Agenda item

Ian Bamforth, the Council's Highways Operations and Public Rights of Way Manager was asked to provide an update following the recommendations made by the Footways Scrutiny Task Group in early 2017. 

In the discussion, Members highlighted the following main points:

·         Core funding for improving footways had increased by £6m

·         Recommendations in relation to the involvement of County Councillors in improvement works was highlighted as working very well, to the extent that £104,000 was available in each Division, with half of that sum being available for earmarking by the Councillor themselves

·         Questions arose around the differing geographical size of each Division and the length of damaged footways in each.  It was suggested that Members could obtain Division specific information if required

·         Preventative maintenance was vital to longevity, such as siding out footways which had become overgrown

·         As budgets had previously been targeted at Highways works, it was likely that many Footways would need full depth reconstruction, due to their degradation.  Engineers continued to assess each project individually and as the general standard of footways improved over time it was likely that the work would move more towards preventative maintenance

·         Concern was raised over the number of once new Housing Estates and the likelihood that all footways would need treatment at the same time

·         One Member highlighted the success of a honeycomb structure in a grass verge and the benefits of that to their local community greenspace.  It was suggested that that approach was not always feasible, but could be achieved if practical

·         Another Member expressed the view that achieving a level of below 25% of footways requiring treatment was not true, to be informed that the figure was Countywide, not specifically in each Division.  To achieve this figure, the number of crews would need to be increased

·         Members asked about progress with the Guidance on Well Managed Highways Infrastructure referred to under recommendation 2 of the Review recommendations.  Officers responded that they were working with regional colleagues on this to meet the October 2018 deadline.  Panel members asked that they receive a further report about this prior to implementation

·         In response to a query from a Member about the approach to retaining urban trees when work was carried out on the footway, it was reported that each case was managed on its merits and trees were retained where possible

·         Fines were imposed on Utility companies who damaged footways and did not undertake repairs.  However, Officers did work closely with companies to try and ensure least disruption.  Recent examples included Fibre Broadband rollout

·         Weed spraying, undertaken by District Councils, had changed over time due to the regulations surrounding the use of ingredients

·         When asked whether the Council achieved good value for money, it was reported that it did, but there were also other ways of working.  Members expressed the view that the £6m core funding was welcome but should be used most effectively

·         Members felt that the £104,000 Division allocation was used very quickly if surfaces were degraded and many residents continued to live on roads where the situation was poor

·         One Member commented that communication was good between the Officers and Councillors

·         The Public Health Consultant added that there was a known health benefit to walking, yet the infrastructure was not always suitable.  It was suggested that more affluent areas were engaged and able to report concerns, yet those areas were not always in need of footway repair

·         The Panel agreed that even with the extra £6m investment, it was not necessarily going to solve the problem.  It was suggested that further work could be done to assess whether the County Council was obtaining best value for money in its current arrangements for footway repairs and construction.  It was also suggested that unless protecting footways over highways was a Council priority, the issue would not be solved.