Agenda item

Highway Maintenance

a)    Report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration and Local Services

b)    Presentation by Head of Technical Services and Highway Asset Manager

Minutes:

Members considered the joint report of the Corporate Director Regeneration and Local Services and the Director of Transformation and Partnerships that provided Members with an update of highway maintenance (for copy of report, see file of minutes).

 

The Head of Technical Services and Highway Asset Manager were in attendance to provide Members with information relating to Highways Maintenance. The Chair had requested in advance of the meeting that the tables in the report be placed on power point slides to aid members, the slides contained the summary of the Inventory as at 31 March 2017; condition of the carriageway, footways, structures and street lighting; maintenance backlog; results of the public satisfaction survey; budget and investment level (for copy of presentation, see file of minutes).

 

Members were advised that Durham County Council has a robust highway inspection regime and public reporting system. Inspections take place from fortnightly to annually and additionally the Council expects the public to report highway maintenance damage too.

 

Members were informed about section 58 of the Highways Act 1980 that sets out special defence in action against a highway authority for damages for non-repair of highway. That is if a pothole appears following a highway inspection, and has not been reported by members of the public how would the highway authority know about the defect.

 

The Highway Asset Manager explained that the Highway Maintenance Plan was available for anyone to view on the Council’s website, but the Highway Safety Plan was not in the public domain. The Transport Asset Management Plan is updated and shared with Cabinet on annual basis.

 

The Head of Technical Services advised that it was a key objective to keep the maintenance backlog is kept under control, as it would not be realistic to clear it. Members were advised that the Council participates in the National Highways and Transport Public Satisfaction Survey. It was highlighted to members that the public satisfaction survey key benchmark indicator 23 refers to highway maintenance and clearly indicates that DCC had a rating for 2016 was 45%, which was higher than both regional and national figures but is lower than the service would like it.

 

In relation to Capital budget, the Head of Technical Services advised that the Council has protected and continued to prioritise investment in programmed capital maintenance. Members were advised that programmed maintenance works improve the quality of the highway. The Council has achieved the maximum Band 3 efficiency rating under the Department for Transport incentive fund. This rating will help ensure the Council maximises funding from the DfT initiative fund going forward.

 

The Chairman thanked officers for their informative presentation.

 

Councillor Howell sought clarification on the date of the year end data. The Head of Technical Services responded that it was 31 March 2016 and that the 2017 data would be available shortly.

 

Members commented that the data was 21 months out of date, which made it difficult to obtain a true reflection.

 

The Head of Technical Services responded that the data was available in draft and would be reported to Members in due course.

 

Councillor Howell asked if the 2017 data was better or worse and was concerned about the declining figures in particular structures. He then referred to street lighting and if the data for repairs had reduced due to some street lighting been removed.

 

The Head of Technical Services advised Members that the removal of street lighting was part of a project to remove 7,000 lights county wide. The process had seen this figure reduced to 3,000 and approximately 1,000 lights had been removed to date. Each year new developments were adopted which included street lights, which added to the database.

 

The Chairman commented that Members who had any issues with the removal of lights asked for a review and he sought clarification from the officer if any of the reviews had been successful.

 

The Head of Technical Services indicated that the policy was agreed with Cabinet in 2013 and they only removed lights when it was safe to do so. A risk assessment was always undertaken and local councillors and parishes were consulted on the removal.

 

Councillor Martin referred to unclassified roads being below the national average and were any measures in place to reverse the trend.

 

The Head of Technical Services responded that they do try to keep unclassified roads at a certain level, most unclassified roads were in residential estates or rural settings. Category A, B and C roads were prioritised and depending on budget and any spare resources are used on unclassified roads.

 

Councillor Martin then echoed Councillor Howell’s comments in relation to street lighting and that his residents also had concerns where street lights were removed, even though there were no properties, the road was still well used.

 

The Head of Technical Services responded that savings had to be made and street lighting is not statutory.

 

Councillor Sexton referred to LED lights and asked if they could be adjusted to widen the illumination. The Head of Technical Services responded that adjustments could be made to the lights. The LED retrofit reduction project was a professionally designed lighting scheme, and the lights are only meant to light the highway and the majority of complaints received from residents was in relation to the lighting not lighting up there home or garden. If the lights did this it would be classed as light pollution and wasted energy and once this was explained to residents 95% were happy, but he could look at those lights that members had concerns with.

 

Councillor Sexton commented on the cost to remove the lights and if it was financially viable and his view keeping people safe and not feel vulnerable was an entitlement.

 

Councillor Jopling on behalf of Councillor Reed commented that she had reported a street light without a number on and was advised by the service to check with the Land Registry to find out who owned the light. She thought that planning permission would have been required for the light so the Council would be aware of the ownership of the light.

 

The Head of Technical Services advised Members that is was possibly a private light on private land, which they had no knowledge of as planning permission was not required for lights.

 

Councillor Jopling then referred to some lighting that had been removed in her ward which she could not understand the reasons for removal. The Head of Technical Services advised that the removal of the lighting was a key decision and public consultation had been undertaken and a risk assessment.

 

Councillor Brown referred to LED lights being so bright and asked if the brightness could be adjusted.

 

Councillor Gardner asked if unclassified roads and footpaths in bad condition could be marked by other environmental conditions.

 

The Head of Technical Services commented that 24.1% of footways were structurally unsound, the safety of the footpaths was still paramount. The majority of the structurally unsound footpaths were on mature estates and was down to budget. Where there are new developments footpaths were constructed to a specified standard.

 

The Chairman asked if the Committee could be provided with up to date information to come to a meeting early in next year’s work programme. Members asked if the meeting be aligned to the Cabinet meeting when the information is given so that they could look at last year’s data.

 

Councillor Clare asked how many kilometres of footpath did the council have. Members were advised that there were 3.328 km of adopted footpaths.

 

Resolved: (i) That the report be noted.

 

(ii) That future meeting’s be aligned so that Members were provided with up to date data.

Supporting documents: