Agenda item

Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet member for Transport Management, Paul Fermer, Director of Highways and Environment, and Keith Stenning, Head of Network Management, have been invited to present a report on network coordination of road and street works and the proposed Lane Rental Scheme for Oxfordshire.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

Director of Highways and Environment, and Keith Stenning, Head of Network Management, were invited to present a report on network coordination of road and street works and the proposed Lane Rental Scheme for Oxfordshire.

The Cabinet Member for Transport Management and the Head of Network Management summarised the Network Coordination of Road and Street Works and the Lane Rental Scheme for Oxfordshire. They highlighted that managing these works included various permits and regulations affecting residents. The Lane Rental Scheme was to incentivise efficient utility work through financial measures, generating revenue for highway maintenance. Delayed twice, due to logistical challenges, it was hoped the scheme could start in October 2025.

The Committee was alerted to a typographical error in the report on page 33, paragraph 7: the Council deals with circa 1,450 road closure applications each year, not 450.

The Cabinet Member for Transport Management explained that the delays were due to logistical challenges and changes in government requirements. The Head of Network Management added that industry consultation and feedback from town and parish Councils had also contributed to the delay. It was confirmed that, once the scheme received approval, it would be communicated to the public, emphasising its benefits.

The Head of Network Management agreed with members on the need for effective communication, including avoiding any misconceptions that the Council sought to profit from road works, and clarified that the scheme would not be universally applied but would target the busiest roads during sensitive times.

Members examined why the Council had been slower to apply for the Lane Rental Scheme than other county Councils such as Kent. The Head of Network Management explained that a Council needed to operate a successful permit scheme for three years before applying for a lane rental scheme. Previously, Oxfordshire only recorded road work notifications with minimal control as a noticing authority but had, in recent years, moved to a permit scheme. Kent County Council had effectively been a pilot scheme when Lane Rental was extended out of London and schemes were gradually growing.

The Committee enquired about the Council's process for dealing with developers and utility works, focusing on the application procedure for road closures, the duration of requested closures, and the Council's ability to reject applications. Developers could apply for road closures, and the Council coordinated these applications to minimise disruption. The Council had the authority to reject applications or adjust the duration of closures, ensuring developers communicated specific closure dates to the local community.

North Street, was highlighted as an issue where a developer requested a 10-month closure for minor works, causing disruption. The Head of Network Management acknowledged this problem and stressed the importance of developers informing the local community about actual closure dates. The Council was working to ensure developers provided clear communication and evidence of their engagement with the community.

The Committee explored the estimated income from the lane rental scheme, including key risks and benefits. It was explained that the estimates were conservative to avoid overcommitting, as income depended on industry behaviour. It was confirmed that Thames Water was responsible for about half of the Section 74 overruns, amounting to approximately £200,000 in penalties.

The Committee inquired about the enforcement mechanisms for ensuring compliance with road work permits, challenging the durations requested by utilities, and the potential for fines. The Council had a dedicated team for enforcement, which included challenging the durations requested by utilities and ensuring compliance with permit conditions. Non-compliance by utilities could result in fines, and, although current fines were relatively low, a consultation was underway to significantly increase them.   The current fines for non-compliance were £80, however the consultation hoped to double the fines to £160 and also apply them for weekend and bank holiday working. 

Financial figures indicated an estimated surplus from the Lane Rental Scheme of £4m per annum after costs, with a budget line established at £2.1m. Legislation mandated that 50% of any surplus funds be allocated to highway maintenance, such as pothole repairs, with the remaining 50% for other purposes determined by the Council It was suggested that increased fines could enhance compliance and communication, with the Head of Network Management noting that a review of fines was expected to lead to improvements in utility compliance.

Members asked if Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs), who were responsible for enforcing Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs), could assist in enforcement around utility works.  The Head of Network Management explained that the Council employed around 20 individuals within the network coordination team, with approximately 12 personnel monitoring compliance and addressing issues daily. It was acknowledged that additional investment in CEOs would be beneficial, operating similarly to parking enforcement as a fee-based system.

It was also noted that while CEOs reported observed issues, their primary focus did not include road work enforcement. Network coordinators were more mobile, addressing issues as they emerged, whereas CEOs consistently covered the same areas. Although some cross-reporting occurred, it was not standard practice for CEOs to perform both roles.

The Committee raised separate concerns about simultaneous road and tree works in one division causing significant disruption, gas works in another causing traffic issues without visible work or a permit, and difficulties in contacting the duty manager after hours.

The Head of Network Management acknowledged the coordination issue in some places and requested detailed information to improve future coordination. It was explained that emergency gas works were unpredictable and admitted the lack of a permit was concerning, promising to investigate and ensure proper permitting and management.  Efforts to strengthen coverage outside regular hours were ongoing but there was a 24 hour highways customer service number.

The Committee had explored the idea of creating a system similar to FixMyStreet for reporting road work hazards. The Head of Network Management responded that issues could be reported on FixMyStreet, although responses might not be immediate. It was suggested by Officers exploring technology, such as Artificial Intelligence or instant messaging, could improve this.

Members expressed concerns about firms not completing works due to disputes, leading to prolonged issues. The Head of Network Management clarified that legal disputes were handled by the legal department while the highways team stepped back. Concerns were also raised about inadequate monitoring of temporary traffic lights on weekends, which could lead to dangerous situations and leftover road signs and sandbags. The Department for Transport had authorised fines for work during weekends and bank holidays, and preparations were being made to enforce this with fines also in place for works that overstayed, which included leaving works materials. The Head of Network Management also addressed substandard reinstatements, reporting that 76% failed and a coring programme, were tests were done to the reinstated road surfaces to check they met the required standards, was implemented to assess quality.

Members suggested that parish councillors and local networks, such as super users, could report issues more effectively due to their community involvement and it was agreed that these were invaluable.

There was also an inquiry about the fines from Botley Road overruns. The Head of Network Management clarified that no fines were issued as contractors had extended their permits. If fines had been imposed, contractors could have appealed to the Department for Transport, which might have taken control of the project or service.

The Chair inquired about the Council's confidence in securing permission for the lane rental scheme. The Head of Network Management responded with 95% confidence, citing support and guidance from the Department for Transport. The main uncertainty was the timing, which was expected between September and November of the next financial year.

The Committee thanked the Head of Network Management for his work, and wished him a happy retirement.

The Committee AGREED to the following actions:

• The Head of Network Management to publish the information about the ‘worst offenders’ for going over the schedule agreed.

• The Head of Network Management to publish the number of fines issued over the last financial year to indicate the current enforcement mechanism's effectiveness.

The Committee AGREED to the following observations:

• Enforcement and Reporting:
  • Encourage and enforce better communication by utility companies.
  • Consider how to report urgent matters effectively, possibly using super users and parish Councils for better local reporting.

• Include in the new parking enforcement contract that Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) could be trained to report issues beyond parking violations, such as road works and traffic problems.

The Committee AGREED to recommendations under the following headings:

• Explore different models for enforcement, including the use of technology and crowdsourcing to report issues.

• Increase enforcement on street scars and ensure proper reinstatement of road surfaces after works.