Agenda item

The Cabinet Member considered a petition request to repair the pavements on Arlington Drive, Ruislip.

The lead petitioner put forward to the Cabinet Member some reasons to action the request to resurface the pavements on this road.

·       The petition organiser expressed gratitude for the hearing and shared a personal story about her dental appointment coinciding with the notification of the Hearing. She detailed her struggle with dental implants after losing a front tooth and breaking another due to a fall on uneven paving stones on Arlington Drive, costing over £5,000.

·       The lead petitioner stressed the dangers of the road, citing incidents involving themselves, their sister-in-law, and children, emphasizing the need for pavement replacement for safety.

·       The petitioner proposed using the proceeds from the sale of assets, such as golf courses and libraries, for the purpose of repairing the pavements on Arlington Drive, and further highlighted that the pavements were not fit for purpose.

·       An additional petitioner added that the presence of trees along the road, while aesthetically pleasing, contributed to the movement of pavements due to root growth. He had participated in Residents' Association meetings in Ruislip, where a Councillor had delivered a lecture highlighting the benefits of using tarmac over paving stones. The petitioner noted that Fairfield Road was a good example of the kind of look he hoped the road, Arlington Drive, could have.

·       It was conclusively noted that all residents had signed the petition in support of the request for the repair of pavements on Arlington Drive.

The Cabinet Member acknowledged the points raised by the petitioners, noting that the Council’s allocation of funds for local roads and pavements had increased this year, marking an upward trend.

The Cabinet Member further noted that Hillingdon Council ranked as the second-largest council in London, resulting in overseeing the longest stretch of road surface and pavements compared to most other councils in the city. Therefore, maintaining them was a substantial undertaking.

The Council routinely surveyed all streets and pavements. A third-party specialist had recently conducted a bi-annual survey, assessing the condition of every road in the Borough, and provided recommendations.

The Council prioritised its approach to repairing roads and pavements based on urgency.

Officers had been looking into the condition of Arlington Drive, identifying several local areas where minor repair work would be undertaken.

The duty of officers was to traverse the Borough's streets, identifying defects meeting a certain threshold, which would then be promptly addressed.

The Council aimed to inspect all roads annually, with more frequent checks for busier roads. Arlington Drive fell into the yearly inspection routine.

The Cabinet Member informed that officers would address several defects on the pavements of Arlington Drive in the coming months. Regarding urgency, Arlington Drive, was not high on the priority list for resurfacing; it was currently scheduled for year 6 of the programme prepared.

In response, the lead petitioner stressed that there were pavement humps and cracks on the road, emphasizing the urgent need for resurfacing.

The Head of Highways detailed the Council’s policy regarding reactive maintenance. For planned works, a separate set of criteria was employed, which involved assigning a numerical value to each defect, which was then used to calculate the total condition score for each road. She added that officers had elevated the criteria for Arlington Drive in response to the petition received. Taking this into account, alongside other factors within the Council’s value management prioritisation criteria, the road’s priority level for resurfacing work had been increased.

As per the Cabinet Member's instruction, officers would investigate carrying out defect repairs on Arlington Drive.

The additional petitioner raised concerns about tarmac strips placed between paving stones, citing them as potential trip hazards, and inquiries about alternative approaches to pavement repairs. Officers were to conduct further review on this matter.

The Cabinet Member reaffirmed that where there were any defects exceeding the established base criteria for repair work, officers would attend to them promptly.

The estimated timescale for reviewing defects on Arlington Drive was one month.

RESOLVED:

That the Cabinet Member for Property, Highways and Transport:

1)             Met with petitioners and listened to their request for replacement of paving slabs on Arlington Drive, Ruislip; and

2)             Requested officers to investigate and review identified defects on the pavements of Arlington Drive and undertake any necessary minor repair work.