Brent Council patches up after crack up

Former councillor Paul Lorber, now apparently prospective Liberal Democrat candidate for Brent North, drew attention recently to the  deteriorating state of the expensive paved road outside Brent Civic Centre in a letter to Carolyn Downs, Brent Council's CEO. See Brent Civic Centre 'vanity road' cracks up

Close up of damage

He asked why the road had not been tarmac as the Council had stipulated for footways in the borough despite repairs, via replacement of paving stones, being a more sustainable and aesthetic strategy.

The answer to his question is now visible outside the Civic Centre.

Brent Civic Centre 'vanity' road cracking up

-->

Former Liberal Democrat councillor and council leader, Paul Lorber, has written to Brent Council drawing attention to the deterioration in the paved road outside the £100,000,000 Brent Civic Centre:

I note that the very expensive section of the 'paved' road on the approach to and outside the Civic Centre is crumbling away and in a very poor state.

Clearly the type of paved surface was totally unsuitable in a busy location where there is substantial and on going builder lorries traffic.

Can you confirm who advised on the design, type of materials used and the cost of the road. Can you then investigate whether the contractors responsible can be brought back to upgrade the road at their expense.

Finally in view if the fact that local residents are having asphalt imposed on them ( in place if perfectly good and repairable) paving slabs (Medway Gardens at a cost of £172,000 and others) can you confirm if the useless modular road blocks in the area outside of the Civic Centre will now be ripped up and also replaced with asphalt and at what cost.

Brent Council Highways and Infrastructure Service responded:

The choice of materials specified for the raised table was discussed with the manufacturer prior to construction. The manufacturer confirmed that the materials specified were suitable for the level of forecast traffic. This included very deep (150mm)  black granite setts on the main part of the table to ensure maximum durability. The specification for the road construction of the table was based on a drawing provided by URS Infrastructure and Environment UK Limited. URS were the engineering consultants working at the time with the Civic Centre architects and had been tasked with preparing the detailed design of the raised table which was then taken forward by council officers.  The road construction included the provision of a new concrete slab, the depth of which was determined by standard CBR testing carried out by the Council’s contractor ConwayAecom. A high strength mortar was also specified to provide maximum support and strength to the paved carriageway surface.

We are aware of the  condition of the paved section of the road outside the civic centre, which in some areas has got worse over the winter. We are commissioning  investigations, including a Ground Penetrating Radar Survey, to ascertain the cause or causes of the problem prior to formulating solutions for permanent repairs. Whether the problem turns out to be a construction or a design problem, or a mixture of both,  we will be talking to our contractor about how to put it right. However under the contract, the “defects period” is 12 months and as the paved area construction was completed in 2013 , the “contractual guarantee” period for the work has long since expired. Nevertheless and depending on what we find, we are expecting the contractor to be accountable  for any issues for which they are responsible.

Until the investigations are complete and the solutions formulated we are not in a position to estimate the cost of the repairs.

Lorber replied:

Can you please confirm the cost of the surveys/investigations you refer to and who will pay for them.

If any remedial repairs have been carried since 2013 please advise on the total cost too.

My primary concerns are simple.

1. The road outside the Civic Centre was not built to a standard construction using normal materials. It was a special and a very expensive road.

2. The road surface has clearly failed and will be very expensive to repair and to maintain in the future.

3. Why is the road simply not dug up and replaced with normal asphalt/tarmac material?

4. I ask because ripping up paving slabs and replacing them with asphalt is now the recommended officer solution to pavement issues in residential streets - as evidenced by our continuing exchanges about Medway Gardens in Sudbury.

5. If the solution - taken in cost grounds (which I have challenged) is being forced through in Medway Gardens (despite local residents opposition) why is the same 'cost effective' solution not being pursued in the case of the road outside the Civic Centre?

It was a 'vanity' project and a very expensive road in the first place but since taxpayers money is at stake why are the same policies and approach being pursued in this case as are being forced through against the wishes of local people in other areas?

Perhaps the Chief Executive as Head of Service will respond to this apparent inconsistency and issue appropriate instruction.

Northwick Park Hospital has 5th highest 'high risk' backlog of repair work

 

Northwick Park Hospital - under a cloud

Gareth Thomas MP (Harrow West) has revealed that a new analysis by the Shadow Health team shows that Northwick Park Hospital has the fifth highest backlog of ‘high risk’ repair work of any facility in England. 

‘High risk’ maintenance is categorised as an urgent priority in order to prevent ‘catastrophic failure’ and ‘serious injury’. The estimated cost to eradicate the backlog of ‘high risk’ maintenance work at Northwick Park Hospital is £21,488,929.

Other figures are:

Cost to eradicate significant risk backlog: £10,554,117

Cost to eradicate moderate risk backlog:  £10,446,688

Cost to eradicate low risk backlog:  £62,441,594


Risk adjusted backlog cost: £33,418,297

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