Agenda item

The Board is asked to consider information provided on road maintenance across the BCP area, making recommendations as appropriate and agreeing any further action for scrutiny.  This follows a request for scrutiny that was made by a Councillor and subsequently agreed by the Board for inclusion on its Forward Plan.

The Chairman introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated to each member of the Board and a copy of which appeared as Appendix 'D' to these minutes in the Minute Book. The Chairman advised that a number of questions and responses were included with the report and asked members of the Board for any further questions or comments on the item.

·       The Councillor who originally requested that the item be included on the Board’s agenda advised the Board of some of the issues that he was aware of related to Road maintenance including difficulties with the reporting system for any problems, issues with poor quality work, for example resurfacing over weeds and twigs, responses to complaints about road resurfacing did not always seem to be addressed appropriately and a lack of post completion inspection for any repair or resurfacing work which had bee carried out by contractors. Concerns were raised that when issues were raised by a member of the public these should be dealt with in a more systematic way. The Board was advised that there was a problem with one road which had been reported but was then dropped when all the schemes across the conurbation were put into a matrix for the whole area. It was suggested that it would be useful to look at whole subject area in more detail as the work taking place was significantly poor and the adequacy and sufficiency of road maintenance required overview by members.

·       The Portfolio Holder for Transport and Sustainability advised that the Council was asked to put forward strategies and it received funding for the work therefore government was satisfied with the way the Council was addressing highway maintenance issues. If it was required then it would be looked again but there may not be anything further which could be done on this issue.

·       A Board member felt that at the moment no improvements had been made with regards to road maintenance in the BCP area. Government guidelines were usually the bare minimum and a higher standard would be aimed for. Roads were not improving and therefore complaints would remain the same.

·       The Portfolio Holder for Environment, Cleansing and Waste advised that there had been an increase in funding for provision of a gully cleaning vehicle to cover the Christchurch area.

·       In relation to a query raised about whether the reporting system was accurate and if repairs were made in a timely manner a Portfolio Holder advised that the reporting system was being worked on to make improvements and it would be good to see repairs made more quickly but these were issues which were being worked on.

·       It was noted following a query about the inspection of contractors work that all are inspected and that any defects found within a period of 12 months from the date of completion the contractor were required to return to put right any issues. The Portfolio Holder advised that they did feel that they were achieving value for money in terms of these contracts.

·       It was noted that there were still three slightly different legacy arrangements in place from the three preceding authorities. There was an approved list of issues for defects which would be provided to a contractor for repair, although there were some issues at present with resources.

·       It was noted that the new policy was introduced in March and the Board questioned whether issues would improve now that this was in place. It was suggested that it may be useful to allow some more time for improvements to be made. It was noted that this policy was mainly about harmonisation and there was unlikely to be significant change

·       The Portfolio holder were asked whether there was a system in place to review the number of reports from the public and whether this was monitored by a particular group. It was noted that key performance indicators were in place. The Portfolio Holder felt that the way this service was carried out by staff was good within the available budget.

·       It was noted that the data on potholes was not included within the Performance Monitoring Report, the Portfolio Holder advise that this was because there was a risk matrix for the repair of potholes, and this was considered against the length of response time.

·       It was suggested that there should be monitoring of the situation and that the issue should be reconsidered in 6-12 months time.

·       It was noted that a lot of the frustrations raised seem to stem from the reporting system and if this could be put right it would help to alleviate customer concerns.

The Chairman thanked everybody for their contributions, in particular, Cllr Trent for requesting the item. The Chairman advised that at this time there was not a need for further scrutiny concerning this issue, but the situation would be informally monitored and consideration be given to whether further work on this issue by the O&S Board was required in approximately 12 months time.

Close 17:32