Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2016.

RESOLVED – That the Minutes (copies of which had been circulated) of the meeting held on 11 January 2016 be approved as a correct record.

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.

The Public Realm Manager and Network Assets Manager will report at the meeting.

The Network Assets Manager reported that the current Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance which had been in operation since 2005 was currently being reviewed by the Department of Transport and UK Roads Liaison Group. It was anticipated that a revised code would be published later in the year.

RESOLVED – That the revised Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance be used to develop future policy and asset management/operational plans.

To consider the Highway Safety Inspection and Repairs Policy Statement (March 2011)

The aim of the policy is to establish an effective regime of inspection, assessment and recording to support highway maintenance. The safety inspection regime provides the basic information for addressing the first core objective of highway maintenance, network safety.

A representative of the Chief Executive submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) setting out the Highway Safety Inspection and Repairs Policy Statement (March 2011).

It was reported that the aim of the policy was to establish an effective regime of inspection, assessment and recording to support highway maintenance. The safety inspection regime provided the basic information for addressing the first core objective of highway maintenance, network safety.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         It was expected that the Highway Safety Inspection and Repairs Policy Statement would be reviewed once the revised Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance was published later in the year. It was confirmed that the Council was still compliant with the statement from 2011.

·         The statements adopted by the local authorities in Greater Manchester were quite similar, the fundamental difference being the response times.

·          One of the most significant principles of the statement was to ensure that inspectors record and follow up non-adopted highway repairs in a clearly defined way to ensure that the public are protected from non highway dangers.

·         At the time the statement was published, satisfaction with Streetscene processes was monitored through the Streetscene Citizens Panel Survey. Satisfaction was now monitored through the National Highways and Transport Network survey which was carried out on an annual basis. Benchmarking also took place with other local authorities.

RESOLVED – That the Highway Safety Inspection and Repairs Policy Statement be reviewed after the revised Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance has been published.

To consider the Highway Safety Inspection and Repairs Plan (2011/12)

The plan provides guidance on the way in which highway defects will be identified and recorded and the timescales for subsequent repair work. The plan is used in conjunction with the Highway Safety Inspection and Repairs Policy Statement and the most recent inspection routes.

A representative of the Chief Executive submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) setting out the Highway Safety Inspection and Repairs Plan (2011/12). The plan provided guidance on the way in which highway defects would be identified and recorded and the timescales for subsequent repair work. The plan was used in conjunction with the Highway Safety Inspection and Repairs Policy Statement and the most recent inspection routes.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         The fundamental difference in the section on ‘Record Keeping’ in ‘Recording Defects’ was that inspectors now used hand held data capture devices. Photographs were now taken of every defect and the coordinates of the defect recorded. There was, therefore, instant reporting of potholes and other defects in the highway.

·         A small proportion of highway claims were repudiated at source. In a recent survey by the ‘Manchester Evening News’. Stockport Council had the second lowest level of compensation payouts in Greater Manchester.

·         The inspection routes were all planned and recorded in the Council’s GIS system.

·         There was no fixed guarantee period for a repair to a pothole or other defect. The location and nature of repair needed to be taken into consideration. However, regular quality audits were carried out and any repairs that were not to the required standard would be attended to by the relevant contractor.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

The Panel is requested to debate the information received so far during the review and consider possible recommendations for the final report.

The Panel was invited to consider progress so far on the review.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         A Member reiterated her concern about the number of times Solutions SK had to go back to a repair on certain occasions. One of the fundamental issues that needed to be addressed was about the getting the job carried out correctly the first time.

·         A Member wondered if when a temporary repair was carried out, this could be indicated, for example, by the letter ‘T’ being painted on their highway so that people were aware that it was not a permanent repair. Officers also agreed to investigate whether the distinction between a temporary repair and a permanent repair could be recorded on the Council’s website.

·         There was a general consensus that the intervention levels with regard to the depth of highway which had a defect which needed repairing should remain.

·         The Panel debated if there was any scope for suggesting that the timescales for repairs to be carried out should be amended. All repair work on local district roads had a target timescale of completion within 56 days. The Panel recommended that the possibility of reducing the 56 days maximum period for repairs to be carried out should be examined.

·         There were no defects on work carried out under the Highway Investment Programme as all work under the scheme had to be ‘signed off’.  As the Highways Investment Programme developed, it was anticipated that there would be less defects and less reactive, temporary repairs would be needed. It was also suggested that an increase in the number of inspectors who walked routes would reduce the number of driven inspections where it was more difficult to identify actionable defects. However, there was a significant amount of work involved in defending insurance claims and there was a risk involved in changing the Council’s processes. The balance was what the Council could do to improve its procedures without affecting the procedures in place for defending claims. The Panel recommended that the ratio of ‘walked’ inspections to ‘driven’ inspections be examined and that the processes be permanently kept under review.

RESOLVED – That the proposed recommendations identified by the Panel be included in the draft final report for the review.

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

RESOLVED – That the next meeting of the Panel be held as follows:-

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