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.

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

Cracks appear in Labour's approach to pavements as Barnet Labour calls for choice

 

Image from RAT - Resistance Against Tarmac

So, continuing to look at what our neighbouring boroughs are doing and saying, here is Barnet Labour Party (in opposition) taking a rather different approach  to Brent Labour (in power) on the tarmac versus paving debate.  LINK:
 

Tarmac v Paving: Labour call for residents to be given a choice over pavement resurfacing

Labour councillors are calling for residents to be given a choice between tarmac and paving slabs for pavement resurfacing after receiving complaints about newly completed tarmac treatments in Beresford Road, East Finchley, and a petition from residents living in Granville Road N12.

The Granville Road petition, which will be discussed at the Finchley & Golders Green Area Committee on 26 October, says: “The overwhelming majority of people we spoke to do not want a cheaper tarmac surface on the pavements if this is indeed the proposal. There are many concerns about how it will look, that it will bring down the appearance of the road, that it will be uneven, that it won't last and will crack, that it will become sticky in the summer, that it will encourage even more vehicle drivers to mount the pavement.”

The petition also states that residents are given only two weeks’ notice of pavement works with no real way to respond as the contact number given on the letters is not answered and messages left have not been returned by the Council.

Barnet Council has received seven separate complaints from residents in Beresford Road about the tarmac resurfacing recently completed there which has featured in the Evening Standard on 13 October.

The Conservative-run Council are planning to save £550,000 in reactive road and pavement maintenance by moving to different resurfacing methods. For pavements this means completely replacing paving with tarmac or using tarmac with some block paving for vehicle crossovers and margins. Only pavements in town centres and conservation areas will have paving slabs replaced.

The new tarmac pavement treatments form part of plans by the Council to spend £50m on road and pavement resurfacing across the borough between 2015-2020. However, the Council’s published news release on the issue (20 October) showed a picture of paving slabs being used rather than tarmac. Labour councillors believe this is misleading to the public. The letters sent to residents have also been totally misleading as they have stated "we will be laying paving in your road", despite the fact the Council intends to use tarmac.

Labour councillors have also highlighted complaints from residents about the cheaper road surface dressing that leaves loose chips on roads.

Repair of roads and quality of pavements are two of the lowest rated universal services in Barnet according to the Council’s most recent Residents’ Perception Survey.

Only 27% of residents responding to the Survey rated repair of roads highly – 14% points lower than London (41%), and down 8% points from autumn 2015 (35%); and only 33% of residents rated quality of pavements highly – 8% points lower than London (41%), and down 1% point on autumn 2015 (34%).

The Survey also showed that the state of roads and pavements is the second highest concern amongst residents.

Barnet Labour's Environment Spokesperson, Cllr Alan Schneiderman said:

The decision to use tarmac rather than paving stones has been imposed without residents being consulted. Residents have also been misled by being sent letters saying that paving will be laid in their road when in fact they have no choice but tarmac.

We need to do all we can to minimise trips and falls and repair footways, but I want to see residents given a choice between using paving stones or tarmac for their road.

Wembley Matters additional comment:

Just in case one of the Brent Conervatibe groups wants to take up the issue this is what Barnet Conservatives (in power) had to say LINK:

According to Cllr Dean Cohen, Conservative for Golders Green, asphalt is being used in “appropriate areas” because it is “safer, more durable and cheaper to maintain over their life”.

Cllr Cohen, who chairs the environment committee, said: “We know that the quality of pavements is a top priority for residents which is why we are investing £8m this year alone on footways.

“Asphalt surfaces enable a greater number of roads to benefit from the programme of investment – this was a committee decision which Labour members did not oppose.

“The council will continue to engage with residents as clearly as possible ahead of work taking place."

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.

Tarmac to replace paving stones on Brent streets

Mixed pavement this morning in Kings Drive, Wembley

Sometimes seemingly small decisions pass by unnoticed but have a larger longer term impact. This may be the case with a Brent Cabinet decision made on Monday to adopt a default policy of replacing paving stone pavements with tarmac, except in conservation areas and 'frequently used footways'.

The Council is currently running a PR campaign on 'Love where you live' to inspire more pride in the borough. Tarmac pavements change the look of streets substantially but represent a small reduction in costs for a cash-strapped council. Whether they represent long-term 'best value' or inspire more pride is debatable.

There will be some patchwork tarmac repairs but in other areas entire stretches of pavement wil be replaced by tarmac:

Click to enlarge

The full report approved by the Cabinet which includes illustrations of different types of pavement surfaces can be found HERE