Vital Wembley pedestrian railway bridge used by parents and children needs urgent work to make it safe

 

The repaired step

Given the climate change crisis we need children to walk to school, but pupils using the pedestrian bridge over the main railway line  in Wembley to access their schools face a journey over a bridge in poor condition surrounded by litter and graffiti. Not the most pleasant way to travel - even if good for the planet.

The bridge goes from London Road over to the allotments and Lyon Park Avenue.  There are schools on either side. The route avoids using the polluted High Road and Ealing Road.

I had heard that parents were concerned about a 'hole' in the bridge and their children falling through. When I visited today I found that the step had been repaired rather roughly (see above) but the bridge as a whole was in a shocking state, particularly the second leg over the two track railway where the sides of the bridge were rusting away. The covering of many of the steps has worn away and many lack any edging or warning yellow lines.

It is unclear which authority is responsible for the maintenance of the bridge although I understand the railway may have eventually made the small repair.

I dread to think about the danger of falling in wet or icy conditions.

 

A mixture of painted edging, metal edging and no edging

 
 

Topping to discourage climbing partially missing

Worn away tarmac covering exposing the wood below to rot and a trip hazard

 

Rusted sides of the lower section of the bridge with a gap between side and footway

 

Another exposed and splintered step

 

Litter in 'no man's land'

Sainsbury's message on keeping staff and shoppers safe

 Following concern over the lack of Covid safety measures at some supermarkets, Simon Roberts, CEO of Sainsbury's, issued the following message today:

Dear Martin,

I have spent a lot of time in our stores over the past few days and I need to ask for your help with two key issues to keep you and all my colleagues safe.

When shopping in our stores, you must wear a mask or visor unless you have a medical exemption. And you should also shop on your own. Thank you for your support.

Security guards will support our colleagues at the front of store and will challenge customers who are not wearing masks or who are shopping in groups. I know you’ll understand and support what we are trying to do.

We have also significantly reduced the number of customers allowed in our stores at any one time to ensure social distancing is maintained at all times.

Together, these steps will go a long way to keep everyone safe, whether you are shopping or working with us.

Please wear a mask or visor and please shop alone in our stores. Thank you for helping us to keep everyone safe.

Best wishes  Simon

Additional night time fire patrols at Forum House, Wembley Park

FirstPort, the property services company for Forum House at Wembley Park have issued the following advice to leaseholders and residents:

Fire Safety and ACM Cladding on part of Forum House

The following information has been issued to keep you fully abreast of the current position in respect of the building in the unlikely event of a fire at the property.

Following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower we have carried out some reviews of the building that we manage, in line with Government (DCLG) advice.

Through this review it has been established that some of the trim on the roof section and parts of the facia of The North Core (above the reception) are partially clad in a silver aluminium cladding material which is referred to as ACM. This relates to a small proportion of the building façade and at this juncture should not give rise to undue concern albeit that we are considering the options and actions open to us.

On receiving this information we contacted the Fire and Rescue Services and also notified the building’s insurers to establish if any immediate action was required. Initial findings are that no immediate action is necessary.

You may have heard it reported that the Government has produced an updated document, setting out fresh guidelines for testing procedure/s. This includes testing the entire cladding system and not just the exterior cladding material.
This is important as the systems behind this cladded facia can be key to the structure’s performance in the event of a fire, and the nature of this system can differ significantly from building to building.

As a result we need to consider the further guidance provided from these results before we can definitively conclude if any action or replacement is to be required on Forum House.

In the interim we pro-actively invited the Fire Brigade to carry out an inspection of the building in order to ascertain if there was anything further we can do to enhance fire safety at Forum House. Thankfully they were happy with the processes and strategy we have in place and were satisfied that we operate the development correctly and efficiently in terms of fire safety.

Nevertheless, taking into account the guidance issued by the Fire Brigade at other affected comparable buildings, we have instructed additional patrols of the building by the onsite staff during the night time and I can confirm that these have begun. These will stay in place until further notice.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind you all that a “stay put” policy is in operation at Forum House in the unlikely event of a fire. Homes and developments such as Forum House are built with fire compartmentation, which is designed to resist the passage of fire between the walls and doors giving ample time for the fire services to arrive.

In this way, the fire service are given plenty of time to assess risks and ensure that, if needed, any evacuation is managed in a safe and orderly fashion.

In addition, the communal corridors and escape passages at Forum House are equipped with smoke ventilation systems to improve conditions for means of escape and fire-fighting by limiting obscuration and toxicity in the common escape routes. These systems are tested regularly and in line with manufacturers recommendations.

We understand that there may be concerns around the “stay put” policy at this time. The following remains the guidance from the London Fire Brigade:

“If there is a fire inside your apartment leave, closing the door behind you and call 999. If there is a fire elsewhere in the building, and not inside your own apartment their advice is to stay put. The Fire Service will carry out an evacuation of the other apartments if necessary.”

Further information can be found on http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/staying-in-or-going- out.asp.

We also ask that residents ensure they remove anything that is combustible on their balconies. This is of course a stipulation in your lease but as is apparent from walking around the building there are a number of residents that continue to breach this lease requirement. Barbeques and storing items other than small garden furniture are examples of such breaches. In light of the above, we would ask that you comply with this instruction as a matter of urgency.

Fire safety should be at the forefront of everyone’s mind, and to that end please ensure you are comfortable with the fire procedures, know where the nearest fire exit is and make sure the smoke alarms in your apartment are tested regularly and replaced every 10 years. It is also good practice to close all your apartment’s internal doors when you go to bed at night.

We will advise if any specific action or change is needed and we will continue to keep you updated in relation to this matter. Meanwhile, we will also continue to track any findings or new guidelines and take the appropriate actions.

Finally, should you have any further general questions or queries we would in the first instance refer you to the enclosed statement and guidance relating to fire safety. However, should you have any questions that are not answered by this document then please do not hesitate to contact us.

Brent Council statement on high-rise blocks safety

Brent Council has posted the following statement on its website LINK:

High-rise safety in council blocks

Many residents living in high-rise blocks across the country will naturally be concerned so within Brent, the council and Brent Housing Partnership (BHP) have moved quickly to do extra checks and double checks of our high-rise blocks so that we are able to provide our residents with the reassurances they deserve. In Brent the facts are:

• We have 37 high-rise blocks in Brent and all 37 are 100% fire risk assessment compliant.
• We have never used Rydon Limited or Harley Facades Limited, the contractors who worked on Grenfell Tower, anywhere in Brent.
• Estate inspectors and compliance experts have visited all 37 high rise blocks, including communal areas and exit routes to remove any remaining rubbish, bicycles and other hazards which could hinder access and exit in an emergency.
• More than £10million has been spent over the past 4 years on measures to reduce the risk of fires in council run properties across the borough.

For details on all 37 high-rise blocks in Brent and the status of each of their fire risk assessments, please check the fire safety information here. [Ed: when I last accessed it this doesn't include Quintain development in Wembley or Octavia's Elizabeth House in Wembley High Road]

Council blocks with cladding

One high-rise block, Watling Gardens, has cladding. However, the cladding used is completely different to the cladding used at Grenfell Tower. We have double checked and the cladding is a non-combustible mineral wool material that would not promote the spread of flames externally and is in compliance with current British standards. However, we are not taking anything for granted and will also be commissioning our own independent checks on the cladding as well and report the results of this to residents in Watling Gardens as soon as possible.

Registered housing providers – high rise blocks

Aside from the assessments we have been carrying out across the Council’s own housing stock, we have also been in contact with all registered housing providers in Brent to ensure that the same thorough assessments are being carried out on their buildings as a matter of urgency, specifically on high-rise and cladded buildings. We have also asked them to communicate with residents to provide them with reassurance regarding their homes.

The list of registered providers in Brent is as follows: Family Mosaic, Notting Hill Housing, Hyde Housing, Genesis, Innisfree, JL Living, Catalyst, Metropolitan, Network Homes, Octavia, Origin Housing, Homegroup and L&Q Group. We will provide links to updates on this web page when they become available.

Private housing – high rise blocks

In terms of other private buildings and properties across the Borough, the main developer in Brent is Quintain who we contacted shortly after the Grenfell fire and they have confirmed that all of their new build residential blocks meet fire safety standards. We are waiting to hear back from other private developers in Brent and will provide links to updates on this page as they become available.

The council, as a planning authority, is not involved in assessing planning applications against fire safety as this is covered by other Government legislation, in this case, Building Control regulations. When a developer is building, they can choose whether to use the Council as building inspectors, or an accredited inspector. If they choose the latter, the council is not responsible for oversight of the work.

The council regularly reviews its fire risk assessments, servicing and maintenance programmes in all accommodation blocks and will continue to do so to ensure our residents are always kept safe. Once the findings from the Government’s emergency review into fire safety in tower blocks are known we will of-course review and, if needed, amend our fire management processes and strategy as a matter of urgency.

Quintain issues fire safety assurance for its highrise Wembley development

Quintain have issued the following statement in response to  enquiries about the safety of its high rise development in Wembley Park:

We take our health & safety obligations at Wembley Park extremely seriously and were deeply saddened to witness the terrible events at Grenfell Tower. We are building a large scale mixed use development and with that comes a responsibility to ensure the safety of all the workers, visitors and residents at Wembley Park.

All of our residential buildings are new build. None of our residential buildings are refurbishments and each building has a fire safety strategy that has been developed in conjunction with a leading fire specialist, Jeremy Gardner Associates, who we have worked with for over 10 years.

All of our buildings are fully compliant with building regulations and their designs were approved by both the London Borough of Brent Building Control and The London Fire Brigade.

We have used high quality building materials throughout our development at Wembley Park and as the owners of the 85 acre estate we have professional onsite management, including regular building inspections, fire risk assessment by independent professional fire risk assessors and tenant liaison.

Barry Gardiner invites Brent tower block residents to fire safety meeting on Monday

Barry Gardiner, MP for Brent North has invited residents of tower blocks in Brent to a meeting on Monday 19th June 7.30pm at St James Church Alperton, 34 Stanley Avenue, HA0

4JB.

In the letter he tells the residents that the primary purpose of the meeting will be to listen to existing concerns about fire safety matters and how suggestions and complaints are handled.

The Borough Fire Commander and Brent Council Chief Executive have been invited or to send substitutes along with the Chief executives of local Housing Associations.

Gardiner states:

Such tragedies (Grenfell Tower) are less likely to happen when there is transparency and good communications between residents and manager of the property. It is my hope that the meeting can help ensure that this is the case.

Gardiner's initiative is welcome, particularly as Brent Council response in the Guardian/Observer today LINK seems to cast doubt on the earlier comment it made to the Kilburn Times LINK.

The Guardian:

 Councils in Coventry, Sandwell, and the London boroughs of Newham and Brent were unable to say if they had carried out any inspections or even how many tower blocks they had.

The Kilburn Times:

In a report shown to the Brent&Kilburn Times, housing chiefs have set up a six-point action plan which includes checks that claddings applied to the outside of buildings are fire rated.

They are also liaising with the London Fire Brigade (LFB) to seek clarity and guidance around the “self evacuation” vs “stay put” briefing as many block residents are told to stay in their properties in the event of a fire.

The inclusion of Housing Associations in Monday's meeting is important because several of our local ones are now in the business of 'building to rent' or acting as managers for sites built by others. LINK

Barry Gardiner raises Sellafield safety concerns after Panorama programme

Following the Panorama report on Sellafield questions were asked in the House of Commons by several MPs.

The programme can be viewed HERE

This is what Barry Gardiner, Labour MP for Brent North and Shadow Minister for Energy and Climate Change, said:

Yesterday evening’s television report on Sellafield was profoundly disturbing, and my hon. Friend Mr Reed was absolutely right to request this urgent question—I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. My hon. Friend expressed his concerns at the revelations and referred to the importance of the storage and reprocessing facility for his constituency. Of course, the House must raise such concerns on behalf of the country.

I want to focus on a number of questions on which I believe the Minister should give the House either further information or reassurance, and preferably both. On minimum staffing levels, will he confirm that as recently as five days ago a formal notice was sent to the management, raising the unions’ concern about critical manning levels and the ability to comply with the appropriate procedures and practices when minimum staffing levels are not met?

Will the Minister also say whether he agrees with Dr Rex Strong, the head of nuclear safety, who said in last night’s programme that not meeting the minimum safety standards or staffing levels did not mean that there was a safety risk?

In 2013, the manager of the site, Nuclear Management Partners, produced its somewhat ironically entitled excellence plan, cataloguing the safety problems and the critical nature of the infrastructure with respect to both electricity and water supply on the site. Why did the Government not insist that further resources—staffing and, of course, financial resources—be invested in the site to clean it up at that point? The Minister will know that expenditure in 2012-13 was £7,348 million, with £3,157 million from the Department of Energy and Climate Change itself. The year following that report, the figure had fallen to £5,345 million. Will he explain why, after such a damning report, the resources going into the site decreased? Will he also confirm that the cost estimates for the clean-up of the site have increased at an annual estimate from £25.2 million to £47.9 million?

The programme also cited problems with alarms, and it was said that these were turned off repeatedly, without checking. Will the Minister confirm that that practice is no longer in force? Finally, will he confirm that he has absolute confidence in Dr Rex Strong as head of nuclear safety at Sellafield and John Clarke, the chief executive of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority?

Gardiner did not get a very full reply from Nick Hurd, Minister of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy:

Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for a constructive response, which reflects the cross-party concern to get this absolutely right with no equivocation. Issues were raised in the programme about minimum safety levels. I think they were responded to adequately in the programme. We were reassured that the NDA always has enough people on duty to maintain the site safely, and if the work cannot be done safely it will not get it done. I think the programme and the response to it have reassured us on that front.

As I said in my opening statement, cleaning up Sellafield safely costs £2 billion a year, and maintaining the NDA’s overall annual spend on cleaning up the UK’s nuclear sites at some £3 billion reflects the continuing importance that the Government place on cleaning up the civil nuclear legacy and Sellafield.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the reaction to the number of alarms raised—another issue raised in the programme. Those alarms, as he knows, are not unusual, given the types of material that people are working with and do not necessarily mean that there is a safety issue. However, we are reassured that staff are briefed never to be complacent and always react to alarms if they are serious, which is a point that was made in rebuttals in the programme.

On levels of confidence, yes, we do have confidence in the NDA. We also have a great deal of confidence in the independent regulator, which has made it quite clear that, as far as it is concerned, the programme does not raise any new issues and that Sellafield is safe.

Reassured?

Putting ‘Pokémon Go’ into perspective

Article by Jackie Marsh, from School of Education, University of Sheffield, web page LINK

Already, tales of mythic proportions surround the ‘Pokémon Go’ app. Reports abound of stabbings, robbings, shootings, people falling off cliffsand even finding corpses as they play the game. There are concerns aboutsex offenders targeting children, and children accessing dangerous spaces to get their next Pokémon monster. A New Zealand resident recently quit his job to play the game full-time, and people joined crowds to get to a rare monster in Central Park, fostering anxieties about addiction. Now even the police are using the app to catch fugitives.

The moral panic surrounding the launch of new media titles is not new, as I have discussed previously when comparing the audience response of Disney’s film ‘Frozen’ to that of the Disney ‘Davy Crockett’ film launched in the 1950s, but what is of interest is the speed of this response, given that ‘Pokémon Go’ was only launched a few weeks ago, on July 6th. The rapid take-up of the app has occurred with little direct marketing.

For the uninitiated, the free-to-play app draws on augmented reality technology to enable players to capture and train virtual Pokémon creatures, whose images pop up, overlaid on the ‘real’ world, on a mobile device. Augmented Reality (AR) consists of a blend of the physical world and the virtual world. In this blended reality, three-dimensional images or environments are projected onto a physical object or terrain, but users are not immersed in the same way as they are with virtual reality experiences.

This is not the first app to use augmented reality to entice its users. We undertook a research study on under 5’s use of tablet apps in the UK, in which children’s engagement with augmented reality apps was examined. The research team watched as children, enthralled, made the popular charity figure Pudsey bear appear in 3D and dance to disco music using the Quiver app, or played with augmented reality animals that appeared in the ‘AR Flascards’ app. As we stated in a subsequent paper from the study which reflected on play in the digital age, “Contemporary play draws on both the digital and non-digital properties of things and in doing so moves fluidly across boundaries of space and time in ways that were not possible in the pre-digital era” (Marsh et al., 2016). Augmented reality technology is still at an early stage of development, but the hype surrounding it indicates that it has the potential to excite and is a feature that is bound to become more prevalent in the toy and game industry in the future.

The ‘Pokémon Go’ app is notable for its popularity across generations. It appeals to those who collected the plastic Pokémon monsters in the brand’s earlier incarnations, taking them back to a fondly remembered childhood pastime. It could even remind them of previous GPS location-based tagging games they may have played, such as ‘Foursquare’ (whose creator, Dennis Crowley, has said he is not at all bitter about the success of ‘Pokémon Go’).

Such nostalgic media practices are nothing new, as numerous scholars have noted, but what makes this one particularly exciting for its adult fans is the transformation of their childhood monsters into virtual characters that live in their smartphone. The app is also drawing in a new Pokémon audience, one that knows little about the original television animation, video games or toys, launched initially in 1995. It offers opportunities, therefore, for family play, as noted by commentators who are keen to identify the game’s positive elements in the face of all of the media panic. And, as some have asked, shouldn’t we be pleased that the game has got people off sofas and into their local environments?

Of course, this calculated appeal to an intergenerational audience is one that is already paying off, with the app becoming more successful on launch than Candy Crush, and Nintendo, the original creators of Pokémon, estimated to be worth an additional $12 billion because of it. For both Nintendo and Niantic, the company that created the app, the real value of the game may not be in the microtransactions it embeds, with the possibility to purchase in-game features, but in the potential commercial use of the data it collects from the people who play it. This, as scholars of children’s media practices have pointed out in relation to other digital games, raises key questions about data privacy and children’s rights.

It would seem, therefore, that the launch of ‘Pokémon Go’ has resulted in the familiar tropes of panic and hype that surround many launches of new games and toys. The longevity of the app is difficult to ascertain at this point in time. When the excitement dies down, it remains to be seen what the impact of the app will be on future markets for this kind of game.

‘Pokémon Go’ has succeeded because of its combination of GPS and augmented reality technologies, linked to a very popular media brand that already involved collecting items — thus, players enjoy the familiarity of playing with the old alongside experiencing the excitement of engaging with the new. It will be difficult for other game studios to copy that specific dynamic, but no doubt there will be many attempts to do so, and we could see location-based AR games becoming further intertwined with popular culture as people search local communities for virtual representations of toys, musicians, TV and film characters, media icons and more.

In time, apps may be made available that enable user-generated content, so that the general public can leave their virtual wares in physical spaces for others to gather. Given children’s appetite for media content created by other children, that would undoubtedly be a popular type of app, albeit one potentially fraught with all kinds of safety issues. It will be incumbent upon researchers of children’s media use to trace the risks embedded in such developments, but also to identify the opportunities they present for engaging children and young people in digital content creation.

Now, forgive me, but I really have to leave it at that and get ready to go to my local ‘Pokémon Picnic’ — who knows, I might catch an Articuno…

– Jackie MarshProfessor of Education, Chair of the DigiLitEY project.

Councillors urged to act on Wembley Stadium Fulton Road accident danger

I have sent a link to this video to Brent Councilllors with the following message: Dear Councillor, You are probably aware that there was an accident in which a cyclist was seriously hurt last week at the Fulton Road/Olympic Way crossing. Concerns have already been voiced about this crossing, not least by some councillors, and because of its proximity to Brent Civic Centre and the stadium’s national profile, has the potential to reflect badly on the borough if there is an accident. Yesterday I took a short video about 4pm in the afternoon which I think shows the dangers. At this time there is a mix of tourists, shoppers going to the LDO and children and young people going to Wembley Library all crossing Fulton Road. Currently there are roadworks and the usual 2 lane traffic is down to alternate one lane controlled by lights. This may in fact be safer although drivers were confused by having to obey lights and signs indicating they should give way. I would urge you to ensure that action is taken by Brent Council/Wembley Stadium/TfL to make this crossing safe.

Reasons to vote aganst Ark Elvin Planning Application

These are Chetan Patel's notes for his speech at Brent Planning Committee tonight.
 

I kindly ask the Planning Committee to vote against the ARK’s submitted planning due to the below listed reasons:

1)    Proposed ‘Yellow Lines’ on Jesmond Avenue Without Consultations

Materials changes in Construction Methodology Access Statement, which did not feature the proposed of ‘Yellow Line’ controlled parking on Jesmond Avenue. Kiers have failed to consultant the residents of Jesmond Avenue on this key issue, which I believe is a ‘Material Change’, which displaces and affects approximate 80% the local residents parking.

2)    Lack of Staff Car Parking Spaces

The development only accommodates 47nr spaces and is derived from an survey of 100/111 staff which finds there are 24 cars parked at the existing school. I know as a matter of fact there are more than 24 cars parked at the school at present. The survey result conflicts with the actual number of cars parked. The Transport Assessment report should have physically counted the cars parked on the school for an accurate representation of the facts, rather than relying on an incomplete staff survey. I would also question if the cleaning, catering and maintenance staff were included in the survey?

Our fear is that the parking allocation will not meet the real world demand created by the development as suggested above.

There is a risk staff will park in the neighbouring residential streets causing further social problems.

In my opinion parts of Transport Assessment report as aforementioned are fundamentally flawed, and a new accurate report needs to be undertaken.

3)    Inaccurate Design Access Statement

The Design Access Statement doesn’t recognise local community pubic right of way by long usage (or “easement by prescription”).

Many hundreds and if not thousands of individuals in our community have been continually using Copland Park for the aforementioned reasons in excess 20 years. This use has occurred without protest from the property owners. As a result, there is a legal presumption that there is a right of way based on public use of Section 21 of the Highways Action 1980 Act.  This gives the local community pubic right of way by long usage (or “easement by prescription”).

We believed the existing playing fields were public land until we saw sight of the misinformed planning application submitted by ARK.

4)    Construction Methodology Statement

A)     Kier’s have stated ‘A Public Consultation has been held to present and answer any queries local residents and key stakeholders may have regarding the development’. We note Kier have failed to provide reasonable notice period for the Public Consultation. Kier notice of public hearing was posted at our address on the 2^nd July and the meeting was held on the 15^th July 2015.  I know many of the affected community could not re-schedule their commitments with only 14 days notice. Thankfully I managed to attend the consultation, and was surprised when Kier did not present their Construction Methodology Plans. In fact, Kier didn’t present any documentation related to their ‘Construction Methodology’ nor did they have their Construction Methodology documents to hand to distribute at the meeting. You couldn’t have even noticed Kier where at the Public Consultation. The meeting was more of a design exhibition lead by the Architect. Kier’s merely discussed their plans when asked about the construction methodology. Without any Construction Methodology drawings and distribution of any documentations, it was almost impossible to grasp the proposed site access and logistics. In summary, I would describe Kier’s ‘Public Consultation’ as a poor and a  misinformed event. I strongly recommend Kier should be forced to re-hold the event and provide a reasonable period of a minimum 30 days notice period prior to re-holding this meeting.

B)     Kier have failed to adequately demonstrate how they intend to manage construction personnel parking. Their reports indicate an approximate area of 45m x 20m. How many construction personal cars will this space accommodate? Is this allocated space enough? What happens if construction personal start parking on residential roads? Is parking on the residential road permitted by Kier or by Brent Council? 

C)     Brent should stipulate as an ‘Planning Condition’ Kier need to accommodate all necessary parking facilities within their site boundary, and restrict any of Kier’s staff from using any valuable residential parking spaces.

D)    Jesmond Avenue is a quiet residential cul-de-sac area which already has insufficient road car parking capacity. I would also like to record, residents on Clifton Avenue are already parking on Jesmond Avenue, who then use the various alleyways between the roads to return back to Clifton Road. I fear construction traffic personal parking on the community roads would further complicate and disrupt the community relations in the area.

E)     Kier’s Construction Methodology states ‘all deliveries will be directed to arrive at site by travelling along the North Circular Road, then along the Harrow Road (A404) then into Jesmond Avenue. We have reviewed the different site access options with LB Brent Highways Dept and Jesmond Avenue is the preferred option because it provides the safest and shortest route between the A404 and the site’.

We would highlight to Kier their conclusion that Jesmond Avenue is the shortest route from the A404 and proposed site is incorrect.  (See Appendix B attached Map). 

Option 1: 90m using Cecil Avenue.

Option 2: 278m using Jesmond Venue

Option 3: 424m using London Road via Cecil Avenue.

I would also question how Kier have concluded Jesmond Avenue is the safest route. I believe the below listed risks affecting Jesmond Aveue has not been addressed by Kier.

·     •                Jesmond Avenue is a strictly cul-de-sac residential area where up to 8-10 children regularly play on the road after school hours, especially between Stanley Road and the end of Jesmond Avenue. When driving my car down Jesmond Avenue on a number occasions I have been forced to apply my breaks in an emergency to avoid an accident with the kids playing on the road. I fear heavy goods vehicles will not be able stop in time in such emergency situations. How have Kier managed this risk?

·     Cars are parked on both sides of Jesmond Avenue, thus reducing the road traffic to only one narrow lane, whilst still accommodating two way traffic. In my opinion using Jesmond Avenue to access construction traffic particularly heavy goods vehicles is dangerous and an accident waiting to happen.

·     With respect to the safest route, when using Jesmond Avenue construction traffic passes 79nr residential properties, where if Cecil Avenue was adopted construction traffic passes only 3nr residential properties, and makes Cecil the safest route.

·     With respect to safest route, Jesmond Avenue has cars are parked on both sides of the road, thus reducing the width of the road to a single narrow lane. However, Cecil Avenue has cars parked on only side, and the other side is protected by double yellow lines preventing cars parking on one side. Therefore, Cecil Avenue a has greater clear width to accommodate heavy duty construction traffic than Jesmond Avenue.

Under the CDM Regulations, I believe Kier have failed to competently demonstrate Jesmond Avenue is the safest Construction Access Road for the development. 

5)    Safeguarding Risk

I’m horrified and deeply concerned Kier have not elected to perform Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks on all construction personal. The proposed works is surrounded by vulnerable children and young adults from Copland School High School, Elsely and St Josephs Primary School’s. Kier have a duty of care to ensure all personal working near and in the vicinity are screened to ensure illegible personal are not permitted to work on the construction works. This is even more prevalent as the construction industry is very fragmented using large numbers of self employed personal, appointed by specialist Sub-Contractors. It’s likely, Kier would only appoint Sub-Contractors and thus would not have a direct relationship with the operatives.   In my opinion, if Kier’s do not perform these high sensitive checks, they are not fit to undertake the construction works. CRB checks is standard practise on school works used by other top Main Contractors in the industry.