Agenda item

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).

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 exceptional disruptive events.