Agenda item

To consider an update on Wokingham’s highways maintenance strategy.

The Committee considered a report, set out in agenda pages 19 to 24, which set out the methodology behind how Wokingham’s Highway network was maintained.

The report outlined the selection of roads to be included in the annual planned structural maintenance programme was based upon the UK Pavement Management System (UKPMS) which included annual Network Condition Surveys and our own internal design process (including site visits to check the condition survey scores and where required core sampling to establish the scale of intervention to be recommended). The report added that this approach ensured that the annual structural maintenance programme was based on meeting the highest priority needs on WBC network within the funding available.

The report noted that the maintenance of the Wokingham’s Highways network was made up of three main works streams: reactive maintenance (i.e. potholes etc.), winter maintenance (gritting), and planned structural maintenance (resurfacing, surface dressing and micro-asphalt). The UKPMS also prioritised which treatment was most appropriate for each location. Schemes were designed and drawings prepared based upon the network condition surveys, material testing and site walkover. The detailed design would then confirm the extent and scope of all resurfacing work, and would produce an updated estimated cost of each of the schemes. Once works were completed, contractors were tied into a defect period and a joint WBC and Contractor snagging inspection was undertaken to identify any remedial issues.

Pauline Jorgensen (Executive Member for Highways and Transport), Andy Glencross (Assistant Director – Highways and Transport), and Aivaras Jasiunas (Senior Specialist – Highways Asset Management) attended the meeting to answer any Member questions.

During the ensuing discussions Members raised the following points and queries:

·           What was the size limit for public reported defects? Officer response – The current limit was set at 1m², however a trial was underway to allow reported defects of up to 5m² to be reviewed and repaired.

·           Where was surface dressing not recommended for use? Officer response – Surface dressing tended to be used in rural areas, whereas micro-asphalt was used in residential areas.

·           Could Town and Parish Council’s be formally approached on an annual basis when developing the rolling maintenance plan? Executive Member response – Town and Parish Councils were routinely in touch with Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) regarding the maintenance plan. The Executive Member stated that she would be happy to formally engage with then on an annual basis, in addition to the conversations that already took place.

·           Could cycling routes be added as a priority within the rolling maintenance schedule? Officer response – Members were welcome to put a proposal to the Highways department and the Executive Member for consideration.

·           When was the machine survey undertaken, and who owed this equipment? Officer response – The timeframe for the surveys to be completed was usually between 1^st April and 1^st October. The equipment was shared between the Berkshire Local Authorities.

·           What were the lengths of time associated with the defect periods for surface maintenance work? Officer response – Surface dressing attracted a two year defect period, whilst micro-asphalt attracted a one year defect period.

·           What percentage of the Wokingham Highway network was covered by the annual scan? Officer response – 100% of unclassified roads were covered, in addition to all A, B, and C roads, in addition to the full Wokingham footways network.

·           How did micro-asphalt ‘settle’ once applied to a road? Officer response – Although vehicles may appear to not use the full width of a road, surfaces were embedded within the road consistently by vehicles.

·           How long did micro-asphalt last on a residential road? Officer response – The usual expected usage for a micro-asphalt applied surface was between five and eight years. However, this process was only intended to extend the useful life of a surface, rather than making any structural changes.

·           How proactive could Highways officers be with regards to surface maintenance? Officer response – Maintenance was carried out using a three year programme, and it was difficult to predict how an asset would behave, especially during the winter months. For the moment, works needed to be carried out on a priority basis. Year two and three of the programme was not publically released as this was subject to change. The Wokingham Highways Investment Strategy provided a long term plan for major projects, whereby major new roads were expected to be useful for between 20 and 30 years.

·           Other Local Authorities were using recycled plastics to fill potholes, were WBC planning to adopt this approach? Officer response – There was a lot of innovation within pothole filling, however WBC were not currently using this approach. WBC were using a ‘blow in tarmac’ approach, which was less damaging to the environment than other methods.

·           Could the officer presentation be circulated to all Members of the Council? Officer response – Yes, the presentation would be circulated to all Members.

RESOLVED That:

1)     Pauline Jorgensen, Andy Glencross and Aivaras Jasiunas be thanked for attending the meeting;

2)     Highways officers and the Executive Member for Highways and Transport seek to formally engage with Town and Parish Council’s when developing the three year programme for surface maintenance;

3)     The presentation shown on the evening by officers be circulated to all Members of the Council.