7 Highway Safety Inspections Policy
PDF 73 KB
Forward Plan
Ref: 2010/209
Contact: Kevin Haines,
Highways Asset Manager Tel: (01865) 815687
10.05 am
Report by Deputy Director of Environment & Economy – Highways
& Transport (CMDT4).
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Cabinet Member considered a revised policy for Statutory Safety Inspections noting the following amendments to the report:
Paragraph 16 to read “By aligning the response times to the
relevant categories, the more urgent work can be prioritised and the less
urgent work more efficiently programmed.
Although the response times have been reviewed, there is no
justification for changing them other than to withdraw the 7 day response to
facilitate more effective works programming. It is the aim to implement all
these policy changes from April 2011.”
Paragraph 18, line 5 amend “in excess of £700K” to read “approximately
£70K”.
Councillor Turner:
-
asked
whether the cost of highway repairs against costs arising from claims had been
analysed;
-
asked whether
consideration had been given to reducing the 3 month inspection period for some
routes to 2 and whether or not the costs of such a reduction had been compared
against the costs of claims. He
submitted that although there might well be a negative cost implication a 2
month period would be more acceptable to the general public than 3;
-
considered
that the modified network hierarchy discriminated against rural roads even
though the inconvenience from damage to a vehicle was the same;
-
asked
for clarification regarding responsibility for inspection and maintenance of
roadside gulleys.
Officers confirmed that some analyses had been carried out. However, inspection
periods had been set in order to provide a robust claims policy by
demonstrating that the frequency and type of inspection was appropriate to the
route. Available resources had to be
allocated in order to best meet the risk aspect. Roads would be inspected at the
appropriate frequencies using this process, and defects reported by officers and
other road users during intervening periods would also be investigated and acted
on appropriately. The Council was responsible
for inspecting, emptying and maintaining roadside gulleys
on the county highway network. The Council
could also take action where highway drainage or flooding issues were caused by
water from private land.
Councillor Rose stated that the County Council needed to provide a safe
highway network supported by a robust claims policy but needed to be realistic
in how it allocated its resources. He
welcomed greater public participation in bringing potential problems to light.
Having regard to the arguments and options set out in the documentation
before him, the representations made to him and the further considerations set
out above the Cabinet Member for Transport confirmed his decision as follows:
(a)
approve the Highway Safety Inspections Policy as set
out in Annex A to the report CMDT4;
(b)
approve the Highway Defect Investigatory Levels as
set out in Annex B to the report CMDT4;
(c) to authorise the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy - Highways and Transport in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport to issue a written instruction to temporarily suspend service standards as set out in the Highway Safety Inspections Policy during or as a result of exceptional adverse weather conditions or other ... view the full minutes text for item 7