Agenda item

(Item 7 – Report by Director, Kent Highway Services)

(1)       Public perception of Highway Authorities’ control over roadworks was generally predicated on a lack of influence around poor workmanship and traffic delays.  The report outlined the latest on the proposal to introduce a Considerate Contractor Scheme into Kent and for the approval to proceed with launching such a scheme which would encourage a higher standard of works and safety consistently across Kent’s roads.

(2)       Corporation of London started up the original Considerate Contractor Scheme in 1987.  Considerate Contractor Schemes were now recognised by the construction industry.   There was also a degree of public recognition and with the introduction of more schemes around the country this was bound to grow and become a national initiative.

(3)       Equally important was the approval and support being given by the Tidy Britain Group and the Health and Safety Executive. Both organisations realised that the schemes were a significant step towards furthering broader environmental, health and safety objectives.

(4)       The aim of the scheme was to introduce a reward system for high performing contractors who considered all highway users during the works.  Through offering coveted Awards based on the condition of the interface between construction sites and the public, the Scheme induced a spirit of pride and excellence in the workforce.  The scheme was also designed to flag up those contractors who were not performing adequately. This would give KCC a better opportunity to monitor performances for all contractors signed into the scheme and deal with them promptly to improve standards.

(5)       The scheme would be a development and improvement from the current Highways Authority & Utilities Committee (HAUC) Joint Site Safety surveys and the Kent Highway Services (KHS) Divisional site safety checks. There would probably be willingness by Utilities and a contractor to be a member of the scheme, as to opt out almost showed a “don’t care attitude”. The winning of a high achievement award could be displayed on company vehicles (sticker) and jealously guarded and fought for the following year.

(6)       The Kent and Medway Considerate Contractor Scheme aimed to encourage all contractors working on the highway to carry out their operations in a safe, consistent and considerate manner by:-

·                    Fostering a joint initiative to demonstrate the spirit of co-operation,

·                    Improving Standards,

·                    Ensuring that anyone coming along the highway from any direction would understand exactly what was happening and what was expected of them,

·                    Give constructive feedback and praise to develop continuous improvement.

(7)       The scheme comprised of a Code of Good Practice, which included the requirements of “Safety at Street Works and Road Works”, using four categories; Safe, Clean, Considerate and Co-operative. Sites were judged against a checklist that took into account safety, cleanliness, considerate behaviours, co-operation and environmental considerations.  It was by following the code of practice that the standards of works would be raised, rates of progress maximised and the condition of the highway would be improved.

(8)       Members of the public passing works on the highway were invited to comment on the conditions of the site using the Kent Contact Centre. Callers would point out infringements of the Code, but were also encouraged to provide any constructive feedback.

(9)       The successful operation of the scheme relied upon sufficient site inspections being made. Senior representatives from each of the participating bodies as detailed below would undertake inspections:-

·                    Site safety surveys (HAUC) – 84 sites inspected per year

·                    JUG (4 reps from SU’s) - 48 sites inspected per year

·                    Kent & Medway Divisional Offices - 150 sites inspected per year

·                    Ringway and Jacobs - 48 sites inspected per year

(10)     A working party would be set up to manage most aspects of the scheme.  This included site inspection, records, award recommendations, correspondence, outline responses, site counselling and co-ordinating public relations activities.

(11)     Accurate written site records were essential, as they provided the basis for Awards judgements. Also photographic evidence was essential, especially in the case of sites which failed to meet the correct standards and examples of exemplary practice for the awards ceremony and publicity.

(12)     All sites were judged according to the standards set out in the Code of Good Practice. There were three categories of award:-

·                    Gold Award - Organisations which showed a consistent and high degree of compliance with the requirements of the Code of Good Practice.

·                    Considerate Contractor - Organisations which regularly met the requirements of the Code of Good Practice.

·                    Individual Awards - Companies or operatives that had excelled. This category could also be contractor and gang of the year if merited.

(13)     An adjudicating panel of representatives would be appointed. The panel would include independent members from outside the industry. The panel allocated awards on the basis of the evidence provided by the working party.

(14)     The scheme would be run as cost neutral. An annual joining fee would be charged to the contractor/utility companies. This was to cover the cost of the awards ceremony, the initial supply of information and regalia, and the in-house resources to run the scheme. However there would be a minimal amount of set up staff time which would be recovered from the scheme.

(15)     Enough site surveys were already being carried out to give meaningful results, with an existing collation system. Also the Joint Utilities Group (JUG) representatives and Highways Authority & Utilities Committee (HAUC) representatives would also contribute towards the management of the scheme.  Medway Unitary Authority had historically had close links with KCC and discussions were taking place to finalise Medway’s involvement with the scheme. Should Medway decide not to join then the scheme would only need to be re-branded prior to the launch.

(16)     The proposal was to launch a Considerate Contractor Scheme in Kent at the start of 2007. This should be a high profile launch with a media representation. KCC would benefit publicly for launching such a scheme and stood to improve public perception of works on the highway and gain safer and cleaner streets as a result.

(17)     The Board noted the report.