Agenda item

This briefing note provides an update on the Surrey Highways Transformation Project which is seeking to re-configure how Surrey County Council manages the highway network and lead to a tangible improvement in carriageway condition and quality.

Witnesses: Jason Russell (Assistant Director, Highways)

Mark Borland (Projects and Contracts Group Manager,   Highways)

Jonathan White (May Gurney)

John Furey (Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport)

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    Jason Russell introduced the report, which provided an update on the Surrey Highways Transformation Project.

2.    The key proposals for the Project would be presented to Cabinet in February 2013 with implementation in April 2013. The proposals were to be presented to Cabinet in three papers, covering the May Gurney contract, the proposed permit scheme and a third paper addressing the future of the Materials Laboratory at Merrow.

3.    The Officer stated that the May Gurney paper would propose changes to inspection regimes and review the priority network. The Committee raised concerns about the potential impact of these changes. It was noted however that the main safety concerns on the network had been addressed and this was reflected by the fact that the number of insurance claims had decreased.

4.    The Officer outlined the intended development of a five year Maintenance Programme. This would make Surrey the first local authority to put such a programme into effect. It would grant greater clarity on investment and potentially create a minimum saving of 15% in the overall cost of highway Maintenance. The recommendation to Cabinet by officers would be that the capital created as result of this saving should be reinvested in highway repair. Officers stated that the development of a five year plan would enable a notice period of three months for non-emergency work. 

5.    The Committee were informed that there would be work undertaken to measure investments against outcomes. The criterion for measuring this were still in the process of being defined. It was also reported that a number of Key Performance Indicators were in the process of being developed.

6.    The Committee were informed that 25 parish councils had expressed an interest in managing their highways. Proposals were being drawn up, and it was felt by officers that the benefit of these changes would ensure that highways management was more responsive to detail on a local level.

7.    The Committee asked for further clarification with regards to the comments about an increase in customer satisfaction contained within the report, and asked what measures were being put in place to ensure this trend continued. Officers responded that it was problematic trying to identify the key drivers behind customer satisfaction, as trends demonstrated a disjunction between investment and satisfaction. Highways were consulting with peers in the SE7 Group in order to develop strategies to improve customer satisfaction.

8.    Members raised a question around the need for more flexible working in order to minimise the economic impact of roadworks. Officers responded that efforts were made to target work around off-peak hours in order to minimise disruption, however it was necessary to offset this against the rises in cost as result of imposing less flexible working patterns.

9.    Members raised concerns about the current levels of staffing, and how the Transformation Project would feed into addressing these. The officers responded that the issues around workload management for staff were being addressed through a process of mapping which skills were required. Further to this, work was in place to address issues created by the current IT systems. The emphasis was that the problems with workload were connected with process rather than levels of staffing.

10.  Members questioned whether there was a strategy in place to shorten lead-in times for roadworks. Officers outlined that shorter lead-in times had a significant impact in incurring costs. It was expressed that the primary focus was on providing works at a lower cost. The Committee expressed that Members should be Committee that members should be advising officers as to the public's expectation in terms of deciding the appropriate balance between response times, within the budget framework. It was noted that the lead time and cost implications were varied and it was agreed that this would be covered in the January 2013 report.

11.  The Committee discussed communications with the public with regards to roadworks. It was suggested that contractors should take responsibility for informing residents of roadworks, particularly when works were being carried out within a short period of one another.

12.  The Committee discussed how Highways intend to manage public expectations around Highways schemes. There was a discussion around the Highways Roadshows that had been conducted in October 2012. The Committee felt that the Roadshows risked raising public expectations too high and could have benefited from Member input prior to public engagement. It was felt that there would need to be a stronger commitment around working together with Members to provide an integrated and holistic approach to directing and communicating the work of the Highways Transformation Project. Officers responded that they would consult fully with Members before any future public engagement activities. 

13.  The Committee queried how Highways would manage a five year plan with Government setting budgets on an annual basis. Officers stated that the changes within budgets were historically minimal while also acknowledging that a five year plan would allow a greater management of risk.

14.  The Committee raised the question of how residents and Local Committees would communicate with the 5 year plan. The suggestion was made that a clear communications strategy would be developed in conjunction with Local Committees. The Committee expressed the view that there was a clear need to involve both Local Committee members and Community Highways Officers.

15.  There was a discussion around the identification of key priorities in relation to project outcomes. It was noted that there will be work in place to develop and define these.

16.  The Committee were informed of the Laboratory & Materials Review. A question was raised as to the benefits of keeping a materials laboratory. The Assistant Director explained that private professional laboratories focused more on development of the highway network rather than on a local level, and often tended to be risk adverse. It was also expressed that within such a context, external partners found trading partnerships with the public sector highly desirable.

17.  There was a discussion around the relationship between the Highways Transformation Project and the Localism agenda. The Assistant Director explained that the County Council would act as the strategic Highways authority; however opportunities were being developed for both Borough and District Councils and Parish and Town Councils to develop collaborative working. It was raised that there would need to be work done to ensure that there was clarity about the responsibilities of each of the three tiers.

Actions/further information to be provided:

None.

Recommendations:

None.

Select Committee next steps:

The Select Committee will scrutinise the Highways Transformation Project in January 2013 covering the concerns raised by the Committee, in advance of a formal report being submitted to Cabinet in February 2013.