Forum Message

Topic: Chiswick Area Forum tomorrow, Town Hall, 7:30pm - make your views felt
Posted by: Andy Murray
Date/Time: 21/01/13 16:35:00

Don't forget that the irregular local Forum comes to the Town Hall tomorrow.
This is the place to raise questions of your local representatives, which they are very grateful for. (They're even more grateful if anyone shows up).
Here is the agenda for tomorrow: http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=574&MId=7295&Ver=4

However, if anyone has a question for Members, such as, for instance, 'what are you doing about protecting Chiswick streets from the curse of asphalt under the 25-year, £800 million PFI 'Hounslow Highways' initiative and does it include tree replacement rather than destruction?', then you are asked to please submit it in writing to the co-ordinator, Carol Stiles, at carol.stiles@hounslow gov.uk BEFORE 2pm tomorrow.

You can still submit a written question while at the meeting by using the forms provided, but submitting it to Carol in advance gives the Councillors the opportunity to research it first.

Your Councillors' reactions to the presentation of the Vinci Ringway 'Hounslow Highways' initiative can be read below, in the Minutes to the Oct 15th Forum:
See you there!

31. Hounslow Highways Work Programme 2013

See the report by Trevor Wallis, Project Director Highways Maintenance Contract - Agenda Item 4.

Councillor Colin Ellar, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Environment attended the meeting to introduce this item.
Trevor Wallis, PFI Project Director for the London Borough of Hounslow, and four representatives of Hounslow Highways, Rob Gillespie, Mobilisation Director, Greg Carstensen, Service Director, Martin Clack, Construction Manager and Tim Hurley, Business Manager, also attended the meeting for this item.

Councillor Ellar advised that this was the second time he had addressed the Chiswick Area Forum on this issue. This time there was more detail. The authority had successfully secured a government grant for a 25 year contract to restore and renew the infrastructure. The London Borough of Hounslow was the only London borough to bid successfully and receive the grant so the outcome should be that Hounslow had the best roads in London. The procurement process had begun six years previously and the contract had been given to Vinci-Ringway. The contract had been signed in August after
lengthy negotiations.

Currently there was a period of mobilisation with Vinci-Ringway preparing to take on the contract with effect from 1 January 2013. The responsibilities would be ‘fence to fence’ including street trees, footpaths, roads, drainage, lighting and cleansing as a package. All of the contractors’ vehicles would carry the brand ‘Hounslow Highways’ but would still retain the London Borough of Hounslow coat of arms and telephone number.
The contract was for 25 years with most of the engineering work in the first five years and the remaining 20 years being a maintenance programme. After that the infrastructure would be handed back to the London Borough of Hounslow in a good state.

£20m per annum was available over 5 years. This represented 20 times more than at present, so the 5 year programme would address the £100m backlog. The borough was fortunate to have secured this extensive funding and programme. There would be an intense works programme in the first year with 850 schemes for road surfacing and new lighting. 4,000 schemes would be implemented over the 5 year programme.

This was the first Area Forum to which details of the contract and the works were presented and Councillor Ellar invited observations to feed into fine tuning the works programme. He advised that the transfer of staff and data to Vinci-Ringway would take place in December. This involved around 160 staff members mainly under TUPE transfer arrangements. There would be a small client side of 10-20 officers in the London Borough of Hounslow to monitor the contract, which started on 1 January 2013.

The Chair thanked Councillor Ellar and invited Rob Gillespie, Mobilisation Director, to present the details on behalf of Hounslow Highways. Mr Gillespie explained that the Hounslow Highways presentation would cover who they were, their objectives, the changes residents would see, the materials to be used and information on how they would communicate with residents and councillors. He advised that further information would be available on the Hounslow Highways website – www. hounslowhighways.org.

Mr Gillespie explained that Vinci had been operating in the UK for many years and Ringway had acted as a contractor to the borough for over 20 years. This represented a large investment in infrastructure. The Barclays Infrastructure Fund (BIF) was also involved. Ringway was the operating company delivering the works. They were a London based organisation, currently the largest supplier of highways maintenance in the UK.

The objectives for Hounslow Highways were the transfer of the teams and taking on the responsibility for all streets in the network. There was secure investment as this was one of only five PFI schemes in the UK and the only one in London. This had been achieved from the strength of the business case and would involve investment in equipment and people, with an increased level of street care, grime-busting and community awareness. It was hoped that this would encourage greater ownership of the street scene for residents. The programme would look at the whole street environment. £250k in additional funding, comparable to S106 funding, was available for enhancement.

High levels of service were required, based on long term decisions and benefits. The programme was about improvement of conditions. For example, in respect of street lighting there would be 16,000 new lights. New technology would allow better information to the public and self service access to the Hounslow Highways website. Good communications were the key to success.

The programme offered the opportunity to improve the infrastructure and to stimulate economic development, attracting new businesses and residents. The aims were to improve the environment and increase public awareness, as well as improving maintenance. It was intended to work with customers in respect of communications and engagement with local communities so as to deliver proper materials designed to last.
Mr Gillespie confirmed that approximately 170 local staff would transfer to Hounslow Highways under TUPE arrangements. He then went on to set out what residents would see change from next year.

There would be new equipment to cover the 5 year investment to bring the infrastructure to acceptable standards and to maintain business as usual with extras for day to day maintenance. The objective was to improve on the service already operating in the borough and deliver service efficiently and equitably. Day to day maintenance would continue, although improvements had begun in street cleansing and on building awareness programmes. The service would be tested by lay assessors so there was a challenge to provide the right service. Tree care would continue with regular inspection and replacement where required and maintenance to agreed levels. Plans would be developed for sustainable planting and a new network for weed and vegetation control.

Greg Carstensen, Service Director, explained that Hounslow Highways would fulfil the obligations of the contract for approximately 300 measurements of performance. In respect of the investment, a programme of works was being developed. They would identify the worst to be done first and then continue throughout the borough. There was also the opportunity to consider the ‘Whole Street Environment’, working with the London Borough of Hounslow to identify schemes, for example, the enhancement of cycle schemes or crossings. The investment in street lighting would result in the use of LED white light bulbs, which were energy efficient and would see carbon reduction. Main bridges would be upgraded on transport routes.

The programme of works would not start one side of the borough and work across but would be spread evenly to minimise disruption. Hounslow Highways asked for the co- operation of the community whilst the works programme was undertaken. Mr Carstensen stressed that they were working with other colleagues, for example in Planning on potential S106 schemes and with Transport for London (TfL) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) funding to help deliver an improved environment. There was a lot of joined up working in partnership with the borough going forward.
Mr Carstensen explained that the solutions proposed were well tested and proven. The type of asphalt footways proposed to be put down was of a specific standard to last 25 years.

In Conservation Areas, paving and lampposts would be sensitive to the areas. There would be consultation with the community and compliance with street scene guidance. The key to success would be robust and open communications.

Information on the works programme could be searched via the web link. The programme would be publicised in borough communications and papers and people would be encouraged to call in. One of the measures imposed on Hounslow Highways by the borough was how they would deal and respond if an issue arose. Mr Carstensen stressed that the aim was to deliver better streets and that was what they were there to do.
Questions were invited.

The Chair asked how many people would oversee the contract. He stressed the importance of communications with members and of proper corporate governance to ensure that the contract was delivered as the borough wanted, avoiding, for example, the pitfalls experienced with previous contracts, such as CIP. He asked how performance would be measured and enforced.

Trevor Wallis explained that the Cabinet had approved a team of 10. This team would be monitoring approximately 300 performance standards, undertaking calculations of the value of the grant and contract analysis. The Head of Contract Management would have ongoing contract negotiations to layer on an additional programme of works, for example the work related to the Cycle Super Highway. There was a Network Board, including the Lead Cabinet Member and senior officers, who met with the company and would report to Cabinet and Borough Council if necessary.

Councillor Todd noted that he had been following the progress of the contract in his Scrutiny role. He understood that major transport routes belonging to Transport for London would not be part of this contract. He spoke of the specifications for some street laying over the last 7-9 years. As an example, he noted that the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham had first class pavements and roads, whereas Devonshire Road and British Grove had been surfaced with tarmac. Councillor Todd asked what street in Chiswick might be shown as an exemplar of what the PFI scheme would achieve.
Rob Gillespie replied that they could identify sites and report back. The Council had designated 10 traffic routes towards Heathrow to look at in more detail.

The Chair also asked for an example of a street. Chris Calvi-Freeman, Head of Transport, who was also attending the meeting stepped in to help and gave the example of the work done in Brentford recently to upgrade the A315. He suggested that members might look at the work at the junction of Ealing Road and Brentford High Street along the stretch of road near Macdonalds on one side and Heidelberg printing works on the other. This had been completed to a good general standard with materials other than asphalt. Paving had been used for a high profile road and this was an example of the standard for significant roads. Mr Calvi-Freeman also referred to Albany Parade in Brentford where attractive LED lights had been introduced.
Councillor Todd noted the comments but remained concerned that this was not an example of a road in Chiswick. Instead he suggested looking at Park Road which had been re-laid with cold tar, with a lifespan of 7 years. He asked Hounslow Highways if they could give members an undertaking that they would not use asphalt rather than paving stones.

Greg Carstensen explained that they could not give that undertaking. The contract set out that streets considered as high link would have a high specification and lower linking places would have a lower specification. Councillor Todd asked what members might say to residents in this respect and was advised that the specification would vary depending on the link and the place of the road.

Councillor Ellar, Cabinet Member for Environment, explained that most roads would have asphalt pavements and the main reason for this was that parking on the edge and over the footway split the paving stones, whereas asphalt would not break up in the same way.

Conservation Areas and high profile streets would continue to have paving stones. Councillor Ellar advised that the use of asphalt was advocated as it gave better safety. General roads and pavements would be asphalt. However, he recognised that in Conservation Areas a more sensitive approach would be taken with the retention of high quality paving stones.

Councillor Lee did not believe that people in Chiswick would be happy with this scheme as the majority of Chiswick consisted of Conservation Areas such as Bedford Park and other Victorian areas. Tarmac was not appropriate for the unique community of Chiswick. He noted that main streets would be paved but ultimately the tax payers were paying for the programme so that it was more important to have paving stones in residential areas in keeping with the local community and the character of the buildings. A one size fits all approach would be damaging to the traditional buildings and street scene in Chiswick, given that even if the areas were not a Conservation Area they were predominantly Victorian streets. Councillor Lee endorsed Councillor Todd’s comment that what was proposed was not suitable for Chiswick.

The Chair noted the feeling of the Area Forum that asphalt was not in keeping with the area and asked Hounslow Highways officers to comment.
Rob Gillespie explained that as a civil engineer Hounslow Highways had been asked to operate within engineering principles. Without going into detail about the way of construction, he explained that asphalt offered value for money long term and was a better proposition in respect of maintenance and addressing the issues of crossovers and parking. It also offered the opportunity, as roads were dug up and materials from them could be recycled, to provide 90,000 tons of recycled materials in the first five years.

Councillor Lee’s concern remained that asphalt was aesthetically ugly. The Chair suggested that aesthetic principles had not figured in the calculation, although this was what would concern many Chiswick residents. Tarmac and asphalt were not in keeping with the area.

Mr Carstensen advised that aesthetics were taken into account. This was not just an engineering solution but also about longevity and value for money. It was correct that the tax payer was paying for the work so it was important to ensure a value for money solution.

Councillor Hearn questioned whether the approach of worst first was the most cost effective method. He felt that it would be more cost effective to ‘blitz’ areas. Looking at his own ward, the programme would break off parts of a road so he felt that it would be more cost effective to do all together. However, Mr Carstensen assured him that it was most cost effective to do worst first.

Councillor Hearn accepted that Hounslow Highways would not change the way they delivered the works. He welcomed the money invested each year and believed that members would understand over time how this mechanism worked. He understood that there was a decision not to plant trees in Chiswick, with the money allotted being used to enhance the number of trees in other areas of the borough. Councillor Hearn noted that the additional allocation of £250k referred to would not go far. He asked whether this was for 25 years. He also hoped that the website would have more information about lay assessors and street champions.

With regard to the issue of tarmac, Councillor Hearn believed that there were places where its use was appropriate, for example in the vicinity of large trees which did not go together with paving stones. However, whilst there was a place for asphalt in some circumstances, Councillor Hearn asked about the issue of water run off in respect of its use. Paving had gaps in between for water run off but other arrangements for water storage had led to situations where heavy rains overwhelmed the sewers.

The Chair asked whether there would be issues of water run off with the type of tarmac to be used.
Rob Gillespie explained that the road and footway surfaces needed to be waterproof to avoid potholes, as water in the sub structure could create these. So the materials needed to be waterproof to ensure longevity. At the same time Hounslow Highways had targets to avoid standing water and there were penalties related to this. So there did also need to be adequate drainage.

In respect of the points Councillor Hearn had raised about timetabling, Greg Carstensen explained that they had developed a feasible programme and would not do small sections at a time. The programme also allowed for economic loss from disruption. So it was a value for money programme which took into account the cost of disruption.

Councillor Hearn advised that most members welcomed the programme but as elected representatives would like to develop a positive relationship with the Hounslow Highways teams as residents would come to their local councillors if there were problems. Mr Carstensen agreed that this was helpful and that Hounslow Highways would wish to support such a relationship going forward.

Councillor Todd sought clarification as to whether members had ever been shown slides of the PFI proposals with tarmac pavements. He also asked which other local authorities adopted this strategy. Trevor Wallis explained that a lot of asphalt was used already and that there were a lot of broken slabs so they looked to achieve a better mix. Link areas would still retain paving slabs. He had perhaps not made it as clear as it might be that there would not be asphalt used everywhere, although in some residential roads paving slabs would be replaced by asphalt.

Councillor Todd was unaware of other boroughs such as Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea using asphalt. Mr Wallis replied that there would be areas of asphalt but not in conspicuous areas, by which he meant main thoroughfares.

Councillor Lynch noted that Councillor Hearn had alluded to water run off. He referred to the Thames Landscape Strategy and concerns related to the river and in particular if increased water run off came into the river. He asked whether there were any calculations about the level of water run off.

Mr Carstensen explained that in respect of water run off they would be looking holistically at issues of water and detritus to ensure that the drainage system was allowed to work and would not silt up. Their response was to clean away the detritus so that gullies were cleaned and de-weeded to allow for better quality water flow.

However, the Chair pointed out that excess run off was taking sewage with it and damaging marine life in the river. Mr Carstensen responded that their works would not increase run off so there should not be a dramatic impact but if there were issues and problems arising from the Thames Water sewers then there would be a co-ordinated works programme and Hounslow Highways would work with them.

Councillor Ellar considered that the issue of water levels and run off was a valid concern. He suggested that officers should try to get data as to whether there would be increased run off and whether there would be an increase in water to the sub soil over 25 years and likely impact.

Councillor McGregor sought to explore the background to Vinci-Ringway as a company. He understood that Ringway was part of Vinci construction and that Vinci plc was based abroad as a holding company for a group in the UK. He was concerned that companies which formed part of the Vinci group had become insolvent and that there was also association with Barclays Capital, which had been fined for a recent incident considered as abuse. He asked what collateral there was to ensure that the company would not fail. He also asked the total cost to the tax payers of the borough.
Mr Gillespie and Mr Carstensen explained that the company reported to a different element of the Vinci group to the one to which Councillor McGregor referred. They also explained that although there was funding from Barclays Infrastructure Fund (BIF), this was not part of the division of Barclays involved in the recent incident.

Trevor Wallis advised that the total value of the contract was £800m. Councillor McGregor understood there to be a value of £23m per year over 25 years and asked what proportion of this would be Council Tax. He was advised that the funding would be around £13m per annum in Government grant from the central taxpayer with the remainder, broadly equivalent, from the local taxpayer. The interest rate was fixed at 2.825% and so not affected by LIBOR. This was maintainable by the funders and there was no reason to think that the companies would go bust.

The Chair asked what contingencies there were in the contract. Mr Wallis explained that there were termination provisions in the contract to cover all angles of potential failure.

Councillor McGregor remained unconvinced, believing that there were issues around the companies and a high degree of risk for the Council Tax support. He believed that the authority was put at huge risk in the contract and had strong doubts about the quality and capacity of the scheme to deliver.

Councillor Ellar believed that he was mistaken about the risk, noting that many other boroughs that had been unsuccessful in their bids would have been happy to accept the risk. It provided the borough with £13-14m per year that nobody else would get, establishing maintenance and running the services well over the next 25 years. Currently there was insufficient money for a good service, whereas with the additional funding services would improve. He did not see a risk to the funding, nor did he see the PFI model as a detriment to the service.

The Chair noted that there was a risk of a disjointed service if the contract failed part way through. This could result in no road repairs and the London Borough of Hounslow having to take back the service.

Councillor Ellar acknowledged that this was possible and recalled the example of the original Sita contract which proved so bad that the service had to be taken back in house and which then achieved much better output. However, such failure was extremely unlikely in these circumstances, given the Government funding, and in any event the borough would still have £9-10m for the service as currently.

Councillor Lee asked, given that the parent company was French, whether the crisis in the Euro zone was a factor to be considered and how this might affect funding and management of the scheme. In response, Trevor Wallis confirmed that all companies bidding were fully evaluated. There was no risk of the Euro zone position affecting the contracts as the main footprint was companies in the UK.

The Chair noted that there were different standards in the UK and France on materials and services used. He asked whether use of a product in one country of the European Union assumed that it could be used in another and suggested that there might be a potential conflict of interest arising from single market legislation. For example, there had been a recent example of a product which met French standards used in the NHS. He asked whether there might be any conflict of interest in the quality of materials used.

Rob Gillespie confirmed that materials used would comply with British standards and in Britain highways materials standards were higher and better raw materials were available. There had been a lot of research around the world on environmental aspects and so they would benefit from worldwide development.

Councillor Todd sought to clarify the details of the funding. He noted the mention of £800m total cost with the breakdown between Government and borough contributions and the mention of the fixed interest rate. However, he had understood at the Scrutiny panel that an inflationary rate based on RPI had been factored in.

Trevor Wallis explained that the half of the unit charge of £22m was related to services and was linked to the RPI index. The amount for debt servicing had a fixed interest rate of 2.825%. He acknowledged that there might be the need for intervention at the end of 25 years to ensure handover in prime condition. Overall the Government grant was around 50% so funding was broadly 50:50.

Councillor McGregor appreciated the enthusiasm for the project but warned that there was no ‘free lunch’. He remained sceptical and concerned about the quality of the oversight of the contract. There might be a fixed interest rate but Councillor McGregor was aware that for other PFI schemes in the NHS, when the main contract went wrong, all ancillary works stopped and these were then put to separate contracts. He referred specifically to the economic downturn in 2008/2009 and the difficulties of raising capital arising thereafter. Councillor Ellar, in response, noted that there was also Japanese and German capital in the funding package.

The Chair drew attention to the fact that the report was for noting. He then opened up the meeting for questions and comments from the members of the public present.

Ms Marie Rabouhans, representing the West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society, advised that she was especially interested in lighting and the whole street approach. She suggested that one size would not fit all. This did not just apply to Conservation Areas. Street lighting appropriate in the High Road would not be appropriate in residential areas. She also referred to street clutter and the need for joined up thinking in respect of street improvements. She referred specifically to hazards on pavements and asked what had been negotiated in respect of street clutter.

Mr Carstensen confirmed that signs which were not needed would be taken down and it was intended to de-clutter to improve the street scene.
Ms Anna Jackson, representing the Thornton and Mayfield Residents Association, welcomed the fact that the borough had been successful in the bid and securing the funding. However, she questioned the value of the glossy brochure produced which seemed to waste money as it only gave generalisations. She noted that all were in agreement about the delivery of a better service with improved appearance and cleanliness, but there was no detail given of what the street scene would look like before and after. She wished to be able to find out what affect the programme would have on her and her area with evidence of the differences from the situation now and in the future.

With regard to the information about footpaths, it was a concern if only significant roads were to have better paving. Not all streets in Chiswick were within a Conservation Area but they were Victorian streets with an aesthetic character to keep. Streets might currently be a patchwork of paving and asphalt, but there were examples in other boroughs of paving around trees.

Ms Jackson asked where she might see the detail of what was happening. She also asked what the new Town Centre plans were, referred to in the brochure.

Anna Jackson also asked about lighting and the reference to the particular lighting in Conservation Areas only. She commented that she would like to think that streets would have the opportunity to benefit from a design of lighting which would enhance the area. In respect of street cleansing she also felt that it was not enough to say that there were vigorous measurements. It was a matter of whether it worked on the ground.

However, in concluding, Ms Jackson stated that the programme sounded wonderful. It was positive to be offering a better service. She wished Hounslow Highways good luck and requested that they continued to keep talking to residents.

Councillor Ellar responded by pointing out that the contract had not yet begun but as it moved forward it would be possible to publicise before and after. There was a mixture of paving and asphalt but the intention was to end up with a uniform service, which he hoped could be kept within the character of the streets. He noted that there were problems with paving stones being replaced and broken again so the proposals sought to create a safer, cleaner environment. In respect of lighting, there was one design, a Dutch design, except where heritage lighting was wanted.

Turning to the point about Town Centre Plans, Councillor Ellar explained that these related to Brentford and Hounslow town centre where major development was proposed in addition to the contract. This did not apply to Chiswick where there was no major development plan.
The Chair agreed that it would have been useful to have examples in the brochure.

Mr Andy Murray spoke on behalf of the Grove Park Group. He asked whether the current plans worked with the London Borough of Hounslow Context and Character Study. There was a need to plant trees but Mr Murray asked whether Hounslow Highways were working with this study to take into account the character of local areas.

Rob Gillespie explained that part of the contract required Hounslow Highways to work with the borough on all aspects of development policy, so he confirmed that they would be working with the Context and Character Study.

Mr Richard Bateson, a local resident, sought clarification as to whether the trees referred to were street trees or within parks or cemeteries. Councillor Ellar explained that parks and cemeteries were a different area of responsibility and not part of this contract. The Chair suggested that as cemeteries were a different matter, any issue relating to them might be raised with ward councillors.

Mr Bateson noted that the Chiswick House Conservation Area was the fourth largest in the borough. He noted comments about paving stones and removing asphalt but asked whether in this area Hounslow Highways would be replacing paving stones with asphalt.

Councillor Ellar clarified that in all cases the whole lot would be replaced and Rob Gillespie confirmed that in a Conservation Area, asphalt would be replaced with paving stones.

On behalf of members, Councillor McGregor thanked all officers for their presentation. The Chair confirmed that members were asked to note the item. He asked that the Area Forum should be kept informed if there was any further information.

Resolved:
1. That the 2013 highways maintenance works programme for the Chiswick Area be noted.
2. Chiswick members had concerns that the standard to asphalt rather than paving a significant proportion of footways would not be appropriate for much of the street scene in Chiswick.
3. Members also raised concerns about drainage, water runoff and the potential impact on the river. It was agreed to explore whether it would be possible to get data on whether there would be an increase in water run off and, if there was an increase in water to the sub soil, what the impact might be over 25 years.


Entire Thread
TopicDate PostedPosted By
Chiswick Area Forum tomorrow, Town Hall, 7:30pm - make your views felt21/01/13 16:35:00 Andy Murray
   Re:Chiswick Area Forum tomorrow, Town Hall, 7:30pm/bump for all residents  - make your views felt22/01/13 14:36:00 Jennifer Selig
      Chiswick Area Forum TONIGHT - Town Hall, 7:30pm/bump for all residents  - make your views felt22/01/13 14:43:00 Andy Murray
         Re:Chiswick Area Forum TONIGHT - Town Hall, 7:30pm/bump for all residents  - make your views felt22/01/13 22:21:00 Tom Forde
            Re:Re:Chiswick Area Forum TONIGHT - Town Hall, 7:30pm/bump for all residents  - make your views felt23/01/13 00:29:00 Jennifer Selig

Forum Home