Traffic Officers
Introduction
28.11.2021 This page is only partly complete. There may be other emails not yet found and some of what is below may be more suitable to be shown elsewhere or even deleted. Attachments referred to are not shown but most can be made available and may be added here at sometime in the future. This page is intended to contain correspondence with the Traffic officers. In practice there is some crossover with the officers and depts covered in the other two sub pages.
Because this site is open to viewing by anyone, some of the names have been anonymised for obvious reasons. Anyone wanting more detail may be able to obtain it my contacting njhnw5@gmail.com
6.4.11 David Jenkins to Peter Cuming and NJH
14.4.11 Peter Cuming to David Jenkins
20.4.2011 Peter Cuming to David Jenkins
17.5.2011 David Jenkins to Peter Cuming
30.5.2011 NJH to David Jenkins
2.6.2011 David Jenkins to 7 Cllrs and 7 officers below
5.6.2011 NJH to David Jenkins with many ccs and bccs shown
10.6.2011 NJH to David Jenkins
10.6.2011 David Jenkins to NJH
10.6.2011 NJH to David Jenkins
16.6.2011 NJH to David Jenkins cc Matt Sanders, Peter Cuming
20.6.2011 NJH to David Jenkins cc Peter Cuming, Matthew Sanders
22.6.2011 NJH to David Jenkins and Elliott Della cc Peter Cuming, Matt Sanders
Dave Jenkins and Elliott Della
4.7.2011 NJH to David Jenkins cc Peter Cuming, Matt Sanders
2.4.12 Fatima Fernandes On Behalf Of Sam Monck to David Jenkins cc Loureda, George
4.4.2012 David Jenkins to NJH cc Sam Monck, George Loureda Martin Reading
15.4.2012 NJH to Sam Monck cc2 bcc many
8.6.2012 Julia Obrien to NJH and Sam Monck
9.6.12 From Fatima Fernandes, On Behalf Of Sam Monck to Julia O'brien
10.6.2012 NJH to Sam Monck cc Peter Cuming, Matt Sanders
13.6.2012 David Jenkins to Julia O’Brien cc George Loureda, Sam Monck
14.6.2012 David Jenkins to NJH
20.6.2012 NJH to David Jenkins
20.6.2012 David Jenkins to NJH
26.6.2012 NJH to All Councillors
28.6.2012 David jenkins to NJH
29.6.2012 NJH to David Jenkins cc Sam Monck
9.7.12 NJH to Mike Cooke, Sarah Hayward.
17.7.2012 David Jenkins to NJH
29.7.2012 David Jenkins to NJH
4.9.2012 NJH to Sam Monck cc Cllrs
23.9.2012 Matt Sanders to Sam Monck
28.9.2012 David Jenkins to Cllrs cc officers
29.9.2012 NJH to Sam Monck cc Cllrs
1.10.2012 Cllr Matt Sanders to David Jenkins
4.10.12 Paul Braithwaite to David Jenkins, Cllrs, officers
5.10.2012 David Jenkins to Cllr Paul Braithwaite
c 8.10.12 David Jenkins to Cllr Matt Sanders
8.10.2012 Matt Sanders to NJH, Peter Cuming fwding 5.10.2012 from David Jenkins
12.10.2012 David Jenkins to Matt Sanders
13.10.2012 Matt Sanders to David Jenkins
19.10.2012 Matt Sanders to Sam Monck and David Jenkins
19.10.2012 David Jenkins to Matt Sanders, Paul Braithwaite, David Tullis and more?
19.10.2012 Matt Sanders to David Jenkins
2.11.2012 David Jenkins to Cllr Paul Braithwaite
13.11.2012 David Jenkins to Paul Braithwaite
13.11.2012 David Jenkins to Cllr Paul Braithwaite
16.11.2012 David Jenkins to Paul Braithwaite
25.11.12 NJH to Cllrs cc officers.
30.11.2012 Cllr Paul Braithwaite to David Jenkins and 21 Cllrs and about 19 officers
30.11.2012 David Jenkins to Cllrs and officers.
7.12.2012 David Jenkins to Cllr Paul Braithwaite and many Cllrs and officers
11.4.2013 NJH to Yusel Arikan, E Della
10.5.2013 NJH to David Jenkins cc Matt Sanders, Paul Braithwaite, Peter Cuming.
17.5.2013 David Jenkins to NJH cc Matt Sanders, Paul Braithwaite, Peter Cuming
3.9.2013 NJH to Matt Sanders and other Cllrs,
12.9.13 David Jenkins to NJH Charles Thuaire, Jennifer Lunn
11.10.2013 NJH to David Jenkins
6.4.2011 DAVID JENKINS TO PETER CUMING AND NJH
I write to advise you that the developer has now made all the payments required under the S106 and met all of the pre-conditions in the S106 that require us to make the Stopping Up Orders. The orders will be advertised tomorrow in the Camden New Journal, the Hampstead and Highgate Express and the London Gazette, which will mark the end of the stopping up process. Advertising the Orders brings them into effect, so Dalby Street will no longer be public highway from tomorrow.
The developer is planning to start Stage 2 of construction (building the replacement access road) in a few months time. We are currently working with them to complete the detailed design of both the new access road and the measures on Prince of Wales Road , which will then be safety audited.
The exact programme is yet to be determined and will depend on the progress of diverting the existing utility infrastructure under Dalby Street to the line of the new road. The developer has already appointed McNicholas to undertake the diversions on behalf of all the utilities involved, which will minimise any disruption.
Although Dalby Street will no longer be public Highway, it will remain open and accessible to the public for access to the sports centre. Under the S106 agreement, the developer will not be able to occupy it to start construction on the new building until the new access road is complete and ready for use.
If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards
David Jenkins BEng (hons)
14.4.2011 PETER CUMING TO DAVID JENKINS
Dear Dave
Thank you for yours of 6th April and for the offer to answer any questions. I have the following at this time but think it likely there may be one or two more when I have finished consulting with others.
1. It was said in correspondence that stopping up would take place after the completion of Stage 2 (although the developer had an option to fulfil the conditions early). Could you confirm that the developer has paid the £1.1m Deposit in cash along with the £43,000 and £2,400 re Security Marshalling? And is the cash deposit refundable if Findon decides not to proceed beyond a certain point?
2. How will Camden prevent existing Dalby St from being used for Findon construction traffic while it is the vehicular route to the Sports Centre i.e. between now and the end of Stage 2? You may have noticed the Sports Centre is undergoing construction work at the moment.
3. Loading Bay space for 50+ seat coaches is required per the Temporary Access Plan and is part of access arrangements included in the Inspector’s evaluation of the scheme’s workability. Could you confirm that a bay of that size is part of the PoW “Improvements”?
4. Parking for disabled; I understood some two years ago that attempts were being made to ensure that parking for disabled was not compromised by the new development but I don’t recall ever hearing what the upshot was. Could you enlighten me? The Sports Centre hosted a day for the disabled on 19th March, I hope not the last.
5. I have been giving a lot of thought to the situation at the Prince of Wales Road junction after construction. It was interesting to read in one of the FOI responses that the auditors didn’t receive a copy of the November 2006 survey which the developer used in his proof of evidence. From observation of traffic flows especially from mid afternoon onwards and both along Dalby Street and Prince of Wales Road it seems that there will be enormous pressure at that point unless a way is found to suppress demand at the Sports Centre and that would be contrary to the need to protect public amenity, referred to as the “Paramount Objective” in the s106. Certainly the situation would be alleviated if there were a second marshal at the PoW Road end as required from the start of Stage 3 to the end of construction (but see my next question). While it is clear that Camden has power in the monitoring provisions to require a second marshal (and whatever else is needed to prevent the Sports Centre from being in a worse position after than before), I cannot work out whether this is something that Camden can insist on from day one i.e. from the end of construction. Whatever the solution it is imperative that the construction of the development should not lead to irreversible damage to existing levels of public amenity.
6. Clauses 26 of the TAP and 9 of the Traffic Marshalling Brief, which govern the marshalling regime during Stages 3 and 4 include “One marshal to be situated circa 20 metres to the north of Prince of Wales Road (i.e. just beyond the point at which the carriageway width reduces to less than 5.0 metres). A second marshal to be situated at the north western corner of the development site. The two marshals will remain in sight of each other throughout”. How is this to be achieved – a building redesign or nifty technology perhaps?
7. Where will marshals fixed facilities be and the CCTV located? Although that has been said to be the responsibility of the developer, I am not aware of there being any available space within the area he owns or that it would be able to acquire. Outdoor monitoring cameras and TV screens in a neighbourhood like Haverstock would need their own special protection outside marshalling hours.
8. What space is available and when might it be accessible for vehicles delivering and collecting Sports Centre users (especially minors who have to be escorted to and from the person taking responsible for them inside)? The documents provided to the public inquiry were not consistent in that Camden said one thing, Findon another. One version was that there is only one space and that is only available for minibuses during the afternoon. The other version that the one space is available for cars as well as minibuses and perhaps for all day. The Permanent Access Plan which like the other Plans originates from the Developer’s consultants actually says “8. That access to the public parking provisions ... as well as the general pick up/drop off provisions provided for cars, mini buses and medium sized service vehicles, shall also be provided from this section of the new Permanent Access Way [by implication the slim area between the right angled turn and the turning circle]”
9. The four access plans which were part of the supplemental s106 when it was signed were all prepared in July 2008 and in at least one case were not changed to be consistent with the main body of the agreement i.e. the TAP only came into effect following stopping up. Since stopping up has now occurred, that becomes irrelevant but I was wondering if there were any changes to the appendices since signature. Scrutiny of the planning site under 2005/4187/P and 2008/3688/P show no changes in documents since signature so can I assume they remain unchanged?
10. The situation with regard to bollards (telescopic or otherwise) at the turning circle was not finalized when I last looked at this. I find it difficult to imagine there is any solution that would stand the test of time if as at one time envisaged there are several retractable bollards around the turning circle which have to be collectively lowered every time there is a medium or large sized vehicle. I think I am right in saying that the full solution to this was expected to come later and should therefore be devised and be available now for inspection on plan?
Thank you for offering to help with the answering of these initially few questions.
Have an enjoyable Easter.
Regards
Peter Cuming
20.4.2011 PETER CUMING TO DAVID JENKINS
Dear Dave,
You may recall a Mr Giles Dolphin of the GLA writing on 4 December 2008 to Alex Djan in letter copied to us both made many claims about Dalby Street. Among the less plausible claims was one relating to the envisaged pattern of refuse collection by Messrs Veolia. Para 2.11 on Page 17 identified an arrangement whereby the reversing dustcart would need to travel no further than the existing area of the Sports Centre dustbins. I am puzzled as to how refuse will be collected from the west side of the building where the Medical Centre and the segregated bin stores of the 54 flats (erroneously described as 55) will be found. You may like to note that a protective handrail at the NW corner of the proposed building affects traffic adversely on the mini roundabout. Our fine corps of local dustman resolutely refuse to manhandle large bins. Is there an unrevealed plan to deal with the refuse collection challenge and how are the multiplicity of collections that have been introduced since 2008, to be handled?
Many thanks
Peter Cuming
PS This is an issue that relates to Access.
17.5.2011 DAVID JENKINS TO PETER CUMING
Subject: RE: Dalby Street Questions
Peter,
Thank you for your further questions. Please find my answers to them below. I apologise for the delay in responding.
I can confirm the developer has paid: the Cash Deposit (£1,153,388.28); the Security Marshalling Costs (£45,087); the Security Marshalling Management Contribution (£2,516.48) and; the Additional Security (£104,853.48). The developer would be entitled to have any remainder of the cash deposit returned after 50 years from the occupation date. Under the terms of the S106, if the developer decided not to proceed with the development, the Council could require that Dalby Street be re-dedicated as public highway five years after the implementation date. As part of the negotiation for that agreement, we could possibly negotiate returning any unused contributions.
Under the S106 (temporary access plan) the developer is required to keep Dalby Street in a safe and useable condition for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic until the end of Stage 2 of construction. However, under the S106 their maintenance of Dalby Street needs to be to the Council’s satisfaction, and if access is not maintained the Council can require the developer to cease all works until the access issue is resolved. If there were to be problems that could not be resolved the Council would have the ultimate sanction of seeking an injunction to stop the works and enforce the terms of the S106.
The loading bay on Prince of Wales Road forms part of the improvement works and would be available to small coaches for drop-off and pick-up of passengers.
It was agreed that the three blue-badge parking bays, which are intended for use by visitors to the sports centre and doctors’ surgery, would be time-limited. This would prevent them being occupied by residents of the flats or their visitors, who should be provided spaces within the underground car park. The detail needs to be agreed and the access plans updated accordingly.
The sports centre management will be in discussion with the developer regarding the construction programme in order that information can be passed on to the sports centre’s customers. The developer will provide marshals both during and after construction to manage traffic flow, particularly to address the busy after-school peak. I cannot pre-empt the result of the discussions regarding managing access during construction, but I imagine at the very least all but the most essential drivers will be discouraged from trying to use the access road during that time.
The purpose of the Temporary Access Plan is to ensure access to the sports centre is managed effectively for visitors to it. If the precise mechanism of how the marshals operate and where they stand is required to be slightly different from the wording in the TAP in order to make it effective, then we would agree this change with the developer.
I have asked the developer about this and this detail is still being designed. I regret I cannot provide an answer to this at this time.
There will be a small servicing lay-by provided next to the turning circle outside the sport centre entrance, as indicated on the General Arrangement drawing in the S106/access plans. This would provide limited waiting for smaller delivery vehicles and mini-buses. If a visitor needed to park and escort someone one into the sports centre, rather than simply to drop-off or pick up, they would have to use a parking space. This could be either the disabled parking spaces within the site (for blue-badge holders) or in the pay-and-display parking that will be provided in Talacre Road .
There have been no changes to the four access plans since signing of the S106.
I have asked the developer about this and this detail is still being designed. I regret I cannot provide an answer to this at this time, although it will be included in the design drawings.
Kind regards
David Jenkins
30.5.2011 NJH TO DAVID JENKINS
Dave
I am sorry not to have acknowledged yours re the stopping up of early April. I did however contribute to Peter’s list of questions and he has passed on your replies. In view of the presence of a digger on site over the last two weeks, in apparent conflict with the Temporary Access Plan, we would be grateful if you could respond as soon as possible without necessarily waiting until you are able to reply to all of them.
With regard to your replies – using the same numbering:
2. Site entrance up to the end of Stage 2. Our question was how Camden would enforce the prohibition of the use of existing Dalby Street for construction traffic. We expected the reply to be that, for example, there would be no available entrance in Dalby Street. As it is, the Dalby Street entrances have been used for the developer’s investigation work and it is now apparent that he has gone beyond investigation and has begun some actual Stage 2 work. Could you therefore advise us what the situation is? The TAP and Traffic Marshals Brief are clearly being flouted if Stage 2 work has started. Our understanding was that no Stage 2 work would be capable of starting until the PoW changes (including the build out for the new road) and detailed design would be required before that work would commence. As it is, parties of children or individual children are passing back and forward. Gates are seen to be unattended and there is certainly no one on duty with a responsibility to ensure the road is safe at all times. The Traffic Marshals Brief clause 7 includes “During Stages 1 and 2 to ensure no construction traffic enters the site via Dalby St”.
Your replies to 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 indicates that the significant work that is taking place at present is in advance of the developer’s obligation to provide satisfactory information. These are all questions that have been known for at least two years and therefore Camden must be in a position to require him to cease until they are satisfactorily answered. They are not minor matters of detail. In the case of #7 (Marshals fixed facilities) it may not be answerable. The further along the developer is allowed to go without responding satisfactorily, the weaker the position of the council.
4. Parking for disabled. The situation you describe in no different from what it was in early 2009. If the terms of the s106 were such that Camden had no obligation but to permit him to require stopping up if he fulfilled the conditions, then surely Camden should have required him to immediately stop work as they are allowed to under the s106 in such circumstances?
The change to create some pay and display bays in Talacre Road is not consistent with the resolution of the Executive (Environment) Sub-Group who you will recall required additional residents bays to be found to replace those no longer available as a result of the changes to the access road. Although the parking zone may be different, the concern that Mike Green expressed on this topic at the Environment sub-group would be just as valid. Does that not mean that it should be revisited by the Executive (Environment) sub-group?
6. Marshals in view of each other per TAP. Surely this should have been addressed ages ago (as with 4 above). The only way for marshals to stay in view of each other would be to have one at the north east corner (though he might find it rather perilous).
7. Marshals’ fixed facilities. This question was being asked in 2008. As with 4 and 6 above, the developer appears to have created a fait accompli by starting without providing a solution. As there is no available space, there appears to us to be no solution. If there is no solution, then he should not be permitted to proceed.
9. Latest Access Plans. I note that the developer is proceeding in the absence of up to date access plans. This is similar to 4, 6 and 7 above
10 Bollards at turning circle. As for 4, 6, 7 and 9 above. I am sure you are aware that telescopic bollards are very prone to breakdown. One failing bollard would mean either the banning of larger vehicles until repaired or the safety of pedestrians being compromised. That question needs addressing but most appropriately when the developer’s proposals are known
With regard to the other five items:
1 Fulfilment of conditions precedent to stopping up. Thanks, understood
3. Loading Bay Space. Our question was not about use of the bay but its size. Both the TAP and SMP refer to it as being suitable for large 50+ seater coaches. That is what the signed agreement says and what was presented to the inspector. Your reference to small coaches conflicts. Could you let us know how there will be compliance with the signed s106
5. Situation at PoW Road junction after construction. Our question was only about the situation after construction (hence the underlining which may not have come through) i.e. when the TAP no longer applies. While it applies, there are two marshals on the access road to the Sports Centre. According to the s106 after occupation of the flats, there is then to be only one and he is at the Sports Centre end. There is however, as has frequently been stated, the ability of Camden to unilaterally require more and in particular one at the PoW road junction end. When the TAP ends, that junction is going to be very sensitive. It will have at some times of the day as much as an average of two movements across it a minute if the earlier survey is to be believed. There is a bollard at a point where, if a long vehicle stopped or more than one vehicle stopped, the PoW Road pavement would be blocked and pedestrians potentially forced to squeeze past to walk on the road. In addition, the entrance to the flats will receive vehicular traffic stopping and collecting. Further from the bridge, vehicles delivering and collecting those Sports Centre users who are able to visit the Sports Centre unescorted. The impact of the new bays you told us about in Talacre Road will not be substantial per se. It must take a parent a good half hour from arrival to departure given the distance to be walked and the need for arrivals to include an amount of contingency time. Thus the need for a marshal at the PoW junction end seems overwhelming. So our question remains – will Camden insist upon the second marshal from the start?
8. Minors being escorted in and out. I welcome it being stated so clearly. It is not in fact what the Inspector was told by the developer. I understand that about 1000 people a week, mainly or all children go to gymnastics classes or similar and a large number are of an age when they have to be escorted. I would like to know if any assessment has been done as to the reduction in income to the Sports Centre as a result of the likely reduction in patronage resulting from there being nowhere to wait nearer than Talacre Road?
Regards
Nick
Nick Harding
2.6.2011 DAVID JENKINS TO 7 CLLRS AND 7 OFFICERS BELOW
To: Vincent, Sue (Councillor); Birch, Sean (Councillor); Siddiq, Tulip (Councillor); Ali, Nasim (Councillor); Sanders, Matthew (Councillor); Fraser, Jill (Councillor); Bokth, Rahel (Councillor)
Cc: Monck, Sam; Loureda, George; Dean, Fiona; Watson, Ed; Stopard, Rachel; Bond, Louise; Robinson, Nigel
Subject: Dalby Street update
Dear Councillors,
As you will no doubt be aware, Findon Homes (with their main contractor Sheldon Construction) has been preparing to start its scheme at Dalby Street and there has been some recent activity at the site. This is brief update to keep you informed about what has been happening.
The developer is still in Stage 1 of their construction programme and has been on site for the last week or so. They have been completing site clearance activities, following the demolition of the house at 52 Prince of Wales Road some time ago. Some of these activities have not been carried out in a satisfactory manner and have caused concern to both officers and local residents. This included parking their tipper lorry in Dalby Street , half on the footway and half on the carriageway, and then loading it with spoil via a JCB digger inside the hoarding. This was brought to our attention yesterday afternoon and we instructed the developer to cease immediately, which he did. Regrettably, the same practice was observed again early this morning and the developer was stopped again, by mid-morning. I am assured now this will not happen again and in future all construction vehicles will enter the site if they are required.
The matter been discussed with the HSE, who will not be taking action at this stage. However, the developer is in no doubt that they must comply with health and safety legislation and the requirements of the S106 agreement. They are also well aware that their every move is being scrutinised.
McNicholas are also currently working on Prince of Wales Road at the Dalby Street junction, using temporary traffic signals. McNicholas have been employed by Findon Homes to undertake service diversion works for the development. All the existing services to the sports centre (water, gas, electricity, sewer, etc) run under Dalby Street and need to be relocated to the line of the new access road. Having one contractor deal with all the services should ensure that the work is undertaken with far less disruption than if each utility company were to carry out individual works. The current work is trial hole excavation to ascertain exactly where all the services lie and should be complete tomorrow.
We have instructed Findon to not re-commence until McNicholas’ works are complete, to avoid clashes and unnecessary congestion.
Findon will be completing their site clearance next week and will also be replacing all the hoarding around the site, which is getting old. They will be sending a method statement for approval before they start, but it is probable they will need to temporarily occupy the eastern footway in Dalby Street while they do. This would be acceptable as it would not unduly impede access to the sports centre and would only be for a short duration.
We have had more meetings with Findon to progress the detailed design for the new access road, which will be needed before the Road Safety Audit can be carried out and they can start on Stage 2 of their construction (building the new road). We do not have a date agreed for the start of those works yet, but it is expected later this summer.
I will send out further notes in the future to keep you updated, but please do not hesitate to contact me if other issues arise or if you have any queries.
Kind regards
David Jenkins BEng (hons)
5.6.2011 NJH TO DAVID JENKINS WITH MANY CCS AND BCCS SHOWN
Dalby St. Developer must stop work now
To David Jenkins Copy Elliott Della, Sanders, Matthew (Councillor), Peter Cuming, Jenny Headlam-Wells, Jill Fraser, Nash Ali, Paul Braithwaite, Rahel Bokth, Sue Vincent, Tulip Siddiq Blind copy Andrew Sandford Smith, nightingales, Dominic Tinley, Ed McGuinness, Esther Harbison, Ian Cottam, Jack Rathouse, Janet Guthrie, Jean Hart, Jessica Harding, John Lipetz, Kate Orr, Keith Bilton, Lorraine Revah, Liz West, Lucy Newham, marc.hutchinson@slaughterandmay.com, Marshall Levine, Michael Lee, Rebecca Hossack, Laura Craik, Robert Sutherland Smith, sallygimson@victimsupport.org.uk, William Nawrocki, Yasmin Allen, Conal Stewart, Frank Dobson
Dave (or Elliott)
I refer to your email of 2.6.11 to Councillors which was copied to me by Cllr Matt Sanders. You may have seen my response to him sent first thing on Friday.
The current work must be stopped NOW. It is patently not Stage 1. The attention given in the last few days has been to safety which has been the priority. Hence what is obvious on the ground has been missed - that what Findon has been doing in the last two weeks is not site clearance, but Stage 2 work. By allowing it to continue for even an hour is to accept that the s106 agreement is meaningless.
I have now produced an album of photos and one telling video clip called Talacre Scrutiny which is here.
It demonstrates unequivocally that Stage 2 work for which the developer is not permitted to use Dalby St has been carried out for a good two weeks.
When you wrote to Peter and me informing us of the imminent stopping up on 7.4.11 and inviting questions, our first question to you was how Camden was intending to enforce the obligation that Dalby St was not used for construction access.
I note you were in contact with the HSE. Do you not think that they should be provided with these pictures. Otherwise a contractor who flouts safety can do so in the knowledge that all he will get is a slap on wrist and there is no deterrent.
Regards
Nick
Nick Harding
9.6.2011 NJH TO DAVID JENKINS
Dear Dave
Peter Cuming has just informed me that he walked past Dalby Street this morning and there were several trucks delivering hard core to the site (obviously using Dalby St).
Nick
10.6.2011 NJH TO DAVID JENKINS
Dave
These two pictures were taken by someone passing this morning. His informed view was that they were preparing to pour concrete. But in any event, it is certainly Stage 2 work.
I can also supply pictures and video clip of work being carried out yesterday
Nick
10.6.2011 DAVID JENKINS TO NJH
Nick, the work in the pictures is preparation of new hoarding, to make the site more safe and secure.
Regards
Dave
10.6.2011 NJH TO DAVID JENKINS
Dave
I prepared a reply apologising as there was an obvious case for new hoardings which would need footings. However, in passing twice today, it was apparent that using the justification for being on site of building the hoardings, they have continued with Stage 2. I rather think they used investigation work on services similarly earlier.
I witnessed and pictured a lorry arriving at 3 pm today loaded with gravel (I think). Here is a link to some of the pictures and video clips taken today and yesterday [16.1.2022 Clips etc not readily available low]. I am one of over five people who are regularly monitoring the site – a situation you may recall that was sold by the developer’s QC at the public inquiry as something positive. However, she must have assumed that we could rely upon prompt enforcement action. I have many more pictures (more than necessary but I am only just mastering the technology) – including on this link where serious safety breaches are exposed.
The delay in putting up new hoardings delays the time when I assume the Dalby St entrances will no longer exist, at least for vehicles. As you know we have asked you twice about enforcement of the requirement not to use Dalby St for construction purposes.
One of our observers noticed that the staff car park is no longer used by staff but we don’t know the reason. Closing it is to the detriment of the Sports Centre. If it is closed on safety grounds, then the Sports Centre itself would be even more requiring to close. As I understand it, it is partly within Camden’s ownership even after the land sale.
Regards
Nick
16.6.2011 ? TO NJH
Subject: today at Talacre
Dear Nick
They've been driving diagonally across the pavement along Prince of Wales Rd at the south end of the Talacre site to gain entrance. From the muddy tracks, I'd say these are vans or trucks. They're also cutting four square holes in pavement slabs along the road opposite their new gates at this end of site. Vehicles would still be able to enter the site diagonally, as they've been doing, if posts are planted in these holes. Three workmen's cars using parking places in Dalby St a few minutes ago.
16.6.2011 NJH TO DAVID JENKINS CC MATT SANDERS, PETER CUMING
Dave
Surely what is described here is unacceptable. I realise that the work going on is removing/relocating the cycle stands, possibly dropping the kerb etc. However, driving diagonally along the pavement and into the new gate must be another example of disregard for Health and Safety.
I had another report that earlier today a truck and a low loader were seen by the bridge but I haven't personally got more detail.
Nick
20.6.2011 NJH TO DAVID JENKINS CC PETER CUMING, MATTHEW SANDERS
Dave
Reports today, backed up if you want by pictures, are of the Dalby St gate being ajar with barriers blocking off the whole of the eastern pavement for several metres. There is certainly one man on site, not observed as doing anything when our people looked this morning and at 3pm this afternoon. It looks as if he is waiting for something to arrive using Dalby Street to enter.
Nick
22.6.2011 NJH TO DAVID JENKINS AND ELLIOTT DELLA CC PETER CUMING, MATT SANDERS
DAVE JENKINS AND ELLIOTT DELLA
Here are the pictures and clips [16.1.2022 Clips etc not readily available now].
Taken about 2pm. I witnessed one truck leaving and saw gate being closed and gravel swept up.
I then rang Dave Jenkins and spoke to Elliot Della.
While speaking I witnessed another truck arrive and took pictures and filmed while talking (and after).
I asked if he or I should report this to the HSE. He said he would talk to Dave Jenkins. Elliott Della also said that he had been at the site earlier and nothing like this was hapenning then.
Nick Harding
4.7.2011 NJH TO DAVID JENKINS CC PETER CUMING, MATT SANDERS
Dave
I see that it is five weeks since mine below of 30 May and wonder if you are in a position to reply.
Regards
Nick
2.4.2012 NJH TO SaM monck
Subject: Dalby Street, Talacre - Traffic Issues
Dear Sam
I tried ringing you several times and left messages to no avail so will now write. My reason for contacting you in particular, is that the issues on Dalby St all involve traffic and are being dealt with by a traffic engineer. They therefore would seem to come within your area of responsibility?
The following is my note of a telephone conversation with Dave Jenkins last week:
Telecon 28.3.12 NJH/DJ
I rang Dave Jenkins 28.3.12 and said that when I spoke to him nearly six weeks earlier on 17.2.12, he promised to check on the width of New Dalby Street since we had measured it from the drawings as being about 4.5m and not the 4.8m we had been told. We had heard nothing since.
He said that the relevant drawing is the one in the Road Safety Audit which we have. He had measured it and found that certainly at one point, the road was 4.6m and varied from there.
He said that he had written to the developers transport consultant, Savell, Bird and Axon and had not received a reply. He sounded unconcerned about the fact that no reply had been forthcoming but didn’t disagree when I said that the developer might have an interest in not replying. He also said that as long as the road was more than 4m wide vehicles would be able to pass one another.
He thought that the reason Savell Bird and Axon were not responding was that Peter Canapero had left them. (On reflection, I am not sure there wasn’t a suggestion that they were no longer in contact with the developer which, of course, is what happened with the architect who was removed and not paid)
He agreed that the public enquiry was entirely based upon the width being a minimum of 4.8m
I also asked about the width of the island on Prince of Wales Road. He seemed to have heard that that had been raised (presumably by Jill Fraser) and he was going to have a look at it. He couldn’t remember what had been decided so I told him ie that, following the ESG meeting in 2007, a meeting took place when it was clearly decided that it be 2.7m (it has been built 2.2m wide). He confirmed that that was entirely Camden’s responsibility.
I believe there are serious matters of concern both with regard to safety and to legitimacy. They are addressed in more detail on this document which is an update of an earlier one.
There seems a danger that these issues will be avoided due to the number of areas of responsibility. My understanding of the approval process is roughly this:
History and Approvals
1. There have been THREE decisions made. (1) to sell Dalby Street and the adjacent Travellers Site (2) to grant planning permission for 56 flats etc and (3) to agree access plans to ensure safety and the Sports Centre is not disadvantaged.
2. Although (1) and (2) were flawed, what we are talking about now is (3). This is important. It is not like other developments where the issue is about planning approval. The existence of planning approval is only relevant to the extent that it is subject to acceptable access arrangements.
3. Those access arrangements have always been stated to be within the control of Council Officers ie not within the defined Development Control rules. The four day public enquiry in January 2008 was solely about access. No planning officer was there due to advice given by Camden’s QC that to have one would not be appropriate. The access plans were written by the developer, accepted by Camden and considered by the inspector who said they could work but if they didn’t, there was a mechanism for Camden to change them.
It was very obvious to anyone with any commercial understanding, that what the Developer said was possible eg to have a full time marshal at the Sports Centre and to manage the entry of vehicles at the Prince of Wales Road end would be totally unfeasible. There had to be a certainty that Camden would not enforce these obligations. That is what is happening.
Regards
Nick
2.4.2012 FATIMA FERNANDES ON BEHALF OF SAM MONCK TO DAVID JENKINS CC LOUREDA, GEORGE
Subject: FW: Dalby Street, Talacre - Traffic Issues
Hi David & George
David, I know you are the sole contact for correspondence from Nick Harding.
Please can I leave this with you for action?
Thanks
Fatima Fernandes
Executive Assistant (Environment & Transport)
4.4.2012 DAVID JENKINS TO NJH CC SAM MONCK, GEORGE LOUREDA MARTIN READING
Dear Mr Harding
Thank you for your email to Sam Monck, which has been forwarded to me to respond to.
I won’t go into the issues arising from your interpretation of our conversation last week, although I will say I don’t fully agree with your account of it. However, I can confirm that we now have updated drawings from the developer confirming that the road will be built at a minimum of 4.8m wide.
I have also reviewed the zebra crossing refuge island provision. I agree that the refuge has been built at different dimensions to those agreed with you previously. It was built at 4.0m wide by 2.2m deep, leaving 4.2m traffic lanes on either side. It was previously agreed that it would be built at 4.0m wide by 2.7m deep, leaving 4.0m traffic lanes on either side. However, I should note that the overall road width was 100mm less than shown on the drawing and so the island could only have been built at 2.6m deep.
This was a setting-out error and I apologise. However, the space within the island is well above minimum requirements, But I regret that to re-build the island to widen it by 200mm on either side would not justify the extra disruption and cost that would result. The square-metre area of the island provided is larger than the previous island, which was 2.7m wide by 3.0m deep, and the space is still more usable by groups of people than previously. For example, more parents with pushchairs (perhaps with children standing alongside) would be able to stand side-by-side than previously and, at 2.2m, the island is sufficiently deep to provide refuge to parents standing with pushchairs in front.
The 4.2m traffic lanes also make the facility safer for cyclists, as there is more room for a vehicle to pass a cyclist at the island.
I have provided a reply to your zebra crossing query because this is a new issue, but you have also generated a significant amount of correspondence recently, primarily on four issues:
· the access road width
· the marshalling hours
· Camden’s rights under the S106 to impose improvements to the access plans, and
· the access road width-restriction bollard.
Answers have been provided to all these issues, which, to reiterate, are:
· the access road will be built to a minimum of 4.8m side
· the marshalling hours have not been varied from those set out in the S106
· there is no intention to lessen Camden’s rights under the S106 with regard to the access plans, and
· the width restriction bollard was removed in accordance with the review process made provision for in the S106.
With respect, therefore, I will expect not to receive further correspondence on these issues.
Yours sincerely
David Jenkins
Project Delivery Team Leader - Implementation and Maintenance Team
15.4.2012 NJH TO SAM MONCK CC2 BCC MANY
Dear Sam
Re Mr Jenkins’ email of 4th April, thanks to your people for progressing this.
The next day (5th) an ad hoc site visit was made and a draft report is copied below but first, to summarise
1. Removal of Width restriction bollard.
The drawings, public enquiry, s106 are all based on the requirement that New Dalby St would be a minimum of 4.8m wide and there would be a width restriction bollard 14m from the junction with Prince of Wales Road. At that width, restricting and managing the arrival of vehicles over 2m wide, as required by the s106, is vital for safety reasons.
We noticed in mid February 2012 that the drawings showed less than 4.8m. Mr Jenkins then requested clarification from the developer. After several weeks, the developer submitted new drawings as a result of which Mr Jenkins’ email informed us “we now have updated drawings from the developer confirming that the road will be built at a minimum of 4.8m wide”. Since the site is readily accessible and the width of the road is mainly determined by two immovable limits, we were able to establish that the road would have to be less than 4.8m – probably by a substantial amount. This risks the development being completed, sub standard, and retrospective acceptance being obtained by default. At 4.8m, we have shown that it is manifestly dangerous to remove the width restriction bollard (and therefore management of entry). At less that 4.8m it gets more and more dangerous.
2. Marshalling Hours
Although Mr Jenkins says the hours have not been varied, this does not get over the fact that recent emails have said that they could be reviewed following completion of the development. If that were to happen, it would mean a reduction in safety and amenity, referred to earlier. It must be made clear to the developer now that no such reduction could be possible so that he is aware of the long term financial consequences – mainly in service charges.
3. Right to Impose Marshalling
Mr Jenkins states that there is no intention to lessen Camden’s rights under the S106 with regard to the access plans. However, two versions of revised Service Management Plans each reduced the signed text and it was only due to our scrutiny that this is an issue. The latest text of the SMP seen by us remain deficient.
4. Island on Prince of Wales Road Zebra crossing
This issue has come up recently as the island was only recently moved. It is referred to in the 2nd to 5th paras of Mr Jenkins’ email. The issue is Width (or Depth in Mr Jenkins’ email). Until recently it was 3m. In the consultation, 2.7m. In the report to the Executive (Environment) Sub-Group, 2.4m. Agreed at 2.7m at meeting required by ESG resolution. Built in error at 2.2m. I am hoping this is being followed up by Clllr Jill Fraser so that it doesn’t distract from the long term issues in the other 3 items.
All this is against the backdrop of planning permission that was given for a development which had adequate access (pavements on either side of road, no marshals etc). When the sale of Camden land (the road and Travellers site) had been agreed, the developers found that Wilkin St Mews was not available for part of the access. They then came up with the current scheme claiming it was workable. Surely Camden should be being especially vigilant with that background?
Since three of the above four issues concern instances where errors have been identified by us, I believe Mr Jenkins’ last para is less than gracious.
This link provides a lot more detail and data eg on vehicle widths, traffic, road safety audits.
Regards
Nick
Nick Harding, 1 St Ann's Gardens. London NW5 4ER. 020 7485 9397 0780 180 2344
www.savetalacre.co.uk. www.talacrefacts.org.uk
Draft report of site visit to New Dalby St 5.4.12
On 5th April 2012, on account of the New Dalby Street fence not being secured, it was possible to visit the site. We were anxious in particular to verify the recent statement that the new road (“New Dalby St”) would be “to a minimum of 4.8m wide” since that was inconsistent with previous information. The geography of the site is such that there is no opportunity to increase the width of the road as the edge of Wilkin St Mews, owned by Network Rail, is on one side and the reinforced concrete wall (now built) is on the other.
Pictures taken and referred to below can be viewed here
During the visit 3 major issues became apparent.
The major section of the emerging new road, said to be 4.8m wide, was measured. It is apparent that the adjacent Network Rail black metal fence flanking the private Wilkin Street Mews is a reference point from which dimensions can be measured. Photo 3 shows that distance to be 5.15m. However, New Dalby Street will lose some of its existing width for 3 reasons:-
1. The future road will need two 0.25m kerbs = 0.5m in total as shown in the drawings we have seen. That reduces it to 4.65m
2. The developer's existing substantial concrete wall with “starter bars" will need more than a veneer of supplementary cladding over the surprisingly thin (1") concrete cover over the bars - nothing less than 100mm added cover would seem a likely satisfactory finish. (Photos 4 & 5)
3. The developer's intermittent undermining by about 0.8m of the Network Rail boundary area gives rise to a need for significant remedial retaining works capable of supporting heavy traffic calling at the adjacent brewery and other premises- a loss of 0.35m of width at least (Photos 6 & 7)
The cumulative effect of the above will be a running surface of 4.2m width for a 2 way movement of traffic. Furthermore reference to the Section 106 Agreement identifies the likely need for traffic signalling equipment which when positioned on the narrow portion of New Dalby Street could reduce the useable running surface to as little as 3.8m.
Evidence of finished levels for duct and manhole covers suggest that works to underpin the boundary fence are unavoidable. Additionally the creation of minimal strength single brick thick cable 'boxes' close to the neighbouring metal fence indicates the task of stabilising the' boundary condition' will be challenging and space consuming.
The acceptance of a nominally 4.8m wide New Dalby Street when hitherto Camden's standard for a private Access was 6.0m (See SPG) is likely to be fraught when passing vehicles are halted by congestion or an accident as the occupants of immobile vehicles will be incapable of opening their doors to escape. In such circumstances the issues of Duty of Care for the Sports Centre users and the question of who will provide Insurance cover in the event of an accident on a private road where no emergency escape must mean disclosure to all involved of the precise situation.
It was noted that the Network Rail fence is far from robust and is unsuitable for withstanding vehicle impacts. In the new circumstances where levels of Wilkin Street Mews and New Dalby Street have ended up some 0.8m apart a reconsideration of the H&S aspects of the current situation seems unavoidable.
17.5.2012 NJH TO SAM MONCK
Dear Sam
I refer to my email of 15th April and not having received a reply within what I understand is the target time of 28 working days (?), I thought I would write again.
If you are unable to respond, can I ask you to ring or write to inform me of the reason – otherwise I simply don’t know where I am! My email did not come within the FoI legislation where, as you may be aware, my right to formal FoI responses was blocked by my being defined as “vexatious” under FOI legislation. Since then I have corresponded with Dave Jenkins though with somewhat limited success. For example, he wrote to the Chair of Talacre Town Green (Peter Cuming) and me over a year ago inviting questions which we submitted but which were not all answered – see particularly mine to Mr Jenkins of 30.5.11.
Mr Jenkins later sent a revised though unsigned Service Management Plan. My comments included that it contained an important error regarding the Monitoring provisions. He agreed and sent another version which only partially corrected that error. He agreed that it was still wrong but I have heard nothing on it since. The identified error could be of great importance since it affects Camden’s rights (for all time) to reduce the damage to the interests of the Sports Centre due to the changed access arrangements.
Mine to you of 15 April mainly concerned the width of the new road. Our evidence is that its minimum width (post completion) will be less that the 4.8m required by the s106 and reported by Mr Jenkins as being shown in very recently submitted drawings. If the width is below 4.8m, then Camden must surely act now to prevent a breach of the agreed access plan on a matter of such fundamental importance. Even at 4.8m there needs to be active management of the junction at Prince of Wales Road including a retractable bollard to restrict wider vehicles, as required in the s106.
The impact of a width of less than 4.8m is demonstrated by the Temporary Access Plan in the s106. During construction, it describes the minimum width from when the next Stage (3) lasts to completion as being 4.6m and describes how traffic would be controlled by two marshals operating what is effectively a one way system. That must be in recognition that at 4.6m, vehicles cannot pass one another. The complete s106 is the third attachment at the bottom of this website page and the Temporary Access Plan starts at the 31st of the 86 pages. The most relevant clauses are 20, 22, 25 and 26.
Hoping to hear from you, regards
Nick
24.5.2012 SAM MONCK TO NJH
Dear Nick,
Thanks for your email, although I do have some concerns about the repetition of issues that have already been raised and responded to.
Although I note that your classification as vexatious arose from FoI requests this was within a context of repetitious requests to officers more generally, and I would be very keen to avoid a reprise of this. My understanding is that repetitious requests for information would be treated as the same whether involving formal FoI or not.
David Jenkins’ email direct to you of 4th April (which I attach for reference) addresses the issues which you are raising again. I honestly don’t think that raising these repeatedly as if you either had no response or that the response was misleading has any merit for anyone involved, and is certainly not in the public interest. Having had to take severe resource reductions out of the Engineering Service, we are less able than ever to deal with circular requests which have already been dealt with, in the context of everything else that we are trying to do across the borough. I do not doubt your strong held opinions on this particular development, but in taking up officer time to repeat information you already have it is the wider programme that is impacted.
To clarify the issues you have raised again and to draw a line under them, I would reiterate and update what has been said in previous correspondence on them.
Road width
We received updated drawings that confirmed that the access road would be built to a minimum of 4.8m wide. The kerbs have now been installed and the road has been measured. It has been built no narrower than 4.8m wide.
Marshalling Hours
There is no intention at this stage to make changes to agreed operating hours of the marshals. The road safety audit made a recommendation that a marshal be present on site to ensure smooth operation of the access road during the busiest times and suggested 2pm-7pm would be appropriate. The SMP allows for a marshal to be present for the full opening times of the sports centre and there is no intention to change it. However, it would be unreasonable to say that this provision should not be reviewed once operational and indeed the intention in the S106 was that it should be reviewed periodically. This does not mean that the marshalling provision would necessarily be reduced as the result of a review.
S106 Monitoring provision
There is no intention to remove or alter these provisions within the S106.
I am, as you know, aware of all of the positive work that you and I have done together in the past, and your contribution to Camden’s traffic improvements in past years. However, I do not believe that this is the case here. I would ask that you now accept these matters as closed.
As ever, if any new issues arise that we should be aware of please address them to David Jenkins in the first instance. He will be able to investigate them and take action as appropriate.
Sam Monck
Assistant Director, Environment & Transport
30.5.12 NJH TO SAM MONCK
RE: Dalby Street, Talacre - Traffic Issues
Dear Sam
Thank you for yours of 24.5.12. I am replying in some detail even though I realise that I cannot assume, from what you say, that I shall receive a reply. I can only hope that you will read this and where appropriate take action on it as it addresses issues that need immediate attention including those of safety.
I note that Camden does not regard it as necessary to respond to questions it has previously answered and on the face of it, that sounds reasonable. I wouldn’t in principle repeat a question in those circumstances. However, there are many instances where a question has simply not been answered or where the answer is clearly wrong. Some instances are illustrated here.
I note your request that I always contact Mr Jenkins on any matters. However, we no longer have any confidence in his interest in doing anything other than pushing this scheme forward whatever the consequences. Those consequences are so serious that officers above and advising him must be made aware so that they cannot wash their hands of responsibility if this project is built and it is shown to have involved compromises on safety and on the long term interests of the public due to failing to enforce the terms of the various permissions/legal agreements. Observers ask time and again how it is that approval has been obtained for what is happening and one has to reply that, unsatisfactory as those approvals are, the Council, even now, is adjusting them so that they are less onerous to the developer.
The following are some of the more important issues. As you will see, many are still unresolved. In many cases, I hope you will appreciate that my intervention has led to improvements or prevention of mistakes which has been to the benefit of Camden.
· Marshals during Construction phase. Stage 2 (the current stage which started in April 2011) of construction requires there to be two marshals (CRB cleared) on duty from an hour before the Sports Centre opens to an hour after it closes. Soon after this Stage started, following concerns about the behaviour of the contractors, the developer (Findon Urban Lofts who are also owners of Sheldon the contractor) invited Councillors to a presentation at which a written description was provided (copy available) of how they were intending to carry out their activities. It went into greater detail concerning the marshals during the construction stages. Stage 2 has now lasted over a year and no marshal has ever been seen on Dalby St (evidence available). Hence, there are no grounds for the developer to be trusted to fulfil s106 obligations or the Council (represented by Dave Jenkins), to enforce them.
· Use of Dalby St for construction traffic. This is forbidden under the s106 agreement during Stage 2. The duties of the two marshals include “to ensure that no construction traffic enters the site via Dalby St”. At the time this stage started, we were asked if we had any questions about the project and we asked how Camden intended to enforce this – expecting the gates on Dalby St to be required to be locked and for all construction traffic to enter from Prince of Wales Road. We received no response. In the first few months Dalby St was used almost continuously and at considerable danger to the public. After many complaints, including reporting the situation to the HSE, that stopped and the entrance on Prince of Wales Road was used. However, for many months now, that entrance has been closed for construction vehicles and they have again been using the northern gate on Dalby St. Hence, there are no grounds for the developer to be trusted to fulfil s106 obligations or the Council (represented by Mr Jenkins), to enforce them.
· Traffic Island on Prince of Wales Road zebra crossing. The island on this very busy zebra crossing was always 3m wide. Due to the need for changes to the lay-out of Prince of Wales Road, the zebra had to be moved. A consultation was held using the usual procedures for these changes on Prince of Wales Road and they included for the width of this island to be reduced to 2.7m. When it came up for approval at the Executive (Environment) Sub-Group meeting on 27.3.2007, Mr Jenkins had changed it to being 2.3m wide following an informal request by the CCC. I discovered this at the last moment, attended the sub-group meeting and it was minuted that there would be a subsequent discussion involving Camden, CCC and myself to resolve the issue. That meeting was held and it was agreed for the island to be 2.7m wide. That was recorded on all subsequent drawings issued, included in the signed s106 agreement where it says “Central island on zebra crossing 2.7m wide and 3.2m long”. The Drawing Title box says “Highway Improvement Measures Amended after public consultation”. When, a few months ago, the work on moving the zebra was complete, I noticed that its width was only 2.2m. I wrote to Mr Jenkins who wrote back that this was a “setting out” error and that it would not be corrected as it would cause too much disruption and expense. Thus we can have no confidence that the democratic procedures are carried out or that safety will be regarded as important.
· Monitoring. Mr Jenkins sent us a draft revised Service Management Plan (SMP) which is one of the appendices to the s106 agreement. The SMP contains a section on the monitoring of marshalling and similar requirements. During the 9 months before the signing of the s106 on 30.9.08, this section and related clauses about the “Paramount Objective” were considerably tightened up to the benefit of the Council. This was due to our drawing attention to its original weaknesses and to the many reasons why the owners of the land would need to be called upon to pay for the consequences of capital or operating changes over the years. The revised text which we understood had been submitted to the developer to be signed, was substantially reduced. We drew Mr Jenkins attention to this discrepancy and he agreed that he had made a mistake. He then sent a further draft SMP which contained some though not all of the omitted text. We again pointed this out and were told that, again, an error had been made and that there was no intention to change the text from that which is in the signed document. No further draft revised SMP has been received. Given that the cost in future years of having a watered down Monitoring section could run into very substantial sums, this continued failure to ensure Camden’s interests are protected by its officer causes us to have little faith in the system and obliges us to be persistent.
· Width of new road. Most of these issues result from the claim made by the developer that, in spite of the loss of space which resulted from Network Rail not allowing Wilkin St Mews to provide access to the Sports Centre, adequate access could still be provided. Drawings showing the width of most of the new road were not always clear but the s106 stated that it would be a minimum of 4.8m wide. The drawing provided for the Stage 2 Road Safety Audit carried out in 2011 when measured, showed the carriageway to be less and referred to a minimum 250mm clearance on each side ie between the face of the new kerbs and the fence and building. You have just informed me that the road width is now 4.8m and it is apparent that that has been achieved by reducing the size of the kerbs. Each kerb is now 125 mm (5”) wide. Thus the space for wing mirrors, pedestrians, opening doors in emergency (when vehicles are stuck when they meet in the narrow 50m stretch) is less than envisaged with the consequent increase in danger.
Bearing in mind that minibuses, ambulances, vans and 4 X 4s are at least 2.2m wide excluding mirrors (see #2 here), then it can be seen that the s106 where it calls for entry of vehicles of over 2m to be controlled, is essential. However, in the revised Permanent Access Plan sent to us, that control (a retractable bollard) has been removed. This was a critical part of the public enquiry which was intended to establish whether or not access to the Sports Centre could be managed. The affect of not having this restriction would be to cause conflict when wider vehicles meet in the 50m area where the road is narrow. Another effect is for there to be less apparent involvement of marshals. Mr Jenkins has explained to us that, if it were found that it became necessary to reinstate the width restriction, then the s106 allows for it and it would be reinstated. This is a point which we will articulate when writing, as we intend to, to estate agents drawing their attention to the onerous provisions of the approvals which fall upon the owners of the land which means, essentially, being added into the service charges of the 36 private flats. However, starting without any such control will not be safe and the Council may find it harder to change the arrangements in spite of having a unilateral right to do so.
The sensitivity of width along the new road is illustrated by the s106 Temporary Access Plan (TAP) requirements starting from the next Stage (3) and continuing until the development is completed. It states that the road width will be circa 4.6m (due to protective hoarding on the building side). For there to be a marshal 20m from Prince of Wales Road, in sight of (sic) a marshal at the north west corner of the development site (ie near the turning circle). These marshals are required give priority to vehicles arriving from Prince of Wales Road in order to ensure that at no time vehicles queue back onto Prince of Wales Road. Thus, when 4.6m, the road is seen to need to function as a one-way road.
· Duty Times of Marshals. The Stage 2 Road Safety Audit carried out in 2011 on the new access routes (no Stage 1 audit was ever carried out on them), contained a recommendation that there be marshals on duty for a very limited amount of time – weekday afternoons 2 – 7pm only. We are also aware that there was a cabinet paper in which it was stated that it had not been the intention for the hours of marshalling to be those which are shown in the Service Management Plan (SMP) in the s106 agreement. The SMP was one of the primary documents submitted to the public enquiry which was to look into the feasibility of the access plans. That cabinet paper as far as we know, has never been disclosed to the public. The SMP requires marshals to carry out duties which would require at least one to be present for the period stated in the SMP ie one hour before opening and an hour after closing the Sports Centre. I feel that we have ample cause for concern that there is a hidden agenda to reduce the hours of the marshals and hence I have been drawing attention to the subject. I will describe some of the implication under “affordable flats and marshalling costs”.
· Road Safety Audits (RSAs). The RSAs that have been carried out have been totally inadequate and it is important that this is known not just to a highway engineer who is tasked with delivering the scheme but to those to whom he is responsible. The Stage 1 RSA was carried out on Prince of Wales Road only and no documents on traffic or on Dalby St were provided. The RSA on the new access roads can be seen to be totally deficient in addressing safety matters and in independence. Should there be a major accident on the new road or on Prince of Wales Road near the junction, Camden would be shown to have failed in its duty of care. One illustration of the inadequacy of the Stage 2 RSA is the recommendation that marshals were not required at weekends. These are perhaps the busiest times as they include the famously popular gym classes and birthday parties.
· Disabled Parking Facilities. Over three years ago, I drew Mr Jenkins’ attention to the fact that the three dedicated disabled bays which are required to be part of the new access, could potentially be unavailable to Sports Centre users as owners of flats, medical centre employees and users etc with blue badges could use them. This had not been realised and I was duly thanked for raising it. I was informed that there was to be a meeting with the developer to discuss this with a view to limiting the time any vehicle could be parked there. Several months later, I submitted an FoI request for the result of the meeting only to be told that the request could not be replied to as I was “vexatious”. Drawings show the planning approval to put the three disabled bays in a totally different place to the drawings describing access. The Stage 2 RSA (supplied with the latter drawing), reported that there was only space for two such bays. We have seen no response to that finding.
· Facilities for Marshals. I and others have asked time and again where the facilities needed for marshals to fulfil their duties will be found. There is nowhere shown in the planning approval and all space outside the building is fully taken up with the road, turning circle, disabled parking bays and the small layby for deliveries up to 2pm and minibuses thereafter. Reference was made by Councillor Sue Vincent to concern on this at the Council meeting in 2011 but nothing further has been heard. This is surely a justified matter for concern? If there are no facilities, then the marshals cannot carry out their duties and the public is justified in the suspicion that Camden has no intention of enforcing the marshalling obligations which are essential to the safety and other interests of the Sports Centre users. The marshals duties are described in this link #6.
· Affordable flats and marshalling costs. At the public enquiry in January 2008, the developer submitted schedules to justify his ability to pay for the marshalling costs, assuming £1.1m cash security was provided. These showed the cost assuming one marshal on duty as shown in the SMP being at that time £82,768 pa. When I found that the developer was assuming that these costs would be paid for by the affordable flats as well as the private flats, I drew it to the attention of the Housing department who thanked me for alerting them. The executive sub-group meeting was postponed and eventually, a letter was received saying that the marshalling costs would not be charged to the affordable flats. I have frequently pointed out that developers do not have a market for flats with exorbitant service charges and will therefore only build if they are convinced that those charges will be reasonable. At £82,768 pa for one marshal, the average cost of marshalling to be added to the service charge for the private flats is £2,299 pa. As the charge is based upon area, the 3 bedroom flats pay more, one bedroom flats pay less which means that the 3 bedroom flats pay 1.7 times the average ie £3,908 pa. That is before the costs of concierge etc, likely to be at least £2,000 pa. In our view, a second marshal is essential at the Prince of Wales Road which would mean another £3,908 pa. Discussions with estate agents lead us to believe that a three bedroom flat would be virtually unsellable if service charges were over, say, £3,000 pa. I believe these figures are essential to be understood in the context of the developer’s attempts to reduce his obligations. One way I am able to publicise this is by using the www.Savetalacre.co.uk website which receives an average of six hits a day. I have just put an entry covering some of these topics into the Latest News section here. It has to make references to the Council and, if any of your colleagues feel I have said anything inaccurate, I would be happy to review its contents.
Your reference to costs. Attention to the above will save money. The ongoing damage to the interests of the Sports Centre in amenity and income make the costs incurred by correcting errors and reducing dangers insignificant. The risks such as the railway arch being hit with the north London line being suspended, of major injury and even death both on Prince of Wales Road and New Dalby St are incalculable. Any enquiry after the event would regard the Road Safety Audits which have been carried out as totally inadequate. Likewise, the loss of revenue to the Sports Centre due to its inaccessibility will be massive – not just Treetops and those coming to classes but the lucrative childrens’ parties. Some of those dangers and losses can be reduced by enforcing the s106 agreement and other aspects of the planning process that have been agreed. Both the strengthening of that agreement and scrutinising its enforcement has come from the attention given to it by ourselves.
Conclusions
I hope that you will agree, from the above that:
· -There are critical issues still to be addressed in the interests of safety and of fulfilling the legal agreements
· -That responsibility for looking after the interests of the community needs to be taken by someone with a broader outlook than has so far been shown
· - That my contributions have not been “vexatious” in the usual meaning of the word but rather have been helpful
As mentioned earlier, we intend to continue campaigning. This is likely to involve contacting Cabinet members, other Councillors, members of the public though emails and letter boxes and the press, We shall be pointing out where the approvals (planning, access plans, sale of land) are not being enforced. Due to the fact that enforcing the agreements would involve private owners of flats having service charges of several times what any buyer, estate agents or lender would regard as viable, we shall also continue to contact local and national agents and other involved in advising buyers.
Regards
Nick
Nick Harding
8.6.2012 JULIA OBRIEN TO NJH AND SAM MONCK
Subject: Dalby Street
To Nick Harding and Sam Monck
Further to my recent email, I am letting you know that the contractors have building vehicles in Dalby Street at times. For example, recently I saw 3 at the same time while passing in the morning. I have some pictures on my phone if you want me to prove this.
I am worried that nobody at Camden cares about the problems with this development, Talacre Sports Centre, Talacre Park and road safety. This really does seem to be a situation where employees get their pay and go home without a thought to this on-going problem and elected officials have forgotten all about it.
I would like an acknowledgment from you, Mr Monck or I will have my impression that nobody cares reinforced.
Julia O'Brien
9.6.12 FROM FATIMA FERNANDES, ON BEHALF OF SAM MONCK TO JULIA O'BRIEN
Dear Ms O’Brien
Thank you for your email.
I am sorry that you are worried and reassure you that our officers are dealing with the various issues that are raised with us regarding this site.
I have asked David Jenkins from our Implementation and Maintenance team to respond to the points that you have raised below.
Thank you
Sam Monck
Assistant Director, Environment & Transport
10.6.2012 NJH TO SAM MONCK CC PETER CUMING, MATT SANDERS
Subject: Dalby Street, Talacre - Traffic Issues Recent
Dear Sam
Further to mine of 30 May, by chance I was passing Dalby St on Friday 8th June and filmed these short clips: [16.1.2022 Clips etc not readily available now].
1. Approaching Sports Centre from Prince of Wales Road. Construction traffic using (old) Dalby St as also pedestrians who were diverted into park half way up. This also shows the narrow lay by, said to be capable of taking 50 seater busses and reported by Road Safety Auditors as causing a hazard due to obscured sightline for vehicles exiting New Dalby St.
2. Marshals stopping vehicle entering (old) Dalby St with resulting danger at junction etc. (On Sunday 10th, when traffic had been switched to the partly competed New Dalby St, the marshals were similarly conversing with drivers in Prince of Wales Road at the New Dalby St junction).
3. Pedestrian diversion under Prince of Wales Road bridge. PoW road traffic was running in both directions at its usual rate and speed and thus within inches of pedestrians including children walking in single file through the bridge with only a plastic barrier. The clip may not adequately demonstrate the danger apparent to anyone actually walking along this stretch as I was.
It was the first day that I have come across marshals – I recorded when visiting Dalby St on Saturday 2.6.12 and on many earlier occasions that there were none (in case it was claimed otherwise).
Shortly after mine of 30th, the Chair of Friends of Talacre Town Green received an updated version of the Service Management Plan. It included the Monitoring clauses correctly (third time lucky).
The removal of the physical width restriction remains in. That restriction does not appear to exist even for the remaining 18 months of the construction period even though the new road’s width during Stages 3 and 4 is stated to be circa 4.6m. The total distance between the building and the fence is only 5.15m and that space has to accommodate (a) kerbs, (b) hoarding to protect construction workers and vehicles visiting the Sports Centre and (c) space for construction workers between hoarding and the building under construction. The s106 agreement requires marshals to give priority to vehicles entering from PoW road so that a minimum of three vehicles wait at that end. The other marshal at the diametrically opposite end of the new route therefore has to potentially hold back vehicles leaving the Sports Centre ie a controlled one way system with passing only at either end of the road is envisaged. The absence of the bollard both for Stages 3 and 4 and thereafter will add to the danger.
Again, I am not necessarily expecting a reply due to what you have previously said, but can only hope that you and you colleagues read and act on what I have written.
Regards
Nick
13.6.2012 DAVID JENKINS TO JULIA O’BRIEN CC GEORGE LOUREDA, SAM MONCK
Dear Ms O’Brien
Thank you for your further email regarding Dalby Street. Please find attached my reply to your previous email, which I am not sure if you received. I hope this one reaches you as the first one kept returning as undeliverable when I tried sending it.
I can assure you that Camden does care about the situation at Dalby Street and road safety and maintaining access to Talacre Sports Centre are our highest priorities. Last week was quite busy as the new access road neared completion, but the developer had a dedicated team of marshals on site from last Thursday.
As you will no doubt be aware Prince of Wales Road was resurfaced at the weekend and the new access road is now open to the public. The developer’s construction access to the site will now be direct from Prince of Wales Road via the old Dalby Street junction. The marshals will be on site to ensure the new access road operates safely and does not become congested. There is still some work to complete at the turning circle and more area there will be opened to the public in a couple more weeks, once the developer has completed foundation works for the new building adjacent. In the meantime the marshals will be on hand to assist drivers when turning, if needed.
As noted in my previous email, we will be monitoring how the access road works in the first few weeks of its operation, but would be pleased to receive observations from users and neighbours such as yourself.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you see anything of concern.
Kind regards
David Jenkins BEng (hons)
14.6.2012 DAVID JENKINS TO NJH
Dear Mr Harding,
Thank you for your email, which has been passed to me to respond to as it raises new issues.
The new access road was completed last week and opened fully early on Monday morning. The developer had introduced his dedicated team of marshals to manage the new road on Thursday last week. Marshals have been at site previously, but theirs was more of a site safety/security role than solely being dedicated to traffic and pedestrian control.
Your video clips illustrate the marshals and show the road surfacing plant that was at site last week. In the first clip one of the marshals diverts you through the park to safely avoid the surfacing works. This would appear to be entirely appropriate to ensure you did not come into direct contact with the works, but is not a representation of how the access to the sports centre has been managed in general over the last few months.
As a result of the Road Safety Audit, the loading bay on Prince of Wales Road was recessed into the footway to improve visibility.
The second of your clips shows a marshal speaking to a driver at the Dalby Street junction whilst partially obstructing Prince of Wales Road. It would appear that this was as a result of other vehicles waiting to exit the street, but is unsatisfactory and I will take this issue up with the developer. I have already spoken to the marshals directly about some of their practices, such as stopping traffic on Prince of Wales Road to allow a visitor to the sports centre to exit, which is not necessary. These sort of issues are what we will hope to identify and address by monitoring the site, now the new road is open and the new marshals are at site.
The pedestrian walkway shown in the carriageway under the railway bridge in your third clip is a satisfactory pedestrian provision, but was only temporary. For the most part of the works to the junction the pedestrians were managed by carrying out the work in two halves and they were therefore not required to use the carriageway.
Please note that although these issues are not ones you have raised previously, I have answered them above and the resources are simply not available to enter into on-going correspondence about them. As always, if you have concerns about anything you observe that would require my attention/action, please address them directly to me in the first instance.
Yours sincerely
David Jenkins
Project Delivery Team Leader - Implementation and Maintenance Team
20.6.2012 NJH TO SAM MONCK
FW: Dalby Street, Talacre - Traffic Issues Recent
Dear Sam
Below is what I have just sent to Dave Jenkins. I hope you and your senior colleagues will take note of these clips and the issues they raise.
In the absence of the number of marshals required to ensure safety, the logic is that (if safety really is paramount), the Sports Centre should close and signs be put up to stop vehicles and pedestrians accessing it. I wonder what contingency plans exist? They certainly weren’t in evidence yesterday (or indeed the other days. The only time I saw four on duty was on Friday mid afternoon).
When the turning circle is completed and the disabled spaces are available, one can foresee a small improvement in the situation. If/when construction is completed, there will of course be no construction vehicles but they should now surely be being taken care of by marshals dedicated to the construction site. At completion, there will be 55 flats and a medical centre to which residents and visitors will insist on some form of access, albeit often illegal such as waiting on the pavement. I have seen no evidence of intention to employ more than one marshal post completion. As the need for more is so evident now, surely the developer and potential buyers of the private flats should know?
Regards
Nick
20.6.2012 NJH TO DAVID JENKINS
Dear Mr Jenkins
I have been observing the situation at Dalby St and took pictures and clips on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Tuesday. The ones taken on Tuesday cover the main issues. Saturday and Sunday is even busier, probably for longer but my clips are not as clear so I will make do with Tuesday’s here. They illustrate:
1. Absence of required number of marshals. That was particularly evident on Tuesday when there had evidently been only two all day (up to when I left at 5.10 pm). The need for more not less than the full complement of four marshals is evident.
2. The situation at the junction, even with two marshals working only on the new road, is at times fraught.
3. Marshals at the junction are seen to be involved in the arrival and departure of construction traffic into the site. This takes them off their duties to the Sports Centre and park visitors.
4. Marshals stop vehicles in a place where they block the pavement. Vehicles sometimes then have to reverse into Prince of Wales Road at its most dangerous part.
5. In spite of the notices up on the hoarding, there is no turning circle and no disabled bays. Marshals tell me that if a blue badged vehicle comes, up to three are directed to the south west side of the available space.
6. Even without any blue badged vehicles, the area is highly dangerous to pedestrians. When there is a marshal, he can make some impression but even then, as is very evident from these clips, it is extremely dangerous. What these clips show is repeated time and again throughout the day and especially at peak times.
Regards
Nick Harding
020 7485 9397
0780 180 2344
www.savetalacre.co.uk
www.talacrefacts.org.uk
20.6.2012 DAVID JENKINS TO NJH
Dear Mr Harding,
Thank you for your further email on the operation of the new access road to Talacre Sports Centre.
I have met with the developer, his contractor and the marshals and the issues arising from the first week of operation of the new road, which include those you have raised, have been discussed. Action will be taken to refine operations.
The developer started last week with four marshals but this week reduced them to two, which was the requirement in the S106. However, they will increase again to three following our meeting. The disabled bays will be marked out by the end of the week, although blue badge holders are not prevented from parking currently.
The turning circle is currently constricted by site hoarding while the developer constructs the piling and capping beam at the northern end of the building. The hoarding will be moved back a bit at a time, as soon as the work behind it is complete. The full turning space expected in the S106 should be available in two weeks.
In the meantime the marshals are managing turning vehicles, as demonstrated in your video clips. With vehicles having to make three-point turns it is similar to the old Dalby Street practices, but the marshals add a safety element that was not there before. The number of vehicles using the access road also appears to be less than used Dalby Street. Drivers have been advised that they can drop off and pick up passengers in Talacre Road and many may now be doing that.
As noted previously the resources are not available to enter into on-going correspondence about theses issues, however, if you have concerns about new issues please continue to bring them to my attention.
Yours sincerely
David Jenkins
26.6.2012 NJH TO ALL COUNCILLORS
To: Hai, Abdul (Councillor); Quadir, Abdul (Councillor); Harrison, Adam (Councillor); Marshall, Andrew (Councillor); Mennear, Andrew (Councillor); Mason, Angela (Councillor); Olad, Awale (Councillor); Knight, Chris (Councillor); Naylor, Chris (Councillor); Leyland, Claire-Louise (Councillor); Williams, Don (Councillor); Rea, Flick (Councillor); Gould, Georgia (Councillor); Risso-Gill, Gillian (Councillor); Spinella, Gio (Councillor); Johnson, Heather (Councillor); Headlam-Wells, Jenny (Councillor); Fraser, Jill (Councillor); Bryant, John (Councillor); Simpson, Jonathan (Councillor); Bucknell, Jonny (Councillor); Fulbrook, Julian (Councillor); Moffitt, Keith (Councillor); Roberts, Kirsty (Councillor); Revah, Larraine (Councillor); Trott, Laura (Councillor); Pietragnoli, Lazzaro (Councillor); Chung, Linda (Councillor); Eslamdoust, Maryam (Councillor); Sanders, Matthew (Councillor); de Souza, Maya (Councillor); Apak, Meric (Councillor); Katz, Mike (Councillor); Nuti, Milena (Councillor); Jirira, Nancy (Councillor); Ali, Nasim (Councillor); Callaghan, Patricia (Councillor); Braithwaite, Paul (Councillor); Brayshaw, Peter (Councillor); Jones, Phil (Councillor); Bokth, Rahel (Councillor); Freeman, Roger (Councillor); Robinson, Roger (Councillor); Eagling, Russell (Councillor); Gimson, Sally (Councillor); Khatoon, Samata (Councillor); Hayward, Sarah (Councillor); Birch, Sean (Councillor); Vincent, Sue (Councillor); Blackwell, Theo (Councillor); Gardiner, Thomas (Councillor); Simon, Tom (Councillor); Siddiq, Tulip (Councillor); Leach, Valerie (Councillor)
Subject: TALACRE SPORTS CENTRE FLOODED
TO CAMDEN COUNCILLORS
Last week we emailed you about the dangers that exist to Sports Centre users due to the developer at Dalby Street occupying that access road before the new road and was completed.
Today the Talacre Sports Centre has had to be closed due to flooding which is the result of the construction work. That includes its facilities, Gymnastics, All weather pitch, Treetops etc. The parent and toddler sessions had already been cancelled due to earlier flooding until further notice. There is no indication that it will be able to re-open for some time.
28.6.2012 DAVID JENKINS TO NJH
Dear Mr Harding,
Further to your circular below, I can confirm that the sports centre reopened on Tuesday afternoon at 5.45pm with a temporary water supply provided by Thames Water. The permanent connection was re-established in time for the sports centre opening on Wednesday morning.
Yours sincerely
David Jenkins
Project Delivery Team Leader - Implementation and Maintenance Team
Telephone: 020 7974 3314
________________________________________
29.6.2012 NJH TO DAVID JENKINS CC SAM MONCK
Dear Mr Jenkins
Thanks. As I understand it, as a consequence of the construction work the Sports Centre was completely closed (as you say) for most of 26.6.12, including the all-weather pitch, Treetops, Gym etc. Since 16.6.12, all Parent and Toddler sessions have been cancelled and appear not to be starting again until equipment has dried out. The new access road (“New Dalby St”) was closed or inaccessible on 21, 22, 26 and 27.6.12. This is all water related and the situation appears not to be entirely resolved although utility diversion started well over a year ago.
The old road (“Old Dalby St”) was closed and occupied by the developer/contractor on 11.6.12 before New Dalby St was completed. As of 29.6.12, The mini-roundabout remains partly occupied by the contractor, behind hoardings. Two disabled bays were marked out 27.6.12. If occupied, then any driver even with the help of the one marshal on duty between the blind corner and the turning circle would have difficulty manoeuvring, especially if more than one vehicle arrives. At busy times, children pour out of the building or the top of the pedestrian route straight into this area. There is one marshal covering that area and the blind corner.
I pass the Dalby St area frequently and often take pictures or videos in case they turn out to be helpful. They can be found here – its a very incomplete page.
In the last 48 hours I have become aware of Findon’s marketing including open days in Prince of Wales Road and Hong Kong this weekend. Here is recent stuff found on the internet Fraser & co site. Fact Sheet. And Hong Kong Standard article 28.6.12
As you see, the Fact Sheet says that service charges will be about £4 per sq ft. That equates to about £4,600 pa for a three bed flat and has to cover concierge etc as well as marshalling, upkeep of road etc. The total for the 36 flats comes to £93k so it doesn’t even cover for one marshal, let alone the need for additional marshalling and upkeep. Given that no information is being provided by the agents on the very onerous obligations in the sup s106 and the only s106 registered on the land registry site is the out of date original s106 which omits the onerous clauses, there are grounds for great concern. I am having to rush out a new page on the www.savetalacre.co.uk site for “Prince’s Park” here. If you or your colleagues think at any point I am misrepresenting the facts (as opposed what are my opinions) then I would like to correct it. This is all very current so the content of the page may change several times a day.
The above is sent for your information as it may add to what you already know. I am not seeking a reply.
Yours sincerely
Nick Harding
9.7.12 NJH TO MIKE COOKE, SARAH HAYWARD.
Subject: Talacre Video showing Current and Future Danger
Dear Sarah Hayward and Mike Cooke
I took this video yesterday (Sunday 8.7.12) afternoon starting at the turning area outside the Talacre Sports Centre and ending at the junction of Prince of Wales Road. It is over 4 minutes long and I haven’t learnt how to edit so please don’t be put off by the seeming irrelevance of the early part.
I have been visiting the area for about 10 minutes every day since Dalby Street was closed. Although this is the worst example, similar situations are witnessed frequently.
The situation when the turning circle is completed (which should have happened before the new road was opened) will be that there will be a slight improvement.
If/when the building is occupied, the road will be about 5% wider which wouldn’t have made any difference to the situation filmed.
If/when the building is occupied, there is to be no marshal at the Prince of Wales Road junction where there are two at present. If you add a marshal to the one they have to have at the building, the service charges, already well above anything that you could sell a flat at, reaches absurd levels.
I make no criticism of the marshals. They have a difficult job and try their best.
Imagine the situation if several more cars had arrived during this time. And/or if there were an emergency?
Perhaps when I have cleaned it up and given it a sound track or commentary, I may distribute it to and beyond my mailing list but in the meantime wanted to rush it to you. A link will probably go onto the www.savetalacre.co.uk web site.
Sorry for the staccato nature of this, it may sound rude – if so, that was not intended.
Regards, Nick, Nick Harding
17.7.2012 DAVID JENKINS TO NJH
Dear Mr Harding,
Thank you for you latest email to Councillor Hayward and Mike Cooke. This matter will be referred to the developer and appropriate action will be taken.
Yours sincerely
David Jenkins BEng (hons)
29.7.2012 DAVID JENKINS TO NJH
Thank you for your e-mail. I am away from the office until Monday 30 July.
My manager, Martin Reading (extn 2018, martin.reading@camden.gov.uk), for general enquiries.
My team, Yuksel Arikan (extn 2776, yuksel.arikan@camden.gov.uk), Elliott Della (extn 5138, elliott.della@camden.gov.uk) or Diljeet Singh (extn 5106, diljeet.singh@camden.gov.uk) for project schemes and issues.
4.9.2012 NJH TO SAM MONCK CC CLLRS
Cc: Matt Sanders (matt@camdenlibdems.org.uk); Jenny Headlam-Wells (jenny.headlam-wells@camden.gov.uk); Sarah Hayward (Sarah.Hayward@camden.gov.uk); pgcuming@gmail.com
Subject: FW: Dalby Street, Talacre - Traffic Issues Recent
Dear Sam
I wrote to you and Dave Jenkins on 20.6.12 following visits and discussions with local people near Dalby St the previous weekend.
I decided to do the same last weekend and yesterday as I only occasionally pass that way. Frankly, what I saw yesterday was dangerous and I am surprised that Camden and the HSE should find it acceptable. It was not that different from what I had witnessed on Saturday. Rather poor, but I think adequate, clips were taken yesterday and are here. (Those taken over the last few months can be found following this link).
Other things I heard or noticed were:
1. There are no extra marshals after dark in the park. People are asking to be escorted through the park and back (perhaps others are stopping going to the Sports Centre but once there they have to get back...). I recall that soon after the public enquiry, I bought up the fact that the park closes at night which would be a problem during Stage 3 (when it is the only pedestrian route). It took some time to get this problem understood – I was probably asking the wrong people. Eventually, Bob West dealt with it in his of 8.10.08, numbered para 23 “ ...The intention is that there would be four marshals contracted to work in the part after dark.”
2. Two people told me that there is no lighting in the park during the period between dusk and an hour after the Sports Centre closing. Perhaps that is to discourage non visitors from visiting the park but if it is the case, it means even four marshals might not be enough
3. There were definitely only two marshals on duty on Sunday afternoon.
4. The crane has been observed by several people unloading from lorries parked in the loading bay, on the pavement outside the site entrance and even at one time, on the new access road.
5. The marshal at the PoW road end gets involved in trying to make it safe for pedestrians when construction traffic arrives, parks on or around the site entrance and leaves. He can’t then carry out his normal work at the New Dalby St junction.
6. Having one marshal at the Sports Centre end is inadequate. She was on a break when I was there on Sunday which actually meant there was no one. When on duty she is to be seen either at the blind corner or the turning area but both places need someone. The Temporary Access Plan clause 26 is clearly wrong as it says “...The owner shall ensure that the marshals operate in the following way: One marshal to be situated circa 20 metres to the north of Prince of Wales Road (ie just beyond the point at which the carriageway width reduced to less than 5.0 metres). A second marshal to be situated at the north western corner of the development site. The two marshals will remain in sight of each other throughout”.
Regards
Nick
23.9.2012 MATT SANDERS TO SAM MONCK
Cc: Monck, Sam; Jenkins, David (Engineering); Headlam-Wells, Jenny (Councillor); Hayward, Sarah (Councillor); Hai, Abdul (Councillor); Fulbrook, Julian (Councillor); Ali, Nasim (Councillor); Callaghan, Patricia (Councillor); Jones, Phil (Councillor); Robinson, Roger (Councillor); Blackwell, Theo (Councillor); Siddiq, Tulip (Councillor); Leach, Valerie (Councillor); Mason, Angela (Councillor)
Subject: Re: Photos and Clips now available as a resource
Sam,
I remain very concerned about this and have witnessed several dangerous encounters myself over the past week.
Please could you advise what action you will be taking to force the developer into compliance with the legal agreements in place?
Matt
Cllr Matthew Sanders
23.9.2012 NJH TO SAM MONCK
Dear Sam
Further to earlier emails about the unsatisfactory situation on Prince of Wales Road, New Dalby St, the turning circle, disabled parking area etc, I have put the log we have created for our own use onto the landing page of www.talacrefacts.org.uk. If it works as it should, just clicking on that link should take anyone to the latest situation we have recorded. Sometimes the links in the left hand column don’t seem to work (sometimes they need to be clicked and sometimes control-clicked). Therefore we usually provide the same text and links in a Word document found by clicking on the attachment at the bottom of the page.
Much of what we witness is in our view dangerous. Also, this record demonstrates the extent to which the s106 agreement is not being followed.
Regards
Nick
28.9.2012 DAVID JENKINS TO CLLRS CC OFFICERS
From: Jenkins, David (Engineering)
Sent: 28 September 2012 17:21
To: Hayward, Sarah (Councillor); Jones, Phil (Councillor); Bokth, Rahel (Councillor); Braithwaite, Paul (Councillor); Fraser, Jill (Councillor); Sanders, Matthew (Councillor); Siddiq, Tulip (Councillor); Headlam-Wells, Jenny (Councillor); Apak, Meric (Councillor); Gould, Georgia (Councillor); Olad, Awale (Councillor); de Souza, Maya (Councillor); Hai, Abdul (Councillor); Fulbrook, Julian (Councillor); Ali, Nasim (Councillor); Callaghan, Patricia (Councillor); Robinson, Roger (Councillor); Blackwell, Theo (Councillor); Leach, Valerie (Councillor); Mason, Angela (Councillor)
Cc: Stopard, Rachel; Monck, Sam; Watson, Ed; Dean, Fiona; Loureda, George; Della, Elliott; Robinson, Nigel; Talbot, William; Reading, Martin; Stewart, Peter; Mardell, Peter; 'karen.malone@gll.org'; ''Gary Dark' (Gary.Dark@GLL.ORG)'; Brookes, Aidan; Lunn, Jennifer; Gibbons, Jessica; Ronan, Liam
Subject: Dalby Street update 19
Dear Councillors,
Turning circle works
The developer has devoted a decent manpower resource and made reasonable progress this week, although, as of the end of today, the paving is still only 60-70% complete. He will continue working on it over the weekend and he hopes to have it all be complete by the end of Monday, weather permitting.
Disabled parking
The developer will remove the welfare hut behind his hoarding over the weekend will move his hoarding back. The disabled bays will then be re-provided clear of the turning circle and should be available for use when the paving work is complete, hopefully by the end of Monday. In the meantime, blue-badge parking has been made available in the lay-by outside the sports centre entrance, where the paving has been completed.
Pedestrian access
The only pedestrian access to the sports centre remains via Talacre Park, but the developer hopes to have the new path between the building and the park complete and opened to the public in 3-4 weeks. The 60 working day limit on the footpath closure set out in the S106 comes to an end on 23 October 2012.
Operation of the marshals
The marshals remain on hand to assist with vehicle turning while the paving works are carried out. The access road has remained quiet this week, which may be because many sports centre customers are aware of the paving works. This may change when the turning circle is complete and open next week. This would provide the first test of the new access arrangements and the effectiveness of the marshals. Monitoring of the situation will be ongoing.
As always, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any concerns or if you are made aware of any issues regarding the site.
Kind regards
David Jenkins BEng (hons)
Project Delivery Team Leader - Implementation and Maintenance Team
29.9.2012 NJH TO SAM MONCK CC CLLRS
Cc: 'Jenkins, David (Engineering)'; 'Headlam-Wells, Jenny (Councillor)'; 'Hayward, Sarah (Councillor)'; 'Hai, Abdul (Councillor)'; 'Fulbrook, Julian (Councillor)'; 'Ali, Nasim (Councillor)'; 'Callaghan, Patricia (Councillor)'; 'Jones, Phil (Councillor)'; 'Robinson, Roger (Councillor)'; 'Blackwell, Theo (Councillor)'; 'Siddiq, Tulip (Councillor)'; 'Leach, Valerie (Councillor)'; 'Mason, Angela (Councillor)'; Matt Sanders (Matthew.sanders@camden.gov.uk)
Subject: RE: Phtos and Clips now available as a resource
Sam
It wasn’t my intention to continue sending evidence of the contractors misdemeanours direct to you – the ongoing evidence shown on www.talacrefacts.org.uk was intended for that purpose.
However, I think you should know if you didn’t already that the contractor has been making deliveries to the site from a reopened northern gate. Thus he is driving up and down New Dalby Street and into the site. This is nothing to do with the overdue work currently being carried out on the road surface of New Dalby St and the turning circle.
Regards
Nick
1.10.2012 CLLR MATT SANDERS TO DAVID JENKINS
Subject: Safety at Dalby Street
Hi David,
I snapped the attached at Dalby Street on Sunday at about 11:30am.
This was actually really dangerous. The cement mixer was blocking the entire pavement. By funnelling pedestrians out into the road, the traffic was reduced to a single lane immediately before the bridge. If you were driving in the opposite direction the cement mixer and single lane was completely invisible.
Surely this kind of arrangement is unacceptable?
Matt
4.10.12 PAUL BRAITHWAITE TO DAVID JENKINS, CLLRS, OFFICERS
To: Jenkins, David (Engineering); Hayward, Sarah (Councillor); Jones, Phil (Councillor); Bokth, Rahel (Councillor); Fraser, Jill (Councillor); Sanders, Matthew (Councillor); Siddiq, Tulip (Councillor); Headlam-Wells, Jenny (Councillor); Apak, Meric (Councillor); Gould, Georgia (Councillor); Olad, Awale (Councillor); de Souza, Maya (Councillor); Hai, Abdul (Councillor); Fulbrook, Julian (Councillor); Ali, Nasim (Councillor); Callaghan, Patricia (Councillor); Robinson, Roger (Councillor); Blackwell, Theo (Councillor); Leach, Valerie (Councillor); Mason, Angela (Councillor)
Cc: Stopard, Rachel; Monck, Sam; Watson, Ed; Dean, Fiona; Loureda, George; Della, Elliott; Robinson, Nigel; Talbot, William; Reading, Martin; Stewart, Peter; Mardell, Peter; 'karen.malone@gll.org'; ''Gary Dark' (Gary.Dark@GLL.ORG)'; Brookes, Aidan; Lunn, Jennifer; Gibbons, Jessica; Ronan, Liam; Nick@hpf.org.uk
Subject: Dalby Street: Today at 13.30 hours,
Dear David et al,
Thursday 4th October lunchtime:
Concrete lorry informally shutting the eastbound carriageway. Photo attached.
I don't think this is acceptable.
Not only did it block one carriageway but also the pedestrian flow.
Regards,
Cllr Paul Braithwaite
5.10.2012 DAVID JENKINS TO CLLR PAUL BRAITHWAITE
Dear Councillor Braithwaite,
Thank you for sending me this photo. This matter was also brought to my attention on Monday by Councillor Sanders.
There is not a problem in principle with the developer making their concrete deliveries as shown (and this is the only way they can be made), but clearly improvements can be made to the signing and guarding. I have written to the developer to advise him of how he should sign and guard this arrangement in accordance with Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual. The correct signing and guarding would make appropriate provision to forewarn drivers of the works and to make safe provision for pedestrians to pass the site.
With the correct signing in place drivers would be give sufficient warning and would be expected to drive with appropriate care. The road is wide enough for two-way traffic to be maintained for most vehicles, although some give-and-take may be required for larger vehicles. This is acceptable in this situation as the deliveries are brief and intermittent and would not cause and significant delays to passing traffic.
I will follow the matter up with the developer to ensure they start using the appropriate signing and guarding measures as soon as practicable.
Thank you again for your interest and, as always, if you have any further concerns about the site please do not hesitate to let me know.
Kind regards
David Jenkins
Project Delivery Team Leader - Implementation and Maintenance Team
C 8.10.12 DAVID JENKINS TO CLLR MATT SANDERS
Dear Councillor Sanders,
Thank you for sending me this photo. There is not a problem in principle with the developer making their concrete deliveries as shown (and this is the only way they can be made), but clearly improvements can be made to the signing and guarding. I have written to the developer to advise him of how he should sign and guard this arrangement in accordance with Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual. The correct signing and guarding would make appropriate provision to forewarn drivers of the works and to make safe provision for pedestrians to pass the site.
With the correct signing in place drivers would be give sufficient warning and would be expected to drive with appropriate care. The road is wide enough for two-way traffic to be maintained for most vehicles, although some give-and-take may be required for larger vehicles. This is acceptable in this situation as the deliveries are brief and intermittent and would not cause and significant delays to passing traffic.
Thank you again for bringing this matter to my attention and, as always, if you have any further concerns about the site please do not hesitate to let me know.
Kind regards
David Jenkins
Project Delivery Team Leader - Implementation and Maintenance Team
8.10.2012 MATT SANDERS TO NJH, PETER CUMING FWDING 5.10.2012 FROM DAVID JENKINS
For info.
Subject: Dalby Street update
Turning circle works
The developer has still not managed to finish the paving to the turning circle, although it is now almost complete and the area has been accessible for vehicular access to the sports centre entrance throughout the week. He now hopes to have it complete by Monday.
Disabled parking
The developer removed the welfare hut behind his hoarding last weekend and has moved some of his hoarding back. There is still material to be cleared, however, and I understand a breakdown to his crane has delayed this. He also expects to fully provide the disabled parking by the end of Monday. In the meantime, blue-badge parking remains available in the lay-by outside the sports centre entrance, where the paving has been completed.
Pedestrian access
The only pedestrian access to the sports centre remains via Talacre Park. The developer is still optimistic that the new path between the building and the park will be complete and opened to the public by the end of the 60 working day limit on the footpath closure, which comes to an end on 23 October 2012.
Operation of the marshals
The marshals remain on hand to assist with vehicle turning while the paving works are carried out. The access road has remained quiet again this week, but monitoring of the situation remains ongoing.
As always, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any concerns or if you are made aware of any issues regarding the site.
Kind regards
David Jenkins BEng (hons)
12.10.2012 DAVID JENKINS TO MATT SANDERS
Dear Councillor
Temporary closure of Talacre Sports Centre
As you may be aware, pupils from the Swiss Cottage special school are again being temporarily accommodated at Talacre Sports Centre. The centre was closed to the public from the beginning of this week and will remain closed between 9am and 4pm on weekdays, possibly until 26 October.
Turning circle works
The developer has now completed the paving to the turning circle, although the ramps to the pedestrian crossing areas are still in a temporary condition awaiting tarmacking. There are a couple of other small bits to complete – the tactile paving on the sports centre entrance side and a dropped kerb to allow maintenance vehicles easy access to the gate into Talacre Gardens. These bits should be complete next week, but the turning circle is now fully available for vehicular access.
Disabled parking
The developer has cleared the area where disabled parking will be provided in the final arrangement and has taken his hoarding down. He has replaced it with heras fencing/road works barriers and is working to pave the area. In the meantime, blue-badge parking remains available in the lay-by outside the sports centre entrance.
Pedestrian access
The only pedestrian access to the sports centre remains via Talacre Park. The developer is still working towards completing and opening the new path between the building and the park by the end of the 60 working day limit on the footpath closure, which is 23 October 2012.
Operation of the marshals
The marshals remain on hand to assist with vehicle turning while the paving works are carried out. The access road was quiet again this week, but monitoring of the situation remains ongoing.
As always, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any concerns or if you are made aware of any issues regarding the site.
Kind regards
David Jenkins BEng (hons)
13.10.2012 MATT SANDERS TO DAVID JENKINS
Cc: Braithwaite, Paul (Councillor); Tullis, David
Subject: Dalby Street
David,
The attached photo shows the situation at Dalby Street earlier today. There is quite clearly only room for one lane of traffic to pass freely - and no signage or signalling of any kind whatsoever.
Did you speak to the developer about this problem? If so they seem to have completely ignored you. This situation is extremely dangerous and needs attention.
Thanks,
Matt
19.10.2012 MATT SANDERS TO SAM MONCK AND DAVID JENKINS
Sam/David,
We must get a grip on this. I have sent similar photographs (most recently on 13th October, to which I don't think i've yet had a response).
Matt
Cllr Matthew Sanders
19.10.12 NJH TO SAM MONCK
Sam
Further to mine of 29.9.12, I noticed this afternoon that the contractor is still using Dalby St contrary to the s106. Attached is a photo taken this pm of a cement lorry backed part into the site.
Nick
19.10.2012 DAVID JENKINS TO MATT SANDERS, PAUL BRAITHWAITE, DAVID TULLIS AND MORE?
Dear Councillor Sanders,
Thank you for your email and I apologise for my delay replying.
I did speak to the developer and he ordered the necessary signs, cones and barriers. He now has them and I would expect them to be in use from now on. However, he assures me that no vehicles have had cause to block the full eastbound lane since last week, so when your photo was taken may have been the last time. He says that, when they have blocked the full lane, he would have had banksmen/marshals controlling the traffic, even though he did not have the full signing/guarding or stop and go boards in place. Your photos does not back up or disprove what he says, but I have made it clear again that now he has the correct signing and guarding available to him he will be expected to use it. He is clear that it is his responsibility to ensure that traffic and pedestrians are managed safely and understands what measures need to be in place to ensure that.
Regrettably I am not at site enough to monitor that he does manage deliveries as expected, but if my visits do coincide with a delivery I will make sure he has everything right. If you are made aware of further instances where he does not appear be complying, please let me know.
Kind regards
David Jenkins
Project Delivery Team Leader - Implementation and Maintenance Team
19.10.2012 MATT SANDERS TO DAVID JENKINS
David - many apologies, I've just seen that you did respond today to my email of the 13th. I had missed it - my mistake.
Matt
2.11.2012 DAVID JENKINS TO CLLR PAUL BRAITHWAITE
Dear Councillor
Pedestrian access
The only pedestrian access to the sports centre remains via Talacre Park, but the developer’s latest estimate for opening the new path between the building and the park is still next week. It is not now likely to be on Monday though.
Turning circle works
The tarmacking of the ramps to the pedestrian crossing areas has been completed and work has started on the dropped kerb access to Talacre Gardens, which should be completed tomorrow. The tactile paving on the sports centre entrance side is still outstanding. Traffic flow around the turning circle was interrupted by the dropped kerb works today, but a marshal was available to assist drivers making three-point turns.
Disabled parking
The developer has fully paved the area where disabled parking will be provided in the final arrangement and is still working on paving the path. The area is being cleared so it can be fully opened next week.
Operation of the marshals
The marshals remain on hand to manage traffic on the access road, although traffic is still light. Monitoring of the situation remains ongoing.
Site deliveries
There have been concerns raised recently about deliveries of concrete and other materials into the site entrance on Prince of Wales Road. Some vehicles have only been able to partly reverse into the site and have resulted in Prince of Wales Road being partially obstructed. The developer was placing out pedestrian barriers to form a safe walkway and was controlling the traffic with the marshals, but the traffic management was not to an acceptable standard. The developer was instructed to ensure signs, cones and barriers are set out in accordance with the Code of Practice for Safety at Street Works, which he should now be doing. He has also been told to ensure he uses stop-and-go boards to control traffic when there is not sufficient carriageway width available to maintain two-way traffic flow. The deliveries are of a short duration and do not cause significant traffic delays.As always, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any concerns or if you are made aware of any issues regarding the site.
Kind regards
David Jenkins BEng (hons)
11.11.2012 NJH TO SAM MONCK
Dear Sam
Dalby St, Talacre – imminent end of Stage 3, start of Stage 4
The pedestrian footpath along the west side of this development having been opened on Tuesday 5th November, the main criterion for the formal end of Stage 3 and start of Stage 4 according to the s106 gives the appearance of having been met.
We have therefore looked to see what, if anything we notice remains to be completed before the Council should sign off as required under clause 28 of the Temporary Access Plan. We are particularly aware that Stage 2 when Dalby St was actually closed and traffic switched to the part completed new road, was never formally signed off in spite of the obligation on the developer to get written agreement and that the conditions in several crucial areas had not been met. These are some of the incomplete items:
1. Telescopic bollards are required around the turning circle to prevent vehicles driving into the pedestrian areas round the side or stopping, waiting or parking outside the turning circle. The only exception is for permitted vehicles in the lay-by to the east of the Sports Centre entrance and the three disabled bays south of the turning circle.
The need for these bollards is very apparent when you can see or envisage the situation where there is inadequate space and drivers seek ways of overcoming the problem. They have to be managed by the marshal who lowers them when a permitted larger vehicle arrives (and when the marshal goes home at night). They are shown on the main drawing used to illustrate the access details - 52051a/A/7 rev A of 11.1.08, described as “Collapsible Bollards”.
Clause 10 of the Service Management Plan refers to them under Deliveries and Servicing:
“10. That access into the development by large service vehicles or coaches shall be accommodated by the lowering of the width restriction bollard and, if necessary, the lowering of bollards adjacent to the turning circle to enable the relevant turning manoeuvre to be undertaken...”
2. The area for the three disabled parking bays has scaffolding on its east side causing there to be insufficient space since they have to provide have sufficient space for disabled persons to get in and out
3. The zebra crossing has to be properly painted and signed so that drivers know that they are expected to give way to pedestrians on it (in spite of it not having the legal status of a zebra crossing on a public highway).
4. Either there needs to be a second marshal at the north end ie one at the blind corner and one at the turning circle, or the existing marshal needs to be on duty at the turning circle and some measure taken to make the blind corner safe if there is no marshal there.
There is then a matter which may fall outside what this note covers but which needs flagging up. Subject to us taking accurate measurements, the distance between the Y columns and the edge of the building (ie where the fence is) is four times what it should be. If that is the case, it manifestly fails to fulfil a key clause in the Pedestrian Access Plan
“7. That visibility .. shall be such that there shall be no areas that cannot be seen by a pedestrian walking along the footpath”. Clause 6, though relevant to the other side, illustrates the rationale for clause 7. It reads “”That the detail along hte building elevation adjoining the new pedestrian footpath shall be sucha s ot preclude any recesses or alcoves which people may hid”.
This was the subject of masses of correspondence and representations between late 2008 and January 2009, including the Mayor of London, Sport England and different sections of the Council. I think it fair to say that Camden accepted that the approved drawings did not conform to the above clause but that it was a “de minimis” situation. Because of the differing information we had received, an FoI request was made on 24.3.10 and provided this information:
“The information requested is as follows:
(A). distance between park fence and column= 0.2m
(B). width of column= 0.4m
(C). distance between column and building= 2.1m
(D). height of column below Y-fork, ie. before main column splits into 2 sideways columns= ranges from 2.3m at northern end column to 2.7m at southern end column".
Our initial measurements taken since the columns were built and the footpath opened, show that (A) above is not 0.2m but 0.8m. (B) is correct at 0.4m and (C) is the balance of a total distance of 2.7m ie 1.5m.
We will revert on this when we are sufficiently confident as on the fact of it, the discrepancy is enormous and it is therefore likely that we are partially in error. However, in the meantime it seems there is a serious issue of safety for pedestrians and the enforcement of planning obligations. If something as critical as this is simply ignored on the grounds that it is a fait accompli, then the whole planning regime is in question.
Regards
Nick
13.11.2012 DAVID JENKINS TO PAUL BRAITHWAITE
Dear Councillor
Pedestrian access
The new path between the building and the park opened to the public on 7 November. We will be in discussion with developer about the additional financial contribution due as a result of the late re-opening of the path (11 working days).
Turning circle works
The tactile paving and dropped kerb into Talacre Gardens are both complete. All that remains in installation of lighting columns and road markings. The road marking are imminent, but the lighting could be a few weeks yet. In the meantime the area is well lit by temporary lighting. The area is completely clear of the developer’s materials, etc. and fully in use.
Disabled parking
The paving to the area where disabled parking is provided is finished, completely cleared of the developer’s things and fully available to the public.
Operation of the marshals
Monitoring of the marshals’ effectiveness remains ongoing, although the access road remains lightly used.
Event at Talacre sports centre today
There was an event this morning for the national launch of a Sport England disability sports product, attended, amongst others, by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Communities and Culture. The developer did not work at their site this morning to ensure the event was not disturbed. I understand the event went very well and there were television news crews in attendance too. Catch it on the news tonight if you can!
Site deliveries from Prince of Wales Road
There have been concerns raised about the impact of the developers’ deliveries, scaffolding and use of the crane on Prince of Wales Road. The scaffolding has been licenced and the crane oversail licence is pending. Both have stringent conditions to protect the safety of highway users and the activities will be monitored.
Future programme
The developer estimates about 30 more weeks on the main construction, after which the scaffolding should come down and works will move inside to undertake the fit out of the building.
As always, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any concerns or if you are made aware of any issues regarding the site.
Kind regards
David Jenkins BEng (hons)
13.11.2012 DAVID JENKINS TO CLLR PAUL BRAITHWAITE
Dear Councillor
There’s not much to update this week again. The lining of the access road has now been completed and the scaffolding that sits in the park has been erected on the western elevation of the building.
Following last week’s suggestion to arrange a meeting with the developer that he had offered, I have only had one response. I shall assume that there’s no need to arrange the meeting, but if you would like me to please let me know.
As virtually all the works directly affecting access to Talacre are now complete, I won’t be sending these updates so regularly. If there are issues that arise I will send them out as appropriate.
As always, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any concerns or if you are made aware of any issues regarding the site.
Kind regards
David Jenkins BEng (hons)
16.11.2012 DAVID JENKINS TO PAUL BRAITHWAITE
Dear Councillor
There’s not much to update this week, other than the concrete beam incorrectly installed in the path to support the scaffolding has been removed and that the road markings for the access road are now expected on Monday, weather permitting.
A few months ago the developer held a meeting for cabinet members and ward councillors. He made a short presentation on the development, what he would be doing to fulfil his S106 obligations and answered questions. He has offered to do another one, so please let me know if you would be interested in attending and perhaps something can be arranged.
As always, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any concerns or if you are made aware of any issues regarding the site.
Kind regards
David Jenkins BEng (hons)
25.11.12 NJH TO CLLRS CC OFFICERS.
To: Hai, Abdul (Councillor); Mason, Angela (Councillor); Ali, Nasim (Councillor); Callaghan, Patricia (Councillor); Jones, Phil (Councillor); Hayward, Sarah (Councillor); Siddiq, Tulip (Councillor); Leach, Valerie (Councillor); Fulbrook, Julian (Councillor); Rea, Flick (Councillor); Gould, Georgia (Councillor); Headlam-Wells, Jenny (Councillor); Fraser, Jill (Councillor); Bucknell, Jonny (Councillor); Moffitt, Keith (Councillor); Larraine Revah; Sanders, Matthew (Councillor); de Souza, Maya (Councillor); Apak, Meric (Councillor); Nuti, Milena (Councillor); Braithwaite, Paul (Councillor); Bokth, Rahel (Councillor); Robinson, Roger (Councillor); Vincent, Sue (Councillor)
Cc: Brookes, Aidan; Maughan, Andrew; Thomas, Andy; Thuaire, Charles; Jenkins, David (Engineering); David Tullis; Watson, Ed; Della, Elliott; Dean, Fiona; Bakall, Gary; Loureda, George; Wells, Georgina; Gibbons, Jessica; Karen Malone; Reading, Martin; Cooke, Mike; Robinson, Nigel; Stewart, Peter; Stopard, Rachel; Monck, Sam; Talbot, William
Subject: Re Dalby Street, Talacre
Re Dalby Street, Talacre
The last two weekly reports sent to some Councillors and Council Officers by David Jenkins omits critical matters which I would like to ensure you are aware of although they may be outside Mr Jenkins area of interest:
Y Columns
The opening of the pedestrian route has revealed that the four large Y shaped columns are wrongly placed and therefore contravene the planning permission. They are a distance of 0.8 or more from the outer side of the footway, when they should be 0.2m. This error was pointed out to the planning officer (Charles Thuaire) who informed us that he had referred it to the Enforcement department (Gary Backall). The position of these columns was the subject of considerable discussion surrounding the period when approvals were given including with the Mayor of London and Sport England since pedestrians are required to have a clear view. If a developer can mistakenly build something contrary to planning approval and not be required to correct it, then the whole process is called into question.
Crane “oversailing” Prince of Wales Road
Some two weeks ago, we reported seeing the crane oversailing Prince of Wales Road. This seemed extremely dangerous to us - see clips on 6.11.12 and photos on 19.11.12 . [16.1.2022 Clips etc not readily available now]. The Asset Management department of Camden immediately contacted the contractor/developer and reminded them that they needed a license. Since then no license has been issued and the “oversailing” has continued. It is likely that, for safety reasons, if a license is given it will be subject to very restrictive conditions. Not only does this affect those on the highway underneath the crane when loaded but also the railway and particularly the bridge.
Gantry/scaffolding license
This is similar to the Oversailing situation above except that Camden were able to issue a license when the developer/contractor eventually applied for it. However, the license is subject to conditions which are not being observed.
Bollards around turning circle
There should be retractable bollards around the Sports Centre building side of the turning circle. They are required in order to prevent small and medium sized vehicles from driving, parking or waiting in pedestrian areas or the Town Green. When a vehicle that is too large to drive round the turning circle arrives, the marshal has to lower the bollards and assist in ensuring the vehicle turns safely. These bollards have not been installed, yet the pedestrian footpath was opened. Bollard specific locations are shown in the relevant s106 agreement.
Use of Town Green by Developer/Contractor
On 21.11.12 the developer/contractor took over an area of the park that is part of the designated Town Green. The agreement made at the time of the registration of the Town Green allows them to occupy an area of 1.2m into the park until December 2013 (when it reverts to being part of the Town Green). The area occupied extended well beyond the 1.2m and was used to store materials (mainly scaffolding equipment). As soon as this was reported to the parks department, they got the materials removed. Tape and plastic barriers blocking the public off which was not removed will be removed by the public.
For photos and clips please visit www.talacrefacts.org.uk. For other current issues visit www.savetalacre.co.uk.--
Nick Harding
Savetalacre campaign
30.11.2012 CLLR PAUL BRAITHWAITE TO DAVID JENKINS AND 21 CLLRS AND ABOUT 19 OFFICERS
Dear Mr Jenkins,
I'm not happy about your new agreement for acceptable conditions for "oversailing".
I walked past at 1.30pm today and took the attached photo.
I felt unsafe that a HUGE crane was about to pick up quantities of steel girders of about 6 metres length, which, because of the new building steel front projections, had to be carried out over the pedestrian walkway and road.
Waiving the requirement for rising bollards also seems to me to be unacceptable. I do not perceive them as "unnecessary clutter" but a Se 106 condition.
Regards,
Cllr Paul Braithwaite
PS If you are going to "reply all" to Nick Harding's original complaint, you might have done him the courtesy of including him in this, your reply email.
30.11.2012 DAVID JENKINS TO CLLRS AND OFFICERS.
To: Hai, Abdul (Councillor); Mason, Angela (Councillor); Ali, Nasim (Councillor); Callaghan, Patricia (Councillor); Jones, Phil (Councillor); Hayward, Sarah (Councillor); Siddiq, Tulip (Councillor); Leach, Valerie (Councillor); Fulbrook, Julian (Councillor); Rea, Flick (Councillor); Gould, Georgia (Councillor); Headlam-Wells, Jenny (Councillor); Fraser, Jill (Councillor); Bucknell, Jonny (Councillor); Moffitt, Keith (Councillor); Larraine Revah; Sanders, Matthew (Councillor); de Souza, Maya (Councillor); Apak, Meric (Councillor); Nuti, Milena (Councillor); Braithwaite, Paul (Councillor); Bokth, Rahel (Councillor); Robinson, Roger (Councillor); Vincent, Sue (Councillor)
Cc: Brookes, Aidan; Maughan, Andrew; Thomas, Andy; Thuaire, Charles; David Tullis; Watson, Ed; Della, Elliott; Dean, Fiona; Bakall, Gary; Loureda, George; Wells, Georgina; Gibbons, Jessica; Karen Malone; Reading, Martin; Cooke, Mike; Robinson, Nigel; Stewart, Peter; Stopard, Rachel; Monck, Sam; Talbot, William
Subject: RE: Re Dalby Street, Talacre
Dear Councillors,
Further to Nick Harding’s latest circular, please find my response to the points he has raised below.
Y-columns
This matter is being investigated by my colleagues in Planning and I should be able to provide a response on the issue next week.
Crane and scaffolding licenses
The developer now has licences in place for both the scaffolding and the crane. Additional conditions have been placed on both licences with regard to road safety/traffic management. When unloading from adjacent to the site pedestrians must be directed outside the vehicle in a barriered walkway. When using the crane, the walkway will need to be outside the oversail radius of the crane. Vehicular traffic must also not be permitted to pass under the crane oversail and, if necessary to achieve this, stop and go traffic control will be required.
Bollards around turning circle
The bollards have not been forgotten, but their installation is under review. They were considered at the planning stage due to the volume of traffic that used Dalby Street then at peak times. Unsafe parking practices were common under the old arrangements and bollards were thought necessary to prevent drivers parking on the footway areas. However, use of the new access road since it has opened has been very light. I have had one report of someone deliberately parking on the footway, but that was before the road markings were down and followed a disagreement with the marshal regarding parking the disabled parking area. If footway parking becomes a recurring problem the bollards could be installed, but it may be that to have them in now would simply be unnecessary clutter around the sports centre entrance.
Use of town green by developer
The developer was only granted licence to occupy a 1.2m wide strip of the park with his scaffolding. However, the licence did not restrict him temporarily occupying a reasonable working space in order to erect it and it was required that he made the working space secure with fencing while he worked. The area is now clear and the scaffolding sits within the permitted area.
If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards
David Jenkins
Project Delivery Team Leader - Implementation and Maintenance Team
7.12.2012 DAVID JENKINS TO CLLR PAUL BRAITHWAITE AND MANY CLLRS AND OFFICERS
Dear Councillor Braithwaite,
Thank you for your email and photograph. I am sorry to hear that you did not feel safe passing the site.
Your picture seems to show that the developer is complying broadly with what is expected under the licence conditions and the crane does not appear to be oversailing pedestrians or traffic. The developer should be using stop-and-go-boards in this situation, unfortunately we are not able to determine from the photograph if boards are being used as the signs would have been positioned out of sight of the picture. However, there should be a second pedestrian barrier between the vehicle and the inside of the walkway, which is clearly missing. My colleagues in Network Management have spoken to the developer to ensure the developer gets all the detail of the traffic management correct in future.
Camden has been working to a design philosophy of minimisation of street furniture wherever possible for many years. We would only want to use items such as bollards where their use is unavoidable. As noted previously, the level of traffic using the access road is less than used Dalby Street under the old arrangements and the problems anticipated that may have required the bollards have not materialised. They have not been removed from the Section 106 and could be installed in the future if their need is justified and other measures to control parking are not successful.
With regard to replying to Nick Harding, as you will be aware, he has regrettably been listed as a vexatious complainant by the Council. This was due to his repetitive and widely directed enquires relating to the development at Dalby Street. His latest email below was addressed to councillors and my response was for information to those councillors, should they wish to respond directly to Mr Harding. I apologise that I did not make that clear in my opening sentence. If he had written to council officers directly I would have replied to him, although as a vexatious complainant I would have only acknowledged his concerns rather than entering into a detailed response.
As always, if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards
David Jenkins BEng (hons)
11.4.2013 NJH TO YUSEL ARIKAN, E DELLA
To: 'yuksel.arikan@camden.gov.uk'; Elliott Della (elliott.della@camden.gov.uk); 'diljeet.singh@camden.gov.uk'
Subject: FW: Talacre dangerous activity at site of Prince Park flats
Herewith mine to David Wells in Mr Jenkins’ absence but as I see Mr Wells is also out and this seems urgent, am trying yourselves since you are included in Mr Jenkins’ out of office message
Nick Harding
1.4.2013 NJH TO DAVID WELLS
To: 'david.wells@camden.gov.uk'
Cc: 'Jenkins, David (Engineering)'; Matt Sanders (Matthew.sanders@camden.gov.uk); 'Paul Braithwaite'; 'Peter Cuming'
Subject: Talacre dangerous activity at site of Prince Park flats
Dear Mr Wells
I understand you may be the appropriate person for me to send this album of 6 photos and clips [16.1.2022 Clips etc not readily available now].showing the situation at Talacre this morning around 11am. You will see scaffolding contractors working in the footpath and when asked informing me that it was a building site and that the main contractor, Sheldon, had told them to work there.
There are also some of a sub consultant or contractor parked in the main road near the entrance to the building site and in full view of the main contractors operatives.
I shall be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt
Regards
Nick
Nick Harding
10.5.2013 NJH TO DAVID JENKINS CC MATT SANDERS, PAUL BRAITHWAITE, PETER CUMING.
Dear Mr Jenkins
I trust you received mine of 11th April sent in your absence to your colleagues – I received no acknowledgement. The album linked in it (here) demonstrated an extremely alarming situation in that sub contractors confirmed they had been authorised to work in the footpath by Sheldon and they regarded it as a building site.
I had to go past the area yesterday and found that the road has also become an extension of the building site as you will see from the 3 photos here. Cars and bicycles are sharing the road with contractors.
Regards
Nick Harding
17.5.2013 DAVID JENKINS TO NJH CC MATT SANDERS, PAUL BRAITHWAITE, PETER CUMING
Dear Mr Harding,
Thank you for you’re your email. I apologise your received no acknowledgement of your previous one, however, appropriate action was taken at the time, as it has been with respect to your most recent pictures.
Regards
David Jenkins
Project Delivery Team Leader - Implementation and Maintenance Team
3.9.2013 NJH TO MATT SANDERS AND OTHER CLLRS,
To: Sanders, Matthew (Councillor); Gould, Georgia (Councillor); Paul Braithwaite; Chung, Linda (Councillor); McCormack, Maeve (Councillor)
Cc: Peter Cuming
Subject: Talacre issues for Councillor action..
To Matt, Georgia, Paul, Linda and Maeve
I hope you can help with some of these matters which have cropped up on Talacre recently. They are all illustrative of the fact that we are where we are because obligations have been taken on which could not result in a development that could work commercially or physically. These are the issues I am referring to (there is something else waiting for its time to come but that is another matter)
Y Columns
To add to the strong circumstantial evidence that a drawing was removed (or didn’t exist) and only appeared after these columns had been built in the wrong place, is the discovery of a later application. That application was “to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans” and was required for a reason related to a change in the law which meant that the up to date drawings had to be specified. The ground floor drawing showed the columns where they always had been shown ie near to the park fence. Now it seems an application from the developer was made followed by a decision which showed the correct position of these columns had never been changed.
Ambulances
Julia O’Brien who lives in PoW Road and is a patient at the PoW medical practice wrote to Philip Thompson, the practice manager, asking where ambulances would be able to stop and wait. He replied:
“We can confirm that this issue was dealt with as part of the planning decision making process and we suggest you contact the Council's planning department if you have further queries on this matter. Details of all planning applications are available via Camden's on line planning portal - you need to search for 52 Prince of Wales Road.”
There was no discussion that I am aware of in the planning decision which related to ambulances although the access plans which are generally seen as addressing access to the Sports Centre might have been obliged to include access for the approved commercial space which is what the medical centre is in. There is, as anyone can see, no space for ambulances. I thought I would see exactly what anyone looking at the planning approvals for 52 PoW Road would find and they appear to have two conflicting drawings. One, the ground floor plan, shows the three disabled bays where they are at the moment ie south of the turning circle. The other shows those bays up against the building where the loading etc bay is. The disabled bay area is shown as being available for doctors’ cars. Is it possible they and/or the NHS who has to approve these things think that when the doctors move in, the disabled bays will move to the loading bay?
Julia asked me if I could take this up with you. We need to find out what the doctor’s (and Camden) think and I am not the right person to ask!
Marshals
I attach extracts from correspondence involving one of the marshals whom my family got to know during the long period he worked at the site for a marshalling company employed by the Developer’s contractor (both are owned by the same family). The marshalling company I believe to only have the one contract. I was always aware that the marshals were paid weeks or even months late and saw text messages promising to pay back pay. At that time, this marshal was waiting for his long term visa so felt vulnerable. However, it came through and he later decided to leave in spite of the arrears. Debbie at the KT CAB (she also runs the Inkerman RA) recommended he went to the law centre.
As you see, he has been threatened with legal action if he talks to eg Dave Jenkins. He has also made us aware of improprieties which frankly come as no surprise. It is also worth bearing in mind that the s106 calls for Findon to enter into a three year marshalling contract prior to occupation of the building.
I hope you can find some way of helping him. I am glad to hear from him that he has now found a job so is less vulnerable. I can vouch for him. Are (any of) you able to help him get paid and address the other issues, preferably in a way which will not do him more harm than good? The last person who could help his cause in the Town Hall is me..
Nick
12.9.13 DAVID JENKINS TO NJH CHARLES THUAIRE, JENNIFER LUNN
Dear Mr Harding,
Thank you for your latest correspondence, for which a full reply will be sent in due course.
In the meantime however, the former marshal you refer to has raised a serious allegation regarding falsification of documents which will need investigating. I don’t need you to divulge the identity of M and X, but I would be grateful if you would be able to provide the dates for the correspondence you have provided extracts from so I can pursue the matter?
Kind regards
David Jenkins
Project Delivery Team Leader - Implementation and Maintenance Team
6.10.2013 NJH to Dave Jenkins cc Matt Sanders with anon corres from abused parent
Subject: Talacre - Abusive marshal and lorry unloading in access road
Dear Mr Jenkins
What follows I hope is self explanatory. The marshal in the photos is, as you probably know, [deleted here] (of that I am certain and have confirmation from a reliable source).
Can you or a colleague please confirm that you will deal with this as if, for example, you are unable to because of the “vexatious” label which has recently been used as a reason not to pursue another matter, I need to pass this over to someone else. That would be regrettable as it produces an extra link in the chain and, although I have never spoken to “Jane”, there is clearly an element of trust.
I have put the photos on the internet so if the link doesn’t work, let me know and I will find another way of sending them.
Regards
Nick Harding
“Jane”
On Thursday 3.10.13 a mother attempting to deliver children to a class at the Talacre Sports Centre emailed wishing to be anonymous, hence “Jane” is not her real name. Her email and a later one, with contact details removed, are below. The later one responded to the suggestion that it would be more effective if she could take this on herself. The photos she also sent on 3.10.13 of the marshal she said was abusive and the lorry that was parked on the access road can be seen here. [1.2.2022 no longer works]
From: xxx
Sent: 03 October 2013 17:33
To: nick@hpf.org.uk
Subject: Abuse and blockage of access to Talacre
Dear Nick
I have just dropped off my 7 year old son and his 7 year old friend at Talacre for their gymnastics lesson at 5pm. I tried to drop them by driving up to the turning circle but the road was blocked by a large lorry unloading. It remained there for about 10 minutes while I was there but looked like it had been there for quite a while before and was still being unloaded afterwards. I asked the driver to move. There was no marshal around at all.
After a few minutes a marshal arrived. I said the lorry needed to move. He started swearing at me using the F word in front of the children. They were upset and I was quite scared. He said it was me who was causing problems not the lorry.
When I walked up to the pedestrian access with the children (there was no way the lorry was going to be moved in the near future) he threatened me again.
The pedestrian access is dark and very enclosed and it was properly terrifying.
My heart is still beating really fast and I'm all shaky and sweaty after half an hour and having got home.
Usually I would have my 10 month old baby with me when I drop off the two seven year olds. Thank goodness I didn't have her with me today.
I would like to remain anonymous if you pass this onto the
council/contractors. I found the whole experience really upsetting.
I will forward a photo of the lorry unloading and the threatening Marshal separately.
Best wishes
email of 4.10.13 from sender who wishes to be anonymous to NH forwarded without senders name and contact details
Hi Nick
Thanks for this and your other email. I'm afraid I don't want to follow this up myself. I found the experience deeply upsetting. The marshal was very threatening and I don't want to take any risks. I know that's very cowardly especially when you're so incredibly brave about taking personal flak for the good of the cause. I understand it's difficult for you to forward anonymous info on so don't worry if you can't. I just thought after it happened that it might be useful for you to know.--
Nick Harding
10.10.2013 Dave Jenkins to NJH cc Matt Sanders
Dear Mr Harding, thank you for passing this on.
The marshal’s alleged behaviour could in no circumstance be considered acceptable. I regret I will not be able to look into this matter further because the marshalling contractor in no longer employed by the developer following investigation of other irregularities.
It is not clear if the lorry pictured is associated with development or if it is making some other delivery, but I will take this up with the developer.
Kind regards
David Jenkins
Project Delivery Team Leader - Implementation and Maintenance Team
17.10.2013 NJH to Dave Jenkins cc Matt Sanders bcc several
Dear Mr Jenkins
Thanks for telling me about the abusive marshal, I have passed the information on to the mother who, to my relief, didn’t feel that she had been compromised by the CNJ article. Coping with anonymous situations is something I am new to and then three come at once.
As you may know, the marshal whose picture I forwarded is [name deleteed here], the owner of [xxx] Security Dynamics Ltd. You say that he is no longer employed by the developer but since your email, I learned from two entirely separate sources that he is still employed for security of the development ie building site, itself. I believe it means he checks on the site and its workers while construction is taking place and when the site is closed, is a security guard for the building.
What concerns me is that he has failed to pay not only “M” but at least two other of his employees and the effect of xxx being sacked, partly or wholly as a result of information provided by one of them, via me, may prejudice the likelihood of him (and them) being paid. I hope you will consider what obligation Camden has either directly or through pressure on the developer who to my certain knowledge has known of xxx failure to pay on time for well over a year. If M, in providing the information on his irregularities assisted Camden, that also seems to me relevant.
xxx's company is xxx Security Dynamics Ltd No xxx. Its accounts showed it to be insolvent at 30.6.12. On 1.10.2013 the Registrar of Companies issued a Notice HD602 that unless cause is shown to the contrary, at the expiration of 3 months from 1.10.13 it would be struck from the register and the company be dissolved which would mean that any assets it has would become the property of the crown.
Thus, if these marshals have an employment contract with xxx, they stand to be on to a hiding to nothing. If you look at the Other Developments page of www.savetalacre.co.uk you will see that all recent Findon developments have experienced insolvencies with huge losses for creditors which makes one feel that these people are particularly vulnerable.
Regards
Nick Harding
17.10.2013 NJH TO DAVE JENKINS
Dear Mr Jenkins
At 17.53 this afternoon I received an email from xxx followed by a telephone call at 18.15. When he gave his name, I merely said to him that I had received his email and that I did not wish to discuss it and closed the conversation. A few minutes later, I received a text message from him.
I have never had any telephone or email communication from him before and judging from the content of his email, it was the result of mine to you earlier today.
I feel the need to be cautious and at this point am not forwarding these two communications to you and will avoid talking to xxx.
If you think it would be helpful, we could talk on the telephone or meet.
Regards
Nick Harding
4.11.2013 NJH TO DAVE JENKINS
Dear Mr Jenkins
I hope you got mine of 17th October concerning xxx and unpaid marshals. I now have more information on this topic which I would be happy to discuss with you. It includes information concerning the employment contracts, deduction of tax and NHI (and by extension, payment of minimum wage) and you may feel it is not relevant to the Council. However, I thought I would mention it in case it comes up. Please treat this as confidential to the extent of not sharing it with anyone outside the Council.
Regards
Nick Harding
4.11.2013 DAVE JENKINS TO NJH
Dear Mr Harding, thank you for the offer, but as xxx no longer employed in the marshal role, this is not an issue for the Council to be involved with.
If it were and I needed to take any action I would need to share it with their employer, who is obviously outside the Council. However, it’s not, so I won’t share it with anyone else.
Regards
David Jenkins
Project Delivery Team Leader - Implementation and Maintenance Team
22.12.2013 NJH TO DAVE JENKINS
Dear Mr Jenkins
In view of yours 4.11.13, this is probably of no interest to you but in case I am wrong and you are not aware of it, I attach the Winding Up Order for xxx Security Dynamics Ltd which has just been registered at Companies House.
Regards
Nick Harding
22.12.2013 DAVE JENKINS TO NJH
Thank you for your e-mail. I am away from the office until Thursday 2 January.
If your enquiry is urgent, please contact:
My manager, David Wells (extn 2009, david.wells@camden.gov.uk) for general enquiries.
My team, Yuksel Arikan (extn 2776, yuksel.arikan@camden.gov.uk) or Elliott Della (extn 5138, elliott.della@camden.gov.uk) for project schemes and issues.