Hertfordshire Highways

Appendix E

HERTFORDSHIRE HIGHWAYS INTEGRATED WORKS PROGRAMME AND FORWARD WORKS PROGRAMME

Appendix E – Member Feedback

Background

Draft 1 of the 2011/12 IWP and subsequent 2012/13 – 2015/16 FWP was presented to all ten Highway Joint Member Panels (HJMPs) at their meetings around April 2010 and feedback from the Panels was used to help inform the refining of the programme over the summer of 2010 to produce Draft 2 which was presented to all ten districts again at their meetings around October 2010.

As part of the decision making process a summary of the feedback on Draft 1, along with any further feedback on Draft 2 is submitted with a Final Draft IWP to Hertfordshire County Council’s Cabinet in March 2011 for final approval/endorsement.

Broxbourne

1. Feedback on the Draft 1 11/12 IWP to 14/15 FWP and responses

The Panel noted the report and had no specific comments on the programme.

Dacorum

The Panel noted the report.

Officers from the local and strategic teams have considered the feedback jointly and responses are included below. While it has not been possible to accommodate everything Members have suggested within the current programmes, some changes have been possible following the feedback, as noted.

1.1 Councillor Ian Reay stated that the resurfacing scheme in High Street, Berkhamsted has been omitted from the FWP and 2010/11 IWP.

 Officer’s Reply: A4251/65/67/70, WRC09038 was a WRC1 job that slipped into 10/11 due to poor winter. This consisted of local patching of the worst defects on Berkhamsted High Street up to a budget ceiling.

1 WRC10020 was a WRC2 job that was going to carry on the process finishing off the worst defects on Berkhamsted High Street and moving on to Northchurch High Street. Unfortunately members did not agree to carry over £1.6m to finance the winter weather slippages and this has been financed by dropping £1.6m of WRC2 jobs including WRC10020. It is not clear, at present, whether these will be carried forward into 11/12. Section 75 southeast of Swing Gate Lane is programmed for 2015/16.

1.2 Councillor Ian Reay pointed out that Whitehill, Berkhamsted is included in both 2010/11 and 2013/14.

 Officer’s Reply: CWY10449 is the 2U409/10 from Brownlow Road to New Road and was done this year. CWY13003 is the 2U409/20 from New Road to Gravel Path. This was done in 09/10 under a different number and has already been removed from the IWP on a clash check.

1.3 Councillor Colette Wyatt-Lowe said she would like to see Redbourn Road, Hemel Hempstead resurfaced (B487 / 130).

 Officer’s Reply: This is an SMA/DBM road that is starting to get hungry. It is not currently on the IWP but if it were patched and dressed like Queensway ASAP it would save resurfacing in a couple of years. The adjacent section in SA was undertaken in 09/10. At present It is not on the list after the reshuffle.

1.4 Councillor William Wyatt-Lowe said he would like to see footway resurfacing in Ellingham Road, Hemel Hempstead (2U636/10)

 Officer’s Reply: Not currently on the FWP but could be considered as part of footway bids for future years. (Bids for on this round already amount to £1.2m in Dacorum which is sufficient to last about 8 years not taking into account what is already in the system.)

2.1 Members would like to see the worked requested in Table 1 in the programme.

 Officer’s Reply: Officers from the local and strategic teams have considered the feedback jointly and responses are included in the last column of Table 1. While it has not been possible to accommodate everything Members have suggested within the current programmes, some changes have been possible following the feedback, as noted.

2 Table 1:

Councillor Location Work Requested Officer Response:

B Cllr Neil Harden Cotterells, Hemel Hempstead Drainage improvement The CAT 2 cleaning of the gullies and drains may resolve the drainage issues or identify defects that can be repaired. If the problems persist a drainage bid needs to be submitted so that the work can be prioritised against other required drainage works. C Cllr Richard Robers Chesham Road, Bovingdon Carriageway surface improvement Work programmed for March 2011. C Cllr Richard Roberts Common Lane Thin surfacing *No current plans. C Cllr Richard Roberts Felden Lane Thin surfacing *No current plans. C Cllr Terry Douris Clyde Square, Hemel H. Carriageway surface improvement Included by Members to be funded from the Localism budgets. C Cllr Colette Wyatt-Lowe Redbourn Road, Hemel H. Carriageway surface improvement Partial works funded from Localism budgets in 2011/12, remainder included on FWP for 2013/14. C Cllr Colette Wyatt-Lowe Queensway roundabout, Drainage improvement This drainage site will be investigated as part of the 2011/12 Hemel H. IWP. B Cllr Lloyd Harris Highfield shops, Hemel H. Footway improvement A footway bid needs to be submitted so that work can be prioritised against other required footway works. B Cllr Alan Anderson High Street / Langley Hill, Drainage improvement The CAT 2 cleaning of the gullies and drains may resolve the Kings Langley drainage issues or identify defects that can be repaired. If the problems persist a drainage bid needs to be submitted so that the work can be prioritised against other required drainage works. *No current plans: All carriageways are considered each year as part of our annual review of the programme. In this case it has not been possible to accommodate works on this road within current programmes since other sites are a higher priority and/or offer a greater benefit. It will however continue to be reviewed annually.

3 East Herts

2.1 Councillor Nigel Poulton referred High Street - Drainage, Watton-at- Stone (DRN08002 planned for 2011-12) on page 85 of the JMP papers with a full description on page 101. He queried that a considerable amount of time and money has been spent on getting the drainage repaired and renewed at the mini roundabout opposite the War Memorial and the system is now working perfectly. Therefore, please explain what these other works are.

 Officer’s Reply: DRN08002 refers to drainage works on the High Street between Beaneside and Mill Lane. The work details are yet to be confirmed but the investigations to date show a number of roots in the main pipeline. The description ‘Mini Rbt C163 Ware Road To Derest Sign' comes from our highway network system and the reference of 'Project Location: Opposite the War Memorial' is misleading. This scheme is not a re-visit of the previously completed works near the War Memorial.

2.2 Councillor Beryl Wrangles referred to CWY13029 Stansted Road Thin Surfacing - what's happened to it? When is it going to be done? It was on an April 2009 draft for 2013-14.

 Officer’s Reply: Stanstead Road (B1502) has been reinstated onto the IWP for Surface Dressing in 2011/12.

Hertsmere

Officers from the local and strategic teams have considered the feedback jointly and responses are included below. While it has not been possible to accommodate everything Members have suggested within the current

4 programmes, some changes have been possible following the feedback, as noted.

1.1 Councillor Silver, in her capacity as Bushey Park Ward Member, asked for some further information regarding, specifically, Victoria Road and Merry Hill Mount, both of which had bad pothole damage.

The Lead Assistant District Manager undertook to look into the problems and report back to her outside the meeting. With regard to the 4U211/10 and 4U134/10 the Asset Management computer model assesses and prioritises the sites. There are far more sites at the top of the list than budget available. The ranking system is totally impartial and the model is rerun every year which means that those not included this year may be included in subsequent years.

1.2 Division 29 – schemes which should be brought forward:

Aldenham Road Resurfacing CWY12082 planned for 2013/14. Please bring forward to 2010/11 (especially the section between The Avenue and Vale Road) since it is in a desperate state and way beyond the patching budget.

 Officer’s Reply: CWY12082 is B462/60 which is not the section referred to (which is B462/40). The worst section of this was done in 2009/10 as part of the WRC1 programme. Section 60 has unfortunately dropped back to 2014/15.

Orchard Close Thin Surfacing CWY11930 is planned for 2011/12 but needs doing now because it is in need of urgent repair.

 Officer’s Reply: The condition of this site requires retread or a similar process and is included for 2013/14.

1.3 Division 29 – Finch Lane Thin Surfacing CWY11876 planned for 2011/12 should be removed from the FWP because it was resurfaced just two years ago.

 Officer’s Reply: The section that was resurfaced 2 years ago was 4U65/10. The section that is in 2011/12 is 4U65/20 and is in a combined site with Homefield Road and Spring Crofts although only Finch Lane appears in the IWP title.

1.4 Division 31 – schemes which should be brought forward:

Billy Lows Lane Thin Surfacing CWY13246 planned for 2013/14

 Officer’s Reply: 4U240/10, 20, 30 This site requires retread or reconstruction. Unfortunately all estate roads that require this level of work have had to be pushed back as we cannot justify spending £30+/m2 on estate roads when there are much busier roads in need

5 and the current budget is restrained. There are a lot of sites in this "currently unaffordable" position with next to nothing to choose between them. On the latest reshuffle this site has been retained although it is for 2014/15.

The Service Road Thin Surfacing CWY12475 planned for 2013/14

 Officer’s Reply: This is a likely retread site and the latest remodelling places it in the 2014/15 programme.

Richmond Road Thin Surfacing CWY13249 planned for 2013/14

 Officer’s Reply: This is a likely retread site and the latest remodelling places it in the 2014/15 programme.

Barr Road Thin Surfacing CWY13244 planned for 2013/14

 Officer’s Reply: The remodelling process has retained this site but has unfortunately pushed it back to 2014/15.

Mutton Lane Resurfacing CWY13119 planned for 2013/14

 Officer’s Reply: One section of Mutton Lane is in WRC2 as a local “patch the worst bits” to a budget ceiling. It is the section west of Darkes Lane. CWY13119 is the section east of Darkes Lane. The remodelling process has retained this site but has unfortunately pushed it back to 2014/15.

1.5 Division 31 – Dove Lane, Potters Bar is requested for carriageway treatment to be added to FWP.

 Officer’s Reply: Needs retread or similar so not possible before 2013/14 in any event and unfortunately does not appear as a result of the remodelling.

1.6 Division 32 – Elmfield Road is a well used road and bus route which attracts regular complaints. It’s a concrete road where two patching orders have been done in the last 12 months, but these are not holding up well as faults continue to develop throughout its length. It would be good to see this on the IWP/FWP.

 Officer’s Reply: Unfortunately this site does not appear in the latest modelling exercise.

Officers from the local and strategic teams have considered the feedback jointly and responses are included below. While it has not been possible to

6 accommodate everything Members have suggested within the current programmes, some changes have been possible following the feedback, as noted.

2.1 Glenhaven Avenue, Borehamwood - in the past there may have been a misunderstanding about the extent of adopted highway, now this has been confirmed, urgent drainage and surfacing works are required.

 Officer’s Reply: This site is now included in the FWP for drainage investigation in 2012/13.

2.2 School Lane, Bushey - half of the road was treated, what about the rest?

 Officer’s Reply: Whilst funding for this site could not be found within the IWP budget it has been included within the Super CAT2 programme for 2011/12.

2.3 Victoria Road, Bushey - road floods regularly, drainage scheme required.

 Officer’s Reply: This drainage site will be investigated as part of the 2011/12 IWP.

North Herts

1.1 Councillor David Billing said for Hitchin North and South he would argue strongly that the state of Bancroft (Resurfacing CWY11533 planned in 2012/13) is dangerous particularly to cyclists and motorcyclists (he has had this pointed out to him), and so the resurfacing should be advanced to 2010/11.

 Officer’s Reply: 5U342/5/10. This is a large expensive job in Hitchin town centre and the major network is also already overloaded on road space for some time to come. In these circumstances it is not possible to bring forward Section 10 from its present programme position of 12/13.

1.2 Councillor David Billing said the list includes Bunyan Rd (Thin Surfacing CWY12467 planned in 2012/13) and Lancaster Avenue (Thin Surfacing

7 CWY14071 planned in 2014/15), but he would argue that York Rd and the bottom end of Lancaster Avenue are in at least as bad condition, and in the York Rd case worse. Therefore please could York Rd be added to the 2010/11 programme?

 Officer Reply: The number of sites on the model that are in a roughly similar condition far exceeds the amount that can be resourced from the current annual budget. The basis for inclusion of schemes in the programme is one of preventative action and not “worst first” The longer the time since a scheme’s initial inclusion the more model reshuffles it has to go through and may result in movement backwards, forwards or even remaining where it is. Even if a site survives, it then still has to be approved on the inspections after draft 1 to get to draft 2. Projects may be removed, rationalised or even extended to the next section if they are continuous and in the same condition, especially if it makes a more economic site, which may be at the expense of some much smaller ones.

If either Lancaster Avenue or Lancaster Road progress as far as the inspections, the site would be extended to the other section. Similarly for Bunyan Road and York Road and providing the programme is not overcommitted they would stay in. However this is not an automatic reason to bring them forward from there present position. Bunyan Road and Lancaster Avenue have held their positions in the reshuffle and unfortunately the other 2 have not been retained.

2.1 CC D Ashley requested Walsworth Road Resurfacing (CWY11811 planned for 2012-13) to brought forward into the IWP 2010-11.

 Officer’s Reply: This scheme was originally brought forward to 2010/11 and combined with WRC10030 Queen Street surfacing but further investigation revealed possible coal tar in the basecoarse which requires specialist removal and disposal. In addition investigation was needed on some drainage problems and these have now been completed. The whole scheme is now included in the 2011/12 IWP but cannot be started until after the completion of the Cambridge Road (Millstream) bridge refurbishment.

8 2.2 CD D Billing requested for a description of the scheme identified as Cadwell Lane/Woolgrove Road/Grove Road/Wilbury Way Pedestrian Crossing (ITP13035 planned for 2013-14).

 Officer’s Reply: This is a scheme which was set out in the Urban Transport Plan (UTP) as item WM6.1: Upgrade the crossing facilities at the Cadwell Lane crossroads. This will be implemented if and when funding becomes available.

2.3 CD D Billing requested for a description of the scheme identified as Brand Street/Hermitage Road Traffic Scheme (ITP14015 planned for 2014- 15).

 Officer’s Reply: This is item HM 19 in the Hitchin Urban Transport Plan (UTP): Reduce the through movement of traffic in the town centre (Brand Street / Bancroft / Hermitage Road).

A solution to try and reduce the amount of rat-running is to improve and change the nature and appearance of roads within the town centre to make them less attractive than the intended primary routes to travel across town. A proven mechanism to do this is the introduction of shared space routes; a place accessible to both pedestrians and vehicles that is designed to enable pedestrians to move more freely by reducing traffic management features that tend to encourage users of vehicles to assume priority. The roads identified for the Shared Space concept are:

- Hermitage Road (lined to PTM19 - Revise the boarding and alighting points of buses within the town centre); - Brand Street; and - Bancroft (southern end of, at the approach to Hermitage Road).

A shared space scheme removes the traditional highway priority and segregation of motor vehicles, pedestrians and other road users. Traditional traffic management features, such as kerbs, lines and signs that tend to encourage users of vehicles to assume priority are reduced to create an integrated public space, such that pedestrians, cyclists and road users become integrated. The benefits of shared space may include:

- A reduction in traffic dominance; - Economic regeneration of the area; - A less cluttered streetscape and hence a more attractive social environment; - A change in pedestrian movement and activity.

2.4 CD D Billing requested for a description of the scheme identified as Town Centre Bus Stop Layout Improvements (ITP15012 planned for 2015- 16).

9  Officer’s Reply: This is within the draft Hitchin Urban Transport Plan (UTP) as item PTM19: Revise the boarding and alighting points of buses within the town centre.

This scheme aims to simplify the boarding and alighting points by consolidating bus infrastructure in Hermitage Road, providing a shared space environment which caters for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users as well as motorists.

To achieve this, the existing bus stops on Bancroft and Queen Street will be relocated to the western end of Hermitage Road. All bus infrastructure will be consolidated in this part of Hermitage Road so as to provide a central hub which will be simple to navigate and benefit from real time information.

To facilitate this Hermitage Road is considered to be an appropriate setting for a shared space scheme; making the route accessible to both pedestrians and vehicles with a design which enables pedestrians to move more freely. This could include a level surface without kerbs or an appearance more in keeping with the High Street or Market Square of Hitchin.

The final design would need to be developed within the context and setting of the town but the key themes would relate to lowering vehicle speeds and providing features which encourage pedestrian activity and shared use of space

The short-term parking in Hermitage Road caters for a maximum of around 25 cars and it is intended that this provision will be partly relocated to Bancroft (replacing bus stop location G); with the remaining parking being consolidated at the eastern end of Hermitage Road, potentially using a diagonal parking pattern to reduce carriageway width and vehicle speeds, contributing towards the shared space environment, without the loss of direct access by car to the shops along Hermitage Road.

In addition, there may be some economic benefits from this scheme, as a high quality pedestrian environment, combined with a higher footfall through the consolidation of bus services, could increase the attractiveness of Hermitage Road for retailing and other services. This will help to contribute towards the vitality of Hitchin’s shops and business which is a key objective of the UTP.

2.5 CD D Billing commented that there didn’t appear to be a consistent approach toward the inclusion in the IWP of schemes identified in the Hitchin UTP.

 Officer’s Reply: On an annual basis all integrated transport schemes bid for funding for the following finance year. The number of schemes

10 investigated and delivered per year is based on the funding received and budgets agreed by Cabinet in February of every year.

Schemes to be put forward for bidding are agreed by the Member Steering Group (MSG) annually and then the Target Groups rank the scheme priorities across the whole County and then approve what schemes actually get delivered based on the available annual funding.

All the schemes for Hitchin UTP in the short term were put forward for consideration by the Target Groups, however they were completing against the other nineteen urban areas within the County for funding.

The IWP has been updated with the schemes that have been selected by the Target Groups for delivery in 2011/12 and 2012/13. Remaining, unselected, schemes will continue to be annually assessed and ranked for possible delivery and inclusion on the IWP based on funding availability.

2.6 CD D Billing highlighted that there was a request to the monthly Hitchin Councillors Surgery in October for double yellow lines at the junction of Redhill Rd and Nutleigh Grove in Hitchin. This should have been lodged with Herts Highways by NHDC officers. He wished to bring this forward for inclusion in the IWP. The issue is that cars park on both sides of the junction so that drivers can use the Redhill Rd shops (as the lay-by is usually occupied), thus blocking visibility for anyone driving out of Nutleigh Grove.

Officer’s Reply: This was not something that we were aware of as being raised before, by NHDC or in any of the UTP consultation events. Nevertheless the request for the double yellow lines has now been added to the UTP among the long list of other works for possible delivery. Including this double yellow lines issue, there are a number of issues that have arisen since the UTP consultation period has ended, and therefore a number of these issues are going to be included in the UTP with a note that further investigation will be needed to determine whether works are needed or not. Nevertheless, given the immediate Member concern, in the shorter-term, investigation of the need for these double yellow lines has been noted and added to the local issues list for the HJMP to consider for Discretionary funding.

2.7 DC T Brindley requested Valley Road South, Letchworth, be considered as a potential IWP scheme.

 Officer’s Reply: The scheme had been identified as a possible Super CAT2 scheme for delivery in 2011/12.

2.8 DC D Kearns requested confirmation on the extent of the Wilbury Road Resurfacing scheme (CWY11577 planned for 2011-12).

11  Officer’s Reply: The scheme extends between Bedford Road and Eastholm.

St. Albans

1.1 Councillor White supported Beaumont Avenue Thin Surfacing (CWY11580 planned for 2010/11).

 Officer’s Reply: The Councillor’s support for the scheme is noted

1.2 Councillor White requested that Thorpe Road / Bardwell Road residual blue brick enhanced footway resurfacing works need to be completed

 Officer’s Reply: Bardwell Road Footway Works, (FWY10007) are planned for 2011-2012.

1.3 Councillor White requested that Bardwell Road be considered for works in future years but understood it was not a high priority at present.

 Officer’s Reply: The Councillor’s request will be taken into account at the appropriate time.

1.4 Councillor White supported Woodstock Road South Thin Surface Treatment (CWY101360 planned for 2010/11).

 Officer’s Reply: The Councillor’s support is noted

1.5 Councillor White supported Etna Road Carriageway Thin Surfacing (CWY10624 planned for 2010/11).

1.6 Councillor White supported Granville Road Thin Surfacing (CWY11590 planned for 2010/11).

12 1.7 Councillor White supported Worley Road Thin Surfacing (CWY13209 planned for 2011/12).

1.8 Councillor White asked that Palfrey Close Thin Surfacing (CWY11613 planned for 2011/12) and Normandy Road Resurfacing (CWY11608 planned for 2013/14) be swapped years so that Normandy Road is done first in 2011/12 and Palfrey Close is done later in 2013/14.

 Officer’s Reply: The model recommendations are based on relative conditions, usage etc. to give the most effective return on the investment.

1.9 Councillor White supported Lattimore Road Resurfacing (CWY101438 planned for 2011/12) and requested that it be resurfaced by 2011 by being programmed at the optimum stage.

 Officer’s Reply: The Councillors support is noted and his request will be taken into consideration at the appropriate time.

1.10 Councillor White supported Liverpool Road Thin Surfacing (CWY14064 planned for 2014/15).

 Officer’s Reply: The Councillor’s support is noted.

1.11 Councillor White supported Victoria Street railway bridge area for resurfacing and noted that a winter recovery resurfacing scheme bid was currently being made and that it required agreement to be reached with Network Rail.

 Officer’s Reply The Councillor’s support is noted

 Officer’s Reply regarding Victoria Street Resurfacing WRC10034 is at present planned for October

 Officer’s Reply regarding Victoria Street Resurfacing CWY14062 remains planned for 2014/15.

1.12 Councillor White requested that Brampton Road be considered for works in future years but understood it was not a high priority at present.

 Officer’s Reply: The Councillor’s request is noted and will be taken into account at the appropriate time.

1.13 District Councillors supported Trumpington Drive Thin Surfacing (CWY101452 planned for 2010/11):

13  Officer’s Reply: The Councillors’ support is noted . The works were completed in September, but is subject to snagging.

1.14 District Councillors said that Wallingford Walk Thin Surfacing (CWY12177 planned for 2010/11) should be more substantial resurfacing.

 Officer’s Reply: The Councillors’ suggestion was noted. However thin surfacing was judged to be the most suitable treatment and this was undertaken in September.

1.4 District Councillors highlighted that Holyrood Crescent and in particular St Stephens Avenue are in a very poor condition and should be added to the programme.

 Officer’s Reply regarding Holyrood Crescent: The Councillors’ comments were noted. However the inclusion of schemes are dependant upon the modelling process and on this occasion Holyrood Crescent could not been included.

 Officer’s Reply regarding St Stephens Avenue: The Councillors’ comments were noted. However the inclusion of schemes are dependant upon the modelling process and on this occasion St Stephens Avenue could not been included.

1.5 Councillor Heritage highlighted that Collens / Hawsley Road do not appear on the lists and should/must be a priority because it will break up completely if the winter is bad again.

 Officer’s Reply: The Councillor’s comments were noted. However the inclusion of schemes are dependant upon the modelling process and on this occasion Collens / Hawsley Road could not been included.

1.6 Councillor Heritage noted that Park Avenue South Thin Surfacing (CWY12165) is in the FWP for 2012/13 whilst Park Avenue North Carriageway Recycling (CWY11615) is in the IWP for 2010/11. Given their relative configuration, and upon the completion of the work in Park Avenue North, the issues in Park Avenue South will be even more obvious. Therefore Park Avenue South needs to be done sooner. Can it be brought forward to 2011/12 so it can overlap with or be done immediately after Park Avenue North works? Planning Park Avenue South later does not make sense because Park Avenue South should be worked in line with St Andrews Avenue Thin Surfacing (CWY11951) in 2011/12.

 Officer’s Reply regarding Park Avenue North: This scheme is still going ahead in 2010/11 as planned. -:. This is a proposed recycling scheme, which uses a specialised treatment and is not a standard process or specified within our current schedule of rates. Therefore we have to get prices externally, which will always have

14 a bearing on delivery. We are in the process of getting these estimates from the contractor and once we know the cost we can programme the works accordingly within this financial year..

 Officer’s Reply regarding Park Avenue South: Unfortunately due to financial constraints and other priorities across the County, Park Avenue South is not in the current programme to be resurfaced but is in the forward work programme for 2011/12. Essentially we are not able to do everything that we would like to do all at once and some difficult decisions have to be made to prioritise the road resurfacing programme.

 Officer’s Reply regarding St Andrews Avenue: This scheme is still programmed for 2011/12. The Councillor’s comments will be taken into consideration when programming this and Park Avenue South

1.7 Councillor Heritage highlighted that Pipers Avenue Carriageway Recycling (CWY101443 planned for 2011/12) needs to be done as soon as possible. If the road recycling will be completed in early summer 2011 then this appeared acceptable, but if any later than this she feared that it will collapse.

 Officer’s Reply: The Councillor’s comments are noted and as with all schemes the works will be programmed for the optimum time although some variation may be inevitable due to weather, road space availability etc.

1.8 Councillor Heritage highlighted that Victoria Road / Bowers Way to the car park are in appalling condition. Victoria Road especially requires remediation immediately. What part of Bowers Way?

 Officer’s Reply regarding Victoria Road: Works have been completed on this road as part of the Winter Recovery Programme, but is subject to snagging.

 Officer’s Reply regarding Bowers Way: Works have been completed on this road as part of the Winter Recovery Programme, but is subject to snagging.

1.9 Councillor Heritage highlighted that Arden Grove keeps crumbling as fast as it is repaired.

 Officer’s Reply: Based upon the Asset Management/modelling process works are still planned for 2014/15.

1.10 Councillor Heritage highlighted that Southdown Road (along by Quakers House and the Common) keeps crumbling as fast as it is repaired.

15  Officer’s Reply: The Councillor’s observations are noted, but unfortunately the Asset Management/modelling process has not led to its inclusion in the programmes.

1.11 Councillor Heritage highlighted that Walkers Road (Resurfacing CWY12276 planned for 2014/15) from St John's Road down to Southdown Road is in serious need to resurfacing. Given the heavy traffic usage and poor drainage it should at least be brought forward to 2011/12 after the drainage works are completed, or preferably could the drainage and carriageway works be completed at the same time?

 Officer’s Reply: The carriageway works remain programmed for 2014/15 after the latest remodelling. However as with all works, road space booking is of paramount importance and where ever possible works are combined to reduce their impact on the highway network.

1.12 Councillor Heritage highlighted that Leyton Road from Waitrose to Marks & Spencers is caving in again, and would also like Leyton Road from West Common to Fire Station added to the maintenance programme.

 Officer’s Reply regarding Waitrose to M&S: The Councillor’s observations are noted, but unfortunately the Asset Management/modelling process has not led to its inclusion in the programmes.

 Officer’s Reply regarding West Common to Fire Station: The Councillor’s observations are noted, but unfortunately the Asset Management/modelling process has not led to its inclusion in the programmes.

1.13 Councillor Heritage said that Broadfield Road (Thin Surfacing CWY12422 planned for 2012/13) needs to be done sooner.

 Officer’s Reply: The Councillor’s comment is noted but unfortunately the latest remodelling has resulted in it remaining in the 2012/13 Programme.

1.14 Councillor Heritage said that Eastmoor Park (Thin Surfacing CWY13192 planned for 2013/14) needs to be done sooner.

 Officer’s Reply: The Councillor’s comment is noted but unfortunately the latest remodelling has resulted in it remaining in the 2013/14 Programme.

1.15 Councillor Heritage said that Churchfield (Thin Surfacing CWY13199 planned for 2013/14) to Gordons Walk needs to be done sooner.

16  Officer’s Reply: The Councillor’s comment is noted but unfortunately the latest remodelling has resulted in it remaining in the 2013/14 Programme.

1.16 Councillor Heritage supports:

Alders End Lane (Carriageway Recycling WRC10038 planned for 2010/11).

 Officer’s Reply: Due to the extensive patching completed over the winter this scheme was changed from recycling to micro surfacing. This work was recently completed, but is subject to snagging.

Broadstone Road (Carriageway Surface Dressing WRC09092 planned for 2010/11).

 Officer’s Reply: This work was recently completed, but is subject to snagging.

Knowle Drive - especially top end (Thin Surfacing CWY12424 planned for 2012/13).

 Officer’s Reply: After the latest remodelling this scheme is now programmed for 2013/14.

Maple Road - especially Park Avenue North to Townsend (Thin Surfacing, CWY11601 planned for 2010/11 and CWY13196 planned for 2013-2014).

 Officer’s Reply After the latest remodelling this scheme remains programmed for 2013/14.

Meadway (Resurfacing WRC10063 planned for 2010/11).

 Officer’s Reply: Due to the extensive resurfacing undertaken as SCAT2 this scheme has been removed from the programme.

Milton Road - especially Station Road to Shakespeare Road (Carriageway Recycling WRC10064 planned for 2010/11 and Resurfacing CWY11605 planned for 2013/14).

 Officer’s Reply: This is a proposed recycling scheme, which uses a specialised treatment and is not a standard process or specified within our current schedule of rates. Therefore we have to get prices externally, which will always have a bearing on delivery. We are in the process of getting these estimates from the contractor and once we know the cost we can programme the works accordingly within this financial year..

17 Rothamsted Ave (Thin Surfacing CWY10579 planned for 2010/11).

 Officer’s Reply: This scheme has recently been completed but is subject to snagging.

Topstreet Way (Carriageway Recycling CWY10584 planned for 2010/11).

 Officer’s Reply:. This is a proposed recycling scheme, which uses a specialised treatment and is not a standard process or specified within our current schedule of rates. Therefore we have to get prices externally, which will always have a bearing on delivery. We are in the process of getting these estimates from the contractor and once we know the cost we can programme the works accordingly within this financial year.

Townsend Road (Thin Surfacing CWY101453 planned for 2010/11).

Barnes Dene (Thin Surfacing CWY101441 planned for 2010/11).

Aldwick Road (Surface Dress CWY09531 planned for 2010/11) - this road has sort of been surfaced but is of poor quality finish.

 Officer’s Reply: Whilst this scheme has now been substantially completed but it is subject to snagging.

Ashcroft Close (Surface Dress CWY09532 planned for 2010/11).

 Officer’s Reply: This scheme has now been substantially completed but it is subject to snagging.

Moreton End Lane (Surface Dress CWY09556 planned for 2010/11, and Thin Surfacing CWY14044 planned for 2014/15).

 Officer’s Reply: The Surface Dressing scheme has now been substantially completed it is subject to snagging. The Thin Surfacing scheme has been brought forward to 2013/14 as a result of the remodelling.

Hawthorn Close (Surface Dress CWY09544 planned for 2010/11).

 Officer’s Reply: This scheme has now been substantially completed but it is subject to snagging.

18 Tarrant Drive (Thin Surfacing CWY11958 planned for 2011/12).

 Officer’s Reply: Due to the restricted size of the site it is at present being held in abeyance.

1.17 Councillor Heritage would like the following considered for addition to the maintenance programme:

A1081 Harpenden Road / St Albans Road – Beeson End Lane to Bull Road roundabout

 Officer’s Reply: In line with the Asset Management / Modelling process this carriageway will come forward into the programme at the appropriate time.

Barlings Road - main through road

Barlings - spurs

Burnsall Place - some bits in very poor condition

Aran Close

Birch Way

Byron Road

 Officer’s Reply In line with the Asset Management / Modelling process this carriageway will come forward into the programme at the appropriate time.

19 Grove Road - Piggotshill Road roundabout to Grove Avenue

Grove Road / Welbeck Rise / Pipers Lane roundabout junction – needs resurfacing as surfacing is dangerous

Grove Avenue

Moreton Avenue

Sibley Avenue - from Grove Road half way up the hill, and concerned about the surface from about no. 22 (where the road surface changes) to the junction with Grove Road

Wordsworth Road

Burywick - spurs

20 Paddock Wood – Bellmouth with Grove Road

1.18 Councillor Lloyd supports:

Noke Shot - said it is very bad near the Pickford Hill end but quite good at the other end (Resurfacing CWY101434 planned for 2011/12).

 Officer’s Reply: The Councillor’s. comments are noted and the scheme remains in the 2011/12 programme.

Lea Road - said it is not bad but going in places (Thin Surfacing CWY11909 planned for 2011/12).

 Officer’s Reply: The Councillor’s. comments are noted and the scheme remains in the 2011/12 programme.

Lower Luton Road - said not bad given the high levels of traffic it gets but some ridges gives a bumpy ride (Wheahampstead Surface Dress CWY101099 planned for 2011/12 and Resurfacing CWY13049 planned for 2014/15; and Batford Resurfacing CWY12469 planned for 2012/13).

 Officer’s Reply: Councillor’s comments noted. The surface dressing component has already been completed, but is subject to snagging. Whilst combining schemes can be looked at as always budgetary constraints have an overriding effect.

Station Road - said ridges in the section from Marquis Lane to Lower Luton Road and the condition is poor between Amberly Close and Cowper Road (B652 Resurfacing CWY14123 planned for 2014/15).

 Officer’s Reply: Councillor’s comments noted.

Coldharbour Lane – said agreed with it being on the programme probably after parking restrictions introduced, especially the section from Westfield Road towards the width restriction (Thin Surfacing CWY13101 planned for 2012/13).

 Officer’s Reply: Councillor’s comments noted. Unfortunately remodelling has resulted in the scheme moving to 2014/15.

1.19 Councillor Lloyd would like the following considered for addition to the maintenance programme:

Westfield Road – said the stretch near the Coldharbour Lane junction (i.e. the section between Riverford Close and access to Pinewoods Garden centre is particularly bad).

21  Officer’s Reply: In line with the Asset Management / Modelling process this carriageway will come forward into the programme at the appropriate time.

Ambrose Lane – said not bad in places but very poor near the junction with Bloomfield Road and in other places (some old utility work has been made worse this winter).

St James Road – said particularly bad at the bottom.

Porters Hill – said beginning to go in places. Top circle not too bad.

Hyde View Road – said ridges give a bumpy ride - going in places.

Wood End Road – this road does not look too bad - not as bad as Brackendale for example.

Brackendale Road – is in worse condition than Wood End Road.

1.20 Councillor Churchard would like the following considered for addition to the maintenance programme:

22 Pondfield Crescent – 6U1045 – Micro-surfacing suggested .

Packhorse Close – 6U1044 – Micro-surfacing suggested .

1.21 Councillor Prowse would like Hill End Lane / Alban Way junction considered for traffic management.

 Officer’s Reply: The site is very difficult to improve as it is already a slow speed area with mini roundabouts on both approaches. Further to discussions with the Area Office it is felt that low cost improvements could be made to signing and vegetation clearance.

Options of humps or other traffic calming features are not considered possible due to the constraints of the site.

1.22 Councillor Prowse would like the following roads considered for addition to the maintenance programme:

Cunningham Avenue

Rest of Drakes Drive

1.23 Councillor Prowse would like the following pavements considered for addition to the maintenance programme:

Campfield

 Officer’s Reply: Councillor’s comment noted. The inclusion of footway works in the programme are reliant upon the submission of bids from area offices, together with supporting information, compliance with a ranking procedure and are subject to sufficient funding being available

23 Roland Street

Mile House Close

New House Park - new bit by the bungalows.

Cunningham Avenue - new bit by the bungalows.

 Officer’s Reply: Councillor’s comment noted. The inclusion of footway works in the programme are reliant upon the submission of bids from area office, together with supporting information, compliance with a ranking procedure and are subject to sufficient funding being available

1.24 Councillor Lee supported:

North Riding Thin Surfacing (CWY12333 planned for 2011/12).

 Officer’s Reply: Councillor’s comment noted. Remains in 2011/12 programme

Station Road Thin Surfacing (CWY11796 planned for 2011/12) but said this must include the bellmouth of Smug Oak Lane.

 Officer’s Reply: Councillor’s comment noted. Remains in 2011/12 programme

Wood End Thin Surfacing (CWY11975 planned for 2011/12), but reiterated this was a part of a HJMP petition along with White Beams. White Beams is also considered in need of treatment and Councillor Lee requested the order be swapped with White Beams being done first in 2011/12.

24  Officer’s Reply regarding Wood End l: This scheme remains in the 2011/12 programme.

 Officer’s Reply regarding White Beams: In line with the Asset Management / Modelling process this carriageway will come forward into the programme at the appropriate time.

1.25 Councillor Lee requested the following be brought forward:

Jenkins Avenue Thin SurfaceTreat (CWY071403 planned for 2012/13) should be brought forward and highlighted that the recent SCAT2 of Short Lane and WRC of Broad Acre would be greatly complimented by the sealing of Jenkins Avenue with the through route section of Short Lane.

 Officer’s Reply: Councillors comments noted. However In line with the Asset Management / Modelling process this carriageway will come forward into the programme at the appropriate time.

Old Watford Road Thin Surfacing (CWY13190 planned for 2013/14) should be brought forward and highlighted that the current work required is too expensive for Area Office to treat under SCAT2.

 Officer’s Reply: The remodelling process has resulted in movement of this scheme to the2012/13 programme.

1.26 Councillor Lee pointed out the following recently patched or half-finished roads requiring further treatment:

Broad Acre recently underwent WRC inlay for half the length. There is approximately 100m outstanding (Thin Surfacing CWY12417 planned for 2012/13).

 Officer’s Reply: The outstanding scheme remains in the FWP

1.27 Councillor Lee requested the following new additions to the IWP 2011/12:

West Avenue reconstruction, Chiswell Green (6U1019/10) - surface dressing to compliment over-banding. Heavily trafficked due to school access on the road, suffered under last two winters. Needs to be done in conjunction with North Close (see below).

25 North Close reconstruction, Chiswell Green (6U988/10) - micro- surface. Heavily trafficked due to school access on the road, suffered under last two winters. Needs to be done in conjunction with West Avenue.

 Officer’s Reply: The Councillor’s comments are noted

Grovelands micro-surfacing, Park Street (6U969/10) – wearing course spalded with cracks. Unofficial thoroughfare for the local community from local shops. Elderly care home on site. Wearing course needs sealing against elements.

The Croft patching, Chiswell Green (6U943/10) - slab joint cracking/potholes. Joints are now widely open to the elements.

1.28 Councillor Lee requested the following footways be considered:

The Crescent micro-surfacing, Bricket Wood (6U942/10) - alternative slurry seal.

Cuckmans Drive micro-surfacing, Chiswell Green (6U944/10) - alternative slurry seal.

Hollybush Avenue slab to blacktop, Chiswell Green (6U962/10)

26 2. Feedback on the Draft 2 and responses

General

2.1 Panel members expressed disappointment with the quality of the officer replies to the Members’ IWP and FWP feedback which were felt to be unhelpful and mainly repetitive. Panel members had hoped the IWP and FWP Members’ consultation was to be a two-way process and now question Officers’ commitment to this objective.

 Officer’s Reply: The District Manager has sought to resolve this by improving the two-way communication, by holding appropriate sessions particularly focusing on the IWP/FWP with groups and/or individual Members (as suits best) and including appropriate Officers such that Member confidence in Officers commitment can be increased.

2.2 Panel members raised queries about several errors in the report and asked Officers to contact individual local members to clarify their specific concerns.

 Officer’s Reply: We apologise for any errors that occur within the processing of the large quantity of data associated with reporting the planned IWP/FWP to the HJMPs. The District Manager all apparent errors to appropriate Officers and they have been considered. Some reports were not errors, but were matters concerned with the way the database works, holds, processes and displays information. These were explained to the District Manager/Assistant District Manager and responses relayed back to the appropriate Member(s). There were no identified errors that necessitated the report or the associated Appendices to be formally reissued.

2.3 The panel accepted the report with the above points tidied up, but the Chairman asked for local members to be offered IWP and FWP local member feedback review meetings by November 2010 with both area team and strategy development officers, to facilitate a two-way consultation process and explain the Officer responses that have been made in the panel report.

27  Officer’s Reply: Please see responses to items 2.1 and 2.2 above.

2.4 Councillor White questioned that in the Appendix D: Changes Report the term “Project deferred to 11/12” appeared incorrect in some cases (referring specifically to page 138) and should read " Project deferred from 10/11”.

 Officer’s Reply: This has been checked and “Project deferred from 11/12” is the correct ‘Reason for change’ for the schemes against which this is noted in the Changes Report appendix (including on page 138 in this case). In the Changes Report the Reason for change noted as “Project deferred from 11/12” are against projects which have been changed in the Draft 2 IWP/FWP (autumn HJMP) report to a ‘P’ status (Preparation) since the previous Draft 1 IWP/FWP (spring HJMP) report. In the ‘Current’ column in brackets after the new ‘P’ status is shown the year the projects have moved to in the Forward Works Programme, being either 2012/13, 13/14, 14/15 or 15/16 as their predicted works year.

2.5 Members requested that all the IWP and FWP programme information be made available on line.

 Officer’s Reply: The latest IWP/FWP reports and Appendices are available online to everybody on the HJMP pages of the District/Borough Council websites. In addition we are working to ensure all IWP schemes being implemented, and intended FWP schemes being planned, are visible online on the Electronic Local Government Information Network (ELGIN) which is also accessible to everybody. See www.elgin.gov.uk. Therefore, Members can also search online roads they are concerned about and see if we have any current and/or planned works (together with seeing the works of utility companies).

Nevertheless, Section 6.4 of the IWP/FWP report did already cover an update on an initiative to make more specific information about IWP/FWP schemes visible to County Councillors online direct from Hertfordshire County Council. District/Borough Councillors would require to liaise with the respective County Member who could relay information from this source. Section 6.4 is extracted below for information:

6.4Work is progressing to give Members electronic web-based access to information about IWP schemes that are imminently about to be constructed and also electronic access to the IWP/FWP listings so that the latest reported data can be accessed and searched at any time throughout the annual reporting cycle. PMNet (Project Management Network) is the project management software that has been developed, and is being used, within Herts Highways to provides all information and reporting on IWP schemes that are in the process of being implemented. A separate IWP/FWP Database contains our 5 Year Works Programme and when schemes reach

28 year 1 of this programme, and upon final endorsement, these schemes are transferred into PMNet for implementation. To demonstrate how the electronic access might work a PMNet Members Users Group has been established and these Members are currently in the process of taking part in sessions to test and comment upon the developing proposals and usefulness and user- friendliness of the web-based systems. In parallel with this, work is also ongoing to display planned IWP/FWP scheme locations on HCC’s Webmaps.

A further update on the progress of this initiative will be given in the IWP/FWP report to the spring 2011 HJMPs.

2.6 As part of Councillor Lee’s consideration and feedback upon the Draft 2 11/12 IWP/FWP she held a meeting with the District Manager and the Assistant DM on 5 October 2010 regarding the St Stephen’s Division and raised the following detailed general and specific queries/questions related to the IWP/FWP process. The detailed Officer answers below were given as a separate response to the issues raised at that specific meeting which are more detailed than the normal level of detail used in the normal Member Feedback reporting to the overall HJMP. Nevertheless, Councillor Lee’s detailed queries/questions and associated Officer responses have been included in this Member Feedback report for complete transparency as follows:

2.6.1 Councillor Lee advised that for the past 8 years she has provided objective local member feedback comments, supported by the local ADM, during the annual IWP and FWP member feedback consultation, in a clear and pragmatic way giving strategic consideration in requesting changes and additions, including for carriageway, footway and drainage maintenance needs. Councillor Lee wishes to know why she is unable to secure at least those greatest need local road maintenance candidate sites across her Division, within the 2011/12 IWP and FWP to 2015/16 Draft 2?

 Officer’s Reply: The IWP and FWP identifies an optimum programme of planned maintenance activity that best manages the condition of the network overall within the funding available. It is not possible to include all sites that would benefit from work within current programmes and there is consequently the need to prioritise based on those sites that will collectively give the most benefit for the available funding. The St Albans panel feedback is extensive compared to other panels (the St Albans Appendix E is 17 pages long, Appendix E for other districts averages less than 3 pages each) this makes it harder for officers to identify which of the panel’s suggestions are the highest priority. It also makes it harder to produce detailed feedback within the time available.

29 2.6.2 Councillor Lee expressed grave concern that the local member feedback comments to the 2011/12 IWP and FWP to 2015/16 Draft 1 published at April 2010, have not received serious attention by Herts Highways, and have not influenced meaningful changes within the Draft 2 IWP and FWP and requests HH explanation.

 Officer’s Reply: Comments and feedback from the panel’s consultation process during the development and refinement of the delivery programme are considered and responded to by Officers including at Appendix E to the IWP and FWP Draft 2 panel report, and then presented to the HCC Cabinet in March/April when considering and endorsing the proposed delivery programme. All panel feedback is considered as part of this process however, since the programme is limited by budget, to accommodate an additional site something else needs to be dropped or deferred from the programme. At the time of preparing the Draft 2 IWP for 11/12 we were able to continue to accommodate the maintenance schemes promised in Draft 1 within the likely available budgets but there was little or no room to add new schemes unless the panel had identified schemes that could be dropped or deferred in order to make room. Officers will, however, keep the panel feedback in mind should the budget for 11/12, when agreed by County Council in February, allow for the funding of additional schemes.

2.6.3 Councillor Lee appreciates the drivers for deriving the annual IWP and FWP including; timely intervention and a stitch in time ethos, and asks for clarification of the purpose of local member feedback comments and bids following publication of Draft 1 of the IWP and FWP, supported by the dedicated ADM, if there is no reflection of this included in the IWP and FWP Draft 2.

 Officer’s Reply: Feedback is sought from the Highways Joint Member Panel on an annual cycle. In the spring HJMP feedback is sought on the IWP and FWP Draft 1 for the following year and on the strategic priorities - for instance on the balance between different workstreams within the programmes. In addition panel Member's final requests are sought on the IWP and FWP Draft 2 for schemes emerging as urgent for implementation the following year, that are not within the preparation plan, to be included where justified. Scheme bids and feedback from local Officers is part of a separate process and not part of the HJMP feedback. In all cases the ability of the programme to accommodate suggestions is limited by the available budget.

30 2.6.4 Councillor Lee feels there must be some flexibility within the IWP and FWP selection process to include local member choices and therefore requests evidence; showing how local member feedback following publication of Draft 1 of the 2011/12 IWP and FWP to 2015/16 has resulted in meaningful changes being made to the IWP and FWP Draft 2.

 Officer’s Reply: Given the constraints previously mentioned it has seldom been possible to include additional schemes within the Draft 2 IWP for 11/12 although, as stated, such feedback will be kept in mind should the available budget for 2011/12 be greater than the Officer estimates on which the draft programme is based. However, the panel will be aware that the programme is revised and reviewed every year and that the carriageway modelling process is run annually to reassess scheme priorities. This can lead to the deferral or dropping of schemes that are already on the programme in favour of other schemes that are now more pressing. However, Officers endeavour to protect schemes identified by the panel from adverse changes where possible. In the specific case of the St Albans panel the following sites were all protected from deferral as a direct result of the panel’s feedback:

CWY11608 Normandy Road Resurfacing CWY14064 Liverpool Road Thin Surfacing CWY12276 Walkers Road Resurfacing CWY13199 Churchfield Thin Surfacing CWY12424 Knowle Drive Thin Surfacing CWY13196 Maple Road Thin Surfacing CWY071403 Jenkins Avenue Thin SurfaceTreatment CWY12417 Broad Acre Thin Surfacing

While this is not as immediately obvious as the addition of new schemes, it demonstrates that the panel’s feedback has been listened to and has had a demonstrable impact on the shape of the future programme.

2.6.5 Councillor Lee would like to know what benefits do Herts Highways Officers see as being derived from the 2011/12 IWP and FWP to 2015/16 local member consultation process.

 Officer’s Reply: Feedback from panels from April 2010 on Draft 1 of the 2011/12 IWP and FWP to 2015/16 has been used to help refine the programme over the summer to produce the Draft 2 IWP and FWP to be presented to the October 2010 panels.

2.6.6 Councillor Lee requests explanations through examples; to show how the IWP and FWP asset management model assessment process, has accepted local road maintenance candidate sites requested through the local member consultation feedback for inclusion in the 2011/12 IWP and FWP to 2015/16

31 and also how this process has rejected local road maintenance candidate sites requested through the local member consultation feedback.

 Officer’s Reply: CWY13190 Old Watford Road Thin Surfacing planned for 2013/14 and requested to be brought forward has resulted in movement of this scheme to the 2012/13 programme, and CWY071403 Jenkins Avenue Thin Surface Treatment requested to be brought forward remains planned for 2012/13. In each case the assessment of such panel feedback involves an experienced Officer considering the feedback along with other factors such as the condition of the road, the proposed treatment, likely costs and whether or not changes can be accommodated within the year(s) in question, based on the estimated levels of funding. The benefits are weighed against the constraints and a decision is made on which requests can be accommodated.

2.6.7 Councillor Lee seeks substantiation of the resource implications cited for rejecting suggested swapping of candidate sites, across financial years, within the St Albans District, through the local member consultation feedback to the 2011/12 IWP and FWP to 2015/16 Draft 1.

 Officer’s Reply: Each year of each programme within the FWP is cash-limited based on the likely projected budget so that the programmes presented represent a reasonable indication of what could be delivered in the year in question. Because of this, changing the year of a scheme will have an impact on the costs in that year as will swapping schemes between years if the schemes are notably different in scale. We cannot increase the costs in one year, even if it is with a scheme that already features in a later year in the programme, without making a counterbalancing saving so as to stay within the estimated budget. Final decisions on the budget for a year are, of course, a matter for County Council and are only usually firmed up in the February before the delivery of programme but, in order to allow the planning, consultation and coordination processes to go ahead well in advance, programmes are planned for the future IWP and FWP based on estimated budget projections.

2.6.8 Councillor Lee seeks Herts Highways comments to her concerns of the knock-on effect of absolutely necessary preventative local road maintenance candidate sites across her Division not being incorporated in the 2011/12 IWP and FWP to 2015/16 Draft 2, that will result in such sites requiring substantial reconstruction the following year and thus falling completely outside the scope of the future years IWP and FWP, as they would be deemed unaffordable.

32  Officer’s Reply: The objective of the asset management strategy is to optimise the works programme to keep the average condition of the network as good as possible for a given level of investment. The maintenance strategy gives priority to sections where the residual life will be extended substantially with modest investment. In line with the asset management modelling process carriageway maintenance schemes will come forward into the programme at the appropriate time.

2.6.9 Councillor Lee feels local Members should have some expectancy of meaningful changes within the Draft 2 of the 2011/12 IWP and FWP to 2015/16 following the local member feedback to the IWP and FWP Draft 1, and therefore seeks Herts Highways reconsideration for; Jenkins Avenue and North Riding to be brought forward to 2011/12 and for Grovelands to be included, within the 2011/12 IWP and FWP to 2015/16 Draft 2.

 Officer’s Reply: As part of the decision making process a summary of the panels' feedback on Draft 1 of the IWP and FWP along with any further feedback from the panels on Draft 2 of the IWP and FWP, will be submitted with a Final Draft IWP to HCC's Cabinet in February/March 2011 for final approval and endorsement. However, since the programme needs to balance within the available budget, Officers will not be in a position to make further changes to the programmes at this stage of the process unless there is a change to the estimated budget level or genuinely exceptional circumstances.

2.6.10 Councillor Lee seeks explanations of why a significant number of deletions of previous IWP and FWP local road maintenance candidate sites have been made across her Division within the IWP 2011/12 and FWP to 2015/16 HJMP Draft 2, which she finds to be disingenuous and misleading.

 Officer’s Reply: The future IWP and FWP programmes are reviewed every year in order to ensure that they continue to represent the best possible value. This can mean that some schemes are dropped or deferred while others are introduced or brought forwards; there would be no value in undertaking an annual review if there was no scope to make changes. In order to make this process as transparent as possible, the Changes Report (Appendix D) lists the changes made to the IWP between Draft 1 and Draft 2. It focuses on the IWP because this is the section generally of most immediate interest to Members since it forms the next year's programme. The changes to the FWP are much more extensive as schemes frequently change year in response to changes in condition and priority, it represents four year's worth of programme and a whole extra year's worth of work is added each year in addition to changes to existing projects. All of this would make a report including FWP changes much longer and make it

33 harder to pick out the more immediate IWP changes. Other tools (such as the searchable spreadsheets) are provided to assist members who wish to look into the FWP in more detail.

Generally speaking the impact of the annual review on the programme as a whole will be neutral. For instance, comparing the IWP/FWP spreadsheet provided with Draft 1 in March to the one provided with Draft 2 in October shows that there are 22 proposed Local Carriageway (CWY) schemes in the St Stephen's division in 2011-12 to 2014-15 inclusive in both lists. Some of the individual schemes have changed while others have changed year but the net impact of these changes to the forward works programme has been to maintain the previous balance. This analysis excludes the new schemes added to 2015-16 in the October list to form the extra year of the programme.

2.6.11 Councillor Lee seeks explanations of why the asset management local road maintenance assessment process has not selected; Oakwood Road, Grovelands, Cuckmans Drive, Cherry Hill and The Croft, for inclusion within the 2011/12 IWP and FWP to 2015/16 Draft 2.

 Officer’s Reply: The sites selected for the road maintenance programmes are those which will give the greatest overall benefit within the available budget. The process and criteria used in selection is complex but were explained in some detail in a paper presented to the panel in January 2010. Sites that would benefit from treatment but are not included on the programme have not been selected because other sites are either in greater need or because treating those other sites offers greater benefit/value than treating the sites not on the list. The IWP/FWP is not (and is not intended to be) an exhaustive list of all the works that we would like to undertake; rather it is list of what we believe can be afforded and delivered, optimised to give the best long term benefit.

Feedback on the Draft 2 11/12 IWP to 15/16 FWP and responses

2.7 Councillor Witherick commented that parts of Margaret Ave/Alban Ave/Eleanor Ave have been done recently so can we check the Thin Surfacing as necessary (CWY11603 planned for 2012/13) and remove the completed parts as necessary.

 Officer’s Reply: All schemes which are programmed for 2012/13 will be inspected in July of this year. Any necessary adjustments to the scope of works will be made after this inspection.

2.8 Councillor Witherick requested Valley Road Thin Surfacing (CWY12258 planned for 2012/13) be brought forward into 2010/11.

34  Officer’s Reply: The defective section of Valley Road is to be included with Porters Wood Resurfacing (CWY101347) which is scheduled for this financial year. As a consequence CWY12258 will be deleted from the programme.

2.9 Councillor Witherick requested Maple Avenue be done at the same time as Woollam Crescent Resurfacing (CWY12436 planned for 2012/13).

 Officer’s Reply: Maple Avenue is included in the 2011/12 Super CAT2 programme which is delivered by the District Team. Unfortunately, at present Woollam Crescent no longer features as a result of the latest modelling process which recently took place and is an integral part of the adopted asset management policy. In these circumstances it will not be possible for them to be undertaken at the same time as part of the IWP programme.

2.10 Councillor Frearson requested College Street and Spicer Street be considered for Thin Surfacing and supported Lower Dagnall Street Thin Surfacing (CWY14053 planned for 2014-2015) and that it would make sense to do this area in the same year to minimise expense and disruption. Also we spoke of the state of the blue brick pavements in these streets, which need re-laying. Many bricks are loose and a potential trip hazard

 Officer’s Reply regarding Lower Dagnall Street: Unfortunately, as a result of the latest modelling process which recently took place, which is an integral part of the adopted asset management policy, Lower Dagnall Street no longer features in the programme of works. However this does not mean that it will not reappear in the future.

 Officer’s Reply regarding College Street: At present College Street is included in the Forward Works Programme for 2015/16 although this may change as a result of future reviews of this programme.

 Officer’s Reply regarding Spicer Street: The situation regarding Spicer Street is similar to that of College Street in that it is included in the FWP, although in this case it is for 2014/15. Again this may change in view of future reviews.

 Officer Reply regarding surfacing them in the same year: Obviously it would make sense to undertake these works at the same time, and this would be taken into consideration when the site inspections are undertaken prior to fixing exact dates.

 Officer Reply regarding blue brick pavements: Unfortunately works involving “blue brick” paving are not proving straightforward. However steps are being undertaken to resolve matters.

35 Obviously once a resolution is reached then schemes will proceed.

2.11 Councillor Frearson supported New England Street Footway Reconstruction (FWY13038 planned for 2014-2015).

 Officer’s Reply: The Councillors support is appreciated and this scheme remains in the FWP for 2014/15.

2.12 Councillor Frearson said there had been complaints about Hill Street footways (similar to New England Street above) and requested this be considered for inclusion in 2014/15 too.

 Officer’s Reply: Unfortunately with budget constraints a ranking system is required to ensure that funds are expended in the most appropriate way. In these circumstances Hill Street will be included in the next appraisal of footway schemes.

2.13 Councillor Prowse questioned Appendix E: Member Feedback and that he found the Officer’s responses to his feedback (see 1.23 above) extremely unhelpful with the repetitive phase of “Councillors comments noted”.

 Officer’s Reply: We apologise that the Councillor found the previous feedback to be unhelpful and repetitive. Unfortunately the situation being so similar for each site resulted in the repetitive replies.

Councillor Prowse reiterated the following pavements be considered for addition to the maintenance programme:

Campfield / Roland Street / Mile House Close / New House Park / Cunningham Avenue -

 Officer’s Reply: Whilst these footways have not been included in the 2011/12 IWP they will be included in the next cycle of the footway bidding process. Dependant upon the comparative condition against those across the County and subject to the availability of funding they may well be included in the following years IWP (2012/13) or the FWP.

2.14 Councillor Frearson referred to London Road Resurfacing (ARP15004 planned for 2015/16) and he would like clarification on the extent and scope of this scheme.

 Officer’s Reply: The extent of the planned resurfacing is the section of the A1081 London Road between the Grosvenor/Orient Close roundabout and the Alma Road mini-roundabout. This work borders both St Albans Central and St Albans South, hence the reason it is listed under both Divisions in the IWP/FWP report.

36 This provides the benefit that as well as the Division Member within which the work is located being informed of the scheme, the Division Member of the adjacent Division is also informed regarding works to be carried out on roads that cross into their Division. i.e. works within the close vicinity of their boundary. Given this work is currently planned for five years in the future the extent, scope, type of treatment and year of the works will be subject to further ongoing asset management modelling and Officer investigation supported by on-site observations and inspections.

2.15 There was a comment that London Road Surface Inlay (ARP12044 planned for 2012/13) was thought to be wrongly described as ‘The Camp, St Albans’.

 Officer’s Reply: The extent of the planned surface inlay was the section of the A1081 London Road between Cunningham Hill Road and the Grosvenor/Orient Close roundabout. This work borders both St Albans East and St Albans South, hence the reason it was listed under both Divisions in the IWP/FWP report. This provides the benefit that as well as the Division Member within which the work is located being informed of the scheme, the Division Member of the adjacent Division is also informed regarding works to be carried out on roads that cross into their Division. i.e. works within the close vicinity of their boundary. It was described under the Sub-Area of The Camp because this is the nearest area name to this work on published maps. However, please note this Surface Inlay work planned in 2012-13 has now been withdraw from the programme because it was replaced by a Winter Damage Recovery priority scheme for Carriageway Resurfacing (WRC09003) and the resurfacing of this section of London Road was brought forward and has already been successfully completed.

2.16 Councillor Lloyd referred to the reference to the Pickfords Footbridge HCC No 1685 (BRG10037 planned for 2011-12) and he would like clarification on the extent and scope of this scheme, where the name Pickfords is derived as he didn't know that was its local name and why there is reference on this IWP entry to Harpenden South West as it is not sited there.

 Officer’s Reply: The footbridge is on the B652 Station Road near to the mini roundabout junction with B653 Lower Luton Road. Therefore this bridge is located in Harpenden North East but the B652 Station Road also crosses into Harpenden South West, hence the reason this scheme was listed under both Divisions in the IWP/FWP report. This provides the benefit that as well as the Division Member within which the work is located being informed of the scheme, the Division Member of the adjacent Division is also informed regarding works to be carried

37 out on roads that cross into their Division. i.e. works within close vicinity of their boundary.

The scheme name 'Pickfords' is not a location or local name but rather a generic name for this type of bridge like 'suspension bridge' although, in this case, it is derived from the name of the manufacturer of bridges of this type/pattern: “Pickfords Tubewright Bridge”. We would be happy to change the name of the scheme and update the County's bridge records to something more specific if we are informed of a locally- recognised name for this footbridge.

In terms of the planned works, the bridge has been on Herts Highway’s painting programme for a couple of years. Last year we carried out some structural investigation to the condition of the steelwork. No serious defects were uncovered. We are now planning to paint the bridge in the 2011-12 financial year. A new IWP Scheme number has been created for the painting work.

2.17 Councillor Heritage thanked Officers for considering and adding many of the roads that she had suggested to the FWP.

2.18 Councillor Heritage pointed out the Officers Reply in 1.5 above was incorrect because Collens Road Thin Surfacing (CWY13415 planned for 2013-14) and Hawsley Road Thin Surfacing (CWY14332 planned for 2014-15) were listed in the FWP, and thanked Officers for adding them.

 Officer’s Reply: We apologies for any confusion. Due to the timeframes involved in producing the IWP/FWP reports and associated Appendices this written Officer feedback is often carried out in parallel with the finalisation of scheme assessment and prioritisation within the IWP/FWP database. Therefore, in this case, unfortunately the written feedback was not corrected to reflect the final changes to the IWP/FWP database.

Collens Road: This work is still planned for 2013/14.

Hawsley Road: This work is still planned for 2014/15.

2.19 Regarding 1.6 above Councillor Heritage thanked Officers for bringing forward Park Ave South/St Andrews Ave Carriageway Recycling (CWY12165 now planned for 2011-12), but expressed concern that Park Avenue North Carriageway Recycling (CWY11615 planned for 2010/11) had not yet been delivered and will not be surfaced before the winter weather commences.

 Officer’s Reply: Park Avenue South Thin Surfacing (CWY12165 originally planned for 2012/13) and St Andrews Avenue Thin Surfacing (CWY11951 planned in 2011/12) have been combined to be done together as Park Ave South / St Andrews Ave Carriageway Recycling (CWY12165 planned for 2011-12).

38 Please note the following update regarding the works planned on these three roads:

Park Avenue North: Unfortunately, due to adverse weather conditions it was not possible to commence these works until very recently. Works are now underway and a due for completion before the end of March.

Park Ave South / St Andrews Ave: These sites are now combined and are still planned to be delivered in the coming financial year i.e. 2011/12. The exact type of treatment has not yet been fixed and is dependant upon a further site inspection.

2.20 Regarding 1.7 above Councillor Heritage noted Pipers Avenue Carriageway Recycling (CWY101443) fallen back to 2013/2014 without any explanation. I can only assume that this is because the road was-jet patched after winter 2009/2010. This is not acceptable as the road is collapsing down the centre of the carriageway which must mean that the substructure has major problems. On these occasions I do consider that a proper explanation is given and discussed with the local member.

 Officer’s Reply: Pipers Avenue is a very low use road which needs a very expensive treatment (retread) because of the structural issues. At around £35 per sq m, retread is about four times the cost of a micro-asphalt and perhaps seven times the cost of a surface dressing. With so many roads needing attention and vulnerable after two harsh winters we had some tough choices to make last summer and one of them was to defer all retread jobs on lower use roads for several years. The only retread jobs currently in the 2011/12 programme Countywide are Park Ave South and St Andrews Ave - see 2.19 above - (which are part of the PA South scheme). We can make the available money go further and treat and protect more roads by doing more of the more cost effective types of treatment. This may mean that we need to keep roads that are or very low use and very expensive to repair (like Pipers Avenue) safe with interim works like jet- patching for longer but ultimately this approach means that overall more cost effective work can be done to treat more roads and in turn, overall, this leads to fewer bad roads in the future. We can appreciate that this will not help the residents of Pipers Avenue, but if we did Pipers Avenue at high cost this would mean we wouldn’t be able to treat four lesser-cost roads in a timely manner which will impact on even more residents in the medium to long term.

In terms of notice and consultation, the various Drafts of the IWP and FWP are our method of informing and consulting on proposed changes to the programme. We do include a Changes Report and brief commentary for IWP changes (i.e. those changes that effect

39 the most imminent works) but even this can be quite time consuming to populate. The FWP, dealing as it does with works further into the future, is always more uncertain with schemes changing more frequently (something we try to avoid with the IWP where possible). So there will always be changes from year-to- year. We also revisit the scheme priorities each year which can also cause schemes to move. Providing a detailed commentary on all of this would be time-consuming and the time spent would only be of use if someone was particularly interested in the details of an individual future scheme. Under those circumstances, it is more efficient to answer the specific questions rather than to try to write a commentary on each and every change.

For the future we are considering whether there is a case to bring Pipers Ave into 2011/12 to combine it with the PA South scheme (see 2.19 above) but this will depend on the other demands and priorities and whether such a combination offers any further economies-of-scale that make the scheme more attractive overall.

2.21 Regarding 1.8 above Councillor Heritage thanked Officers for the delivery of some excellent work in Victoria Road and Bowers Way, and questioned what are the snagging issues?

 Officer’s Reply: Works here are now fully complete. The reference to 'subject to snagging' in the previous feedback did not relate to specific known faults but rather indicated that the schemes had finished on site but still needed final checks and sign-off. This has now been completed and there are no known faults with the work.

2.22 Regarding 1.9 above Councillor Heritage said a considerable amount of patching has taken place in Arden Grove and therefore she does not understand why it is not being followed-up with some form of surfacing (Thin Surfacing) which would sustain the road for many years. The FWP reflects that this road has been split into two parts to be surfaced in 2014-15 (CWY14041) and 2015-16 (CWY15034). She does not see any economies-of-scale for delivering two different projects in such a small road. Please explain.

 Officer’s Reply: The works will be combined for delivery but this integration process usually happens as part of the last main review prior to delivery (the point at which the first year of the FWP (Preparation Programme) becomes the IWP (Delivery Programme)).

2.23 Regarding 1.10 above Councillor Heritage noted that Southdown Road Thin Surfacing (CWY14139 planned for 2014-15) has been added to the programme and reflects that work is now planned somewhere along the road although it was not clear which section. She reiterated that the section of Southdown Road to which she is referring is the section at the lower end of Arden Grove (along by

40 Quakers House and the Common) and that therefore it would make sense to deliver any planned works along this section at the same time as Arden Grove Thin Surfacing (see above)

 Officer’s Reply: The section of Southdown Road which is on the programme for 2014/15 is described as ‘Southdown Road: Bull Road to End (Turning Circle)’. It is believed that this is the same section, which is referred to above. Wherever schemes are in close proximity endeavours are made to combine them. This possibility will be considered nearer to the time of delivery.

2.24 Regarding 1.11 above Councillor Heritage noted that Walkers Road Resurfacing (CWY12276 planned for 2014-15) reflects that work is planned somewhere along the road although it was not clear which section. She reiterated that the section of Walkers Road to which she is referring from St John's Road down to Southdown Road is in such a poor condition she does not think it will last much longer. She said she has asked on numerous occasions for some CAT2 patching in this vicinity but nothing has been forthcoming. This is one of the main east/west routes through Harpenden. It does not have an ‘A’ status but carries as much traffic as Station Road and should therefore be afforded more attention than it currently receives.

 Officer’s Reply: The section of Walkers Road in question is from the 40mph sign to Southdown Road Mini Roundabout (the 40mph signs being about half way along the road) so this includes the section referred to above. Walkers Road has now been brought forward into the 2011/12 programme.

2.25 Regarding 1.12 above Councillor Heritage reiterated that Leyton Road from Waitrose to Marks & Spencers is a heavily trafficked piece of road and carries very large delivery lorries and that sporadic patching is not helpful.

 Officer’s Reply regarding Waitrose to M&S: Unfortunately this road is not included in the programme at the moment. However it is under consideration for inclusion with works planned in St Albans Road.

Whilst this is not the reason for its none appearance in the programme, and appreciating that patching is not an ideal solution, it may be of interest to note that given the mixed residential/commercial nature of the road a full resurfacing scheme would be difficult to deliver without significant inconvenience to one group or the other (i.e. shops will want night works to avoid disruption to business, but residents will want the opposite). In these circumstances, at least up to a point, make- safe (patching etc.) works are less disruptive than delivering a full scheme. Nevertheless at a certain point a full scheme may be

41 more appropriate, hence the current consideration for inclusion with planned work on St Albans Road.

2.26 Regarding 1.14 above Councillor Heritage notes that Eastmoor Park Thin Surfacing has now been broken into three parts (CWY13192 in 2013-14, and CWY14329 and CWY14341 in 2014-15) and reflects that work is planned somewhere along the road although it was not clear which sections. She commented that 2014-15 is a long way away and economies-of-scale would suggest that the entire road and its spurs should be done at the same time. Please explain.

 Officer’s Reply: The section currently planned in 2013/14 is ‘Eastmoor Park: Cravells Road to end (Opp. House 55)’. The sections planned in 2014/15 are ‘Eastmoor Park: Limbrick Road to Outside No. 2’ and ‘Eastmoor Park: Limbrick Road to Junction No. 102’.

As always, the programme will be fully integrated closer to the time and it is likely that these sections would be combined for delivery. The other subsections would also be assessed at the same time and included if warranted.

Unfortunately we can only accommodate so much within a given year which means that some schemes need to wait even though we would like to do them sooner.

2.27 Regarding 1.15 above Councillor Heritage notes that Churchfield Thin Surfacing has now been broken into two parts (CWY13199 in 2013-2014 and CWY14261 in 2014-15). She questioned doesn’t it makes more sense to do both bits of the road at the same time? Residents will not understand doing it in two parts.

 Officer’s Reply: The section currently planned in 2013/14 is ‘Churchfield: cul-de-sac off main section’ and the section planned in 2014/15 is ‘Churchfield: Piggottshill Lane to end cul-de-sac’.

As with other such schemes, it is likely that these would be combined for delivery in a single scheme unless there were exceptional circumstances; this would happen in the final integration of the programme prior to delivery.

2.28 Regarding 1.6 above Councillor Heritage questioned what are the snagging issues for the following roads? Are these issues that Councillors need to be aware of?

Alders End Lane (Carriageway Recycling WRC10038 planned for 2010/11).

 Officer’s Reply: Works here are now fully complete. The reference to 'subject to snagging' in the previous feedback did not relate to specific known faults but rather indicated that the schemes had

42 finished on site but still needed final checks and sign-off. This has now been completed and there are no known faults with the work.

Broadstone Road (Carriageway Surface Dressing WRC09092 planned for 2010/11). Aldwick Road (Surface Dress CWY09531 planned for 2010/11) Ashcroft Close (Surface Dress CWY09532 planned for 2010/11). - these roads have sort of been surfaced but are of poor quality finish.

 Officer’s Reply: These schemes formed part of the 'fibredec' proprietary surface treatment programme last year. (Since the circumstances surrounding these schemes are identical this will result in similar responses).

Unfortunately, some of the preparation work for these schemes was not completed prior to the surface treatment and the Works Team were to return with a suitable process to correct these outstanding faults. Some of this has happened but some is still outstanding because of the adverse weather in recent months. In particular this relates to potholes and to faults along the edges by the kerb-line. We will ensure that this work is fully completed as the weather permits.

In addition to these general faults, the contractor also treated several bellmouths, the splayed areas at junctions where vehicles turn from one road into another. We had not instructed these areas to be treated since we know that the turning movements at junctions typically cause this type of surface finish to strip off (which is exactly what has happened). Needless to say we are not paying for these elements of work which we did not want and I can only offer apologies for the mess and inconvenience resulting (which would not have happened if the specialist contractor had followed the original instructions given).

There is also a significant area of stripping on the bend in Broadstone Road which, again, has been referred to the contractor as a poor workmanship and this will be rectified next season (this is a summer- only process) at no cost to HCC.

It is unfortunate that this may have given a poor view of this particular process. However, in general it is a very successful and useful process and one of the ways we can seal and protect urban road surfaces and prevent future potholes. With the exception of the stripping on the bend, the problems are not faults in the process itself but are issues with the organisation of the works that we have already taken up with those involved.

Rothamsted Ave (Thin Surfacing CWY10579 planned for 2010/11).

 Officer’s Reply: Works here are now fully complete. The reference to 'subject to snagging' in the previous feedback did not relate to specific known faults but rather indicated that the schemes had

43 finished on site but still needed final checks and sign-off. This has now been completed and there are no known faults with the work.

Townsend Road (Thin Surfacing CWY101453 planned for 2010/11).

Barnes Dene (Thin Surfacing CWY101441 planned for 2010/11).

Moreton End Lane (Surface Dress CWY09556 planned for 2010/11, and Thin Surfacing CWY14044 planned for 2014/15).

Hawthorn Close (Surface Dress CWY09544 planned for 2010/11).

2.29 Councillor Heritage pointed out the Officers Reply in 1.6 above regarding Knowle Drive Thin Surfacing (CWY12424) was incorrect because it is still listed for 2012/13 in the FWP, and reiterated that the top three- quarters of this cul-de-sac really needs some work carried out, if not under IWP perhaps CAT2. Also that surely Knowle Drive Thin Surfacing should be done at the same time as Tarrant Drive Thin Surfacing (CWY11958 planned for 2011/12).

 Officer’s Reply: We apologise for this error and please note the following update regarding the works planned on these cul-de- sacs:

44 Knowle Drive: This road is still on the programme for 2012/13. We acknowledge the poor condition but unfortunately that means that it may need a more expensive treatment, like retread, which regrettably may mean deferral rather advancement in the programme. Again, we are limited by how much we can accommodate in a single year, no matter how deserving.

Tarrant Drive: Like Knowle Drive, Tarrant Drive potentially needs a retread type treatment.

Overall: To make such retread cost-effective a reasonably sized site and programme will be needed (and even then this type of treatment offers poor value for money compared to some other types of treatment). It is likely that Knowle Drive and Tarrant Drive will be considered and delivered together in the future, but it would prove difficult to justify brining them forwards in the programme against other roads that are busier and/or could be treated using a cheaper treatment.

2.30 Regarding 1.16 above Councillor Heritage questioned when exactly will Milton Road Carriageway Recycling will take place? (WRC10064 planned for 2010/11, to be followed by Milton Road Resurfacing (CWY11605 planned for 2013/14)).

 Officer’s Reply: Carriageway Recycling (WRC10064) is currently underway and this should be completed by the end of March. Resurfacing (CWY 11605) remains on the FWP planned for 2013/14.

2.31 Regarding 1.16 above Councillor Heritage questioned when exactly will Topstreet Way Carriageway Recycling will take place? (CWY10584 planned for 2010/11).

 Officer’s Reply: Due to adverse weather conditions works have only recently commenced but these should be completed by the end of March.

2.32 Regarding 1.17 above Councillor Heritage urged that the IWP/FWP Asset Management / Modelling process results referred to in the Officer’s responses did not appear to match the observed condition of the roads as she has further commented/elaborated below:

A1081 Harpenden Road / St Albans Road – Beeson End Lane to Bull Road roundabout - The carriageway has large cracks forming in places, how will you handle these given the heavy traffic movements? I note the road section from Ayres End Lane to Beeson End Lane is being surfaced (Harpenden Road Surface Dressing, ARP11149 planned for 2010/11) however I would appreciate an update on why the carriageway from

45 Beeson End Lane to the Bull Road roundabout is not being considered too.

 Officer’s Reply: The following sections are in the 2011/12 programme: ‘Harpenden Road: 40mph signs to Ayres End Lane’; Harpenden Road: Junction Ayres End Lane to Junction Beesonend Lane’.

The section from Beeson End Lane to the Bull Road roundabout is not currently on the programme but was considered (along with all road sections) as part of the process. There is a potential route safety scheme planned on this road in 2012/13 which may offer opportunities for combined works in some places and other sections feature in the programme in the future. We will continue to reassess the programme regularly to ensure it delivers the best possible value for the available budget but we cannot accommodate everything that we would like to do.

Barlings Road - main through road and spurs - Given that some of the spurs to this road have been surfaced surely it makes sense to cover the main through road?

 Officer’s Reply: Unfortunately the main through road is not currently on the programme. Normal practice, where possible, would be to group similar roads in similar condition together for delivery although there are sometimes good reasons to deliver sections individually.

Burnsall Place and Aran Close - some bits in very poor condition – please elaborate what does the Asset Management / Modelling process results say and when is this carriageway anticipated to come into the FWP?

 Officer’s Reply regarding Burnsall Place: This road is not currently on the programme. Since this is a small site, it would most likely be grouped (say with Cranbourne Drive - although that is not currently on the programme either). Burnsall Place is recognised as being in poor condition but, since we can't include everything, some sites will inevitably not be on the programme even though we would like to see them treated.

 Officer’s Reply regarding Aran Close: This road is not currently on the programme. Overall a similar situation to Burnsall Place (except it would probably be grouped with Welbeck Rise (also not currently on the programme either) for more cost-effective delivery.

Birch Way and Bryon Road - Councillor Heritage pointed out the Officers Replies in 1.7 above were incorrect because Birch Way Thin Surfacing (CWY12421 planned for 2012-2013) and Byron Road Thin Surfacing

46 (CWY11584 planned for 2014-2015) were listed in the FWP, and she now hoped that these would not be lost.

 Officer’s Reply: We apologise for these error and please note the following update regarding the works planned on these roads:

Birch Way: This road is still on the programme for 2012/13. There will be no further changes to the 2012/13 programme as a result of the modelling process so this road will move into the IWP Preparation Programme in April 2011 to start the process for detailed planning for delivery in 2012/13. Therefore, as long as the site is still suitable for Thin Surfacing or an alternative affordable treatment when the detailed engineering assessment and design process starts later in 2011, it should be a firm candidate for delivery in 2012/13 (budget permitting).

Byron Road: This road is still on the programme for 2014/15. However, because this is so far in the future, the programme will be reviewed several times by the modelling process before the 2014/15 programme moves into detailed planning for delivery. Therefore it can only be considered indicative at this stage. This site may be combined with Wordsworth Road (currently planned for 2013/14) for delivery during a future review of the programme.

Grove Road - especially Piggotshill Road roundabout junction to Grove Avenue, and Grove Road / Welbeck Rise / Pipers Lane roundabout junction which needs resurfacing as surfacing is dangerous - Councillor Heritage pointed out the Officers Replies in 1.7 above were incorrect because Grove Road Resurfacing (CWY13330 planned for 2013/14) is listed in the FWP, and she now hoped that this would not be lost.

 Officer’s Reply: We apologise for these error and please note the following update regarding the works planned on these roads:

Grove Road / Piggotshill Road roundabout/Grove Road/Grove Road / Welbeck Rise / Pipers Lane roundabout: This section is in the programme is ‘Grove Road: Mini Roundabout Southdown Road to Mini Roundabout Pipers Lane’ which is still planned for resurfacing in 2013/14. However, first some drainage works are programmed for 2011/12. It is seldom effective to combine drainage and surfacing works because of the difference in the type and speed of the works but it may be possible and beneficial to bring the surfacing works forward, perhaps to 2012/13, to follow once the drainage works are complete. This will be investigated.

Moreton Avenue - Councillor Heritage pointed out the Officers Reply in 1.7 above was incorrect because Moreton Avenue Thin Surfacing (CWY12161 planned for 2015/16) was listed in the FWP, and she now hoped that these would not be lost.

47  Officer’s Reply: We apologise for these error and please note the following update regarding the works planned on this road:

Moreton Avenue: This road is still on the programme for 2015/16. However, because this is so far in the future, the programme will be reviewed several times by the modelling process before the 2015/16 programme moves into detailed planning for delivery. Therefore it can only be considered indicative at this stage.

Sibley Avenue - from Grove Road half way up the hill, and concerned about the surface from about no. 22 (where the road surface changes) to the junction with Grove Road - I must declare an interest as I live in the road, however I have asked my ADM to visit to give a technical view to what should be done with this portion of the road, as the top layer is giving way and potholes are forming daily. This is a bus route and a through road to the Wheathampstead Road. We need some serious patching or jet patching otherwise the road will give way in the winter season. This has been a sudden degradation.

 Officer’s Reply: This road is not currently on the programme. There is extensive minor crazing (i.e. it is effectively fragmented) of the road surface. The road would probably require a retread treatment and would therefore be expensive. It was considered for the second Winter Recovery Programme but ultimately could not be accommodated as other sites were in worse condition and a higher priority.

Wordsworth Road - Councillor Heritage pointed out the Officers Reply in 1.7 above was incorrect because Wordsworth Road Thin Surfacing (CWY13323 planned for 2013/14) was listed in the FWP, and she now hoped that these would not be lost.

 Officer’s Reply: We apologise for these error and please note the following update regarding the works planned on this road:

Wordsworth Road: This road is still on the programme for 2013-14. However, because this is so far in the future, the programme will be reviewed by the modelling process before the 2013/14 programme moves into detailed planning for delivery. Therefore it can only be considered indicative at this stage. This site may be combined with Byron Road (currently 2013/14) for delivery during a future review of the programme.

Burywick – spurs - Councillor Heritage pointed out the Officers Reply in 1.7 above was incorrect because Burywick Thin Surfacing (CWY14235 planned for 2014/15) was listed in the FWP, and she now hoped that these would not be lost.

48  Officer’s Reply: We apologise for these error and please note the following update regarding the works planned on this road:

Burywick: Burywick remains in the 2014/15 FWP.

Paddock Wood – Bellmouth with Grove Road – Councillor Heritage questioned if not under IWP then perhaps CAT2?

 Officer’s Reply: Paddock Wood is not currently on the programme but dealing with localised problem areas is more usually undertaken through CAT2 works. However, if still necessary, it is likely that the bellmouth area would be picked up as part of the Grove Road surfacing scheme.

Stevenage

Feedback on Draft 1 and responses:

1. General

1.1 Can scheme SAR09021 (A602 junction with A1(M) J7 Casualty Reduction Proposals) include a pedestrian access to/from Knebworth Park to provide safer routes for pedestrians to/from the facilities on east side of A1(M)?.

 Note: This reply is the same as the one given in the Draft 1 report to the Spring 2010 HJMP upon the following similar feedback: Members would like to see more information on the accident reduction schemes. Particularly with respect to A1(M) / A602 where there are inadequate pedestrian facilities linking Gunnels Wood Road through to Knebworth Park. (SAR09021) (Note: could be linked with Glaxo Access proposals).

 Officer’s Reply in general: Appendix A, Sections A4 and A5, summaries how Casualty Reduction schemes are identified, selected and prioritised. Schemes are identified based on analysis of police collision data and the ranking system used prioritises schemes and initiatives in locations where people have been killed or seriously injured. Because it is necessary to use the most up-to-date accident data possible when prioritising this programme, the decisions regarding the exact schemes to be included in the IWP are normally finalised

49 later than in most other programmes so further information cannot always be included.

 Officers Response regarding A1(M) A602: This location has been reviewed for potential remedial measures to be promoted from the Casualty Reduction budget. Due to the impending works at the GSK site no further action is to be taken at present since the current layout of the roundabout is likely to be changed significantly.

 Pedestrian facilities were not looked at as part of this investigation as there were no recorded personal injury collisions relating to pedestrians at this location.

1.2 Members were concerned with a number of footway/cycleway issues which are not maintenance and which need to be picked up. In particular Officers were asked to look at resolving the steep gradient of the pedestrian way (footway) in Hertford Road, near the bus stop opposite Kenilworth Close and close to the underpass.

 Officer’s Reply:  This location has never come up during any of the consultation events which took place during the development of the Stevenage Urban Transport Plan which was undertaken in 2009/10 and completed in 2010/11 and hence has never been considered or addressed for consideration and funding.

 A number of cycleways and footways locations have been suggested for improvements within the Stevenage UTP which will be put forward for funding on an annual basis for funding.

 As this is not within the Stevenage UTP it is suggested it be considered as part of the discretionary funding in 2010/11 o r2011/12 and if deemed feasible can be put forward for funding for implementation in either 2011/112 or 2012/13.

1.3 Members do not wish to see slippage of any part of 2011/12 programme.

 Officer’s Reply:

 1 The IWP is a "5-quarter programme" so there are already a surplus of sites before we start, to get some designed and pump primed ready for the following year so that we hit the ground running.

 2 Schemes in Stevenage in 09/10 that slipped into 10/11 were Lytton r'bt and Pankhurst Crescent. Lytton slipped only because one of the Statutory Undertakers had to go in first. Pankhurst slipped because it was originally a Fibre-Dec site to be patched 09/10 and dressed 10/11. However further site visits revealed problems created by the extent of Sunday parking and the treatment was amended to Micro Surfacing.

50 Unfortunately the next tranche of this specialist treatment is not until 10/11.

 3 The only scheme in Stevenage that may slip from 10/11 into 11/12 of which we are aware at present is ARP10226/WRC10017 Gunnellswood Road which may completely slip or part slip/part delete depending on the pending decision on movement of the £1.6m of WRC2. Whether any other scheme is deferred because of a bad winter won't be known until the conditions arrive.

 4 Statutory Undertakers, roadspace, lack of budget, poor weather, drainage works, co-ordinating with other work like a safety scheme etc, availability of specialist contractors all make an impact on delivery times

2.1 Councillor Robin Parker perception is that the whole of Marlborough Road and Wellington Road are in need of attention, and requests consideration be given to putting it on the FWP for complete re-surfacing as soon as possible.

 Officer’s Reply: Unfortunately the adopted Asset Management approach to maintaining the highway network does not always result in those roads which appear to be in greatest need actually being treated, especially within the present budgets. However should any monies become available as a result of “under- spends” elsewhere this scheme will be considered, although it may require some additional resources to be provided by the area office.

2.2 Councillor James Fraser indicated support for the resurfacing of Letchmore Road, Stevenage Old Town.

 Officer’s Reply: This scheme went in as a late addition to WRC2 after the main list of Priority 1 and 2 sites had been reduced to total just over the original budget. This site was actually included as a High Priority 3 with a view to inclusion in the programme if expenditure did not reach the total allocation (for Priority 1 and 2 Schemes). Unfortunately this has not happened. Rather than be able to add sites, the budgets have actually been reduced. Unfortunately, in these circumstances, at present Letchmore Road is not programmed for work. However should monies become available it will be considered for re-inclusion.

2.3 Councillor James Fraser expressed that more and more people are commenting/complaining about the state of Letchmore Road, which he said is pretty atrocious, particularly at the south end over the speed bumps.

51  Officer’s Reply: This scheme went in as a late addition to WRECK after the main list of Priority 1 and 2 sites had been reduced to total just over the original budget. This site was actually included as a High Priority 3 with a view to inclusion in the programme if expenditure did not reach the total allocation (for Priority 1 and 2 Schemes). Unfortunately this has not happened. Rather than be able to add sites, the budgets have actually been reduced. Unfortunately, in these circumstances, at present Letchmore Road is not programmed for work. However should monies become available it will be considered for re-inclusion.

2.4 Councillor Philip Bibby requested resurfacing in Weston Road, Stevenage, and that it be added to the FWP.

 The Councillor’s comment is noted. Unfortunately Weston Road has not been included in the present FWP , which is based upon the latest remodelling. However, in common with all other highways, it is possible that it may gain future inclusion as a result of next year’s or subsequent model runs.

2.5 A new scheme to be delivered was sought in terms of the addition of an off-road link for National Cycleway Route 12 along the east side of Monkswood Way over the length of Jennings Close to complete the off- road route.

 Officer’s Reply: During the consultation events held as part of the Stevenage UTP this locations was never raised and is therefore not included within the UTP.

3.1 Councillor James Fraser was absent from the HJMP but other Councillors reiterated his concerns (see 2.2 and 2.3 above) about the condition of Letchmore Road which is currently not in the FWP.

 Officer’s Reply: This scheme has now been included in the 2011/12 IWP.

3.2 Councillor Robin Parker was concerned that Marlborough Road and Wellington Road have been prepared for resurfacing (extensive patching had occurred this year) but are still not showing on the FWP for overlay.

52 The Member was unhappy with the response (see 2.1 above) and seeks their inclusion in the programme.

 Officer’s Reply: Unfortunately funding could not be found for these schemes within the IWP budget. However they have been included in the 2011/12 Super CAT2.

3.3 Councillor Robin Parker wanted it minuted that White Way should show two possible crossings through the Urban Transport Plan in the IWP listings. Councillor Parker was concerned that only one crossing was currently showing on White Way (White Way Toucan Crossing, ITP13015 planned for 2013-2014) but had requested two through the UTP process. Also could the provision of the crossings in White Way be brought forward?

Officer’s Reply: This was put forward for funding for 2011/12, however was not short-listed given the limited funding available. We agree there are two crossings suggested within the Stevenage UTP in item HM4 on page 192 of the final report, although only one was listed on the IWP due to funding constraints.

3.4 Councillor Latif said that Rectory Lane Traffic Calming is shown as a 2013-14 scheme (ITP13016) but the residents do not want it.

 Officer’s Reply: This is a scheme which has been initially investigated and consulted upon due to complaints regarding traffic in this area. Delivery in 2013-14 is a provisional date within the IWP programme and is subject to this possible scheme being prioritised and selected for funding. If selection and funding can be confirmed further detailed investigation and consultation will be carried out to obtain Members and local views before anything is delivered.

3.5 Councillor Cherney-Craw contested the Officer’s reply to the query about National Cycleway Route 12 (see 2.5 above) as the Member raised this at the Urban Transport Plan consultation personally.

 Officer’s Reply: Firstly, we wish to apologise that this possible new scheme was not picked-up at the consultation. As part of the finalisation of the UTP we did highlight all the new schemes that were being included but unfortunately this possible scheme was overlooked.

The main cycling scheme regarding National Cycle Route 12 was PCM8, raised through the consultation, and concerning a new crossing from Old Knebworth Lane to enable cyclists to follow Route 12 into Stevenage. This was also recommended by CTC who followed this route.

The break in the off-road section along Jennings Close is relatively short (0.1 miles) and is along a residential access road which would be lightly trafficked. This may have been why a detailed scheme was not

53 worked-up for this proposal when the cycle links were originally considered, and this location was not raised by the local campaign groups perhaps as it was felt that this could be on-road cycling. This route could be added to scheme CM2 (review the cycleway network, identifying where it could be better connected) as part of the annual UTP review process and will be delivered as-and-when funding is available.

Three Rivers

1.1 Councillor Button commented on the poor condition of Astons Road. He said it is the only public access to Moor Park Underground Station and Moor Park shops, and the road is in an awful state. It really does need more than making good. The road is very undulating indeed and the substructure is disintegrating. Astons Road is also getting used by HGVs bringing equipment to and from the work on the Metropolitan Line embankment. It is also the relief bus route at weekends when the trains are out of service. Therefore Aston Road should be re-inspected and consider for inclusion on the programme.

 Officer’s Reply: Astons Road 8U20/10 is mostly OK but has a very poor ride quality in some places (possible sink holes as the area is prone to them). The immediately adjacent 8U525/20 Main Avenue - CWY11915 is in 11/12 programme and on the inspections this has already been extended to include the worst sections of Astons Road.

Watford

1.1 The Panel made the specific comments detailed in Table 1:

54  Officer’s Reply: Officers from the local and strategic teams have considered the feedback jointly and responses are included in the last column of Table 1. While it has not been possible to accommodate everything Members have suggested within the current programmes, some changes have been possible following the feedback, as noted.

55 Table 1:

Councillor Road Location Ward Location Road Section Comments Officer Response

Stephen Johnson Foxhill Footways Leggatts Ward 9U167 Footpath in poor condition, in for Either already on the FWP or have 2014 under FWY13044. Would like been bid for this year and are works brought forward. currently being shuffled on the prioritising process Stephen Johnson Brush Rise Leggatts Ward 9U58 Footpath in poor condition, in for Either already on the FWP or have Footways 2014 under FWY14011. Would like been bid for this year and are works brought forward. currently being shuffled on the prioritising process Stephen Johnson Chilcot Road Leggatts Ward 9U541 Footway in poor condition Either already on the FWP or have Footways throughout road. been bid for this year and are currently being shuffled on the prioritising process Stephen Johnson Berry Avenue Leggatts Ward 9U32 Footway in poor condition Either already on the FWP or have Footways throughout road. been bid for this year and are currently being shuffled on the prioritising process Stephen Johnson Middle Way Leggatts Ward 9U310 Footway in poor condition Do not appear on this years bid. Footways throughout road. Either they have already been filtered out by the local team as lower priority or these are additional bids outside the agreed system. Audrey Oaten The Gossamers Meriden 9U194 Footway in poor condition. Heavily Either already on the FWP or have Footpaths used from OAP and leads to shops. been bid for this year and are currently being shuffled on the prioritising process Audrey Oaten The Turnstones Meriden 9U463 Footway in poor condition. Do not appear on this years bid. Footpaths Either they have already been filtered out by the local team as lower priority or these are additional bids outside the agreed system.

56 Councillor Road Location Ward Location Road Section Comments Officer Response

Audrey Oaten Garston Lane Meriden 9U184 Slabs are showing wear. Do not appear on this years bid. Footpaths Either they have already been filtered out by the local team as lower priority or these are additional bids outside the agreed system. Audrey Oaten Gaddesden Meriden 9U182 Footways in poor condition and Either already on the FWP or have Crescent some areas have been tarmaced. been bid for this year and are Footpaths currently being shuffled on the prioritising process Audrey Oaten Phillipers Meriden 9U362 Road in poor condition. Unfortunately the condition of this road does not, at present warrant its inclusion. Audrey Oaten Bowmans Green Meriden 9U43 Carriageway in poor condition. In for Unfortunately its relative condition 2011/12. Can this be brought does not provide adequate grounds forward? to bring this scheme forward. However it does remain in the 2012/13 programme Audrey Oaten Felden Close Meriden 9U157 Footways and carriageways poor F/Ws do not appear on this years condition. bid. Either they have already been filtered out by the local team as lower priority or these are additional bids outside the agreed system. Cway not on reshuffle Audrey Oaten Garston Lane Meriden 9U184 Carriageway in for resurfacing in Unfortunately its relative condition 2014/15. Can this be brought does not provide adequate grounds forward? to bring this scheme forward. However it does retain its position in the 2014/15 programme. Audrey Oaten Kytes Drive Meriden 9U119 Carriageway in for thin surfacing in Insufficient grounds to bring forward. 2012/13. Can this be brought However it does retain its position in forward? the 2012/13 programme.

Audrey Oaten Widgeon Way Meriden 9U486 Small road off Meriden Way. It does Assumed to relate to footways Do get used by older Residents from not appear on this years bid. Either Westlea and so on as route to bus they have already been filtered out stop. by the local team as lower priority or these are additional bids outside the agreed system Audrey Oaten Westfield Avenue Tudor 9U482 Footways in poor condition. Do not appear on this years bid. Either they have already been filtered out by the local team as lower priority or these are additional bids outside the agreed system Audrey Oaten Tudor Walk Tudor 9U460 Footways in poor condition. Either already on the FWP or have been bid for this year and are currently being shuffled on the prioritising process Audrey Oaten Douglas Avenue Tudor 9U133 Footways in poor condition. Do not appear on this years bid. Either they have already been filtered out by the local team as lower priority or these are additional bids outside the agreed system Audrey Oaten Hibbert Avenue Tudor 9U228 Footways in poor condition. Do not appear on this years bid. Either they have already been filtered out by the local team as lower priority or these are additional bids outside the agreed system Stephen Giles- Southeron Road Central 9U421 Carriageway in poor condition. Unfortunately the modelling process Medhurst has not resulted in this scheme’s inclusion in the programme Stephen Giles- Francis Road Central 9U168 Footways in poor condition. Do not appear on this years bid. Medhurst Either they have already been filtered out by the local team as lower priority or these are additional bids outside the agreed system

Stephen Giles- Percy Road Central 9U359 Footways in poor condition. Do not appear on this years bid. Medhurst Either they have already been filtered out by the local team as lower priority or these are additional bids outside the agreed system

Stephen Giles- Sutton Road -- Central 9U440 Carriageway in poor condition. Unfortunately the modelling process Medhurst Cross Street to has not resulted in this scheme’s Prince Street inclusion in the programme Mark Watkin Stratford Road Nascot 9U435 Carriageway in poor condition. Unfortunately the modelling process between Park has not resulted in this scheme’s Road and Church inclusion in the programme. Road Mark Watkin Park Road Nascot 9U353 Carriageway in poor condition. Unfortunately the modelling process between has not resulted in this scheme’s Stamford Road inclusion in the programme and Nascot Road Mark Watkin Wimborne Grove Nascot 9U489 Carriageway in poor condition. Unfortunately the modelling process – from no 15 to has not resulted in this scheme’s the junction withy inclusion in the programme Courtlands Drive Mark Watkin Blackley Close. Nascot 9U37 Carriageway in poor condition. Unfortunately the modelling process has not resulted in this scheme’s inclusion in the programme Mark Watkin Church Road Nascot 9U93 Carriageway in poor condition. Unfortunately the modelling process between Grange has not resulted in this scheme’s Close and inclusion in the programme Stratford Road. Mark Watkin Hawthorn Close. Nascot 9U219 Carriageway in poor condition. Unfortunately the modelling process has not resulted in this scheme’s inclusion in the programme Mark Watkin Greenbank Road Nascot 9U198/20/30 Carriageway in poor condition. Unfortunately the modelling process all 3 accesses to has not resulted in this scheme’s the houses off it. inclusion in the programme

Derek Scudder Rother Close Stanborough 9U393 Carriageway in poor condition. Unfortunately the modelling process has not resulted in this scheme’s inclusion in the programme Derek Scudder A41 North Leggatts and A41 Steps in poor condition need Do not appear on this years bid. Western Avenue Stanborough structural works. Either they have already been Steps on the side filtered out by the local team as embankment lower priority or these are additional bids outside the agreed system In any event area of adoption limits works Audrey Oaten A41 North Meriden/ Tudor A41 High Friction Surface needs Not on reshuffle. However jnct Western Avenue replacing Northbound on A41 on spotted on WRC2 and assessed but approach to Asda / Sainsbury’s only priority 3 as not extensive. A signals. road team to investigate * Officers Sites to be The Ridgeway -- Nascot 9U385/10 Carriageway in poor condition. Unfortunately the modelling process considered Ridge Lane to Surface Treatment. has not resulted in this scheme’s Courtlands Drive inclusion in the programme. * Officers Sites to be Hemmingford Nascot 9U222 Carriageway in poor condition. Unfortunately the modelling process considered Road Surface Treatment. has not resulted in this scheme’s inclusion in the programme * Officers Sites to be Butterwick Meriden 9U64/10/20 Carriageway in poor condition. Unfortunately the modelling process considered has not resulted in this scheme’s inclusion in the programme *

* As things stand the programme is practically full already and the chances of anything further getting in are slim. However If there is any money left over a shortlist for further consideration will be drawn from those sites with an asterisk.

60 2. Feedback on Draft 2 and responses.

General

2.1 Members wanted clarification of what was meant by these phrases within the Officer Responses in Table 1 above:

a. "the modelling process", and did this involve an engineer visiting each site? Why is the computed result different to observations on site?

 Officer’s Reply: The modelling process is the use of a deterioration model which is a specialist computer programme which takes many pieces of data about every road section in the County including condition survey data, fault reports, surface type, location, traffic volumes, location, hierarchy etc. and works out what would be the appropriate improvement treatment given its condition and roughly how much that would cost. It then takes the total budget we have available and calculates the roads which would provide the best value for money in the next ten years to extend the life of the whole network within that budget. The model may add, remove or change the priority (and therefore the proposed delivery year) of any scheme in the previously created programme except for those in the coming year.

Engineers inspect all the roads in the programme for the following year during the IWP preparation stage to check them. In the last two years that has been late summer of the year before the planned delivery year. It is quite possible that those schemes having been planned quite a while ago may have since been affected by bad weather, development or a change in priorities by that time. If the condition has deteriorated since the original treatment was proposed then it may need to be revised. If this is the case it may work out better value for money to leave it a bit longer until the optimum time for the revised treatment. The engineer may also make a change if they think it should be combined with or needs to avoid another scheme locally, or could, say, last a bit longer without treatment if the budget is further restricted.

b. "been bid for this year and are currently being shuffled on the prioritisation process", and does this mean there is still a chance that the footway schemes in 2.4 below may shuffle to an earlier slot?

 Officer’s Reply: Members will appreciate that numerous requests are made for sites throughout the County and that there is

61 insufficient funds to fulfil all aspirations. With this in mind the following method is used to ensure that the most deserving sites, in terms of value for money, are dealt with.

Currently all IWP footway schemes are initially selected and prioritised based solely on bids submitted by all Herts Highways District Teams for consideration for use of the available Countywide footway funding.

The District Teams are asked for candidates each year (over the summer period) and are asked to rank the condition of the site and suggest the type of treatment required. These bids are then prioritised Countywide based on the submitted bids, condition, treatment and hierarchy of the footways. For example, a busy footway in moderate condition may have a higher priority than a poor footway that sees little use. We also give a boost to preventative treatments such as micro- asphalt since these are more efficient than repairs, so a cheaper stitch- in-time treatment may also score more highly than a more expensive repair as the former offers better long term value.

We do no visit the footway sites at this stage as we are creating and ranking the programme up to five years in advance. For this outline stage of the programme we rely on what the District Teams have told us about the condition and treatment required. Logically there would be little point doing too much design work several years ahead of time since conditions on site and needs can change substantially and we would risk doing abortive work for no real gain.

The year before intended delivery (so between autumn 2010 to spring 2011 for the 11/12 programme) we go out and look at the sites in detail, review the treatment to see if its still correct, refine the design and work with WT to prepare the final work for delivery.

We would not usually change rankings and priorities except, occasionally, on a 'swap' basis (bring one forwards, push a similar value one back). Whilst everybody would like to see everything done as soon as possible and there is only so much we can accommodate in a given year; it is therefore fairer to rank them objectively to start with and then leave them in place in the programme to allow for planning (bearing in mind that, as described above, the programme does not work on a simple 'worst first' basis but takes into account a variety of different factors in setting priorities so it's not a simple case of saying 'this one is worse, we should move it up the list').

Unfortunately, at this stage, it does mean that neither Foxhill nor Brush Rise are included in the 2011/12 IWP, since at present they are not a priority over-and-above other footways.

62 Feedback on the Draft 2 11/12 IWP to 15/16 FWP and responses

2.2 DIS10062 North Western Avenue VA Signs is a Supported scheme being designed during 2010/11 which sits between Wards 65 Leggatts and 70 Stanborough and should be added to the programme to be constructed in 2011/12.

 Officer’s Reply: We can confirm these works are now planned for delivery in 2011/12 and this is now reflected on the programme.

2.3 Should DIS11003 Watford 20mph Zone 4 planned for 2011-12 be classified as ‘Preparation’, as although there are limited funds available to progress the design, there is not enough funds for construction at the moment?

 Officer’s Reply: We can confirm that preparation works for Park Avenue will take place in 2011/12. Preparation work will also take place in two other areas – the Essex Road / Alexander Road area and west of St Albans Road – Cromer Road / Judge Street area. These works are no longer being planned as Discretionary (DIS) works and are planned to be combined into one Integrated Transport (ITP) scheme to be led by the Programme & Strategy Manager. Therefore the IWP Number and programme will be updated to reflect this change (IWP Number DIS11003 is likely to become obsolete and deleted). These ITP works are currently planned for delivery in 2012/13.

2.4 Members were concerned their top priority footway - Foxhill Footway Reconstruction FWY13044 was still showing as 2013/14, and Brush Rise Footway Reconstruction FWY14011 was still 2014/15. There is funding available from Watford Housing Trust to contribute to these so can they pay HCC to do this work sooner?

 Officer’s Reply: Investigations have revealed the Housing Trust will only fund amenities for residents e.g. car parking spaces, etc., but they will not provide financial assistance for maintaining assets which are not in their ownership.

In these circumstances, unfortunately, at this stage, these roads are not included in either the 2011/12 programme nor the FWP for the reasons detailed in 2.1 b. above.

2.5 Riverside Road Drainage Works (DRN10023 planned for 2012-13 and DRN14026 planned for 2013-14) was seen as urgent by the local Member. Can it be moved back to 2011/12 and if not, why not? Is it simply lack of funds, and other drainage schemes in the County are seen as more urgent? What is the criteria for assessing which are the most urgent?

63 Officer’s Reply: The IWP/FWP drainage scheme list is made up of drainage bids from the District Teams throughout the County and are schemes that cannot be resolved by routine cleansing, CAT2 minor works or by third party intervention.

As part of the assessment process we will look at various criteria, which includes the following:

 Type of road  Standing Water, Pedestrian/Vehicles Impeded  Impassable to Pedestrian and vehicles.  Frequency of event.  Repeat maintenance/damage  Pollution risk  Flood related accident or property damage  Insurance claims  Initial cost  Information provided by the local area office  Engineers notes/comments  Changes of circumstances

From this criteria we can make an informed judgement on the priorities for the forthcoming years, however ranking of existing scheme do change each year as new sites of varying importance are submitted and circumstances of existing schemes change.

The IWP scheme for Riverside Road is in the Draft 2 IWP/FWP for 2012/13 as we understand Thames Water had completed some works in this vicinity that may have resolved the issues. It seemed logical to move this scheme back a year so we can monitor the site to assess if the situation has improved therefore avoiding any abortive works or financial implications.

Welwyn Hatfield

1.1A1001 South Way, Hatfield (Resurfacing ARP10201 planned for 2011/12) - Members noted this scheme has been delayed from 2010/11,

64 and its condition is now very poor and residents are complaining of vibration noises from the Tesco lorries that use the road 24 hours a day.

 Officer’s Reply: Unfortunately, due to budget constraints, the A Road programme has had to be curtailed with the result that approximately 70% of the programme has had to be deferred for at least 1 year.

1.2Vineyards Road, Northaw (CWY11966 planned for 2011/12) – Members said the condition of this road is very poor and possibly won't last another year.

 Officer’s Reply: Unfortunately the remodelling exercise has resulted in the removal of this scheme from the programme.

1.3 Members raised concerns that the proposed works at Church Road Footway Reconstruction (FWY11061 planned for 2011/12) may conflict with, or be superseded by alteration works required to the highway as part of the Salisbury's redevelopment.

 Officer’s Reply: moved to 12/13 to accommodate Sainsbury development.

1.4 Councillor Cowan pointed out that Marsden Road (Carriageway Thin Surfacing CWY13186 planned for 2013/14) is in very poor condition already and doesn’t think it will last 4 more years. It is cracked all along the road and has suffered many potholes this winter.

 Officer’s Reply: 0U459/10 has been extensively patched in the past and is suitable for a micro. It has now been brought forward to 2012/13.

1.5 Footway improvements in Wigmores North – Councillor Cowan said there is no planned major redevelopment as the report to members stated. Members consider this is another possible long-term pipedream of WHBC being translated via Chinese whispers into an upcoming piece of work that muddies the water. Please clarify intension for these footways.

 Officer’s Reply: Confirmation of intentions being sought from WHBC.

1.6 Members requested Ellesfield, Welwyn for inclusion in the programme for complete re-surfacing in 2011/12 or 2012/13.

 Officer’s Reply: 0U1283/10 fairly poor condition but a quiet cul-de- sac borderline retread would not go in before 13/14 and not on latest reshuffle. Neither the model nor policy favour a worst first regime or high cost low value schemes Not on the latest reshuffle.

65 1.7 Members pointed out that the carriageway of Fearnley Road, Welwyn Garden City is deteriorating at an accelerating rate and therefore this road needs to be on works programme.

 Officer’s Reply: 0U261/10 There are lots of roads that are deteriorating rapidly after the last 2 winters; far more than can be dealt with within the budget. This is a quiet cul-de-sac so would be at bottom of priority list Not on the latest reshuffle.

1.8 In terms of the western section of The Campus there are many cracks in the carriageway and Councillor Cowan recalled that when part was surfaced a few years ago it was admitted more work was needed. Please clarify future intensions for this road.

 Officer’s Reply: B195/140 The model is completely fair and even handed and whether this site appears as a result of the models calculations will depend on its relative position compared to the rest of the network and budget availability. Unfortunately far more roads have many cracks in them than can be dealt with from the present budgets. Also, if some piecemeal work has been done by SCAT2 this will affect the overall assessment of the condition of the section. Not on the latest reshuffle. The part immediately adjacent to Bridge Road was resurfaced with Bridge Road as an Highways Extra job in 2007.

1.9 The Holdings, Hatfield (The Ryde area) - Members understand that other roads locally have been resurfaced whereas this one has not. Since The Holdings is used as a cut-through/rat-run is takes quite a lot of through traffic. Members did report some potholes which have been patched, but Members note that it is now planned for Thin Surfacing (CWY14035) in 2014-2015, but Members request that it be treated sooner.

 Officer’s Reply: The model is completely fair and even handed and whether this site appears as a result of the models calculations will depend on its relative position compared to the rest of the network and budget availability. Members are reminded that there are many more schemes at the top of the model than can be dealt with and in these circumstances it is not necessarily possible to include a road on the basis that work is/has been undertaken on those in close proximity.

1.10 Blakes Way, Welwyn (no. 5,7,9) – Members noted it does not seem to have been resurfaced in the past whilst most of the rest of the road has been done. There are no major pot-holes but the road is generally poor and is quite a small area to fix, so Members request that this be considered.

 Officer’s Reply: 0U68/20 Tiny side spur. Expensive to do in isolation as the general site visit costs are borne by a very small area.

66 1.11 In terms of the section of Bridge Road East near the B&Q roundabout the carriageway is very poor and holds water in the rutted sections (Councillor Cowan). Please clarify intentions for this road.

 Officer’s Reply: Most of the problem is caused by old, sunken trenches. Can be considered for a possible patch rather than whole area

1.12 Heronswood Road needs to be included on the programme (Councillor Cowan).

 Officer’s Reply: C158/10 Generally OK but locally more of the same trenches as Bridge Road East and some problems adjacent to splitter islands. It is included for 14/15.

1.13 Mill Green Lane near the shops needs to be included on the programme (Councillor Cowan).

 Officer’s Reply: 0U475/10,20,30 This has been included in 13/14 on latest reshuffle.

1.14 Woodhall shopping parade needs to be included on the programme (Councillor Cowan).

 Officer’s Reply: Unfortunately this has not survived the latest reshuffle.

1.15 Stockbreech Close, Hatfield needs to be included on the programme.

 Officer’s Reply: 0U631/10 Quiet estate with extensive large cracks; borderline retread and therefore no possibility before. 13/14

1.16 Members pointed out that Park Way Discretionary Street Lighting (DIS10020 planned for 2010/11), Park Way Footway Works (CWY13188 planned for 2011/12, and Park Way Drainage Works (DRN13020 planned for 2013/14) appears to be three schemes taking place over three different years on the same road. Consideration should be given to better coordination so they all take place in the same year, with each element of work following on from each other.

 Officer’s Reply: Parkway Discretionary Lighting Scheme is providing lighting to a short section of footway set back from the carriageway between 181 and 189, near the junction of Stanborough Road and isn’t likely to be able to be combined with other works in Parkway. The drainage scheme has not had any investigation works carried out to determine the scope of the

67 works yet, however if there is an opportunity to combine the schemes or traffic management this will be undertaken..

1.17 Members questioned what style of column will be installed as part of Lemsford Lane Street Light Column Replacement (LGH10136 planned for 2010/11) and Wigmores North Street Light Column Replacement (LGH10139 planned for 2010/11). Members were concerned that there is no strategy for Conservation Areas.

 Officer’s Reply: A draft lighting strategy for Welwyn Garden City is under development which will inform the type of column and lantern to be used which differs from current operational policy to replace columns on as close as possible like for like basis within Conservation Areas.

1.18 In terms of the additional lighting for pedestrians at Wigmores North Street Light Column Replacement (LGH10139 planned for 2010/11) Members understood the section which sits back near the junction with Stanborough Road would be covered, but in the IWP it is reported as being to Wigmores North. Please clarify.

 Officer’s Reply: The Lighting scheme at Wigmores North is being developed from test results on columns 1 to 11 which require further investigation. The scheme will be limited to Wigmores North only. The comment regarding the section of footway near to Stanborough Road applies to the scheme in 1.16 for Parkway Discretionary Lighting Scheme.

1.19 Members requested an update on the options regarding Stonehills Pedestrianisation (ITP10058 planned for 2011/12).

 Officer’s Reply. September 2010: The Members Steering Group for the Urban Transport Plan has recommended that the scheme is put on hold until Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council brings forward the Town Centre North Development.

1.20 Following comments made by Members at Members Steering Group Meetings, Members requested an update on Welwyn Garden City Area Pedestrian Signage (ITP10059 planned for 2010/11). Members understand that improvements to pedestrian signage to the QE2 hospital are being considered although these may not be identified on the FWP yet.

 Officer’s Reply: September 2010: The Area Pedestrian Signage Scheme will sign the key pedestrian destinations within the Town Centre to address the “lack of pedestrian signage” issue identified by the Urban Transport Plan.

The Welwyn Garden City Walking Strategy has identified the primary routes to pedestrian destinations in Welwyn Garden City. A town wide

68 pedestrian signage scheme will be brought forward once improvements to these routes have been delivered.

1.21 In terms of the cycle route through Hatfield Cycle Route to Employment and Bus and Rail Stations Phase 2 (ITP10067 planned for 2010/11) Members thought the desired route was through the town centre, not round the Wellfield Road roundabout. Please clarify.

 Officer’s Reply: The proposed route is through the town centre. Officers are currently in discussion with Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council over providing the route through the town centre and integrating this into the redevelopment proposals.

2.1 Members referred back to paragraph 1.7 (above) where reference is made to Fearnley Road, Welwyn Garden City. The Officers Reply (above) suggests the road to be a cul-de-sac, which it is not. This confusion casts doubt about whether Officers inspected the correct road and therefore submitted an incorrect reply.

 Officer’s Reply: We apologise that the reference to a cul-de-sac in 1.7 above was incorrect. Fearnley Road is a lightly trafficked estate road linking Turmore Dale and Parkway. The road has been reassessed in the light of Member comments, but still failed to reach a high enough priority Countywide for inclusion in the 5 year forward programme.

2.2 Marsden Road, Welwyn Garden City - Members are concerned that the carriageway is crazed, part received a Super Cat 2 patch but the remainder fails regularly to a deep depth.

 Officer’s Reply: Marsden Road is included in the FWP for a Thin Surfacing treatment in 2012/13 and will be maintained in a safe condition until the full treatment is undertaken.

2.3 Lower part of Mill Green Road, Welwyn Garden City - Members thought this site was on the FWP but it is not. Therefore Members consider that it should be included.

69  Officer’s Reply: Mill Green Road has been reassessed in the light of Member comments, but still failed to reach a high enough priority Countywide for inclusion in the 5 year forward programme.