To review the performance of the public realm service contract to enable the committee to make reports or recommendations to the executive with respect to the discharge of a function which is the responsibility of the executive.

The Committee was invited to review the performance of the public realm service contract to enable the committee to make reports or recommendations to the executive with respect to the discharge of a function which is the responsibility of the executive.

 

The Assistant Director Environment and Place (ADEP) introduced the report.  The Head of Highways and Community Services (HHCS) then gave a presentation as appended.  This had been updated since the presentation published with the agenda papers.  Mr A MacDonald (AMCD) presented the section on the 2018/19 Annual Plan.

 

Mrs C Bucknell, Clerk to Wellington Parish Council, and Mr P Russell, Clerk to Leominster Town Council and Weobley Parish Council had been invited to the meeting. 

 

Mrs Bucknell praised the work of the contractor and in particular commented favourably on the role of the locality steward in working with the local community and community engagement by the contractor in general.

 

Mr Russell also complimented the work of the locality stewards.  He considered it unfortunate that the council was ceasing funding of the lengthsman scheme.  Finance generally was an issue and non-statutory functions would become increasingly difficult to deliver unless these were taken on by Town or Parish Councils.  Communication with them by Herefordshire Council would be welcomed.  He noted, however, the difference in the scale of resources available to a Town Council compared with a Parish Council.

 

In discussion the following principal points were made:

 

·        It was suggested that the response to winter conditions in the City had been superior to that in the rural areas with an issue there being the availability and provision of salt and the ability to spread it.

 

AMCD commented that all the required targets had been met.  Grit bins had been filled at the start of the year and refilled as requested. The winter service plan provided for 15 priority routes to be treated.  This represented about 30% of the highway network.  Additional funding would be required to increase that coverage.  He outlined arrangements to collaborate with others, such as the highways agency which secured further resilience through access to additional salt stocks; the role played by snow contractors and training provided to them, and provided a general overview of the operation of the winter maintenance service.  He considered that the response had been successful in the face of challenging circumstances.  It had taken longer than he would have liked to turn to the secondary routes but the possibility of moving onto that network from the primary network had been reviewed hourly. To date it had not been identified that anything could have been done differently but this would be reviewed as part of a lessons learned exercise at the end of the season.

 

The HCCS confirmed a lessons learned exercise would inform the annual review of the winter service plan.  He added that the plan did provide the facility for Parishes to apply for salt to store themselves if they had suitable storage. 

 

A member noted that one of their parishes had not purchased grit, suggesting this aspect might require some consideration.

 

·        The highway asset management strategy expressed the intent to shift routine resources further towards preventative activities.  It was questioned whether this would include a higher level of enforcement to make landowners discharge their riparian responsibilities.

 

·        The role of locality stewards was praised.

 

·        The difference between the level of financial resources available to Town Councils and Parish Councils, some of which covered large but sparsely populated areas, threatened to create a gap in service provision.  It was asked if there was a possibility under the community commissioning model of offering some assistance to parish councils through part/match funding schemes.

 

·        There were instances where Members considered BBLP’s response to matters raised by them through e-mail or other means was not timely.

 

·        There was some feeling within the parishes about the requirement under the lengthsman scheme to justify to BBLP plans that parish councils themselves were commissioning and funding.

 

·        It was questioned how the assessment of whether the contract was delivering value for money was made.  For example, it was observed that there were instances of individual pieces of work at parish level where the costs quoted for BBLP to carry out the work were significantly higher than quotes from other providers.

 

It was also observed that there appeared to be a risk that in assessing the effectiveness of delivery of the contract as a whole, success in meeting the needs of the larger areas of population outweighed a perceived lesser level of performance in the rural areas.  It was asked how this growing cause of local concern might be addressed.

 

·        Clarification was sought on the process for rectifying the number of invalid Traffic Regulation Orders.

 

·        It was asked how the business management system recently rolled out would “significantly impact the way in which pothole defects are managed” (as referred to at page 48 of the agenda papers in a section on risk).

 

The HCCS commented:

 

·        The main issues could be summarised as finance, value for money, and the urban/rural perception and the provision of service it was possible to provide across the whole network.

 

·        The strategy had been to invest heavily in the C road and unclassified road network in the first two years of the contract. There had been an improvement overall in that network, which was fulfilling a purpose for which it had never been designed,  but just over 25% of the unclassified network was still in need of maintenance.  There had been a shift in resources from reactive to preventative works, mindful that reactive work cost 4-5 times more than preventative work, however, the core duty to address safety defects could and did distract from preventative work. It would take time and investment to continue to improve the entire network.

 

·        In terms of value for money the price of a piece of work had to be considered in the context of the price of a service area and should be compared with other local authorities.  The cost to the Council of highway maintenance was one of the lowest per km in the country and performance in terms of road condition were mid-range.  This represented reasonable value for money.  However, officers were working through the contract mechanisms to seek to improve value for money.  It was also important to ensure that comparisons of prices were done on the correct basis taking into account the costs of overheads for such matters as safety, quality and information security.

 

AMCD added:

 

·        The approach to enforcement was in line with the council’s enforcement policies and was robust.  He outlined the staged approach that was followed with the persons concerned.  However, in summary the view was that, whilst there was clearly a place for enforcement action, in the vast majority of cases it was considered matters were best resolved through negotiation rather than costly enforcement action.  Two cases had been referred to the Council for a decision on whether or not to proceed to enforcement action and the conclusion had been that the costs of recovery outweighed the benefit of proceeding.  The Cabinet Member (Transport, roads and regulatory services) (CMTRRS) had discussed the matter with him to see whether anything more could be done.  Guidance to landowners on their responsibilities had been refreshed and was to be reissued.  There was a role for local ward members and parish councils to play given their local working relationship with individuals concerned.

 

·        Whilst there had been significant investment in the C and unclassified roads there had only been sufficient funding to cover 25% of the network.  There was a clear pressure.  He had discussed with the CMTRRS how priorities might be addressed. A model was used that was continuously updated covering a range of matters such as the amount of use, safety risks, numbers of complaints and enquiries, and the nature of the road.  This informed the prioritisation tool.  Inevitably, however, this did mean priority being given to A and B roads.  Alternative actions were explored.  A return to jet patching was being considered for C and unclassified roads.

 

·        In relation to offering match funding opportunities the community commissioning model provided a clear process for considering projects in a locality.  However, as repair of a 3 mile stretch of road, for example, would cost about £100k he was uncertain as to whether communities would have sufficient resources.

 

R Rice (KCM) commented that whilst funding for the lengthsman scheme was to cease from April 2018 BBLP was seeking to enter into contracts with parish councils that would grant them permission to commission work on the road network. The intention was that the relationships between the lengthsmen and the locality stewards would be maintained and through the local plans visibility of planned activity on the network would be maintained and co-ordinated.  This message could be reiterated in the next parish briefing.  Information had also been disseminated on the community commissioning model and there was a designated contact point for parishes.  Further information would be circulated as there was take up of the model.

 

The CMTRRS indicated his support for the Council’s approach to enforcement and highlighted the role the local ward member could play.  He also endorsed the benefit of further communication on the community commissioning model including the use of case studies.  The ending of council funding for the lengthsman scheme was unfortunate.  He encouraged parish councils to consider if they could find a way of supporting this method of working.

 

·        Whilst the number of category 1 defects might have been reduced compared with 5 years ago it was questioned whether there appeared to be far more category 2 defects than there had been, meaning more defects even if of a lesser severity.

 

            The HCCS commented in response that an annual survey of the network was undertaken.  This showed that the condition of A roads had improved, the condition of B roads had stabilised and that c/unclassified roads had improved, if not to the extent that would be desired.

 

·        In rural areas the majority of roads were C and unclassified and concerns were being expressed in parish council meetings that they were becoming unpassable.  The perception within parishes of conditions on the ground did not match the picture of improvement being presented by both client and contractor.

 

·        Using the number of claims for compensation was not necessarily a reliable measure of satisfaction with the network or its condition because there was evidence that people considered the claims process too complex to pursue.

 

·        Whilst two parish councils had spoken it would have been better to have secured a wider view from parish councils to ensure that the committee had a representative picture.  A survey of parish councils needed to be conducted on this issue that insisted upon a response, given the fatigue that the volume of surveys and consultations had caused leading to a low response rate.

 

·        An example was given of the complications faced by a landowner in seeking to undertake drainage works, noting that this often now entailed use of a mini-digger accompanied by road closures that generated complaints.

 

The ADEP commented that the aim had to be to ensure that the contract delivered the best outcome within the resources available. Investment and efficiencies had helped to arrest decline but there were 2,000 miles of network and a substantial maintenance backlog.  This was a national issue that required a substantial increase in resource to address it. The HCCS subsequently indicated that a sum of £100m may be needed to address the deterioration in the carriageway asset alone.

 

The Director - Economy, Communities and Corporate endorsed these comments. In relation to monies retrieved from proceedings regarding the former Amey contract, Council had allocated some of that money for highways works as part of the capital programme.  Some of the money had been retained pending the outcome of ongoing legal proceedings.   Once the position was clear approval would be sought to allocate that money.

 

·        It was suggested that communications about improvements to the road network did not provide sufficient context to the public and in highlighting improvements that were being made did not reflect the reality of the overall funding pressures as presented by the Director and Assistant Director.

 

·        A further example of a disconnect was between the picture of performance being presented and the reality on the ground.  An example was the reference in the section in the performance report to customer interaction.  This showed a large number of calls being taken by BBLP but only a very few of these being recorded as complaints or compliments, when, based on the experience of local ward members, a large number of calls would be expected to express dissatisfaction with road infrastructure and services.

 

·        Members acted as a conduit for the community to BBLP but they could also communicate reports of the work being done by BBLP to their communities if they were provided with the information.

 

AMCD commented that the importance of communication was recognised and improving it was an ongoing process.  The role of locality stewards formed part of the communication strategy presenting a personal point of contact within the community.  He noted the scope to work with local ward members as a conduit to their communities.  Consideration could be given to how information from the weekly locality steward briefing could be used.

 

Strategic performance indicators were now more focused on outcome and BBLP were confident of meeting those targets.  However, there was a tension when faced with a decaying asset that required more investment than could afford to be made.

 

(The meeting adjourned between 12:10 and 12:40 pm)

 

·        A member suggested that the confidence of the public had been lost and a way forward needed to be found working with local communities.

 

·        The Commercial and Contract Manager commented that the contract contained strategic performance indicators and operational performance indicators and these were subject to annual review.  The performance reports were reviewed and audited.  An audit of the SPIs had found that the council agreed with the evidence presented.  The operational indicators up until September had also been audited and the vast majority had been reported accurately.

 

·        In relation to questioning of the accuracy of the statistics quoted for performance in resolving complaints AMCD commented that a distinction needed to be drawn between providing a response and providing the response desired by a complainant; there were occasions when complainants were not satisfied with a response, but an appropriate response had nonetheless been given.  A number of calls taken were defined as requests for service, not complaints, for example calls reporting a defect.  He was willing to look into individual cases.

 

·        A member suggested that in terms of the operation of the community commissioning model there were a number of obligations to be met in initiating a project and it would be helpful if a list of approved people who could assist in providing that capacity was made available in the same way as there was a list of approved contractors to deliver a scheme.

 

The KCM commented that BBLP had decided that under the community commissioning model parish councils could select providers to carry out the works BBLP had to be used for design element of schemes.  This was to ensure compliance with Regulations, and under the contract with parish councils BBLP remained the client and retained liability for design.  If BBLP did not retain that responsibility the considerable liability would transfer to parish councils.

 

·        It would have been helpful if more information on material alluded to within the report had been presented within the agenda papers, for example the Strategic Performance Indicators themselves.

 

·        It was noted (p39 of the agenda papers) that the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy required the Public Realm to identify a further £265k of savings for 2019/20 and 2020/21 and at present these were not identified.

 

AMCD commented that savings in 2018/19 had been achieved by actions such as the purchase of capital equipment, reducing leasing costs.  The aim had been to seek to reduce costs without an impact on services themselves.  The same approach would be adopted in seeking to identify future savings.

 

The ADEP commented that the Strategic Partnership Board sought to have a long term approach and there was time to identify savings for 2018/19 with the intention being to focus on efficiencies.

 

·        It was asked if a sum of money from the monies retrieved from the Amey contract could be set aside in a budget that parishes could apply for funding from, subject to meeting approved criteria, to enable them to pursue schemes for which it had been recognised earlier in discussion their budgets would otherwise be insufficient.

 

·        AMCD clarified that the provision in the annual plan 2108/19 to invest £12m in assets represented expenditure on roads in the majority.  Some of the investment was made in plant, for example, to reduce revenue expenditure.  This process was heavily scrutinised by the council and a business case had to be made to support any BBLP proposals in this regard.  Any saving was reinvested in the service and reduction in the cost of service delivery did not result in a profit to BBLP.  This was a feature of the open book contract.

 

The HCCS commented that the contract was founded in the true cost of delivery.  There was no schedule of rates. The cost of service did include a fee to reflect BBLP’s national overhead but was broken down into labour, plant, materials and overhead.  There were a range of payment mechanisms depending on the nature and type of work to distribute risk between client and provider. 

 

·        It was questioned how the £6.1m of revenue funding in the annual plan for 2081/19, which appeared a modest sum, compared with provision in 2017/18.

 

·        It was suggested that it would be helpful if a list was provided at the end of each financial year of roads that had been resurfaced and dressed to compare with what had been planned in the annual plan, acknowledging that circumstances could require some changes to the original plan to be made.

 

·        It was asked what the provisions were for litter removal on non-trunked A roads, noting that parish councils could not undertake this task, that litter created a poor impression of the county, was a serious environmental issue and more attention seemed to be focused on this matter in Shropshire.

 

AMCD commented that provision for litter picking on such roads was included in the annual plan.  However, this required extensive traffic management and was costly. On trunked A roads they therefore sought to take advantage of highways agency works when sufficient notice was received. He requested that if it was considered that areas were being missed or the scheduling was not working that these be referred to him.  There had been problems in some places of bins overflowing.  Counterintuitively removing the bins had solved that. In addition they were trialling technology within bins that would indicate how quickly they were being filled.

 

The HCCS commented that the council was the street cleaning authority for the whole county.  Highways England did recognise the difficulties in accessing their network and stated in their plans that they would undertake some activity on the litter issue.  This point would be taken up with them further, but their main focus was on the motorway network.

 

          The CMTRRS commented that enforcement policy had been reissued and there was zero tolerance of fly-tipping.  However, instances needed to be reported to enable them to be addressed.

 

·        The KCM commented in response to comments on communication that the website was the most efficient means of reporting defects.  She invited members to promote this method and noted that a link to the site was included in the locality stewards briefing. It was acknowledged that the site could be improved and discussions were being held with Hoople who managed the website.  Locality stewards were the first point of contact for general enquiries. The e-mail address box for councillors remained live, intended to be an alternative in the absence of the locality steward.  This had not been resourced as effectively as it might have been in the past, but a locality liaison officer was now in post and would be considering contact with parishes and members.  She would inform her of the concerns raised at the meeting.

 

       In terms of dedicated contact provision for councillors the HCCS observed that providing means of communication for specific groups and the resource to respond added cost.

 

·        A concern was expressed about the condition of the A44 and the A417 between the A49 and its junction with the A438.  The HCCS commented that it was considered that a bid for funding on works on the A44 would be more likely to succeed.  Subsequent decisions on the allocation of resources would need to balance the need for work on an A road against other roads.  Plans were in preparation for A417, and other routes, subject to resources.

 

·        The Cabinet member – finance, housing and corporate services suggested that there would be merit in giving higher priority to gritting access to strategic commercial sites., noting the extent to which council funding was becoming dependent on business rates.  He considered that the lengthsman scheme had proved valuable and the allocation of some funding from monies retrieved from the Amey contract would be a good use of those resources.  He also indicated his support for enforcement in relation to landowners discharging their riparian responsibilities, given that it appeared that a situation had evolved where there was a perception that if these were not fulfilled the council would ultimately do the work itself and invited the Committee to consider requesting the executive to making representations to Defra.

 

·        The Cabinet member- infrastructure invited the Committee to consider whether a reappraisal of assessment of the definition of category 1 and category 2 potholes should be considered.  Mindful of Council’s decision to create some flexibility in the budget providing a 2.9% core budget increase and 2% adult social care precept he suggested consideration should be given to allocating some of that core budget increase to highways maintenance.  He also suggested that traffic management arrangements should be reviewed to ensure that temporary traffic lights were in controlling traffic only when maintenance or other work was actually taking place.

 

RESOLVED: 

 

That    (a)        the Council as client and BBLP as contractor consider how communication with parishes and ward members can be improved without incurring material cost;

      (b)        the Council as client and BBLP as contractor be requested that in presenting information on performance for publication actual numbers should be provided alongside the %ages in the report to provide improved public understanding of the amount of work being carried out and outcomes delivered, with consideration also being given to disaggregating the data to present it along urban and rural lines, again without incurring material cost;

      (c)        the executive be recommended to consider whether funding can be made available to support the lengthsman scheme;

            (d)        the executive be recommended to consider whether a discretionary fund can be established to which parishes with fewer resources available to them could apply to support part/match funding of schemes;

(e)        the executive be recommended to continue to explore all external funding opportunities to support road maintenance;

(f)        the executive be recommended to consider allocating 1% of the Council’s core budget increase to highways maintenance to continue the long term investment in the network;

(g)       the executive be recommended that sums secured from legal proceedings in relation to the Amey contract should be allocated for highways maintenance;

(h)       the Council as client and BBLP as contractor be requested to ensure that parish councils are aware that salt deposits are available to be delivered to parishes if they apply;

(i)         the Council as client and BBLP as contractor be requested to review the snow contractor system to ensure that operatives have appropriate equipment available to them;

(j)         the executive be requested to review whether the claims management system in relation to damage to vehicles as a result of road defects is working fairly and appropriately;

(k)        the executive be requested to give further consideration to how landowners can be encouraged to discharge their riparian responsibilities;

(l)         the executive be requested to reappraise the classification of category 1 and 2 defects and whether the approach to the repair of potholes is satisfactory; and

(m)      action to be taken on behalf to the Committee to engage with parish councils possibly through a spotlight review to provide the Committee with a representative picture of views across the county and demonstrate to parish councils that account is being taken of their views.