Agenda item

To receive a briefing in respect of the proposed highway works in 2012/2013.

Report to be circulated with but separate to the agenda document.

The Chief Officer: Environment and Public Protection and the Chief Officer: Planning and Transport presented the report informing the Panel of the indicative Highway Maintenance Works Programme for 2012-2013 and the outline plans for Integrated Transport projects. 

Annex 1 outlined the capital block funding allocation for 2012/2013 and the grant conditions.  The grant for highways maintenance was £1,781,000 and for integrated transport £561,000.

Annex 2 showed the roads of greatest need of repair from a safety point of view.  The cost of the works listed exceeded the available budget.  The Panel noted that adjustments would occur during the year and the budget would not be overspent.  Whenever possible, the aim was for street lighting works to coincide with highways works.

Annex 3 listed the bridges and structures programme.

The Panel noted that Executive approval would be sought before work commenced. 

Arising from questions:

• As much notice as possible would be given to local residents but that was not always possible.  Leaflet drops were carried out and ward members advised.

• It was the Council’s responsibility to maintain “private” cabling in street lighting.

The Chief Officer: Planning and Transport gave a presentation which outlined which schemes fell under Integrated Transport (IT).  The funding came from Government Grant Allocation and Section 106 agreement developer contributions.  The Capital Programme was developed in line with Council policy Local Transport Plan 3; in response to infrastructure demands from development; and in response to Government legislation.  The Panel noted how the IT Capital Programme developed and that officers were reviewing the way the programme was developed to seek earlier identification of potential priorities, to ensure efficiencies were found and implemented and to develop more clarity in the Council’s strategies to avoid conflict in future delivery of the programme.

The complexity of the process to generate schemes meant that a more detailed list of projects would not be available until late January, when it would be circulated to the Panel for information.  Schemes in excess of £50,000 included expanding urban control capability at key junctions; junction improvement at the Stag and Hounds; link route from Easthampstead Park School to Peacock Farm; junction improvement at Stoney Road/Wokingham Road; improvements at Skimped Hill Roundabout; phase 2 of sports centre roundabout improvements; improvements to Beehive Road north of Berkshire Way and junction signalisation at Crowthorne High Street.

Arising from questions:

• Ward member input into the section 106 process should be at the time the planning application was considered.  If ward members had no input at that time, they had lost the opportunity to influence the contents of the legal agreement.

• This programme was split between two Chief Officers as there was a fundamentally different process to arrive at the required work. Highway maintenance work was driven by survey work as well as reactive responses, whilst Integrated Transport could probably be considered a more complicated process involving detailed planning and design and being driven by strategic objectives within the Local Transport Plan.  The only similarity might be that they used the same contractor.

• The Panel noted that much of the Integrated Transport works in the coming years would be mainly to the north of the borough, with the exception of the TRL site.

• The Network Manager co-ordinated works and he was working towards improving early notification systems.

The Panel noted the report and the Chairman thanked both officers.