The Committee received a presentation by the Head of Neighbourhood Services on the long and short term expectations of the maintenance of the highway network.  He outlined to the Committee the size of the challenge, whereby the authority had a total carriageway asset length of 780km, with a total carriageway asset value of £888m.  He stated that total spend per annum on carriageway resurfacing is £500k, which equates to less than 0.1% of value, which compared to the spend by neighbouring authorities of £2.5m by RCT, £886 by Neath Port Talbot and £800k by the Vale of Glamorgan. 

The Head of Neighbourhood Services informed the Committee that the highway authority is under a duty to maintain a highway that is maintainable at public expense and also has a duty to protect the rights of the public to use the highway.  He highlighted the intervention criteria whereby the authority carries out inspections and undertakes repairs when defects are in excess of the Safety Defect Criteria.  The criteria are based on best practice and generally levels accepted by the courts as reasonable and are also comparable to all other Local Authorities within Wales, and generally the UK.  Skidding resistance and factors such as drainage / ditches to prevent the build-up of water on the carriageway, measures to address dips to avoid standing water, the monitoring of utility works and the maintenance of structures are also taken into account. 

  The Head of Neighbourhood Services informed the Committee of the cost of pothole filling which is £100/m2 and resurfacing being £20/m2.  He stated that at the end of 25 years of patching the road would require a full reconstruction (if not before) and that 25 years after resurfacing, the highway would be in general good condition with minor repairs required.  He stated that typical claims can range from £200 for tyre repairs, up to £30,000 for Personal injury.  He stated that it was more aligned to pothole issues, whilst the skidding resistance is also a critical aspect of carriageway maintenance.  He informed the Committee that incidents as a consequence of failure in this regard could lead to life changing injuries and/or death and that Corporate Manslaughter would be a consideration.

The Head of Neighbourhood Services outlined a graph which showed a road condition analysis whereby due to increased pressure on the revenue budget, the amount of roads in good condition will reduce and it was estimated that the revenue budget would need to increase by £1m.  He also outlined a graph identifies that over 60% of the network will have issues.  With an annual investment of £2m, 30% of the network will have issues and after 20 years, the additional capital spend on the network would have been £40million.  He stated that as well as the increased pressure on the revenue budget, at year 20 it would cost an estimated £48 million to return the network to the condition as it is today.  He informed the Committee that some roads in the network have reached the end of their serviceable life with the only option being resurfacing.

The Head of Neighbourhood Services informed the Committee that the Local Government Borrowing Initiative funded by the Welsh Government saw an investment of over £2m per annum for 3 years, which produced a reduction in claims by over 50% by end of return period.  He stated that constant patching and pothole filling of the network was not sustainable and that these repairs will require further attention within a number of years.  The cost of third party claims will rise, and a lack of resources is not a defence and that a failing network will detract from investors to the area.  He stated that there is a public perception that the Council does not spend enough on repairing roads and which will get worse.  He informed the Committee that prevention/early intervention avoids increased costs in the future, and ultimately a point will be reached where the patching cannot go on.  He stated that national documents suggest increases in preventative maintenance will ensure the network is protected and that difficult decisions on the closing of roads will also have to be made.

The Committee expressed its concern that the risks as a result of budget reductions in the Communities Directorate had not been described adequately and needed strengthening.  The Committee referred to the potential for a corporate manslaughter claim and asked whether it could be captured as a risk.  The Head of Neighbourhood Services stated that corporate manslaughter could be inserted as a future risk in the risk register.  He informed the Committee that the Department has a rigorous inspection scheme and as long as the frequency of inspection is maintained and maintenance is carried out to remedy defects, the Department will have done everything that it reasonably could to minimise that risk.  He informed the Committee that the risk of corporate manslaughter is considered low, although as the Council moves forward with diminishing resources, the potential for future risk would increase.  He stated that the Council defends 70% of claims received. 

The Committee considered it helpful to have Directorate Risk Registers but commented that the risks identified were insufficiently complete and needed to better reflect the risk measures and also to capture timeframes.  The Head of Neighbourhood Services informed the Committee that highway use is modelled and stated that greater detail of the risks would be included in the next risk register.  He stated that the Council under invests in its highway network compared to neighbouring authorities and there was a need for £2.5 to be invested annually on resurfacing.  The Head of Finance and Section 151 Officer concurred with the Head of Neighbourhood Services comment that greater investment is made by other local authorities and that the previous sources of external funding for the highway network was no longer available. 

The Committee commented that the standard of repair is good but there was a need to articulate in the risk register that there were risks to the highway network with resources diminishing year on year as it does get noticed by the public when cuts to maintenance are made.  The Committee asked whether any other sources of funding could be accessed.  The Head of Neighbourhood Services stated that there were no external sources of funding available at present.  He informed the Committee that a 5 year investment plan of £10m in the capital programme had been put forward to invest in the highway network. 

The Committee commented that the wording of the risks could be summarised more succinctly to emphasise the impact and to avoid its meaning being hidden. 

A member of the Committee commented that the Risk Register did not include unadopted roads, especially as one such road in Pencoed provides a vital access to the town and important for employment purposes.  The Head of Neighbourhood Services informed the Committee of the requirement placed on developers to put in roads to an adoptable standard.  He stated that there were instances where the developer has gone under and bonds had been put in place which would enable the Council to bring the road up to adoption.  He informed the Committee that there were limited resources available to adopt roads.  He undertook to raise the issue of the unadopted road into Pencoed with the Highways Network Manager.

In response to a question from the Committee on the cost of claims, the Head of Neighbourhood Services stated that he would provide the Committee with information on the average annual claims, but the Council does repudiate 70% of claims received. 

The Committee questioned the impact of where the authority breached its statutory duty to carry out a repair to the highway network.  The Head of Neighbourhood Services stated that the authority would open itself up to a claim if it breached its statutory duty, what was of concern is the deterioration to the highway network.

The Committee questioned the impact of flooding which would lead to increased costs.  The Head of Neighbourhood Services stated that colder weather would affect the budget more due to the need for gritting, however milder weather would normally give rise to flooding, associated with this time of the year. 

The Committee requested detail of future plans.  The Head of Neighbourhood Services informed the Committee that the authority was looking at collaborative working opportunities on the highway network.  He stated that the authority had reduced winter maintenance by reducing the number of gritters in operation which cover the County Borough.  He also stated that there was a need to increase spend per km in the infrastructure

The Head of Regeneration, Development and Property Services informed the Committee of the risks which emanate as a result of the financial climate and that the economy in South Wales and the County Borough is heavily reliant on the public sector.  She stated that the UK exiting the European Union causes uncertainty as it is a very big investor in infrastructure projects.  She informed the Committee that whilst it was difficult to reduce risk, there was a need to reduce the impact of risks.  She also informed the Committee that her Department supports small businesses through the Business Forum; it helps people into work and supports tourism and rural development projects. 

The Head of Regeneration, Development and Property Services informed the Committee that her Department invests heavily in urban renewal by bringing sites forward for redevelopment, such as the water sports centre at Rest Bay and the redevelopment of Maesteg Market.  She stated that investment in development is heavily dependent on the local authority and that every £1 spent will derive £500k in investment and every £1 cut will see £10 being lost.  She also informed the Committee that local authorities will assist economies which are less buoyant with public investment. 

The Head of Regeneration, Development and Property Services informed the Committee that the construction industry local is very buoyant; however the authority has difficulty in recruiting certain professional staff such as engineers and surveyors due to the constraints of job evaluation.  She stated that difficulty in recruiting staff posed the greatest risk to the delivery of projects. 

The Committee asked why there was no regeneration strategy for Pencoed and it was not referenced in the Risk Register as the other towns in the County Borough had been, particularly as the electrification of the railway had been abolished and the dualling of the Penprysg bridge had been cancelled.  Also, there had been a moratorium on development in Pencoed included in the Local Development Plan.  The Head of Regeneration, Development and Property Services informed the Committee that this was attributed to a lack of a retail centre on the scale of the other towns in the County Borough. 

The Committee referred to the potential for a significant capital receipt to be derived from the Seven Bays project in Porthcawl and questioned whether officers were satisfied at the level of risk. The Head of Regeneration, Development and Property Services stated that she would amplify the level of risk for the Seven Bays Project.

The Committee considered there was a need to change risks so that they were less focused on town centres and more focused on retail centres.  The Head of Regeneration, Development and Property Services commented that town centres such as Porthcawl and Maesteg have reasonable facilities and a critical mass.

The Committee questioned the progress of Community Asset Transfers and the delivery of corporate priorities had been hampered by a lack of resource and does it pose a significant risk.  The Head of Regeneration, Development and Property Services commented that it does pose a significant risk as the authority has 3 surveyors engaged in managing the estate.  The Head of Neighbourhood Services informed the Committee that the authority also had difficulty in recruiting structural engineers and also had an ageing workforce.     

The Committee thanked the Head of Regeneration, Development and Property Services and Head of Neighbourhood Services for their comments and explanation of their risks. 

RESOLVED:           That the Committee considered the risks contained within the Corporate Risk Register and that it would review it further at the meeting of the Committee in January and requested that the risks be more succinct and that risk reduction measures are looked at to better understand risk scores in order to manage risks more effectively.