Agenda item

Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport.

38.1     The Head of Service Highways introduced the report. He set out that of the thirteen recommendations contained in the Scrutiny Review of Pothole Management all of but one of the recommendations had been implemented, and only recommendation 1 remained to be completed. This was around the asset management approach for highway drainage, which is currently being work on, with completion anticipated to be in July when a report will be submitted to the Lead Member.

38.2     The Head of Service Highways outlined that the work on the asset management approach had been expanded to include the updating of other asset management plans including those for carriageways, footways, cycleways, and soft landscaping as well as the one for drainage. Work has started on reviewing these plans and it is expected to have a final draft ready for April/May time, with a view to presenting them to the Lead Member in July. There will be a second phase of work which will review asset management plans for lighting, traffic signals, signs and lines, carriageway skid resistance and structures which is due for completion in December. It was clarified that the Committee has seen a response to the letter written in regard to recommendation 2 regarding utility company regulation and re-instatement work.

38.3     The Committee discussed the report, and a summary of the questions raised, and points made is given below.

Drainage asset management review

38.4     The Committee commented that it would be useful to have a bullet point summary of what the review of the drainage asset management plan is covering. The Head of Service Highways outlined that it would be possible to provide a bullet point summary of what the drainage asset management plan will cover (Action: Andrew Turner). He considered it important that residents and the Committee have a clear understanding of what level of service can be delivered within the budget and capacity available. This will be included in the information about the drainage asset management plan.

Pothole safety defect repair flexibility

38.5     The Committee observed that recommendation 9 refers to the Council taking a flexible approach to repairing safety defects and that if repair gangs find other safety defects that meet the intervention criteria, they should have the flexibility to repair them at the same time as those that have been reported. Residents still question why the Council does not repair all safety defects at the same time and this inconsistency is a key issue for residents.

38.6     The Director of CET responded that the scrutiny review had explored the reasons why it was not possible to repair every pothole if they do not meet the intervention criteria. The Council has a limited amount of funds for pothole repairs, and it should be noted that safety defect repairs are paid for via a lump sum in the contract which remains the same even if all the safety defects are not repaired at the same time. If the Council fixed all potholes at the same time, it would be financially challenging. However, Highway Stewards do have the ability to raise advisory requests for larger patching repairs where they consider the road surface is likely to deteriorate and more defects are developing.

38.7     The Head of Service Highways reiterated that the Council has adopted a risk-based approach to pothole repairs and the contractor is empowered to take action on safety defect repairs. The Committee members asked the Head of Service Highways to remind the Highway Stewards that they do have some flexibility and discretion, as this was not always evident in the approach that they were taking. This especially applied to when there were safety defects of different categories such as category 2, five-day repairs and category 3, twenty- eight day repairs in the same location. Often by the time the 5 day repair was carried out the category 3 defect had become a category 2 intervention level defect. This experience was echoed by a number of Committee members, where multiple repairs gangs visited the same location to repair safety intervention level defects. Councillor Kirby-Green also cited an example of a road with outstanding safety defects where a resident had reported one of them to the Out of Hours service thereby bypassing the Highways Steward. This was fixed as an urgent repair by 5.00am the next day, but the other similar safety defects in the same stretch of road were left un-repaired.

Additional DfT pothole funding performance criteria

38.8     The Committee asked for clarification on the performance criteria the Council has to meet in order to receive the full amount of the £1.9 million additional pothole funding from the DfT. The Head of Service Highways responded that as far as he was aware, the DfT had not yet provided the information on the performance criteria the Council is required to meet in order to receive all of the £1.9 million additional funding.

Reporting system portal

38.9     The Committee commented that they found being able them to see all reported defects on the portal useful, but once a Steward has investigated a report and if no action is recommended, it is no longer visible on the system. This was seen as a problem and the Committee asked if such reports could remain visible. The Committee also commented that it would be helpful if the information on the website portal was a ‘one stop shop’ giving information on both what had been reported and what works are planned. The Head of Service Highways responded that it would be useful for the portal to be a ‘one stop shop’ to be able to look at what works are going on and to be able to log defects. The portal is a good way of reporting defects but requires some development to make improvements.

Balfour Beatty Living Places (BBLP) improvement plan

38.10   The committee asked when they would be receiving an update on the BBLP improvement plan that was put in place to improve contract performance. The Assistant Director Operations outlined that this will be covered in an upcoming Whole Council Forum that will take place in June.

Utility company reinstatement works

38.11   The Committee noted recommendation 3 on the levels of inspection for utility company reinstatement works and that many residents complain about the quality of reinstatement works. The Committee asked if the inspection levels were adequate and whether the Council should be taking a stricter approach. The Committee also commented that the communication about utility repair works could be improved. The Head of Service Highways responded that for any works that would have a significant impact, communications are sent out about the works by letter, but these are not always read by residents. The Team is working on a postcard notification and also the use of social media such as Facebook, X, Instagram and other communications channels to advise residents about works.

38.12   In terms of inspection levels, the Head of Service Highways commented that he was still forming a view and will track the issue regarding the performance of the utility companies and whether stricter measures are needed. He commented that he would be happy to leave recommendation 3 as open and ongoing which the Committee agreed (Action Andrew Turner). The Head of Service Highways also highlighted that the Lane Rental scheme starts in April, and this will provide a further tool to help manage utility company performance and re-instatement.

38.13   The Committee commented that it was disappointed with the response received from the previous Government to the letter sent regarding recommendation 2 and the regulation of utility company works. The Committee asked whether it was worth approaching Government again about this issue.

Concrete roads and kerbs

38.14   Councillor Shing asked if the maintenance of concrete roads and kerbs would be included in the work on the asset management plans. The Head of Service Highways outlined that concrete roads and kerbs will be part of the asset management plan for carriageways and footways.

Visibility of website information – recommendation 13

38.15   The Committee commented that not all pothole reports appeared to be logged on the reporting system and category 4 observations were not visible on the web site. There also appeared to be an issue when all the safety intervention level defects in the same location are not repaired at the same time. This sometimes results in some defects being marked as complete when they have not been repaired. The Head of Service Highways commented that there is a need to have greater visibility of the forward plan of works on the website to residents can see the works that are planned, with a high confidence one year plan, and then two year and five year plans. There is a need to deal with all reports and articulate what the Council is going to do about them, so what is being asked for can be matched against existing schemes.

38.16   The Committee RESOLVED to note the updates to the pothole review recommendations contained in the Appendix to the report.