Agenda item

To consider a presentation on service delivery within Highways and Transport service, including Customer Service, Potholes and Small Projects.

The Committee considered a presentation, set out in agenda pages 31 to 52, which provided an updated on the service delivery within the Highways and Transport Service.

The presentation outlined that approximately 80 percent of works were carried out by utilities companies, whilst the service was responsible for the maintenance of around 725km of roads (including 9km of motorways, 829km of roadside footways, 53km of off-road cycleways, and 4,500 manholes.

Paul Fishwick (Executive Member for Active travel, Transport and Highways), George Framalicco (Director of Place and Growth), Matthew Gould (Head of Service, Highways and Transport) and Chris Easton (Assistant Director – Highways and Transport) attended the meeting to answer Member queries.

During the ensuing discussion, Members raised the following points and queries:

·         The Committee thanked the team for their hard work on delivering this service, which was not always easy at times;

·         Could further details be given regarding the following points: emails received by customer services, out of hours contact, life extension roadworks projects, and conflicting communications between Reading Buses and Wokingham Borough Council regarding the park and ride parking services. Officer response – Customer services received highways emails which were then processed and forwarded onto the Highways service. Regarding out of hours support, officers were aware of a specific query and were working to address this. The specific query was the responsibility of Thames Water, and officers could not do anything until the site was deemed as unsafe. officers would follow up this matter directly with Thames Water. Officers were looking to develop a standard proforma to help improve communications with regards to preventive treatment works. There was a new customer experience colleague starting who would help identify any gaps in communications and would produce a programme;

·         How were ‘Fix my Street’ reports received and dealt with? Officer response – This service was not affiliated with the Council and officers did not encourage reports via this service as it created additional points of failure. Officers had to manually gather the reports from this service and input them into the Volker Highways system. There were roughly around 200 reports a year via this service, and officers would continue to work with communications colleagues to encourage all users to report directly via the Council’s system;

·         It was noted that the ‘Fix my Street’ data did not automatically disappear when works were complete. Officers had recently contacted the service to get them to clear 14-15 years’ worth of reports. There would not be capacity to continually ask ‘Fix my Street’ to clear specific requests;

·         Did WBC have the powers to dictate where broadband providers placed their cabinets, in order to improve the experience for pedestrians? Officer response – Unfortunately WBC did not have such powers. WBC tended to get notification of installation works close to the date of installation, and officers had very limited powers to object. New roads were built with wide pavements and roads whilst utilities companies were required to install their infrastructure first and to the side of the pavement;

·         How could residents report damage specifically to a pavement? Officer response – The wording of the report function could be tweaked to reflect this;

·         Members had witnessed very large HGVs performing tight turns on the Molly Millars Road, damaging the surface. Could tougher road surfaces be installed in such areas? Officer response – This would be mentioned to the team for assessment. Members were welcome to report any such incidents directly to the Service, with video or photo evidence being particularly valuable;

·         Was thee ongoing two-way communications between WBC and Town and Parish Council’s regarding the possible use of CIL money for smaller projects? Officer response – The team were always reaching out to Town and Parish Councils and met with those who wished to do so on a quarterly basis. It was very helpful for Town and Parish Councils to input individual schemes into the system to get them logged, whilst officers would continue to push for additional engagement;

·         With regards to speed limits, the Chief Constable had previously informed Members that enforcement of speed limits was a low priority in the area due to fantastic community speed watch schemes. Did this present an opportunity for WBC to use its own initiative? Officer response – Speed limit amendments followed a statutory process. Should the police object to such a change, it may require a brave Executive Member and Council to persist with the plan, due to enforceability requirements;

·         What could be done with areas of roads and cycleways which had been resprayed and reported as a rough surface? Officer response – Members and residents could report these areas, which would allow officers to ascertain whether these patches were the result of utilities works or WBC works;

·         In response to a query about Member oversight of small projects and TRO feedback, officers stated that the team was working hard to improve visibility of why a TRO was or was not supported, and Members should contact the team directly if they were not receiving this information;

·         It was noted that the Individual Executive Member Decision report or Executive report in relation to a TRO would contain the detail of why the TRO was being proposed, and representations received;

·         It was highlighted that there needed to be an awareness that residents were customers of a monopoly when accessing Council services, and as such metrics such as call volume may not be that useful as some residents may give up prior to receiving a resolution. What could be done to improve the perception of people’s concerns not being followed up? Officer response – Highlighting the volume of calls was not just about determining the raw numbers of calls but also highlighted the amount of potential failure points. There was a plethora of data available for officers to utilise in order to continue improving the service, and a follow-up session could be arranged for the Committee in future;

·         There were many examples of roads with new facilities and developments adjoining them, with speed limits remining at 40MPH. What could be done to push back against police objections to speed limit reductions on the grounds of duty of care? Officer response – Local Authorities were responsible for setting speed limits in line with speed limit guidance, which required consistency of speed limits with similar roads. WBC could and did push back, for example with the upcoming TRO on the Shinfield and Basingstoke Road;

·         It was noted that the Local Plan Update was the opportune time for residents to feedback as to potential speed limit alterations where development was proposed.

RESOLVED That:

1)      Paul Fishwick, George Framalicco, Matthew Gould and Chris Easton be thanked for attending the meeting;

2)      Officers seek to amend the wording of the report function to specify reports to pedestrian footpaths;

3)      Members and residents be invited to report any such instances of HGVs damaging road surfaces as a result of turning manoeuvres;

4)      Members and residents be invited to report instances of rough patches of roads and cycleways as a result of respraying;

5)      Members contact the Highways team directly should they not be receiving details of TROs within their Ward;

6)      The Committee consider a follow-up session to highlight any improvements made with regards to communications and resident satisfaction.