Decision details

Steve Loudoun, Chief Officer: Environment and Public Protection, presented an update report with regards to the A322 Bagshot Road Resurfacing Project. The report included details of the cause of the failed resurfacing, work undertaken to resolve the problem and learning points that arose from the failure.

Essential resurfacing works undertaken during June on the A332 Bagshot Road had failed due to significant failure of the primary and secondary aggregates used on the site. The contractor had accepted liability and agreed to rectify the defective road surface.

It was reported that there had been no cost to the Council in repairing the road, with the Contractor replacing the surface with a product which was superior to that which the Council had originally specified for the road. It was expected that the new surface would last several years and considerably longer than the original surface with no problems being reported since completion of the repair.

There was no guarantee on how long the new surface would last as this depended on many factors, including volume of traffic however, it was noted that had the original surface not been replaced it was likely that the entire road surface would have needed replacing within the next couple of years.

It was noted that significant inconvenience had been caused to local residents due to the closure of the road and that warnings in relation to road closures, diversions and speed limits could have been clearer. Officers noted that this was a learning point and would consider this in the future however, the Panel noted that whilst officers worked hard to liaise and share intelligence it was often difficult to take in to account all local circumstances when a road needed to be closed at short notice.

A Member of the Panel expressed concern regarding cracks in the surface of the road along the newly resurfaced stretch of road and further along the A332. No issues had been reported to officers regarding the road and it was agreed that further discussion would be undertaken outside of the meeting.

The Panel expressed concern that the Contractor had not incurred a financial penalty for the significant failure to compensate for consuming officers’ time and for the inconvenience to residents. It was explained that there was no provision in the contract for any such penalty. The cost to the Contractor in repairing the road had run to six figure sums. Although it was a significant failure no other problems had been experienced in the Contractors previous work. The Panel suggested that a financial penalty be considered when agreeing future contracts.