Issue - meetings

Report ES16048

The Executive considered a proposal for alternative funding arrangements for highways maintenance. There was a very strong case for continued investment in planned maintenance, which would reduce the amount of reactive maintenance associated with mending pot-holes and broken paving slabs. This would improve value for money and customer satisfaction, reduce unplanned network disruption and contribute to reducing claims for damages. The proposal had been supported by the Environment PDS Committee at their meeting on 29^th September 2016.  

RESOLVED that

(1) Capital funding of £11.8m be approved for investment in planned highway maintenance, to be funded from capital receipts, and, subject to the approval of full Council, the scheme be added to the Capital Programme.

(2) Subject to the approval of the alternative funding set out above, the revenue budget for highways works will be reduced by £2.5m per annum for the period 2017/18 to 2012/22, which will be partly offset by an estimated reduction in treasury management income of £167k over the five year period.

Report ES16048

Members considered alternative funding arrangements for highways maintenance.

Planned highways maintenance reduced reactive maintenance, improved value for money and customer satisfaction, reduced unplanned network disruption, and contributed to a reduced level of damage claims. As carriageways deteriorate through weathering and traffic, the requirement for protective or structural maintenance could be predicted with some accuracy.

Sustained annual investment had helped to keep the principal (A) road network in good condition. The non-principal (B/C) network had also been a revenue funding priority in recent years having a condition indicator of 3%. However, the unclassified road network had a road condition indicator of 17%.

Footways were in a better structural condition with the main causes of deterioration - root damage from street trees and over-running vehicles - both being effectively managed through reactive and minor works.

Although funding through revenue budgets had allowed non-principal and unclassified roads to be maintained in a stable condition, it had been insufficient for improvement so that expenditure on reactive works could reduce. Roads with the highest priority had been put forward for planned works programmes in accordance with expected budget provision.

Recent benchmarking with neighbouring boroughs showed that prices within the Council’s current Major Works contract for planned highway maintenance projects are at least 28% lower than similar recently awarded contracts. The Council’s contract has recently been extended to June 2018 and contract prices were anticipated to increase when the contract is re-tendered.  

To fund improvement works during the next two years and allow conditions to significantly improve in the short term using existing contract prices, £11.8m of upfront funding was proposed for release from capital receipts. The funding would allow revenue expenditure to reduce by £2.5m per annum for five years from 2017/18, at a total of £12.5m (£11.9m from planned works and £0.6m from reactive maintenance). This would be partly offset by a total reduction in treasury management income of some £167k over the five year period. After five years, the benefits of upfront funding would be reviewed and a decision taken on whether future funding is delivered from capital receipts (subject to future availability) or from revenue budgets.

The latest treatment survey suggested that future investment was best focussed on carriageway maintenance to obtain long-term benefits, with footway maintenance continuing to rely on reactive and minor works funding.

A proposed Working Group of the Committee would agree service levels and treatment options. Future work programmes funded by the investment would then be considered by the Portfolio Holder following the Committee’s scrutiny.

In discussion, it was confirmed that treatment priorities would normally depend on the extent of a road’s use. Cllr Samaris Huntington-Thresher (Chelsfield and Pratts Bottom) referred to a high number of unclassified roads in her ward, suggesting they might benefit from surface dressing. However, some surface dressings were not durable and could only be considered short term solutions; consideration of various treatment options could be considered by the Working Group. Given the current contract costs (and a reduced level of reactive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20