Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 September 2015.

RESOLVED – That the Minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 23 September 2015 be approved as a correct record.

The Panel was advised that the Public Realm Inspectors and Highways Safety Inspectors would not be transferring to Solutions SK as part of the Investing in Stockport business case for Public Realm and Solutions SK.

Councillors and officers to declare any interests which they have in any of the items on the agenda for the meeting.

No declarations of interest were made.

To consider a report of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration

The report provides an overview of the inspection system covering the adopted highway network.

The Scrutiny Review Panel is requested to note and comment on the report.

Officer Contact: Andrew Suggett on 0161 474 2425 or email: andrew.suggett@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) providing an overview of the inspection system covering the adopted highway network. The adopted highway was inspected at regular intervals in order to identify any actionable defects on the network. There were also service or ad hoc inspections that took place in response to requests from the public, Members and other stakeholders. This system excluded the A555, which was maintained by Cheshire East Council on a rechargeable basis, and all unadopted roads.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         The Public Realm Inspectors could access the digitised highway register to identify adopted routes. Any queries on land ownership were investigated through liaison with Carillion (who had access to the Council’s Land Terrier) or the Council’s legal team (who had access to the Land Registry records). Land Registry searches generally took about a week to process.

·         The adopted and maintained highway was checked in line with the Council’s Safety Inspection and Repair Policy. Main roads were inspected on a more frequent basis. Reactive repairs were arranged in line with policy. Planned repairs were arranged through the Highways Investment Programme.

·         Information was collated whether it emanated from an inspection or was reported by a member of the public.

·         The balance for Officers to consider was whether to spend a lot of money repairing individual defects or whether it was more cost effective to effect permanent repairs to a wider area. The Council and its partners had to consider what it could deliver to the heavily used network without causing additional traffic problems.

·         One of the difficult areas to explain to members of the public was when a particular road had a number of defects but only some of them were repaired because their severity met the intervention level and the minor works budget was limited.

·         There were three highway safety inspectors who covered the whole of the borough. Suitably trained Inspectors could be deployed from elsewhere in the team to cover absences. The Inspectors inspected outside in all weather conditions apart from snow. Repairs were processed on a ‘real time’ basis through the Safety Inspectors’ handheld devices.

·         Information with regard to the programme for planned repairs to the network could be put on the Council’s website

·         Work was ongoing in the development of online forms for reporting potholes and other defects in the highway in a similar way to currently existed for street lights. The exact location of the pothole or defect which needed repairing was of paramount importance. People who reported potholes or defects needed to be made aware if they had already been reported and when they were due for repair.

·         The Panel needed to consider whether it supported a system of ‘mapping’ potholes and other defects being developed that could be viewed by members of the public with an indication when repairs were to be carried out.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

To consider a report of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration

The report provides an overview of the arrangements in place for monitoring highway reactive maintenance repair work. Checks are performed by the Council’s Public Realm and Safety Inspectors within the Place Directorate.

The Scrutiny Review Panel is requested to note and comment on the report.

Officer Contact: Andrew Suggett on 0161 474 2425 or email: andrew.suggett@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) providing an overview of the arrangements which were in place for monitoring highway reactive maintenance repair work.

The Council employed three Safety Inspectors who carried out cyclic safety inspections of the adopted highway network to proactively identify actionable defects that met the Council’s intervention limits. This provided a special defence (Section 58) against highway related public liability claims. The Council also employed nine Public Realm Inspectors who responded to a diverse range of service requests and enquiries relating to the public realm. A proportion of their work involved the investigation of highway related cases and the issue of reactive repair orders. The Highways Safety Inspectors and Public Realm Inspectors issued over 16,000 individual works orders in a year. These works orders were issued to Solutions SK for completion within the timescales outlined in the Council’s policy (two hours, forty eight hours, twenty eight days and fifty six days).

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         The number of individual works orders should reduce in number as a result of the Highways Investment Programme.

·         A Member expressed concern about some checks having been carried out jointly between Solutions SK and Council Officers. However, a revised system for checking the quality of reactive repairs had recently been agreed with Solutions SK. A random sample of 2% of completed works was to be selected for inspection each month which would be carried out by Safety Inspectors and the Senior Public Realm Inspector.

·         As part of the monitoring process, Solutions SK had also agreed to review all completed work carried out on one day of each month. The findings would be reported at the operational reactive maintenance meetings attended by Senior Officers from both organisations.

·         There were different types of materials and methods used for repairing the potholes depending on whether it was a temporary or a permanent repair. The Panel debated the types of machinery, different materials used for repairing potholes and how this compared with other countries. The Panel debated whether the use of increased technological solutions would increase the length of time the repair lasted.

·         A Member reported instances of weeds coming through the surface within a matter of weeks after the use of slurry seal resurfacing

·         It was confirmed that differing weather conditions should not affect the quality of the repair. However, severe frosty conditions in the repairs would impact on performance.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

To consider as report of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration

The report provides an overview of the work carried out by the Council’s Streetworks Inspection Officers within the Networks Assets team, Highways and Transportation.

The Scrutiny Review Panel is requested to note and comment on the report.

Officer Contact: Andrew Suggett on 0161 474 2425 or email: andrew.suggett@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Corporate Director for Place Management and Regeneration submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) providing an overview of the work carried out by the Council’s Streetworks Inspection Officers within the Networks Assets team, Highways and Transportation.

The Council employed three Streetworks Inspectors who carried out routine and ad hoc inspections of utility openings in the highway, issued defect notices where appropriate and arranged remedial work with the responsible party. They also monitored sites that overran beyond the agreed period of occupation on the highway.

Under the New Roads and Streets Works Act and in line with the Code of Practice for Inspections, Highway Authorities were able to inspect completed road works and if they deemed necessary issue a defect notice to utilities when a reinstatement had visually failed.  Alternatively a core sample could be taken of the reinstatement for testing.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         A charge was submitted to the Utility company when a defect notice was issued by the Council.

·         Coring was used to test work carried out by Solutions SK and the alliance partners.

·         If a utility overran on a site without an agreement from the Council, a daily charge could be made by the Council for each working day. Some penalties were passed on to sub-contractors.

·         Streetworks Inspectors monitored the signing and working arrangements on a number of Utility sites. The Utility companies were required to have information boards on site with contact details.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

As requested at the last meeting of the Panel, a flowchart of the process after potholes are reported and information on the number of potholes reported by Ward are attached.

The Area Committee is requested to note and comment on the information.

The Panel considered a flowchart of the process after potholes were reported and information on the number of potholes by Ward (copies of which had been circulated).

The following comments were made/issue raised:-

·         Solutions SK made three attempts to contact the owner of a vehicle who was hindering the repair of a pothole or other defect on the highway. In addition, Public Realm Inspectors attempted to contact local residents. If they spent less time undertaking follow up work, they would be able to undertake more investigative work and respond to more customer enquiries.

·         Improvements could be made to the process as a result of the Digital by Design process and improvements to online forms.

·         Updates were given to residents when work had been carried out, if this was appropriate.

·         The advent of ‘real time’ technologies was a significant advancement.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

Wednesday 9 December 2015 (6.00pm) - Review of the quality of reactive maintenance repair (potholes and other defects on the highway).

Wednesday 3 February 2016 (6.00pm) - Review of the Council’s Safety Inspection & Repair Policy and Plan.

Wednesday 23 March 2016 (6.00pm) - Agree final report and recommendations

RESOLVED – That future meetings of the Panel be held as follows:-

Review of the quality of reactive maintenance repair (potholes and other defects on the highway) – Wednesday 9 December 2015 (6.00pm)

Review of the Council’s Safety Inspection & Repair Policy and Plan – Wednesday 3 February 2016 (6.00pm)

Final Report and Recommendations – Wednesday 23 March 2016 (6.00pm)