Loading
The committee scrutinised a State of the Asset report on carriageway (road surface) maintenance, which is part of the council's Highway Asset Management Plan (HAMP). Scrutiny means councillors on the committee question officers and the Executive Member, the councillor who holds the environment portfolio. The committee made eight recommendations, including an annual update to all members on the HAMP and the inclusion of the repudiation rate for third party claims as a performance measure.
1.1 The Chair welcomed Members and Officers to the meeting. 1.2 There was an apology from Councillor Norma Parrish.
2.1 There were no declarations of interest.
3.1 The minutes of the previous meeting held on 6 March 2025 were confirmed as an accurate record.
4.1 The committee noted the action sheet.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
The minutes record no declarations of interest.
5.1 The Chair introduced the item and following the IDE&E overviewed the report. 5.2 In response to Members’ questions the officers and Executive Member provided the following answers: • IDE&E – All other highway infrastructure assets had been included in the overarching Highway Asset Management Plan (HAMP), as part of this plan following Carriageway Maintenance the next focus would be on Bridge Structures and the Streetlighting. • IDE&E – Officer assessments of asset conditions were stored in a new Asset Management system, which would then provide data to our Highways workers informing them of any defects or necessary repairs needed. The new system was linked to the My Council Services (MCS) system as well, so this meant that should Members report a defect then the Inspector would make an assessment and record it in the system and then Members would automatically receive information back following their original report. All Welsh Authorities had agreed on the document of best practice that was used as well as a Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) commissioned Consultant and survey society that provided technical analysis used across all Wales, aligning our approach. • HAO – We used several machine-based strategies to assess road conditions. One such way was using a machine known as a Scanner which used multiple lasers and sensors to assess the road, we also used a machine known as Skrim which was used to measure skid resistance and another system called Gaist which used mounted scanners and AI to scan and fill the gaps between parked cars and provide an interpretation of the road conditions underneath these. All of these machine-based strategies had come at a cost as the equipment had needed to be rented. • IDE&E – Carriageways were the largest Highways Asset we had in the borough and therefore it was decided that this would be the first priority of the strategy, it was also of the highest public interest as well so this also had contributed to it being the first priority. • IDE&E – We had used the same condition services as many other local authorities in Wales, such as Rhondda Cynon Taff, Newport, Vale of Glamorgan, Monmouthshire, Swansea, Carmarthenshire and Caerphilly. Due to this we were able to compare against all these other authorities. • IDE&E – The cheapest available treatment to roads with poor conditions would be using surface dressings, this also aligned with our ambition to be proactive with repairs. It was said that these surface dressings added additional years on to the life of a road and avoided the cost of fully relaying the road, which would be the most expensive option. • IDE&E – The issue with prioritising treatment based off customer referrals was that not all reports had met the intervention criteria. However the idea was not completely dismissed but it was suggested that we used Members’ local knowledge and input to help prioritise roads in their local area alongside a data-led approach. EM – It was important that it was made clear to residents what the criteria was for interventions to be put in place. • IDE&E – The HAMP had been designed with the intention of providing annual updates to Members as well as giving officers the ability to intervene at the right time to stop structures deteriorating. It was said that timely interventions were the best way of ensuring low cost repairs. The HAMP also aligned with the Regional Transport Plan which committed to no new roads being built and therefore making the best use of what roads we already had. • IDE&E – Austerity measures had played a part in the poor condition of unclassified roads as limited funding had meant authorities had taken a risk-based approach and prioritised high-speed roads. • IDE&E – The HAMP was designed as a 4-year work programme but it was stated that conversations would take place with Ward Members annually to ensure the prioritised roads were as up-to-date as possible. • IDE&E – Part of the HAMP involved undertaking an annual cost-benefit analysis to ensure that the investments we had made to our assets had benefited. • IDE&E – Best practice was shared amongst Authorities on topics such as potholes and collaboration between Authorities was also encouraged by Welsh Government (WG) to keep costs down where possible. • IDE&E – The target for the repudiation rate had always been to get as close to 100% as possible however progression would require investment. It was said that 100% wasn’t a realistic target but our rate of 88% had put us at 6th in the Nation. • IDE&E – The Council had a duty of care to road users under the Highways Act so £400,000 of funding was available should there be an emergency need to make repairs. 5.3 Officers and the EM left the meeting and members and the SO and TD&MSO remained. 5.4 Recommendations Upon completion of their scrutiny activity, the Committee offered the following recommendations:- Recommendation 1:- Members recommended that all Members receive an annual update report from the Executive Member for Environment regarding the HAMP, which was offered and fully supported by the Executive Member. Recommendation 2:- Members recommended that improved Member engagement should be a priority as part of the new HAMP. This should include the use of Members as data-gatherers, but also as contributors towards decision-making via their local knowledge. Officers confirmed that Members could receive heat maps and red condition road data to assist with this. Recommendation 3:- Members were pleased to hear that following this report, similar reports would be compiled for the other highway infrastructure asset groups. Members recommended that these reports should also be subject to scrutiny, when appropriate. Recommendation 4:- Members recommended that the repudiation rate attached to third party claims be included as a performance measure within the new HAMP, and that it be part of the formal reporting process, going forward. Recommendation 5:- Members were pleased to hear about the planned new approach to procuring contractors in the forthcoming year, particularly in terms of using various contractors in order to spread the risk and the focus on using local Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). Therefore, Members supported the new approach, referred to above, and recommended the use of local SMEs for work, where possible. Recommendation 6:- Members were pleased with officers’ comments regarding the considerations that were already being made around the recycling of aggregates in roadworks; however they recommended that exploring opportunities around this be prioritised, going forward. Recommendation 7:- Members acknowledged that the SCANNER and Gaist technologies provided the means to consistently compare the condition of roads with other local authorities; however there was scope to improve the amount of information available regarding Unclassified roads. Therefore, Members recommended that the Council continues to work collaboratively with other local authorities around all available technology, particularly in terms of assessing and comparing Unclassified roads. Recommendation 8:- Members were encouraged to hear of the collaborative work already being undertaken with other local authorities; however they recommended that this work be increased, where possible, in order to achieve best value and consistent approach, particularly in terms of procurement and use of equipment. Additional Comments & Observations from the Committee: Members praised Officers and the Executive Member for an excellent report and thanked them for the way in which they answered the Committee’s questions during the meeting. In addition to the above, Members offered the following comments: • They agreed with the work that had begun around communications and the Council’s website, to better inform the public around the criteria and thresholds attached to carriageway maintenance and repair work. • They welcomed that the prioritisation of work would take account of accessibility to places of work, shops, etc and also take account of Member intelligence. • They supported the department’s proactive approach in seeking additional funding streams, in order to maximise the amount of carriageway maintenance work that was able to be completed.
6.1 The next meeting would be the 3rd July 2025, which would be the visioning session for the 2025/2026 scrutiny cycle. The committee would also receive update reports on the progress and impact of accepted recommendations and progress against adopted action plans. 6.2 The meeting ended at 12.15pm.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.