Agenda item

(Report by Director, Kent Highway Services)

(1)     The report advised Members of the schemes from which the programme of capital works on highway structures would be delivered in 2008/09.  The capital allocation made for the Assessment, Strengthening and Structural Maintenance of highway structures in 2008/09 was £1.666 million. This was below the bid in the Local Transport Plan of £4.17million intended to work towards a regime of ‘Good Asset Management’ as recommended in the ‘Code of Practice for the Management of Highway Structures’ by 2011 and to meet the targets in the LTP for the Strengthening Index and Bridge Stock Condition Indicators.

(2)     It was also less than the figure of £3.3 million identified in a report to the Director of KHS in August last year, prepared in response to concern about the potential for closure of weak bridges due to delays in the remedial programme.  The sum was aimed at completing the strengthening programme by 2012 whilst hopefully maintaining the status quo on overall condition of the asset.

(3)     A programme of works was being prepared to enable output to be managed both within the original allocation but also in anticipation of any improved funding should additional resources become available.

(4)     A case had been made and bid submitted for a share of any additional funding which might become available later in the financial year with the aim of delivering as much as possible of the programme outlined in the report to the Director referenced above.  To manage delivery within budget at whatever amount, the planned works had been scheduled at three levels as detailed below and were being prepared for staged implementation through the year.

(5)     ‘Unavoidable Works’ comprised schemes which were:-

(a)     already in progress

(b)     essential safety works

(c)     committed through the completion of advanced ecological works and/or approvals.

(d)     where land agreements had agreed access times and terms which it would be detrimental to rearrange.

“Must do” works were those where there was real potential for risk now in failing to deal adequately and timely with the existing situation.

“Should do” works were those remaining schemes which were made up of the programme identified in paragraphs (2) and (4) above.

(6)     The total budget needed to deliver the schemes was variously:-

(a)     “Unavoidable” Works - £1,435

(b)     “Must do” Works + (a) - £2,835

(c)     “Should do” Works + (b) - £3,355

(7)     Decisions on the implementation of schemes would be made at the time when/if additional monies became available but in any event in July, September and December.  Schemes would none the less be fully prepared to take advantage of any situation or ultimately, for an April 09 start.  All the schemes were listed in the Appendix to the report.

(8)     Three review initiatives were underway which might produce further contingency opportunities in relation to works of maintenance and upgrade on structures:-

(a)     Finalising the Capital Programme of Work for ensuring the requirements of the EU Tunnel Safety Directive (2004) and the Road Tunnel Safety Regulations 2007 were met in respect of Ramsgate Tunnel.

(b)     A review to locate bridges of significant strategic importance to the highway network and identify what action was necessary to mitigate their potential non-availability. This was the subject of a report to the Alliance Board in April.

(c)     Implementing the Code of Practice for the Management of Highway Structures which would focus more attention on improving maintenance regimes. This too was reported to the Alliance Board in April.

(9)     The scheme preparation programme for 08/09 was being progressed to facilitate the ability to respond to any additional budget provision which might became available during the financial year.

(10)   Taking advantage of such opportunities was essential to ensure delivery of a Structure Asset which was both fit for purpose and moved towards the recommendations for Good Asset Management detailed in the ‘Code of Practice for the Management of Highway Structures’ as they related to the KHS defined levels of service.

(11)   The Board noted the report.