Agenda item

Dalton Cenac, Highways & Traffic  Manager, Gurmeet Matharu, Principal Engineer, and Vicky Boorman, Flood and Water Management Specialist, introduced a report detailing Highways Maintenance and Flooding.

 

The contents of the report was summarised, key points of which included:

 

Highways Maintenance

 

·         Roads that were in need of repair were split into two categories:

o   Roads that were structurally unsound, and needed major resurfacing or reconstruction; and

o   Roads where the surface was aging and could be given a preventive treatment using a thin surface overlay.

·         Roads and pavements included in annual resurfacing programmes were prioritised primarily based on condition. In 2017, independent consultants undertook condition surveys of the ensure high network within Hillingdon, in accordance with the UKPMS national standard (United Kingdom Pavement Management System). The next survey was scheduled for later in 2019.

·         Other factors taken into consideration when deciding inclusion include potholes, trip hazards and wear/loss of surface material, service requests or reports from Councillors or residents, petitions, road hierarchy and insurance claims. Visual inspections are also carried out by engineers, to determine the most appropriate treatment.

 

Safety Inspections and Potholes

 

·         Safety inspections on all roads and pavements in the Borough were in accordance with the Council’s new Highway Safety Inspection Policy, which introduced a more risk-based approach to inspections and assessing and prioritising defects.

·         The new Policy set out consistent practices with neighbouring authorities and adjoining highways networks, and allowed the highway service to respond to defects within a proportionate timescale.

·         The frequency of inspections had increased on many roads, and two new inspectors had been appointed.

 

Flooding

 

·         The Council was a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) under the Flood and Water Management Act, and as such had the lead on ‘local’ flood risk from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses.

·         The Environmental Agency has the lead on main rivers, reservoir flooding and strategic overview. Thames Water had responsibility for surface and foul water sewers, while Riparian Owners have responsibility for the stretch of river, stream or ditch next to their land or property.

·         The Borough contains over 32,000 gullies. Gullies in residential roads were cleaned annually, A-roads twice per year, B & C-roads once per year. 400 ‘critical gullies’ that required more regular cleansing were cleansed 4 times per year.

·         New roads are designed to remove or disperse water as quickly and efficiently as possible, which is opposite to flood alleviation objectives to delay the time of entry into the drainage system. Older roads may have less sophisticated drainage, but all roads will typically have one gully for every 200sqm of highway.

 

Actions during a Major Flood Event

 

·         During a major flooding event, the MET office will issue a water warning indicating heavy rain, and/or the Environment Agency will issue a Flood Alert. This information is distributed via an Adverse Water email to all those within the Council who may be required to take action.

·         Each Council service area has its own flood action plan, which details the resources they have available to respond, and the types of action they can take to prepare and ensure a suitable response. This can include sandbags, gully machines, etc.

·         During a major flood event, the Council has a duty to investigate. Reports of flooding are collated and recorded, and significant flooding triggers a Section 19 investigation, which is published as a report. The Council has published flood investigation report following significant flood events in December 2013, July 2014 and June 2016.

·         Finalised investigations from reported flooding sites are then incorporated into an updated Surface Water management Plan to identify ways to reduce flooding risk.

 

Members asked a number of questions, including:

 

What legal powers does the Council have to ensure that Thames Water are carrying out their own duties?

 

The Council has no powers to compel Thames Water to carry out its duties. The Council’s Section 19 reports have highlighted past lack of action by Thames Water.

 

Has the Council carried out any cost analysis research into the procurement of new pothole patching vehicles?

 

The Council’s two existing Rhino machines work very well, and use existing material within their repairs.

 

Had the officers considered standardising the type of dropped kerb installed, and using leafletting to inform residents of the Councils services as opposed to 3^rd parties?

 

The Council aims to provide more uniformity to the street scene. Where possible, similar crossover and footway surfacing will be used in a local area. Leaflets are used to highlight services to residents, but could be amended to warn of potentially unscrupulous 3^rd parties. Discounts for installing dropped kerbs during general road maintenance work was available for residents, with all monies put back into the service budget.

 

Could the officers comment on the issue of vehicles extending from their given parking space onto pavements?

 

It was an offense for vehicles to overhang onto footways. Instances of such should be referred to the Council’s enforcement team for further action. However, while it remained an offense irrespective of the parking space, it was recognised that shorter parking spaces were approved under older policies. The current policy provides a minimum depth of 4.8m by 2.4m. Highways will soon be seeking formal approval of a new crossover policy with stricter enforcement.

 

Could the officers comment on why some roads and pavements in the south of the Borough appeared to be overlooked for repair work in comparison to areas in the northern wards? There appeared to a discrepancy in funding, with 85% of monies for repairs allocated to Northern wards.

 

All repairs were assessed based on the factors referenced earlier, with condition and risk as prime considerations. However, it was recognised that there are a large number of roads and pavements across the Borough that required repair work.

 

Could the Council claim for damages to roads/pavements following construction work?

 

Damage caused by 3^rd parties, street works or utility companies was referred to the appropriate enforcement team, who issued fines for poor or damaging work. However, when dealing with 3^rd parties it was often difficult to identify the culprit in order to issue the notice/fine.

 

Could roadwork permits be reviewed to lessen resident frustration due to slow or inactive work?

 

The Council worked with utility companies to avoid multiple simultaneous works. However, new services or emergency work could not be delayed in this fashion. All works on main roads, or ‘traffic sensitive routes’ were subject to traffic management proposals and timetables. Any works that overrun were fined, and the fines could be prohibitive.

 

What actions was the Council taking to reduce the impact of oils in the Borough’s waterways?

 

This was incumbent on Thames Water, who were responsible for the management of foul water. The Council provided guidance for residents on how to dispose of oils via a link on the website. The link could be provided to Members following the meeting.

 

What targets was the Council adhering to in terms of highways/pavement repairs timescales?

 

The Council had corporate KPIs to ensure timely repairs. Timescales were from when the team was notified of or identified the defect.

 

Did risk assessments take into account the potential age ranges of residents? For example, the risk of a cracked pavement may be higher to an elderly resident.

 

The Council’s Inspectors were themselves a variety of ages, and under new guidance were fully  trained and competent to conduct risk assessments based on all potential highways users. Thresholds for risk assessments were broadly consistent with other authorities, though in some cases those other authorities had much higher thresholds for repair work.

 

It was agreed that officers would provide the following information following the meeting:

 

·         detail of the unit costs of road/pavement repairs,

·         the figures of highways and pavement repairs timescales,

·         confirmation of whether the team required a name when residents were reporting an enforcement issue, outside of the meeting,

·         how many miles of road and of pavements the Council is responsible for,

·         what the total annual budget is for road repairs and for pavements,

·         a link to the Council’s new Highway Safety Inspection Policy;

·         A link to the Council’s guidance on disposal of oils.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.    That the report be noted, and

2.    That the information set out above be provided to the Committee via the clerk.