Agenda item

The Scrutiny Commission considered a report of the Assistant Director for Highways and Waste which provided an introduction into how major highways capital works were prioritised.  The report was supported by a presentation.  The report was marked as item 5 on the agenda.

As a Highway Authority, the Council had a legal requirement to have and to update a Local Transport Plan (LTP).  This Plan was currently the Northamptonshire Transport Plan 2012, but it was expected that the preparation of a North Northamptonshire LTP would be a priority for the Council once the highway service had been disaggregated later this year.  A new highway services contractor was currently being procured and was expected to be in place for September. 

The Council had received indication of the funding it would receive from the Department for Transport (DfT) for the next three years to aid delivery of the LTP.

During discussion, the following principle points were noted:

i.        In response to a question about the issues with the Rushden Lakes junction, officers explained that NNC and National Highways worked closely together.  The Executive Member had regular meetings with National Highways and any issues could be raised through him in the first instance.

ii.       Members questioned how new rail stations could be delivered.  Officers explained that any new stations were best to come through the LTP.  Feasibility on any new stations would need to be considered, including could trains stop at that station and was there a business case for train operators to operate a train at that station.

iii.      Members welcomed the disaggregation of the service but felt that they needed to be consulted far more on highways issues.  There was a need to talk to local councillors who had the local knowledge of the needs of an area.  Members suggested that local area groups should be considered to discuss issues.  Officers confirmed that they were always happy to engage with local councillors.

iv.      Issues around surface water flooding in local villages was raised particularly how it was reported.  Two systems were currently used to report flooding and it would be helpful to capture real data by merging those two systems.

v.       With regards to the new highway contract, Members sought advice on when scrutiny could have an input to that process.  In response, officers clarified that there had been a long process of over two years to get to this stage and the former County Council had liaised with the shadow authorities and former sovereign authorities on the contract and it would have been scrutinised then.  The Commission may want to invite the new contractor to a future meeting to talk about their processes etc.

vi.      Members enquired whether splitting the contract meant that there would be more or less monies spent than would have been through a single county-wide contract.  In response, officers explained that the budget from the County Council had been disaggregated between the two new authorities based on road length.  Department for Transport (DfT) funding had been disaggregated based on assets.  The DfT did not explain how this was calculated but it did include a traffic flow element.  There would be additional funding for the disaggregated highways team to ensure that it would be fit for purpose.

vii.     There was currently a long wait for potholes to be filled, would it be quicker to use local contractors.  It was noted that Keir was organised on areas, but they did sub-contract some of the work.  The new contractor may or may not use local sub-contractors.  The bidders for the contract had been asked to consider social value in their tenders and this would be assessed.

viii.    The ‘golden triangle’ of the East Midlands, Nottingham, Kettering and Bedford was renowned for warehousing.  We did not gain any benefit through HGVs travelling on our roads and was this recognised by the government. 

ix.      Air quality was not mentioned within the criteria for schemes but schemes for walking and cycling were encouraged.  Decarbonisation was expected to be central to the new LTP.  Local Cycling and Walking Improvement Plans had been developed in Wellingborough and Kettering and were being developed for Corby and Rushden/Higham. 

x.       It was noted that many funding rounds were announced at short notice which required the Council to have schemes prepared ready to bid.  The DfT was listening to the concerns of authorities as details of the next three years funding had now been received which was better for planning.

xi.      Some Members felt that there was an over reliance on traffic signals.  These had costs in relation to upkeep and some junctions often worked better when signals were not in use.  This view was not shared by all Members who believed that keeping traffic moving was the priority but there was currently not collective thinking as growth happened in the area. 

xii.     Members felt that there needed to be more coordination with other organisations on works to the highway.  Often a new junction or road had been put in but was shortly dug up again for other works to take place.  With regards to utilities and permitting, the Council tried to balance the demands whilst looking to minimise the impact on the network.

It was moved by Councillor Jim Hakewill and seconded by Councillor Simon Rielly that the Scrutiny Commission write to the three local MPs on the need for a much longer term process for bidding for funding opportunities and that there should be some recognition that council tax payers in the ‘Golden Triangle’ (Nottingham, Kettering and Bedford) should not pay for lorries and HGVs using the highways network.  The new contractor for highways should be invited to the Scrutiny Commission as soon as practically possible.

On being put to the vote, there were three votes for and five against, so the motion fell.

RESOLVED:

(i)            To note the contents of the report.

Councillors Jim Hakewill and Simon Rielly left the meeting and did not return.