Agenda item

1.      The Leader of the Opposition sought to clarify the meeting arrangements regarding the involvement of external witness.  The Chairman confirmed his decision that the witness requested by the opposition groups would not be permitted to participate in the meeting.

2.      Mr Whiting, Cabinet Member for Planning, Highways, Transport and Waste, introduced Simon Jones as the new Director of Highways, who was attending the meeting to observe the Scrutiny consideration.

3.      Andrew Loosemore, Deputy Director of Highways, provided an overview of the Highways Maintenance process and policies as detailed in the report.  He explained that the funding for highway maintenance came from the Department for Transport (DfT) and clarified that the grant was no longer given in its entirety as a matter of course as there were now additional processes all highway authorities had to undertake to qualify for the relevant funding as part of an incentivisation programme.  KCC had been a Band 1 authority and had since worked up to a band 3 authority.  This meant that a significant amount of additional work had been done just to avoid losing funding from the DfT.  Mr Loosemore advised that this process had involved a risk to KCC of losing £12.9m in funding from DfT.  He highlighted the good work of the Member Task and Finish Group in achieving the Band 3 status and securing continued receipt of the funds.

4.      Mr Loosemore also explained that the Highway was the largest and most expensive asset, requiring considerable work on an annual basis; in excess of 7000 schemes annually.  To maintain the highway effectively, KCC ensured that statutory inspections were carried out in line with the schedule detailed in the report and that where defects were identified (based on the industry norms which cover necessary intervention) appropriate action was taken within a time period based on the type, location and seriousness of the defect.  Mr Loosemore advised that District Highways teams were involved in this process via responding to customer enquiries which covered a range of issues relating to the highways assets, not just ‘potholes’.  Responding to a question, Mr Loosemore advised that the estimated cost for returning the highway to a pristine standard over a long period of time would £600m.

5.      Responding to questions, Mr Loosemore explained the process for prioritising defect reports and actions taken to address road safety concerns.  This focused on clarifying that the specific details of any defect dictated the appropriate response and that while the age or life expectancy of the road could impact on how often defects occur, the crucial point was always the nature of the defect and what risk it posed.  Mr Loosemore advised the Committee that KCC held records of all inspection frequencies across all roads in the network.  He explained that the hierarchy of prioritisation meant that different roads were inspected on different frequencies based on their level of priority.  Mr Loosemore reassured the Committee that the Highways Asset Management Contract had key performance indicators and requirements regarding repair timescales and that this was managed closely as part of the contract management system, with a current level of at least 95% compliance which was a good level.

6.      A Member read a statement from a stakeholder group representing motorcyclists which highlighted the particular concerns of motorcyclists using the highway, recognising the heightened risks they experienced as road users compared with other drivers with specific reference to potholes and other road defects.  A Member, supporting the statement, commented that the current and proposed guidance regarding highway maintenance required Highways Authorities to give consideration to the need to protect vulnerable road users.  Responding to the comments and questions, Mr Whiting confirmed that KCC adhered to the existing guidance; giving consideration to all road users.

7.      Responding to Member questions, Mr Loosemore explained that temporary repairs to the Highway were only made to make the road safe for use where there was an identified safety risk.  Where this was not the case, long-term repairs were scheduled as appropriate.  He acknowledged comments from Members regarding the impact of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs), noting that they did cause more damage to the highway than other vehicles.  He commented that whether HGV use and their impact should be reflected in financial contributions was an ongoing discussion.  Responding to questions regarding utilities, Mr Loosemore explained that KCC had certain obligations in relation to highway management when utility works were required but advised that utility companies could manage more of the work.  He advised that Kent Highways inspected 30% overall of the utility work, spread across three phases of any works.

8.      Responding to questions, Mr Whiting agreed with Members that more preventative work was important and advised that he wanted to focus more on prevention models for the highways maintenance.  He explained that KCC was lobbying Government for additional funding to support this work, supported by the County Council Network, led by Paul Carter.  Mr Whiting highlighted the challenges of balancing the current funding available in terms of maintaining a safe highway, as in repairing faults when they are identified, and of developing a better long-term approach.  Members commented that the funding was a key issue as while all recognised that maintaining the highway was a critical function of KCC, there were many other service and spending pressures on the Council.

9.      Responding to questions, Mr Loosemore explained that there was no specific definition of failure regarding highway maintenance within the Highways Act but KCC adhered to the relevant codes of practice.  In terms of safety, he advised that performance data showed that KCC had received the lowest number of pothole reports from the public for the last five years.  He noted that 2018 had seen a significant increase following the severe weather but that the historic low levels indicated generally good performance of the maintenance contract.  Mr Loosemore commented that the work of the Task and Finish Group had helped KCC keep additional money, some of which had already been used to manage some of the issues being considered by the Scrutiny Committee, including supporting works on important if not heavily used roads.  Mr Whiting commented that the Committee had correctly identified that HGVs did have a significant impact on the road quality, doing a lot more damage than other vehicles.  However, he advised while responding to further questions, that speed restrictions and air quality management zones were not put in place with road maintenance in mind as they had their own appropriate criteria.

10.   Mrs Dean proposed, seconded by Mr Bird, the following points for inclusion within the Committee’s resolution:

·         That more basic facts and figures be made more accessible for residents, including condition surveys and also simple summary information sheets which take a more nuanced approach to language regarding the ‘safety’ of the highway.

·         That the Cabinet Member consider enhancing the priority of footway repairs, recognising that 36% of footways were reported to be in a poor condition.

·         That the Highways team be requested to provide an annual report which would include reference to how KCC was considering the needs of vulnerable road users.

The Committee voted - Motion failed.  The Chairman noted that many of the key points of the proposed recommendation had been discussed during the debate and that he expected them to be noted by the Cabinet Member and Officers, amongst other issues raised by Committee members.

RESOLVED that;

-       the information provided by the Cabinet Member and Officers and the answers to the Committee’s questions be noted;

-       that the Cabinet Member and Highways team be asked to note the all the points made by the Committee during the debate.