Minutes:
Witnesses: Jason Russell, Assistant Director, Highways
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Assistant Director for Highways provided a briefing on the strategic peer review recently undertaken by Highways & Infrastructure. This review had been undertaken in collaboration with the Local Government Association. In November 2012 the peer review had scrutinised the service’s improvement plans alongside a range of evidence. Following this a number of recommendations and observations were provided for consideration. The Committee was informed that there had been a delay in scheduling an action planning workshop following the review, but it was anticipated that this action plan would be shared with the Committee at its July 2013 meeting.
2. The Committee was told that the feedback from the strategic peer review had identified that the direction of travel regarding service improvements was positive. There had been a recommendation concerning the clarity of vision regarding the service improvements and whether these had been adequately communicated on every level. It had been also recognised that while the proposed changes were innovative, there were questions regarding whether due consideration had been given to the potential risks involved.
3. The Assistant Director for Highways outlined that a challenge had been presented regarding local communications, and the organisational capability regarding this. The view was expressed that the service would be looking to explore better collective working with both District & Boroughs and Parish Councils. There was work being undertaken with the area teams to address how communication processes worked. The Committee was adamant that in order not to repeat previous mistakes, any direct contact between the service and any lower tier of local government, should have the agreement of both the local member and the Local Area Committee.
4. The Committee was informed that the strategic peer review had identified key performance areas which required improvement, including tree maintenance and gully maintenance. The Committee proposed that an item on gully maintenance and replacement be brought to a future meeting. Members raised concerns that little consideration was given to the long term impacts of poor gully management, and highlighted the need to move to a more preventative form of maintenance.
5. The Assistant Director for Highways informed the Committee that there had been discussions around the use of the South East 7 (SE7) as performance peers. This would include looking at how satisfaction, costs and network condition, compared across the South East. There would also be work to collaborate on staff development programmes through the SE7.
6. Members raised a query regarding the proposed changes to the Surrey Priority Network (SPN) and when these would be completed. The Assistant Director for Highways confirmed that these changes were being undertaken in a phased manner, as it was recognised that it would be too great a risk to implement them all in April 2013. It was anticipated that these changes would be completed by September 2014.
7. Members asked whether Highways would be making changes to the reporting systems for road defects. It was confirmed that the changes would be made in the report management processes and not the means by which defects were reported.
8. The Committee queried whether consideration had been given to improving footways. It was confirmed that the strategic peer review had primarily focused on the carriageway, but officers also acknowledged that there was a need to review levels of investment and whether they were appropriate. It was highlighted that there was a possibility of additional funding being assigned to District & Borough Councils for advanced improvement in footways. Members commented that the Utilities Task Group had highlighted some concerns regarding the condition of footways, particularly with regards to sunken metal work.
9. The Assistant Director for Highways commented that footways posed less of a risk in terms of financial liability, so consequently were not always considered a priority. However, it was confirmed that there was an intention to move footways onto a five year investment plan, following the implementation and evaluation of Project Horizon. This would be undertaken in consultation with Local Committees.
10. Members raised concerns about the number of proposed improvements to the service being made in a short time frame. The Assistant Director for Highways expressed confidence that the proposed actions were deliverable in the time specified.
11. It was felt by some Members of the Committee that the priority should be improving the service’s communications plan. Reference was made to a number of consultations that had failed to adequately involve Members. These included the consultation on street signs and the Highways Improvement Roadshows in 2012. The Chairman also raised concerns that there had not been suitable consideration given to expectation management with regards to communication and this created problems of the service’s own making. It was suggested that more emphasis should be placed on communicating that the new permit scheme would also be applicable to the County Council and its contractors, as a way of indicating that Surrey County Council was applying its own standards to itself as well as to the utilities companies.
12. The Assistant Director for Highways informed the Committee that communication was now considered a priority by the service. The view was expressed that previous emphasis had been on improving efficiencies in relation to costs, but that there was now a recognition that improvements were required in how the service communicated with Members and residents.
13. The Committee highlighted the proposed increase in funding to Local Committees and asked officers to comment further on this. The Assistant Director for Highways expressed the view that work was required to consider how Local Committees could be used to ensure best value for money. It was recognised that there was currently a delay between decisions being made and work beginning, and this had been highlighted as a key area for future improvement.
14. Members discussed the role of Parish Councils in terms of undertaking tasks. It was confirmed by the Assistant Director for Highways, that there was work being developed with a small group of Parish Councils which could inform a wider implementation. Members raised that this had not been widely communicated to the other Parish Councils and requested that it was circulated through the Local Committees and the local member.
15. It was queried as to what provision had been made for similar localised services in areas of Surrey where there was not a parish council. It was confirmed that consideration was being given to developing such work with residents’ associations.
16. The Chairman commented that whilst this Committee had made a number of constructive suggestions on how to further improve the service, it was necessary to recognise that Highways & Infrastructure had made a number of significant improvements in the past two years. He expressed thanks on behalf of the Committee to both officers and May Gurney, in their willingness for an open discussion and for their response to the Committee’s scrutiny and recommendations.
Recommendations:
None.
Actions/further information to be provided:
The Assistant Director for Highways to circulate information regarding the current work in development with Parish Councils and localised services to all Local Committees.
Committee Next Steps:
The Committee will review the finalised action plans for the strategic peer review at its meeting in June 2013.