2nd Report - Managing the impact of street works

Street works are essential for many of the services we rely upon, such as running water, energy and internet access, but they can cause widespread issues for road and pavement users alike. Street works can disrupt people’s journeys, including through congestion, delays and road closures which affect drivers, cyclists and bus users. The patchy, uneven surfaces which can be left behind once works are complete, and barriers and signs left in place for excessive periods, can be problematic for road users and worsen accessibility on pavements. (Conclusion, Paragraph 21)

Leaving equipment or signs in place that imply to the public that street works are still ongoing when they have finished should attract a full overrun charge. (Recommendation, Paragraph 22)

All road closure signage should specify exactly where the road closure is. When immediate permits are issued, this should be done as soon as reasonably practicable. (Recommendation, Paragraph 23)

In our report about accessibility in transport, we asked for more transparency about the impact that the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) has on the Department’s decision-making. This is important for providing assurance that policy processes in respect of accessibility have been robust and meaningful. It was disappointing that the Minister and Deputy Director were unable to provide specific information about DPTAC’s feedback on the Safety Code of Practice for street works or how the draft had been changed in response to it. (Conclusion, Paragraph 27)

We ask the Department to set out specific changes that have been made to the new Safety Code of Practice to improve accessibility during street works and how advice from DPTAC has been incorporated. (Recommendation, Paragraph 28) 31 Managing the impact on roads and pavements

It was disappointing to hear that, having said in 2019 that further investigation was needed into the financial impacts of increasing the guarantee period, the Department has not undertaken any further work on the issues. This is an inefficient use of a resource-intensive consultation process. (Conclusion, Paragraph 36)

Local authority budgets for road maintenance are stretched thin; they can ill afford the expense of making good reinstatements which are not up to scratch. We note the concern about increasing costs being reflected in utility bills, but there is a balance to be struck: good quality road and pavement surfaces are also in consumers’ interests. A two-year guarantee for a publicly-maintained asset is inadequate, especially since reinstatements which meet the standards tend to last more than ten years. (Conclusion, Paragraph 37)

The current guarantee period of two or three years for reinstatements after works, the latter being for deep excavations, is too short given that reinstatements should last more than ten years if carried out correctly. The Department should increase the standard guarantee period for all excavations up to five years, as was considered in its 2019 consultation. Utility companies should also face fines for any secondary remedial work that is required to the road or pavement within five years, as a penalty for the unnecessary disruption caused. These policies combined would create a greater incentive for works to be completed by utility companies to the right standard and relieve some of the pressure on highway authorities, which in some cases have to repair poor reinstatements after just two years. (Recommendation, Paragraph 38)

The process whereby authorities inspect reinstatements for defects after works are complete is not working as well as it should be, with weak incentives for utility companies to fix the defects promptly, or at all, once they have been found during an inspection. (Conclusion, Paragraph 44)

The Department should introduce timescales for companies to repair faulty reinstatements, with meaningfully increasing fines if they fail to do so on time. The fine should increase each time a deadline has not been met, and the company responsible should also pay the Department a sum equivalent to the cost of compliance after the first exceeded deadline. The two-cycle inspection cap should also be lifted so that there is no limit on the number of inspections which can be carried out. This would provide an ongoing financial incentive for a defective reinstatement to be fixed by the 32 company which created the issue, instead of expecting authorities to repair it themselves and charge the costs back to the company, which would end up nullifying the guarantee period. (Recommendation, Paragraph 45)

The current dispute resolution process does not seem to be working well. Disagreements relating to the interpretation of street works legislation can end up as legal disputes which are resource intensive for authorities and utility companies alike. (Conclusion, Paragraph 53)

The Department for Transport should consider setting up a Street Works Commissioner in England to help ensure the consistent application and interpretation of legislation, provide an option for independent dispute resolution and monitor performance across the sector. This would provide clarity for the street works industry and help promote good practice. If the Department considers this approach too costly, it must identify and put in place an alternative approach to ensure that common areas of dispute can be resolved efficiently by an independent, central function whose decisions can be communicated and applied across the sector. (Recommendation, Paragraph 54) Managing disruption

The Department for Transport should consult on amending guidance for permit schemes so that fees incentivise completion of works earlier than the period allowed for by a permit. (Recommendation, Paragraph 57)

Immediate urgent and immediate emergency permits are an essential tool, but they should be used in situations when there is a genuine need or plan to urgently fix a problem. The Department for Transport should consult on how the use and definition of urgent works could be amended to prevent the use of these permits for works which are known about by utility companies well in advance or do not require instant attention, such as a low level waterpipe leak. Options could include introducing a new category of immediate permit which accommodates work to maintain the supply of a service but is not going to be fixed immediately, or reforming immediate permits so that the level of advance warning required is linked to the severity of disruption. The Department should consider whether fines could also be used against companies which are found to have misused immediate permits. (Recommendation, Paragraph 64)

Collaboration and coordination of works between utility companies and local authorities relies on sharing information on upcoming works well in advance. There are currently no requirements on utility companies to share plans for their upcoming work with local authorities. The Department should introduce requirements for utility companies to share their plans 33 for upcoming work at the earliest opportunity, such as by making forward planning notices mandatory. The Department should keep under review how effectively this increases collaboration in practice. If it does not, the Department should develop options for tools to mandate collaboration when necessary, such as giving local authorities ability through permit conditions to enforce site-sharing. (Recommendation, Paragraph 69)

Up-to-date information on local street works is essential for the public, whether residents or road users. The Department should support the development and promotion of apps which make use of open source data, and ensure that the data is accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date. (Recommendation, Paragraph 70)

Coordination of street works for new housing developments is not happening as often as it should. The Department for Transport should work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on how best to ensure that authorities are notified at an early stage of, and have an opportunity to coordinate, the plans for utility connections to new housing developments. This should include requirements for housing developers and utility companies to share plans and timelines for installation of utility infrastructure to new housing developments, and setting out guidance to minimise transport disruption from such works. (Recommendation, Paragraph 74)

Lane rental schemes have worked well and can be a useful tool for authorities to manage disruption on their busiest stretches of roads. The Department for Transport should go further to encourage and support more local authorities to set up lane rental schemes by allowing all relevant authorities to do so without the need for approval from the Secretary of State. Lane rental guidance from the Department should also encourage schemes that are set up in such a way as to incentivise the speedy completion of works, rather than imposing charges straight away. (Recommendation, Paragraph 81) 34