-->
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.
