Either way it is pretty poor that within a week of the pavement being repaired it is cracking up. I will draw this to the attention of our highways people - who I am sure will be just as annoyed as I am. Whoever is at fault - the contractors or the advertising people - we should not just accept that Lewisham pays hundreds of thousands of pounds in an annual cycle of pavement repair and replacement just have them crumble in a matter of days.
15 July 2009
Cracks in the pavement
Either way it is pretty poor that within a week of the pavement being repaired it is cracking up. I will draw this to the attention of our highways people - who I am sure will be just as annoyed as I am. Whoever is at fault - the contractors or the advertising people - we should not just accept that Lewisham pays hundreds of thousands of pounds in an annual cycle of pavement repair and replacement just have them crumble in a matter of days.
14 July 2009
Managing railway embankments
We have received a reply from the Chief Executive of Network Rail follwing concerns raised about the seemingly brutal works carried out along the tracks in Brockley and around. The reply is here:
About 4 or 5 years ago we had agressive cutting back of the embankments along the line that runs from Nunhead through Brockley to Lewisham (via the High Level Link). At the time the embankment was a barren place. However last night I walked past and was struck by the thickness of the vegetation and what appears to be a good mix of species. What do you think?
Looking back at Network Rail's response - it would appear to suggest that the overall plans for the embankments is to provide cover of the type pictured above at Brockley. The question has to be how best to get there - the brutal works undertaken in Brockley a few years whilst they appear to be successful now were a great cause of concern. The works undertaken that led to the motion and the letter from Network Rail show that things have not moved on sufficiently. Is it not possible to find ways of phasing such works to meet the demands of all, acheive the comprehensive cover, create a real leafy corridor, enhance biodiversity and increase the reliability of the trains and whilst not costing too much?
About 4 or 5 years ago we had agressive cutting back of the embankments along the line that runs from Nunhead through Brockley to Lewisham (via the High Level Link). At the time the embankment was a barren place. However last night I walked past and was struck by the thickness of the vegetation and what appears to be a good mix of species. What do you think?
Looking back at Network Rail's response - it would appear to suggest that the overall plans for the embankments is to provide cover of the type pictured above at Brockley. The question has to be how best to get there - the brutal works undertaken in Brockley a few years whilst they appear to be successful now were a great cause of concern. The works undertaken that led to the motion and the letter from Network Rail show that things have not moved on sufficiently. Is it not possible to find ways of phasing such works to meet the demands of all, acheive the comprehensive cover, create a real leafy corridor, enhance biodiversity and increase the reliability of the trains and whilst not costing too much?
A poor pastiche...or good job
13 July 2009
More delays...
The site this morning...
I have asked the Deputy Mayor for a further update this morning. On 24th June she indicated that the bridge would be open soon and that the project was only 'three weeks behind schedule' and the bridge could open 'weather permitting'. It's just as well we had some good weather - goodness knows where we'd be otherwise.
Question by Councillor Walton
of the Deputy Mayor
Question
Please provide a comprehensive update on the progress of the Brockley Station ramp including what the original budget was for this scheme; what the expected final cost of the current scheme is; what explanations there are for any differences; where any additional money has been allocated from; when or whether asbestos was detected on the site; what the implications of this was; whether the original soil surveys should have picked this up? Were diversions put in place for cyclists and fully signed?
Reply
The Brockley Station ramp has been planned as a high quality scheme to improve the area, and forms the core of the Brockley Common project, which originated as a local initiative. The ramp has been developed in close collaboration with Brockley Cross Action Group with a steering group chaired by Joan Ruddock MP. Funding for the Common has been obtained from a variety of sources and Lewisham has managed to find the overwhelming majority of funding from its own resources and by bidding to Department for Transport (DfT) for disabled access funding.
The total budget for the scheme was £182k, which it was hoped would be enough to regrade the area, creating a new ramp and steps from the southern part of the site, along with a small performance area and steps at the northern end of the site. The budget comprised:
• Nearly £8k from the remainder of the Mayor’s growth fund for the area.
• £146k from the Council’s other services Capital programme of which £71k would be reimbursed by DfT once the southern steps and ramp are completed.
• £28k from Section 106 funding.
The scheme was split into two phases, with the performance area and northern steps to be constructed as a second phase if funds permitted.
It was expected that the final cost of the initial phase of the scheme would be £150k. It is now expected to be £331k, but there are some costs still to be resolved with the contractor.
Prior to this phase of the scheme commencing, soil tests had been carried out to determine if the area was contaminated. These are of necessity sample tests, but they were taken across the site in areas that were accessible. They did not show any general soil contamination, nor identify any asbestos. However, once works commenced extensive excavation had to take place and unfortunately on 16 April asbestos was found in a small area of the site opposite the northern corner of the ticket office and then a larger area of about 4 square metres was found towards the northern end of the site. These are isolated pieces of asbestos and could not have been foreseen when work commenced. However, once they had been found, removal and disposal of a considerable amount of soil was unavoidable as a much larger area had to be assumed to be potentially contaminated. This had to removed by a specialist contractor and tipped at a specialist site. At that stage there was no option but to complete the phase under construction.
As a result the project has had to be reviewed, to ensure that the current works can be completed to reopen the station access. Furthermore, costs must be contained to avoid any further unplanned or unfunded expenditure.
There has been no additional money allocated to remove the asbestos. lt is proposed to seek approval from Mayor and Cabinet to reallocate some funds from the Council’s Other Services Capital Programme, identified for other stations on the line. However, it will not be possible to construct the northern steps and performance area and the area will be left with topsoil for seeding and planting. It is possible that other pieces of asbestos lie buried in the remainder of the site and there is therefore the possibility of a similar cost being incurred if and when those works are done.
Despite this problem, the scheme is progressing well, only about three weeks behind schedule, with paving being laid to the steps and ticket office access at the moment. The footbridge should reopen at the end of the month, weather permitting. The final result will be an enormous improvement and turn the area into an asset for the community.
A diversion was put in place for users of the footbridge along Coulgate Street to Brockley Cross then along Endwell Road to Mantle Road and back to the other end of the bridge. The diversion was fully signed and checked by the contractor regularly. However, concern has been expressed that the signage did not explicitly refer to cyclists and for future schemes we will be seeking advice from the Council’s Cycling Officer.
An update from Highways 14 July 2009:
"Dear Cllr Walton
We are urgently discussing progress on this scheme with the contractor. We are concerned to get the steps opened as quickly as possible.
I will advise you as soon as I have firmer information."
I am sure we all agree with the need to get the steps opened as quickly as possible.
However the significant delays to the project - which by my reckoning will be more than six weeks have caused serious concerns to both myself as one the local councillors and local residents and businesses alike. The discovery of asbestos on the site caused some delays - however the delays have dragged on beyond that without explanation.
With regards to the looking at what Lewisham should be doing - it is difficult as a local Councillor and poor practice to extrapolate from one scheme, like this, that has had problems. I have heard suggestions that the contract has not been managed properly, that the terms of the contract with Conways might contribute to the problems, that the soil surveys should have identified problems ahead of the scheme starting, that the discussions over the materials might have caused delays etc etc. But without proper evidence it is hard to know what is the answer. We will not know for some time what has gone wrong with this project, what problems could have been avoided, and what actually went well in the implementation of this project. But what I am most keen to hear about is whether there are any policy changes at a Lewisham level which should be made to avoid these problems coming in the future.
Such changes that come to mind are the way in which Highways communicate with local people over such disruptive schemes, how local people are involved in the detailed implementation of such schemes, and how we keep people on board when delays inevitably occcur. In terms of contracts and the like, I understand that (presumably for cost reasons) the contract with Conways specifies a standard paving slab - the use of a different style causing problems for the Brockley Station contract - given the important role our pavements have in terms of setting the scene for our roads, has enough thought been given to this element of the contract, can we not build in more flexibility and given how many of these slabs appear to be cracked can we be sure they are fit for purpose.
I have asked the Deputy Mayor for a further update this morning. On 24th June she indicated that the bridge would be open soon and that the project was only 'three weeks behind schedule' and the bridge could open 'weather permitting'. It's just as well we had some good weather - goodness knows where we'd be otherwise.
Question by Councillor Walton
of the Deputy Mayor
Question
Please provide a comprehensive update on the progress of the Brockley Station ramp including what the original budget was for this scheme; what the expected final cost of the current scheme is; what explanations there are for any differences; where any additional money has been allocated from; when or whether asbestos was detected on the site; what the implications of this was; whether the original soil surveys should have picked this up? Were diversions put in place for cyclists and fully signed?
Reply
The Brockley Station ramp has been planned as a high quality scheme to improve the area, and forms the core of the Brockley Common project, which originated as a local initiative. The ramp has been developed in close collaboration with Brockley Cross Action Group with a steering group chaired by Joan Ruddock MP. Funding for the Common has been obtained from a variety of sources and Lewisham has managed to find the overwhelming majority of funding from its own resources and by bidding to Department for Transport (DfT) for disabled access funding.
The total budget for the scheme was £182k, which it was hoped would be enough to regrade the area, creating a new ramp and steps from the southern part of the site, along with a small performance area and steps at the northern end of the site. The budget comprised:
• Nearly £8k from the remainder of the Mayor’s growth fund for the area.
• £146k from the Council’s other services Capital programme of which £71k would be reimbursed by DfT once the southern steps and ramp are completed.
• £28k from Section 106 funding.
The scheme was split into two phases, with the performance area and northern steps to be constructed as a second phase if funds permitted.
It was expected that the final cost of the initial phase of the scheme would be £150k. It is now expected to be £331k, but there are some costs still to be resolved with the contractor.
Prior to this phase of the scheme commencing, soil tests had been carried out to determine if the area was contaminated. These are of necessity sample tests, but they were taken across the site in areas that were accessible. They did not show any general soil contamination, nor identify any asbestos. However, once works commenced extensive excavation had to take place and unfortunately on 16 April asbestos was found in a small area of the site opposite the northern corner of the ticket office and then a larger area of about 4 square metres was found towards the northern end of the site. These are isolated pieces of asbestos and could not have been foreseen when work commenced. However, once they had been found, removal and disposal of a considerable amount of soil was unavoidable as a much larger area had to be assumed to be potentially contaminated. This had to removed by a specialist contractor and tipped at a specialist site. At that stage there was no option but to complete the phase under construction.
As a result the project has had to be reviewed, to ensure that the current works can be completed to reopen the station access. Furthermore, costs must be contained to avoid any further unplanned or unfunded expenditure.
There has been no additional money allocated to remove the asbestos. lt is proposed to seek approval from Mayor and Cabinet to reallocate some funds from the Council’s Other Services Capital Programme, identified for other stations on the line. However, it will not be possible to construct the northern steps and performance area and the area will be left with topsoil for seeding and planting. It is possible that other pieces of asbestos lie buried in the remainder of the site and there is therefore the possibility of a similar cost being incurred if and when those works are done.
Despite this problem, the scheme is progressing well, only about three weeks behind schedule, with paving being laid to the steps and ticket office access at the moment. The footbridge should reopen at the end of the month, weather permitting. The final result will be an enormous improvement and turn the area into an asset for the community.
A diversion was put in place for users of the footbridge along Coulgate Street to Brockley Cross then along Endwell Road to Mantle Road and back to the other end of the bridge. The diversion was fully signed and checked by the contractor regularly. However, concern has been expressed that the signage did not explicitly refer to cyclists and for future schemes we will be seeking advice from the Council’s Cycling Officer.
An update from Highways 14 July 2009:
"Dear Cllr Walton
We are urgently discussing progress on this scheme with the contractor. We are concerned to get the steps opened as quickly as possible.
I will advise you as soon as I have firmer information."
I am sure we all agree with the need to get the steps opened as quickly as possible.
However the significant delays to the project - which by my reckoning will be more than six weeks have caused serious concerns to both myself as one the local councillors and local residents and businesses alike. The discovery of asbestos on the site caused some delays - however the delays have dragged on beyond that without explanation.
With regards to the looking at what Lewisham should be doing - it is difficult as a local Councillor and poor practice to extrapolate from one scheme, like this, that has had problems. I have heard suggestions that the contract has not been managed properly, that the terms of the contract with Conways might contribute to the problems, that the soil surveys should have identified problems ahead of the scheme starting, that the discussions over the materials might have caused delays etc etc. But without proper evidence it is hard to know what is the answer. We will not know for some time what has gone wrong with this project, what problems could have been avoided, and what actually went well in the implementation of this project. But what I am most keen to hear about is whether there are any policy changes at a Lewisham level which should be made to avoid these problems coming in the future.
Such changes that come to mind are the way in which Highways communicate with local people over such disruptive schemes, how local people are involved in the detailed implementation of such schemes, and how we keep people on board when delays inevitably occcur. In terms of contracts and the like, I understand that (presumably for cost reasons) the contract with Conways specifies a standard paving slab - the use of a different style causing problems for the Brockley Station contract - given the important role our pavements have in terms of setting the scene for our roads, has enough thought been given to this element of the contract, can we not build in more flexibility and given how many of these slabs appear to be cracked can we be sure they are fit for purpose.
Great Day at the Fun Run
A very quick update - I had a fantastic fun run - beating my time from last year by a whopping five minutes - testament to eating fewer pies I guess than any particular athletic ability! Pictures to follow.
Dean
Dean
20 June 2009
We're running - are you?
Cllr Ute Michel (Ladywell Ward) and myself have entered the Brockley Fun Run on 5th July.We're encouraging as many local people as possible to enter the run. The run is supported financially by money from the Brockley & Ladywell localities funds - which mean that entry costs are just £5 for adults (£10 on the day) and all children under 12 are free.
19 June 2009
Tree Works in Ladywell
Why is this particularly boring picture of tree roots in Ladywell here? Residents will be aware that tree works in Brockley, undertaken by the Brockley PFI have caused many problems - typically the problems are brutal works to mature trees. The PFI applied to fell 4 London plane trees - much like this one in the picture for causing very similar damage to a wall on Upper Brockley Road. The works look fairly straightforward and eminently doable - yet the pavement on Upper Brockley Road across from the Parade is still fenced off.
14 June 2009
More delays
This poster advises of delays to the station ramps works - and pointedly puts the blame on Lewisham Council.
We have heard that delays may have occurred due to unforeseen soil contamination - despite soil surveys; or is it poor project management. I have put a full question down for next full Council.
"Can the Deputy Mayor provide a comprehensive update on the progress of the Brockley Station ramp including what the original budget was for this scheme; what the expected final cost of the current scheme is; what explanations there are for any differences; where any additional money has allocated from; when or whether asbestos was detected on the site; what the implications of this was; whether the original soil surveys should have picked this up? Were diversions put in place for cyclists and fully signed?"
Many, many times we are told that money is tight - yet financial rabbits appear out of hats all the time. Given the important location of this site in terms of the numbers of people expected to use it, it is vital to make it as welcoming and attractive as possible. We need to make sure every last penny is put to effective use and that means continuing to work closely with the community backing these improvements.
Whilst there appears to have been good liaison through the 'Partnership Group' incorporating Network Rail, Lewisham, Transport for London and the Brockley Cross Action Group - this liaison when the project is actually being implemented appears to work less effectively.
Hopefully, by the time I get a full answer the station will have reopened - but I'm still waiting for my invitation to the opening ceremony!
11 June 2009
Little Cheyne Wind Farm
I went to an event organised by the British Wind Energy Association 
at new wind farm, Little Cheyne,
close to Rye in East Sussex.
The event was an opportunity to hear about planning rules, technical issues and other matters
relevant to the installation of wind energy schemes in the UK.
Of particular interest is the role played by local authorities in this process. Schemes over 50MW come within the realms of the 'Electricity Act' and are determined by the Secretary of State for Industry rather than the local planning authority.
For this relatively modest scheme of 59MW installed capacity the process was drawn out over many years - the installation was opposed by Shepway DC and Kent County Council against the technical advice of their officers - 'Councillors speaking up for local people'. However, given the siting of these turbines, right adjacent to Dungeness Power Station I find it difficult to understand how these machines can be in any way more offensive than an old-fashioned nuclear power station.
Here's Dungeness:
at new wind farm, Little Cheyne,close to Rye in East Sussex.
The event was an opportunity to hear about planning rules, technical issues and other matters
relevant to the installation of wind energy schemes in the UK.
Of particular interest is the role played by local authorities in this process. Schemes over 50MW come within the realms of the 'Electricity Act' and are determined by the Secretary of State for Industry rather than the local planning authority.
For this relatively modest scheme of 59MW installed capacity the process was drawn out over many years - the installation was opposed by Shepway DC and Kent County Council against the technical advice of their officers - 'Councillors speaking up for local people'. However, given the siting of these turbines, right adjacent to Dungeness Power Station I find it difficult to understand how these machines can be in any way more offensive than an old-fashioned nuclear power station.
Here's Dungeness:
Here's the wind farm:
In addition we had an interesting presentation from a member of Swale Borough Council. Swale BC blocked the planning permission for a vital piece of the on-shore equipment for the London Array - adding years to its development and threatening its viability. Although I'm not clear whether this councillor opposed the London Array at that time, it seemed an unusual choice for the BWEA to make on this day. There was clearly a degree of sceptism from some of the other Councillors there today - but the staff from the BWEA and others there reassured me that this was falling.
One of the new things that I learnt today is that planning permission for these farms is for 25 years only - and that proper provision for the decommisioning of the farm is included in the plans - if only the same were true of our nuclear power stations!
Much of the land around the farm and possibly across is open - there are many paths - take the kids and have a picnic - the Marsh Line running from Ashford to Hastings is a lovely ride; Rye is delightful too.
10 June 2009
Hook Switches
This caught my eye - perhaps it says more about me than it does about the railways. It's taken from the 'Southern Stakeholders Brief May 2009'. At least the brochure that it came in was sent electronically rather than as a paper document. However when you see a headline of 'Infrastructure improvements' we tend to think of new lines, platforms and stations...
Infrastructure improvements
We continually strive to improve punctuality and are pleased to report a number of recent improvements to the network by Network Rail, which will help our train running performance. These include the installation of a number of motorised ‘hook switches’ in the South London Metro area.
A hook switch allows the electricity running through a section of conductor rail to be isolated when a failed train needs to be examined, when there has been a fatality or to repair track and infrastructure. Motorised hook switches allow the isolation to be done quickly from a central location and help deal with incidents more efficiently.
Infrastructure improvements
We continually strive to improve punctuality and are pleased to report a number of recent improvements to the network by Network Rail, which will help our train running performance. These include the installation of a number of motorised ‘hook switches’ in the South London Metro area.
A hook switch allows the electricity running through a section of conductor rail to be isolated when a failed train needs to be examined, when there has been a fatality or to repair track and infrastructure. Motorised hook switches allow the isolation to be done quickly from a central location and help deal with incidents more efficiently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
