A survey of damaged paving stones In the Core area of St ... · An example of a badly damaged paving stone stained by discarded chewing gum in Waterloo Place, St James’s . Foreword

St James’s Conservation Trust

A survey of damaged paving stones In the Core area of St James’s

Carried out between 22nd May and 23rd June 2008

An example of a badly damaged paving stone stained by discarded chewing gum in Waterloo Place, St James’s

Foreword

St. James’s is rightly known as the finest small area in of London. It is a sad ommission by the local authority responsible, Westminster City Council, that its footpaths are cheaply surfaced and badly neglected. This Report, by Mr Brian Woodham, the Administrator of the Trust, is an admirable expose ́ and analysis of a shocking problem.

It is to be hoped that Westminster City Council, which, in most respects, does so outstandingly well, quickly rises to the challenge of this report and puts matters right.

John Beveridge QC Chairman

The St James’s Conservation Trust

(i)

Paving Stone Survey

Contents Item Pages

• Foreword (i)

• Map of the Survey area

• The Survey Pages 1 to 10 Annex ‘A’ Paving stones survey-basic data. Annex ‘B’ List of streets in order of number of damaged paving stones. Annex ‘C’ Paving stones survey- values given to damage. Annex ‘D’ List of streets in order of consolidated number of damaged paving

stones. Annex ‘E’ Paving stones survey- length of footways divided by consolidated

number of damaged paving stones. Annex ‘F’ List of streets in order of length of footways divided by number of

damaged paving stones. Annex ‘G’ Comparison between lengths of all the streets and yards with the

lengths of those covered with tarmac Annex ‘H’ Conclusions • Index of photographs

• Photographs Pages 1(i) to I(iii)

2(i) to 2(iv) 3(i) to 3(vii) 4(i) to 4(iii) 5(i) to 5(ii) 6(i) to 6(iii) 7(i) to 7(ii)

(ii)

St James Conservation TrustPaving Stone Survey - 28/04/08KEY

York stone TarmacConcrete

1

The St James’s Paving survey 1. Purpose of the Survey 1.1 The purpose of the survey is to determine the state of the paving stones within the

core area of St James’s and, where found wanting, to make recommendations for remedial action.

2. Reasons for sound paving stones 2.1 In the 18th Century, as London streets became busier, it was necessary to provide a part of the highway where pedestrians were safe from the ever increasing horse drawn traffic and were clean and free from the detritus of the vehicular highway. Footways also gave an aesthetic setting to the many new elegant stone buildings being constructed at this time. 2.2 The Westminster Paving Act 1762 set the standard for roads and pavements (footways) in Westminster. St James’s Street was paved at this time. The Act called for gutters at the side of the street, with upstand kerbs and footways, and paving of the streets with purbeck stone. This Act has been .repealed. (Purbeck Stone is a Jurassic sedimentary limestone from Dorset. It is hard and occurs in small blocks only a few inches thick and four or five feet long. Its use for paving as a high quality paving stone has been replaced by York Stone.). The Act introduced many improvements in thoroughfares, pavements (footways) were laid and obstructions removed. These improvements were greatly admired for their aesthetic beauty as well as the hygienic improvements they brought and led to paving of streets in major European cities as well as throughout the United Kingdom. 2.3 The Highways Act 1980- This is the Act which is the modern basis for the provision of public carriageways and footways. In summary, Section 41 requires a Highway Authority to maintain the highway at public expense; Section 36(1) and (2) provides a general definition of highways maintainable at the public expense and the definition of highway includes carriageways and ‘footways’. It is understood that Westminster City Council operates an annual programme for the replacement of damaged paving stones in the Borough. 2.4 The characteristics of a modern public footway. 2.4.1 Safety for pedestrians. 2.4.1.1 A footway should be a sanctuary for pedestrians from vehicular traffic. This means that it should be sufficiently wide to cater for the flow of pedestrians and generally should not be obstructed by tables and chairs outside public houses, restaurants and cafes,

2

(even if on private forecourts that are contiguous to the public footway if they obstruct pedestrians) or by vertical drinkers. Such obstructions cause pedestrians to move off the public footway into the vehicular highway. 2.4.1.2 The kerb should clearly define the limit of the vehicular highway 2.4.1.3 The surface of the public footway should be level, smooth and of a surface that is safe to walk on in all weathers. 2.4.1.4 A footway should be raised above the gutter of the vehicular highway so that it is kept free from surface rainwater. 2.4.1.5 A footway should be hygienic, clean, free from detritus and seepage from waste sacks. 2.4.2 Aesthetics 2.4.2.1 The aesthetic character of a public highway reflects the needs of a civilised society. In this context they are:- 2.4.2.1.1 Good order. In a modern society there a requirement for good order and discipline and where there is damage or deterioration to paving stones it should be speedily remedied. If this is not done, it leads to a general deterioration of an area. 2.4.2.1.2 Beauty. This is a human desire and a lack of beauty in public places can be demonstrated to have an adverse effect on people’s emotions and behaviour. There are strong arguments that beautiful and well maintained paving stones enhance the appearance of the buildings on which they stand. Conversely, cracked and damaged paving stones, inappropriate paving surfaces such as tarmac and chewing gum are ugly and affect the aesthetic appearance of an area and thus the spirit of the public that uses them. 3 The situation in the core area of St James’s 3.1 The St James’s Conservation Trust has been aware for a number of years of the poor condition of many of the paving stones in the core area of St James’s; indeed their condition appears to be worse than in many other streets in Westminster. The cultural, aesthetic, social and commercial importance of St James’s is such that the current situation is a converse of what it should be. The numerous damaged paving stones and the large proportion of pavements covered in tarmac is inappropriate for a relatively small area that contains one of the highest concentrations of listed buildings .This contention is supported by the photographic record at pages 1(i) to 7(ii) 3.2 As this Report goes to press (2nd December 2008), work is in progress in King Street, the worst affected street in the area,. Unfortunately, the damaged and missing paving stones are being replaced with concrete paving stones, which are not appropriate to the area, rather than with York stone so, while it represents an improvement, it is not a solution to the aesthetic look of the problem.

3

An example from Pall Mall of the many damaged paving stones in the core area of St James’s 3.3 The St James’s Conservation Trust is seeking the replacement of damaged and missing paving stones so that the streets of the core area of St James’s match the best practice in other parts of Westminster.

Paving stones close to Downing Street, Westminster

4

4 Area of the Survey 4.1 The area of the survey corresponds to the core area of St James’s. The map contained within the survey document shows the Area of Benefit of the St James’s Conservation Trust (marked with a red line) and this area corresponds to the core area of St James’s. The pavements coloured white indicate the use of concrete paving stones; the sand colour indicates the use of York stone; and black indicates the use of tarmac. The scale of the map is 1cm = 21.67metres. 5. The conduct of the Survey

5.1 The survey was carried out by the Administrator to the St James’s Conservation Trust who made observations in 2008 on 22 and 30th May, and on 17,19 and 23rd June. The observations were made visually (i.e. not with instruments) but are considered more than adequate to make a satisfactory survey of the state of the paving stones (or lack of them) in the core area of St James’s. Most of the most severely damaged paving stones have been photographed and many pictures of these are included in this survey report. 6. Assumptions- paving stones 6.1 The extent of damage is measured by eye as follows:- Not damaged Under approximately 12.5% damaged. Quarter damaged Between approximately 12.5 % and under 37.5 % damaged. Half damaged Between approximately 37.5% and under 62.5% damaged. Three quarters damaged

Between approximately 62.5% and under 87.5% damaged.

Completely damaged

Over 87.5% damaged

NB: The majority of paving stones designated as half damaged are split evenly from side to side and are clearly 50 % damaged. It is noted that the City Council has adopted the practice of using paving stones that are manufactured in two halves and these appear to provide a solution against damage. 6.2 The extent of damage, set out in this survey, is a measure of cracking; not of the overall state of a paving stone. No differentiation has been made between light hairline cracks or deep fissures. It is considered that a light hairline crack will in time deteriorate through the effects of frost and rainfall into deep fissures. 6.3 No differentiation has been taken of the size of paving stones. Most of the stones measure :-

• 90cm x 60cm • 74.5 cm x 60 cm • 40 cm x 40 cm

6.4 The word ‘pavement’ has not been used, although some source material uses this term, and the correct term ‘footway’ has been used throughout this survey.

5

7. Collection of data 7.1 Set out at Annex ‘A’ is the basic data for the survey. This shows :-

• The name of the street • The side of the street observed. • Numbers of paving stones observed to be :-

o Completely damaged. o Three quarters damaged. o Half damaged. o Quarter damaged o Total paving stones damaged on that side of the street. o Remarks e.g. Type of paving stones(concrete or York stone) or use of

tarmac 8. Assessing the data 8.1 Damaged stones and use of tarmac. In assessing the data it was observed that the footways in streets and courtyards in the core area of St James’s are variously surfaced as follows:-

• Totally with paving stones. • Partially with paving stones and with tarmac.

Where there is partial paving with paving stones and tarmac, and the analysis of damaged stones has taken the overall length of the footway into consideration, the lengths that are surfaced with tarmac have been included. It is accepted that this has led to an inaccuracy in this aspect of the analysis which could only be overcome using accurate measuring tools. However, it is considered that this inaccuracy does not affect the general conclusions of the survey. Annex ‘B’ shows that, of the first twelve streets with the most damaged paving stones, only one, Carlton House Terrace, has a significant use of tarmac. 8.2 Total number of damaged paving stones. 8.2.1 It is apparent that the data can be interpreted in a number of ways in order to indicate which streets are most severely affected by damaged paving stones. Annex ‘B’ is derived from Annex ‘A’ and shows that the first six streets in highest numbers of damaged stones, irrespective of their severity of damage, are:- 1- 243 King Street 2- 172 St James’s Square. 3- 165 Pall Mall 4- 155 Waterloo Place 5- 104 St James’s Street 6- 86 Lower Regent Street NB: Apart from a very short stretch of St James’s Street, these streets are not surfaced with tarmac. 8.2.2 It also shows that the total number of damaged or stones replaced temporarily with tarmac paving stones is 1329

6

9. Estimate of severity of damage 9.1 Annex ‘C’ is a calculation, derived from Annex ‘A’, of the severity of damage of all damaged paving stones. These are set out in order of severity in Annex ‘D’ and the first six streets in order of severity, by this measure, are as follows:- 1- 203.5 King Street 2- 109.5 St James’s Square 3- 94.0 Waterloo Place 4- 91.75 Pall Mall 5- 60.5 St James’s Street 6- 48.5 Lower Regent Street NB: None of these streets, apart from a very short length of St James’s Street, is surfaced with tarmac. 9.2 Although this way of examining the data hardly changes the list of severity of damage from Annex ‘B’, it is of note that the consolidated total number of damaged paving stones has reduced from 1329 to 827. 10. Taking the length of the pavement into consideration 10.1 In Annex ‘E’, the length of the street has been divided by the consolidated number of damaged stones and the order of severity is set out at Annex ‘F’. The order of severity of the first six most severely damaged streets, by this measure, is :- Street Quotient

1 King Street 52 2 Waterloo Place 22 3 Charles II Street 16 4 Marlborough Road. 16 5 Park Place 14 6 St James’s Place 12 But partially surfaced with tarmac.

10.2 It is evident that by any measure, King Street is more severely damaged than all the other streets in the core area of St James’s 11. In summary Order of severity

Using Annex ‘B’ Using Annex ‘D’ Using Annex ‘F’

1 King Street King Street King Street 2 St James’s Square St James’s Square Waterloo Place 3 Pall Mall Waterloo Place Charles II Street 4 Waterloo Place Pall Mall Marlborough Road 5 St James’s Street St James’s Street Park Place 6 Lower Regent Street Lower Regent Street St James’s Place

7

12. Causes of damage 12.1 The survey has concluded that a major cause of damaged paving stones is the

concentrated weight of large heavy lorries mounting the kerb and moving along the pavement. This is illustrated by the picture below.

Paving stones evidently damaged by heavy vehicles mounting the footway in Pall Mall

12.2 Paving stones probably have also been damaged by lorries and engineering plant parking on footways. It is, therefore, recommended that Parking Wardens should always, if possible, prevent such damage and whenever it occurs, should record the damage and details of the vehicle or plant so that the City Council can charge for remedying the damage. 12.3 Damage can also occur as a result of inadequate laying of the stones. Paving stones should be generally laid on a bed of sand to remain strong and more resistant to damage. Smaller modules and thicker stones or reinforced concrete paving could be used. If the damage occurs within, say, two years of their being laid, and no other cause can be discerned, the City Council should obtain compensation from the original contractor who laid the paving stones. 13 . Surface materials 13.1 The map of St James’s in this Report shows the three materials used to surface the pavements in the core area of St James’s. These are:-

8

13.1.1 Concrete-The majority of paving stones in St James’s, as elsewhere in Westminster, except in places of special prestige, are made of concrete. This material is chosen because of its relative cheapness, but it is not as attractive as natural stones and its whole life cost is probably higher than York Stone when its earlier replacement is taken into consideration.

Typical damage of concrete paving stones

13.1.2 York Stone- This is the best stone for use on pavements. It is hewn from the Pennine grits of northern England and has been used for many years to pave most of the centres of major cities in the country. It is not cheap in comparison with concrete, but very much more durable and, as stated above, its whole life cost is most probably cheaper than concrete paving stones. Jermyn Street is paved with York stone, as is the frontage to St James’s Palace and Cleveland Row and Little St James’s Street.

Even York Stone paving is subject to damage

9

13.1.3 Tarmac. It is surprising how much of the footway in the core area of St James’s Street is surfaced with tarmac. According to Annex ‘G’ this amounts to nearly 17% of the total length of footways and courtyards in the core area. It is also surprising that prestigious streets such as Carlton Gardens, Carlton House Terrace and St James’s Place are mostly surfaced with tarmac. Replacing the tarmac surfaces with paving stones would require a very large number of paving stones. It is known that tarmac is often used where the footway is situated over a basement or cellar and the footway surface is not sufficiently deep for the use of paving stones. But, this is most unlikely to be the case for most of the St James’s Sstreets that are surfaced with tarmac and, even where this is the case, a more aesthetically pleasing material should be used.

13.2 Crown Passage. This is an historic alleyway in the area which would be much

improved if the tarmac surface was replaced by a more appropriate material. The Trust understands that there may be a large number of cellars that lie just below the surface of Crown Passage which may preclude the use of stone paving . However, it is considered that a lighter material, which is an aesthetic improvement should be used.

Crown Passage

10

14 Danger to pedestrians

14.1 Although there are many damaged paving stones in the core area of St James’s, very few of them pose a danger to pedestrians, but there are few that do. These include some that are undamaged but do not lie flush to adjacent stones and expose small edges against which pedestrians could trip and fall. It is recommended that the City Council reviews all paving stones in the area to identify any that need relaying or replacing. 15. Conclusions 15.1 List of conclusions. These are set out at Annex ‘H’. However, the main conclusions are:- 15.1.1 The six streets most seriously affected with damaged paving stones, by consolidated numbers of damaged stones divided by the length of the footways, in order of seriousness are :-

• King Street (But see paragraph 3.2) • Waterloo Place • Charles II Street • Marlborough Road • St James’s Place

15.1.2 Nearly 17% of the footways in the core area of St James’s is surfaced with tarmac which is aesthetically unsuitable and safer surface materials should be used. 16 Recommendation

16.1 It is recommended that Westminster City Council urgently engages in a programme of replacement of paving stones of the affected footways with surfaces of high quality and aesthetic appeal, so that they are consonant with and appropriate to the quality of the area.

Brian Woodham Administrator to the St James’s Conservation Trust December 2008


Annex ‘A’ Paving stones survey –Basic data

Serial

Name of Street Date of observation

Side of street Eg N, S, W, E

Completely damaged

¾ damaged

½ damaged

¼ damaged

Total damaged

Remarks

a b c d e f g h i j 1 Angel Court 19.06.08 All 0 0 2 1 3 York stone 2 Apple Tree Yard 19.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 Tarmac 3 Arlington Street 19.06.08 West 0 2 5 3 10 10 m

obscured Arlington Street 19.06.08 East 2 0 5 1 8 10m

obscured 4 Babmaes Street 23.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 Tarmac 5 Bennet Street 19.06.08 North 0 0 0 0 0 Bennet Street 19.06.08 South 0 1 1 0 2 6 Blue Ball Yard 19.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 Mostly

granite setts 7 Bury Street 23.06.08 West 0 0 3 1 4 Bury Street 23.06.08 East 1 1 18 1 21 8 Carlton Gardens 22.05.08 Overlooking

The Mall 2 2 2 2 8

9 Carlton Gardens 22.05.08 From Carlton House Terrace to Pall Mall

1 4 4 0 9

10 Carlton House Terrace

22.05.08 North 0 3 12 1 16


22.05.08 South 2 3 25 3 33

12 Catherine Wheel Yard

17.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 Setts

Church Passage 23.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 New paving stones

13 Charles II Street 22.05.08 North 10 4 17 2 33 14 Charles II Street 22.05.08 South 2 3 3 2 10

Cleveland Place 19.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 15 Cleveland Row 17.06.08 North 0 1 2 2 5 16 Cleveland Row 17,06,08 South 2 1 1 1 5 Cleveland Row 17.06.08 Centre 0 0 2 2 4 17 Crown Passage 19.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 Tarmac 18 Duke of York Street 19.06.08 East 0 0 0 0 0 Tarmac 18 Duke of York Street 19.06.08 West 0 1 6 0 7 Tarmac except

from Ormonde Yard to Jermyn Street

19 Duke Street, St James’s 23.06.08 East 0 0 3 0 3 Duke Street, St James’s 23.06.08 West 3 4 0 2 9 20 Eagle Place 23.06.08 All 0 0 1 0 1 Dirty, urine

and vomit stained

21 Jermyn Street 30.05.08 North 2 1 7 11 21 York stone 22 Jermyn Street 30.05.08 South 1 7 13 7 28 York stone 23 King Street 19.06.08 North 5 4 8 4 21 King Street 19.06.08 South 153 14 53 2 222 An estimated

118 paving stones replaced by temporary tarmac.

24 Little St James’s Street

17.06.08 All 0 0 1 1 2

25 Lower Regent Street 22.05.08 East 5 10 27 2 44 26 Lower Regent Street 22.05.08 West 3 6 25 8 42 27 Marlborough Road 23.06.08 East 8 3 9 2 22 Marlborough Road 23.06.08 West 7 3 7 2 19 28 Mason’s Yard 19.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 New setts 29 Ormond Yard 19.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 Tarmac 30 Pall Mall 22.05.08 North 10 11 44 19 84 31 Pall Mall 22.05.08 South 9 14 51 7 81 32 Park Place 19.06.08 North 1 2 13 0 16 33 Park Place 19.06.08 South 2 4 14 1 21 34 Piccadilly 30.05.08 South 3 10 14 29 56 35 Prince’s Place 17.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 A very small

yard

36 Rose & Crown Yard 19.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 Footway is mainly setts with a few York stone

37 Russell Court 17.06.08 All 0 0 0 2 2 Mainly setts

38 Ryder Street 23.06.08 North 0 0 4 0 4 Ryder Street 23.06.08 South 0 0 0 0 0 All tarmac 39 St James’s Place 17.06.08 All 3 4 9 0 16 40 St James’s Square 23.06.08 All external

footways 14 30 32 8 84

St James’s Square 23.06.08 Centre 20 12 48 8 88 41 St James’s Street 17.06.08 East 6 7 37 6 56 St James’s Street 17.06.08 West 4 10 24 10 48 42 Waterloo Place North 22.05.08 East 11 4 8 1 24 43 Waterloo Place North 22.05.08 West 1 5 8 0 14 44 Waterloo Place North 22.05.08 By statues 0 2 1 1 4 45 Waterloo Place North 22.05.08 Centre 5 3 15 1 24 46 Waterloo Place South 22.05.08 East 2 3 20 5 30 47 Waterloo Place South 22.05.08 West 2 5 33 2 40 48 Waterloo Place South 22.05.08 Centre 1 2 16 0 19 Serial

Name of Street Date of observation

Side of street Eg N, S, W, E

Completely damaged

¾ damaged

½ damaged

¼ damaged

Total damaged

Remarks


Annex ‘B’ List of streets in order of number of damaged paving stones (Derived from Annex ‘A’)

List of streets in order of severity

Total number of damaged paving stones

Name of Street

1 243 King Street 2 172 St James’s Square 3 165 Pall Mall 4 155 Waterloo Place 5 104 St James’s Street 6 86 Lower Regent Street 7 56 Piccadilly South 8 49 Carlton House Terrace 9 49 Jermyn Street 10 43 Charles II Street 11 41 Marlborough Road 12 37 Park Place 13 25 Bury Street 14 18 Arlington Street 15 17 Carlton Gardens 16 16 St James’s Place 17 14 Cleveland Row 18 12 Duke Street St James’s 19 7 Duke of York Street 20 4 Ryder Street 21 3 Angel Court 22 2 Bennet Street 23 2 Little St James’s Street 24 2 Russell Court 25 1 Eagle Place Total damaged paving stones

1329


Annex ‘C’ Paving stones survey – Values given to damage See assumptions concerning damage at paragraph 6 of the Report Serial Name of Street Date of

observation Side of street Eg N, S, W, E

Completely damaged

¾ damaged

½ damaged

¼ damaged

Total damage

Remarks

a b c d e f g h i j 1 Angel Court 19.06.08 All 0 0 1 .25 1.25 York stone 2 Apple Tree Yard 19.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 Tarmac 3 Arlington Street 19.06.08 West 0 1.5 2.5 .75 4.75 10 m

obscured 4 Arlington Street 19.06.08 East 2 0 2.5 .25 4.75 10m

obscured 5 Babmaes Street 23.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 Tarmac 6 Bennet Street 19.06.08 North 0 0 0 0 0 7 Bennet Street 19.06.08 South 0 1 1 0 1.25 8 Blue Ball Yard 19.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 Mostly

granite setts 9 Bury Street 23.06.08 West 0 0 1.5 .25 1.75 10 Bury Street 23.06.08 East 1 .75 9 .25 11 11 Carlton Gardens 22.05.08 Overlooking

The Mall 2 1.5 1 .5 5

12 Carlton Gardens 22.05.08 From Carlton House Terrace to Pall Mall

1 2.25 1 0 4.25


22.05.08 North 0 2.25 6 .25 9


22.05.08 South 2 2.25 12.5 .75 17.5

15 Catherine Wheel Yard

17.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 Setts

16 Church Passage 23.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 New paving stones

17 Charles II Street 22.05.08 North 10 3 8.5 .5 22 18 Charles II Street 22.05.08 South 2 2.25 1.5 .5 6.25 19 Cleveland Place 19.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 20 Cleveland Row 17.06.08 North 0 .75 1 .5 2.25 21 Cleveland Row 17,06,08 South 2 .75 .5 .25 3.5 22 Cleveland Row 17.06.08 Centre 0 0 1 .5 1.5 23 Crown Passage 19.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 Tarmac 24 Duke of York Street 19.06.08 East 0 0 0 0 0 Tarmac 25 Duke of York Street 19.06.08 West 0 .75 3 0 3.75 Tarmac except

from Ormond Yard to Jermyn Street

26 Duke Street, St James’s 23.06.08 East 0 0 1.5 0 1.5 27 Duke Street, St James’s 23.06.08 West 3 3 0 .5 6.5 28 Eagle Place 23.06.08 All 0 0 .5 0 .5 Dirty, urine

and vomit stained

29 Jermyn Street 30.05.08 North 2 .75 3.5 2.75 9 York stone 30 Jermyn Street 30.05.08 South 1 5.25 6.5 1.75 13.5 York stone 31 King Street 19.06.08 North 5 3 4 1 13 32 King Street 19.06.08 South 153 10.5 26.5 .5 190.5 An estimated

118 paving stones replaced by temporary tarmac.

33 Little St James’s Street

17.06.08 All 0 0 .5 .25 .75

34 Lower Regent Street 22.05.08 East 5 7.5 13.5 .5 26.5 35 Lower Regent Street 22.05.08 West 3 4.5 12.5 2 22 36 Marlborough Road 23.06.08 East 8 2.25 4.5 .5 15.25 37 Marlborough Road 23.06.08 West 7 2.25 3.5 .5 13.25 38 Mason’s Yard 19.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 New setts 39 Ormond Yard 19.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 Tarmac 40 Pall Mall 22.05.08 North 10 8.25 22 4.75 45 41 Pall Mall 22.05.08 South 9 10.5 25.5 1.75 46.75 42 Park Place 19.06.08 North 1 1.5 6.5 0 9

43 Park Place 19.06.08 South 2 3 7 .25 12.25 44 Piccadilly 30.05.08 South 3 7.5 7 7.25 25.25 45 Prince’s Place 17.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 A very small

yard 46 Rose & Crown Yard 19.06.08 All 0 0 0 0 0 Footway is

mainly setts with a few York stone

47 Russell Court 17.06.08 All 0 0 0 .5 .5 Mainly setts

48 Ryder Street 23.06.08 North 0 0 2 0 2 49 Ryder Street 23.06.08 South 0 0 0 0 0 All tarmac 50 St James’s Place 17.06.08 All 3 3 4.5 0 10.5 51 St James’s Square 23.06.08 All external

footways 14 22.5 16 2 54.50

52 St James’s Square 23.06.08 Centre 20 9 24 2 55 53 St James’s Street 17.06.08 East 6 5.25 18.5 1.5 31.25 54 St James’s Street 17.06.08 West 4 7.5 12 2.5 29.25 55 Waterloo Place North 22.05.08 East 11 3 4 .25 18.25 56 Waterloo Place North 22.05.08 West 1 3.75 4 0 8.75 57 Waterloo Place North 22.05.08 By statues 0 1.5 .5 .25 2.25 58 Waterloo Place North 22.05.08 Centre 5 2.25 7.5 .25 15 59 Waterloo Place South 22.05.08 East 2 2.25 10 1.25 16.50 60 Waterloo Place South 22.05.08 West 2 3.75 16.5 .5 22.75 61 Waterloo Place South 22.05.08 Centre 1 1.5 8 0 10.5 Serial Name of Street Date of

observation Side of street Eg N, S, W, E

Completely damaged

¾ damaged

½ damaged

¼ damaged

Total damage

Remarks

a b c d e f g h i j


Annex ‘D’ List of streets in order of consolidated number of damaged paving stones (Derived from Annex ‘C’) In order of severity

Number of damaged paving stones

Name of Street

1 203.5 King Street 2 109.5 St James’s Square 3 94.0 Waterloo Place 4 91.75 Pall Mall 5 60.5 St James’s Street 6 48.5 Lower Regent Street 7 28.5 Marlborough Road 8 28.25 Charles II Street 9 26.5 Carlton House Terrace 10 25.25 Piccadilly South 11 22.5 Jermyn Street 12 21.25 Park Place 13 12.75 Bury Street 14 10.5 St James’s Place 15 9.5 Arlington Street 16 9.25 Carlton Garden 17 8.0 Duke Street , St James’s 18 7.25 Cleveland Row 19 3.75 Duke of York Street 20 2.00 Ryder Street 21 1.25 Bennet Street 22 1.25 Angel Court 23 0.75 Little St James’s Street 24 0.5 Russell Court 25 0.5 Eagle Place Consolidated total

827.25


Annex ‘E’ Paving stones survey – Length of Footways divided by consolidated number of damaged paving stones. Derived from Annex ‘D’ Serial Name of Street Total

damage Total foot way length metres approximately

Total footway length divided by number of damaged stones

Inversion The higher the score the worse affected the footway

Remarks

a b c d e f g 1 Angel Court 1.25 80.9 64.7 1.55 York stone 2 Apple Tree Yard 0 58.5 NA NA Tarmac 3 Arlington Street 9.5 253.8 26.7 3.75 10 m obscured 4 Babmaes Street 0 112.7 NA NA Tarmac

Haunt of vagrants 5 Bennet Street 1.25 43.8 35.0 2.86 6 Blue Ball Yard 0 6.5 NA NA Mostly granite setts

7 Bury Street 12.75 319.4 25.1 3.98 8 Carlton Gardens 9.5 568.8 59.9 1.67 9 Carlton House Terrace 26.25 525 20 5.00 10 Catherine Wheel Yard 0 41.2 NA NA Setts 11 Church Passage 0 45.5 NA NA New paving stones

12 Charles II Street 28.25 175 6.2 16.1 13 Cleveland Place 0 45.5 NA NA 14 Cleveland Row 7.25 415.6 57.3 1.74 15 Crown Passage 0 3.9 NA NA Tarmac 16 Duke of York Street 3.75 179.4 47.8 2.09 Tarmac on west side and tarmac on

east side except from Ormond Yard to Jermyn Street

17 Duke Street, St James’s 8.0 310.6 38.8 2.6 18 Eagle Place 0.5 45.9 91.8 1.09 Dirty, urine and vomit stained

19 Jermyn Street 22.5 853.1 37.9 2.64 York stone 20 King Street 203.5 393.8 1.94 51.68 An estimated 118 paving stones

replaced by temporary tarmac. 21 Little St James’s Street 0.75 301.9 402.5 .25 22 Lower Regent Street 48.5 503.1 10.4 9.6 23 Marlborough Road 28.5 306.3 6.4 15.6 24 Mason’s Yard 0 47.67 NA NA New setts 25 Ormond Yard 0 60.67 NA NA Tarmac 27 Pall Mall 91.75 763.4 8.3 1.2 28 Park Place 21.25 153.1 7.2 13.9 29 Piccadilly South 25.25 853.1 33.8 2.96 30 Prince’s Place 0 NA NA NA A very small yard

31 Rose & Crown Yard 0 54.2 NA NA Footway is mainly setts with a few York stone

32 Russell Court 0.5 21.67 43.34 2.31 Mainly setts

33 Ryder Street 2 205.6 102.8 0.09 All tarmac on south side

34 St James’s Place 10.5 363.1 34.6 2.89 35 St James’s Square 109.50 938.4 8.6 11.62 Including centre.

36 St James’s Street 60.5 673.75 11.1 9.0 37 Waterloo Place 94.0 430.7 4.58 21.8 Including centres. Serial Name of Street Total

damage Total foot way length metres approximately

Total footway length divided by number of damaged stones

Inversion The higher the score the worse affected the footway

Remarks

Total length 10,214.06


Annex ‘F’ List of streets in order of Length of footways divided by number of damaged paving stones (Derived from Annex ‘E’) List of streets in order of severity

Quotient Name of Street

1 51.7 King Street 2 21.7 Waterloo Place 3 16.1 Charles II Street 4 15.6 Marlborough Road 5 13.9 Park Place 6 11.6 St James’s Place 7 9.6 Lower Regent Street 8 9.0 St James’s Street * 9 5.0 Carlton House Terrace * 10 3.98 Bury Street * 11 3.75 Arlington Street 12 2.96 Piccadilly South 13 2.89 St James’s Place * 14 2.86 Bennet Street 15 2.64 Jermyn Street 16 2.6 Duke Street St James’s * 17 2.09 Duke of York Street * 18 1.74 Cleveland Row 19 1.67 Carlton Gardens * 20 1.55 Angel Court 21 1.2 Pall Mall 22 1.09 Eagle Place 23 0.25 Little St James’s Street 24 0.09 Ryder Street * Note that this table does not take into consideration portions of those streets marked * which are surfaced, to a greater or lesser degree with tarmac. However, the list above indicates that this fact does not alter the listing of the eight worst affected streets (St James’s Street is the eighth worst affected and has only a very short length of tarmac).


Annex ‘G’ Tarmac A comparison of the lengths of streets and courtyards surfaced with tarmac against the over all length of all streets and courtyards. Serial Street or courtyard surfaced with

tarmac Length in metres

1 St James’s Place * 278 2 Duke Street, St James’s * 236 3 Carlton Gardens * 215 4 Carlton House Terrace * 186 5 Duke of York Street * 173 6 Bury Street * 173 7 Ryder Street * 134 8 Babmaes Street 113 9 Crown Passage 85 10 Ormond Yard 61 11 Apple Tree Yard 59 Total length of tarmac surfaces. 1,714 ** Total length of footways and courtyards-

derived from Annex ‘E’ 10,214

Notes: * denotes footways partially covered with tarmac.

** 1,714 metres represents 16.8 % of total lengths of footways surfaced with tarmac.


Annex ‘H’ Conclusions Serial Reference Main subject Detail 1 2.2 Reason for sound paving stones Westminster Paving Act 1762 St James’s Street was paved about this time. 2 2.3 Reason for sound paving stones The Highways Act 1980 – Provides the modern basis for the provision of public

footways at public expense by local authorities. 3 2.4.1 Safety reasons for sound paving

stones This section describes the safety characteristics of a public footway.

4 2.4.2 Aesthetic reasons for sound paving stones

This section describes the aesthetic characteristics of a public footway.

5 3.1 The situation in the core area of St James’s

The condition of paving stones in the streets of St James’s appear to be worse than in many other streets in Westminster.

6 3.2 The situation in the core area of St James’s

The paving stones in St James’s should match the best practice in other parts of Westminster.

7 8.2.1 Total number of damaged paving stones

The six streets with the most number of damaged paving stones , irrespective of their amount of damage, in order of seriousness are:- 1-King Street ( but see paragraph 3.2) 2- St James’s Square 3- Pall Mall 4-Waterloo Place 5- St James’s Street 6- Lower Regent Street

8 8.2.2 Total number of damaged paving stones

Total number of damaged paving stones, irrespective of their amount of damage, is 1329

9 9.1 Severity of damage The six streets with the most number of damaged paving stones , taking into account their amount of damage, in order of seriousness are:- 1-King Street (But see paragraph 3.2) 2- St James’s Square 3- Waterloo Place 4-Pall Mall 5- St James’s Street 6- Lower Regent Street

Serial Reference Main subject Detail 10 9.2 Severity of damage Total number of damaged paving stones, taking into account their amount of

damage, is 827 11 10.1 Taking the length of the

pavement into consideration The six streets with the most number of damaged paving stones , taking into account their amount of damage divided by the length of the public footway , in order of seriousness are:- 1-King Street (But see paragraph 3.2) 2- Waterloo Place 3- Charles II Street 4- Marlborough Road 5- Park Place 6- St James’s Place

12 10.2 Worst street King Street by any measure is the street where the paving stones are most severely damages. (But see paragraph 3.2)

13 13.1.1 Concrete It is the cheapest form of paving stone . 14 13.1.2 York Stone It is significantly more expensive than concrete but its through life costs

probably make it cheaper than concrete. 15 13.1.3 Tarmac Nearly 17% of the footways and courtyards of St James’s use tarmac as a surface

material including a number of the more prestigious streets in the core area. 16 13.1.3 Tarmac Tarmac is often used where basements and cellars lie beneath the footway and

preclude the use of paving stones. It is not considered this the case in most of the street in St James’s where tarmac is used.

17 13.2 Crown Passage This is surfaced using tarmac, and this may be because of the cellars and basements lying beneath Crown Passage. A more aesthetic surface is recommended.

18 14.1 Danger to pedestrians There are very few paving stones that pose a danger to pedestrian. However, it is recommended that the City Council surveys all paving stones to locate and replace those that are considered dangerous.


Index of photographs Only sample pictures are included on the website

Page number Street name 1(i) King Street 1(ii) King Street 1(iii) King Street 2(i) St James’s Square 2(ii) St James’s Square 2(iii) St James’s Square- centre 2(iv) St James’s Square-centre 3(i) Jermyn Street 3(ii) Jermyn Street 3(iii) Waterloo Place 3(iv) Waterloo Place 3(v) Waterloo Place & Waterloo Place-centre 3(vi) Carlton House Terrace 3(vii) Carlton Gardens 4(i) Pall Mall 4(ii) Pall Mall 4(iii) Pall Mall 5(i) Marlborough Road & Little St James’s Street 5(ii) Park Place & Arlington Street 6(i) Lower Regent Street 6(ii) Lower Regent Street 6(iii) Lower Regent Street 7(i) Piccadilly South & Duke Street , St James’s 7(ii) Charles II Street

Documents

A survey of damaged paving stones In the Core area of St ... · An example of a badly damaged paving stone stained by discarded chewing gum in Waterloo Place, St James’s . Foreword