Decision details

The Chair welcomed to the meeting County Councillor Rupert Swarbrick, Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport, John Davies, Head of Service Highways Management Service, Kirstie Williams, Highways Group Manager – Countywide projects, Paul Binks, Asset Manager (Highways – Principal Engineer) and Rebecca Makinson, Highway Asset Principal (Capital Programme and Projects Development).

The committee was presented a report which provided information on the Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP) and how Lancashire County Council intended to manage highways assets efficiently and effectively. A presentation was provided during the meeting, and a copy can be found within the minutes.

On the duration taken for requests received from county councillors for work to be carried out under the Local Deterioration Fund, it was confirmed that all the data was analysed up to three times per year, with any requests that came through from the middle of the year being added onto the next tranche of LDF schemes. On the weightings/factors used to determine the prioritisation of work, it was reported that a document had been signed off by the former Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport which set out how the Capital Programme was allocated. A copy of the document would be circulated to the committee.

Comments and questions raised by the committee were as follows:

·  It was confirmed that a summary of how the Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP) operated would be provided on the Lancashire County Council website and on the Local Deterioration Fund (LDF).

·  It was noted that approximately £40m worth of schemes had been submitted. With £15m of schemes costed up and an available budget of £4.6 million for the 2023-24 financial year to carry out repairs to road surfaces. It was clarified that the service did not have £15m in the budget to deliver those schemes in 2023/24.

·  Officers highlighted that the reactive maintenance and repair works for highways assets was only available for smaller, localised repairs for the 2023-24 financial year. It was highlighted that they did not have the budget to commission repairs to larger patches. In these instances, officers were making requests via the LDF pot to carry out that work. However, officers were in the process of reviewing and trialling new methods for repairs to larger patches.

·  Members of the committee felt disenfranchised with how reported highways defects were prioritised, and the TAMP appearing to be fully driven by a remote computer system. The ability for councillors to have some influence over this was not in place at Lancashire whereas other local authorities allocated around 80% through the modelling process and the remaining 20% driven by councillor engagement. Officers explained that with pothole repairs it was difficult to obtain member involvement, as this type of repair was done on a reactive basis. It was also explained that without using the TAMP process, the county council would have lost over £3m per year because the county council wouldn't have been following the well managed highways process and the requirements posed by the Department for Transport.  A balance was needed and having member involvement could potentially lose that money because the county council might not be demonstrating that it was following good practice. Although, it was acknowledged the LDF perhaps provided some flexibility and a mechanism for councillor involvement in Lancashire.

·  It was noted that schemes needed to be under 2000 square metres for consideration as part of the LDF. The prioritisation of schemes on the LDF did not relate to strategic importance and was based on accepted customer complaints and the number of repeat visits to potholes to help reduce the burden on revenue spend.

·  It was confirmed that over a period of 7 years, an indicative allocation of £494m from the previously earmarked funding for HS2 could be given to Lancashire County Council. The allocation would be back loaded in that less funding would be given in the first two years, with more funding provided in the remaining five years. However, guidance was awaited on how much of this could be allocated to maintenance programmes. Once the guidance was received, there would be a requirement for the county council to submit a plan for the first two years of funding detailing how this would be distributed. At this stage the amount of funding to be provided in the first two years was not known.

·  It was suggested that a review of the TAMP to determine if it's working effectively should take place.

·  On footways it was acknowledged that the county council didn't achieve what it set out to do in Phase 1 of the TAMP. It was highlighted that further repairing of footways within Lancashire could only take place if additional funding and resources was made available.

·  It was suggested that a decision making process would be beneficial for members when submitting requests through the Local Deterioration Fund.

·  It was noted that 48% of repairs carried out on potholes across Lancashire were done within 10 days, with a variation in timescales for pothole repairs depending on the location and its depth. It was confirmed that potholes were sealed, however there were circumstances were this was not possible in areas where there was significant deterioration. It was acknowledged that there was a backlog of potholes that needed repairing following the winter period.

·  It was suggested that more formal feedback be provided from Highways Officers following the conclusion of the quarterly District Briefing meetings involving members.

·  Concerns were raised that the only way to report defects to the county council was through the Love Clean Streets App. However, it was queried whether an equality impact assessment had been undertaken prior to the roll out of the App. Whilst, officers were not aware of any policy change and agreed to check this point, it was suggested that an urgent review of the defect reporting system be conducted to confirm that there were other methods to report potholes including via the call centre.

·  It was felt that clarification on the workings of the Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP) and the Local Deterioration Fund (LDF) be provided to the committee.

·  Some concern was expressed on how defects were being identified through the highway inspection process in that repeat visits had been made to particular locations whereupon second opinions eventually determined that work was actually required to resolve those matters. It wasn't clear if pothole depths were being estimated from a drive-by or whether officers were parking up and walking to physically inspect and measure given the number of cases one councillor had been involved with. It was suggested that a review of the highways safety inspection process be undertaken.

Resolved: That; the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport gives consideration to;

(i)  Conducting an urgent review of the defect reporting system and to confirm that there are other methods to report potholes via the call centre.

(ii)  Providing clarification on the workings of the Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP) and the Local Deterioration Fund (LDF) with a view to enhanced member engagement in the LDF.

(iii)Reviewing the highways safety inspection process.