Agenda item

This report outlines how roadworks are currently managed and coordinated in the borough using the LBHF permit scheme. It describes the proposed enhancements to the London Permit Scheme, known as the Lane Rental Scheme, which provides additional protection for fifty of the borough’s key roads.

Ian Hawthorn, Assistant Director Highways and Parks provided a presentation which outlined how roadworks were currently managed and coordinated in the borough using the LBHF permit scheme. It described the proposed enhancements to the London Permit Scheme, known as the Lane Rental Scheme, which provides additional protection for fifty of the borough’s key roads.

The following points were noted:

• Background on roadworks and their management in H&F.

• Details on the multiple assets which make up the Highway network.
• Communication / collaboration and the co-ordination of works. To ensure effective works planning and minimised disruption.
• Details on the process by which works permits are issued and the conditions surrounding these.
• Information on penalties and fines for non-compliance / delayed works.
• Details on H&F future co-ordination, and the Lane Rental Scheme.
• The benefits of the Lane Rental Scheme including:

1.     Less roadworks on the busiest roads.

2.     Utilities contribute to highway maintenance funding.

3.     Reducing the days roadworks occupy key roads.

4.     Improved air quality.

5.     Reduced negative economic impact on local businesses.

6.     Improved contractor practices across the industry to work smarter.

7.     Improved bus journey times.

In relation to the Lane Rental Scheme, Councillor Ashok Patel asked what discretion Cadent Gas or Thames Water would have when carrying out works on the fifty roads cited in Appendix 1 of the report. In response, Ian Hawthorn confirmed it was a challenge for both these organisations, as a considerable amount of their main assets sat in those roads (such as large water mains, gas mains, sewers, electrical and telecoms infrastructure) as they had the most capacity for these services. And due to the way the organisations worked, it was very difficult for them not to be impacted by lane rental scheme. As a result, the implications of lane rental would drive both organisations to pre-plan their works and deliver maintenance and repairs in a very different way than today. Ian Hawthorn provided details of the current permit fees and explained the implications of moving to a daily charge under lane rental which would lead to different organisational behaviours.

Councillor Ashok Patel noted the consultation was planned for August to September when lots of people would be away and asked about its timing. In response, Ian Hawthorn explained the Council was on prescribed government timetable and if the Council wished to be included in the second phase, the consultation needed to be undertaken in these months so a submission could be made in October.

In relation to the graphics in the presentation, Councillor Amanada Lloyd-Harris noted that the first arm of the five major roads that caused congestion were on the boundary or in her ward. She asked whether these statistics had arisen due to the closure of Hammersmith Bridge and what the impact of this had been. She asked what percentage of road works and utilities works were conducted at night and given the congestion, asked if there was scope for works on the major roads to be conducted at night.

With regards to penalties and fines, Councillor Amanda Lloyd-Harris asked where possible (with major works) if the Council ensured inspections were conducted before works were signed off, so that there were no major surprises. And finally, she asked how many other boroughs had introduced the Lane Rental Charge. In response, Ian Hawthorn confirmed that Transport for London had a Lane Rental Charge, as did Surrey, West Sussex and Kent. Currently, London Boroughs did not have Lane Rental charges. The thinking was that several London Boroughs would apply to have Lane Rental and the first four were: Camden, Lambeth, Enfield and Merton with a number of other boroughs forming elements of the second and third tranches of the scheme.

In relation to signing off roadworks before the works were completed, Ian Hawthorn provided a detailed explanation of how this was done and why, as well as the issues arising from reinstatement work that needed to be checked after it had time to settle. With regards to Hammersmith Bridge, he explained this was having an ongoing effect on traffic flows. However, as Hammersmith and Fulham was a very busy borough, the number of works corelated with how much development was taking place as these needed services and telecommunications to be installed. And finally in relation to night works, Ian Hawthorn confirmed that Highways work was conducted at night but not many utilities were. He highlighted the Lane Rental charges applied from 7am to 7pm, so if works were conducted at night, Lane Rental would not be charged.

Adding further comments, Mark Raisbeck, Director of Public Realm, acknowledged working at night caused noise and disruption to residents. And there was always a trade-off between the work being completed sooner and the number of complaints received. And as a general comment about pan-London traffic levels, there was a degree of evidence to suggest this was reducing overall. Since Hammersmith Bridge had closed, traffic levels over surrounding bridges, such as Wandsworth Bridge had declined. However, there were several other factors such a cycle or bus policies that could alter and have an impact on traffic flows and congestion rates.

Councillor Adam Peter Lang thanked officers for the clear presentation and for flagging the benefits of the Lane Rental Scheme. He commented there was a good opportunity during the consultation to highlight these benefits to residents. In terms of the consultation timeframe, he thought this was very tight, but understood why this was the case. He asked officers for further details about the consultation phase. In response, Ian Hawthorn explained it was a government set, statutory consultation which would outline the scheme, and this would be available on the Council’s website. It would require the Council to engage with utilities (Thames Water, BT etc), other boroughs and Camden, Lambeth, Enfield and Merton had also been through the same process.

The Chair, Councillor Rory Vaughan asked how the Council checked what utilities were doing with their permits and also how letter drops by utilities worked. The Chair provided anecdotal evidence about how Thames Water had operated close to his home and asked how the permits were issued if they had to cover multiple visits.

In response, Ryan Alexander, Service Manager, Highways Works Coordinator explained that the Council did try and monitor each set of works but there was an element of trust when an application (for works) was received. If officers noticed that only limited progress had been made, then this would be flagged with the utility company. Ryan Alexander provided information on what action would be taken in a number of different scenarios including the imposition of fines if works were not completed on time. And confirmed that when a utility company returned to a site on multiple occasions, a permit would be required each time.

In relation to forthcoming works on the Uxbridge Road, the Chair noted that a number of residents had lobbied for more trees to be planted. However, he appreciated the complexity of adding trees to the highways network. Ian Hawthorn confirmed that trees needed a considerable amount of space, and the Council insisted that utilities dug around trees by hand to minimise potential damage to the tree.

The Chair asked for further details to be provided on site checks and enforcement. In response, Ryan Alexander explained that any works involving an excavation or on traffic sensitive streets would be inspected the day after the estimated end date for two reasons, one for the reinstatement check and secondly for over running works check which might lead to a fine. He confirmed that officers aimed to inspect all reinstatements that had been carried out. Further details were provided on sample checks, quotas, long term inspections after 2 or 3 years and the use of lists of routine inspections to check reinstatements after a 3-month period.

Ian Hawthorn also provided information on over-run charges which were charged by the day. About 10 years ago the Council charged utility companies about £750k per annum. Today, it was noted this was £250k, so it showed that performance had improved, but he underlined as this was also an avoidable charge, which illustrated this behaviour still required further work.

At the invitation of the Chair, Mr MacDonald-Brown, local resident addressed the committee on the impact of the closure of Hammersmith Bridge to motorised traffic. He endorsed the comments made by Mark Raisbeck, namely that traffic had not increased over neighbouring bridges as shown by TfL’s traffic counts taken on all of London’s bridges. He stated it would be good if Councillors and the Borough’s local MPs quoted that data rather than relying on anecdotal evidence. He commented that the closure of Hammersmith Bridge had been a very effective traffic reduction project and hoped it remained closed.

Mark Raisbeck commented that the data was not based on physical counts at those particular points (the bridges) but it was extrapolated data. He provided details on the Council’s counts, as well as data supplied by TfL but concluded that overall, there had been a reduction in traffic levels.

Councillor Florian Chevoppe-Verdier, Cabinet Member for Public Realm,  commented on the Lane Rental Scheme and explained his primary focus was to reduce nuisance to residents. He reiterated that the Council was aiming to join the scheme in the autumn, and it would be good to update the committee on this, as well as some conclusions from the early adopters

Concluding the item, the Chair thanked officers for their work and confirmed the committee’s support for the Lane Rental Scheme. He was keen that officers planted more trees on the Uxbridge Road and highlighted the co-ordination between the Council and Utilities was beneficial to residents. He hoped officers would continue to encourage Utilities to complete their works within a specified timescale and to ensure these were reinstated properly. He looked forward to a further update in due course.

RESOLVED

1. That the Committee review the report and provide comments.