Contact: Andy Langton, ext 6254

1. Summary

1.1 This report considers whether Lengthsmen should be introduced in Hampshire as a means to improve highway maintenance in rural areas.

1.2 The following decisions are sought:

(i) That the County Council does not adopt the Wiltshire County Council's approach to Lengthsmen, as there are insufficient benefits to the public in Hampshire.

(ii) That steps are taken to strengthen formal contact levels with parishes.

(iii) That parish councils are encouraged/supported to appoint a local coordinator to collate and supply information to their local supervisor.

(iv) That record keeping of works in individual parishes is formalised to demonstrate levels of works.

2. Reason

2.1 The Wiltshire approach would not provide any additional level of service in Hampshire, but would increase costs. However, strengthening local contacts between parish councils and the County Council would assist in promoting good practice and improving public perception of routine highway maintenance at grass roots level.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 The Wiltshire approach was considered but rejected as the County Council's existing maintenance regime provides a comparable level of service.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member or Officer consulted - None.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor K B Estlin

7. Introduction

7.1 This report investigates the concept of Lengthsmen and their reintroduction on a parish basis to Hampshire following a request from the Hampshire Association of Parish and Town Councils. The existing scheme in place in Wiltshire is used on a comparative basis and the report also highlights the County Council's existing resources in this field.

8. Background

8.1 Lengthsmen were deployed in Hampshire until the late 1960s carrying out routine maintenance works across their allocated parishes. These tasks included minor drainage and highway repairs, such as ditch cleaning and pothole repairs, hedge trimming, road sign repairs and maintenance and other minor maintenance duties. The practice was phased out as uneconomic as operations were centralised and routine tasks undertaken more efficiently with mechanical plant.

8.2 There is a view, particularly in parish and rural areas, that the infrastructure has suffered over the years following the loss of this local resource attending to routine maintenance activities.

9. Wiltshire Lengthsmen Scheme

9.1 Wiltshire County Council has reintroduced the concept of lengthsmen in response to public pressure. The Wiltshire scheme has divided the county's 144 parishes into eight maintenance areas, each area having a dedicated two-man gang who visit each parish for two days, three times per year.

9.2 Each parish has a local coordinator who provides lists of works needing attention prior to the visit of the Lengthsmen team, to a central coordinator based at headquarters.

9.3 The teams have a set of clearly defined tasks and responsibilities to carry out, including:

(i) hand cleaning of grips, ditches, easements and gullies;

(ii) rodding and cleaning of small culverts;

(iii) hedge trimming around ditch outlets and signs for visibility;

(iv) washing signs;

(v) small pothole repairs;

(vi) grass strimming on visibility splays; and

(vii) siding out.

9.4 The cost of the Wiltshire scheme is £600,000 which is top sliced from the Routine Maintenance budget.

10. Present Arrangements in Hampshire

10.1 At present there are 17 supervisors, each with a maintenance gang, operating across the four Hampshire Highway areas. These gangs carry out similar functions to the Wiltshire lengthsmen with direction from the local supervisor.

10.2 The total spend for cyclic gangs for 2001/02 across the former three Area Surveyors' areas was £1.2 million for Hampshire's 240 parishes.

10.3 What is not in place in many parishes in Hampshire at present is the local coordinator role, providing information to, and communicating with, the local supervisor. In some parishes, this role is carried out to a certain extent by the parish clerk or chairman.

10.4 At present contact between local supervisors and their parishes varies from regular close contact, contact when there are problems, to little contact at all.

11. Discussion

11.1 The present arrangements in Hampshire have, in principle, all the ingredients of the Wiltshire scheme, with routine maintenance gangs carrying out similar tasks under the direction of the local supervisor who organises/prioritises the work, although the ratio of gangs to parishes is less than in Wiltshire.

11.2 The Wiltshire scheme is very much Member-led and has been well received by the parishes, although it is not perceived as an economic use of resources by officers.

11.3 To implement a similar scheme for Hampshire with 250 parishes would cost in the region of £1.05 million per year. However, the benefits in terms of improved overall quality of maintenance would be questionable, since such a scheme would require funding from highway maintenance budgets.

11.4 A suitable alternative could be considered, using the existing resources, by looking to strengthen the existing contact level with the parishes. This would have the benefit of ensuring that greater note is taken of issues raised by the parishes and also help them understand, and be aware of, other maintenance work done in their area.

11.5 Arrangements to enable this could include:

(i) producing formal guidelines as to what parishes can expect from routine maintenance;

(ii) formalising contacts with parishes who would be asked to nominate a local coordinator, to channel the information on works needed to the local supervisor;

(iii) working with the parishes on issues they can assist with, these could include providing historical information and putting peer pressure on locals to clear ditches/cut hedges;

(iv) formalising the supervisor/contractor record keeping arrangements to show works carried out in particular parishes more easily, demonstrating the level of maintenance already in place; and

(v) allotting specified time for maintenance in each parish (days per annum), and recording the work carried out to feed back the information to the parish.

12. Conclusion

12.1 A robust routine maintenance system is already in place covering the parishes in Hampshire with many elements of the works based on a "needs priority basis". Other more cyclic activities may be organised in parishes on a time based arrangement.

12.2 To implement a scheme equivalent to the Wiltshire lengthsmen project for Hampshire would cost in the region of £1.05 million per year. Even if this was new funding (which is extremely unlikely) there still remains a question over value for money.

12.3 By strengthening existing local contacts and formalising arrangements improvements can be made to the parishes' perception of routine maintenance by ensuring that local priorities for minor maintenance works are addressed.

12.4 The introduction of the Exor Public Enquiry Manager (PEM) system will assist with record keeping, as all parish issues raised will be individually recorded and an annual report run to show the total number of enquiries and how many resulted in actual works against each parish.

12.5 Works generated by the local supervisors create more of a problem for record keeping as they will not appear on the Exor PEM system. However, the introduction of the new works order system may offer potential to identify works raised against individual parishes as part of the system's report producing capability.

7545/AL