Joint Secretaries: Mr. Keith O'Brien Steve Barriff Street Works Manager Senior Engineer London Electricity Plc Corporation of London Contractor Management City Engineers Department 261 City Road PO Box 270, Guildhall London EC1V 1LE London EC2P 2EJ Telephone: 020 7865 7517 Tel: 020 7332 1572 Fax: 020 7865 7155 Fax: 020 7332 1578 E-Mail: keith.o'[email protected] E-Mail: [email protected]

LONDON HAUC MEETING

Held at the offices of Cable & Wireless on the 20th July, 2000

Attendees:

Bob Hetherington L.B. Bromley, Chairman Chris Nesbitt Cable & Wireless Keith O’Brien 24seven, Secretary Peter Loft Thames Water, Joint Chairman Roger Khanna L.B. Hammersmith & Fulham Steve Barriff Corporation of London Joint Secretary Ken Lobacz Transco Barry Lucas L.B. Islington Garry Jacobs B.T. Ali Ataie Westminster City Council Jim Blewett Thus Mark Ostheimer B.T. (Observer)

1. Apologies ACTION

Roger Agombar Metropolitan Police Dennis Povey Level 3 Jayanti Pitrola L.B. Barnet Keith DowlingTransco Peter Heather TfL

2. Notes of the meeting that took place on the 20th July, 2000

These were accepted as an accurate record of the meeting without amendment.

3. National/Regional HAUC Matters

 National HAUC meeting of 19th April 2000

The Chairman referred to the recent seminar on De-Regulation held in May 2000. At this meeting a useful debate occurred as both the DETR and the DTI were in attendance. The DTI expresses surprise at the concern indicated by regional HAUC representatives on the number and diversity of the telecom/cable licences issued. However, licences will continue to be issued as the Government is determined to introduce competition but eventually the DTI expect consolidation will occur and few companies will be active. Regional HAUC’s were asked to form a small working party to consider ‘Best Practise’ Jim Blewett commended that the working party is considering the scheme currently operating in Birmingham, which includes a Considerate Contractors Scheme. Also being considered are the Corporation of London and the Central London Partnership schemes for the enhanced Co-ordination of works.

 ETON

Peter Loft informed the meeting that Phase two of ETON has been put back until April 2001, and that Section 74 is the driving force for many other changes.

 Section 74

Peter Loft gave a brief outline of the implications of Sec 74. One more meeting of the Working Group is scheduled before the draft proposals are put before the DETR. It is likely that the charges will be based on the reinstatement category of each street. The timescales are as follows: August 2000 proposals to be confirmed by the DETR – September 2000 DETR to public consultation document – October 2000 final comments with an implementation date of April 2001.

Roger Khann posed the question will Section 74 make any difference, as it will not solve the problem of disruption? He requested that London HAUC make it known to the DETR that Section 74 is no solution to the problem of disruption. The Chairman agreed that in most cases this was true, however it will encourage Utilities to complete works.

 Reinstatement

The Working Group continue with their detailed discussion. A three day seminar is planned for comments on the Code of Practice regarding the Performance of Materials. No further draft amendment to the Code can be expected until the Working Parties for ETON, Notices and Inspections have completed their reviews.

 Notices

The Chairman commented that nobody from this forum actually sits on the Notices Working Party. He commented that the potential existed for change but realistically the major changes would revolve around the introduction of Section 74.

 Inspection

This Group are considering the comments on the draft Code submitted to the Government in April 2000. Major changes need to be co-ordinated with Section 74 changes. The main differences between old and new are simplified sample inspection categories and a regime for safety inspections.

 Safety at Streetworks

Now unlikely to be published until April 2001. Delays have occurred in Europe and through printing errors.

 Record Review

Still with DETR lawyers.

 Training & Accreditation

A sub group was set up to consider Continuing Professional Development. Their proposals were essentially for computer assisted re-assessment along the lines of the driving licence application test based on multiple choice questions. The main working party was looking at the issue of card security. They recommend that the current identification card should be replaced with a smaller credit sized one with a hologram and details of the holder on it, colour coded to indicate the qualifications held. Peter Loft felt that the Working Party should consider training for the new codes of practise? He suggested that this should be included on the agenda of the meeting of the Chairmen of the HAUC Working Parties.  Reinstatement Liability

Peter Loft referred to the recent meeting held to discuss the question of liability of reinstatements that do not meet the current specification. Peter Loft felt that it would be difficult to draw up specific guidelines on this issue. It is not for the Highway Authorities to tell Utilities how it should be done, no more than Utilities can dictate to businesses on their approach. Such things as offers to take on the liability and the introduction of Bonds are possible solutions.

 Diversionary Works

The April meeting of the Working Party considering C4 estimates failed to reach agreement. The DETR have been asked to arbitrate.

The Chairman informed the Committee that there is a revised Advice Note 2 on working in the vicinity of level crossings. Peter Loft commented that it is the responsibility of Railtrack to resolve this problem.

4. Central London Partnership

The Central London Partnership launch for the enhanced co-ordination of streetworks was launched in July. The short notice of the event meant that many receive invitations late but most organisations were represented at the launch. Peter Loft asked if the Highway Authorities had met to discuss their forward programme of works. Ali Ataie informed the meeting that they are due to meet on the 3rd August to discuss this issue. It was also emphasised that the scheme only applies to major planned works. He also mentioned that Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth and the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea had expressed an interest in joining. The Chairman expressed the view that indicators on how well the scheme performs should be established before deciding on whether or not it is worth extending to other Boroughs. Jim Blewett requested that Highway Authorities should consider asking Undertakers to lay ducts on their behalf when carrying out excavation works. Steve Barriff agreed this was a possible way forward and that Thus have been co-operative in this area, although some telecom companies he said, are less than co-operative. Ali Ataie suggested that all new companies should be encouraged to sign onto the CLP scheme. 5. London HAUC Matters

Performance Review Working Party

 Latent Liability

Undertakers were asked to consider their position on liability for failed reinstatements. There has been no decision as yet from the London JUG. Utilities

 Frames & Covers

The question of a specification for fillets around frames & covers will be considered when the Working Party next meets. Ali Ataie referred to the ownership of covers Working that have recessed infills. The Working Party agreed to take up this matter. Party

 Annual Performance Review

Peter Loft for the Utilities and the Chairman for the Highway Authorities will be circulating questionnaires based on similar categories as last year.

 Improvement Notices

Newham report that some progress since issuing Improvement Notices to B.T. Thames Water Transco and 24seven, although defects for the quarter following the Improvement Notices appear to be worse. BT., Transco, Thames Water and 24seven have all put forward procedures to improve their performance.

Gary Jacobs enquired as to whether or not there could be a ‘signing off’ to served improvement notices. Roger Khanna agreed that this is an issue that needs looking Working at. Peter Loft suggested discussing at the Performance Monitoring Working Party. Party

6. Metropolitan Police/TfL

There was no representation from either the Metropolitan Police or from Transport for London. The Chairman informed the Committee that Peter Heather is now the representative for TfL. Barry Lucas stated that the Met Police were undergoing re- organisation, which could account for them not being represented. The Chairman asked how this will affect London HAUC. From the Highway Authority side it was generally felt that the police afford good co-operation. Jim Blewett stated that from the Utility perspective it was generally felt that it is difficult to get the police to attend traffic management meetings. Roger Khanna said that a sensible solution would be to hold 6-monthly meetings with the police to discuss problems. The Chairman suggested that we include the TfL in these discussions. Secretaries 7. Information Exchange

Peter Loft handed out information regarding Thames Water’s proposal to use soil stabilisation materials and a recycled alternative to the Type 1 material currently used. Peter accepted that soil stabilising material cannot be used without agreement and his intention is to stimulate discussion amongst Highway Authorities.

The Chairman’s view is that reductions in waste disposal should always be encouraged. He suggested that Thames Water should share any materials testing results they may have and that testing should be an ongoing process. Peter agreed and said that Thames wish to be open and to provide this information. Thames Water Some Highway Authorities that Thames Water had approached have taken the view that they would not allow soil stabilisers until they had London HAUC approval. It was agreed that this is not a subject that London HAUC could approve, but more a decision for each Highway Authority.

Ken Lobacz informed the Committee that the Transco initiative on ‘00’ tolerance on clearing gas escapes is producing encouraging results.

8. Matters Arising

Peter Loft referred to the Annual Report in that it did not grasp all the issues. He suggested that the Transco initiative on Best Practise should be carried forward to the next meeting. The Chairman asked for ideas in making own Performance Review ALL more interesting.

The idea of introducing regional London HAUC’s i.e. on a North, South, East West basis, is not to be pursued as not enough interest was generated.

The Chairman mentioned that there was no news on the statement of accounts for Cable & London HAUC. Chris Nesbitt agreed to pursue this with Harry Pendleton. Wireless

Gary Jacobs informed the Committee that in future all requests for cable records, including requests for user id’s to access B.T.’s records should be addressed to Sue Taylor on [email protected].

9. Any other business

 The Utilities indicated that at LJUC they had debated their representation on London HAUC and asked what views Highway Authorities had on a larger forum. Discussion followed and generally it was considered that the larger a forum the less effective the meeting. Utilities at present have sufficient numbers to adequately represent the various individual undertakers and industry sectors. Through regular LJUC meetings, to which all known Undertakers operating in London are invited, it was considered that all Utilities’ views can be put forward at the London HAUC meeting.  Barry Lucas referred to a recent article in the Evening Standard regarding the speed of an Undertakers’ work, which shows the continuing public interest in this matter.

 Gary Jacobs raised the subject of replacing yellow lines. The new colours deep cream and primrose and the new width is 2inch that replaces the old 4inch. With regards to specification and availability of the new colours Ali Ataie said these can be found in the TSRGD Regulations.

 Roger Khanna asked if Utilities, when installing new frames & covers, could align them to the contour of the existing pavement. Utilities agreed to refer this back to their respective organisations.

 Roger Khanna raised the question of Undertakers plant being used for advertising purposes, in particular B.T. kiosks. It appears that companies are making formal requests to advertise on their kiosks. Roger has requested that Utilities, in particular B.T., refrain from this practice. Gary Jacobs has agreed to refer this back. BT

 Jim Blewett suggested that the current Parking Identifier scheme that we operate in Westminster and the City should be extended to the whole of London. Roger Khanna said that the way forward is to direct this to The Traffic Director for London Utilities via Nick Lester, with reference made to the success of the scheme currently operating.

 Jim Blewett has written to all of the London Boroughs on behalf of LJUG with a request for details for their charges for Road Closures, a copy of which will be distributed with the minutes. Barry Lucas has, on behalf of Islington, been working on a common price policy through the streetworks group.

 Jim Blewett referred to a letter THUS have written to the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea for information on using road space on bridges to install plant, but has failed to get a reply.

 Ken Lobacz informed the Committee that Transco are undertaking a risk analysis on a large diameter mains that require replacing in London. This information will be shared with Highway Authorities when available

 B.T. has now let their new contracts. Marconi will undertake most of the works in London, with Green McNicholas operating in part of South London.

10. Future Meetings

19th October - Guildhall 18th January 2001 - Venue to be agreed 19th April 2001 - Venue to be agreed.