Agenda item

The Council's Network Control Manager and Streetworks Inspection Manager talked through the Agenda Report and provided further detail on the co-ordination of works on the public highway.

The Council operated a permit scheme, whereby utility companies, developers, event organisers and skip/scaffold users could electronically advise the Council in advance of any works affecting the highway.  Depending on the duration of the work, the notice given varied from 3 months to 3 days.  Whilst access could not be denied, a fee may be applied to co-ordinate work on traffic sensitive routes.

Officers received around 300 enquires a day and where possible, a co-ordinated approach was preferred.  However, if works were planned for less than 3 days, only 3 days' notice was required.  Works less than 10 days required only 10 days' notice and major works required 3 months' notice.

With these varying notice periods, it was therefore unlikely that a co-ordinated approach could be achieved, especially when requests to work at the same location were not submitted at the same time.  The most disruption was often caused by emergency works which required diversion routes.

Officers reported that they always encouraged forward planning and joint working across organisations however it was difficult to achieve.  A Co-ordination Register was shared with the utility companies and officers met with them regularly to plan for works.

When asked about best practice from other Local Authorities, Officers agreed that engagement with organisations was key, with five Officers co-ordinating the scheme in Worcestershire.

It was reported that a new code of conduct was being written by the Department of Transport, which was hoped would result in a nationwide permit scheme and Officers were due to present an annual report to Cabinet in the Summer about this.

During Panel questions, the following points were raised:

·       Residents of new developments were particularly frustrated as works were not co-ordinated, however the Panel now understood the different timescales involved in permitted work

·       Members learned that Officers tried to work with developers to manage work and a 50% fee reduction was offered if they achieved this, however, as fees varied between £230 and £105, the reduction was not a large amount.  In addition, there were other benefits in joint working, such as shared costs for traffic management if required

·       Work undertaken without permission was subject to a fine, to the sum of either £350 or £500, however no fine had yet to be issued by the Council

·       Diversion routes through rural areas were often poorly signed and concern was raised over safety, especially at night.  Although routes were shown on the website, it was suggested that Local Members would have more detailed knowledge to help inform County Engineers

·       The Panel Members agreed that they would like to undertake some work looking at the website and identifying areas for improvement

·       When asked whether damage to verges was followed up with the contractor, it was reported that verges should be re-instated and if not, it would be followed up.  However, only 10% of jobs were physically inspected

·       The Panel agreed to recommend to the Cabinet Member that Local Member knowledge was utilised more, especially in relation to signage and diversion routes.

As a result of the discussion, the Panel requested the following information:

·       Further detail on the number and type of permits requested

·       Information on the loss of revenue in year 2 as a result of deemed consents being given

·       Circulation of the Cabinet Report when available.