Roadworks in Lordship Lane at end of North Cross Road

[Sue]

Thank you worldwiser.

[first mate]

Good grief and these works had the fullest support of our local reps. Again, seemingly no proper oversight or accountability.

[James Barber]

I was sent a link to video of a whole new Dutch underpass built in less than a weekend - https://t.co/ryhTaJxkGV

Hi Worldwiser,

I'm agog at the FOI response you've had. The budget wasn't anywhere near ?190k. I think your FOI response is wrong.

Let me get a proper response for you as only Cleaner, Greener, Safer funding was to pay for this and we've never been asked or even had that kind of devolved budget to spend. And if we did we wouldn't spend that on this.

[Mugglesworth]

Nice to see that a ?7k (circa 5%) overspend on budget is considered "slight"

[spider69]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> I was sent a link to video of a whole new Dutch

> underpass built in less than a weekend -

> https://t.co/ryhTaJxkGV

>

> Hi Worldwiser,

> I'm agog at the FOI response you've had. The

> budget wasn't anywhere near ?190k. I think your

> FOI response is wrong.

> Let me get a proper response for you as only

> Cleaner, Greener, Safer funding was to pay for

> this and we've never been asked or even had that

> kind of devolved budget to spend. And if we did we

> wouldn't spend that on this.

the difference to the the works on NX Road and other works in the borough is men,equipment and materials were all in the right place at the right time.

The Dutch have people who know exactly what needs to be done and it is planned to the last full stop.

Again they do not have they same busy roads as we have. I suspect this is in a out of town location

[pipsky2008]

worldwiser Wrote:

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

> Ok.. a mere 15 weeks after making the FOI request,

> we finally have some responses. They didn't even

> apologise or explain the delay. I've cut and

> pasted into my original request (marked >>) but

> the headlines are:

>

> -Southwark thought this was an excellent way to

> spend 150-190k (not sure which is the actual

> figure)

> -No-one other than Conway was asked to quote for

> this because they're currently the contractor for

> everything

> -They delivered the project 10 weeks late on a 3.5

> week job.

>

>

> 2015 Renovation of the entrance to North Cross

> Road, SE22 - FOI Request dated 02.10.2015

>

> Specifically I would like information on the

> following areas:

>

> 1. The overall total and final cost of this

> specific scheme of

> works to include all consultation, design and

> final build costs.

>

> >>The overall budget was ?190k and. the estimated

> costs were ?140,881.96

>

> 2. The original quotation cost for these works.

> Explanation for any

> difference.

>

> >>The spend was ?147,577.89, a slight overspend of

> ?6,695.93, but under

> budget ups and downs were

>

> * Design under estimate ?183.71

>

> * Road Safety Audit under estimate ?300.00

>

> * Consultation overspend of ?846.00 (this was not

> in original estimate

> hence overspend)

>

> * Traffic order costs overspend of ?1000

>

> * Relocation of signal equipment overspend

> ?5,333,64

>

> 3. To which contractors this work was put out to

> tender and what

> the quoted costs returned were from each.

>

> >>The Works was carried out under our Highway and

> Professional Services

> Contract, the successful Contractor was

> ConwayAecom. This is a term

> contract for maintenance and project works.

>

> 4. The original length of time allowed for these

> works to be

> carried out, as estimated either by the successful

> contractors or

> the council, prior to their inception.

>

> >>The works were planned to start on the 13 July

> and be completed on the

> 7 August. The works actually started on 27 July

> and completed on the 14

> October

>

> 5. The reasons for why this project was

> part-suspended or delayed

> mid-way through. Any implications to the final

> cost resulting -

> whether up or down.

>

> >>The works were delayed as our Works Contractor

> had difficulties with

> it suppliers, which resulted in works starting on

> site but not being able

> to continue due to the non availability of

> materials. This has no effect

> on the costs to the project or\Council. The works

> are carried out under a

> schedule of rates, not days rates.

>

> 6. To what extent landlords of the adjoining

> retail premises along

> Lordship Lane were asked if they'd be willing to

> contribute or

> participate in the scheme. What, if any,

> consideration was given to

> replacing the full width of pavement within the

> bounds of the works

> (this request acknowledges that only part is in

> public ownership).

> Were any discussions held or attempts made to

> agree an acceptable

> division of costs in order to achieve a renovation

> of the entire

> pavement width. What were the results of those

> attempts? Or if no

> attempts were made, the reasons for this.

>

> >>A public consultation was carried out, which

> included the frontages

> (shops) no requests were received to do works on

> private land.

Unless the timetable for a response to an F.O.I request has been re-timetabled due to heavy usage, a request should be responded to within 20 working days. I have seen this on a Southwark Council poster in a public library.

Your ward councillors can inform you of the contact details of an F.O.I officer to look into this. 15 weeks is unacceptable.

Were you informed about the response time in their acknowledgement of your request?

[edhistory]

spider69 Wrote:

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

> The Dutch have people who know exactly what needs

> to be done and it is planned to the last full

> stop.

The Dutch did not contract AecomConway Ltd.

[worldwiser]

They responded after roughly 20 business days to say the person dealing with the request was still trying to locate the information. Then total radio silence until last week. I requested an internal review which wasn't addressed and sent 2 further reminders. I then stopped caring enough to persist. Which doubtless was their hope all along. Clearly they don't abide by legislation because there's no penalty.

James, I look forward to whatever you discover. Including finding out what incompetent functionary took so long to look up a spreadsheet and make a phone call.

[pipsky2008]

worldwiser Wrote:

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

> They responded after roughly 20 business days to

> say the person dealing with the request was still

> trying to locate the information. Then total radio

> silence until last week. I requested an internal

> review which wasn't addressed and sent 2 further

> reminders. I then stopped caring enough to

> persist. Which doubtless was their hope all along.

> Clearly they don't abide by legislation because

> there's no penalty.

>

> James, I look forward to whatever you discover.

> Including finding out what incompetent functionary

> took so long to look up a spreadsheet and make a

> phone call.

Hi Worldwiser

A contact number for the F.O.I office for Southwark Council is 020 7525 0728, according to the poster I saw, should you wish to take up the matter of a 15 week wait.

I wouldn't necessarily equate slowness of response to incompetence though, but rather to a hunger for information from F.O.I requestees, and the huge subsequent workload.

[worldwiser]

pipsky - thanks for the contact information, although it doesn't seem worth making an issue out of it. There are no penalties for late compliance so what would be the point? They can respond whenever they like.