Report of the Head of Network Management

This report highlights the performance, key outcomes and successes achieved in 2022/23 along with some of the challenges going forward.

The Committee received a report of the Head of Network Management which highlighted the performance, key outcomes and successes achieved in 2022/23 along with some of the challenges going forward.

Key points and themes within the report included:

• Investment in the city;
• Social Value;
• Street works;
• Winter services;
• Major projects;
• Road safety and pedestrian crossings;
• Network congestion;
• Service performance and delivery;
• Public satisfaction;
• Key highway assets;
• Cycleways;
• Drainage, including Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS);
• Bridges and structures; and
• Street lighting.

Key points and queries that arose from the Committee’s discussions included:

• Had an assessment taken place into whether the investment in highways was good value for money;
• Succession planning and addressing staffing gaps;
• Communication with residents on the work of the Highways Service as well as communication with residents who had reported problems and obtaining feedback from residents;
• How would the condition of footpaths be improved, given the budget constraints;
• Service performance targets and how Manchester compared to other Core Cities;
• The quality and durability of thermal repairs;
• Concerns about roads and pavements which were being dug up by broadband companies and reinstatement work being carried out in a timely manner and to a good standard;
• Loose flagstones;
• Noting that some information had been excluded from the report to keep it at a manageable size, suggesting that in future additional information could be included as an appendix;
• That it was important to think about culture change, rather than behaviour change of individuals;
• How non-responses were considered in consultations, given that those who felt most strongly on either side were the only ones likely to respond and concern that this could result in some schemes not going ahead on the basis of a vocal minority;
• Learning from the Chorlton Cycleway consultation and other large projects; and
• How success was defined in reports, requesting that in future it should be clear whether this referred to outputsor intended outcomes.

The Director of Highways reported that a workforce plan was being developed for the Highways Service in addition to a proposed restructure to provide better succession planning; however, he advised that there was a national shortage of civil engineers and that local authorities across the country were struggling to recruit to some technical posts.  He informed Members about plans to build a graduate and apprenticeship programme and create career pathways to retain staff.  In response to a Member’s comments about the quality of street works carried out by broadband companies, he advised that part of the challenge was recruiting to roles to carry out inspections.

The Head of Network Management drew Members’ attention to the information in the report on the Annual National Highways and Transport (NHT) Survey, stating that the data, including public satisfaction, was benchmarked against other Greater Manchester authorities and Core Cities.  He stated that value for money was assessed by central Government and that Manchester’s Highways Service performed well on this.  He reported that information on value for money was originally going to have been included in the report but was excluded due to the large amount of information already in the report.  He informed Members about the role of preventative maintenance of roads, which provided value for money by extending its life.  He informed Members that Manchester did more resident engagement and consultation on highways than most local authorities, although he acknowledged that still more could be done, and he offered to provide Members with further information on this work. He recognised Members’ concerns about footpath condition and the need for more funding.  He advised the Committee that the Council had worked hard to identify funding to protect and improve the condition of the city’s highways, which included more funding for footway maintenance, however, more funding was needed from central Government.  In response to a Member’s question, he offered to check with colleagues on targets for public behaviour change.  He reported that his service undertook a lot of evaluation of the performance of different types of repairs and that thermal repairs generally performed well.  He informed Members that his service worked with the Communications Team to inform residents about the work they were doing, including Highways Takeover Days or Weeks.  He reported that, when the new CRM system was introduced, Highways would be one of the first services to use it, advising that this would provide improved customer updates.  In response to a Member’s comments, he stated that work by broadband companies involving digging up roads and pavements had been causing a lot of issues for his team.  He stated that there had been a lot of poor-quality reinstatements by the broadband contractors, a lot of which would need to be redone.  He reported that utility companies had a statutory right to dig up the roads and had six months to put in place a permanent repair.  He stated that Highways Inspectors carried out checks around the city but that Members could contact him directly if they had concerns that a permanent repair had not been carried out within this timeframe.  He informed Members about challenges with pothole repairs, particularly on failed roads, where the repair might only last a few months, and advised that in these cases it was important for the road to be fully resurfaced.

In response to a Member’s question about when the new CRM system would be in place for the Highways Service, the Director of Highways stated that he would check with ICT colleagues and respond to the Member.

The Director of Highways confirmed that work would take place to identify lessons that could be learnt from the Chorlton Cycleway consultation, including on engagement with businesses, and that, on the basis of lessons learnt from a range of major projects, the Consultation and Engagement Guide would be reviewed, including consideration of how non-responses were interpreted.

In response to a Member’s questions, the Head of Network Management reported that his service had a Development Control Team which worked closely with Planning and that his service was a statutory consultee on planning applications, identifying improvements that could be made to the road network through planning conditions or Section 106 funding, advising that the latter now had to be clearly linked to the impact of the development.  He reported that flagstones were now being laid on concrete or mortar rather than sand beds to address the problem of loose flagstones.  In response to a question from the Chair about gullies, he reported that the Council had invested significantly in highways drainage, although there was more work to be done.  He outlined how gullies were cleaned and tested and, if necessary, further investigations were carried out to identify the cause of the problem and the best solution.  In response to a question from the Chair, he outlined how his service worked with TfGM to better understand road congestion and good network management and advised that further information could be provided in a future report.

Decisions:

1.                    To request that the information on value for money that had been excluded from the report be circulated to Committee Members.

2.                    To receive a report at a future meeting on lessons learnt from major projects.