Resistance Against Tarmac launches 38 Degrees petition

Residents campaigning against Brent Council's polict of replacing  paved footways with tarmac  have launched a petition opposing the policy on the 38 Degrees website HERE.

They state:

In this (Chandos Road) instance it wastes £129,000 of Brent residents money - on our street it would have cost about £3,000 to repair the paving stones after many decades of use. This type of project is taking place across the UK under the guise of making economies under austerity and health and safety implications both of which can easily be refuted. There has been no consultation and Brent and other councils need to be challenged. 

Tarmac is a pollutant to our environment and aesthetically pollutes our urban landscapes where most people live. It is sad that the contractors are taking up paving stones that are fit for purpose and allowing them to be crunched up for aggregate which flies in the face of reuse and sustainable practices. Trees have been damaged and others removed with little justification.

Tarmac adds nothing positive to the public realm package and will require more upkeep than our existing pavement. 

The money could be spent where it really is needed.

 Supporting the petition local resident Mike Baker comments:

The initial and ongoing environmental and financial costs of replacing perfectly good pavement by tarmac are shocking. While making savage cuts elsewhere, Brent Council is forcing through this wasteful and destructive policy againt the vocal opposition of the majority of residents affected. It must be stopped.

Cllr Butt admits wrong doing in the 'tarmucking' of local street. What now?

Nine Chandos Road (or nearby) residents attended the Brent Connects-Willesden meeting at the Willesden Green Library last night and five of them spoke against the council's policy to replace paving stones on walkways with tarmac.

Points made included:

• an overview of the reasons why residents were upset about the loss of paving and the destruction of trees
• the failure of councillors to answer emails about the issue from their residents 
• a question on why the council were wasting £129,000 on one street when funds were needed elsewhere
• complete replacement of the whole footway was unnecessary and spoilt the character of the area
• claims that there had been consultation with residents were false. The single meeting that had taken place was at the instigation of residents.

Cllr Long was personally addressed and admonished by a resident who said she had been particularly adversarial to the community in her emails making her view clear that urban landscaping is unimportant given the crisis in social care and the election of Trump. Reflecting on Cllr Long's attitude a resident called for the council to work with them not against them.

A resident brought up the Willesden Green Library debacle and the residue monies collected from that project and asked why those monies couldn't be given back now in the form of paving repairs as a goodwill gesture for the the asset stripping that occurred then.

Mohammed Butt met with the group after the meeting for about 10 minutes and according to residents accepted that the council had indeed gone about this very badly and apologised.

A resident told Wembley Matters:

He appeared to accept the point that we were angry, that this was a waste of money and that it could be better used elsewhere. When pressed about halting the decimation of our street, he spoke of legal obligations though this was vague I think he meant people tripping and couldn't provide any evidence on figures for people claiming for tripping in Chandos Road. He then said it was more or less impossible to interrupt the process that was taking place as he would be seen to renege on the council's own decisions - I put it to him he could interrupt and someone (probably him) has the power to put a stop to it and send the contractors to another site. He wouldn't give any concrete assurances. When he left I think the general consensus was he took our points on board and whilst it may not stop the ruination of our street it may stop them bulldozing over the needs of other residents' streets.

The residents Facebook RAT-Resistance Against Tarmac is HERE

Tarmac likely to give Brent Council a sticky time at Willesden Connects on Wednesday

Willesden residents are being urged by the Resistance Against Tarmac campaign LINK to attend Willesden Connects next week to register their opposition to paving stones being replaced by tarmac on local streets.

Residents can book a 'soapbox' to speak about lcoal issues that concern them. Register for a soapbox giving name and topic at the email below.

Wednesday, 9 November 2016
6.30pm

The Library at Willesden Green, First Floor, 95 High Road, Willesden NW10 2SF

Agenda 

• Vision for Brent: Priorities and tackling challenges facing the borough
  • Council Leader, Muhammed Butt
  • Deputy Leader, Margaret McLennan
• Making scrutiny count in Brent
• It’s time to talk…hate crime in Brent: an event for your diary

If you are unable to attend, please share your ideas with us by emailing: brent.connects@brent.gov.uk

During the break, there will be an opportunity to talk to ward councillors, local safer neighbourhood team, guest speakers and council officers.

Brent residents revolt over tarmac pavements: 'Trees NOT tarmuck!'

Before

After

Up early to protest

Residents in Chandos Road were out early this morning to catch the council and contractors before they started pulling up the paving stones and chopping down some of the lovely old trees that line this Edwardian street. People had chalked the pavements and decorated the trees expressing their disgust at the council's refusal to listen to those who live there. 

The Council are replacing paving stones with black tarmac.* Local people say it would be cheaper and more environmentally friendly just to replace the broken slabs. The trees, some of which residents paid for are a beautiful asset they don't want to lose.

As you can see above residents made an excellent case to Council officials to no avail.

Support the residents on RAT Resistance Against Tarmac Facebook LINK

* On roads where houses have driveways the tarmac is broken up by block paving on the drop kerbs but on terraced streets with little or no front garden and thus no driveway the tarmac is continuous. Block paving is far more intricate and time consuming to lay.

Block paving on Mallard Way, Kingsbury

 

Mallard Way today

 

Brent Council challenged on pavements policy

 

Extract from Brent Council document

Following the 'pavement' meeting of Council officres, councillors and residents LINK to discuss the repaving of Brent streets with asphalt rather than paving slabs, local resident Simon Campbell has written to councillors:

Thank you for taking the time last week to meet with residents regarding Brent Councils new tarmac policy.

When the meeting had finished, rather than being left re-assured as was promised by Chris Whyte, I (along with many other residents) was left with the distinct impression that this policy seems to have been adopted with little or no consideration to either the planning or environmental impact and Transport seems to operate in isolation from the rest of the Council.

I found it quite incredible that Chris Whyte would attempt to portray Geary Road as a positive example to the residents of Chandos and Cranhurst, given that Dawn Butler MP has already been involved because of the anger many residents there have expressed with what has been done by the Transport Department and their contractors.

I am still waiting to hear what precisely this new lighter material is that Brent Council are supposed to be using on Geary Road, perhaps you will have more success in getting this specific information?

As councillors, you are supposed to represent constituency representatives and it was very apparent how disconnected your standpoint on this issue was, when compared to the views expressed by the majority of residents in both of the streets that were consulted. Please find attached the stats for both Chandos and Cranhurst.

Instead of Tony Kennedy repeating his obviously biased views, I would like to hear from the department heads of both Planning and the Environment about the basis on which this policy was decided and approved.

I have noted that Brent Council likes to portray itself as a “green” Council, but I along with many other residents found it impossible to reconcile quotes from Brent Councils own website regarding its supposed green credentials and its responsibility to protect and enhance the local character of Brent.

Unfortunately, Brent Council have proven form on this subject, the original plan to demolish the old Library and destroy the adjacent Plane tree touted by the Council made all the more outrageous by the fact that it is supposed to be at the centre of a conservation area.

Many locals actually do care about their area, their history and local character – something the Council soon found out. It should have been promoting and enhancing – not undermining this important aspect. This casual disregard for the areas architectural heritage seems to have surfaced again with this policy.

Both Local and Central government are supposed to be working together to reducing the amount of rain water being channelled into the sewers and maximising the amount of runoff absorbed at a local level.

This important responsibility is not going to be answered by applying a huge amount of water impermeable, petroleum based product (that continually leaches solvent and oils into the earth and onto people and animal’s feet) and decreasing further the amount of moisture onto the clay subsoil on which most of London is built - thereby increasing issues of subsidence as the clay is further isolated from moisture.

You may wish to reflect on one of Brent Councils own policies as regards water impermeable surfaces and the negative impact they have and the reason this measure has been put in place by virtually every local authority in the UK.

I have also noted that there will be a substantial increase in solar gain by installing a huge amount of matt black surface that will attract the heat, whereas the concrete pavers because of their colour/finish, help to reflect much of this solar energy and that this important negative aspect seems to have been ignored.

I look forward to your detailed responses to the above.

Regards,

Simon Campbell.