Agenda item

7.1       The Assistant Director of Operations, introduced the report on East Sussex Highways Performance, which summarises the performance of the contract through the second year (2024/2025) in achieving the contract Service Performance Indicators (SPIs) and outcomes. These outcomes were set prior to awarding the contract to Balfour Beatty Living Places (BBLP) and were focussed around: quality assurance; value for money; stakeholder management; sustainable economic growth; and carbon reduction. Year 2 performance is much improved on Year 1, against the same 17 SPIs and 6 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), even with higher targets, but there is still scope for improvement in most areas. The report focussed on areas with improvement plans in place, which directed the contractor to address specific areas of concern and continue to deliver value for money and a continuously improving service to the residents of East Sussex.

7.2       The Head of Highways, presented the report. The report showed more stabilised contract performance for Y2 than in Y1. The contract is delivered under East Sussex Highways, in partnership with BBLP, so the indicators measure the performance of the contract itself, not the contractors. He added that East Sussex Highways continuously review organisational and business processes to streamline service requests. The contract contains two incentives for good performance: a reward model based on SPI performance for each service year; and the possibility of the 7-year contract extension if KPIs are met or exceeded. The Contract Director for BBLP added that BBLP took a continuous improvement approach and while there was a high bar set to achieve KPIs, including 100% compliance to reach ‘green’ status against some indicators, he was hopeful that they could be achieved.

7.3       The Committee asked why some targets are set a 100% compliance, as this seems out of reach in practice. The Assistant Director Operations responded that the targets were set by a previous Scrutiny Committee, and noted that in some situations, a high target is appropriate. If Members felt the targets were inappropriate then they could be reviewed to assess their suitability. Some members commented that the KPIs and SPIs were well defined and thought that the contract had been well negotiated.

7.4       The Committee discussed the role of highways stewards and whether there were issues associated with relying on highway stewards who were employed by BBLP in raising defects with BBLP’s work. The Committee noted that local stewards seemingly seemed to change often and asked whether there could be more consistency as this would improve communications with councillors. The Assistant Director Operations responded that the model of reporting through stewards employed directly by BBLP worked well and is appropriate, as it improves efficiency and shortens the time between a customer reporting an issue and resolution. He acknowledged that the changing of stewards could make maintaining continuity of communications for Members difficult, but that they would not want to limit the career progression opportunities for staff given that stewards hold a relatively junior role and may want to move upwards.

7.5       The Committee discussed who was responsible for the cost of long-standing defects in the road, where there has been an issue with repairs. Cllr Murphy referenced a defect on South Road in Hailsham, where following a resurface water collected on the surface of the road as a drain was in the wrong place, and asked whether this was logged as a defect that BBLP was responsible for, or a new defect. The Assistant Director Operations agreed to provide an answer on South Road to Cllr Murphy outside of the meeting.

7.6       The Committee asked if future reports could include more contextual information on where targets had been missed, for instance the longest outstanding defect. Cllr Shing noted that he would find more information for understanding the challenges in different areas, and commented that some of the common issues concerns within his division were not addressed in the report. Assistant Director Operations noted that if there was specific information Members were interested in, they could contact the team at any point and ask for this. The Head of Highways added that he was keen to understand the concerns in particular circumstances, and that he would be meeting with Councillor Shing in August to better understand the issues in his division.

7.7       The Committee commented that where repairs are temporary, this was inconsistently being indicated with a spray painted ‘T’, which communicated their temporary status to residents. BBLP Contract Director confirmed that a response to this issue would be provided after the meeting.

7.8       The Committee discussed quality control and the ‘right first time’ approach repairs as in some areas top dressing/resurfacing has caused other issues, such as blocked drains. BBLP Contract Director responded that an important measure was ‘first time fixes’ where repairs are only conducted once, which 97% of repairs are. Reactive repair teams also have regular quality reviews which work alongside the ‘right first time’ quality approach to planned works, to minimise defects in repairs. Quality reviews are conducted every quarter to monitor quality of repairs, and management systems were improving every quarter for managing and measuring quality.

7.9       The Committee discussed that the Member portal, noting that it was not well used. Some councillors noted that they did not find it very user-friendly, and suggested that it show reasons why defects were not deemed at intervention level when an issue has been raised, as well as RAG ratings of roads within local divisions. Assistant Director Operations responded that it is difficult to design the portal to suit all 50 Members, as different Members have different requirements, but offered to put Members in touch with the team to discuss any particular concerns they had. SCANNER surveys had a huge amount of data which it would be difficult to publish online, but if Councillors wanted some more localised information that could be provided. The Head of Highways confirmed that issues that had previously been raised about the member portal were being looked at.

7.10     The Committee asked if full compliance with the contract could be expected by year 7.The Assistant Director Operations answered that full compliance was the expectation, and the contract performance indicated the right trajectory.

7.11     The Committee recognised that there were some issues which were complicated and took a long time to resolve and asked how these issues are tracked over multiple years, and how the contract ensures that this is communicated to Members.Assistant Director Operations responded that it does take a long time to resolve complicated issues but recognised that this was too long in some cases and maintaining communication with Members was highly important throughout.

7.12     The Committee asked whether there were penalties in place for failure to meet targets.The Assistant Director Operations responded that the contractor was paid their actual costs for delivering the service and there were no financial penalties for failure to meet targets. If the contractor beats the targets costs, they received a share of the gain share pot for delivering under cost delivery. Performance could be rewarded with 50% of the accumulated gain share pot but couldn’t be accessed if performance was not high enough.

7.13     The Committee discussed whether it could receive an update report on improvements to the service in March 2026, with the results of the 6-month improvement plan. The Assistant Director Operations responded that a report could be brought to the Committee in March, but that some of the targets are annual, so the final outcome of these would not be received until the end of the financial year.

7.14     The Committee raised the frustrations of residents from seeing roadworks without work taking place, and asked how residents are informed of timescales for repairs to manage expectations. Assistant Director Operations responded that this could happen during utility company works, but there are often genuine reasons for a lack of visible work taking place, for example, if newly laid apparatus is being tested. He assured the Committee that permit inspectors regularly inspect utilities works and there are consequences for no work taking place without genuine reason.

7.15     The Committee commented that there was a perception from some of a ‘postcode lottery’ for road quality across the county, and whether there was an assessment of areas in the county were roads were better than others. It was noted that some areas of the county received a higher volume of complaints which fed a perception that more repairs were done in these areas. The Assistant Director Operations assured the Committee that there is a robust system in place to determine where repairs are carried out, and that repairs are prioritised based on need, not the area or number of complaints.

7.16     The Committee RESOLVED to:

1) Note the performance of the second year of the Highways Infrastructure and Services contract with Balfour Beatty Living Places.

2) Receive an update report from BBLP at a future meeting to review the performance of Year 3 of the contract.