Agenda item

Highways Maintenance

Minutes:

Members of the Economy and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee were invited to attend the meeting for this agenda item.

 

The Chair wished to convey his thanks to Brian Buckley, Strategic Highways Manager who had very recently retired from the authority. Members of the committee joined him in sending Brian best wishes for a long and happy retirement.

 

The Committee considered the Joint report of the Interim Corporate Director of Resources and the Corporate Director of Neighbourhoods and Climate Change that provided Members with background information in relation to highways asset management service delivery (for copy of report, see file of minutes).

 

Paul Watson, Interim Strategic Highways Manager supported by Paul Anderson, Highways Inspection and Maintenance Manager were in attendance to present the report and deliver a presentation (for copy of presentation, see file of minutes).

 

The presentation provided details of the highway Inventory; highway inspections; condition surveys; asset condition; structures condition index; footways and their management and safety inspections; footways capital schemes; maintenance backlog; highways assets performance and innovation.

 

The Interim Strategic Highways Manager explained that the council had over 1000 kilometres of cycle infrastructure and just under 300 kilometres was highway related this information had been omitted out of the presentation, but the information would be updated and circulated to members.

 

Members were advised that there are two types of inspection safety and service and that in relation to A, B and C roads there was a fair condition target of 4% and the good condition target was 0%. However, the weather this time of year had an impact on the condition of the assets and their ability to repair defects due to the volume of repairs.

 

The Interim Strategic Highways Manager advised that in relation to unclassified roads and footways the service would be addressing the backlog of repairs over the next few years using funding from government and Durham County Council. He went on to explain the structure condition indices and highlighted that there was an aim for a good condition target score of 100%, fair condition target scores ranged from 95 – 85%. Where a structure received a score 60 indicated that the structure had lost 40% of its function and would require intervention.

 

Since 2016 the authority had invested just under 19 million pounds in structures and repaired and maintained over 143 schemes. The purpose of the condition survey around structures is to identify the right treatment at the right time and using the investment over the last five years this is the direction Durham County Council is moving in. Currently there were one or two bridges in catastrophic condition which were being treated.

 

The Interim Strategic Highways Manager provided comprehensive information relating to footways which had been requested by members. The frequency of footway inspections is determined by location and footfall, defects are rated into categories and repair times were determined by category. Almost 70,000 defects were reported this does not include reports from members and public. Members were informed that the authority had retained the maximum band rating from the Department of Transport and was one of only two local authorities to obtain ISO accreditation and had received an above average public satisfaction. The Interim Strategic Highways Manager explained how Durham County Council had embraced innovative projects such as the use of plastic crumb and the Govtech project.

 

The Chair indicated that it was interesting to note the miles of roads, footpaths and cycleways and that the public become parochial about their local highways and footways and this must generate lots of reports daily. He then referred to the impact of the weather on the highway and the report showed some improvement in terms of the maintenance on the roadway.

 

The Chair in relation to structures, specifically to the bridge maintenance and bridge condition and referred to the bridge index and noted that the condition of the bridges was deteriorating although not significantly enough to cause any huge concerns and asked if the service had the resources to improve that index as far as the condition was concerned. He then referred to the condition of the upgrading of footpaths and the use of top surfacing and if this was a short term measure as it was not always cost effective and if they had any plans to remove flagstones from footpaths. He then referred to the use of plastics and if these were used on new footpaths or was it solely for use on road surfaces.

 

The Interim Strategic Highways Manager responded that bridge maintenance had historically been underfunded. Currently principal inspections were more detailed and identify more areas therefore more defects were being identified. Risk principal inspections that were a more detailed inspection were carried out between six and twelve years or sooner if relating to an identified risk.

 

The service was constantly applying to the Department for Transport (DfT) and the combined authority for any significant transport and highways related schemes. The service currently had a number of bids with the Department for Transport for various structures which would help address some of the backlog. Due to budget constraints they had to apply the right treatment at the time and the general and principal inspections on the bridges were identifying what those issues were.

 

If a bridge was in significant danger, then they would apply to the council for additional funding. He referred to the current closure of Elvet Bridge that was funded through the council and the Department for Transport and using existing budgets as the principle inspection identified an immediate need to deliver a programme.

 

He then referred to flagstones on footpaths and advised that these would only be replaced where there was significant vehicle overrun or damage due to utility trenches and identified that the majority of highway claims were trips on flagstones, where tree roots had lifted flagstones they would look to remove the flagstones and replace with bitmac.

 

The service was now using plastics on the vast majority of schemes and quantified the amount of plastics and rubber crumb that was used in all their surfacing but this had a cost against carbon. It was emphasised that Durham County Council would always embrace innovation.

 

The Highways Inspection and Maintenance Manager referred to the inspection frequency and indicated that flagged footpaths gave more likelihood of trips and falls. Their minimum inspection frequency for a flagged footpath was six months. He then referred to the surface treatment in relation to footway specialist treatment that was used to maintain existing footpaths for a period of five to seven years and was a cost effective treatment but footway specialist treatment would not be used if the footpath was degraded to such a point that it would not be cost effective and in these circumstances the service would look to reconstruct the footpath. However, the service was aware of the limitations of footway surface treatment.

 

Councillor Reed referred to unadopted roads in particular one in the Crook division that was installed by the council but had not had any maintenance work since the 1960’s and was in a poor condition and was also used as a footpath and was the only access road to properties on that street. She asked if funding was available and if it was the council’s responsibility to repair the road, she was aware that in the past when the council has spare materials they have provided the spare material to residents for residents to spread it themselves rather than the council having to dispose of the material.

 

The Chair suggested that the detail to this question could be given outside of the meeting.

 

The Interim Strategic Highway Manager indicated that they would check the ownership of the road and advised that in the past they had used road plainings. If the road was unadopted then there would be no inspection regime and was happy to discuss with Councillor Reed outside the meeting.

 

The Highway Inspection and Maintenance Manager advised members that they would provide road plaining if available and that members had the opportunity to get up to 50 tons of road plaining free if they had work in the area but the plainings belonged to the contractors and it was at their discretion. There is a small budget for ad-hoc inspections to be carried out.

 

Tom Bolton referred to adopted highways and footways and asked if they were always shown on the adopted map/record, the road in question was believed to have been constructed by Durham County Council but did not appear on the adopted map/record. Could the service look at this.

 

The Interim Strategic Highways Manager responded that this could be an anomaly and more investigation may be required and he would speak to Mr Bolton outside the meeting.

 

Councillor L Brown referred to the flagstones on footpaths and was disappointed when they were removed as they were a natural habitat for the masonry bee.

 

The Interim Strategic Highways Manager responded that he would speak to colleagues in the Ecology Team to discuss if there was an alternative habitat that could be provided for the bees and at the request of the Chair would feed back the response to committee officers.

 

Pat Holding referred to the use of plastics and asked how they compared with conventional surfacing in terms of duration and how difficult was it to dispose of this material.

 

The Interim Strategic Highways Manager responded that plastics in road surfacing was a new product and detail regarding the durability was not known as yet but there was a lot of research being carried out across the county in terms of innovation. The disposal aspect there was a potential issue as it was plastic within a road surface that could not be recycled again, they had been using the product for the last three or four years and no repairs had been required in that time and it was expected to last at least 20/25 years.

 

The Highways Inspection and Maintenance Manager referred to the duration of the road surface and the maximum plastic put into the roads at present was six percent as the testing carried out was reporting that it does not affect the durability. In relation to disposal of the material he would speak to the contractors laboratories and other suppliers regarding development and disposal.

 

The Chair advised that it was an important issue which the committee would want to be updated and suggested that the information on the impact of the plastic surface was having on our roads was included within the Highways Maintenance item that will be included in the committee’s 2021/2022 work programme.

 

The Chair thanked the officers for the presentation and for answering Members questions.

 

Resolved: (i) That the report and presentation be noted.

 

(ii) That a progress updated on highways maintenance in the county be included in its future work programme for 2020/21.

Supporting documents: