Agenda item - CALL IN OF REPORT RE: BOROUGH CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2014/2015 HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE AND RELATED SCHEMES: PROGRAMMES OF WORK

Agenda item

CALL IN OF REPORT RE: BOROUGH CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2014/2015 HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE AND RELATED SCHEMES: PROGRAMMES OF WORK

To receive a report from the Director of Finance, Resources & Customer Services outlining a Call-In received for consideration by Overview & Scrutiny Committee on the following reason: (Report No: 244).

 

Portfolio Decision by Cabinet Member for Environment and Director - Regeneration & Environment (1 April 2014): Borough Capital Programme 2014/15 Highway Maintenance and Related Schemes: Programmes of Work.

 

Decision included on Publication of Decision List No: 75/13-14 Key Decision 3891 (List Ref: 1/75/13-14) issued on 1 April 2014.

 

It is proposed that consideration of the Call-In be structured as follows:

 

·             Brief outline of reasons for the Call-In by representative(s) of the members who have called-in the decision.

·             Response to the reasons provided for the Call-In by the Cabinet Member responsible for taking the decision.

·             Debate by Overview & Scrutiny Committee and agreement on action to be taken.

Minutes:

The Chair invited Cllr Laban to outline the reasons for the Call-In, which were as follows:

 

·                 At a previous Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting, Cllr Bond had stated that replacement of footway would be on a ‘like for like’ basis.

·                 Cllr Bond’s response to the Reasons for Call-In appeared to outline a replacement programme that does not, however, take this approach; there was therefore a discrepancy between what had previously been and what was currently being stated as the Council’s policy on footway replacement and repair.

·                 The report does not deliver ‘Fairness for All’ as some people will not have paving replaced with paving but will have tarmac outside their properties instead.

 

The Chair then invited Cllr Bond to respond, as follows:

 

·       Cllr Bond stated that the policy was quite clear; and that use of materials on a ‘like for like’ basis was only in the instance of repair. 

·       A significant amount, £8.5m every year, was spent on replacing and repairing footways and so consideration needed to be given to the amount of resource available.  Replacing paving with paving in all instances would consequently reduce the amount of replacement that could be done within budget. 

·       The Council’s approach reflected that of many other London Boroughs.

·       Paving would therefore only be replaced with paving in Conservation Areas and in shopping centres; asphalt would be used everywhere else.

 

Cllr Rye commented that this was a significant deviation from what he had understood to be the Council’s original policy.  The extensive use of asphalt would be aesthetically unpleasant and created a more hazardous surface in the winter – asphalt became extremely slippery when covered with ice which was particularly dangerous for, say, the elderly.  He felt the extensive use of asphalt would be a blight across the Borough, and that he had understood very clearly from the last Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting at which the matter was discussed that replacement would be on a ‘like for like’ basis except in certain circumstances such as vehicle overrun (which caused repeated cracking of pavements).

 

Cllr Simon responded that he understood the policy was that replacement would only be on a ‘like for like’ basis if a short section of road required repair; for a substantial section or whole road replacement, asphalt would be used.

 

Cllr Smith agreed that replacement of paving with asphalt was necessary in such cases as vehicle overrun but that the use of asphalt on every road apart from those within Conservation Areas and shopping centres constituted a major policy change and was not what had been stated previously as the Council’s policy.

 

Cllr Simbodyal asked Cllr Rye whether his objection to the use of asphalt was primarily for aesthetic reasons.

 

Cllr Rye responded that, as mentioned previously, it could also be dangerous in icy conditions and that the surface could sink and become uneven over time.

 

The Chair asked officers whether, in their professional experience, asphalt was more or less hazardous a surface than paving in icy conditions.

 

Stephen Skinner responded that asphalt had a greater ‘roughness of surface’ than paving and was less hazardous.

 

Cllr Sitkin added that any discussion on which materials should be used was meaningless without reference to the severe financial constraints currently placed on the Council.  However, he was aware that some ‘micro-communities’ felt very strongly that roads in their area should be paved and was willing to explore exceptions to the general policy.  Paving could be, for example, replaced using other sources of funding in such cases.

 

Cllr Simbodyal asked officers whether the use of bitumous macadam reduced the levels of insurance claims against the Council for tripping (on uneven paving).

 

Stephen Skinner responded that there was a definite correlation.

 

Cllrs Laban, Smith and Rye recorded their opposition to the decision and requested that it be referred back to the Cabinet Member for reconsideration.

 

A vote was then taken:

 

Cllrs Rye and Smith voted against the decision;

Cllrs Simon, Savva, Robinson and Simbodyal voted for the decision;

Cllr Sitkin abstained.

 

The Chair noted that the Decision was CONFIRMED.

 

Supporting documents: