Unique coalition of 11 residents' groups call on Brent Scrutiny Committee to investigate Brent Council's policy on asphalting of pavements

 

Today BRAAP - Brent Residents Against Asphalt Pavements - have released their scoping paper  LINK reporting the shortcomings of Brent Council’s 2016 Policy to replace the paving slabs on the borough’s pavements with asphalt (tarmac).  BRAAP has sent the paper to Cllr Roxanne Mashari, Chair of Brent Scrutiny Committee for Resources and the Public Realm, asking them to carry out an investigation of the processes that lead to the policy along, with its implementation and to recommend an approach which takes account of residents’ input LINK.

 

BRAAP is a new, unique and unprecedented alliance of residents’ associations and street groups from across Brent who have got together to campaign to reverse the Council’s policy of asphalting at all costs.

 

 

MAIN POINTS

•  Brent’s 2016 Policy was introduced using hard to understand and unconvincing financial arguments.

•  A lack of transparency on the long-term running costs of asphalt vs re-laying paving slabs.

•  Over 95% of petitioned residents objected to the asphalting of pavements and the resulting reduction of the quality of the urban environment.

•  A lack of meaningful consultation with residents and residents’ associations, either on the general policy or individual schemes.

•  Hurriedly arranged ‘special’ meetings with worried residents, Councillors, Officers and the Leader, where Brent claim surprise at the level of opposition, but repeat the same arguments and asphalt anyway.

•  No clear tally showing how many slabs are re-usable.  Residents estimate up to 80% could be re-laid.

•  Shockingly, when the slabs are removed they are not re-used, but pulverized according to contractors.

•  A lack of transparency about the environmental impact assessment around air quality when using diesel trucks to transport 1000s of tons of slabs to be pulverised, and more trucks to bring asphalt into the borough.

•  Roads that were asphalted in 2016, eg Chandos Road, have already degraded whereas paving done at the time looks as good as new.

•  The policy goes against the direction we should be travelling in this time of climate emergency.  

* By default it is obvious that simple levelling of the slabs by workmen with hand tools will have a marginal carbon footprint compared with the use of new asphalt with its high embodied carbon and diesel intensive processes for lorries and plant.

 

Robin Sharp, Joint Convenor of BRAAP, said:

 

This is a unique coming together of 11 residents’ groups and associations in Brent objecting to replacing long-lasting paving slabs with cheap impermeable tarmac, which heaves and cracks,  grows moss and looks awful when repaired, radiates heat into the urban environment and is opposed by over 95% of residents.  The council should be working with residents’ and council tax payers’ interests in mind.  They say the policy is cost-driven, but they should be planning for the long term, with sustainability at the fore.  This policy is not fit for purpose.

BRAAP provided the following background information to Wembley Matters:

 
Black radiates more heat than lighter colours.  Urban heating is a global problem and wherever there are heat reduction programmes, the first thing they do is get out the reflective white paint: the New York City Cool Roofs Programme “cooled and coated” 2,077,537 square feet of rooftop.  In Greek villages they paint the houses white.  It’s for a reason. 

 

Brent has not disclosed an Environmental Impact Assessment to say how many diesel miles will be used disposing of re-usable paving slabs and importing asphalt into the borough.  This doesn’t sit well with their Climate Strategy for carbon neutrality. 

 

Water run-off increases flood risk to our drains and is why the Council has strict planning regulations for residents putting in front drives or hard standings - they have to install 50% soft landscaping as well as a soak away to stop water running into the highway, but the Council is getting away with laying mile upon mile of impermeable asphalt.  It is universally known that paving slabs allow water penetration through the gaps when they are laid on a sand substrate.   We have asked Brent for the Environmental Impact Assessment relating to Sustainable Drainage Systems where impermeable surfaces are concerned.

 

BRAAP Member groups:

 

Aylestone Park Residents’ and Tenants’ Association

Barn Hill Residents’ Association

Brondesbury Road Group

Chandos Road Group

Clifford Gardens Group

Kensal Rise Residents’ Association

Kensal Triangle Residents’ Association

Kilburn Village Residents’ Association

Mapesbury Pavements Action Group

Queens Park Area Residents’ Association

Willesden Green Residents’ Association

 

Brondesbury residents protest as Council about to start work to replacing pavements with asphalt

 

Brondesbury residents protested this morning as work was about to start on replacing paving with asphalt.  This is the latest of several protests over Brent Council policy which  the council claim is environmentally superior to replacing paving and safer for pedestrians.

 The counter-arguments to the policy were published HERE

 

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

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

 

Poo, pavements & potholes - hot topics for Wembley Connects on Wednesday

A pavement 'repair' in King's Drive, Wembley

Fly-tipping in Chalkhill

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.

UPDATE: Brent's pothole and pavement repairs under scrutiny tonight

I get a lot of emails from residents about the state of Brent's potholes and pavements often with accompanying photographs.  I am sure local councillors also get loads of complaints with residents baffled about how works are prioritised and why their streets appear to be treated differently than those a few metres away.

Concrete block paving at a corner in Mallard Way, Kingsbury - also used for dropped crossings

Brent's decision to lay asphalt rather than paving stones, when resurfacing the pavement in a whole street, has already raised ire in some residents LINK Although it was announced some time ago it is only when it happens outside your front door that it really hits home.

The Council argue that asphalt is 'more flexible than slabs and less likely to crack' but at the same time drop crossings (to drive ways) are to paved with block paving on the basis that these are more resilient and  durable. It seems to some that cars are getting better treatment than pedestrians - and surely block paving is more labour intensive and this expensive?

The patching of potholes by Conways the contractor when they reach a certain depth, while others nearby are ignored although the lorry has all the gear and labour available to fill them, has been the subject of several emails. Commonsense seems to indicate that it is more efficient to do it there and then rather than wait for it to deteriorate further until it reaches the required depth.

Apparent DIY work in Shaftesbury Avenue

The report to be considered by the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee  on September 6th goes into all this in great detail LINKand I have to warn you, it is not an easy read.

The report states:

There needs to be a balance between reactive repairs (e.g. repairing potholes) which are required to keep the highway safe, and planned works which are needed to preserve and extend the life of the road or pavement. Reactive maintenance is inherently inefficient and more expensive than planned maintenance and so, whilst there will always be a need for it, ideally the amount carried out should be minimised. 


The reactive repair of pavements amounts to patching with tarmac and there are some dreadful examples around the borough which are both ugly and still not safe.  Other dangerous pavements have been left for some time without any repair - an example of minimising work?

Raised pavement trip hazard outside Wembley Park Station

Smashed pavement in King's Drive, Wembley - caused by heavy lorry during building work

A botched and still dangerous repair - also in King's Drive also caused by a heavy lorry

This is Brent's system as described by an officer from the Highways and Infrastructure Service:

We have a prioritisation system in place for conducting repair works on damaged pavements in our network within the limited budget and resources available to us, which is briefly described as follows: Once pavement defects are identified, either through our regular inspections across all our network or by receiving reports from members of the public, we allocate defects into five categories by using a risk assessment exercise which takes into account the severity of the defects as well as their potential impacts on the pedestrians. For the very high priority category the temporary and permanent repair works are usually conducted within a few hours, whilst for lower level categories the permanent repair works can take between 24 hours to 28 days. For the lowest level category of defects usually no repair works are undertaken

Comment received from Paul Lorber with this picture:

A photo highlights this better than words. In many places the inadequacy of crossovers and the Council's failure to take action when owners demolish walls and clearly drive and damage pavements is the main problem.

Often, with ever bigger and heavier cars the crossovers and not ride enough and cheap & weak slabs crack when driven over.

Inevitably the much heavier cars and 4x4s are driven over the pavements destroying them. The photo shows just one of many examples in Station Approach Sudbury.

The Council should carry systematic inspections and take action to require owners to pay for strengthened crossovers and nearby pavements if they want to be allowed to access their front garden parking areas.

At present with the Council refusing to act we are left with damaged pavements left often in dangerous condition for months and with the local taxpayers paying for the damage.
 
Paul Lorber