Agenda item

This report discusses a petition received from residents of Medway Gardens in Sudbury regarding the proposed pavement reconstruction. The work was postponed pending the hearing of the petition.

RESOLVED that:

(i)            The petition from residents in Medway Gardens, Sudbury regarding the proposed pavement reconstruction, received by the Council on 26 October 2016 be noted;

(ii)          The Medway Gardens pavement reconstruction goes ahead with asphalt used in between concrete block areas at dropped crossings and street corners; and

(iii)         The Council continue to review and update its policy for consultation with residents on road maintenance issues to provide re-assurance of consistency across the Borough.  

The Chair invited Mrs Anne Groome (representative of residents in Medway Gardens) to address the Committee. Mrs Groome outlined that a petition had been submitted to the Council in October 2016 because residents had been concerned that they had not been adequately consulted on the proposed reconstruction of pavements in Medway Gardens. It was also felt that the plans had not addressed some of the key issues in the Medway Gardens area (including Ash Grove) in accordance with the criteria of the Council’s own Asset Management Plan.

The Committee heard that a fundamental cause of damage had been caused by cars and commercial vehicles parking on the pavements in Medway Gardens, particularly the section of road which leads up to Harrow Road. Mrs Groome stated that the road did not meet the Council’s criteria for the relaxation of parking restrictions outside of the Wembley Controlled Parking Zones and that the proposed maintenance work had not taken this into account. She emphasised that residents had felt that without addressing the number of vehicles parking on the road, the proposed tarmac solution would degrade quickly and would require more frequent maintenance. She noted that Elms Park Avenue, which ran parallel, had brick paving which had been deemed to be more durable, as opposed to tarmac. A second fundamental cause to the damage of the pavement had been cited as traffic crossing the footpath and that, at the time, the Council discounts applied for damage to crossover sections had not been communicated to residents. She concluded that the Council had not considered the key issues facing the different sections of road and that the proposed maintenance should be re-evaluated accordingly before going ahead.

The Chair then invited Mr Jim Moher (resident of Medway Gardens) to address the Committee. Mr Moher drew the Committee’s attention to photographs on page 13 of the agenda pack, stating that this stretch of pavement in Medway Gardens was evidently in a deplorable condition. He believed that the Council was correct to be addressing this issue and that the commercial vehicles parking on the pavements had contributed to its deterioration. The Committee also heard of the effect it had had on the previous number of trees on the pavements, and that he welcomed proposals to install new trees on them. He concluded it was essential that if the proposals were to go ahead, the Council ensured that the work was completed satisfactorily for all residents on the road.

The Chair next invited Councillor Daly (Sudbury Ward) to address the Committee. She stated that she hoped her deputation would bridge the gap between the Council’s statutory duty to ensure pavements were safe for the public whilst also ensuring that the concerns of residents were taken into account. Councillor Daly said that it was important for the Committee to acknowledge that the conditions of the pavements on different sections of the road were variable and there were sections of the road where the paving slabs were suitable and did not pose any safety hazard. She noted an additional concern about trees and the lack of assurances about the trees still on the road which had been put in place when the houses were built, being lost under the proposals. It was reiterated that the majority of residents in Medway Gardens had been opposed to this proposal and that the poor communication from the Council in consulting on the plans had contributed to this. Councillor Daly concluded by indicating that it would be best for the Council to have a meaningful consultation with residents on the works where both safety and resident concerns could be addressed. 

The Chair thanked all three for their contributions before inviting Tony Kennedy (the Council’s Head of Highways and Transportation) to give an overview of the Council’s rationale for the proposals and address any comments made. Mr Kennedy stated that, in recent years, the Council had been forced to make savings in the face of cuts to funding and that part of the Asset Management Plan had been about developing a long-term strategy for the carriageways and footways in the Borough. This included developing a solution which addressed the damages caused to pavements by cars parking, vehicles overrunning, and tree root intrusion etc. to address safety concerns but one which was also sustainable and value for money. The Committee heard the benefits of using asphalt (as specified within the report) and how it was deemed to be the most suitable solution in terms of value for money and moving the Council away from a reactive approach to pavement damages. He noted that of the 13 reconstruction schemes using asphalt, the Council had received two objections from residents of the 10 roads where work had been completed and that the Council had been working to address these concerns. He also sought to offer assurances that the composition of asphalt, which contained a resin to assist the development of new trees along the pavement. He asked residents to consider the Council’s reasoning for the decision as being cost-effective and assisting the long-term life span of the pavement as an asset.

In the ensuing discussion, a Member questioned how the relative costs had been ascertained and what the cost impact would be if the proposals considered the different problems on different parts of the street. Tony Kennedy responded that he could produce the figures but asked Members to consider the reactive costs to the Council. He noted how slabs on Medway Gardens had had varying defect levels and, in the past, been changed on individual priority basis, and this was the less sustainable in the long-term. It was heard that both the number of defects from the condition survey data used to inform highways maintenance plans and the length of the whole road had contributed to it being a high priority road for the Council to address.

Members also asked questions on what could be done to improve consultation processes with residents and whether asphalt would deteriorate if cars were still parking on the pavements. Tony Kennedy acknowledged that there had been problems in both the ward Councillor and resident engagement processes, which largely stemmed from the distribution of the work commencement notices from the contractors. Members noted this point and explicitly apologised to the residents and ward Councillor present. Mr Kennedy continued that there had been improvement measures put in place since October 2016. He also noted that there were elements of the work to be consulted on which were still to be undertaken, such as residents being able to choose the types of trees planted on the road. However, the Committee heard that this was standard maintenance scheme which had been deemed high priority and would not typically be consulted on. Addressing the latter question on asphalt, Mr Kennedy stated that asphalt would be able to take the weight of vehicles which were still parking on the pavements. He noted that if dips in the asphalt were to appear over time, it would be a much easier material to re-level as opposed to re-laying individual concrete slabs on a frequent basis.

Discussions moved back to the wider issue of parking in the Medway Gardens area and residents often being forced to unsafely walk in the road itself. Residents continued to note that the proposed works would not address the issues raised and that it still had not been answered as to why Ash Grove had not been included in the proposed works. Tony Kennedy stated that the Highways Team was happy to consult on parking restrictions on Medway Gardens in the very near future to try and mutually resolve some of the aforementioned issues. The Chair welcomed this and added that the Council was undertaking a consultation on Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ). She noted that there was an opportunity to request a CPZ being brought in if this was felt to be the best way to alleviate the parking problems. Tony Kennedy also acknowledged that Ash Grove had not been included in the proposals at this stage but noted it would be assessed for inclusion as part of the 2018/2019 programme of maintenance works. Tony Kennedy stated he would be willing to meet with residents in Medway Gardens to try to resolve any further underlying issues.

RESOLVED that:

(i)            The petition from residents in Medway Gardens, Sudbury regarding the proposed pavement reconstruction, received by the Council on 26 October 2016 be noted;

(ii)          The Medway Gardens pavement reconstruction go ahead with asphalt used in between concrete block areas at dropped crossings and street corners; and

(iii)       The Highways Committee recommend that the Council continued to review and update its policy for consultation and communication with residents on road maintenance issues to provide reassurance of consistency across the Borough.