planning committee regarding the Waterloo Road student accommodation or Cllr Fiona Colley's reaction to the objections to the Council's policy for Bankside, Borough and London Bridge. It perfectly illustrates my point.

Now, do not get me wrong: their might be a case to build yet another cheap hotel, a student residence or to allow work to take place 24h/24h. However, if I happen to disagree with this idea, I really would like to be able to express my dissatisfaction by not voting for the councilor that thought otherwise at the next election.

Currently, that is not possible … and that drives me mad.

/rant over
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Current: 3 of 10

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions