Agenda item

The Chair welcomed County Councillor Rupert Swarbrick, Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport, Ridwan Musa, Head of Highways Operations and Design and Kirstie Williams, Highways Group Manager – Countywide Maintenance to the meeting.

A report was provided on reactive maintenance performance regarding structural defects including potholes. It was noted that the key national standing was Local Authorities in England had experienced real time cuts in the construction industry, 45% of authorities had reported a cut or freeze in the budget and the additional amount needed to maintain networks was £1.22b, with an average shortfall was £7.2m per authority. Regarding Lancashire, it was noted that there was a 33% overall improvement of ABC road networks and an estimated shortfall per annum of £20-25m. It was further noted that 109,000 highways reports had been received since April 2024 and the top enquires remained the general road condition and potholes.

In response to questions from the committee, the following information was clarified:

·  Regarding the unclassified road network at end of life, the committee raised concern that the backlog would not be addressed by March 2025 and queried if this would be addressed after Phase 2. It was highlighted that there was a significant backlog of work and a severe shortfall in funding and so it was unlikely officers would be able to address the backlog in the near future. A future timeline for this could be brought back to the committee at a later date. Further to this, the committee was informed that the cost to bring the whole network to a satisfactory condition was £160m. It was noted that funds could not be focussed on one type of road at a time, as the rest of the network would be neglected.

·  It was clarified to members that blacktop repairs referred to tarmac repair (edge of carriageways, potholes) in the footway and road whereas masonry repairs referred to block and stone paving and kerbing (grey materials).

·  Information on the number of defects between footways and carriageways was requested.

·  Regarding the extra highways funding announced by central government, members were informed that the funds would be received in the 2024/25 financial year and that it equalled approximately £12m. A report on how the funding would be allocated was due to be presented to Cabinet in March 2025.

·  It was explained that 5% of all works completed from both contractors and county council staff were inspected. Further to this, it was highlighted that there were processes in place to review the contracts and terminate them with contractors who did not complete works to the expected standards. The Cabinet Member agreed to provide further information on the standard of reinstatements by utility companies.

·  Members were informed that contractors were required to complete a pothole repair free of charge, should their original repair be unsatisfactory. However, it was highlighted that pothole repairs were not a permanent solution and did not compare to resurfacing a road.

·  It was highlighted that a review of the gully system in Lancashire would be undertaken over the next 2 years to establish a routine for their maintenance.

·  Regarding the disparity with the allocation of funding for each district, it was explained that a ratio was used to determine allocations based on network length and defect reports. It was also highlighted that funding could be diverted in year if sudden defects arose.

·  Members raised concern regarding the cost of repairing potholes being halved and queried if this indicated an issue with lower quality materials being used. The committee was informed that good quality materials were being used, but that repairs had gotten smaller over time meaning that maximising repairs up to 5m² was no longer happening and this was the reason for the saving.

·  In regard to the condition of the network, it was explained that the council's area teams were on patrol and attended every report made by the public and two inspector teams were active across the county. GAIST survey reports were also utilised to gauge the network's condition. It was noted that highways staff logged defect reports.

·  The committee raised concern that the benchmarking information provided had evidenced that Lancashire's performance was not improving and further queried how the county council could learn from those well performing authorities. It was highlighted that there were several factors affecting performance including Lancashire's diverse topography, and differences in funding and resources. However, it was felt that with the resources available, the council was in a good position.

·  The committee was informed that approximately 50% of reported faults resulted in repairs and whilst officers welcomed the public identifying defects, the challenges around this was that mass reporting of the same fault used a substantial amount of manager time to ensure all reporters were linked and received the same updates.

·  On general condition reports, the committee queried which avenue of reporting these were most often received through. Members were informed that these inquiries often came from people writing to the county council and were not always focussed on a defect but rather queries about whether work such as resurfacing would be undertaken.

·  The committee raised concern in regard to the recruitment and retention within Highways Operations, particularly management posts. It was suggested that the Cabinet Member gives consideration to reviewing the recruitment and retention offer to determine if it needs to change or improve.

Members put on record their appreciation for the operations staff who were responding to recent storm events (Storm Éowyn) in the county.

Resolved: That the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport gives consideration to reviewing the recruitment and retention offer for Highways Operations to determine if it needs to change or improve.