Future Services Consultation 2024 - Highways Maintenance Proposal
Insight summary
Background
From 8 January to 31 March 2024, Hampshire County Council asked for people’s views on the future of some local services in a public consultation on options to help the Authority meet a £132 million budget shortfall by April 2025.
One of the options proposed was to reduce planned highways maintenance activities, saving the County Council £7.5 million each year.
Who responded to the proposal?
Overall, 6,435 responses to this proposal were received via the consultation Response Form. Of those, 6,299 responded as an individual, 55 responded in an official capacity on behalf of an organisation, group or business, and 45 responded in their capacity as a democratically Elected Representative of a constituency in Hampshire. 36 responses did not specify the capacity in which they were responding.
Respondents were invited to add further comments to support their views on this proposal via an open-ended question. This allowed people to expand on impacts they felt the proposed changes would cause and suggest alternative courses of action. 3,724 respondents left an open text comment in relation to the proposal. A further 325 respondents also commented on the Highways maintenance proposal in the any further comments open text box at the end of the consultation, designed to capture any further feedback to any of the proposals in the consultation.
In addition, 62 unstructured responses were received (via email and/or letter). 35 of these were from individuals, 24 were from organisations/ businesses and two were from multiple Councillors who had sent collective responses and one was from a democratically Elected Representative of a constituency in Hampshire.
In order to help capture the views of young people about the consultation, members of the Hampshire Youth Forum (aged between 11 and 18) were invited to consider the proposals and attend a discussion group to share their feedback.
Who responded: Demographics of individual responses
- Nearly half (46%) of responses from individuals were from those aged 45 to 64, with over a third (36%) aged 65 or over. Only around 1% of responses were from those aged under 25, and around a fifth (17%) were aged 25 to 44.
- Over half (53%) of the respondents who responded to this proposal via the Response Form were female, compared to 47% who were male, and less than 1% were of non-binary gender.
- The majority of responses were from non-ethnic minority groups (i.e. White British, English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish), with 8% of responses from an ethnic minority group.
- While the majority (66%) reported no health or disability issues, 20% reported a health or disability issue that impacted their day-to-day activities either a little or a lot.
- Responses were received from residents of all districts in Hampshire, although some areas were slightly under- or over-representative of the Hampshire population as a whole.
- The majority of respondents (68%) lived in urban locations, with nearly a third (32%) living in rural settings.
No demographics were captured about the individuals who provided unstructured responses to this proposal.
Please note this was an open consultation the respondents were self-selecting so do not provide a representative sample of the total Hampshire population.
Who responded: Types of organisations responding
- Among the 55 organisations who responded via the Response Form, 22 were from other local authorities (County, City, Borough, District, Parish or Town Councils), 19 from charity, voluntary or local community groups, seven from local businesses or business representatives, two from a nursery, school, college or place of education, one from a public sector organisation and four from other types of organisations.
- Among the 24 unstructured responses from organisations/ businesses, 21 were from other local authorities (County, City, Borough, District, Parish or Town Councils), one was from a voluntary organisation, one from a local NHS trust and one was from a political party of a local constituency.
Who responded: Responses from service users
Hampshire Highways provide a universal service, so service users are broadly anyone living, working, studying, visiting or travelling through Hampshire who use the roads. However, the mode of transport can vary which was captured in this consultation to understand any differences in views based on the type of transport being used on Hampshire roads.
Respondents travelled via Hampshire’s Highway using the following modes:
| Mode of transport | Value |
|---|---|
| Car | 5,778 (93%) |
| Walking | 3,619 (58%) |
| Bus | 2,280 (37%) |
| Bicycle | 1,372 (22%) |
| Taxi | 768 (12%) |
| Motorcycle / moped | 170 (3%) |
| Wheelchair / mobility scooter | 132 (2%) |
| Community transport schemes | 111 (2%) |
Please note that respondents were able to select all of the different modes of transport they used so these categories were not exclusive.
Levels of agreement with this proposal
Of all the proposals (both generally and specific to Universal Services) included in the consultation, the proposal to reduce funding for Highways maintenance received the highest level of disagreement and very little agreement. Specifically:
- 88% overall disagreement (64% strongly disagreed)
- 8% overall agreement (2% strongly agreed)
- 4% were neutral
What is driving disagreement with this proposal?
Although disagreement was universal, certain groups of people disagreed with the proposed more strongly than others, In particular: respondents in East Hampshire and the New Forest and local authorities.
- Respondents in East Hampshire and the New Forest were more likely to disagree (both 91%, with 69%/68% doing so strongly) with the proposal than those living elsewhere in Hampshire. Where those areas were mentioned in an open text comment, these referred to the current poor standard of road maintenance, particularly in relation to potholes. The small number (23) of White Irish ethnic respondents also strongly disagreed with the proposal (96% overall disagreement, 74% strongly disagreed).
“The state of the roads in the New Forest is disgraceful. Potholes seem to be opening up all over the place and are dangerous, especially to cyclists and drivers of small vehicles.”
“Current state of roads in east Hants is shocking after the winter. Dangerous potholes if cycling.”
- Despite making up a small number of respondents (21), local authorities expressed strong disagreement with the proposal (100% overall disagreement, 90% strong disagreement). Unstructured responses from local authorities mentioned existing issues with the roads would be made worse by this proposal, as well as the proposal contradicting the Council’s aims (such as the Hampshire 2050 Vision, Local Transport Plan and Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan). Some local authorities also expressed a need for more information on how the proposal would impact them directly. In general, many respondents who opposed change were already critical of the Highways maintenance service provided on the current budget.
- Three quarters (77%) of comments about the proposal mentioned issues with the current surface of the road - most notably, concerns relating to potholes.
“Already the state of the roads is a poor standard. I've never known potholes to be so bad in the area.”
- Other frequently mentioned issues included current safety risks from accidents (23%), damage to vehicles because of the current quality of roads (18%) and other current issues relating to roads in Hampshire (including drainage, road signs and vegetation) (13%).
“I think it's dangerous. I think the roads are really bad at the moment and I think someone could get killed. There are too many accidents happening.”
“I am fed up with damage to my car caused by poorly maintained roads.”
“Current state of roads, drainage, visibility of road signs etc is really deplorable. It doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense reducing by so much!”
This sentiment was also reflected in comments relating to the proposal that were submitted via the ‘general comments’ question within the overall consultation.
- Of the 325 comments relating to the Highways Maintenance proposal, 50% mentioned the need to improve the current quality of repairs and 39% mentioned current maintenance being poor.
“Carry out proper repairs to roads instead of terrible pot hole filling which lasts weeks and has to be revisited."
“We should not be cutting roads maintenance costs, the roads are in a terrible condition and in a downward spiral of decline.”
What is driving agreement with this proposal?
Despite the majority of respondents opposing this proposal, there were a minority of respondents (8%) who agreed, most often from younger age groups and charities.
- Younger age demographics were more likely to agree with the proposal than older groups. Respondents aged under 25 (albeit a relatively small cohort of 49 respondents) had the highest level of agreement (22%) followed by those ages 25-34 and 35-44 (both 13% respectively). 6% of those aged 65 and over agreed with the proposal.
- The small number of charities (18) who responded also expressed a much higher level of agreement (28% overall agreement, 17% strongly agreed). Those who supported the proposal suggested that this would be acceptable alongside certain caveats, such as the roads being maintained to a functioning and safe standard.
“I agree with the general proposal […] However, I believe it's important that roads are still maintained to a good quality at which they can safely be used by motorists and other primary stakeholders.”
People who supported the proposal were more likely to make other suggestions to the maintenance schedule, such as only completing necessary work (20% compared to 12% overall) and prioritising planned maintenance over other spending (such as infrastructure projects) (20% compared to 14% overall). As well as this, people who supported the proposal made notably less comments on the current state of the county’s roads (37% compared to 75% overall).
Main impacts of the proposed change
The overall comments provided about this proposal were also analysed to understand what potential impacts the proposal could have if it were to be implemented.
1,470 out of 3,724 people (39%) who chose to provide comments on this proposal mentioned a potential impact of the proposal in their feedback. Respondents highlighted a number of impacts that may occur as a result of the proposal, with the most frequently mentioned being negative financial implications (45%). This includes references to both an increased cost for the public (such as more repairs to vehicles) as well as costs to the Council (such as more legal and administrative costs arising from claims due to vehicle damage).
“Further reductions in the already poor level of care HCC currently deploy to the road network could expose the council to financial claims of death or injury by negligence and damage to vehicles, which may significantly dwarf the initial savings you are suggesting.”
Other impacts frequently mentioned included concern about safety issues (namely a belief that accidents would increase due to worsening road surface quality) (37%), exacerbation of existing issues relating to the quality of road (32%) and increased damage to vehicles (both relating to an increase in potholes) (26%). These impacts relate to the general idea that the proposal would create more work in the long run (in terms of both cost and workload) (10%).
"Reducing the maintenance levels even further will lead to the roads becoming more dangerous which in turn will lead to more accidents.”
“There is not enough maintenance carried out currently, hence reducing it further will make our roads unfit for purpose.”
“Reducing maintenance will make the situation worse causing damage to cars eg broken suspension and tyres”.
Respondents mentioned differing impacts of the proposal for various modes of travel. For drivers, the main impacts were seen as increased safety risks and vehicle damage due to more potholes on the road surface.
Cyclists/ motorcyclists were seen to be more adversely affected by a potential increase in potholes due to the safety risks being higher (and potentially fatal).
“Less highway maintenance would result in more potholes and therefore dangerously impact on motorcyclists and cyclists, with a potential of 'danger to life'.”
A decrease in maintenance was seen to impact how walkers are able to travel due to potential safety risks associated with poor surfacing and issues relating to flooding.
“Vehicles will swerve into the path of pedestrians and forest animals to avoid the potholes […] Surface water from overflowing drains, settles and then freezes. As a shared space this poses a significant risk to pedestrians or we are encouraged to use our cars”
The main impacts mentioned by the Hampshire Youth Forum were also around the deterioration of road quality, specifically that the Council would pay more in claims relating to vehicle damage and potential investors would avoid Hampshire due poor road infrastructure.
Perceived impact on protected characteristics
Those who commented were asked whether the impacts they had highlighted related to any protected characteristics.
They were most likely to indicate that the withdrawal of funding would have an environmental impact (39%). Specifically, it was suggested that the proposal would discourage people from using forms of active travel (such as walking and cycling) leading to more air pollution. As well as this, it was suggested that it would increase the number of potholes on the road, leading to people driving less economically to avoid damaging their vehicles.
“This proposal is likely to have a particularly adverse effect on bicycle users, which will discourage bicycle usage, with a corresponding increase in the level of air pollution in the county and increased traffic congestion in many areas.”
“There will be an increase in noise and pollution as vehicles have to change direction and speed to avoid potholes and poor surfaces.”
Almost a third of respondents (32%) indicated that impacts from the proposal were related to rurality. Those living in rural area were more likely to select rurality as an impact (43%), compared to those living in urban areas (24%). A particular concern was that the specific topography and geology of rural areas makes them more susceptible to degradation (As exemplified by the unstructured response from Hyde Parish Council). As well as this, it was felt that rural locations already receive a poor maintenance service which would be reduced further.
“If you only concentrate on some types of road/repair no doubt rural lanes will get no treatment at all. They are already dangerous for cyclists due to the poor surfaces and broken-down edges.”
Impacts also related to age (20%), disability (20%) and poverty (13%). Comments relating to those who are vulnerable suggest those who do not drive, have limited mobility or use mobility aids rely on well-maintained pavements and roads to enable access and therefore would be disproportionately impacted by this proposal.
“By reducing the maintenance budget on these roads, you are impacting those people who are disabled, can't afford significant repairs, rely on vehicles to get to work/carry out their tasks of daily living due to rurality/poverty.”
Other characteristics were also mentioned but at much lower levels.
Suggested alternatives to the proposal
1,406 out of 3,724 people (38%) who chose to provide comments on this proposal offered a suggestion about any alternatives to the proposal or how they felt the service could be carried out differently.
The most commonly mentioned idea was to improve how repairs are done (37%). Specifically, respondents mentioned investing in longer term repairs, completing repairs to a higher standard and investing in new technologies and materials.
“The work carried out on highways is very shoddy and problems soon re-occur. There needs to be quality control over work, guidelines for how the work should be done.”
Other suggestions included:
- increasing the budget for Highways maintenance (as more money is needed to rectify current issues with the service) (21%)
“The roads have deteriorated very badly over recent years and need more funding, not less, to bring them up to a safe standard.”
- promoting organisation efficiencies (such as departmental efficiencies like better planning/ prioritisation of maintenance scheduling, as well as overall organisational efficiencies such as reducing waste within the Council) (16%)
“Rather than simply reducing expenditure HCC should be scrutinising its own and any third party expenditure and contracts to find ways to deliver the required service more efficiently and to force third party contractors to provide a better service.”
- prioritising planned maintenance over other spending (such as reducing spend on other infrastructure projects) (14%)
“Fix the potholes rather than building cycle lanes and traffic calming and lights.”
Havant Borough Council offered support to deliver cost-effective highway improvements via their Civil Engineering and Landscape Team (CELT).
There was a wide range of additional and detailed suggestions which have been passed to the department for consideration, both in relation to preparing recommendations on this proposal and for managing the service generally.
Comments on the consultation
A concern was raised around the figures provided as part of a freedom of information (FOI) request regarding the number of potholes repaired in relation to department funding.