Council accused of waste and poor design over Wembley High Road repaving project

 

Paul Lorber  writes that his complaint to Brent Council alleging the waste of money and damaging environmental impact of their Wembley High Road pavement etc £3.5 million project has reached Stage 2. This is what he sent to Brent Council officers:

 

Anyone with the minimum of knowledge of Wembley High Road and its Paan Spitting problem would have realised that using pale grey stones is downright stupid.

 

I refer to my complaint about the decision to rip up perfectly good pavements in Wembley High Road - including areas of safe asphalt paving and new paving provided by the developer outside the Uncle building in Park Lane just 6 months ago.

The justification for this waste used by senior Council Officers was that the Council was following a design guide from 2016 and that High Road locations were treated differently to residential roads where use of asphalt was being imposed despite local opposition.

The photographs  show the new and expensive pavements completed outside the Uncle building less than a week ago.

Of course Brent Council Officers are very well aware that Wembley High Road has a serious Paan spitting problem which the Council has failed to contain despite painting warning signs on the pavements in this very area just a few weeks ago - signs of course only dug up shortly after!

If nothing else this highlights how foolish it is to use an out of date design guide which fails to take account of local circumstances - which officers should be or were perfectly aware of.

Using pale grey brick paving in this area was clearly not wise (and I am using measured language here). In contrast black/dark grey asphalt would hide this kind of mess much better and be probably easier to clean of.

The Design Guide is clearly useless and it would be highly irresponsible to continue to use it. I appreciate that Brent Council is like a juggernaut and Councillors and Officers never admit to making a mistake until it is too late. 

In this case I would urge a revision to the current work programme to both save money and not to continue to put down material which is unsuitable for this location.

There are large areas of the pavements in Wembley High Road do NOT require ripping up as they are perfectly safe. Many areas just require a proper and effective repair reusing existing materials.

Residents want safe pavements and most will not care if part of the High Road are paved with asphalt, existing car resistant slabs or new materials where required. 

They will however be angry about both the waste of large sums of money (especially when repeatedly told that “there is NO money to fix dangerous pavements in the streets”) or when they see the kind of mess shown in these photographs.

The money saved can then be used to repair and upgrade pavements in streets with unsafe pavements instead.

As a local Taxpayer I strongly object to the current Council approach of ripping up perfectly good pavements for the sake of a clearly useless Design Guide and the totally inefficient and environmentally damaging approach taken by Brent Council. The Council should re focus its approach and give greater emphasis to effective repairs and maintenance rather than the current ‘rip up’ approach.

I trust that you will listen rather than continuing to pursue your dogmatic ‘we know best’ approach.

 

LETTER: Money spent on Wembley High Road fancy paving could have been better used to tackle dangerous pavements elsewhere

 Dear Wembley Matters Editor

The pavements in Wembley High Road were last upgraded at large cost when Ken Livingstone was Mayor of London just before one of his re-elections.

Over time many areas were driven over and damaged. I have been calling for proper repairs for some time. Instead of timely and effective repairs the Council patched up the slabs with ineffective shovels of asphalt.

During some developments the section of pavement between the square and Ealing Road was relayed with asphalt. This is in perfectly good and safe condition. More recently the developer of the Uncle building on corner with Park Lane provided new slab pavements outside their building. Many of the pavements behind railings in the High Road are also perfectly good condition requiring just minor repairs.

When money is short and pavements in residential roads requiring improvements are ignored is not the time for the Labour run Brent Council to waste money. Sadly this is exactly what Labour Councillors have decided to do - just 6 months before the local elections.

Magically (actually taxpayers money provided by the Government) Brent Council stashed away £17 million from Covid Grants and a staggering £3.5 million has been allocated to Wembley High Road.

Instead of cost effective repairs Labour Councillors decided that all the existing paving (including the completely new pavements next to Park Lane, the asphalt paving and good slabs) replaced with extremely expensive small paving stones.

All this is happening in the run up to Christmas when the High Road is busy with people trying to access the shops. Very disruptive for shoppers and local businesses. 

I estimate that the pavement repairs and the other improvements (new seating etc) should have cost around £1million - which means that at least £2 million is being wasted  - could have been used to upgrade and make safe pavements in many dangerous streets across Brent which actually need it.

The same Labour Councillors who decided to waste this money have also just announced their proposals for another 3% Council Tax Rise on top of all the rises in previous years.

The tragedy for local democracy is that these kind of bad decisions in Brent are made by a handful of people without any effective scrutiny. The Cabinet is made up of Labour Councillors only and there is no effective or independent scrutiny as these Committees are also chaired by Labour Councillors.

A change in the way Brent Council is run is desperately needed. We need both a Fair Voting System (and return to Committees) to end the scandal of one party getting almost all the Councillors on just half the votes.

All the best
Paul Lorber 

UPDATE: Barn Hill gets new slab paving rather than asphalt - Brent Council explains

 

Barn Hill today

Wembley Matters has been covering the so-called 'pavement wars' for sometime with various community groups opposing Brent Council's replacement of paving stones by asphalt on aesthetic and environmental grounds, while others feel asphalt presents less of a tripping hazard.

Residents have been puzzled over the policy of replacing paving with asphalt as it does not seem to be applied uniformly across the borough.  Indeed the redesign of Wembley High Road includes some quite expensive and painstaking paving work.

 

 

 Old paving discarded

 

Today I saw 'three men and a wheel barrow' team installing new paving along the length of Barn Hill. Is it the steep gradient that makes paving slabs the preferred option, conservation area status, or something else?

Brent Council responded with an explanation:

Barn Hill is in a conservation area and was one of the roads we changed to reactive repairs only rather than a full re-lay. 

Through reactive works we have only replaced investigation level defects like for like i.e. paving slabs. Not all cracked slabs have been replaced if they do not meet criteria. Also, we have not reconstructed the vehicle crossings or junctions with blocks or provided resin for the tree pits, as would have been done through planned footway maintenance.

In other words, basic repairs only.

As it happens Cllr Kansagra asked about the paving policy at the recent Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny;

'Don't tarmac our pavements' - petition to Brent Council

The battle over tarmac is not over yet! A petition has been mounted to persuade Brent Council that replacing broken paving is a better environmental option than laying tarmac. The petiton is authored by Sonia  Locke, Planning Representative, Willesden Green Residents' Association.

The petition can be found  HERE and states:

Brent Residents are calling for the immediate cessation of tarmac as a paving solution within the borough.

In 2016, the use of tarmac was agreed by Brent’s Cabinet establishing all footway resurfacing would see paving slabs replaced with asphalt. This policy not only inextricably alters the visual quality and character of the public realm, it fails to consider or acknowledge the well documented, harmful effects to the health and well being of Brent constituents and the overall environment. While Brent claims the use of tarmac is a more ecological solution, research indicates its environmental hazards make it an unsafe one. Given the indications, how does the use of tarmac fit in with Brent’s July 2019 climate declaration?

Tarmac is an oil-based product, detrimental to the environment and unlike paving slabs, stone or concrete, unable to be reused or recycled. When laid, tarmac releases toxic fumes and its ability to absorb heat adds to urban overheating. Furthermore, tarmac is impermeable contributing to flooding, an already challenging issue for Brent. Due to the flexibility of the material, ground movement easily undermines the integrity of tarmac causing substantial cracks, bulges and surface deformities that make for unsafe, if hazardous passageways. In cold weather, it is more slippery than concrete or stone pavers.

Public space is a key element to Brent’s overall plan for urban regeneration and social wellbeing. Surfaces play a vital role in its visual and tactile quality. Tarmac does not fit the requirements of Brent’s SPD1 which calls for public realm quality. Tarmac is a cheap, inappropriate solution for pavements and is often viewed as detrimental to the visual quality of the public realm. Brent must look to other neighbouring London councils’ examples of public realm quality expectations and mirror their strategy. Brent need not continue to define itself as the borough of deprivation and poor quality.

In the short term, tarmac may be a cheaper solution but what about the long-term costs? Long-term, tarmac requires more maintenance than paving slabs. Neighbouring boroughs impose minimum standards and value and Brent must follow suit and not simply look to the cheapest, short term solution available. It iswell documented that pavers are more durable than tarmac but unlike tarmac, pavers can be re-used and at the end of its life cycle, 100% of the material can be recycled.

As we see in more affluent areas of Brent, concrete pavers can and are being reused. While Brent is replacing large stretches of paving stones with tarmac in low-income areas, they are maintaining paving stones in the more prosperous areas. Council tax is the same across the borough and yet Brent continues to show preferential treatment to its wealthier neighbourhoods.

Brent has access to millions of NCIL monies much of which goes unspent every year. Why is Brent Council not encouraging the use of these monies for its proposed use on its infrastructure?

Brent residents are demanding our voices be heard. There is no place in Brent for an inferior product which degrades faster, is detrimental to the environment, reduces the quality and performance of our paths and vandalises the architectural, visual and historical character of our neighbourhoods.

Stop throwing cheap, substandard, non-solutions at us. Brent residents deserve better. We are calling for Brent to immediately cease and desist from further plans to tarmac its infrastructure.

We the undersigned residents of Brent wish to see this policy stopped and reversed with immediate effect.

Brent Council accused of mendacity over trees/paving policy

Salmon Street, NW9 - August 2019

 From an email sent to Brent Council:

RE: Brent Council Announces Climate Emergency And Then Chops Down All The Trees

Are you still insisting we hold a meeting outside in the dark today, at rush hour, before most residents have got home ?

I am unsure exactly what you propose to convey to us with your "brief discussion" in these conditions; we obviously will not be able to see the trees you mention.

Is it your intension to try to confine this discussion only to these remaining eleven trees on Furness Road ?

As you know the systematic destruction of Brent’s wonderful & varied stock of mature trees has been ongoing for a decade. 

Many of us have correspondence with the council going back several years regarding the tragic culling of mature and healthy trees outside our homes.

Amid repeated broken promises of them being replaced, line upon line have been erased from our streets. Furness Road has suffered terribly. And it continues.

We would like them back.

Who is sending these chainsaw gangs around the borough and why?

Similar action by another council in a recent case was described by Michael Gove (then Minister for the Environment) as “Ecological Vandalism’.

At an impromptu gathering outside Furness Rd School last Monday, a council representative claimed that it is Brent Council’s intention to replace ALL paving stones throughout the whole borough with asphalt.

Can you confirm if this is true ?

If so, what volume of asphalt in tonnage is likely to be purchased by the council ? 

I’m sure rough estimates by quantity-surveyors were calculated before such a decision was made.

What calculations regarding carbon offsetting, to cancel-out the use of such a large quantity of petroleum-based bitumen/asphalt have been completed ?

And, how does the felling of thousands, of mature trees help in this offsetting?

Clearly, in spite of recent claims by Brent Council, that they are in some way concerned with the environment, their actions (historic & ongoing), and recent decisions regarding pavements and canopy cover (without consultation) demonstrate the opposite. Indeed, it shows utter contempt.

This amounts to a public relations disaster for Brent Council & current MP, and yet further anger & frustration for the borough’s long-suffering residents.

Finally, I understand Krupa Seth will be attending today.

I do look forward to Counciller Sheth's answers to our previously unanswered questions and outstanding FOI requests sent to her under separate cover.

And a response to the above email from a resident with whom it was shared:

Thank you for an intelligent and insightful email which rightly centres on Brent Councils casual disregard for its tree stock and the profligate waste of money caused by this approach to pavement works, that is compounded by the damaging use of the extensive amounts of a fossil fuel derivative.

Brent Council has a corporate responsibility to reduce the amount of fossil fuel use in the borough – not increase it steadily.

This is for obvious reasons – obvious to everyone else, except the officers of Brent Council.

Brent is fortunate in that it appears to have many intelligent, engaged people who really do care about their borough and the way it is managed – it is deeply shameful that Brent Council continues with its ruinous pursuit of degrading the public realm facilitated by a Council that views its environmental responsibilities as a minor inconvenience.

I see again, the mendacious line trotted out again that a replacement sapling is in anywhere near a reasonable replacement of a mature tree as regards the large environmental benefits provided by a mature tree.

It will take decades for the replacement sapling to reach the same amounts of carbon sequestration, the production of oxygen, reduction in solar gain and the ecological benefits for wildlife.

Anyone with common sense can see the lunacy and ignorance of that statement – any honest arborist would tell you exactly the same thing. 

You would think it should be incumbent for the officers of Brent Council to be aware of this basic fact – this is not a difficult of overly complicated concept.

If not, they are either ignorant or incompetent or just plain dishonest.

This is a borough wide issue regardless of Brent Council's opinion and residents will continue to fight this environmental degradation everywhere in the borough.

How is Mallard Way's asphalt faring 3 years on as policy comes under scrutiny?

Brent Council's justification for asphalt replacing paving - 2016

With the current controversy raging in Mapesbury Conservation Area over the replacement of paving with asphalt I thought it worth checking on the current state of Mallard Way, in Kingsbury NW(, which was asphalted 3 years ago.

For the most part the walkway is smooth although there are some shallow indentations in places which accumulate rainwater. The photos below suggest that there is some cracking beginning and mould/moss. which becomes a slipping hazard in wet or icy weather, is beginning to form in places.

Next to a tree pit

Cracking beginning

Moss/mould

The road to Hell is paved with Brent's good intent (or asphalt)

 

Recent paving in the Barn Hill Conservation area - why not Mapesbury?

A Mapesbury resident who is a retired Civil and Structural Enginer (MIStructE and MICE) has carried out a pavement survey of Dartmouth Road where Brent Council wishes to replace the paving in this Conservation Area road with asphalt.

The survey has been forwarded to the  Council and members of the Mapesbury Residents Association.

The works have been temporarily suspended giving time for  review and it is hoped that in the light of the Council's Climate Emergency Declaration an assessment will be made of the comparative carbon footprint of renewing broken paving compared with taking paving up and replacing with asphalt.

Dartmouth Road Pavement Survey.

Carbon footprint of proposed replacement of paving slabs by asphalt

Date:  20.11.19

This report is based on a detailed survey of the pavements on both sides of Dartmouth Road:

A:  between nos. 103 to 131

B:  between nos. 60 – 92

Which is ¼ of the length of Dartmouth Road.

C:  between nos. 1 – 24.  This last section has recently been repaved and is in excellent order.  See appendix for the survey results for this section.

Pavements are on average 2700 mm. wide and are formed using 600 x 750 and 600 x 600 precast concrete paving slabs. The width consists of two of each size staggered: 

(2 x 750 ) + ( 2 x 600 ) = 2700.

Each property is approx. 10 m wide and so there are theoretically 16 ½ x 4 = 68 slabs per property. But many properties have vehicle crossovers which reduces the number of slabs. The crossovers are either of concrete or block paving construction or a mix of one of these plus paving slabs.  There are also a very few tarmac crossovers.

Where trees occur the paving is extended upto the tree or there is a resin gravel type infill upto the tree, or occasionally tarmac or nothing with the soil visible. Whatever has been installed next to the tree has usually failed in some way and is uneven.  These areas have the most trip hazards.

Concrete and concrete block vehicle crossovers have performed best and are often in good serviceable order. Any area of crossovers that is surfaced with paving slabs is in poor condition with on average over 1 / 3 of the paving slabs cracked.

Good condition slabs .			Cracked slabs .
Between crossovers	At vehicle crossovers	Total	Between crossovers	At crossovers	Total
1540	243	1783	129	72	201
			% of total 129/1540= 8.3 %	% of total 72 / 243= 29.6%
Whole length of Dartmouth Road pro-rata  (i.e. x 132 / 32 )
6350	1000	7350

It can be seen that paved crossovers contribute nearly 4 times the rate of cracking that occurs  in areas between crossovers.

It can also be seen that within crossovers there are 243 – 72 = 171 uncracked slabs which is comfortably more than the 129 cracked slabs within the paved areas between crossovers. So when the defective crossovers are replaced there will be sufficient uncracked slabs recovered to replace all the cracked slabs between the crossovers.

We can extrapolate this detailed survey to the whole of Dartmouth Road because a visual inspection indicates that the area surveyed in detail here is of the same configuration as the whole of Dartmouth Road and the total figures for the whole road are shown in the table. 

The plan proposed by Brent Council is to remove all the paving and replace the crossovers with block paving and to infill between the crossovers using asphalt.

Therefore the number of paving slabs to be removed from between crossovers and dumped is 6350 slabs.  The slabs are 50mm thick

The average weight of a slab is (.6m x .675m x .05m) x 2000 kg / m cube = 40.5 kg

Therefore the weight of slabs to be removed = 6350 x 40.5 / 1000 = 257 tons. These slabs have to be lifted, piled up and then grab loaded onto a lorry and taken to a dump. Such loading will achieve about 10 tons per typical 8 wheel lorry giving rise to 26 lorry movements. And the dumping will attract landfill tax. More seriously, these slabs will remain in landfill unchanged for centuries.

Asphalt requires a well compacted base layer of stone which will have to be imported because the sand / soil / clay found under the existing slabs when lifted will need improvement. 

The area of new asphalt will be the same as the paving removed = 6350 x 0.6 x 0.675 = 2570 m square. 

Allow for a restored formation thickness of 75mm, this will require the removal of 75mm of existing soft material ( to maintain existing levels) and reinstatement using 75 mm of stone material. So the volume of material removed and replaced will be 2 (1 removal and one replacement) x 2570 x 0.075 = 385 m cube = 770 tons. Which at 15 tons per lorry for this type of material gives rise to 51 lorry movements.

The amount of asphalt required if 20mm thick will be 2570 x .02 = 51 m cube = 100 tons at least, requiring another 10 lorry movements.

So the total weight of materials being lifted and moved is 257 + 770 + 100 = 1,127 tons requiring 26 +5 1 + 10 = 87  lorry movements. 

The lorries will have to travel to a dump outside London and the asphalte and stone will have to be brought in from a quarry, also well outside London.  This represents a lot of diesel at 10 mpg! And this is just Dartmouth Road. For the whole of Mapesbury Estate there will be at least 6 x these quantities, i.e nearly 7,000 tons of materials dumped or imported, involving 500 plus lorry movements. 

Furthermore, since Brent plans to change all the pavements in the Borough for asphalt, the quantities will become huge.

It is obvious that the proposed use of asphalt to replace existing slab paving is totally unacceptable on carbon foot print grounds for material handling and transport and the energy intensive manufacture of the asphalt itself, which is a heavy crude oil hydrocarbon based product. Levelling the slabs in situ would have minimal carbon foot print and lead to a pleasing durable solution appropriate for a Conservation Area. 

Appendix:  P

Appendix:

The section of Dartmouth Road between Mapesbury Road and Exeter Road has also been surveyed in detail as follows. This section was re-laid using slabs 5 years ago and is in very good condition and shows how successful slab paving can be when well laid.

Survey on Dartmouth Road between numbers 2 and 14 and the opposite odd numbers side which is in equally good condition
Good condition slabs .			Cracked slabs .
Between crossovers	At crossovers	Total	Between crossovers	At crossovers	Total
1043	No paved crossovers, all are conc. or blocks or tarmac	1043	19 *	No paved crossovers, all are conc. or blocks or tarmac	19
			% of total 19/1043 = 1.8 %		% of total 19/1043 = 1.8 %

About half of these cracked slabs are so finely cracked it is difficult to see the crack because they have not moved having been very well laid.

This table applies to only 15 % of Dartmouth Road and so would not affect the pro-rata totals used above very much and in fact further support the case for retaining all the existing paving in Dartmouth Road.