Agenda item

To consider whether Surrey County Council should proceed with a permit scheme in collaboration with East Sussex County Council, prior to submission of the proposed scheme to the Department for Transport for approval.

Declarations of interest: None.

Witnesses:    

Pat Frost (Chairman of the Task Group)

Lucy Monie (Operations Group Manager)

Matthew Jezzard (Traffic and Street Works Manager)

Kevin Orledge (Street Works Manager)

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Committee was presented with the proposal for the introduction of a Permit Scheme. Officers informed the Committee that the Task Group’s work had been a useful exercise in identifying how Surrey Highways could ensure it was able to implement improvements within current legislation. It was felt that the Permit Scheme would offer practical improvements in how street works were communicated with residents and how work was coordinated on a regional level.

2.    The Committee raised a question as to why the proposal was for a new scheme when two were already in effect in London and Kent. Officers outlined that the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA) specified three different kinds of scheme: a common scheme, a joint scheme and an independent scheme. Kent operated under an independent scheme that prevented any other local authority from joining it, whilst the wording of the ‘Common’ London scheme prevented Surrey from joining this scheme. The Committee was informed that the common permit scheme under development for Surrey (with East Sussex) would give other South East local authorities the opportunity to join it at a later stage. It was suggested that this information be included in the final Cabinet report.  

3.    The Committee asked officers what further work could be done to provide greater accountability to utilities companies, and what efforts were in place to ensure they were financially incentivised. Officers stated that monitoring was being undertaken and improvement plans could be taken out against companies; however there was not considerable scope to alter the financial incentives in place as these were outlined in current legislation. Fines for over-running work could be pursued by the local authority, but there were no means by which to directly fine utility companies for poor quality reinstatements.

4.    The Committee discussed the possibility of encouraging local groups to monitor the progress and quality of street works being undertaken by utilities companies. A question was raised as to whether a percentage of any fines accrued could be paid to the groups who had taken responsibility for monitoring works. This was noted by officers as an area for possible future development.

5.    It was raised that the permit scheme would provide a greater level of detail about what kinds of works were being undertaken, and the Committee asked whether this would ensure that Surrey Highways would be able to ensure their post-works inspections were appropriate to the specific types of work.

6.    The Committee was asked to note that a permit scheme would be applicable not only to private contractors, but to works undertaken on behalf of or by Surrey Highways as well. This would ensure that local residents would be able to receive notice of major works 3 months in advance of the work being undertaken. Members welcomed this and stated that they felt it was important that Surrey Highways applied the same standards to its own work in order to lead by example.

7.    The Committee queried whether the predicted levels of saving were based on comparative savings made by London or Kent. Officers outlined that the savings had been based uniquely on the Surrey highways network; however the savings figures made by other permit schemes would be included in the final Cabinet paper.

8.    The Committee raised a question about emergency works and the potential for these to be abused by utilities companies as a way of carrying out work outside the scope of the permit scheme. Officers stated that there was no evidence of such abuses, but Surrey Highways would continue to monitor emergency works in order to effectively challenge utilities companies if necessary. The Committee was asked to note that the conditions stipulated in the permit scheme would still be applicable to emergency works, even if it might be necessary to implement them after the works had begun.

Recommendation:

That the proposal to introduce a permit scheme for Surrey, subject to a successful consultation outcome and successful application to the Department for Transport is endorsed.

Actions/Further Information to be Provided:

Officers to include further detail of different types of permit schemes in the final report that will be submitted to Cabinet.

Select Committee Next Steps:

None.