Agenda item

The Chairman introduced the item as the first witness session of the Committee’s review into the Council’s highways resurfacing procedures. It was noted that a research report had been prepared by officers as a starting point for the review and to assist the Committee’s discourse. A brief overview of the report was delivered highlighting Hillingdon’s Highway network, the Council’s maintenance procedures and the highways safety inspection procedures. Poonam Pathak, the Council’s Head of Highways and a key officer in the implementation and strategic development of the Council’s Highways maintenance programme, was present as a witness for the review.

Members initially sought to understand, with regard to footways resurfacing, the criteria which dictated why different materials and resurfacing types were used on different footways in the Borough. It was noted that, previously, the Council had operated on a ‘like for like’ basis by which if a slabbed footway required resurfacing, it would be repaved with slabs similar to that of the original condition, however, the Council had recently moved away from this approach, to a more cost effective method of repaving footways using tarmac regardless of the original type of surfacing on the footway. The Committee were informed that resurfacing with paving slabs was approximately 60% more expensive than tarmac resurfacing. Further to this it was noted that the life cycle of paving slabs was often inferior to tarmac as slabs tended to break where vehicles had mounted the pavement. Although it was noted that a ‘like for like’ method was preferred by residents, the priority for the Council had to be the safety of the footways and by adopting a more cost effective approach, the Council could maintain the safety of a higher quantity of footways to an appropriate safety standard. There were occasions where further analysis and discussion needed to take place before agreeing the appropriate resurfacing techniques, this was most commonly within conservation areas where conservation officers were consulted with.

The Committee were informed that roughly half of the highways maintenance works were carried out in-house, with the other half carried out by external contractors. It was noted that the in-house work mostly consisted of the highways repairs and patchwork, making regular use of the Council’s two Rhino-Patch machines, where the external contractors would be used for more extensive resurfacing and more intensive repair works. The Committee were informed that the Council’s resurfacing contract was reviewed every five years and would be up for review in 2023, the procurement process for which would be starting in the coming months.

Members sought clarification with regard to any potential works that may be undertaken by the Council on some of the major highways in the Borough where maintenance of which did not fall under the Council’s responsibilities. It was noted that Borough Principal Roads, including the Uxbridge Road and Hillingdon Hill, traditionally were funded for resurfacing by Transport for London (TfL); however, due to the financial issues experienced by TfL in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, the funding for this resurfacing work had stopped leading to rapid deterioration of these high traffic flow routes, used constantly as primary bus routes by TfL. Members noted that, as TfL emerges from the financial issues brought on by the pandemic, it was hoped that TfL funding would recommence, the Council continued to bid for TfL funding for these roads.

The Committee heard how Highways Authorities outside of London would traditionally apply for funding from central government, the equivalent funding for London Boroughs would come through TfL. The financial pressures seen by TfL in recent years had led to more budget pressures which was having a real impact on the quantity of work that could be carried out by the Council’s Highways team. Members heard how all London Boroughs were lobbying central government for alternative funding streams through the ‘State of the City’ report, Hillingdon contributed its condition survey data to the report.

Members noted the relatively poor condition of some major arterial routes in the Borough, notably the Bath Road, and queried what could be done to communicate to the authorities responsible for the maintenance of those roads that they are in need of repair. It was highlighted that requests had been made for TfL to address the deterioration of the Bath Road although it was noted that TfL would have their own prioritisation criteria and the Council did not have any powers to force repair works from TfL, any defect reports were communicated with TfL however, unfortunately the Council was unable to spend its own Highways budget on the TfL road network. Should an accident claim be made due to the defective nature of the footway or roadway, TfL would be the responsible authority.

Members noted that the Highways Safety Inspection Policy & Procedure document, provided with the agenda papers, showed that the last revision had taken place in February 2020; Members queried whether the document should be reviewed on a more regular basis. Officers confirmed that the policy was reviewed annually, however, reviews were only noted on the policy document when revisions were made as a result of the review. The Committee felt that the policy should state when the last review took place, regardless of whether any changes were made as a result; this would show anyone inspecting the policy that the document was regularly reviewed. Officers confirmed that this could be achieved fairly easily as there was an internal log of each annual review of the policy.

Following on from a point made on the previous item regarding innovative resurfacing technologies such as Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA), it was stated that, despite the environmental positives brought by the use of WMA, it was currently more expensive than traditional asphalt as it was only made in small batches due to a smaller demand; it was expected that in the future, as more Boroughs and clients request the use of WMA, the cost would come down through the economies of scale. The Committee were supportive of the use of WMA and placed an importance on exploring less energy intensive methods of resurfacing.

The Committee thanked the Head of Highways for attending the meeting as a witness for the review and helping the Committee set the groundwork for their highways resurfacing review.

RESOLVED: That the Property, Highways & Transport Select Committee noted the contents of the report and used the first witness session of the review to enquire as to the Council’s existing approach to footways and carriageways resurfacing.