Slip Hazard in Public Realm of Tottenham Court Road
Request ID: FOI-3342-2324 Date published: 15 January 2024
You asked
Follow on from 3041-2324
1. Regrouting Frequency:
Given that the leak identified in 2016 was rectified using grouting and has potentially recurred, does TfL accept that regrouting might be a recurring necessity, approximately every six years? Is this considered a standard maintenance requirement for the glass walkway, or is it indicative of an underlying defect?
2. Public Accessibility and Slip Resistance*:
TfL has not addressed why the glass walkway/ceiling remains closed to public access. Considering the concerns about slip resistance and the need for ongoing safety barriers, is this closure due to an unresolved defect? Please elaborate on whether TfL views this as a defect and what actions are being taken to ensure the contractor rectifies it.
We answered
TfL Ref: FOI-3041-2324
Thank you for your follow up request which we received on 15 December 2024, regarding the glass ceiling at Tottenham Court Road Station.
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) and our information access policy. I can confirm that we hold some of the information you require. You specifically asked:
1. Regrouting Frequency: Given that the leak identified in 2016 was rectified using grouting and has potentially recurred, does TfL accept that regrouting might be a recurring necessity, approximately every six years? Is this considered a standard maintenance requirement for the glass walkway, or is it indicative of an underlying defect?
Regrouting doesn’t tend to be required on a regular basis. Grouting fills a leak path and prevents water following that path. These leak paths, by their nature, are difficult to see or otherwise detect and so when grouting is used it is also difficult to determine if the entire leak path is sealed or just a part of it. Leaks therefore can re-occur, and typically they would do so relatively early in the asset life. Repeat grouting would tend to last longer than the first attempt and over time, the period between regrouting tends to increase, or even not be needed. Grouting itself however is not without risk. It will take the path of least resistance, which might include a path we don’t want it to take such as filling a cabling duct. It therefore would not be repeated unless it was necessary and would not be used as a preventative measure or regular maintenance activity.
2. Public Accessibility and Slip Resistance*: TfL has not addressed why the glass walkway/ceiling remains closed to public access. Considering the concerns about slip resistance and the need for ongoing safety barriers, is this closure due to an unresolved defect? Please elaborate on whether TfL views this as a defect and what actions are being taken to ensure the contractor rectifies it.
The barriers have been erected to protect members of the public from slipping on the glass surface.
The glass surface has had a ceramic frit applied to it, in order to provide a minimum wet slip resistance, which meets the necessary standards and guidance with respect to slip resistance. However, the durability of the ceramic frit is not warranted for any period of time, and therefore unmaintainable, and has to be changed due to the unresolved inherent risk with the material. Subject to a planning application being approved by the relevant local authorises; London boroughs of Westminster and Camden, we’ll be looking at options and funding for the replacement of the glass surface with standard paving.
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright.
Yours sincerely
Eva Hextall FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
