201211 Works in the Park

The page is dedicated to the second tranche of improvements for the park that come about thanks to a large successful bid for a National Lottery Open Space Fund by the Friends of Surrey Square Park and the charity GroundWork Southwark.

The works started in 2010 and after a hiatus of a year was possible to restart them in November. Some component have not yet been realised and there are some problems with the work that has been done, however a lot has been accomplished and mainly thanks to Frank and to a lesser extent some other members of FoSSP.

The main reason for the delay seem to have been that the works were the last part of the Open Space initiative that in the meantime was closed down. The result is that no one in the Council or National Lottery could come up with a way of squaring their account books. But after many meetings, cajoling and trying to be reasonable Frank managed the miracle and it was reached an agreement on how to move the money from an account to the other. In the meantime the original contractor that was waiting for the OK to proceed went bankrupt so all the bidding had to be done anew and another round of complex negotiating on who had to sign what.

Nightmare and sanctity and yes, if you wonder, Frank is a Saint: (Sanctus Francus) nobody else could have managed to pull the whole project through.

Below is a short diary of the phase two.

The plan for all the work to have been done in this phase two is attached.

At the end of November after the memorial Garden was thinned out as planned we had agreed with the contractor to have the log moved into the WilLife Area. On the day none of us could be there for various personal reasons but the next day not only we noticed that there was some garden dumping in the WildLife Area, in Albridge Street but also there was not trace of the logs.

So with Julian we looked a bit around and found them in the grove next to the entrance of the kickabout.

The poor workmen were not been told that the Surrey Square Park extended down to Albridge Street and thought that the grove was the nearest thing to a wild patch so damped the load there!!

Rather than calling the troopers (all the bureaucracy - but actually we informed the park management of the tipping problem) we decided to move the lot ourselves.

The WildLife Area always need some extra log in the loggery so we were happy to have something to add that otherwise would have been thrown away!

All well that ends well!!

Climbing-Tree

Sanchia the Consultant Landscape Architect with Groundwork London (she is the one that did organise the work and hire and supervise the various contractors) told the Friends of Surrey Square Park that on the 20th of December that:

We had a safety inspector do a report for us a couple of weeks ago, and she picked up a some issues that need to be dealt with, involving the tall climbing tree logs (the ones with blue handholds).

1. Firstly, she says that the branch limb 'remnant' at the bottom of one log poses a risk of avoidable injury from falling. (ie it sticks out too far at the bottom compared to the top of the log) She recommends this is removed and the contractor have said they will do that as part of the snagging.

2. She also notes that there is not sufficient area of safety surfacing around these climbing trees to meet relevant play safety standards in (BS EN 1176) for the height of them. We don't have a choice and this really needs to be done.

I've asked the contractor to provide a quote and they've come back with cost [a lot] to install more mats.

I worked quite hard to make sure we had enough in the budget to cover all the items asked for by the Friends group, but this means we may have to sacrifice money set aside for one of the interpretation signs for the wildlife area. I trust you agree that safety here is a priority, and that you're both happy for us to put money towards this.

3. In the meantime I think this piece of kit might need to be isolated or marked (eg with some chevron tape and a sign) over the holiday and until the contractor can get to this.

thanks

Julian (he is after all the Secretary of FoSSP) promptly visited the scene and reported:

I have just now visited the park and taken a look at the climbing trees. I am alarmed to report that there are some serious issues with the blue hand-holds - I counted two missing already, and many others coming loose.

I am not a play equipment specialist, but as a carpenter I can say that the method of fixing the handholds appears to be totally inadequate for the rigours of outdoor use in a public space, and I have to say that I am very surprised that they were passed by a RoSPA inspector.

The problem lies not with the bolts, but with the inserts used, which are totally inadequate for this type of use - in fact this type of fitting is commonly used in the furniture industry for attaching legs to the underside of bed divans. Essentially a t-pronged insert that is hammered into a pre-drilled hole, and in the case of a bed, relies on weight to force the fitting deeper into the frame and keep it secure. This type of fitting was never designed for this type of use - the force applied is pulling the inserts out, rather than pressing them in.

Sunchia reply was prompt but her main concern was that no accident would occur so that a fence was place around the equipment. Note that in all this the important signs to put on the Wild LIfe Area have been once again derailed. No one know if and when would be provided. They were more important of many of the other part of the project and have been postponed from the first phase to the second to the ...

Fencing off - I'm trying to get hold of someone at the contractor right now so that we can arrange to fence off the climbing logs as soon as possible.

Handholds - Gwk and the RoSPA inspector were aware of the issue of the fixings coming loose and this had been raised with the contractor to resolve. I wasn't aware that they didn't have suitable fixings for the purpose and I'll look into that - I did specify fixings for outdoor use and for attaching to vertical surfaces so they should have used fixings as supplied or recommended by the handhold supplier.

Climbing trees - I would advise that we don't remove one of the trees according to Franks suggestion - this is likely to cost even more than resolving the matting alone.

I'll be in touch to confirm about the fencing.

Julian couldn't but reply with something practical:

I have looked up the fixing instructions recommended by the manufacturer of the hand-holds, Customholds - see link below:

http://www.customholds.com/how_to.htm

Recommended use of t-nut fixing

Essentially this is a fixing designed for ply panels

The page describes the recommended use of the t-nut, as a method of attaching a "Customhold" to an 18mm ply panel, which requires access to the back of the panel, ie before the panel is affixed to the wall of a building.

The procedure is to drill a suitable sized hole for the sleeve of the t-nut, and then insert the t-nut into the hole, from the back of the panel. The securing bolt is passed through the face of the panel, through the hole and into the internal-threaded insert of the t-nut at the back. Thus, as the bolt is tightened, the bolt and the insert are drawn together, with the ply panel sandwiched in between. (the prongs of the t-nut are designed to stop rotation of the fitting, not as a means of attachment).

The manner in which the t-nuts have been used on the climbing logs does not accord with the manufacturer's instructions. When bolt and t-nut are both inserted from the face, the only thing stopping the insert pulling out will be the friction of the prongs (8mm long) embedded in the wood and the friction of the sleeve (11mm long) in the pre-drilled hole. So if this method is used, it cannot provide a reliable and safe fixing.

Sunchia (the Consultant Landscape Architect for the project) again replied to further correspondence in early February from Julian:

Hi Julian,

Thanks for your email. We're aware of all the remaining items you listed. Since our last email discussion around mid-December, I've been working with Southwark and Loughmans to resolve the them.

• • Climbing trees - Loughmans have ordered additional matting and will be on site shortly to install that, remove a protruding limb on the lower part of one log as recommended by RoSPA, and reattaching the handholds with more appropriate fittings

March 18 2013

From the irrepressible Julian to the Consultant Landscape Architect for the project:

'Climbing Trees' - handholds

Whilst on site, Daniel and I had a look at the climbing trees - I have to say I am still very concerned about the safety and durability of the handholds on this installation - sorry to bang on about this - I wish I could report good news - but I feel it important to raise this issue before everything is signed off.

Several handholds are already cracked, and the equipment is not yet in use - see pictures:

In my opinion (and I'm not an expert) there will be problems with these handholds due to poor surface contact between the small, flat, surface area of the handhold base and the curved surface of the tree trunks - many handholds are making poor contact - see picture:

If handholds start breaking "in service" we will have exposed bolts and fixing screws to contend with. I'm sorry - I don't have a solution - of course it's my opinion and I could be completely wrong. If the handholds, with recent modifications (new fixings) have been passed as safe by the RoSPA inspector then I guess we will have to abide by that decision.

3 April from Julian to Suncha:

I have taken another look at the climbing trees today:

all cracked/broken handholds appear to have been replaced.

Out of a total of some 75-80 handholds? it appears that only 2 handholds have had work done to the tree trunks to create a flat base (there are still gaps visible behind many handholds).

One of the handholds that was broken (picture 100_3230, that I sent to you previously) has been replaced with a new handhold, but the locking screw to prevent it rotating has been missed out and the handle is still making poor contact with the tree trunk surface, despite this being a flat saw cut where one of the original branches was removed - pictures attached.

It gives me no pleasure to report the above - I am keen that some sort of resolution with the climbing trees is reached, that they can be signed off and the heras fencing can come down in time for us to stage our community event on 20 April.I think this has to be the last email from me regarding the climbing trees - I've said enough, so I will await the RoSPA Inspector's report.

-----------------------------------------------------

Suncha (the Consultant Landscape Architect for the project) reply the 4th of April

I've followed it up with the contractor already and we're trying to come up with a solution - he feels the logs are unsuitable surfaces and they've done everything they can. But we've had contractors install them without hassle on other projects. I feel this is poor workmanship and by doing it badly every time they're making a rod for their own back. So now it becomes a matter of professional opinion and is hard to evidence.

I'm trying to get the main contracts manager to meet with me on site to see for himself. And I'm also trying to contact the handholds supplier, send them some photo's and ask their opinion. And I have some ideas we can consider as a last resort, but I hope we can sort out something else first.

-------------------------------------------------------

In April I ad other members of FoSSP have seen workers at various times fiddling with the climbing trees. But due to many other commitment the issue is left until the 17th of April 2013 Julian ask Suncha:

Are the handholds finished now?

Has the RoSPA inspector done another inspection and passed this equipment as safe?

When can we expect the Heras fencing to come down?

------------------------------------------------------------

18 April 2013 Suncha (the Consultant Landscape Architect for the project) replies :

. ..the repairs are complete as agreed, and they can have someone remove the heras fencing if the work is to Southwark's satisfaction. If this is something you'd like to organise before the launch event, please can you have someone check the equipment as soon as possible in the morning, and confirm with me?

If we can't arrange this for Friday, do we have an alternative way to remove/store the panels, if we're allowed to? Especially if the Friends want the equipment to be open for play on Saturday.

------------------------------------------------------------

Also Hemali (from the park admin) replies to a query from Sunchia the 19 of April:

I have had the following response from our Repairs and Maintenance Manager:

The Climbing Trees were checked this morning and one of the hand holds were a little loose. The hand hold was tightened by one of our Small Works Team. The equipment has now been passed as safe to open to the public.

Please arrange to get the fencing removed from site

----------------------------------------------------------------

So the 20th, the Spring Day Celebration I had a look to myself. The fence had been removed and I climbed the tree myself. The various workmen have at different stages, tried to flatten and eventually embed the handles to the tree originally curved surface.The result is generally satisfactory, maybe with few handles still not completely flat. They feel solid but I have reservation on the response to changes in the wood volume and temperature in the long run.

The children on the day however seemed to have liked the tree well enough.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In June the installation was still open to the public but still there is some concern. At least a couple of handles are not properly secured and more worryingly the plastic matting seems already breaking up. The causes are unclear but it looks like they do not take too well wear-&-tear!