Agenda item

Purpose: to receive a report examining the methodology in operation for the repair of pot holes.

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 11) concerning the methodology in operation for the repair of potholes.

The Chairman summarised the progress of the report to date, stating that the report contained a number of recommendations, and at the previous meeting of the Commission Members had expressed a wish to consider the report in the presence of Highways Officers.

Councillor Webster supported the recommendations arising from the review, and mentioned in particular the Member Development session that was felt to be useful in overcoming assumptions about the process for repairing pot holes. Melvyn May advised the Commission that a Member Development session had been held in November 2011.

Whilst in agreement with providing information to the public, Councillor Holtby believed that it was not a good idea to produce a leaflet in this instance, and suggested placing the information on the Council’s website instead. Melvyn May confirmed that a leaflet had already been produced and would be available electronically through the website.

Councillor Franks asked whether the introduction of a ‘spot the pot’ hotline would confuse the public with a specialised telephone number for the sole purpose of reporting potholes. Councillor Dominic Boeck agreed, stating that the best use of resources would be to utilise existing resources.

The Chairman directed the Commission to a Department for Transport document entitled ‘Prevention and a Better Cure – potholes report’, the recommendations from which had been adopted as part of this review.

Councillor Webb asked whether other engagement methods had been used to understand the public’s issues, for example District Parish Conferences. Melvyn May responded that public forums had been used in the past, but that feedback had been very subjective and it was not all reliable.

Councillor Johnston asked whether notices were served on Utility Companies in respect of their responsibilities for repairing the highway. Melvyn May replied that notices were served as appropriate within the 10% random sample required.

Councillor Boeck reported his disappointment that all but two of the recommendations from the review related to improving communication with the public.  Councillor Boeck believed that the money required to increase communications would be better utilised repairing pot holes. David Lowe advised that the emphasis on communications had arisen from a need to address the public’s perception that there was a problem with pot holes when in fact the review had found no significant problem.

Councillor Dave Goff asserted that the MORI survey was expensive and asked if there was another method to obtain similar information, suggesting that it might be possible to survey members of the public who had reported pot holes. Melvyn May responded that the results obtained from the MORI survey had provided useful information in understanding trends, however the detailed information had been misleading due to the similar nature of the authorities included. Melvyn May advised the Commission that the MORI survey cost approximately £10,000 each time, and he raised concerns about the reliability of the information that was forthcoming, stating that some respondents might have no experience of the state of the authority’s roads but would still be required to provide their opinion. 

Following a discussion by the Commission into increased funding for the repair of pot holes, Melvyn May explained that the Find and Fix team had been introduced following the severe winter in 2009/10 and advised that there would always be a need for temporary repairs in order to make the road surface safe for users.  Melvyn May questioned the need for further investment when balanced against the risk and likelihood of an unrepaired surface.

The Chairman reminded the Commission that no recommendations had yet been formally approved for introduction by the Council, and that the Commission’s role was to recommend which should be put forward for consideration.

Councillor Rendel expressed the view that the public perceived West Berkshire’s roads to be in a worse state of repair than surrounding authorities, and suggested that communication was therefore very important. Councillor Rendel suggested undertaking an annual survey to reflect the speed of change in the state of the roads. Councillor Vickers agreed, stating that government recommendation was to undertake annual surveys.

Councillor Vickers asked what consideration was given to cyclists who utilised a different part of the road surface, and added that a cyclist was likely to sustain a greater injury than a motorist by cycling into a pot hole, or swerving into the path of a vehicle to avoid a pot hole. Melvyn May responded that all users of the highways were considered on a risk basis, and stated linear defects such as those sometimes found at the edge of the road surface, had been added as a specific criteria.  Melvyn May further advised the Commission that West Berkshire had been found to repudiate 98% of claims indicating the appropriateness of the highway repair programme.

The Chairman proposed that the Commission accept all of the recommendations except recommendation two as this did not appear to have the support of the Commission. At the vote this was carried, however Councillors Rendel and Vickers requested their objection to this deletion be noted.

Resolved that: the amended recommendations be submitted to the Executive for approval.