The report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration (Document “K”) details how the service currently manages the Local Highway Maintenance (LHM) function and allocates resources.

It also updates the committee with regard to current operations being undertaken on the network and the indicative costs of works undertaken in the current financial year.

Recommended -

(1)       That the current operational methods adopted for Local Highway Maintenance be noted.

(2)       That the indicative costs to date for the current financial year be noted.

(3)       That the list of current and proposed CAT3/4 works as shown in Appendices 5 and 6 be approved.

                                                                        (Andrew Whelan 01274 434409)

The report of the Strategic Director of Regeneration (Document “K”) detailed how the service currently managed the Local Highway Maintenance (LHM) function and allocated resources.

It also updated the Committee with regard to current operations being undertaken on the network and the indicative costs of works undertaken in the current financial year.

The Principal Engineer made a detailed presentation in respect of the report, following which Members of the Committee asked questions and made comments as set out below:-

·        There had previously been a serious problem in respect of bogus insurance claims; what was the current situation ?

·        How did the Council quantify how well it was doing ?

·        Was there any evidence of fabricated claims ?

·        Was there still a practice of surface dressing roads ?

·        How did the Council communicate with the public ?

·        Was it correct that Leeds Road appeared within appendix 5 ?

·        How did Bradford’s expenditure compare with other West Yorkshire Authorities ?

·        How did unexpected circumstances affect the area ?

·        Was it expected that maintenance works could be completed in full ?

·        Would the available funding cover all necessary gully cleaning works ?

·        Some gullies in Bradford East had not been cleaned for up to four years

·        Was there a programme of inspection ?

·        How much did it cost to clean a single gully ?

·        Gully cleaning problems were of concern as it could result in flooding so it must be a priority

·        Was enforcement in respect of parking on pavements undertaken, especially where it led to broken flagstones ?

·         Was there still an issue of the public pouring liquid waste into gullies ?

·        There was an extremely good programme in the area where waste oil and fat was collected and used as bio-fuel. This could be signposted for others to emulate.

·        How were problems in respect of trees on pavements and highways dealt with ?

·        Was there still a problem with theft of drain covers etc ?

In response the Principal Engineer and Highways Maintenance Operations Manager advised that:-

·        New regulations had limited the level of damages which could be claimed which had resulted in fewer claims being submitted. The Council was still working to reduce that number even further, this was assisted by a good level of revenue budget being maintained which meant repairs could be undertaken in a timely fashion.

·        The Council worked in partnership with the other West Yorkshire Authorities and met regularly as a group to discuss new measures for repairs. Bradford was very proactive in terms of patch repairs on potholes

·         Although fabricated claims were still an issue, their number had reduced as the new regulations meant it was no longer a lucrative practice

·        Restorative treatments such a surface dressing were still utilised as they were a very useful solution to the issue of ageing in respect of roads

·        The public was in regular contact with the department and responses were provided within five days via updates on the Customer Service System.

·        Leeds Road appeared in appendix 5 as additional works on preventative maintenance had been undertaken as well as gully cleaning

·        Bradford was the lowest funded Local Authority in West Yorkshire in terms of this budget. It received the same funding as Wakefield but had twice the population

·        Areas such as Bradford Moor and Little Horton had issues in respect of unexpected circumstances as parked cars often prevented maintenance works. Work with local Councillors had been very successful in addressing this issue

·        There was no expectation that maintenance works would be completed in full

·        The policy in respect of gully cleaning prioritisation was explained; there was both planned and regular maintenance and areas with vegetation or at busy junctions were prioritised. A budget of £50m would be required to bring road and footpath condition in the entire District up to standard

·        There was a team working across the District to replace flagstones with tarmac however enforcement works were undertaken by a different department

·        There had been progress in the District in respect of public awareness around pouring liquids down gullies and drains, the recent floods had made the public much more aware of the issue

·        Problems in respect of trees were picked up by the team’s inspectors however all works were assessed and undertaken by the Parks and Landscapes team. If necessary joint works were undertaken by both teams

·        The theft of drain covers was less of a problem as the price of scrap metal had fallen    

Following the discussion, it was

Resolved -

(1)       That the current operational methods adopted for Local Highway Maintenance be noted.

(2)       That the indicative costs to date for the current financial year be noted.

(3)       That the list of current and proposed CAT3/4 works as shown in Appendices 5 and 6 to Document “K” be approved.

ACTION: Strategic Director Regeneration