Agenda item

Purpose of report: Policy Development and Review

To provide Committee Members advance notice of the recommendations to adopt Five Year Investment Plan for carriageways from April 2013, and provide detail on reasons behind the recommendations and how the programme will be delivered in practice.

Declarations of interest: None.

Witnesses:

Jason Russell (Assistant Director, Highways)

Keith Scott (Planned Maintenance Team Manager)

Jim Harker (General Manager, May Gurney)

John Furey (Cabinet Member for Transport & Environment)

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Chairman of the Select Committee introduced the report and outlined that it was a progress update following the feedback provided by the Environment & Transport Select Committee on 8 November 2012. The report did not cover details of the budget settlement for Highways as these decisions would be taken at the meeting of Cabinet on 5 February 2013. It was proposed that following approval of the budget, the Select Committee hold an extraordinary meeting to consider an updated report.

2.    The Assistant Director, Highways outlined the intentions behind the development of the Five Year Investment Plan. It was recognised that Surrey had to take action to address the poor condition of its highways network whilst also meeting its requirements to make greater efficiency savings. The Five Year Investment would set out new internal and contractual arrangements, and ensure that savings could be made without impacting on the work being undertaken to address the condition of the network.

3.    The Committee was informed that the Five Year Investment Plan set out a range of changes that ensure that savings could be achieved. The majority of savings would come from the implementation of longer term planning. This would ensure better resource utilisation and allow May Gurney and Highways to co-ordinate their work in a more effective manner. It was emphasised that this would require a more “hands-off” approach from the County Council, as making late changes to the plan would reduce the savings benefits.

4.    The Committee had a discussion around the implementation of longer term planning, and raised an issue that the definitions outlined by the Road Condition Index (RCi) might not align with public perception of the condition of a road. Officers confirmed that the RCi definitions were based on technical assessments from both machine and visual inspections, and were also based on evidence of structural failure. It was stated that the public road-shows undertaken in 2012 had been intended to address these issues. Officers stated that they were confident that the roads identified in the five year programme were appropriate and would also improve public perception.

5.    Members expressed doubt over the assurances of officers and considered that the roadshows had raised unrealistic levels of expectation which would not be met. It was raised that the roadshows had not been discussed with Members prior to their launch. Members sought the assurances of officers that they would be better consulted prior to any similar initiatives taking place.

6.    The Committee discussed the role of the Local Committees in relation to the roads identified by the five year works programme, and emphasised to officers that the programme would need to be set out with the full consultation and agreement of Local Committees. Officers outlined that it was important for any changes to the programme to be implemented in a timely fashion, as this would ensure that any savings benefits could still be achieved. The Committee was informed that one of the benefits of longer term planning was that it allowed for a greater level of detail in the estimation of costs, and that this would benefit the District & Boroughs in making decisions around local prioritisation.

7.    The Committee raised a question around the process of agreeing the implementation of the five year work programme. It was stated that the decision to implement the policy would be made by the Cabinet Member; however, the roads identified by members of the public included on the work programme would be taken to the relevant Local Committee for their approval.

8.    The Assistant Director, Highways outlined that further savings would be made by improving material design, and improving the tools and techniques currently in use. This would be achieved in part through the use of “Superflex” for low speed residential roads.

9.    The Committee asked what sort of contingency was in place if “Superflex” was found not to be appropriate. The General Manager, May Gurney informed the Committee that “Superflex” had been used by a number of London Boroughs and that it had proven highly effective when used appropriately. It had the benefit of a 10 year design warranty which would also reduce the need for regular maintenance repairs.      

10.  The Committee was informed that further savings were going to be achieved by improving site management productivity. A key change in site management would be the implementation of a “Vehicle Relocation” policy that would allow the removal of parked cars. Officers outlined that this relocation would come at no cost to the owner, and would greatly reduce the costs related to on-site delays caused by parked cars. The Committee was told that relocation would only be undertaken after a series of efforts to inform the owner of the vehicle. This included large warning signs, letter drops and leafleted windscreens. The Committee was informed that any liability for damages lay with the contractors, and there would be no financial risk to the County Council. It was suggested that officers might wish to show the impact this issue had on the cost of works as a way of highlighting it to members of the public. 

11.  Current legislation allowed for implementation of the “Vehicle Relocation” policy, and it would  take effect immediately once approval had been given by the County Council. The Select Committee was supportive of this policy and expressed the view that it should be implemented when possible.. It was suggested that the Council consider looking at ways to recover costs for vehicle relocation, though officers informed the Committee that legislation did not allow for this.

12.  The Assistant Director, Highways outlined that a further saving would be made by an improvement in waste management. Surrey Highways would explore a number of options with regards to improving how it disposes of its hazardous waste in conjunction with South East 7. The Committee discussed the re-sale of planings and how this could effectively generate new income streams.

13.  The Committee queried whether the development of Project Horizon reflected a change in policy away from more preventative work. Members also commented that it was vital that Surrey Highways continued to think strategically about how different areas of work (local priorities, reactive work and the five year works programme) related to one another. Officers outlined that there was no change in policy and that surface dressing and treatment would be running alongside the five year works programme. The Committee was informed that the intention behind Project Horizon was to focus on addressing the biggest area of spend for Surrey Highways. If its implementation proved successful then long term plans would be developed for all areas of the work undertaken by Surrey Highways.

Recommendations:

None.

Actions/further information to be provided:

·         The Committee will receive a progress update on the implementation of recommendations in 12 month’s time.

·         The Committee will hold further discussions with regards to Project Horizon and the May Gurney 6 month performance update at an extra-ordinary meeting following the budget settlement by Cabinet in February 2013.