Minutes:
This item was heard ahead of item 6.
Poonam Pathak, Interim Head of Highways, was present for this item and gave the Committee an overview of the work areas under her purview and how the department manages and maintains the Council’s highways assets. It was highlighted that the team was responsible for Hillingdon’s highways assets, which were valued at £1.2 billion. The extent of the team’s responsibilities included:
Further to this it was highlighted that some of the Borough’s road network was maintained by other authorities, notably the M4 and M25 Motorways were maintained by the Highways Agency and the principal A40 and A312 roads were managed by the Transport for London Road Network. Members were informed that deterioration of the highway network was accelerating as the burden from factors such as climate change, traffic load and works carried out by utility companies were increasing.
The Committee were informed that the Highways department had a forward planning programme of roads and footways that were scheduled to be resurfaced. In 2021/22 there were 44 roads and 66 footways scheduled to be resurfaced. The 2022/23 forward planning programme was under development with the department recently commissioning a condition survey, the data from which would identify the roads and footways for resurfacing and categorise the proper surface treatment.
With regard to the criteria required for a damaged carriageway or footway to be investigated by the Council it was understood that on a carriageway, a 40mm pothole or depression was required, whereas on a footway it was a 20mm pothole, trip hazard or loose/missing kerbs. Response times for works to be carried out were categorised ranging from emergency call outs for a temporary repair within four hours to less severe circumstances where a permanent repair would be carried out within three months. Members highlighted that vulnerable residents may trip on a defect of less than 20mm; the Committee were informed that defects were investigated based on a risk assessment and scored accordingly, the Council needed to strike a balance in assigning footway defects for repair to ensure the repair programme was affordable and 20mm was used widely by local authorities as a marker for repair.
With regard to streetlighting in the Borough, Members were informed that a Borough-wide column replacement programme was in progress following a Borough-wide LED upgrade completed in 2019. It was noted that the streetlighting columns in the Borough were old and deteriorating, any columns deemed a risk would be prioritised for replacement.
The Committee were encouraged that the team regularly made use of RhinoPatch repairs for road surfaces, a technique by which the road surface was heated using infrared technology and could be remoulded, reducing carbon output and the materials needed. Officers noted that there were currently additional costs associated with this method of repair however if other authorities adopted similar methods, the costs would come down; the Committee highlighted the importance of carbon off-setting but emphasised the need for repair methods to be cost effective.
Members raised concerns that safety inspections may fail to identify all defects on a road or footway surface and may require multiple safety inspections. It was noted that safety inspectors undertook training and attended regular briefings on inspection procedures, they were following a detailed, risk-based process for their inspections.
The Committee queried how the quality of contractor’s work was assessed by officers; officers noted that regular inspections were undertaken whilst the work was ongoing to assess whether the work was meeting specifications, it was also highlighted that external contractors were required to meet key performance indicators which monitor contractor performance.
With regard to standing water and drainage systems in the Borough, it was highlighted that the current budget for the Highways Department allowed for the maintenance of existing road drainage gullies but issues were often encountered in heavy rains and where the local water services company did not maintain the existing drainage infrastructure to a workable standard. It was highlighted that the local water services company had no planned improvement programme within the Borough. The Committee were minded to prompt the Council’s External Services Select Committee to approach the local water services company to explore this further in a scrutiny capacity.
The Committee thanked officers for the incredibly challenging and broad work undertaken within the Highways Department which kept the Borough moving.
RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the officer’s verbal report.