Contact: Alan Giles, ext 7712

1. Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

That the following arrangements be put in place:

(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) ensuring that parish coordinator and Highway Supervisor meet formally every quarter;

(iv) 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;

(v) providing help and advice to parishes to assist them to deal directly with local landowners;

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

(vii) working with the Hampshire Association of Parish and Town Councils to devise a simple set of performance indicators for measuring customer satisfaction with the highway maintenance works carried out in the towns and parishes; and

(viii) review the benefits of these arrangements in approximately 18 months' time.

2. Reason

2.1 To improve the level of communication and liaison between local Highway Offices and Parish Councils and to ensure that minor maintenance works are prioritised in a way that takes parish concerns into account.

2.2 The attached report was considered by the Environment Policy Review Committee on 5 March 2003, which endorsed the recommendations, adding recommendation (viii).

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 The adoption of the same method of resource allocation as used in Wiltshire was rejected as being an uneconomical use of contractors' gangs.

3.2 Do nothing - rejected as not doing anything to take parish concerns into account.

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

7937/AG

Contact: Alan Giles, ext 7712

1. Summary

1.1 This report has been prompted by the reinstatement of parish lengthsmen in Wiltshire and a desire by some Hampshire County Council Members to see similar arrangements in Hampshire.

1.2 The history of lengthsmen in Hampshire is explained. Lengthsmen were phased out during the 1970s as being uneconomic and replaced with modern cyclic maintenance gangs.

1.3 The changes to the Wiltshire arrangements are explained. Wiltshire has not, in fact, re-introduced parish lengthsmen but merely arranged for its cyclic maintenance gangs to be allocated for a specific number of days to each parish.

1.4 The current arrangements in Hampshire are already quite similar to Wiltshire, with a slightly better ratio of parishes to gangs.

1.5 The main problems in Hampshire stem from the under funding by the Government of highway maintenance during the 1990s. The situation has improved significantly with both increased Government funding and additional funding from the County Council, but still leaves a backlog of maintenance needs. There is also a lack of uniformity in the relationship between parish councils and the local Hampshire Highways staff, which sometimes results in a lack of mutual understanding of the maintenance needs and priorities.

1.6 It is not considered that the Wiltshire solution would result in an improvement in the highway condition in the rural network.

1.7 The report concludes that the additional funding being provided for highway maintenance will start to have an impact on the maintenance backlog and that the relationships between the parishes and local Hampshire Highways offices need to be strengthened and formalised to address the concerns raised by Members.

2. History of Lengthsmen in Hampshire

2.1 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.

2.2 Lengthsmen generally worked alone, using hand tools. They tended to live in or near the parishes in which they worked. They would have a close relationship with the parish authority and be very aware of local needs. It is also worth considering the overall environment in which lengthsmen were employed:

(i) the rural population was generally smaller, with considerably less commuting by private car taking place;

(ii) car ownership in 1970 was about 20 million compared with an estimated 30 million by 2004, with 67% of households now having a car; and

(iii) there were approximately 1,200 staff employed county-wide on highway maintenance in Hampshire in 1970 compared with 230 in 2003.

2.3 During the 1970s there was a steady increase in car use by the public. This required a corresponding increase in highway maintenance activities and also needed improved productivity and efficiency. As operations became more centralised, more routine tasks were undertaken with mechanical plant and lengthsmen were phased out as being uneconomic. In addition, there was a realisation that highway maintenance works needed roadmen (who had tended to be just unskilled labourers) of a higher calibre, with increased skills.

2.4 By 1980 nearly all the lengthsmen had been replaced by the modern two- man cyclic gangs using a small pickup truck. They were more mobile, contactable by radio and able to deal with a wider range of routine maintenance repairs more efficiently.

3. The Wiltshire Situation

3.1 Wiltshire County Council has reintroduced the `concept' of lengthsmen in response to public demand. However, it is important to realise that Wiltshire has not actually reintroduced lengthsmen as such. The Wiltshire scheme has divided the county's 144 parishes into eight maintenance areas, each area having a dedicated two-man gang who visits each parish for two days, three times per year. This means that each of the eight maintenance gangs would have an average of 18 parishes in their area. Working time spent by the gangs specifically for the parishes would amount to 108 days per year, leaving approximately 130 working days for each gang at the direction of the highway management staff. Each parish has a local coordinator who provides lists of works needing attention, prior to the visit of the lengthsmen team, to members of the highways staff based at headquarters.

3.2 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.

3.3 The cost of the Wiltshire scheme is £600,000 which is top sliced from the Routine Maintenance budget. There are a number of points to make clear about the Wiltshire situation:

(i) Wiltshire has not re-introduced parish lengthsmen. From the above it is clear that Wiltshire has simply allocated cyclic gangs to work for a specific number of days in each parish.

(ii) About 45% of the work is now directed by the parishes. Most of the works done would have been done anyway by the cyclic gangs, but it is difficult to know exactly how much.

(iii) 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.

4. Current Situation in Hampshire

4.1 In Hampshire, all of the highway maintenance work is now carried out by Raynesway Contracting Southern (RCS). The gangs employed by RCS fall into a number of categories:

(i) cyclic maintenance gangs (ie the successors to the lengthsmen) - these are the gangs who are mostly involved in the reactive highway maintenance works in the parishes. A typical two-man gang with a pick-up truck costs approximately £64,000 per year;

(ii) routine maintenance gangs (carrying out minor maintenance works usually involving road and footway patching, kerb replacement, etc);

(iii) special maintenance gangs (carrying out larger planned maintenance schemes, usually lasting a few weeks); and

(iv) other specialist gangs (dealing with road markings, crash barriers, bridges, etc).

4.2 In terms of the scale of works to be carried out in 2003/04 it is expected that approximately 5,000 emergency call-outs (relating to traffic accidents, dangerous potholes, etc) will be dealt with and approximately £12.6 million spent on planned maintenance (on such things as special maintenance, resurfacing and surface dressing), of which approximately £8.3 million will be spent in rural areas.

4.3 At present there are 39 Supervisors, employing 26 cyclic maintenance gangs, operating across the four Hampshire Highways areas. Of those, 17 Supervisors with 16 gangs could be considered as operating in solely rural areas and dealing with parishes. This gives an average of 16 parishes per gang (compared with 18 parishes per gang in Wiltshire). The cyclic gangs managed by the Supervisors carry out similar functions to those in Wiltshire, with direction from the local Highway Supervisor.

4.4 The total spend for cyclic gangs for 2001/02 across the former three Area Surveyors' areas was £1.2 million for Hampshire's 251 parish and town councils. Work done by the cyclic gangs would generally come under the following headings:

(i) small pothole repairs;

(ii) minor drainage works, (grip digging and gully dig-outs, rodding, culvert cleaning, etc);

(iii) hedge trimming and sign cleaning;

(iv) general minor works (individual kerb and gully replacements);

(v) minor traffic management works following incidents; and

(vi) providing a quick response to local flooding incidents.

4.5 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 Highway Supervisor. In some parishes, this role is carried out to a certain extent by the parish clerk or chairman. At present, contact between local Highway Supervisors and their parishes varies from regular close contact to little or no contact at all.

4.6 Following the wide-spread flooding during the winter of 2000/01, the County Council, in conjunction with the Environment Agency and the Hampshire Association of Parish and Town Councils, set up a Flooding Steering Group and encouraged the appointment of `Flood Coordinators' in many at-risk parishes. There is now an ideal opportunity to build upon the experience and goodwill arising from this initiative.

4.7 A number of parish and town councils in Hampshire already employ their own staff, some of whom are used to assist with highway related works. Hampshire Highways are very supportive of this initiative and will always assist the councils with advice and training if required.

5. What Exactly are the Problems in Hampshire?

5.1 Before attempting to look at alternative solutions, it is important to first understand exactly what problems exist and what it is that rural communities are expecting to see improved. There are three main factors to consider:

(i) Overall level of funding for highway maintenance

It is suspected that this issue is the root cause of the problems. Parishes simply want to see more highway maintenance work done and feel that this can only be achieved by reverting to a different method of organising the work.

The funding provided by the Government for highway maintenance decreased during the 1990s. The County Council has worked hard over recent years to make sure that funding is brought back to an acceptable level.

The County Council has provided additional funding of £3.5 million for highway maintenance in 2003/04, which will be specifically targeted at those aspects of most concern to the public and Members - footways and minor rural roads.

(ii) Prioritisation of highway maintenance works in rural areas

It is inevitable that in recent years, with very tight funding, highways staff have had to prioritise works and have not been able to carry out everything requested by the parishes.

The best way of overcoming such issues are for the Highway Supervisors and parish representatives to meet regularly to discuss local issues and priorities and to ensure that they understand each others' concerns.

The new electronic defect management system, the Public Enquiry Manager (PEM), now provides highway staff with a comprehensive list of every single issue raised by the parishes, which can be monitored from the initial defect report right through to works completion. At any time the highways management staff know exactly what items are outstanding. Over the coming year it is hoped to try and make the system even more adaptable by enabling customers (eg parishes) to view the progress of defects reported.

In addition, parishes may not be aware of the large range of maintenance works that already take place in their parish. Changes to the way in which works are going to be ordered from contractors in the future will enable comprehensive lists of completed minor works to be provided.

(iii) Overall management of highway maintenance by the Hampshire Highways Offices

The staffing structures and funding arrangements for highway maintenance have evolved over many years. The staffing structures have recently been subject to a major review (the `Blueprint' review of district agencies) and this will enable a uniform management structure, dealing with highway maintenance across the whole of Hampshire in a more consistent way.

Changes are being phased-in to the way in which highway inspections are carried out and maintenance needs assessed. This will provide better information about highway maintenance needs uniformly across Hampshire, to a national standard. Government funding for highway maintenance is already starting to be focused upon the results arising from condition surveys carried out to national standards.

6. What are the Implications of Implementing the Wiltshire Solution in Hampshire?

6.1 Parishes in Hampshire vary enormously in terms of size of both population and road mileage (eg Bullington: population 104; Totton: population 21,800). Any system that allocates resources directly to parishes would need to take this into account.

6.2 In addition to the above, not all parishes have sufficient resources themselves (eg parish councillors or clerks with sufficient time) to provide information on highway maintenance works required.

6.3 Many of the works done by the cyclic gangs in the Wiltshire scheme are presently done in Hampshire by specialist teams covering large areas (eg sign cleaning, grass strimming, etc). The choices here are to either withdraw the specialist teams and revert to the work being done less efficiently by small local gangs, or to continue with both, resulting in a supplement to parish highway maintenance needs - which would require additional funding overall.

6.4 The Wiltshire scheme allocates about £4,000 to each parish, top sliced from the Highway Maintenance budget. To implement a similar scheme for Hampshire with 250 parishes would require approximately £1.05 million to be top sliced each year. Although it is likely that a relatively high proportion of the works requested by the parishes are those which would have been instructed by the Highway Supervisors anyway, it is inevitable that a proportion would not be. In other words, the parishes are likely to request a proportion of works that would otherwise not have been done, due to being of a lesser priority in the eyes of highway staff, who need to consider the overall maintenance needs of the whole highway network in relation to the funding available.

6.5 The Wiltshire solution is not the most efficient way of dealing with highway maintenance issues. There is a real danger that, despite the best of intentions, the inefficiencies of a Wiltshire method of maintenance would result in less work being done for the money available.

6.6 A number of the works done by the Wiltshire gangs (ditch cleaning, hedge trimming) are generally the responsibility of adjacent landowners. For Hampshire County Council to start to take on this work would again be a high financial burden carrying out maintenance that is not the highway authority's responsibility.

7. Conclusions

7.1 Parish lengthsmen were employed at a time when levels of car use, labourers' wages and labourers' level of productivity were much lower. It is considered that re-introduction of parish lengthsmen will not result in improved levels of highway maintenance due to the lower efficiency of that method. Wiltshire has not re-introduced parish lengthsmen but simply allocated cyclic gang time to parishes without regard to highway maintenance needs, which is likely to result in a decrease in overall efficiency and value for money.

7.2 There are two main issues:

(i) Improving the overall levels of funding for highway maintenance - This is already being addressed by Members' approval for increased levels of funding in 2003/04, particularly focused on footways and rural minor roads.

(ii) Putting in place regular liaison between parishes and local Highway Supervisors to ensure that parish concerns are properly dealt with. This is addressed by our proposals below.

7.3 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 and prioritises the work. The ratio of gangs to parishes is already better than in Wiltshire. There is serious concern that allocating a specific number of maintenance days to each parish (as in Wiltshire) will still not bear any relationship to the highway maintenance needs of the parish. The judgement of need is best carried out by the Highway Supervisors, who know the maintenance needs of all the parishes within their area.

8. Proposed Solution

8.1 Arrangements are proposed, using the existing resources, 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 to be aware of other maintenance work done in their area.

8.2 The Hampshire Association of Parish and Town Councils is supportive of the proposals in this report and has offered to help promote the idea of partnership between the parishes and the highway authority and encourage parishes to appoint a Highways Coordinator.

Recommendation

That the Executive Member for Environment be advised that the following arrangements should be put in place:

(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) ensuring that parish coordinator and Highway Supervisor meet formally every quarter;

(iv) 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;

(v) providing help and advice to parishes to assist them to deal directly with local landowners;

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

(vii) working with the Hampshire Association of Parish and Town Councils to devise a simple set of performance indicators for measuring customer satisfaction of the highway maintenance works carried out in the towns and parishes.

7783/AG