Agenda item

HIGHWAYS PLANNED MAINTENANCE PROGRAMME INCLUDING SURFACE TREATMENT OPTIONS

Minutes:

Report ES16006

 

Report ES16006 recommended planned footway and carriageway works for the remainder of 2015/16 and 2016/17 with a draft programme for future years. Information was also provided on carriageway treatment options and projects related to the Council’s annual bid to the London Bridges Engineering Group (advising Transport for London) for structural projects on bridge assessment and strengthening.

Technical surveys provide carriageway condition data borough-wide for an assessment of network condition. Although not precise, being derived from a wide range of identified highway defects, the surveys provide valuable trend data, identifying the percentage of carriageway likely to require maintenance. Prioritisation in accordance with budget provision is based upon highway condition with account also taken of factors such as amount of use, location on the network, adjacent services, frequency of reactive maintenance, level of public enquiries, and consultation responses.

 

Supplementary information tabled for the meeting highlighted Ward Councillors who had provided comments/enquiries on the proposed programme, the information also listing roads noted in respect of the Member enquiries and the date of response sent by officers to each Member. 

 

A number of comments and questions were raised in discussion with further background provided on formulating the programme. Following the technical surveys of network condition by external surveyors (to help develop the programme), Council engineers would carry out their own assessment of each road considered and be certain of the necessary treatment before work is commenced. As such the programme was not intended to reflect the physical condition of roads listed and subsequent tests would identify anything wrong underneath the road surface. An undulating road surface would not of itself warrant inclusion within the programme; where it was possible to accept road undulations for a few years, attention could be given to dealing with severely rutted roads and roads requiring a high number of reactive maintenance visits. Only the part of a road requiring works would be treated as previously agreed by the Highway Assets Working Group. This helped to provide the most cost effective rates. 

 

Detailed work on the programme would therefore follow the Portfolio Holder’s decision with any changes to the programme (in line with service needs) being delegated to the Executive Director in consultation with the Portfolio Holder. The length of footways to be treated would be re-affirmed on site. Members were invited to accompany engineers in visiting some roads which the Portfolio Holder supported.

 

In the Orpington ward it was highlighted that a number of pavements on hills were now uneven, posing a risk, particularly for the elderly. The Chairman suggested that there could be value in an assessment of footway treatment options, in a similar approach to the carriageway treatment options detailed in the report. The Chairman proposed that the Portfolio Holder could then give further consideration to the footway re-surfacing schemes appended to Report ES16006. The schemes could be agreed in principle at this stage and the footway programme commenced with the first tranche of works, subject to Members looking further at remaining footways either individually or collectively at an informal meeting to provide views for the Portfolio Holder in a final decision. Following this decision, individual Member comments could still be considered with any changes to the proposed programmes being delegated to the Executive Director in consultation with the Portfolio Holder.

 

It was also suggested that Chelsfield Hill be included for maintenance – the road having been closed again two weeks previously - with surface treatment suggested as a cheaper option should restoration not be needed. It was further suggested that Homestead Road, Orpington (Chelsfield and Pratts Bottom Ward) might now need a detailed assessment having taken a lower priority for maintenance in previous years. In general, the road appeared in good condition but sections were experiencing frequent potholing.

 

Footways continued to be installed on a like for like basis - new paving slabs matched with new and old slabs matched with old - and it was intended to level uneven paving slabs as much as possible rather than use new slabs (normally, older paving slabs were also stronger).

 

RESOLVED that the Environment Portfolio Holder be recommended to:

 

(1)  agree that additional schemes listed at Appendix A to Report ES16006 be completed during 2015/16 with those at  Appendix B forming the basis of the Council’s programme of planned highway maintenance for 2016/17;

 

(2)  give further consideration to the footway re-surfacing treatments and schemes at Appendices B and C to Report ES16006, the schemes being proposed for agreement in principle at this stage with the first tranche of works to be commenced, subject to PDS Members looking further at remaining footways to provide views for a final decision on footway re-surfacing schemes;

 

(3)  agree the proposed schemes for future years at Appendix C to Report ES16006 subject to (2) above;

 

(4)  agree the proposed TfL funded programme of principal road maintenance works for 2016/17 as set out at Appendix D to Report ES16006, together with the bid to Transport for London for bridge strengthening and assessment at  Appendix E; and

 

(5)  agree that authority be delegated to the Executive Director of Environment and Community Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, to implement any changes to the proposed programmes in line with service needs.

 

Supporting documents: