Tunbridge Wells Red Brick Report
A report by Kent County Council’s Head of Highway Operations to the Tunbridge Wells Joint Transportation Board on 28 April 2014
Summary: This report outlines the current progress for Red Brick paving in Tunbridge Wells
Introduction
Tunbridge Wells has a history of footways which were constructed with clay bricks. This originated from when the Pantiles were originally paved in c1700 with 9½” square clay pantiles. The laying of brick footways elsewhere in the town probably developed thereafter, culminating with the High Broom Brick Company manufacturing and supplying paving bricks, from excavated clay within the Tunbridge Wells area from 1885 until 1968.
The legacy of this is that there are now a number of characteristic brick footways within Tunbridge Wells, some of which are of full brick construction and some others part brick, part tarmacadam.
Background The repair and maintenance of the Highway Network, including the brick footways is becoming an increasingly high profile issue, particularly due to the heavier use of the network.
Brick footways are particularly susceptible to damage caused by vehicles parked on footways as generally the sub base structure was not designed to support such loads.
As a green town, a number of streets additionally suffer from the ground heave, caused by tree roots. The effect of both of these is to create trip hazards, increasing the risk of Highway insurance claims and creating an additional maintenance burden.
Current position A small number of footways are nationally listed as buildings of special architectural or historic interest in recognition of their heritage value. These are set out in Appendix A
Within the Royal Tunbridge Wells Conservation Area footways are subject to the Kent wide protocol which generally attempts to maintain the existing paving materials, unless otherwise agreed between the Highways Authority and the local Conservation Officer.
Appendix B shows the extent of the Conservation Area
The maintenance and the replacement of the brick footways outside the conservation areas however, has generally caused issues over the years with members of the public becoming concerned and campaigning for the bricks to be renewed rather than replaced with tarmacadam. In the case of Tunbridge Wells the cherished brick footways have become a perennial issue when they are to be repaired. This results in negative press, abortive work, and achieves little. It should be noted that this is not a new matter a recent Courier newspaper article highlighted the same debate in 1909.
When carrying out maintenance works, it has not always been practical to replace the bricks for a number of reasons and it is important that we deliver cost effective and sustainable maintenance solutions in line with current and future available funding. Over time some areas of brick footways have been replaced with tarmacadam, resulting in some roads within Tunbridge Wells which have part brick and part tarmacadam footways.
There have also been some areas within Tunbridge Wells where the residents have fought campaigned vigorously resulting in the bricks being replaced. Residents feel by removing the bricks and replacing with tarmac this damages the heritage value of Royal Tunbridge Wells. There is currently no set guidance for officers to work to, or for resolving such issues outlined above.
Recent History
A recent report was presented at the Joint Transportation Board, where the proposals were to replace a brick footway with tarmacadam outside the conservation area; the scheme again caused such controversy. The need for a clearer strategy was put forward.
The then chairman of the JTB suggested a working group be set up to address the red brick issues fully and produce a report and a working document to help make such decisions in the future, this report will be passed for approval by senior managers and the JTB in order that it can be used by officers making decisions on the replacement and maintenance of footways within Tunbridge Wells.
The working group which was established, consisted of Surfacing Manager, KCC District Manager, KCC Urban Design Team Leader, TWBC Tunbridge Wells Borough Councillors Kent County Council Members
The working group firstly decided on the geographical area outside of the conversation area to be included within the report, which consisted of the town centre area; Rustall, Southborough , Speldhurst, and Pembury.
Appendix C details the outlying areas included within the survey.
The initial inspection carried out surveyed all footways within the designated areas to identify the footways which were either full brick or part brick. As well as those in the survey area which have been changed to tarmacadam.
From this survey a total of 45 full brick footways and 43 part brick footways were identified.
The survey captured the following attributes Condition of the footway and bricks Length and width of footway Footway parking issues Tree root issues Percentage of bricks to tarmacadam (if part) Listed building / area of character Key routes Surrounding footways brick or tarmacadam Appendix D- is the list of the roads inspected outside of the conservation areas Appendix D1 – is a snap shot of how the survey information was recorded.
The survey has also been captured as a series of layers within the Geographical Information System (GIS). It is considered that this clearer understanding of the assets and its mapping will provide a useful management tool.
Appendix E highlights a sample of the GIS mapping.
Methodology
The next stage was to develop the different categories for the future maintenance and schemed works.
The working group adopted a criteria-based approach to prioritise where the retention of existing brick footways should be.
This looked at the existing arrangements of materials, and: Focussed on the primary road network and other key distributor roads. This was in order to maintain the best first impressions, particularly for tourism and visitors to the town and so as to provide the highest visual impact to the greatest number of users/community, Factored in the more historic enclaves, or where there was a tradition of brick footways, Where there was a clear case for rationalisation. For example where there was a small section of brick in an area that was now predominantly tarmac.
The Proposed Categories Category Example Indicative Costs 0 Listed Take up bricks and relay Original imperial bricks made <20m² = £42m² locally in High Brooms. 20 – 100m² = £30m² Characteristic variation in colouring >100m² = £25m² Blue/ Red/ Mixed (sometimes used in combination with ragstone spalls)
1 Conservation Areas Take up bricks and relay Mixture of both original and <20m² = £42m² replacement bricks. In order to 20 – 100m² = £30m² meet maintenance protocol these >100m² = £25m² bricks are salvaged and reused to carry out repairs.
2 Retain Brick Take up bricks and replace with Modern metric clay brick (square new edged) 200x100 <20m² = £67m² Currently supplied by Ketleys 20 – 100m² = £55m² These to be used in less sensitive >100m² = £50m² areas, or to replace as above or for any enhancements
3 Asphalt Take up bricks and replace with Tarmac to be used where it tarmac already exists or in identified <20m² = £43m² streets outside the conservation 20 – 100m² = £36m² area >100m² = £30m² Black is acceptable as default. Salvage any bricks for reuse in conservation area
4 Asphalt /brick To take up bricks and replace Option for less sensitive locations, with 1m width tarmac and relay where there is desire to retain brick 1m width bricks but where pavement parking is a <20m² = £56m² particular issue 20 – 100m² = £33m² >100m² = £29m² To take up bricks and replace 1m width new bricks and 1m tarmac
<20m² = £64m²
20 – 100m² = £45m²
>100m² = £41m²
5 Enhance Take up existing Where agreed, replace with new surface and replace metric bricks when due for full with new brick repair. <20m² = £67m² 20 – 100m² = £55m² >100m² = £50m²
NB: 1. Rates are taken from the existing Term Maintenance Contract i.e. <20m², 20 - 100m² and >100m².
2. Life time costs have not been taken into account in these figures. Tarmac life expectancy would be approx. 25 years. Brick would be circa 60 years, depending on how it is laid and if parked on. Although it should be noted that some brick footways have been in place more than 100 years.
The working group also considered the fact that the High Brooms Bricks were a resource that should be salvaged where possible, they should be recycled for repairs to category 0 (listed) and possibly category 1 (conservation area) footways.
The group also recognised and took into account that the problem of footway parking is not going to go away. It has been mitigated by introducing a hybrid footway that retains brick to the back half, but introduces tarmac to the front edge (Category4) 1 metre wide. This arrangement has been trialled successfully in some areas such as Hilbert Road.
There is still a need to introduce new bricks. These would generally be restricted to the less sensitive areas. In these instances we will utilise a square edge clay brick. Although metric size this is considered the most cost effective.
The suggested categories have taken into account future funding; parking issues and areas within conservation and listed footways.
However it should be noted that if a footway scheme was identified on a current bricked footway outside of the conversation area and the category suggested was to retain the bricks, additional funding will be required to offset the financial amount between tarmacadam and brick. The other option would be to reduce the length of the scheme to factor in the additional cost of the brick.
The working group carried out a desktop exercise with the information provided from the inspections and categorised each of the footways. The adopted approach is considered to achieve a reasonable balance between the cost of repair and replacement and the desire to preserve character.
Appendix F sets out the results of the Categorisation.
Conclusions
The outcome of this report is to aid officers to determine the best treatment for inspecting, maintaining and replacing footways within the predetermined areas. With a guidance document to refer to this will help to alleviate concerns over the chosen maintenance method from members for the public and in turn will help officers uphold decisions made.
The footways which are categorised to be replaced with tarmacadam, may not be replaced within the next few months or even years, only when maintenance works or future schemes have been identified.
This report recommends that a number of footways are kept and maintained as brick. A common sense approach has been adopted for when deciding which footways can either be replaced eventually with tarmacadam or a one metre strip replacing a section of bricks at the front of the footway.
Recommendations 1. Endorse the methodology focusing on the primary network and key historic areas. 2. Agree the proposed categories as set out in Appendix 5. 3. Adopt appendix F as the future strategy within Tunbridge Wells for footway maintenance and footway surfacing schemes. 4. The next stage would to make this a public document which can be uploaded on both Kent County Council and Tunbridge Wells web sites. 5. That officers implement the revised guidance.
Contact Officer – Earl Bourner