To consider the attached report.

Ben Smith introduced the item and said the five-year contract was awarded to VolkerHighways in April 2017, with an option to extend for up to another 2 years, subject to satisfactory performance. The contract covered highway services and the core contract value was £3.9 million per annum, as well as off-contract work that was done to deliver elements of the Capital Programme. This included delivering the annual Road Resurfacing Programme, in the order of £1.5 - £1.9 million.

A formal governance structure was in place where the Contract Lead met weekly, monthly, quarterly, six-monthly and annually to review the contract operation. Annually, the borough participated in the National Highways and Transport Benchmarking Survey, where a sample of residents of 750 residents were asked questions about the service provided. RBWM was the sixth highest nationally in street cleanliness, and above the national average for the conditions of the highway network. Outside of the VolkerHighways contract, the borough performed poorly on local bus services and public transport.

A report was to be presented in April 2021 to Cabinet, to consider the extension of the contract. The Commissioning team was undertaking diagnostics to review the performance of the contract and provide data to review various options for the service. This included re-procuring the contract, having different contracts for some or all of the services, or bringing the services in-house.

Darren Myser, Project Manager at VolkerHighways, said there were a suite of 30 measures for performance, such as customer care, added value and quality management. VolkerHighways performed well in most areas and concerns in other areas due to the harsh winter periods over the last few years. Breakdown of vehicles led to a delay in the service in 2018-19. In 2019-20, two old gully emptiers were being used, which were now replaced due to breakdowns. All the gully waste was recycled, which introduced a saving on the service. In this time period, there was a dip in the 28-day completion of works, with resources now spent to ensure work was done in time. Overall, despite the challenges of COVID-19, the performance criteria were still met.

The Chairman asked how the service could be approved, and the Panel was informed that there were internal and external audits to identify areas of improvements. Mew electric powered equipment and handheld tools were purchased. To increase sustainability, three electric vehicles were used for highway inspections, with a lack of capacity for more due to the limited power for chargers in the depot. A review of using sustainable and cost-effective materials was underway. VolkerHighways were looking to use a more cohesive asset management system that managed assets with a work ordering system and a customer care module. This would allow VolkerHighways to respond directly to enquiries for a better flow from start to finish.

The Chairman asked if using plastic chips in the roads was an option in the borough. The Panel was informed that recycled products were sought when using and laying asphalt, such as rubber grit and wrap protocols, recycled glass and low asphalt temperatures.

The Vice Chairman asked where the funding came from to deliver 130% of the capital programme schemes. The Panel was informed that additional funding was made available from the Department for Transport that the Commissioning team made a successful bid for, which allowed an increase in works. Central government investment had increased in the last few years for pothole repairs, resurfacing and local transport schemes, therefore external funding was received.

The Vice Chairman asked about the use of waste from infrastructure schemes and the Panel was informed that material waste was arranged into skips according to the material type. The material was recycled or reused by different companies. Segregate was separated from ground excavation and recycled into other products and used in other works. Disposal of materials was a last resort.

The Vice Chairman asked what the ideal budget required for roadworks to be successfully completed was and the Panel was informed that road conditions were unlikely to be perfect as they deteriorated and therefore an exact figure could not be given. A Highway Asset Management Strategy was in place that prioritised the primary road network in accordance to government guidance. Less investment was allotted to B, C and rural roads due to low priority, as they are not busy.

Bob Pizzey, Business Development Director, said investment was made in a Pavement Management System that took data from the performance of the carriageway to generate programmes of work for road improvements on a needs basis. This supported officers in decision-making for budget priority. There was a trial for plastic kerbs in another authority, with a view to review results and propose to clients. A plastic roads company from the Netherlands were due to demonstrate a pre-moulded plastic road that had the tensile strength as asphalt and easier storage and access for repair for cables and pipes.

Councillor Bateson asked if the weather conditions in the Netherlands was like the UK and the Panel was informed that parts of the Netherlands were similar. Councillor Baldwin asked what was limiting an effective in-house bid for some or all the services that were provided by the VolkerHighways contract. The Panel was informed that a diagnostic tool was used to apply different options in order to provide Cabinet with an objective recommendation for service delivery in future. If the services were to be brought in-house, a short-term bid team would need to be created and funded, as the commissioning strategy was based primarily on outsourced and commissioned services.

The Chairman asked how much a private sector organisation would incur in putting a bid together and the Panel was informed this would be approximately £100,000. Councillor Baldwin asked if unanimity was required, should Cabinet decide to extend the contract for a further two years. The Panel was informed that it was Cabinet’s decision to extend the contract, however VolkerHighways could reject the offer. Darren Myser affirmed that VolkerHighways was interested in securing an extended contract.

Councillor Bateson asked if the target for all routes to be completed within 3 hours of commencing was in reference to snow ploughs as part of the winter maintenance plan, how this was achieved and what roads were included. The Panel was informed that the routes were predetermined and included A roads and access to priority places such as schools and hospitals. Snow ploughs and grit were put down at the same time if the conditions dictated and would continue to salt and grit the roads if needed, including secondary routes. The routes were a certain length, with the correct number of vehicles do complete the task in three hours. The weather forecast and sensors on the road network allowed the team to plan the task prior to the snow freezing.

Councillor Haseler asked if overgrown vegetation was managed by VolkerHighways or Tivoli. The Panel was informed that VolkerHighways managed hedgerows on a reactive basis, and Tivoli cleared overgrown hedgerows from private properties as part of the ground’s maintenance contract. VolkerHighways issued calling cards to the landowner to manage the overgrown vegetation for a set period, followed by a second notice after 10 days, if required. If there was no action, officers were informed to take enforcement action, whereby the vegetation was managed, and the cost recharged to the landowner.

Councillor Haseler said there were regular overgrown vegetation in the same areas that should be managed in a regular program rather than on a reactive basis. Ben Smith said he agreed that improvement was needed in this area and would be reviewed in the new contract. Councillor Haseler asked if there was a schedule to sweep roads and footpath from fallen leaves, which were hazardous and slippery for vulnerable residents on the footpath and blocked drains. The Panel was informed that there was an annual gully cleansing programme and cleansing schedules dependent on the classification of the roads and tree density. Roads and gullies were also cleansed as required and additional cleansing took place in areas that were predicted to need more cleansing. 

Councillor Haseler said most of the gullies were soakaways rather than leading into a main drainage, therefore they filled quickly, and asked if the cost was high to remake the gullies. The Panel was informed that an extensive cleanse of the soakaways was to be put forward as part of the Capital Programme for 2021. The soakaways capacity had been increased by putting a borehole at the bottom of the soakaway. The proactive and longer lasting schemes, such as connecting to a positive drainage network rather than a soakaway, were limited due to a restricted budget.

Councillor Hilton said he could not locate where gully problems could be reported on the RBWM website, how the issue was processed and if a schedule could be published on the RBWM website. Ben Smith said he would check offline the for how to report gully issues, which could also be reported by emailing Highways@RBWM.gov.uk. The issue would be sent to VolkerHighways, which would be assigned a priority and then be resolved. It was feasible to have the gully cleansing schedule published on the RBWM website in future.

Councillor Brar raised concern that Councillor Hilton, a non-Panel Member, had been allowed to speak, but she had been denied that opportunity on an earlier agenda item. The Chairman said that he was using his discretion on when to allow non-Panel members to speak. Councillor Baldwin reiterated the concerns raised, especially as it looked as if opposition members were being denied a chance to speak. The Chairman said all non-Panel Members would not be allowed to speak on agenda items going forward. Councillor Baldwin said he would be raising this with the Monitoring Officer.

(Councillor Baldwin left the meeting.)

The Panel noted the item.