Minutes:
Paul Davis introduced himself as the Highways Asset Manager with responsibility for budgets, policy and performance.
Devon has the largest road network in the country with an estimated asset value (gross replacement cost) of £12 billion. The asset included ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ roads; unclassified roads; footways; bridges and retaining walls; public rights of way; cycle/multi-use trails; and street lights, illuminated signs and bollards.
Mr Davis provided graphs on the condition of the highway which indicated, on a traffic light system, that the ‘A’ and ‘B’ roads have shown a relatively good and stable state condition over the past 10 years with a low percentage of roads requiring urgent planned maintenance. Analysis of the ‘C’ road network indicates a trend over the past 4 years in the gradual deterioration of this part of the network and along with the unclassified road network is an area DCC is targeting in 18/19. For the unclassified road network, DCC is beginning to see a more regular deterioration in condition which is reflective of the under investment of this part of the network over the past 5 years, the effects of climate change and the change in usage and driving habits on this more vulnerable part of the Devon road network. This is demonstrated by the increase in roads requiring early investigation due to condition. With the exceptional weather that impacted the County during January through to March, DCC anticipates a worsening situation in terms of road condition across the network and particularly on the minor road network.
Roads were divided into 12 categories; 1- 5 on the major road network and categories 6 -12 on the minor road network. The lowest minor category roads, generally unsuitable for vehicles, are unsurfaced or unmetalled roads and are maintained by the public rights of way team. Mr Davis explained Devon’s policy on the level of maintenance applied to the various road categories and demonstrated as an example the policy maintenance matrix for lower and higher category roads. He showed an excerpt from the matrix where it indicated that carriageway reconstruction is not normally undertaken on a category 9 road (a service road serving a single or a few properties) or below. Conversely surface dressing was applicable on all categories of road. DCC had a defined list of possible maintenance treatments for each category within its policy document AM.01 General Maintenance Treatment Standards.
Funding for highway maintenance came from a variety of sources to give a capital budget for improvement works and a revenue budget for repair and maintenance of the asset. The Capital budget is made up of the needs based formula allocated by the Department for Transport for local highway maintenance. Other capital funding comes from the Incentive and Challenge Funds which local authorities compete for, Pothole Action Fund and additional one-off funding such as the Flood Resilience Fund allocated following the severe weather events in February and March this year. The total Revenue budget for 2018-19 sits at £29.6 million and includes an additional £6.5 million for drainage and other cyclical works and safety defect type works. Capital budgets are much more rigid in terms of their areas of spend and are often ring-fenced whereas revenue budgets have a greater level of flexibility.
In terms of asset management, the overarching principle is to extend the life of the asset, intervening before deterioration accelerates and repairs become more costly, ‘doing the right thing at the right time’. Thus adopting a worst-first strategy is not sustainable and in the longer term is more costly hence why the whole life cost strategy is used when deciding on the appropriate treatment.
Mr Davis said that he would check whether categories were described on the DCC public facing portal. A Forum member mentioned that roads maintainable at public expense listed the categories.
Action: Paul Davis, DCC
The Forum noted the safety defect repair risk matrix and the response times for different road categories. As recommended in the new Code of Practice for Well Managed Highway Infrastructure the safety inspection regime uses a risk assessment process to determine the degree of risk a defect which meets the investigation criterion impacts upon highway users.
Mr Davis confirmed the new Code of Practice for Well Managed Highway Infrastructure allows an authority to manage its network by assessing the level of risk something poses on its network. Potholes for example constitute a potential serious risk and may, if located in a dangerous part of a carriageway, require an urgent response because they are deemed to pose a threat to life i.e. response within 2 hours and made safe or repaired urgently. Mr Davis referred to the Highway Safety Policy for Devon which scheduled the various defects that an inspector will look for on an inspection i.e. a pothole was defined as being 300mm in any horizontal direction and 40mm in depth. He confirmed that the risk assessment process will include inspecting for defects that could impact on all users such as cyclists and those with disabilities. All personnel involved in safety inspections are competent and have successfully completed the UK Highway inspectors training and certification scheme as approved by the UK Roads Board. The frequency of inspections is dependent on the maintenance category of the road, for example maintenance category 3 road (‘A’) is inspected monthly whereas a maintenance category 8 road (minor collector road) will be annually. When the public report a problem, the matter goes through a triage process and, where appropriate, a contractor is instructed to make the repair. Sometimes the problem is reported incorrectly with a wrong location which can involve abortive costs.
Members viewed photographs supplied by a DCAF member showing re-emergence of pothole defects only a couple of weeks after repair. Mr Davis confirmed that on lower category roads the specification for pothole repair is clean out void and fill with either cold or hot material whereas on the main road network a pothole has to be cut out to vertical edges and then only filled with hot material. The matter of surface water on the network was raised. DCC has a programme of siding and water tabling however this has over recent years been limited in the main as preparation works to surface dressing roads. It was felt that more minor roads would benefit from regular siding and water tabling works. A member highlighted the problems caused to the minor road network from large farming plant and haulage vehicles which damaged ditches and caused damage to the channel edge of the carriageway. Problems with water run-off from fields were cited and it was suggested DCC could interact more with landowners to determine how best to deal with field water discharging onto the highway. Mention was made of potholes half-filled and incomplete. Mr Davis confirmed that where members of the public identify locations where work is not up to standard DCC would appreciate this being raised through the Customer Service Centre as a formal complaint which will then be flagged up to the appropriate team for action.
Verge maintenance had been raised by the DCAF. Mr Davis confirmed that the Environment Agency permits verge waysoil to be de-positioned to another verge within 3 kilometres of its source, the TMC specification details the full requirements in this respect. The specification permits only waysoil arising from siding, ditching or cleaning operations to be disposed of on verges and hedge banks. The waysoil on verges shall be spread to a depth of 50mm on the verge within 7 days of deposition, all litter and large stones shall be removed and then the site rotavated or otherwise broken down to a fine tilth and re-levelled. Members re-iterated the problems arising from spread of noxious weed through seeds which might not be apparent.
Mr Davis outlined the grass cutting policy which is to maintain visibility for highway users by cutting junctions, the inside of bends and laybys and places where pedestrians are encouraged to cross, for example where a public right of way meets a road. Wholesale grass cutting was no longer carried out due to budget cuts. Some money went to districts and parishes to cut urban grass (four times per year). Rural grass is cut once or twice. Some districts/parishes are cutting additional areas at their discretion.
Mr Davis said that where a public right of way met a carriageway on a narrow road with no footpath it made sense to create a safe verge passage to a nearby public right of way, if in close proximity. It would be useful to look at the policy again. It was agreed this would be an asset for walkers and horse-riders. However any such cut would only be once cut per year. It was possible to report the need for an exception to the parish and Neighbourhood Team.
Action: Paul Davis to report back on progress.
Concern had been raised by Forum members about lack of friction on roads used by horse riders. Mr Davis explained that stone mastic asphalt (SMA) surfaces have a temporary binder film occluding the aggregate for a period immediately following laying; this can be for several months on roads with minimal traffic. Applying grit during the laying process speeded up the removal of the binder film. In locations of high equestrian use, grit is applied to all asphalt concrete surfaces and not just SMA. Devon is leading the way in its policy of applying grit to new surface courses on routes regularly used by horses. The use of surface dressing was seen as a good surface for horses however its use is as an intermediate protective treatment and is not a replacement for the structural benefits gained through resurfacing.
Forum members explained that tungsten studs on horse shoes provided some road purchase but too many would reduce the flow of the horse. Mr Davis said DCC will always risk assess a site prior to any resurfacing works to determine whether there were stables in the vicinity or it was a popular riding route and, if so, through consultation the design would include measures to mitigate any risk. For example, on heavily used equestrian routes there were options available to reduce the impact of new surfaces, for example to overlay the new surface with a narrow surface dressing or high friction surfacing along one or either side of the carriageway or perhaps improve verge availability and maintenance for a period after the laying of the surfacing.
Chris Cole mentioned he had noted a proliferation of temporary road closed signs on the very minor roads. These often got damaged or knocked over and the ambiguous wording reduced recreational use of the lane. He said user groups, such as the Trail Riders’ Fellowship, could assist with erecting appropriate signage, e.g. road unsuitable for motor vehicles signs, mounted on steel posts with concrete foundations to make them more robust should they get hit. Mr Davis confirmed he could look at budgets but the process would need to be controlled and with effective liaison. He agreed he could build up an approval process and would welcome ideas on a suitable approach and interaction with the community. It was agreed Ros Mills, DCC, would look into the detail and report back to the next meeting. Members were asked to advise the Forum Officer if they had comments.
Action: Ros Mills and Forum members.
Mr Davis acknowledged that parishes did not always understand the maintenance selection process and why a road is selected over another which may be in a worse condition. He reiterated that under its Asset Management Plan DCC does not operate on a worst case basis. However, he did recognise that more consultation was needed by the Neighbourhood Teams to determine the usage of local roads and hence its maintenance category and ultimately the level of maintenance that category attracts. The situation in parishes sometimes changes through increased usage from new developments, businesses expansions etc. that can result in formerly little used routes becoming the popular route. Conversely once popular routes could become infrequently used routes as situations change.
Paul was thanked for his talk