Presentation to HAUC (UK)

1. Presentation to HAUC (UK) Wednesday 30 May 2012 RINA London

2. Matthew LuggPresident of ADEPTSeconded to Department for Transport for HMEPDirector of Environment and Transport, Leicestershire County Council

3. HMEP Programme Background to the Review The Process Undertaken The Final Report The Key Recommendations Implementation Topics Covered

4. Overview of HMEPThe programme HMEP is a sector-led transformation programme to maximise returns from highways investment and delivery efficiency, sponsored by DfT Funding - £6m over 2011-2013, programme runs to 2018 Links with Government Construction Strategy and Infrastructure UK Review Consistent with ‘localism’ agenda - providing the tools and opportunities - not central direction Partnership working between public and private sectors Building on good practice in the sector Programme team made up of Local Authority employed staff

5. Overview of HMEPIn a nutshell … Efficiency benefits The foundation stones The HMEP offer (under development) 1 Health Check 2 Signposting + 3 Knowledge Hub 4 Efficiencies Projects 5 Special Interest Groups

6. 2008/09 worst winter for 20 years 2009/10 worst winter for 30 years 2010/11 worst December for 100 years 42% increase in potholes in 2009 59% increase from 2009 Estimated 2010 – 2.7m potholes Background to the Potholes Review

7. The Government Response 2008/09 some emergency capital funds made available 2009/10 £100m allocated 2010/11 £200m allocated In April 2011 Norman Baker commissioned a review into the problem

8. DfT appointed Matthew Lugg to lead the Review Project Brief approved by the Minister Atkins appointed as support consultants Project Board consisting of key stakeholder representatives instigated Run under PRINCE2 project management disciplines Programme – commenced July 2011, Interim Report December 2011, Final Report April 2012 The Potholes ReviewThe Approach Taken

9. Organisations Represented on the Project Board

10. Approach Taken - Understanding the Problem Why have recent winters had such a disproportionate effect on the network? How have highway authorities responded? How are the costs of repairs being funded? What are the links to efficiency? How can we do better and what guidance is needed?

11. Issues that were Considered Management arrangements Customers and stakeholders Service standards and current regimes Monitoring of performance Effectiveness Repair materials Durability Workmanship Adopting a preventative approach Adopting principles of asset management Role of National Indicators Funding arrangements

12. Issues that were Considered Adequacy of utility reinstatements Workmanship Durability Customer and stakeholder management Collaboration Share best practice Between LHAs and utilities Training What training is needed? Improving Customer Service Processing of requests Information available to the public and stakeholders

13. The Final Report

14. Prevention is better than cure – intervening at the right time will reduce the amount of potholes forming and prevent bigger problems later. Right first time – do it once and get it right, rather than face continuous bills. Guidance, knowledge and workmanship are the enablers to this. Clarity to the public – local highway authorities need to communicate to the public what is being done and how it is being done. The Key Recommendations

15. 17 recommendations Backed up by 24 case studies in the document Supported by further supplementary information Details from the case studies Technical notes Information on the relevant guidance documents Information on relevant research projects Details of National Highway Sector Schemes (NHSS) Details or relevant Highway Authorities Product Approval Scheme (HAPAS) The Final Report

16. Management of Reinstatements Recommendation 15 Co-ordinating Street Works All parties undertaking works on the highway should share and co-ordinate short and long term programmes of work for up to 4 years in advance, based on good asset management practice Case Study - Transport for London – Permitting

17. Management of Reinstatements Recommendation 16 Minimising Highway Openings All parties involved in reinstatements must consider the need to minimise long term damage from the installation, renewal, maintenance and repair of utility and highway apparatus through alternative and innovative ways of working. Trenchless technology should be considered as part of this decision making process Case Study - Utility Company – Trenchless Technology

18. Management of Reinstatements Recommendation 14 Quality of Repairs and Reinstatements To drive up standards, a quality scheme similar to a National Highway Sector Scheme should be developed by the sector to cover all aspects of manual surfacing operations, including pothole repairs and reinstatements, and its use specified by local highway authorities and utility companies. Case Study - South West HAUC – Improving the Quality of Workmanship

19. Development of an Action Plan - to ensure there is a process in place to progress all 17 recommendations. The Plan will identify: The specific action Identify who is taking the lead How it will be resourced What the timescales How the outcome will be measured Any risks The HMEP Programme Board will take ownership of overseeing the delivery of the Action Plan Implementation

20. Local Highway Authorities should: Engage with appropriate Cabinet portfolio holder Undertake a review of current service in relation to what is advocated in the report Identify potential changes If these are significant i.e. a change of policy, secure Executive approval through a Cabinet report Implementation

21. Thank YouAny Questions?