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

Matthew Lugg President of ADEPT Seconded to Department for Transport for HMEP Director of Environment and Transport, Leicestershire County Council

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

Overview of HMEP The programme HMEP is a sector-led transformation programme to maximise returns from highways investment and delivery efficiency, sponsored by DfT Funding - £6m over , 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

Overview of HMEP In a nutshell … “By the sector, for the sector” Practical and adaptable approaches Results driven + 1Health Check Signposting Knowledge Hub Efficiencies Projects Special Interest Groups The HMEP offer (under development) The foundation stones Efficiency benefits

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 % increase from 2009 Estimated 2010 – 2.7m potholes Background to the Potholes Review

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

The Potholes Review The Approach Taken 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

Organisations Represented on the Project Board

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?

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

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

The Final Report

The Key Recommendations 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 Final Report 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)

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

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

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

Implementation 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 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

Thank You Any Questions?