2012
Following a great amount of consideration including a public enquiry, a legal agreement (s106) was signed which claimed to safeguard the interests of the users of the Sports Centre. Many of us thought that it was only workable if there was a level of marshalling that would cost the owners of the private flats so much in service charges that it would make the scheme totally unfeasible. Who would pay a service charge of £12,000 pa (probably more like £15,000 pa) for a three bedroom flat – anywhere?
Now, it turns out that Camden are considering watering down those safeguards. If that happens access to the Sports Centre will be less safe and accessing it will be much harder.
These are 3 changes we have become aware of:
A. Width Restriction
The new road “New Dalby St” is so narrow that wider vehicles would have difficulty passing one another. In particular, some 50m ( 55 yards) is described as being 4.8m wide on drawings but would be less than 4.6m from our observation. Most vans and 4X4s are over 2m wide. Camden’s own minibuses are 2.34m wide and ambulances 2.44 . Vehicles of all sorts arrive at an average rate of one a minute during busy time.
To avoid the chaos that would occur if left unmanaged, the agreement requires there to be a bollard where that 50m stretch starts. The bollard would be lowered by a marshal whenever a vehicle more than 2m wide arrives and departs. That is the agreement. That is what the developer signed up to. It may sound difficult to make work in practice but it is there to reduce danger.
The council now propose to remove this bollard which would mean that vehicles could enter without any width restriction [4]. A length restriction of 21’ 8” (6.6m) has been proposed but that would not prevent most vans and large cars since they are substantially shorter than 6.6m [5]. In any event, the length restriction is only enforced by signs at the Prince of Wales Road junction, not by any physical restriction. The physical restriction on length is at the turning circle where 8 telescopic bollards prevent larger vehicles from turning round.
B. Marshalling hours
The s106 agreement requires there to be a marshal at the Sports Centre end of the new road from an hour before it opens to an hour after it closes seven days a week. His duties include
Lowering width bollard
Lowering the 8 telescopic bollards at the turning circle. Those bollards prevent larger vehicles overrunning into pedestrian areas so his job is to ensure the safety of pedestrians when those bollards are lowered.
Pre-booking deliveries for the Sports Centre and Medical Centre so that they arrive at half hourly intervals up to 2.00 pm only. The only space available is then used by minibuses after 2.00pm. That space is next to the Sports Centre building and large enough for one medium sized delivery vehicle or minibus. Larger vehicles and any that are not booked to use this space are meant to use a newly constructed lay-by in Prince of Wales Road
According to a draft road safety audit report consideration was being given to reducing the period when a marshal has to be on duty to 2pm to 7pm . That would mean that the arrangements to make the access safe would not exist outside those hours. It would also make the arrangements for deliveries and minibuses unworkable. That document of December 2011 was commissioned by Camden and the developer’s transport consultants with no written audit brief and very few documents provided. In an email to the head of planning, a Haverstock councillor questioned how this alarming reduction could be possible and received a response “..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, although it would be reasonable to review this provision once operational, there is no intention to change it at this stage.”
C. Right to impose marshalling
The agreement allows for the extent of marshalling to be monitored so that if more or less is needed, then changes can be made. The developers and later the owners of the private flats, have to pay for marshalling but obtain no benefit from it. They are therefore unlikely to agree to changes which would cause service charges to increase. For that reason the agreement gives the Council the right to insist on whatever amendments are needed to safeguard the interests of the Sports Centre. To make that clear, these words are contained in the signed agreement:
“and for the avoidance of doubt in the event of the Council making any such amendment the Owner shall comply with the Plan in its amended form”.
The Council prepared text which removed those and other important sections. This invites the question. Will Camden always have the right to make an amendment if the owners of the private flats object? If the answer is “Yes”, then it should be made clear so that there can be no dispute and buyers of flats know what their liabilities are. If it is “No” then clearly access to the Sports Centre will be entirely influenced by people whose interests are not those of the public. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.
We became aware of a draft which omitted several clauses in January. When we questioned it, we were thanked for pointing out the omission and sent another draft. That was also incomplete. We questioned it again (on 14.2.12) and, less formally, were told that that also was an error. We have received no corrected SMP draft to show that the correct text is being used. The potential cost to the Council of omitting these clauses is very considerable. The s106 obligations are in perpetuity ie for all time.
Attached Drawing [2.2.2022 See documents etc in links on this RSA page]
This is based upon one of the drawings in the latest Road Safety Audit. Distances between the circled numbers shown are
1 – 2. Prince of Wales kerb (1) for 14m. Width of carriageway 5.5m
2-3. From (2) to 90 degree corner, distance about 48m. Width of carriageway measures approximately 4.6m in part, otherwise 4.8. Kerbs each are “a minimum of 250 mm”. See [1] for measurements and observations made on site.
3-4. From 90 degree corner to turning circle, 15m with a width of 6m
5. Turning circle has a diameter of 15m
Notes on above and related information
1 Widths and Distances on new road
The distance of 50m is the estimated total distance from Prince of Wales Road to the 90 degree bend, less the 14m stated to be 5.5m wide. It is taken from the A3 version of the General Arrangement drawing 52051a/A/7 in the s106
The FoI request and reply that provides the 5.5m and 14m figures is as follows:
2. Please advise me as to the width of the new access road in the light of the following:
(a). Clause 4 of the Permanent Access Plan which is Schedule 3 of the Supplementary s106 agreement says that the part of the road from Prince of Wales Road to the turning will be 5.5m wide except where there is a width restriction 14m from Prince of Wales Road
(b). The ground floor plan of the approved planning permission (2008/3688/P Drawing revision KTW4/PA1/02 Rev F) shows various widths including 4.8m
Response
I regret that you have misinterpreted Clause 4 of the Permanent Access Plan in Schedule 3 of the Supplementary S106 agreement. Its meaning is that the access road shall be 5.5m width between the junction with Prince of Wales Road and a point 14m in and from that point on, until the 90 degree bend in the road, it shall be 4.8m wide. This narrowing of the road is shown on general arrangement drawing in S106, although it is not dimensioned..
Our scrutiny of the drawings available to us showed that much of this stretch of road was actually significantly less than 4.8m. On 16.2.12 we requested clarification and, having no reply by 28.3.12 rang the responsible Council officer who told us that the drawings do show 4.6m and he had asked the developer for clarification and received no reply. On 4.4.12 we were informed that “we now have updated drawings from the developer confirming that the road will be built at a minimum of 4.8m wide. The next day we took measurements at the site which showed that the distance between the boundary fence and the reinforced concrete wall (which are not capable of being moved) as 5.15m. Due to the need for two 0.25m kerbs, supplementary cladding of 0.1m and (apparent) need for retaining works of 0.35m, the road width would be 4.2m and even that could be reduced by signalling equipment and mirror needed at the entrance to the basement car park.
2. Vehicle widths and length
Here are some vehicle dimensions:
Camden minibus. Width 2.335m excl wing mirrors. Length 8.47m (obtained from Plaxton’s who manufacture the ubiquitous Beaver 3 Mercedes buses used by Camden)
Range Rover Width 2.22m, Length between 4.355 and 4.972m
Ford Transit Width with door mirrors 2.36m. Length 4.863 to 6.403m
Ambulance Width. Per Cressy Road ambulance station, Width excl mirrors etc 7’7” (2.3114m), with mirrors 8’8” (2.6416m). Length 21’ (6.408m). Height 9’ 2” (2.794m)
The above show the situation on wing mirrors where known.
Vehicles passing each other may benefit from a 0.25m (10”) kerb on either side. That would mean that the road itself has to be wide enough for the body width of two vehicles, two of the four wing mirrors and leave enough tolerance space between them. The latter will depend upon the length of each vehicle and the timidness of the two drivers.
3. Vehicles arrivals at busy times
The estimate of one a minute is taken from observation of the situation from about 4pm on school days. In addition, there was a survey carried out by Buchannan in November 2006 which was submitted to the Public Enquiry that showed hourly total vehicle rates starting at 4pm to 8pm of 64, 28, 25, 33, 19. Since each vehicle needs to deposit or collect one or more people (mostly minors who have to be accompanied in and out of the building), the number of vehicles in the area north of Prince of Wales Road at busy times con be considerable. Because classes and the very popular children’s parties start and end at fixed times, arrivals and departures tend to bunch making the situation even worse potentially
4. Impact of width and arrivals
When two vehicles can’t pass each other, one will, of course, have to reverse. During that time other vehicles may reach them from either direction. Reversing involves either going into the 14m stretch of road around the Prince of Wales Road junction, and then reversing into Prince of Wales Road. Alternatively, reversing round the blind corner to the stretch of road that runs next to the building and which is 6m wide. It is possible that while a situation of that nature sorts itself out, passengers will get out and walk along the road at some danger to themselves. Drivers may even temporarily abandon their vehicles
Ambulances arriving and/or departing will be particularly vulnerable. Whether they are permitted to cross the Town Green which is protected by law (ie using the route from Talacre Road to the Sports Centre) is unclear but in any event, the park is closed after dark (4pm in December and January).
5. Length restriction, telescopic bollards, signs etc
Vehicles over a certain length are unable to drive round the turning circle which has a 14.5m diameter. The turning circle is crossed on a raised zebra striped crossing by pedestrians who use the pedestrian walkway against the west side of the flats. That route is the only pedestrian route when the park is closed (as early as 4pm in the winter). In order to stop long vehicles from having to drive into an area outside what is regarded as safe for pedestrians, there are 8 telescopic bollards shown on the drawing as being on the north side of the turning circle. When a vehicle is too long, the bollards have to be lowered by a marshal and the vehicle does a wider turn or a 3 or 5 point turn under the supervision of the marshal whose prime consideration should be for pedestrians coming to and from the Sports Centre building or just from the park to Prince of Wales Road. (any statistics that purport to be for the Sports Centre users, will not include the latter).
This type of bollard is notorious for going wrong – and there are 8 of them..
When there is no marshal on duty outside Sports Centre hours, the bollards are meant to be lowered which means that protection for pedestrians is lost.
The signed s106 relied upon the combination of the physical length restriction (the 8 bollards), the width restriction near the Prince of Wales Road junction (the bollard that it is proposed to be removed) and the marshals (who are the only people who can lower the bollards).
The latest proposal is to remove the physical width restriction and to place two signs at the entrance to New Dalby St which indicate there is a length restriction of 21’ 8” (which is 6.6m). The telescopic bollards would remain (when there is a marshal there). Without the physical width restriction, the length restriction would only be practically enforceable when a marshal is on duty at the Prince of Wales junction and then he would have his authority enhanced by having a physical width restriction.
Vehicles which would be restricted would roughly be any vehicle as long or longer than a standard ambulance (6.4m). Camden’s Beaver minibuses are 8.5m long. The largest Ford Transits are 6.4m
6. Marshals, times and duties (Post Construction)
These are set out in the Service Management Plan and Traffic Marshals Brief of the signed s106 agreement of 30.9.08. See from pages 60 and 73 of the 86 page agreement here The following is a summary intended partly as a check list that all the duties are covered whenever changes are considered:
(Explicit in Service Management Plan / Traffic Marshals Brief)
A marshal employed from one hour before the Sports Centre opens to one hour after it closes
Basic jobs are to ensure free flow of traffic and to manage servicing/delivery activity
Ensure no parking/waiting except for blue badged vehicles in the 3 space disabled parking area and at authorised times in the lay-by (which has space for one minibus or medium sized delivery vehicles) next to the entrance
Preventing unscheduled deliveries and vehicles not requiring access from stopping
(implied)
Booking deliveries for Sports and Medical Centres up to 2pm
Booking minibuses after 2pm
Lowering width restriction bollard which is near the Prince of Wales Road junction when permitted wide vehicles arrive and leave
Lowering the 8 telescopic bollards round the turning circle when permitted long vehicles arrive or leave
Escorting pedestrians across turning circle area when its bollards are lowered
Monitoring the CCTV cameras that are along the pedestrian footway on the west side of the flats
Preventing blue badged vehicles overstaying a proposed time limit
Comments on above.
Both the width and length restrictions would be unenforceable unless there is a marshal at the Prince of Wales Road as well as at the turning circle
Enforcement authority of marshals to fulfil all of the above is not clear either in theory or practice
The use of the lay-by requires considerable management of both the booking and ensuring the pre-booked vehicles only use it. It certainly requires at least one marshal at all times
Marshals are required to be qualified to supervisor status on the Street Works Qualifications Register or equivalent and required to pass a Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosure application.
7. Reduction of marshalling period and effect
The signed s106 agreement sets out the times of marshalling that would apply following completion of the construction. It is contained in the Service Management Plan and the Traffic Marshals Brief which are on the 60th and 73rd pages of the 86 page agreement here. That agreement allows for change to be made as a result of “Monitoring”.
The recently carried out Road Safety Audit which is a Stage 2 RSA which, unlike the Stage 1 audit carried out four years ago, includes the new access routes has had two reports dated October and December 2011, both described as Final. Changes to the earlier one arose in part due to the auditors having visited Dalby St during the afternoon on a school day whereas their only site visit made before the earlier report had been made during the school holidays when the road is less used. The later RSA contains this “Recommendation”
“Recommendation: Ensure a traffic marshal is present Monday to Friday in the afternoon e.g. 2pm-7pm, as a minimum. Monitoring should be carried out to determine if a traffic marshal is required outside of these weekday hours, and on the weekend. Consider pursuing legal agreement between LB Camden and the developer to allow parking enforcement in New Dalby St by LB Camden, with ownership and maintenance of the road and enforceable facilities retained by the property management”.
In an email of 4.4.12, we were informed “the marshalling hours have not been varied from those set out in the S106”. However, that is of little reassurance since an earlier email informed us that this would be something that would be reviewed following the completion of the development.
8. Spaces for Vehicles to wait, lay-bys
The only places vehicles are allowed to wait are the three (which may only be two) disabled bays (see (a) below) south of the turning circle and the lay-by (b) which is up against the Sports Centre building before vehicles reach turning circles. On Prince of Wales Road there is meant to be a new lay-by (c) built as part of the changes to Prince of Wales Road that are needed to take account of the new access arrangements.
(a). Disabled parking spaces. There are three such spaces shown, south of the turning circle (on all the planning decision drawings they have been shown as where (b) below is). The Stage 2 Road Safety Audit questions whether there is actually space for more than two spaces and protecting pedestrians from vehicles in that area has given rise to comment. The latest draft Permanent Access Plan says that parking in them will be restricted to two hours. In view of the existence of 55 flats and the medical centre, they are likely to be heavily used. Nothing has been said about enforcement since Camden’s writ appears not to extend to them. Marshals are employed by the owners of the flats and may have little incentive to ticket or tow away cars of the flat owners and their visitors.
(b). The lay-by in front of the Sports Centre building is stated to be exclusively for vehicles delivering to either the Sports Centre or the Medical centre. Those deliveries have to be pre-booked through a marshal to arrive at half hourly intervals up to 2pm. Thereafter it is available for minibuses.
It is 7 to 7.5m long but shaped so that only about 5m can fit into it. Camden minibuses which are 8.47m long will therefore project at least 3.5m (and more when unloading passengers) into the turning circle. The longer Ford Transits (for example) are 6.4m long and would also project into the turning circle, especially when loading. It is 2.6m wide.
(c). Lay-by on Prince of Wales Road. This is part of the so-called Prince of Wales Road Improvements which are needed due to the new access coming out at a different place on Prince of Wales Road and other reasons. The construction of this work has not yet been started. The lay-by would be on the north side of Prince of Wales Road next to the new building. Being on a public road, it would be available for use by anyone subject to time restrictions normal for loading spaces. According to clause 18 of the Temporary Access Plan, it will “provide a facility for servicing the Leisure Centre (eg for the picking up/setting down school children in 50+ seat coaches)”. The drawing CENV/2007/21 rev C which appears in many places in the s106 agreement shows it described as “10m loading bay to serve the Sports Centre, new development and other users of Prince of Wales Road”. Since Camden’s own Beaver 3 minibuses are 8.47m long and have substantially fewer than 50 seats, one of these documents must be wrong.
Marshals at the Sports Centre are meant to direct oversize vehicles to use this lay-by. It is likely to be heavily used by non Sports Centre vehicles eg those delivering to CostCutters which is opposite.
The Stage 2 Road Safety Audit states that vehicles arriving and leaving from it will create a danger by restricting the view westwards for vehicles exiting New Dalby St.
9.Road Safety Audits
To date, elements of this scheme have been the subject of these Road Safety Audit (RSA) reports:
(a). Road Safety Audit of the “Prince of Wales Road Improvements”. Stage 1. This audit was carried out by Colin Buchanan, Highway Safety Group. Although Buchanan's had been employed as designer by the then Developer (TRAC Properties), they assured Camden that they would act independently of the design department of the firm.
This RSA was very limited. It only looked at the situation on Prince of Wales Road. Its terms of reference did not include the new access routes - New Dalby Street, the pedestrian walkway along the west of the new building or the turning circle.
Camden have said that strictly speaking, no road safety audit is required even on Prince of Wales Road but that best practice is to carry one out on a main road of this sort. Because it is also not required on private roads, the new accesses were excluded. In fact, so limited was the scope of this audit that Buchanan were not even provided with traffic surveys although clearly the number of vehicles using the existing Dalby Street would have been very relevant to the situation at the junction of New Dalby St, next to the bridge. Nor were they required to carry out such a survey on Prince of Wales Road.
That Road Safety Audit was included in the documents presented to the public enquiry at the back of Core Document 9 "Highway Works & Parking Replacement" and is linked here (see Road Safety Audit by Buchanan.pdf).
Major issues identified by Buchanan are shown below under ISSUES IN RSAs
(b). At the public enquiry, the Camden engineer, in reply to a question on the absence of an RSA of the new access routes, promised that one would be commissioned. This was talked about as being a concession to the objectors. The Inspector noted favourably that the decision had been made to carry out such an RSA in his report. Following the enquiry, Camden said that this would not be a full audit but a “Stage 2” audit, carried out at the same time as the Stage 2 audit for Prince of Wales Road. A Stage 2 audit is completely different from a Stage 1 audit. For Stage 1 the auditor, working independently of the designer (the developer’s designer for the new routes, Camden for Prince of Wales Road) has no constraints. After the Stage 1 audit, adjustments may be made to the design following consideration of the Stage 1 report. The scope of the Stage 2 audit is then limited as is demonstrated by the Audit Team Statement in the Stage 2 audit commissioned for Prince of Wales Road and the new routes:
“The audit has been carried out with the sole purpose of identifying any features of the design that could be removed or modified in order to improve the safety of the scheme. The problems identified have been noted in the report together with suggestions for safety improvements, which we recommend should be studied for implementation”
Thus fundamental flaws such as the impossibility of safely fitting in the current and future traffic in the new routes could only be considered to the extent that a suggestion could be made to improve a design already largely cast in stone.
Project Centre, until recently part of NCP (National Car Parks), was commissioned to carry out this Stage 2 audit. The “Client Organisation” was shown to be Camden. The “Design Team” as Camden and Savell Bird & Axon (the developer’s designer) and “the audit was requested in writing by the Design Team and no written audit brief has been provided to the Audit Team”.
They were only provided with a very limited number of documents.
They carried out a site visit of existing Dalby St on an afternoon in the school holidays. It was pointed out (by us) following the report, that the traffic on a school day, late in the afternoon is totally different. As a result, Camden asked them to do a further survey on a school day. The second report reflects that second survey. In any event, no consideration has been asked for, or given, to the traffic at other times or the fact that the new routes have to be fit for purpose in the light of any future changes to traffic. Possible recent occurrences that would have that impact are the opening of the new dance studio constructed in the last year and the closing of the Mornington Leisure Centre causing some of its users to divert to Talacre.
ISSUES IN RSAs
These are some of the problems and issues identified by the RSAs to date
(a). Buchanan’s Stage 1 report (on Prince of Wales Improvements only). “Where the Audit Team feel that an identified problem is of particular concern, the item is identified ****PROBLEM****
“A2.1.1. ****PROBLEM****: Carriageway width may not be sufficient for large vehicles passing side by side. Location: East of Dalby St, just under the bridge.
The proposed build out of the northern kerb line and the provision of a cycle lane on the northern kerb would reduce the existing carriageway width to 5.5m at this location. The Audit Team considers that this may be insufficient to accommodate two large vehicles passing side by side. Prince of Wales Road is also a bus route and a carriageway width of less than 6m could lead to dangerous passing conflicts. Refer to Figures 3 & 4 in the Appendix. The audit Team recommends that the proposed carriageway width for vehicles is checked and provided in accordance with DMRB standards”
In the Road Safety Audit Feedback Form, Camden’s response was that it did not accept there was a problem and did not accept the recommendation. This said “The RSA has not recognised that the existing segregating island between the carriageway and the cycle lane on the westbound lane of Prince of Wales Road under the bridge is to be removed. The removal of the island would provide a carriageway width of 6m which is acceptable.”
[The drawing in the signed s106 agreement which is defined as “Plan 4” CENV/2007/21 January 2007 shows the island on the westbound lane with the description “Retained 1.5m wide cycle lane with reduced width segregating island under bridge”. No cycle lane is shown on the eastbound ie northern side. Figures 3 & 4 referred to by Buchanan are photographs taken from a few metres either side of the bridge pointing into and beyond the bridge. They show much the same view as exists today]
“A2.2.1. ****PROBLEM****: Inadequate visibility. Location: New Dalby Street junction with Prince of Wales Road.
The visibility envelope normal required for safety at priority junctions on a 30mph road involves a ‘y’ distance of 50m along the near kerb, in both directions. In the proposal, the visibility to the left when exiting Dalby Street will be only 50m to the centreline.
The Audit Team feel that the proposed visibility distance is too small and the safety of all road users will be compromised by this inadequate provision.
The Audit Team note that existing visibility is poor, due to the presence of the bridge pier, but feel that if the existing alignment of Dalby Street were to be maintained, with the proposed buildouts and the adjustments under the bridge a far safer arrangement could be provided.
The Audit Team recommend that the layout for the realignment be reviewed and revised such that the available visibillty can be increased.”
In the Road Safety Audit Feedback Form, Camden’s response was that they accepted that there was a problem. They recommended that the measure was not accepted. Under “Alternative Measures” they wrote “The visibility splay to the left at the new junction give-way line provides a visibility envelope of 2.4m x 50m, to the centre of the westbound lane of Prince of Wales Road. This is an improvement over the existing junction. Building out the existing junction is not an option in this scheme. From a driver’s position when the vehicle is at the give-way line at the junction line, which is approximately 1.2-1.5m back, visibility is far more than 50m”.
(b). Project Centre Stage 2 report on Prince of Wales Improvements and on the new routes
(i) Per its report of October 2011, stated to be final.
(A) “PROBLEM: Proposed loading bay west of New Dalby Street.
Summary: Vehicles parked in the proposed loading bay will obstruct visibility for drivers exiting New Dalby Street.
Detail: The proposed loading bay on Prince of Wales Road positioned west of the junction with New Dalby Street is within the visibility splay for drivers exiting New Dalby Street. If large vehicles are stopped or parked in the bay, drivers in New Dalby Street will have obstructed sightlines to oncoming eastbound vehicles. This may force drivers to encroach into the eastbound lane to improve their sight to on-coming traffic, increasing the risk of collision with eastbound traffic. The bay should be relocated to another location or set back into a footway lay-by, outside the visibility splay for New Dalby Street.
RECOMMENDATION: Relocate the loading bay to position outside the visibility splay from New Dalby Street”.
(B) “PROBLEM: Disabled parking spaces off the New Dalby Street turning circle.
Summary: Narrow bay width for disabled parking bays.
Detail: The width of the proposed disabled parking bays is less than the recommended 3.6m which allows sufficient space for disabled pedestrians and wheelchairs users to get into and out a vehicle parked in a 90 degree echelon bay.
RECOMMENDATION: Provide at least two 3.6m wide disabled parking bays”.
(C) “ISSUE
Detail: The proposed Zebra pedestrian crossing markings on the raised pedestrian crossings in the turning circle of New Dalby Street are an inappropriate use as they confer that it is a controlled crossing where pedestrians have priority. However these are uncontrolled crossings where vehicles have priority and the use of Zebra crossing markings may create confusion between drivers and pedestrians. It may also reduce the effectiveness of the markings at other controlled crossings.
RECOMMENDATION: Replace the Zebra crossing markings on the crossings with a coloured surface treatment or a material other than asphalt e.g. block paving, setts to highlight the crossing points”
(ii) Per its report of December 2011 stated to be final
(A)and (B) but not (C) above were included in the December 2011, together with this additional Problem
“PROBLEM
Summary: Parked and waiting vehicles on New Dalby Street may create conflict with pedestrians,
Detail: New Dalby Street is a private road but will retain public vehicular access to the Talacre Sports Centre. Current arrangements observed in Dalby Street ie no parking enforcement in a road that has been converted to private land, shows that opportunistic parking, dropping off and waiting to pick up visitors to the sports centre is prevalent, The waiting vehicles were seen to block vehicular access and created safety Issues for pedestrians (in particular children) with vehicles reversing In small areas
As New Dalby Street will become a private road, there will be no parking enforcement which may create similar safety and access issues The Audit Team have been advised that the development is required to fund a suitably qualified traffic marshal to manage traffic movement and discourage parking In the street, although details of operation e,g, hours of operation in relation to the sports centre opening hours were not provided. Marshalling may be required on the weekends ensure vehicle access to and from the sports centre is not restricted by parked vehicles in New Dalby Street, creating congestion and safety issues for visitors to the sports centre.
RECOMMENDATION:
Ensure a traffic marshal is present Monday to Friday in the afternoon e,g, 2pm-7pm, as a minimum. Monitoring should be corned out to determine if a traffic marshal is required outside of these weekday hours. and on the weekend.
Consider pursuing legal agreements between LB Camden and the developer to allow parking enforcement in New Dalby Street by LB Camden, with ownership and maintenance of the road and enforceable facilities retained the property management”.
10. Monitoring text in s106 agreement.
The s106 submitted to the public enquiry
That draft s106 had no definition of Paramount Objective. The Service Management Plan had a Monitoring section which said
MONITORING
28. That this Plan shall be the subject of continuous review.
29. That if following a review the plan requires updating it shall only be done with the prior written approval of the Council. For the avoidance of doubt if the written approval of the Council is not obtained the previously agreed arrangements shall remain in place
30. That it is acknowledged that the Council reserves the right to make amendments
to this plan if required to safeguard public amenity and the reasonable access
requirements of the Leisure Centre.
Definition of Paramount Objective:
2.20 “The Paramount Objective. The overriding objective underpinning this Agreement (which both parties shall have regard to and give effect to carrying out and enforcing the obligations of this Agreement and the plans/briefs incorporated herein) such objective being the absolute requirement to safeguard secure and guarantee public amenity and safe free marshaled properly maintained and commodious access for the public at large to and from the Leisure Centre (either in its current built form or in any later rebuilt form which has been granted planning permission) and specifically over the Pedestrian Access Way and Permanent Access Way”.
That clause was one of several added in after the public inquiry following objectors pointing out that the earlier draft submitted to the public inquiry were weak on this topic.
Longer and more stringent Monitoring Section in Service Management Plan which read as follows:
28.The Council as highway authority has agreed to the Stopping Up Order and the Further Stopping Up Order on the basis that the Paramount Objective shall be secured in perpetuity through the effective operation of the Agreed Permanent Access Plan, the Agreed Pedestrian Access Plan, the Agreed Service Management Plan and the Traffic Marshalling Brief ("the Plans/Brief). The parties agree that the operation of these Plans/Brief shall be subject of continuous review by the Council to secure the Paramount Objective on an ongoing basis - this review to take place at least annually (or at shorter intervals if the Council reasonably considers that such review is required in the interests of securing the Paramount Objective.) In determining whether the Paramount Objective is being secured, the Council will have regard both to the past operation: of the Plans/Brief, but also to any changes or proposed changes in the built environment / highway network open space in the vicinity of the Development. As part of that review, the Council may require the Owner to produce such reasonable information on the operation of the Plans/Brief as the Council may reasonably require
29. In reviewing the operation of the Plans/Brief, the Council may require the Owner to make amendments to the operating arrangements for such Plans if the Council reasonably considers this to be necessary to safeguard the Paramount Objective (whether these changes are in the reasonable opinion of the Council required in light of the past operation of the Plans/Brief or in response to any changes or proposed changes in the built environment / highway network / open space in the vicinity of the Development). For the avoidance of doubt, the Owner shall comply with the Plans/Brief as amended by the Council even if this requires increased expenditure falling upon the owner.
30 For the avoidance of doubt, the Council shall act reasonably in requiring any amendments to be made, taking into account any representations made by the Owner and balancing the need to secure the Paramount Objective against the reasonable operational requirements of the Owner. For the avoidance of doubt, the Owner shall comply with the Plans as amended by the Council
31. That, if following a review, the Plan requires updating it shall only be done so with the prior written approval of the Council. For the avoidance of doubt if the written approval of the Council is not obtained the previously agreed arrangements shall remain in place
32. That it is acknowledged that the Council reserves the right to make amendments to this plan if required to safeguard public amenity and the reasonable access requirements of the Leisure Centre and for the avoidance of doubt in the event of the Council making any such amendment the Owner shall comply with the Plan in its amended form,
The Situation if changes to the Service Management Plan are permitted
The Paramount Objective definition and the five paragraph Monitoring text provides a degree of clarity which would be lost. It makes reference to the sort of changes that could occur. It is intended to apply for all time and worded accordingly. If Camden were to reduce its meaning, it would be to the detriment of the public interest.
THE SIMPLEST QUESTION NEEDING TO BE ANSWERED IS WHETHER BY CHANGING OR DELETING TEXT IT MEANS THAT THE OWNERS ARE LESS AT RISK. IF THE ANSWER IS “NO” THEN THE CLAUSES ARE NEEDED SO THAT FUTURE BUYERS THEIR LEGAL ADVISORS AND LENDERS ARE FULLY INFORMED AND SO THERE IS LESS RISK OF DISPUTES. IF THE ANSWER IS “YES” THEN THERE HAS BEEN A SERIOUS BREACH OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY.
We heard of the proposed changes to the SMP as a result of this FoI request and response:
Request
1. The “Stage 2” Road Safety Audit carried out by the Project Centre contains drawings which appear to differ from those which are in the Supplementary s106 agreement and the planning approval. One example is that no physical width restriction is shown on the new access road. Please advise
(a) what, if any, changes have been made since the signing of the s106 agreement,
(b) where there is a drawing or other document that I can see that shows changes (or please send it to me) and
(c) how any changes have been authorised.
Response
The physical width restriction was removed during the development of the detailed design. The drawings used for the safety audit that you have seen were the detailed design drawings and are documents that show this change. The purpose of the bollard was to provide a physical restriction to larger vehicles, which would not be able to turn in one movement at the turning circle, from entering the site with out prior arrangements. However, the 2.0m restriction would also prevent many smaller vehicles from entering the site, for example, 4x4s driven by sports centre customers or visitors to the GP surgery. This was contradictory to the paramount objective of the S106, the description of which includes ‘to safeguard …. commodious access for the public at large to and from the Leisure Centre’. It was therefore agreed with the developer that the bollard be removed from the scheme and only size restriction signage at the junction with Prince of Wales Road be provided. The change was therefore made because the council was of the opinion that the operating arrangement for the access plans did not safeguard the paramount objective, in accordance of the review process made provision for in the plans. The changes have been drafted into amended versions of the access plans in the S106 which have been sent to the developer and we await their formal acceptance of the revised documents. The updated plans and will be incorporated in a re-signed version of the S106, which is required anyway following the completion of the land sale. Copies of the draft updated Servicing Management Plan, Permanent Access Plan and the General Arrangement drawing are attached. [2.2.2022. See via this s106 page]
On 4.4.12, an email from Camden informed us “there is no intention to lessen Camden’s rights under the S106 with regard to the access plans”. However, we have seen two revised Service Management Plans which were said to have been sent to the developer for agreement. The first contained different text from that in the s106. We pointed that out and were told it had been an error. A new text was then sent and we again pointed out that it was different from that in the s106 agreement. We have seen no further text and therefore feel justified in continuing to raise this matter.
11. £12k Service Charges.
The only way New Dalby St could be safe (unless it completely bans oversized vehicles which would make operating the Sports Centre impossible) is to have a marshal at both the turning circle and the Prince of Wales Road junction from an hour before the Sports Centre opens to an hour after it closes. In 2008, the Developer tabled a document showing it cost over £82,768 pa for one marshal for that period. The cost of marshals has to be paid for by the private flats. That means roughly £165,536 pa would need to be borne by the 36 private flats. The same document showed that a 3 bed flat’s service charge would average £6,305 pa but that document wrongly assumed that the 19 affordable flats would pay an equal share in the marshalling costs (and would pay ground rent). The (at least) £12k can be shown either by (a) looking only at the £165,536 or (b) by starting with the £6,305k.
(a) £165,536. This needs to be divided by 36 to give the average of over £4.598 per private flat. That has to be increased for assumed average service charge related to other items included in a service charge, say £2,500*, which makes £7,098. Based on the same document which was tabled by the developer, a 3 bed flat pays 78% more than the average due to service charges being based on sq footage and there are a high proportion of one bedroom flats. (The total shown for the 36 private flats was £127,434. There are only 6 three bedroom flats and they were shown as paying a total of £37,831). That produces an amount of £12.634
* The developers schedule showed total service charges paid by private and affordable flats of £183,111. That included for the £82,768 marshalling making the non marshalling element £100,343. As that was to be paid by all 55 flats making the average £1,824 pa. However, that needs to be adjusted due to the private flats only having the concierge service. So increase the £1,834 to £2,500
(b). £6,305 pa. Reduce by, say, £3,500 to account for other costs borne by 3 bed flats, to give £2,805 as the marshalling element. Increase that by 55/36 due to all being paid by private flats, to give £4,285 pa. Double due to two marshals, not one, gives £8,570 pa. Add back the £3,500 other costs to give £12,070 pa
The figures in (a) and (b) omit several items that are harder to value but they make no difference to the scale. Omitted for example are:
(i). Inflation since 2008 when cost of marshals was provided
(ii). Other costs such as maintenance of road and turning circle and bollards
(iii). The developer’s schedule assumed the affordable flats would pay a total of £13,900 pa ground rent. I understood from Camden’s housing department that affordable flats don’t pay ground rent but I may have misunderstood this. If it is not payable, then the freeholder (who is in the first instant responsible for the marshalling) might have regarded that amount as defraying the marshalling and other costs. If £13,900 were passed onto to the private flats, it would mean an average of £386 pa which would be increased for 3 bed flats by 78% to £660
(iv). The situation wrt the medical centre and marshalling is not clear. The developer’s schedule showed them paying a service charge of £23,886. It seems unlikely that the NHS would be prepared to fund such charges
All of the above calculations assumed there are no changes to the running requirements of the Sports Centre and no account is taken of the impact of major and minor maintenance or capital expenditure. Maintenance and capital expenditure are similar to what is seen in blocks of flats with periodic maintenance, lift replacement etc where there would often be a sinking fund involving annual contributions in order to have a reserve available when such costs need to be met.
12. Distances on Drawing
The attached drawing is based upon one that is included in the latest Road Safety Audit report. [2.2.2022 See via this Road Safety Audit page]
Distances between and around the circled numbers are:
1 – 2. Prince of Wales kerb (1) for 14m. Width of carriageway 5.5m
2-3. From (2) to 90 degree corner, distance about 48m. Width of carriageway 4.6m per verbal reply to a request for clarification following formal response to FoI enquiry that said it was 4.8m. Kerbs each are “a minimum of 250mm”. See [1] for observations on site which reduce those amounts significantly.
3-4. From 90 degree corner to turning circle, 15m with a width of 6m
5. Turning circle has a diameter of 15m