Resource Management Working Group

Public Document Pack Notice of Meeting

Tuesday, 28th February 2012 at 6.30pm in Council Chamber Council Offices Market Street Newbury

Date of despatch of Agenda: 20 February 2012

For further information about this Agenda, or to inspect any background documents referred to in Part I reports, please contact Kate Phipps - Tel: (01635) 519695 - Email: [email protected] on (01635) 519695 e-mail: [email protected]

Further information and Minutes are also available on the Council’s website at www.westberks.gov.uk

Agenda - Resource Management Working Group to be held on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 (continued)

To: Councillors Jeff Beck, Roger Croft, Richard Crumly, David Holtby (Vice- Chairman), David Rendel, Andrew Rowles, Tony Vickers (Chairman) and Laszlo Zverko Substitutes: Councillors David Allen, John Horton, Alan Macro and Garth Simpson

Agenda

Part I Page No.

1 Apologies Purpose: To receive apologies for inability to attend the meeting (if any). 2 Minutes 1 - 8 Purpose: To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Resource Management Working Group held on 17 January 2012. 3 Declarations of Interest 4 Actions arising from the previous Resource Management Working Verbal Group Report 5 Work Programme 9 - 10 6 The Highways Asset Management Plan Report 11 - 140 The Highways Asset Management Plan has been produced to formalise Highway Asset Management in West Berkshire and to comply with the current national standards and guidelines with regard to Asset Management, Asset Valuation and Whole Government Accounts. 7 Financial Report Month 9 141 - 170 Purpose: To inform Members of the latest financial performance of the Council. 8 Establishment Report 171 - 182 9 Timelord Programme - Closure 183 - 188 10 Next Meeting Date

Andy Day Head of Policy and Communication

West Berkshire Council is committed to equality of opportunity. We will treat everyone with respect, regardless of race, disability, gender, age, religion or sexual orientation. If you require this information in a different format, such as audio tape, or in another language, please ask an English speaker to contact Moira Fraser on telephone (01635) 519045 , who will be able to help.

DRAFT Agenda Item 2 Note: These Minutes will remain DRAFT until approved at the next meeting of the Committee

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 17 JANUARY 2012

Councillors Present : Jeff Beck, Roger Croft, Richard Crumly, David Holtby (Vice-Chairman), David Rendel, Andrew Rowles, Tony Vickers (Chairman) and Laszlo Zverko

Also Present: Nick Carter (Chief Executive), Mark Cole (Traffic Services Manager), Mark Edwards (Head of Highways and Transport), Karen Felgate (Housing Enabling Officer), David Holling (Head of Legal & Electoral) and Andy Walker (Head of Finance), Moira Fraser (Democratic Services Manager) and Kate Phipps

Apologies for inability to attend the meeting:

Councillor(s) Absent:

PART I

16. Apologies No apologies were received. 17. Minutes Councillor Rendel asked that the Minutes from the previous meeting held on 27 th September 2011 (Matters arising point 2.3.3) be reworded to reflect that the minimum expected income for Car Park season ticket revenue was £316,000 and the maximum full payment value was £633,310.

18. Declarations of Interest Councillor David Rendel declared an interest in Agenda Item 6, but reported that as his interest was personal and not prejudicial, he determined to remain to take part in the debate. 19. Actions arising from the previous Resource Management Working Group Mark Edwards (Head of Highways and Engineering) was present to answer questions on his previously presented written report on season ticket and PCN payments. See agenda item 5 20. Car Parking Charges and Income: Season tickets and PCN payments Car Park Season Tickets Mark Edwards (Head of Highways and Transport) explained that members had raised more questions relating to the figures in the Season Ticket and PCN Income Report that had previously been produced by Mark Cole.

Councillor Tony Vickers agreed that Councillor David Rendel still had a number of questions relating to the report.

Page 1 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP - 17 JANUARY 2012 - MINUTES

Councillor David Rendel asked why the FY 2009/10 budget forecast income was £62,000 for season ticket sales when the actual income was £134,000. He noted that in September 2011 season ticket income was reported to be £181,000 when it should have been £172,000. He also acknowledged that the season ticket income was not for Newbury alone but also included other towns in the district and queried how the number of season tickets amounted to 241. Councillor Rendel also asked why the income for FY 2008/09 was lower than expected and why this was not reflected in the FY 2009/10 budget. The FY 2010/11 budget was more closely met but the FY 2010/11 income was down on forecast to date. He asked also if these shortfalls could be explained by the number of rebates on returned season tickets.

Mark Edwards stated that the budget forecast was always compared to actual income and there were 241 season tickets issued. He explained that the different proportion of annual and quarterly season tickets sold could help explain the discrepancy between target income and received income. Mark Cole (Traffic Services Manager) stated that sales of season tickets were down.

Councillor David Rendel asked if there were seasonal changes in sales.

Mark Cole said that there had been some seasonal variation, with several large Newbury based companies buying large numbers of season tickets at certain times of the year.

Councillor Rendel asked how, despite this and with some changes in season ticket income over Christmas and at certain other times of the year, the discrepancy arose of month 8 income being £74,000 with month 12 forecast of £108,000 and actual income being £93,000. Councillor Rendel expressed the view that if the outturn figures for month 8 were correct then there was currently a discrepancy of £20,000 on one income stream and this and the previously poor predicted revenue would indicate badly set budgets.

Councillor Tony Vickers asked Andy Walker (Head of Finance) for an explanation.

Andy Walker said that £93,000 was the actual income up to end of month 8 and the forecast was from month 8 to year end. He stated that a range of data and assumptions were used when forecasting to give the best estimate and he agreed that year to date income was £23,000 short at present. February and March’s income proposals and variances from car parks will be taken into account to give the best information when next FY budget was planned.

Councillor Rendel agreed that the £93,000 income figure was bad but agreed that assumptions and seasonality should be taken into account in future forecasting.

Mark Cole said that the income accounts had spreadsheets reflecting monthly and yearly income and it would not be certain when any block bookings of season tickets would occur. He stated that where season tickets were cancelled then refunds of whole months were given with only a small administrative charge and this would reflect on income for these.

Councillor Rendel reiterated the discrepancies repeated between FY 2008/09 and FY 2009/10.

Councillor Tony Vickers noted that only Councillor Rendel had access to the figures during the meeting which made discussions more difficult and harder to follow. He also emphasised the point that refunds on season tickets were for full months and asked for it

Page 2 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP - 17 JANUARY 2012 - MINUTES to be noted that there was a general issue of modelling future income on past data and the process for this could be checked in future.

Car Park Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs)

Mark Edwards asked Councillor Rendel to clarify the query relating to PCNs.

Councillor Rendel said that it was a budgetary discrepancy in FY 2009/10 where forecast income was £628,000 and actual income was £260,000. He understood that there were two possible rates of PCN, £70 for higher tier offences and £50 for lower tier offences and that if a PCN was paid within 15 days then the fee was half the original charge. Councillor Rendel said that in the September meeting the number of PCNs issued was given as 316 and the actual income was only £260,000 out of a maximum possible of £633,000 which was less than half the forecasted amount, He asked if some PCNs were issued incorrectly due to staff errors.

Mark Cole answered that in FY 2008/09 there were 1798 cancellations with only 177 for technical factors and there were 1317 discretionary reasons given . He said some errors were made, when for example the make of car or the vehicle registration number were entered incorrectly, but that these were few.

Councillor Vickers asked if the proportion of PCNs that were challenged was known and what the national figures were.

Mark Cole said that the actual number was not known but those numbers that went to the Traffic Tribunal were very small and that the West Berkshire Council website had information on how to appeal against PCNs. He added that in FY 2003/04 in West Berkshire 75% of PCNs were paid and this was similar to other Local Authorities across the country. Mark Cole gave some examples of reasons for cancellation of PCNs, for example: incorrect display of purchased parking ticket; Blue Badge being accidentally not displayed; sudden illness of driver delaying return to vehicle etc. A whole list of reasons had been previously supplied to Councillor Rendel. Mark Cole also commented that West Berkshire had no desire for a bad reputation for being overly aggressive when carrying out parking enforcement activities.

Councillor David Holtby asked whether there were issues with those that asked for PCNs to be cancelled on more than one occasion. Mark Cole said that generally once an excuse had been given by a motorist and the PCN cancelled then any further excuse would not be considered. He reminded the meeting that the offence was non display of a valid permit.

Councillor Laszlo Zverko asked how long it took before PCNs that were not cancelled were paid. Mark Cole said that it can take 13 weeks or more to resolve as the system is geared towards assisting the complainant rather than the council. He explained that once a PCN has been issued the motorist has to submit a written or emailed challenge within 14 days. Once this has been received the PCN is put on hold whilst the officer considers the veracity of the case. If the issue of the PCN is upheld then the motorist has 14 days to pay the fine, if after 28 days there is no payment then a further notice is given to the motorist and so on until eventually the fine is passed onto bailiffs who pursue the amount which can be up to £500. Therefore this process can be lengthy before any monies are received.

Page 3 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP - 17 JANUARY 2012 - MINUTES

Councillor Zverko commented that this was very bureaucratic and asked if it was determined by Local Authority or Central Government.

Mark Cole stated that the West Berkshire Council enforcement process was based on Government guidelines and details are on the WBC website.

Councillor Laszlo Zverko asked if as limited income was achieved with a cost of high manpower it might make little sense to pursue these appeals.

Mark Cole said that these issues did not take a great deal of time and involved the traffic manager and not parking officers.

Councillor Rendel asked if the unresolved PCNs were partly the reason for the outturn being so low. If it were so, it could explain the first year income loss but not subsequent years. He noted that the FY 2009/10 budget was £620,000 with income of only £260,000 and in FY 2010/11 budget of £304,910 and income of £250,000. Councillor Rendel also noted that FY 2011/12 budget remained the same as previous year at £304,910 and to month 8 the actual income was £55,000 less than this.

There were further discussions on the budget and actual income with comments from Mark Cole that no uplift had been applied on current FY target and Councillor Beck that unresolved appeals could be further delayed by being put through the national appeal process.

Councillor Beck asked Mark Cole if revenue was gained from advertising on car park tickets. Mark Cole said that this year there had been a small income but a number of enquiries had been made which gave the potential for increased income in future years.

Councillor Rendel raised a query as to the accuracy of budget forecasting which Mark Cole said was as accurate as could be done. Councillor Jeff Beck agreed that any forecast could only be an estimate.

Councillor Roger Croft reminded the meeting that heavy snowfalls in the previous two years had affected revenue as people reduced travelling and general commercial activity. He added that this kind of weather could not be forecast in November and therefore the budget was always going to be the best estimate. Councillor Vickers said that the Council’s ‘Clear Street Parking Policy’ was approaching the three year review and these issues would be looked at as part of this process.

21. Financial Update: Revenue Budget 2011/12 The Working Group considered a report (Agenda Item 6) on the finance performance for Month 7 FY 2011/12 and considered any areas of concern.

Andy Walker (Head of Finance) presented the report to the meeting. The report covered the latest financial position of the Council as at the end of Month 7 FY 2011/12. The forecast overspend for FY 2011/12 was £42,000. Andy Walker said there were three areas of overspend: Children’s Services, Adult Social Care and Planning. Children’s Service forecast overspend is due to pressure on residential care placements and fostering costs, Adult Social Care on demand on services. Planning was forecasting a shortfall on income due to delayed implementation of legislation allowing local authorities to set planning fees for themselves. Management actions were set out on page 23 of the report and there had already been significant improvements since the last report issued.

Page 4 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP - 17 JANUARY 2012 - MINUTES

Andy Walker gave a verbal report on Month 8 which showed a similar position for this period.

Councillor Rendel expressed concern for the delay in production of the report, Andy Walker stated that Q3 results had gone to the Executive on 9 th Dec 2011 and that they were reasonable timescales.

Councillor Rendel asked if it was known when the planning legislation would be introduced.

Nick Carter said the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) had been asked but only said that they expected it to be introduced in this fiscal year. There had not been a firm commitment to this. He stated that this was therefore a risk, particularly because consultation had shown the construction industry to be hostile to the changes.

Councillor Vickers reminded the meeting that this was a national issue affecting all local authorities.

Councillor Rendel asked if there was an expectation of the date to which Nick Carter replied that there was likely to be no income this FY and therefore that forecasting future income was difficult for the council.

Councillor Rendel then asked for clarification on a number of points:

1. P23 section 2.9 – Berkshire Pension Fund. Additional income from early payment of employer’s pension scheme payments- had this already been budgeted for

2. P23 section 3.1.4 – Early Years spending slowed. Did this not impact on the Service?

3. P23 section 3.1.6 – Continuing Health Care (CHC) worker. Had this reduced spend to date?

4. P23 section 3.1.7 – Walnut Close. Had the conversion to residential beds gone ahead?

5. P23 section 3.1.9 – Capping cost of domiciliary care packages. Had this consultation finished?

Nick Carter responded to the questions as follows:

1. Additional income had already been included in Month 7 predicted general reserves

2. The slowing of spend to get budget online was temporary, not permanent, as Children Services were strongly protected.

3. The CHC worker was newly in post and so had not realised the expected savings to date. This was seen as a medium term investment.

4. The Walnut Close conversion had been completed.

Page 5 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP - 17 JANUARY 2012 - MINUTES

5. The consultation had finished and the proposal was currently out for approval.

Councillor Rendel asked how much additional money was available for Health and Social Care grants. He understood that although the money would go to the PCT some would come to WBC for social services.

Andy Walker said that the final amount was subject to discussions with the PCT but that Berkshire was due to receive £900,000, of which £300,000 would come to the Council. However, this was for one year only to manage the additional cost caused by increase in need from hospitals over the winter and to increase capacity. This amount would be for Home Care primarily and would not offset Adult Social Care.

Nick Carter said that the additional pressure had not been realised and there may be no cold weather to trigger this.

Councillor Rendel then raised the following additional questions on the overall financial position:

1. What were the costs to date of the redundancy process within the council?

2. What were the estimated reserves currently, in particular was there an explanation for the variance in the Education Services’ budget with £2,500,000 remaining in budget with a net variance of £636,776? Were the figures actual or forecast?

3. Commercial Services. Why when the reported overspend was down was the forecast for such a low figure?

4. Youth and Commissioning. As costs and reduction in income were budgeted for, why was this off budget? Also costs for school transport were much lower than expected.

5. Why did changes in day-care and personal care delivery create an overspend against budget? These should have both saved money.

Andy Walker responded to the points as follows:

1. Current costs were £300,000 to cover the statutory redundancy bill however this has been spread over 12 months.

2. The bills for costs against the Home to School Transport budget may come in later in the year and this would be a substantial amount out of the total Education budget. The figures used were actual up to end of Month 7

3. Mark Edwards said that the integrated transport system now used for Home to School Transport meant there had been savings with contracts, vehicle and fuel.

Nick Carter answered Point 5 saying that the level of saving projected was not fully realised for a number of reasons. The time scale was overambitious but the savings will be made over time. He stated that the overspend in Adult Social Care was due to over- demand and not hitting the savings target. Also the remodelling of the Care Review Process had proved more complex than anticipated. Margaret Goldie, Corporate Director

Page 6 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP - 17 JANUARY 2012 - MINUTES

for Adult Social Care, had done a briefing for the Executive and Nick Carter suggested that she be asked to attend the next meeting.

Councillor Rendell agreed that it would be very useful if that could be arranged. Tony Vickers asked if a post implementation review had been completed following the day-centre closures.

Nick Carter said that it was close to completion: the Corporate Director was completing it and would be able to report soon.

Councillor Zverko asked if he could have specific details of the reduction in Highway Maintenance as noted in 3.1.1 of the report.

Mark Edwards stated that the reduction related to minor drainage repairs and this was a risk however, the repair of potholes caused by severe weather would be completed as planned.

Councillor Zverko asked if the anticipated savings as a result of the Timelord programme would remain at £100,000.

Andy Walker confirmed that this was the case.

Councillor Vickers thanked members and officers for their contributions. 22. Work Programme Councillor Vickers reminded the meeting that as the previous Resource Management Working Group meeting had been cancelled there would be a delay to the examination of some items on the Work Programme.

Andy Walker updated the meeting as following: • OSMC/11/109 (Timelord). A progress report would be brought to the next RMWG meeting on 28 th February. Councillor Vickers said that the report would come to the RMWG in draft format prior to going up to the Executive. • OSMC/11/110 (Energy Saving ). Nick Carter had no information on this. • OSMC/11/112 (Medium Term Financial Strategy). This would be updated in the February meeting as would OSMC/11/99( Highways Asset Management Plan). • OSMC/11/113 (Blue Badge Procedures). Mark Edwards stated that new rules and procedures had been approved by the Council in late autumn and Mark Cole added that these had come into effect on 1 st January 2012. They were designed to stop the previous abuse of the system. Councillor Zverko asked about the previous abuse of the scheme and whether this would continue and asked for a report on its introduction. Mark Cole said that the new scheme was high tech and therefore difficult to bypass. Councillor Richard Crumly asked whether the new scheme would mean loss of income and Mark Cole assured him it would not. It was agreed that a report would be helpful but that it was more appropriate to delay any scrutiny for a year.

Ref OSMC/11/117- Managed Vacancy Factor (MVF) Councillor Vickers said there was no update on this item. Councillor Rendel asked whether MVF was affecting the budget. Councillor Vickers stated there were other meetings where this issue would be discussed.

Page 7 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP - 17 JANUARY 2012 - MINUTES

Nick Carter asked what scope for undertaking reviews the RMWG had and Councillor Vickers said that the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the group would be discussed at the next meeting.

Councillor Rendel said that the TOR would allow future task allocation prior to the budget setting which happened in February.

Councillor Holtby queried whether changing the TOR was within the meeting remit to change.

23. Next Meeting Date The next meeting of the Resource Management Working Group was decided for Tuesday 28 th February 2012.

24. Exclusion of Press and Public

25. Parkway Financial Arrangements: Car Parking and Affordable Housing Nick Carter gave the background for this item. The council had owned three car parks which were sited in the Parkway Development area.

The meeting agreed that the Parkway Centre Development progress should be reviewed in one year.

(The meeting commenced at 6.30 pm and closed at 9.15 pm)

CHAIRMAN …………………………………………….

Date of Signature …………………………………………….

Page 8 OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY MANAGEMENT COMMISSION WORK PROGRAMME 2011/12

Status: Expected Lead Officer(s)/ Portfolio In Progress Reference Subject/purpose Methodology outcome Review Body Dates Service Area Holder(s) Completed Comments OSMC/09/57 Revenue and capital budget reports Information Monitoring item RMWG Start: 13/09/10 Andy Walker – Councillor Keith In Progress May lead to areas for in depth review. To receive the latest period revenue and capital supplied by, and End: 2433 Finance Chopping budget reports questioning of, Each Quarter To consider any areas of concern. lead officer via in meeting review OSMC/09/63 Establishment Reports Information Monitoring item RMWG Start: 13/09/10 Robert O'Reilly – Councillor In Progress May lead to areas for in depth review. To receive the latest report on the changes to the supplied by, and End: 2358 Human Anthony Council's establishment. questioning of, Each Quarter Resources Stansfeld lead officer via in meeting review OSMC/11/99 Highways Asset Management Plan In meeting review RMWG Start: 28 Feb 2012 Mark Edwards – Councillor To be To review the AMP and the opportunities arising from with information End: 28 Feb 2012 2208 Highways & David Betts scheduled exploiting the information contained within the Asset supplied by, and Transport Register. questioning of, lead officers. Page 9

OSMC/11/109 Timelord In meeting review RMWG Start: 28 Feb 2012 Jackie Jordan Councillor Pam In Progress the Closure Report to Timelord To receive an update on the benefits realised and update End: 28 Feb 2012 Bale Programme Board in late November following the changes introduced in the Timelord Members of the Phase 3 post implementation. Timelord Phase 3 development

OSMC/11/110 Energy Saving In a meeting RMWG Start: April 2012 Adrian Slaughter Councillor In Progress Report to meeting on 28/02/12 To review the Council’s policies and procedures for review the End: April 2012 Hilary Cole Energy Saving. Council’s procedures to

Energy Saving Agenda Item5 OSMC/11/111 Risk Register In meeting review Monitoring item RMWG Ongoing Ian Priestley Councillor In Progress Next request Sept 2012 To scrutinise individual items on the Risk Register on and scrutinise David Betts an annual basis. individual items OSMC/11/112 Medium Term Financial Strategy In meeting review RMWG Start: Oct 2012 Andy Walker Councillor Keith In Progress Requested by RMWG on 26 July 2011 To review the role and format of the MTFS of the MTFS End: Oct 2012 Chopping

OSMC/11/113 Procedures for Blue Badge Holder In meeting review. RMWG Start: Jan 2013 Mark Edwards Councillor In Progress Requested by RMWG on 26 July 2011 To review the operation of the new procedures, End: Jan 2013 David Betts criteria and rules of use for Blue Badge holders following the introduction of them in January 2012.

20/02/12 1 OSMC Work Programme OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY MANAGEMENT COMMISSION WORK PROGRAMME 2011/12

Status: Expected Lead Officer(s)/ Portfolio In Progress Reference Subject/purpose Methodology outcome Review Body Dates Service Area Holder(s) Completed Comments OSMC/11/117 Managed Vacancy Factor (MVF) To understand the In meeting review. RMWG Start April 2012 Robert O'Reilly HR Councillor aims and operation of the MVF in its budget End April 2012 Anthony management and monitoring Stansfeld

Key: Scheduled meeting dates OSMC Overview and Scrutiny Management 10/01/12 21/02/12 17/04/12 29/05/12 Commission

Page 10 HSP Health Scrutiny Panel 06/12/11 17/01/12 27/03/12 RMWG Resource Management Working Group 17/01/12 28/02/12 24/04/12

20/02/12 2 OSMC Work Programme Agenda Item 6

Title of Report: Highway Asset Management Plan Report to be Resource Management Working Group considered by: Date of Meeting: 28 February 2012

Purpose of Report: To present the Highway Asset Management Plan for the Working Group’s attention, in order to identify the opportunities arising from exploitation of the information contained within the Asset Register.

Recommended Action: To note the report .

Health Scrutiny Panel Chairman Name & Telephone No.: Councillor Tony Vickers – Tel (01635) 230046 E-mail Address: [email protected]

Contact Officer Details Name: David Lowe Job Title: Scrutiny and Partnerships Manager Tel. No.: 01635 519817 E-mail Address: [email protected]

West Berkshire Council Resource Management Working Group 28 February 2012

Page 11 Executive Report

1. Introduction

1.1 The Resource Management Working Group has agreed to incorporate into its work programme an examination of the Highway Asset Management Plan in order to identify the opportunities arising from exploiting the information contained within the Asset Register.

2. Agreement of the scrutiny activity to be undertaken

2.1 Shown at Appendix A is the report of the Highway Manager for the Individual Decision giving approval for the adoption of the Highway Asset Management Plan.

2.2 The Highway Manager will highlight to the Commission the key points in the plan and will provide clarification and amplification as required.

3. Recommendation

3.1 Members of the Commission are recommended to examine the Highway Asset Management Plan and comment on it accordingly.

Appendices

Appendix A – Individual Decision on the adoption of the Highway Asset Management Plan Appendix B – Highway Asset Management Plan

West Berkshire Council Resource Management Working Group 28 February 2012

Page 12 DRAFT DOCUMENT

Individual Executive Member Decision

Highway Asset Management Plan Title of Report: 2012/13 - 2016/2017 Report to be considered Individual Executive Member Decision by: Date on which Decision 26 March 2012 is to be taken: Forward Plan Ref: ID

Purpose of Report: To formalise adoption of the Council's first Highway Asset Management Plan relating to the West Berkshire road network.

Recommended Action: To adopt the Highway Asset Management Plan.

Reason for decision to be To formalise Highway Asset Management and comply with taken: current national standards and guidelines with regards to Asset Management, Asset Valuation and Whole Government Accounts.

Other options considered: None.

Key background Code of Practice Transport/Infrastructure Assets documentation: County Surveyors Society’s ‘Framework for Highway Asset Management’ Code of Practice - Well Maintained Roads.

Portfolio Member Details Name & Telephone No.: Councillor David Betts - Tel (0118) 942 2485 E-mail Address: [email protected]

Contact Officer Details Name: Melvyn May Job Title: HIghways Manager Tel. No.: 01635 519873 E-mail Address: [email protected]

Footer to be completed by Policy & Communication West Berkshire Council Individual Decision date of meeting Page 13 DRAFT DOCUMENT

Implications

Policy: Adoption of this plan will enable the Council to deliver highway asset management in accordance with national requirements and guidance. Financial: None arsing from this report Personnel: n/a Legal/Procurement: n/a Environmental: A well maintained road will contribute to an improved environment. Property: The public highway is an important and valuable asset. Failure to maintain it will devalue the asset and conflict with the Government's aim to implement Highway Asset Management and Whole Life Accounting. Risk Management: Failure to maintain the asset will affect availability, value, safety and the Council's ability to meet its legal duty to maintain a safe network under the Highways Act 1980. Equalities Impact No impacts to consider Assessment:

Consultation Responses

Members: Leader of Council: Councillor Graham Jones Overview & Scrutiny Councillor Brian Bedwell Management Commission Chairman: Ward Members: All Members Consulted Opposition Councillor Keith Woodhams Spokesperson: Local Stakeholders: None Officers Consulted: Mark Edwards, Paul Clements, Phil Crockford, Miles Roberts, Jon Winstanley, Alan Braisher Trade Union: n/a

Is this item subject to call-in? Yes: No: If not subject to call-in please put a cross in the appropriate box: The item is due to be referred to Council for final approval Delays in implementation could have serious financial implications for the Council Delays in implementation could compromise the Council’s position Considered or reviewed by Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission or associated Task Groups within preceding six months

Footer to be completed by Policy & Communication West Berkshire Council Individual Decision date of meeting Page 14 DRAFT DOCUMENT

Item is Urgent Key Decision Report is to note only

Supporting Information

1. Background

1.1 Managing and maintaining a transport network is a complex task and over time Highway Authorities have developed and evolved practices for dealing with this. Some of these practices are common across authorities whilst others are localised.

1.2 The advent of asset management has grown out of maintenance management, and in particular the awareness and recognition at Government level has highlighted the need for all highway authorities to embrace the ethos and embed the practices of asset management into their operations.

1.3 Local Highway Authorities are under increasing pressure to adopt asset management as a means of demonstrating the need for funding, providing efficiencies, measuring performance and compliance, and driving continual improvement.

1.4 A wide range of relevant documents exist that describe asset management, including some specifically published for the highways industry:

• CSS Framework for Highway Asset Management • Maintenance Codes of Practice (for Highways, Structures and Lighting) • CIPFA Code of Practice on Transport/Infrastructure Assets.

1.5 Whilst the Highway Asset Management Plan (HAMP) as a document is due to be published in April 2012, asset management and the development and implementation of its principles have been in place for many years in West Berkshire in supporting and delivering the Local Transport Plan, Three Year Highway Improvement Programme and other programmed improvements on the highway.

2. Consultation

2.1 The Highway Asset Management Plan has been developed over a period of time and was formally introduced at a Member’s Development Session in November 2011. The draft was also considered by the Transport Policy Task Group on the 25 November 2011 with a view to having it formally adopted in April 2012. Their initial comments from the meeting have been incorporated within the document

2.2 All Members will be consulted during February and a copy of the Plan will be made available in the Members Room.

Proposal and Recommendations

2.3 It is recommended that the Executive Portfolio Member for Highways, Transport (Operational), ICT and Customer Services approves and formally adopts the Highways Asset Management Plan as Council Policy.

Footer to be completed by Policy & Communication West Berkshire Council Individual Decision date of meeting Page 15 DRAFT DOCUMENT

Executive Report

1. Introduction

1.1 The Framework for Highway Asset Management was published by the County Surveyor’s Society in July 2004 which formally detailed the concept of asset management with respect to managing highway infrastructure. The County Surveyors Society (CSS), together with the Local Authority Technical Advisors Group (TAG) produced the framework to facilitate the meaningful exchange of knowledge and experience on the subject and:

• introduce the concept of asset management as it applies to UK road networks • provide a reference for authorities who wish to introduce an asset management approach to their business processes and • assist with the preparation of asset management plans

1.2 This framework was strengthened in 2005 with the publication of the Code of Practice for Highways Maintenance and Management and government guidance where local authorities in England were encouraged to draw up Highway Asset Management Plans (HAMP) as part of the second round of LTP preparation consistent with the advice contained in the CSS Framework document

1.3 The Council’s approach to highway maintenance and asset management is described in the Local Transport Plan 2011 – 2026 (LTP). Highway maintenance and improvement is one of the six local transport goals set out in the LTP. The LTP also shows how this goal and the Council's sustainable approach helps to address other key issues identified in the plan such as safer travel, minimising the impact on the environment and improving accessibility. The LTP confirms that the Council will continue to operate a rolling highway improvement programme refreshed annually through its supporting Implementation Plan.

1.4 The concepts of asset management are already being implemented in West Berkshire, although it has only recently been possible to finalise the contents of the Highways Asset Management Plan (HAMP). The HAMP seeks to reflect best practice and current guidance and formally sets out a plan for managing the highway asset in West Berkshire.

1.5 The features that characterise the asset management approach are as follows:

• considers the whole asset together, rather than individual asset components • couples sound engineering with sound business and economic practice • focuses on the delivery of specific levels of service to customers • promotes informed decision making, based on an assessment of the implications of current and future service provision and cost of various options • promotes continuous improvement

Footer to be completed by Policy & Communication West Berkshire Council Individual Decision date of meeting Page 16 DRAFT DOCUMENT

• requires an appropriate level of data and knowledge of the extent, and specification, of our highway assets, and their condition and performance.

1.6 A ‘sister’ document – the Network Management Plan has also been published to define the strategy for managing use of the road network. In combination with a detailed asset valuation of the road network and a manual of policies and standards, this suite of documents will form the Council’s Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP).

2. Draft Highway Asset Management Plan

2.1 The draft HAMP is attached as Appendix 1 and is divided into distinct sections. Sections 2 to 4 act as an introduction to the core part of the document, the lifecycle plans for individual asset groups. Section 2 introduces the concept of levels of service to determine the required ‘output’ from the asset. Section 3 describes the funding available for asset maintenance before Section 4 examines how our assets are valued, with the initial asset valuation detailed in Appendix E of the plan. Section 5 introduces the lifecycle plans which are set out for the four asset groups covered in this first version of the HAMP in Appendices A to D.

2.2 The lifecycle plans describe the asset, assess the required levels of service, and analyse best practice maintenance techniques. They then define options for future investment to meet HAMP objectives, depending on future funding levels and taking note of predicted future changes affecting the quantity of the asset or the demand on it. Total funding must be balanced between the asset groups to ensure that overall performance across all assets is optimised.

2.3 Section 6 summarises the expenditure and expected outcomes for the four asset groups. Any changes to approaches or techniques revealed through the lifecycle plans are also summarised, and the whole forms the Asset Management Strategy.

2.4 Section 7 summarises the risk analysis for the plan, which is set out initially in the lifecycle plans, and Section 8 describes the performance measurement regime put in place to ensure that the implementation of the HAMP can be properly monitored. Section 9 details the improvement work which will be carried out to develop the second version of the HAMP for summer 2016, as well as indicating the frequency of updating for all sections of the document.

2.5 It should be noted that the HAMP is a ‘live’ document and will be regularly updated and developed by the Highways and Transport Service as described in Chapter 4.

3. Finance

3.1 In accordance with the Code of Practice on Transport, Infrastructure Assets, the Council has developed and adopted an evidence-based asset management approach to determine maintenance needs on the network which deliver efficiency savings, sustainable service delivery and robust capital planning and operation of the Prudential Code.

3.2 The local highway network and other local infrastructure assets together represent by far the biggest capital asset that the Council holds. Transport networks are vital to the economic prosperity (not only locally but also nationally) and quality of life in

Footer to be completed by Policy & Communication West Berkshire Council Individual Decision date of meeting Page 17 DRAFT DOCUMENT

terms of comfort, safety and appearance. The current estimated gross replacement cost of West Berkshire’s local highway network is £1,352 million.

3.3 Deterioration modelling of the District’s highway network has established that to maintain the condition of the network at their current levels (service levels), requires an annual investment of £4.3m where the current service levels have been set at 5% on A roads, 9% on B & C roads and 12% on the unclassified roads. The % reflects the length of road requiring urgent maintenance.

4. Recommendation

4.1 It is recommended that the Executive Portfolio Member for Highways, Transport (Operational), ICT and Customer Services approves and formally adopts the Highways Asset Management Plan as Council Policy.

Appendices

Appendix A – Draft Highways Asset Management Plan 2012 - 2015 Appendix B - Equality Impact Assessment – Stage 1

Footer to be completed by Policy & Communication West Berkshire Council Individual Decision date of meeting Page 18 DRAFT DOCUMENT

APPENDIX A

Equality Impact Assessment – Stage One

Name of item being assessed: Highway Transport Asset Management Plan Version and release date of Version 1 item (if applicable): Owner of item being assessed: Melvyn May Name of assessor: Melvyn May Date of assessment: 25 January 2012

1. What are the main aims of the item? For Members to adopt the Highway Asset Management Plan 2012 – 2015. To maintain the condition of the highway network at defined condition levels (service levels) using timely treatments at minimum cost in accordance with the asset management principles as publicised in national guidance.

2. Note which groups may be affected by the item, consider how they may be affected and what sources of information have been used to determine this. (Please demonstrate consideration of all strands – age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation) Group What might be the effect? Information to support this. Affected The proposal to publicise the Council’s asset management All Users framework (Highway Asset N/A Management Plan) will have little or no impact on highway users. Further comments relating to the item: None

3. Result (please tick by double-clicking on relevant box and click on ‘checked’) High Relevance - This needs to undergo a Stage 2 Equality Impact Assessment Medium Relevance - This needs to undergo a Stage 2 Equality Impact

Assessment Low Relevance - This needs to undergo a Stage 2 Equality Impact Assessment No Relevance - This does not need to undergo a Stage 2 Equality Impact

Assessment

Footer to be completed by Policy & Communication West Berkshire Council Individual Decision date of meeting Page 19 DRAFT DOCUMENT

For items requiring a Stage 2 equality impact assessment, begin the planning of this now, referring to the equality impact assessment guidance and Stage 2 template.

4. Identify next steps as appropriate: Stage Two required Owner of Stage Two assessment: Timescale for Stage Two assessment: Stage Two not required: Not Required

Signed : Melvyn May Date: 25/01/12

Footer to be completed by Policy & Communication West Berkshire Council Individual Decision date of meeting Page 20 West Berkshire Council

Highway Asset Management Plan 2012/13 – 2016/17

(First Edition – January 2012)

Highways and Transport West Berkshire Council Council Offices Market Street Newbury Berkshire RG14 5LD

Page 21 Highway Asset Management Plan

Classified Roads in West Berkshire

All maps are reproduced or based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. West Berkshire Council 100024151.

Page 22 CONTENTS

Section Title Page

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Levels of Service 6

3 Asset Management Finance 8

4 Asset Valuation 13

5 Lifecycle Plans 14

6 Asset Management Strategy 15

7 Risk Management 17

8 Performance Monitoring 18

9 Development and Updating the HAMP 19

10 Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations 20

Appendices:

A Lifecycle plan for carriageways B Lifecycle plan for footways C Lifecycle plan for bridges D Lifecycle plan for street lighting E Initial asset valuation for West Berkshire F SCRIM Policy

Page 23 Executive Summary

West Berkshire Council has a statutory duty to maintain and manage its highway network. A well-maintained network is not only a valuable asset to the community but is also fundamental to achieving the strategic objectives of the Council. It is also essential in order to deliver the transport goals of the Local Transport Plan.

Good transport is vital for a thriving economy, providing access to employment and education as well as to the services and supplies that people need. Maintenance of the highway network is essential to enable it to share the burden as a key part of the overall transport network.

This Highway Asset Management Plan (HAMP) provides guidance on the delivery of value for money highway maintenance services, consistent with the aims and ambitions of the Council Strategy 2012-2016 where ‘Focus on carrying out essential highways maintenance’ is defined as a key outcome under the ‘Promoting a Vibrant District’ priority. The HAMP seeks to do this by providing a safer highway network, improved travelling conditions for all highway users, and ensuring greater care of the local environment.

A ‘sister’ document – the Network Management Plan has also been developed to define the strategy for managing use of the road network. In combination with a detailed asset valuation of the road network and a Manual of Policies and Standards, this suite of documents will form the Council’s Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP).

The West Berkshire Road network is regularly inspected to assess its safety, serviceability and integrity as well as to ensure that all works are carried out within the prescribed regulatory standards. Dependent upon the degree of deficiency found, defined processes are then followed to provide effective solutions. In the selection of materials and treatments, the HAMP considers the key issues of environment, quality and value. This aims to maximise the contribution made by highway maintenance to sustaining West Berkshire’s biodiversity and character.

The HAMP acknowledges that highway maintenance does not operate in isolation and that there are a number of related functions that could affect, and be affected by, highway maintenance activities.

The HAMP’s foundation strategy utilises a logical and systematic approach in accordance with ‘value for money’ and ‘asset management principles’, and continuous improvement. Essential elements include statutory obligations, responsiveness to needs of the community and maintaining asset value. Regard is given to the relevance of condition standards and the key issues of Safety, Serviceability and Sustainability. HAMP policies, objectives and standards have been formulated for each maintenance activity and will be reviewed regularly to ensure that they remain compliant with national objectives and respond to changes brought about by new legislation and technology.

The HAMP defines the key elements of the highway asset describing appropriate levels of service depending on the position in the network hierarchy and the understanding and management of the impact of risk. This enables priority for maintenance within the available budget to be established.

Page 24 The funding of an appropriate highway maintenance service is made possible by the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy, whilst larger scale highway improvement projects are funded through the Capital Programme and Policy. These essential forward planning documents have enabled the Highway and Transport Service to develop a Three Year Highway Improvement Programme which not only enables its proposals for a better road network to be well publicised in advance, thus helping to manage expectations, but which has also resulted in a gradual improvement in road condition across the network.

Regular monitoring will enable the effectiveness of the HAMP to be judged in achieving its stated aims and periodic reviews will be completed. This approach will provide a clear history of the development, evaluation and quality delivered as the Council seeks to provide continuous improvement in the management of the West Berkshire road network for all its users.

Page 25 1. Introduction

1.1 This is West Berkshire Council’s first highway asset management plan, or HAMP. Proper asset management is essential and the Council has been following good practice in managing its transport assets for many years. However, this is the first truly systematic analysis, intended to identify the best maintenance practices to minimise whole-life costs of the assets and at the same time meet as far as is possible, the levels of service demanded by our customers within the funding likely to be available.

1.2 The data requirements for the production of the HAMP are complex, particularly gathering together data on the extent and condition of assets. This first version therefore details only the four largest asset groups of:

• carriageways • footways • bridges • street-lighting

1.3. Later editions of the HAMP will add the Council’s other transport assets:

• highway drainage • cycleways • other highway structures • safety fences • traffic signals and signs • street furniture • public rights of way • highway verges and areas of soft landscaping

1.4 Later editions will also reflect the results of further work to improve the data and analysis set out in this document. Areas where further work is required are detailed in section 9.

1.5 The HAMP is a part of the Council’s wider work on asset management and reflects input from many sources, including our own Local Transport Plan, the County Surveyors Society’s ‘Framework for Highway Asset Management’ document, the Code of Practice – Well Maintained Highways and the recent CIPFA Code of Practice on Transport/Infrastructure Assets.

The Wider Context

1.6 The HAMP fits into a wider corporate initiative on asset management planning, reflecting the increasing importance given to the effective management of all our assets. A corporate asset management plan for the Council has been produced, detailing the five-year planning cycle, and in its role as local education authority the Council also produces an asset management plan for capital expenditure on school buildings and sites.

Page 26 1.7 Initiatives in asset management planning are themselves part of the wider work of the Council and are intended to help the authority respond effectively to the many service and financial pressures on it and in doing so to deliver:

• continuous performance • focused and clearly defined projects • reduced bureaucracy and waste • maximised economies of scale • clear benefits of investment.

The Objectives of the HAMP

1.8 The HAMP builds on existing processes and systems, providing a continuous framework of review to help inform decisions on the optimisation of budgets and scheme programmes. The asset management approach is intended to produce:

• reduced whole-life costs, through better planning and review of techniques • better customer satisfaction through defining and meeting levels of service • better control of risks • better informed, and more transparent, investment decision-making

1.9 In achieving this, the HAMP should be seen not as a stand-alone document but as a tactical plan which provides the linkage between the strategic goals of the Council and its detailed operational and service plans. For West Berkshire these include other key documents as follows:

• West Berkshire Sustainable Community Strategy • West Berkshire Council Strategy • West Berkshire Medium Term Financial Strategy • Local Transport Plan • departmental and local service plans

1.10 The HAMP objectives relate particularly to the local goals of the Local Transport Plan which are:

x to improve travel choice and encourage sustainable travel x to support the economy and quality of life by minimising congestion and improving reliability on West Berkshire’s transport networks x to maintain, make best use of and improve West Berkshire’s transport networks for all modes of travel x to improve access to services and facilities x to improve and promote opportunities for healthy and safe travel x to minimise energy consumption and the impact of all forms of travel on the environment

Page 27 Stakeholders

1.11 Stakeholders include:

• all road users, motorised and non motorised • organisations representing different users, for example the West Berkshire cycle forum, Newbury Town Centre Partnership, Chambers of Commerce, Sovereign Housing. • public transport operators x road haulage companies • Members of the Council and Parish and Town Councils • local residents

Layout of the Document

1.12 Sections 2 to 4 act as an introduction to the core part of the document and the lifecycle plans for individual asset groups. Section 2 introduces the concept of levels of service to determine the required ‘output’ from the asset. Section 3 describes the funding available for asset maintenance and Section 4 examines how our assets are valued, with the initial asset valuation detailed in Appendix E. Section 5 introduces the lifecycle plans which are set out for the four asset groups covered in this first version of the HAMP in Appendices A to D.

1.13 The lifecycle plans describe the asset, assess the required levels of service, and analyse best practice maintenance techniques. They then define options for future investment to meet HAMP objectives, depending on future funding levels and taking note of predicted future changes affecting the quantity of the asset or the demand on it. Total funding must be balanced between the asset groups to ensure that overall performance across all assets is optimised.

1.14 Section 6 summarises the expenditure and expected outcomes for the four asset groups. Any changes to approaches or techniques revealed through the lifecycle plans are also summarised and together this forms the Asset Management Strategy. Section 7 summarises the risk analysis for the plan, which is set out initially in the lifecycle plans, and Section 8 describes the performance measurement regime put in place to ensure the implementation of the HAMP can be properly monitored. Section 9 details the improvement work which will be carried out to develop the second version of the HAMP for summer 2015, as well as indicating the frequency of updating for all sections of the document.

Page 28 2. Levels of Service

2.1 Levels of service describe both what the customer wants from the asset and what is necessary to ensure that a proper maintenance regime is in place. A clear understanding of customer views is therefore fundamental in defining them, as is a comprehensively planned maintenance regime. Both aspects will be influenced further by legislative requirements, the Council’s objectives and policies, national best practice and more critically, funding.

2.2 Within this HAMP, the following four dimensions are used to define levels of service, where the first three dimensions reflect the requirements of the customer.

• safety • availability • serviceability • condition

2.3 Safety describes the risk to the customer in using the asset and will in all cases be required to meet high standards. Road safety on the other hand depends substantially on the behaviour of road users, and in the wider context is not, therefore, covered by this dimension.

2.4 Availability is largely self-explanatory and will vary according to the asset and location. For example, a single street light not working is clearly unavailable, however, the fact that it is unavailable is only likely to cause a minor nuisance to road users and residents. Conversely, a shut bridge on an ‘A’ road closed due to structural weakness will result in major issues on the network.

2.5 The serviceability dimension describes whether the asset actually delivers what service users and the Council require of it. For example, a road surface may be perfectly safe, available for use at all times and in good condition, but the fact that it is of concrete construction could be causing significant noise nuisance to people living nearby. The serviceability dimension also has the potential to bring into play much wider attributes of the asset, for example is the road congested, is the footway surface appropriate for the local environment, is the street lighting provided to adequate standards for local needs?

2.6 The condition dimension is judged relative to minimising the long-term cost of maintaining the asset and not relative to customer requirements. For example, a rusting steel lamp column may be safe, working and acceptable in appearance to customers. The fact that it is in rusty condition is, in these circumstances, only of concern if the optimum maintenance regime to minimise whole-life costs would have had it repainted before rust appeared. Such an optimum maintenance regime will, for many assets, include periodic preventative maintenance before more extensive maintenance, or full replacement, is undertaken. A maintenance regime which involves little investment over many years followed by major renewals may be more expensive overall than a ‘little and often’ regime which applies regular preventative maintenance; hence the emphasis given to minimising whole-life cost.

Page 29 2.7 Environmental sustainability is growing rapidly in importance and the Council already takes many steps to minimise the environmental impact caused by its management of highway assets. It is likely that this will be added as a specific additional dimension of levels of service in future editions of the HAMP.

2.8 All aspects of level of service include elements of risk. As examples, the collapse of a bridge immediately makes the service unavailable; inadequate monitoring of skid resistance may increase the risk of road accidents. The analysis of levels of service needs to take such risks into consideration.

Page 30 3. Asset Management Finance

3.1 Funds for maintaining our assets are allocated from both the Local Transport Plan capital allocation and from the Council’s revenue budget. The Council also receives external funding through infrastructure development, sponsorship and fees and charges. This section details the use of these funding sources.

Local Transport Plan Capital Funding

3.2 Local Transport Plan capital funding is used for:

• carriageway renewal and preventative maintenance schemes: - reconstruction - resurfacing - surface dressing - machine patching

• footway renewal schemes - reconstruction - resurfacing - block/slab replacement.

• bridge renewal and upgrading works - concrete repairs - waterproofing - deck replacement

• lighting column replacement.

3.3 West Berkshire Council manages its capital finance using an approach, called the Prudential Framework, which places emphasis on affordability. The Council decides how much it can afford to borrow, with the costs of this borrowing being met by its revenue provision.

3.4 Through its Prudential Framework the Council has decided that it can support from its own resources an Annual Capital Programme of £7.1 million per annum on average for the 5 year period 2012/13 to 2016/17, which will be supplemented by external funding. As a result the Council's funded programme is currently expected to be in the region of £35.5 million annually over the same period.

3.5 The Government Spending Review of October 2010 included notional totals for future transport grants. Over the next four years of this Plan, as Table 1 overleaf illustrates, the Government has allocated the following levels of block capital funding for transport in West Berkshire, as set out in their settlement letter of 13 December 2010. This funding allocation indicates the anticipated levels of spend that the Government would expect to see spent on transport. It is provided as capital grant (not supported borrowing), but is not ring-fenced.

Page 31 Table 1

2012/13 2013/14* 2014/15* £000 £000 £000 Highways Capital Maintenance 3,420 3,319 3,126 Integrated Transport 784 784 1,103 Total 4,204 4,103 4,229

*Funding allocations for 2013/14 and 2014/15 are indicative and are subject to change, for instance as a result of changes to the formulae or future data changes.

3.6 It should be noted that the fall in indicative Maintenance allocations is in line with national projections. Therefore the Council, along with other local highway authorities, is expected to seek significant efficiency savings by using its purchasing power to drive down the costs of maintenance.

3.7 Historically, West Berkshire Council has spent up to and beyond the levels expected by Government. This has enabled the Council to deliver over and above the minimum scenario, resulting in consistent year on year improvement.

3.8 This good progress has been regularly commended in settlement letters from the DfT. In the LTP2 mid-term review progress letter, the DfT recognised the Council had demonstrated good progress through reducing the length of principal and non-principal roads requiring maintenance.

3.9 The Final and Indicative Funding Allocations have therefore been used to guide the Council in setting its Transport Budget for the next four years, as detailed in Table 2 below. This includes S106 and other known external funding.

Table 2

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 £000 £000 £000 Total 6,366 6,991 7,335

3.10 West Berkshire Council's investment programme is very much in line with that indicated by the DfT. However, the Council is planning to continue to spend over and above the indicative amount where funding permits. The difference between what has been set aside in the Capital Programme and the amount allocated by Government year on year is detailed in Table 3 below.

Table 3

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 £000 £000 £000 Difference 2,162 2,888 3,106

Page 32 Revenue Funding

3.11 The Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) sets the Council's approach to managing its revenue budget. The MTFS is set in the context of the Government's Spending Review and its resulting implication for local government. The Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) announced in late 2010 set out the funding envelope for local Government over the period 2011- 15. A further, more detailed review was completed in December 2010 and this set out the amount of funding that individual Councils would receive in the period 2011-13.

3.12 The aim of the MTFS is to:

• summarise the financial context within which the Council is working;

• provide a stable financial framework for the Council over the period of the Plan, taking into account the need to address new statutory requirements, known financial pressures, and new Government initiatives;

• within that framework, ensure through a variety of means, that financial resources are made available to deliver the Council's Strategic Priorities as set out in the Council's Strategy 2012 – 16.

3.13 Unlike in previous years, the short to medium term financing of Local Government is undergoing a significant amount of reform. The Local Government Resource Review in 2011 has confirmed the Government’s intention to allow Local Government to retain certain levels of business rates. For West Berkshire Council this is likely to mean that the Council pays over a significant tariff to central Government, as the Council currently collects levels of business rates far in excess of the amount it receives back from Central Government. This has meant that predicting the medium term finances to the Council is more difficult until the scheme for financing using business rates is finalised. However, based on the proposed revenue savings for 2012/13 and the current forecasts, the anticipated revenue spend for highway maintenance for the next 3 years is detailed in Table 4 below.

Table 4

2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 £000 £000 £000 Total tbc tbc tbc

Funding and Delivery Programme

3.14 The Council also faces a number of pressures on its budget. Significant investment has been made in Adult Social Care over the previous five years, and to a lesser extent waste management. Going forward, this poses a significant challenge to West Berkshire Council in how it invests revenue resources into improving transportation. West Berkshire Council’s programmed revenue expenditure for 2011-12 is currently budgeted at over £7m. This has significantly reduced compared to the previous year due to the capitalisation of £2m of highways expenditure in 2010-11

Page 33 3.15 The allocation of budgets to different activities has been carried out on the basis of supporting the overall lifecycle planning described in the lifecycle plans and the need to undertake reactive maintenance repairs. The 2012/13 figures in Tables 5 and 6 below illustrate the way in which the budget is typically allocated:

Table 5 Capital Funding 2012/13

£000 LTP Extended Maintenance tbc Surface Treatment tbc Machine Patching tbc Footways and Verges tbc

Table 6 Revenue Funding 2012/13

£’s A339 De-trunking tbc Drainage tbc Footways and Verges tbc Rights of Way tbc tbc Siding Bridge Maintenance tbc Parish Watch tbc Safety Fences tbc Gulley Emptying & Jetting tbc Grip Cutting tbc Signs and Road Markings tbc Emergencies tbc Emergency Sweeping tbc Grass Cutting tbc Trees tbc Street Lighting Maintenance tbc TOTAL tbc

Page 34 External Funding and Other Savings

3.16 The pressure on council budgets underlines the importance of exploring external funding and savings. Examples include:

• developer ‘commuted sum’ contributions to cover the extra future maintenance costs of unusual surfacing, lighting or other features of new development which will be adopted by the Council.

x Engagement with the Council’s Term Maintenance Contractor to minimise whole life costs through early and effective management of risk, methods, materials and programme (early contractor involvement).

x The use of alternative cost effective materials, for example, upvc drainage systems and recycled materials.

The Role of the HAMP in Determining Future Funding Levels

3.17 Future total funding seems likely still to be heavily constrained, both for the highways service and for the Council as a whole. Within that constraint, the HAMP has two specific functions:

• to provide evidence based information to help inform decisions on the allocation of funds to the Highway and Transport Service.

• to provide evidence based information to help allocate budgets which align with the set levels of service.

Page 35 4. Asset Valuation

4.1 Valuing roads, bridges and other transport assets is to some extent a theoretical exercise, given the nature of the assets, but it is an essential part of the management process and will be required under ‘whole -life government accounting’ rules. In terms of the HAMP, the asset valuation process can be used to measure the impact of alternative maintenance scenarios in terms of depreciated value and asset condition, allowing better informed decisions to be made on funding and allocations.

4.2 Calculating asset values can be a complex exercise. An initial ‘gross replacement cost’ approach has been calculated using the model detailed in the Code of Practice on Transport and Infrastructure Assets, where the gross replacement cost is the cost to provide a modern equivalent of the asset if it did not exist. The valuation framework will continue to be developed in line with national guidance and good practice.

4.3 The amount of service life of an asset that has been consumed is the depreciation and can be evaluated financially. This figure will be the expenditure required to return an asset to “as new” condition, if it can be repaired. Alternatively, it is the sum that should be set aside for the replacement of any asset that cannot be repaired. The current or net value of an asset is its gross replacement cost minus the financial depreciation.

4.4 Further details of the analytical method used are given in Appendix F. The current value of the highway asset is summarised in Table 7 below.

Table 7

Carriageways Footways Bridges Street Lighting £000 £000 £000 £000 Gross Replacement 1,152,082 115,114 75,351 15,936 Cost Depreciation 4,796 Not Available Not Required 399 Net Value 1,147,286 - - 15,537

Page 36 5. Lifecycle Plans

5.1 The lifecycle plans for the four main asset groups are set out in Appendices A to D. Each details initially:

• the levels of service we wish the asset to meet • the evidence on the extent of the asset and its characteristics • the evidence on its present condition, and how that is measured • the present valuation of the asset • an assessment of future changes in demand for the asset • the options available for treatment of the asset

5.2 This provides the basis for the analysis which follows in the remaining sections of each appendix:

• analysis of the best management strategy for minimising the whole-life cost of the asset whilst meeting service level aspirations

• identifying options within this strategy which deliver different levels of service, with different targets, depending on budget availability

• setting out the action plan necessary to ensure the effective delivery of the lifecycle plan

• identifying the specific risks which may affect the successful implementation of the lifecycle plan

5.3 As noted earlier, each lifecycle plan cannot be treated in isolation as the level of resource provided for one asset will affect the funding available for others. Section 6 below provides the balance between the lifecycle plans and sets out what is believed to be the optimum balance of spending between different asset categories within the overall funding currently available. It also summarises the separate action plans for each of the lifecycle plans.

Page 37 6. Asset Management Strategy

Introduction

6.1 The asset management strategy draws on the analysis set out in the lifecycle plans to show:

• the way we will budget expenditure to provide the best overall maintenance of all assets, judged against desirable levels of service,

and

• the techniques we use to ensure that we manage the different assets in the most cost-effective way, and how we will improve those.

6.2 In this first edition of the HAMP the strategy covers two main areas:

• The optimum allocation of the capital budgets available between the asset categories. This is intended to provide the background for decisions on future spending.

• The main areas for further investigation and analysis in taking forward our techniques for managing the individual assets.

Strategy to Optimise Performance to meet Levels of Service Aspirations

6.3 The analyses in the four lifecycle plans show how far we are able at present to meet our aspirations for levels of service. Taking the four dimensions in turn:

• safety – our performance information is not yet comprehensive but we believe that we are close to achieving the desired standards.

• availability - with our Network Management Plan now in place to meet our responsibilities under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and building on previous good practice, there is reasonable confidence that we are close to meeting customer aspirations for availability.

• serviceability – we believe that we are meeting most customer aspirations for serviceability but this will continue to be developed in future versions of the HAMP as more specific customer research is collected and analysed.

• condition - we were notified by the Department of Transport in December 2010 of our allocations for 2011/12 and 2012/13, plus indicative allocations for 2013/14 and 2014/15, which show a gradual reduction in highways maintenance grant over the next few years. This will place the onus on us to achieve greater efficiencies in delivering highway maintenance, whilst maintaining the progress already made in improving the condition of our network. We will develop a new condition target to help monitor the highway maintenance policy in our new Local Transport Plan.

Page 38 Strategy to Improve Asset Management Performance.

6.4 Our techniques for managing assets are long-established and adjusted regularly on the basis of developing national best practice which we pick up through membership of organisations such as CIPFA and the South East Counties Service Improvements Group (SECSIG). We believe this provides substantial assurance that our techniques are close to best practice and we have therefore not concentrated on this aspect of our work in this first edition HAMP.

6.5 Attention will be focussed more on technical aspects of our work in the second and future editions. The overall work we need to do is summarised in section 9 and, of that, those most important for the technical assessment work are:

• improving asset data • further investigation of service lives for different treatments • further research into treatment options for paved and flagged footways • further investigation of the case for painting steel lighting columns

6.6 In addition, future versions of the HAMP need to include similar analysis for the other asset groups not included in this first version.

Page 39 7. Risk Management

7.1 The Council has a corporate risk policy designed to manage risks in a structured manner. All change processes are risk assessed, and action plans prepared for risks of relatively high likelihood and high impact. Similar analysis is carried out for risks associated with continuing service delivery. The main processes for transport/highway asset management are therefore already covered by risk analyses, documented in the Highways & Transport service plan.

7.2 User risks associated with levels of service are discussed within the lifecycle plans and the risks associated with the improvement action plan are detailed in Section 9. With the latter, the key risk is that the Council will not be able to fund/resource and thus implement the recommendations within the plan. This risk will be mitigated by ensuring that the recommendations are appropriately prioritised within the action plan.

Page 40 8. Performance Monitoring

8.1 The Council has in place a comprehensive performance monitoring system that provides high level performance related information in order to monitor the objectives/ commitments detailed within the Directorate and Service plans and the national single list data set on which the Council is measured. This framework operates at all levels within the organisation.

8.2 The Local Transport Plan sets out specific indicators relating to transport and highway services and includes indicators associated with the condition of the highway/transport asset. These are also detailed in the lifecycle plans and cover not only carriageways and footways but also bridge condition and street lighting.

8.3 The performance of the Council’s Term Maintenance Contractor, Volker Highways, is measured and reported monthly and quarterly and reviewed annually to ensure that they align with the Council’s objectives. A partnership arrangement is in place to help deliver ‘value for money’ high quality services and continuous service improvement. A Strategic Management board comprising senior representatives from both organisations ensures the cost- effectiveness and delivery performance of the partnership.

8.4 All major LTP projects are managed using ‘PRINCE2’ project management principles and are assessed using a formal ‘Scheme Selection Matrix’ process to ensure that these projects meet the Council’s objectives. These arrangements provide a formal framework for performance management of the HAMP and will ensure that the full potential of this document is exploited.

Page 41 9. Development and Updating the HAMP

Development

9.1 There are a number of other areas of work to complete before the HAMP can be considered a fully comprehensive document and these will continue to be developed over the course of this HAMP. Beyond this there will be further developments in analytical techniques in future years, as well as inevitable changes in the availability of funding. These will require further editions of the HAMP to be produced in later years, though with the core content perhaps little changed after 2015.

9.2 The responsibility for co-ordinating this work will initially lie with the Council’s Highways Manager, however, as the Plan is developed and further services/assets are added, a formal Asset Management Board of service representatives will be established to coordinate the Plan. The elements of this can be divided into those required for project planning, outputs going into the second HAMP, and outputs going into the third and later HAMPs. The project planning elements are as follows:

Work Area Time Scale Approval of HAMP March 2012 Develop a project plan for gathering relevant missing assets March 2012 Develop strategy for maintaining and managing asset data. March 2012

9.3 The outputs will be as follows:

Work Area For this For later HAMP HAMPs Complete asset inventory collection and lifecycle Y planning for remaining assets. Carry out equality impact assessment for HAMP Y Refine approach to asset valuation. Y Y More quantified analysis of customer views on the Y serviceability dimension for each asset category, based on specific customer surveys. More detailed examination of asset management Y Y strategies, including: • use of condition data • use of alternative treatments/treatment options • use of alternative materials and in-house recycling Include environmental impact as a fifth dimension Y to levels of service

Updating

9.4 The arrangements for updating the HAMP will be decided by the Asset Management Board.

Page 42 10. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

BVPI Best Value Performance Indicator CVI Coarse Visual Inspection DfT Department for Transport DVI Detailed Visual Inspection FNS Footway Network Survey GIS Geographical Information System LTP Local Transport Plan NMP Network Management Plan NI National Indicator PI Performance Indicators SCANNER Road condition measurement survey SCRIM Skid Resistance measurement survey HAMP Highways Management Plan TAMP Transport Asset Management Plan UKPMS United Kingdom Pavement Management System WDM Electronic Highways Management System

Page 43 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 44

Appendix A Carriageway Lifecycle Plan

Introduction

1. The background to lifecycle plans and the format of each are described in Section 5 of the HAMP. This appendix provides the lifecycle plan for carriageways.

2. For management purposes, the Council’s highway network has been split into discrete maintenance categories based on the recommendations given within the national Code of Practice for “Well Maintained Highways”. These categories reflect the type and use of different carriageways and are summarised in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Cat. Hierarchy Type of Road Detailed Description 1 Motorway* Limited access motorway Routes for fast moving long regulations apply. distance traffic. Fully grade separated and restrictions on use 2 Strategic* Trunk and some Principal A roads Routes for fast moving long Routes between Primary Destinations. distance traffic with little frontage access or pedestrian traffic. Speed limits are usually in excess of 40mph and there are few junctions. Pedestrian crossings are either segregated or controlled and parked vehicles are generally prohibited. 3a Main Non Principal A Roads. Routes between strategic routes Distributor and linking urban centres to the strategic network. 3b Secondary Classified Roads (B and C Class) In rural areas, these roads link Distributor and Unclassified urban bus larger villages to strategic/main routes. distributor network. In urban areas

these roads usually have a 30 mph speed limit and high levels of pedestrian usage. 4a Link Roads Unclassified Roads linking into the In rural areas provide inter-village main/secondary distributor links and connect to distributor network with greater local network. In urban areas residential significance in rural areas. or industrial interconnecting roads. 4b Local Unclassified urban cul-de-sacs In rural areas these roads serve Access and rural, lightly trafficked roads smaller villages and provide access Roads serving small settlements and to individual properties and land. In single lane roads. urban areas they are predominately residential.

* Motorways (Category 1) and Trunk Roads (Category 2) are the responsibility of the Highways Agency.

1 Page 45

Levels of Service

3. Since 2002, the Highways and Transport service has been carrying out a comprehensive programme of annual testing to determine the condition of the highway network and establish the Government’s defined datasets for the condition of the Principal Classified, Non-Principal Classified and Unclassified Road networks and skid resistance. For 2012/13, the national datasets are defined as follows:

• 130 – 01 Condition of Principal Roads

• 130 – 02 Condition of Non Principal Roads

• 130 – 03 SCRIM (Sideway-force Coefficient Routine Investigation Machine) – classified network

• 130 – 04 Carriageway work completed.

4. The desirable levels of service for this asset category are set out in Table 2 below. By adopting a budget optimisation and depreciation modelling approach, using the historical condition data/deterioration rates, the Council has been able to set condition based service levels for different budget scenarios.

Table 2

Attribute Desired Standard Performance Measure

Safety Maintain the following level of skid SCRIM (Sideway-force resistance*: Coefficient Routine 130 – 03 to remain at 90% +/- 3% .Investigation Machine) survey results. Availability All roads available for use at all times Journey times. excluding periods of essential road works Complaints. and street works. ELM Reports. Serviceability Appropriate standard of ride, signing and SCANNER survey. lining. Complaints. NHT Survey. Council surveys. ELM Reports. Condition Maintain the following levels of condition**: Single list national dataset*** 130 - 01 (formerly NI168): 6% +/- 1% Local Indicators (LI’s). 130 - 02 (formerly NI169): 9% +/- 1% LI224b (formerly BV224b): 13% +/- 2%

* The percentage above the required investigatory level.

** The percentages represent the length of network that is in need of urgent maintenance (Condition Red).

*** Whilst targeting red SCANNER sites should improve the national dataset, does not necessarily promote good asset management. To maintain the asset, it is essential to target the high ambers and prevent these sites from deteriorating into the red. In providing a % range for the length requiring urgent maintenance, there should be sufficient flexibility to achieve both outcomes.

**** ELM – West Berkshire Council’s Enquiry Logging Manager system for recording enquiries and service requests .

2 Page 46

5. Failure to respond adequately to any of these four attributes of level of service could produce risk to the authority. Table 3 below, which details the main risks, underlines the importance of responding properly to each.

Table 3

Risk Type Description Example Physical Accidents caused by asset defects. Corporate Legal proceedings for failure in duty of care. Financial Reduction in the value of the asset because of poor maintenance practice, reduced budgets and increased compensation payments following legal action. Public Relations Poor road condition reflects on the overall image of the Council. Environmental The use of premium aggregates, natural materials/resources, inappropriate materials/specifications, short lived resurfacing/overlay materials and high consumption of energy per kilometre of treated network. Network Disruption to road users as a result of poor coordination and unplanned maintenance following poor maintenance practice and/or reduced budget.

Asset Base and Characteristics

6. Using the national standard of road classification and maintenance category, the Council’s highway network may be summarised as follows:

Table 4 - Road Class

Total A Roads B Roads C Roads U Roads Lane 1 Lane1 kms Lane1 kms Lane1 kms Lane1 kms kms Urban 46.7 22.3 112.5 559.5 741.0 Rural 158.9 125.6 731.0 740.7 1756.2 Total 205.6 147.9 843.5 1300.2 2497.2

Table 5 - Maintenance Category

Total Category 2 3a 3b 4a 4b Lane 1 kms Lane1 kms 104.2 101.4 1075.6 378 838 2497.2

3 Page 47 Asset Condition and Assessment

7. The condition of the road network is assessed annually by SCANNER surveys. Although no longer a national indicator, 100% of the unclassified network is assessed annually to establish a local indicator (LI244b). Skid resistance is measured annually on the A, B and C roads using SCRIM. Digital video imagery is captured as part of the SCANNER surveys and is used to check condition, accessibility, serviceability and for asset inventory collection. The annual condition survey regime for West Berkshire is summarised in Table 6 below.

Table 6

U Roads A Roads B Roads C Roads (inc. D Roads) SCANNER 50% in both 100% in one 50% in one 100% in one directions direction direction direction (national) (national) (national) (local)

Data set:130-01 Data set:130-02 Data set: 130-02 LI224b SCRIM 100% in both 100% in both 100% in one Not surveyed directions directions direction Digital Video As part of As part of As part of As part of the Imagery SCANNER SCANNER SCANNER SCANNER survey survey survey survey

8. In addition to condition surveys, the Council also carries out routine highway safety inspections where the frequency of inspection is based on the type of road and the amount and type of traffic using it. Adopting the guidelines given within the national Code of Practice for Maintenance Management “Well Maintained Highways” (July 2005), the standards for the frequency of safety inspections are summarised in Table 7 below.

Table 7

Maximum WBC Code of Practice Interval Maintenance Category and Road Class Frequency Between Group Description Inspections 2, 3a and 3b A, B and C roads. 1 month (Driven) 6 weeks Group 1 Urban bus routes on Unclassified roads 4a U roads 3 months 16 weeks Group 2 (Urban – Walked) (Rural – Driven) 4b U roads 12 months 56 weeks Group 3 (Urban – Walked) (Rural – Driven)

4 Page 48 9. There are national datasets for the classified road network. 130-01 and 130-02 are a direct application of the Road Condition Index (RCI) from the current UKPMS default rule set. For unclassified roads there is no longer a national indicator (previously BV224b), however the Council continues to provide a local indicator (LI224b) for these roads using the RCI methodology. A summary of road condition performance for the period 2005 to 2010 is shown in Table 8 below.

Table 8

Indicator/Year 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 A Roads BV 223 BV 223 NI 168 NI 168 NI 168 NI 168 5% 7% 5% 6% 5% 5% B & C Roads BV224a BV224a NI 169 NI 169 NI 169 NI 169 11% 9% 7% 9% 9% 9% D & U Roads BV224b BV224b LI224b LI224b LI224b LI224b 26% 20% 14% 21% * 12% * 11% *

* Based on 100% network coverage.

Financial Management, Investment and Programming.

10. The Council’s constitution provides a flexible mechanism for ensuring effective and fully accountable financial management of the Council’s transport budgets, both capital and revenue.

The framework within which operational budgets are managed is as follows:

Annual B udget Setting Process

Scheme D evelopment Auditing and Delivery

Budget R eporting and Monitoring

5 Page 49

11. Day to day budget control is the responsibility of the budget manager, a senior officer reporting directly to the Head of Service. The Head of Service has overall responsibility for the department’s financial situation, working very closely with the Directorate Group Accountant, who is a key member of the Directorate Management Team. Service budgets are monitored at Directorate Management Team level and a formal budget report presented monthly to Corporate Board.

12. To ensure compliance with the constitution, regular independent audits are undertaken particularly in areas of high cash turnover such as car parks and concessionary fares.

13. The process for managing capital expenditure is very similar but the Council’s Capital Strategy Group plays a key role in monitoring scheme progress and cost. Whilst an overview is taken by the Directorate Management Team, the details are closely monitored by Capital Strategy Group using detailed monthly reports. This group is a good example of cross service corporate working as it comprises representatives of all Council Services with a capital expenditure programme. A holistic view of the Council’s overall position regarding capital can therefore be taken.

14. To ensure that value for money is being achieved across the entire range of transport related budgets, the Council undertook a complete Zero Based Budget Review in October and November 2005. A series of subsequent value for money audits as well as reviews by the Council’s Transformation and Efficiency Board (TEB) will continue to ensure that the Council’s resources are used to the best effect by directing funds to the most needed area.

Budget Optimisation and Depreciation Modelling

15. To carry out budget optimisation and depreciation modelling on the classified network, the Council applies a financial model that is able to predict the level of investment required to deliver any predefined level of service as measured by road condition surveys. The model is also used to assess the effect of treatments and budget strategies on the 130-01 and 130-02 data sets and the Depreciated Asset Value over selected time periods.

16. For the unclassified road network, a separate model was used to predict budgets required to achieve selected LV224b values using the results from past CVI surveys. However, from 2011, the mini-SCANNER was introduced to assess the unclassified network and this data has now been combined as part of the classified road network model.

17. The model is populated using the latest SCANNER and SCRIM survey data from the Principal, Non Principal Classified and the Unclassified road networks and a treatment decision matrix that links the individual condition parameters (rutting, longitudinal profile, cracking and texture etc) to specific maintenance treatments (reconstruction, resurfacing, surface dressing etc) is used to formalise treatments.

18. The model uses a deterioration rate to predict the future condition. The SCANNER road condition indicator (RCI) has been linked to a residual life which enables the life of the road to be determined from the condition data.

6 Page 50 19. Using the financial model a number of scenarios can be run to enable West Berkshire Council to evaluate the effect of different budget allocations on the network condition and the resulting effect on the value of the asset.

20. The Council has developed a financial model that uses the latest road condition data and a deterioration model to help predict budget requirements to achieve target condition service levels over different timescales and future condition of the road network should investment levels change.

21. The financial model has also been used to target budget allocations to specific road hierarchies. Based on current model simulations using condition data and deterioration parameters, Table 9 below shows the average cost to achieve a “steady state” scenario, namely, the budget amounts required to deliver the set service levels over the next 25 years:

Table 9

Average Annual Cost % of the Total Road Class Total Network Cost (25 Years) Cost A Classified Rural £389,759 £9,743,982 11% A Classified Urban £141,918 £3,547,950 4% B Classified Rural £227,180 £5,679,505 6% B Classified Urban £54,423 £1,360,571 1% C Classified Rural £1,060,637 £26,515,933 29% C Classified Urban £229,979 £5,749,471 6% U Unclassified U&R £1,546,038 £38,650,961 43% TOTAL £3,649,934 £91,248,373 100%

The above figures are based on the condition data and unit costs up to and including 2010

22. The above table has also been used to establish a budget allocation between the classified (60% of the budget) and non-classified networks (40% of the budget), enabling a more targeted maintenance regime based on existing network condition.

Condition Threshold Values and Availability of Condition Data

23. Condition threshold values represent the condition beyond which the road would be classified as in need of investigation and possible treatment. The condition is defined from SCANNER surveys, which now provide very high levels of network coverage.

24. Threshold levels from SCANNER surveys are defined in terms of a Road Condition Indicator (RCI), which combines defects together into a composite measure for every 10 metre subsection of road, and can range from 0 to 315 for the classified network and from 0 to 246 for the unclassified network. An RCI ≥ 100 indicates the section is in ‘need of maintenance’ and is classified as red for national indicator reporting. Amber is used to describe roads with an RCI > 40 and < 100.

7 Page 51

25. However, in order to manage a network not only are the lengths of road with an RCI ≥ 100 considered for treatment but some of the roads with RCI values of between 80 and 100 are also considered because these are approaching a critical condition and early treatment is more cost effective as it is usually less extensive at this stage in the life cycle. The model therefore, takes into account treatments that have been applied to the road in a “high” amber and red condition.

26. Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13 below highlight the parameters, thresholds, weightings and the subsequent “points” score used to calculate the RCI for A, B, C and U roads using condition data collected from SCANNER surveys. Each 10-metre section of surveyed road is allocated a condition ranking shown as green, amber, high amber or red depending on the value of the “points” scored. The total length of the red sections is reported as a percentage of the total network coverage to establish the national datasets 130-01 and 130-02 and the local indicator LI224b.

Table 10

Condition of Principal Roads (A Roads: Data set 130 - 01)

Weighting Lower Upper Maximum Parameter (defect) Units (Importance Threshold Threshold Score (Points) x Reliability) Rut depth (larger of mm 10 20 1.0 100 LLRT or LRRT) 3m profile Variance mm2 4 10 0.8 80* (LV3) 10m profile Variance mm2 21 56 0.6 60* (LV10) Whole c/w cracking % area 0.15 2.0 0.6 60 (LTRC) Texture depth (Urban mm 0.6 0.3 0.5 50 roads) (LLTX) Texture depth (Rural mm 0.7 0.4 0.75 75 roads) (LLTX)

Urban Roads 290 Maximum Scores (RCI) Rural Roads 315

* Only the higher score from the two measures of longitudinal profile (3m and 10m profile variance) is counted in the overall score

Glossary of Terms

LLRT Left wheel path rut depth LRRT Right wheel path rut depth LV3 3m moving average longitudinal profile variance LV10 10m moving average longitudinal profile variance LTRC Whole carriageway cracking LLTX Left wheel path average texture depth

8 Page 52 Table 11

Condition of Classified Roads (B Roads: Data set 130 - 02)

Weighting Lower Upper Maximum Parameter (defect) Units (Importance Threshold Threshold Score (Points) x Reliability) Rut depth (larger of mm 10 20 1.0 100 LLRT or LRRT) 3m profile Variance mm2 5 13 0.8 80* (LV3) 10m profile Variance mm2 27 71 0.6 60* (LV10) Whole c/w cracking % area 0.15 2.0 0.6 60 (LTRC) Texture depth (Urban mm 0.6 0.3 0.5 50 roads) (LLTX) Texture depth (Rural mm 0.6 0.3 0.75 75 roads) (LLTX)

Urban Roads 290 Maximum Scores (RCI) Rural Roads 315

* Only the higher score from the two measures of longitudinal profile (3m and 10m profile variance) is counted in the overall score

Table 12

Condition of Classified Roads (C Roads: Data set 130 - 02) Weighting Lower Upper Maximum Parameter (defect) Units (Importance Threshold Threshold Score (Points) x Reliability) Rut depth (larger of mm 10 20 1.0 100 LLRT or LRRT) 3m profile Variance mm2 7 17 0.8 80* (LV3) 10m profile Variance mm2 35 93 0.6 60* (LV10) Whole c/w cracking % area 0.15 2.0 0.6 60 (LTRC) Texture depth (Urban mm 0.6 0.3 0.3 30 roads) (LLTX) Texture depth (Rural mm 0.6 0.3 0.5 50 roads) (LLTX) Urban Roads 270 Maximum Scores (RCI) Rural Roads 290

* Only the higher score from the two measures of longitudinal profile (3m and 10m profile variance) is counted in the overall score

9 Page 53 Table 13

Condition of Classified Roads (D & U Roads: Local Indicator LI224b)

Weighting Lower Upper Maximum Parameter (defect) Units (Importance Threshold Threshold Score (Points) x Reliability) Rut depth (larger of mm 10 20 1.0 100 LLRT or LRRT) 3m profile Variance mm2 10 20 0.6 60* (LV3) 10m profile Variance mm2 50 95 0.5 50* (LV10) Whole c/w cracking % area 0.15 2.0 0.36 36 (LTRC) Texture depth (Urban mm 0.6 0.3 0.3 30 roads) (LLTX) Texture depth (Rural mm 0.6 0.3 0.5 50 roads) (LLTX)

Urban Roads 226 Maximum Scores (RCI) Rural Roads 246

* Only the higher score from the two measures of longitudinal profile (3m and 10m profile variance) is counted in the overall score

27. The total number of points attributed to each 10 metre section of road is calculated based on the above tables. The Road Condition Indicator (RCI) is assigned a “condition” colour based on the RCI value as detailed in Table 14 below.

Table 14

RCI Range Condition Colour 0 to 39 Green 40 to 79 Amber 80 to 99 (locally created range) High Amber greater than or equal to 100 Red

28. The nationally recognised definitions for the colour groupings shown above are as follows:

• GREEN – Lengths where the carriageway is generally in a good state of repair.

• AMBER – Lengths where some deterioration is apparent which should be investigated to determine the optimum time for planned maintenance treatment.

10 Page 54

• HIGH AMBER – (Locally created range) Lengths where the carriageway is in need of planned maintenance as soon as possible to justify carrying out a lesser maintenance treatment rather than a more extensive treatment later, in order to minimise whole life costs.

• RED – Lengths in poor overall condition which are likely to require planned maintenance soon (i.e. within a year or so) on a “worst first” basis. (Although there may be justification for postponing major repairs, and only carrying out minor repairs to keep the road safe and serviceable, in order to minimise whole life costs i.e. “economic prioritisation”).

Maintenance Treatments

29. Road surfaces can be renewed, repaired, protected or retextured.

• Renewal involves replacing some or all of the structural layers and in some cases the sub-base layer in order to restore strength and life expectancy.

• Repairs include patching, permanent pothole repairs, crack sealing and resetting of ironwork.

• Protection treatments restore the skid resistance and seal the surface of the road which prevents moisture and water ingress getting into the surface and oxidation of the binder. Treatments include surface dressing, micro- asphalts and slurry seals.

• Retexturing increases the serviceable life of the surface course by removing excess binder and “roughing up” the polished aggregate, improving both macro and micro texture to increase skidding resistance in wet conditions and reduce aqua-planing.

30. A set of maintenance treatments for various defect conditions have been established along with unit costs and typical design lives for each road class. For the classified and unclassified networks, the treatment cost/life expectancy matrix is detailed in Table 15 below.

Table 15

Treatment Design Unit Cost (£/m2) Life D & U (Years) A Roads B Roads C Roads Roads Reconstruction (450-525mm) 50 70.00 67.00 45.00 45.00 Thick Overlay (150mm) 50 25.00 25.00 21.00 21.00 Moderate Overlay (100mm) 40 22.00 22.00 19.00 19.00 Thin Overlay (40-60mm) 20 18.00 17.00 16.00 16.00 Thin Inlay (40mm) 15 20.00 19.00 17.00 17.00 Moderate Inlay (90-110mm) 20 24.00 24.00 22.00 22.00 Surface Dress/Micro (10- 10 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 25mm) Retexturing 10 15.50 15.50 15.50 15.50

11 Page 55 Linking Condition with Treatment

31. Using the latest national rules and parameters (RP 10.01), the parameters and thresholds tabulated in Section 26 are used to calculate national datasets 130-01 and 130-02. For local indicator (LI224b), local parameters have been established for the unclassified network based on engineering judgement, knowledge of network performance and the locally set thresholds as detailed in Table 13 of this appendix.

32. The four main defect mechanisms used to identify treatments are rut depth, texture depth, whole carriageway cracking and variance (ride quality). These are all recorded by the SCANNER surveys and are also used to establish the RCI and national datasets. There is a fifth defect mechanism which is the skidding resistance of the road surface as measured by SCRIM. Within the analysis, this data is combined with wet injury accidents and given the highest weighting when compared against the other four defect mechanisms.

33. When a scheme has been identified as in need of maintenance, the five defects will be analysed on an individual basis to establish the main defect mechanism causing the deterioration and the most suitable and cost effective treatment will be recommended. For example, a scheme that has a deep wheel track rutting problem would most likely require an inlay or thicker overlay of new material to remove the rutting. Surface dressing or a thin inlay/overlay would not eradicate the problem. If a scheme is deficient in texture depth and areas of cracking are evident, a surface dressing maybe the most cost effective treatment to improve texture, skidding resistance and seal the cracks to prevent water ingress.

Effectiveness of Treatment

34. By the very nature of the work, maintenance schemes will contain ‘non-defective’ sections and therefore treatments will be applied where they do not produce the full benefit of the treatment. The amount of non effective maintenance is defined as the effectiveness factor for the treatment and is a variable within the model. The distribution of RCI on the length where ‘non-effective’ maintenance is applied is based on the network distribution as a best estimate for forward projection of condition. An effectiveness factor of 50% has been assumed within the financial model.

Timing of Treatment

35. If defects are treated before they reach an RCI of 100, the cost of repair will tend to be less expensive than if they are left untreated and allowed to deteriorate into the “red”, resulting in the reduction of the whole life cost of the pavement. It is often not possible to treat all defects as they occur and, therefore, it is necessary to allow for the additional cost of repairs. Factors can be applied to increase treatment unit costs as the RCI increases beyond 100.

12 Page 56 Scenario’s

36. When the need arises, financial models can be run on all classes of road. The following scenarios were run for the period 2009/10 to establish base levels of spend in order to set realistic service levels.

• Headline backlog – the cost to remove all defects within 1 year (£31.4m)

• Current budget – condition projections for 10 years using current budgets

• Budget required meeting defined service level over 10 years

• Budget required achieving steady state over 10 years.

Scheme Identification and Prioritisation Framework

37. Schemes are identified in a number of ways and originate from a number of sources. Once a scheme has been identified as having a possible maintenance need, it is then analysed along with all the other schemes to establish a priority.

38. Initial scheme identification will normally come from one or more of the following sources:

Objective sources:

• SCANNER data – identified from sections with a high concentration of “Red” or “High Amber” RCI values.

• SCRIM data – sections of carriageway which are both deficient in skidding resistance and have had an occurrence of wet injury accidents.

Subjective sources: : • Visual condition reports in addition to the routine safety inspections from the Council’s inspectors who are on the network daily.

• Members of the public/Council Members/Parish Councils – Concern raised regarding poor condition of surfaces.

• Safety Inspections – Analysis of surface defect repairs where clusters and/or repeat reactive maintenance is occurring.

39. For each identified scheme, the available machine based condition data is analysed to establish its priority rating using the following criteria:

• Skidding Resistance and Wet Accidents

• Road Condition

• Deterioration Trends

• Road Classification

40. Table 16 below shows how the points are allocated across each defect type. For any particular defect, the maximum possible priority rating is 620. This table is based on the format for RCI calculations shown in Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13.

13 Page 57 Table 16

Weighting Max Lower Upper Defect Type Units (Importance Score Threshold Threshold /Reliability) (Points) Wet Injury Accidents in Number 1 3 3.0 300 the past 3 years SCRIM (Worst 100m I.L minus MSSC 0 0.2 1.0 100 Average) SCANNER RCI Factor of RCI% 50 300 1.0 100 Trend Analysis % change in RCI 10 17 0.8 80 Road Classification Class D&U A 0.4 40 Maximum Score 620

Glossary of Terms:

I.L Investigatory Level MSSC Mean Summer SCRIM Coefficient RCI Road Condition Index

Wet Injury Accidents

41. Wet accident score is only triggered if SCRIM shows the surface to be deficient. If the skidding resistance of the road surface is above the recommended investigatory level for that particular site, then no points for wet accidents will be added. Skidding resistance is combined with wet injury accidents to assign points based on the level of deficiency and the number of accidents which have occurred in the past 3 years. Points are allocated based on a sliding scale of skid deficiency i.e. the greater the deficiency the more the points gained, up to a maximum of 100. For each wet injury accident where the road surface has been identified as deficient within a scheme, 100 points are awarded up to a maximum of 3 wet accidents. This gives a possible maximum score of 300.

SCRIM

42. A SCRIM score is calculated using the Mean Summer SCRIM Coefficient (MSSC) and the Investigatory Level (IL). For any given scheme, the worst 100 metre section is taken and a value of deficiency is calculated by subtracting the MSSC from the IL. If the result is equal to or above zero, the surface is not deficient in skid resistance and as a consequence no points are added to the overall score. If the result is equal to or less than zero, points are added depending on the degree of deficiency.

Example:

43. A 100 metre length of A Class road has a MSSC of 0.27 and an investigatory level of 0.4, the value of deficiency would be -0.13. Applying this value to Table 17 below, the point score for the scheme would be 65.

Table 17

Deficiency 0 to -0.1 -0.11 -0.12 -0.13 -0.14 -0.15 -0.16 -0.17 -0.18 -0.19 >=0.20 Point Score 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

14 Page 58

44 The above calculation is added to the scores from wet injury accidents, SCANNER, trend analysis and road classification to determine the overall score for the scheme. With this overall score, it is possible to compare schemes and set priorities in an objective manner.

SCANNER

45. A SCANNER RCI score is calculated based on the percentage of green, amber, high amber and red values there are for each individual scheme. These percentages are multiplied by the factors detailed in Table 18 to establish an overall rating where the weighting is biased towards high amber and red.

Table 18

Condition Colour Multiplier Green 0 Amber 1 High Amber 6 Red 5

This rating, between 50 and 300 is then converted into a points score up to a maximum score of 100.

Example

A section of urban A class road has the following condition data over a 10 metre section:

Defect Type Units Condition Data RCI Score * Rut Depth mm 20 100 Profile variance** mm2 10 80 Cracking % area 0.175 30*** Texture Depth mm 0.8 0 Total RCI Score 210

* The RCI scores have been calculated using the figures in Table 10 ** The profile variance is the average of the 3m and 10m profile variance results *** Calculated on a pro-rata basis using the figures in Table 10

From paragraph 29, a score of 210 will place this 10 metre section into category RED as it is greater than 100. This calculation is then repeated for the whole length of the proposed scheme giving a consolidated set of results as tabled below.

Table 19

% RCI % RCI % RCI HIGH % RCI RED GREEN AMBER AMBER Consolidated RCI 14 42 18 26 score % for scheme Multiplier* 0 1 6 5 Overall Rating 0 42 108 130 Total 280 15 Page 59

Using the overall rating total above and Table 20 below, the points score for the scheme is 95.

Table 20

Rating <=50 51- 76- 101- 126- 151- 176- 201- 226- 251- 276- >300 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 Point 0 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Score

Trending Analysis

46. Trending analysis is also carried out to establish how the road pavement within an identified scheme has performed over a period of time. Deterioration modelling can be unpredictable due to the high number of variables that have an effect on a road pavements residual life, for example, extreme weather, traffic levels, drainage, location etc. However, analysis of past RCI values and the changes that may have occurred over time, can give a good indication of the rapid onset of failure. It can also identify road pavements that may have reached the high end of their RCI value (high amber), and have stabilised, indicating a slowing down of deterioration. This may offer the opportunity to delay maintenance for a year or two, enabling resources to be redirected to other schemes.

47. Trend analysis is carried out on each scheme by calculating the percentage change of high amber and red RCI values over the past 2 surveys. For example, an A class road is surveyed once every two years. Being a designed pavement, expected serviceable life is 20 years, therefore the predicted rate of deterioration would be 5% per annum. Over the two year period, the predicted rate of deterioration would be 10% and this represents the lower threshold used for assigning points. For any value above this percentage (up to an assumed maximum of 17%), points are assigned linearly to a maximum value of 80 similar to using the calculation method described above for SCRIM and SCANNER.

48. The final item contributing towards the priority points total is the road classification. A small number of points are awarded based on the usage of the road and environment it is situated in. Table 21 below highlights the allocation of points.

Table 21

Environment Road Classification Urban Points Rural Points Principal Roads (A Road) 40 30 Clas sified Roads (B Road) 30 25 Classified Roads (C Road) 20 15 Unclassified Roads (D & U 10 0 Road)

16 Page 60 Scheme Prioritisation

49. By adding the point scores for each of the defect type shown above for each scheme, it is possible to compare schemes and set priorities in an objective manner. From this analysis, the Council is able to prepare it’s budget based Three Year Highway Improvement Programme.

Risks

50. The risks involved in implementing the lifecycle action plan have been assessed against the Council’s standard grid of likelihood versus impact and are detailed in Tables 22 and 23 below, with an outline of the mitigation to be planned. The ‘red’ risks from each lifecycle plan are listed in Section 7 of the main TAMP document.

Table 22

Extreme Impact - Extreme Impact - Extreme Impact - Extreme Impact - Rarely Moderate Likely Almost certain 4 8 12 16

High Impact - High Impact - High Impact - Rarely High Impact - Likely Moderate Almost certain 3 6 9 12

Medium Impact - Medium Impact - Medium Impact - Medium Impact - Impact Impact Rarely Moderate Likely Almost certain 2 4 6 8

Low Impact - Low Impact - Low Impact - Rarely Low Impact - Likely Moderate Almost certain 1 2 3 4

Likelihood

Table 23

Risk Level Mitigation Responsible 1. Insufficient staff 6 Highlight in Service Plan Head of Highways and resources. Present Business Case for Transport additional support Highways Manager 2. Insufficient national 6 guidance and support

4. Materials/ labour/ 6 Ensure value for money is Project Managers plant/ staff costs being achieved Contractors

5. Reduced capital 12 Prioritise key assets to Council Officers funding minimise overall deterioration whilst maintaining safety

6. Reduced revenue 12 Prioritise key assets to Council Officers funding minimise overall deterioration whilst maintaining safety

17 Page 61 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 62 Appendix B

Footway, Footpath, Cycleway and Cycletrack Lifecycle Plan (Metalled)

Introduction

1. The background to lifecycle plans, and the format of each, are described in Section 5 of the HAMP. This appendix provides the lifecycle plan for footways, footpaths, cycleways and cycletracks that have hard surfaces (metalled). At this stage of development of the TAMP, footways are taken to exclude non-metalled public rights of way.

2. The condition of footways will be determined using Footway Network Surveys (FNS). These surveys are nationally recognised and will provide information for asset management and valuation purposes. A full survey will be undertaken in 2012 across West Berkshire.

Footways are defined in categories 1 to 4 as detailed in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Category Category Name Description 1 Primary Walking Route Major town and village centres with +30 number shops. 2 Secondary Walking Route Small retail shopping outlets +8 shops, large schools and industrial outlets +500 pupils or equivalent pedestrian movements. 3 Link Footways Urban access, busy rural, all other schools. 4 Local Access Footways (metalled) Rural footways, non-feeder footway in housing estates.

Notes:

Cycleways (those that form shared cycle/pedestrian thoroughfares on either the carriageway or footway)will be included as part of the carriageway/footway as detailed in Appendix A and B respectively.

Cycletrack (those that are remote from the carriageway/footway) will be treated as their own asset group .

Metalled Footpaths (those that are remote from the carriageway) will be treated as a Local Access Footway

Levels of Service

3. The desirable level of service for this asset category is set out in Table 2 overleaf.

Page 63 Table 2

Attribute Desired Standard Performance Measure

Safety Surface and profile should be safe for all Number of R1e and R1 users and free from obstruction. defects. Accident record. Routine safety inspections. Availability 90% of footways available for use at all User Surveys. times. ELM Reports. Serviceability Category 1 and 2 footways to be clearly ELM Reports. recognisable and signed as appropriate. Correspondence. Consultation. Condition Primary Walking 5% in need of Number of recorded defects. Route intervention * Footway Network Survey Secondary 9% in need of (FNS) Data. Walking Route intervention * Accident record. Link Footways 12% in need of ELM Reports. intervention * Local Access 15% in need of Footways intervention * (metalled

Notes.

* The set Service levels are initial estimates that will be refined over the course of this HAMP with the collection of FNS survey data.

4. Failure to respond adequately to any of these four dimensions of level of service will produce risk to the authority. Table 3 below details the main risks and underlines the importance of responding properly to each.

Table 3

Risk Type Description Physical Accidents caused by asset defects Business Legal proceedings for failure in duty of care

Financial Reduction in asset value as a result of deteriorating condition; increased in settled claims and associated legal costs Corporate Image Poor condition of footways reflect on the overall image of the Council. Network Unnecessary disruption to users as a result of inadequate and unplanned maintenance.

Page 64

Asset Base and Characteristics

5. A breakdown of the footway asset is shown in Table 4 below. The areas and types of construction are currently estimates, however, these will refined following the collection of the 2012 FNS data. All asset data will be stored and managed within in the Council’s WDM UKPMS system.

Table 4

Description km Bituminous Modular * km m2 km m2 Primary Walking Route 11 3 5400 ** 8 14400 Secondary Walking Route 18 11 19800 ** 7 12600 Link Footways 246 246 442800 ** 0 0 Local Access Footways 574 574 1033200 ** 0 0 Remote Metalled TBC TBC TBC 0 0 Cycletracks

Notes

* Modular covers flags and block paving. This data set will be refined to include separate data sets for flags, block and concrete on completion of the 2012 FNS.

** The areas shown are currently estimates based on Ordinance Survey data. This data set will be refined on completion of the 2012 FNS.

6. Following a full survey in 2012, Footway Network Surveys (FNS) will be carried out on a sample basis on each footway type in order for the purposes of asset management, programming and valuation. The sample coverage will be as detailed in Tabel 5 below.

Table 5

Description Bituminous Flags Block Concrete % % % % Primary Walking Route 10 10 10 TBC Secondary Walking 10 10 10 TBC Route Link Footways 5 5 5 TBC Local Access Footways 5 0 0 TBC Remote Metalled 5 0 0 TBC Cycletracks

Page 65 Asset Condition and Assessment

7. To assess the extent to which the desirable levels of service are met requires measurements covering the four dimensions of safety, availability, serviceability and condition. There are as yet no measures for availability and serviceability, and these will be considered further in the second edition of the HAMP.

8. The Council’s standards for the frequency of footway inspections take into account national guidelines as detailed in the national Code of Practice for Maintenance Management “Well Maintained Highways” (July 2005) as detailed in Table 6 below.

Table 6

Category Description Frequency of Inspection 1 Primary walking route Monthly 2 Secondary walking route Every 3 months 3 Link footways Every 6 months 4 All other metalled footways Every 12 months

Asset Valuation

9. Currently the preset values as provided by HAMFIG have been used to calculate the value of the footway asset. The areas and unit rates will be developed and refined over the course of the HAMP as more detailed data is collected using FNS. Appendix E details the valuation and the initial gross replacement cost has been calculated to be £115 million.

Future Changes in Demand

10. A significant level of new development is planned in the District over the next ten years and this expansion will inevitably increase the length of the current carriageway and footway assets. This increase will, in the long term, present a maintenance expenditure pressure, however, in the short term, the rate of deterioration as a result of this increase in use is likely to be marginal.

Treatment Options and Costs

11. The limited number of types of footway construction, and ways in which they deteriorate, lead to a relatively short list of maintenance treatments. The frequency and use of these treatments are dictated by the category of the footway in question. In most instances category 1 and 2 footways require a higher level of maintenance to maintain the standards set out in the levels of service. Table 7 below summarises the list of maintenance treatments for footways.

Page 66 Table 7

Treatment Design Life (Years) Unit Cost (£/m2) Reactive Maintenance Bituminous (Patching 5 -10 13.00 etc) Blocked 10 * 25.00 Paved 10 * 20.00

Preventative Maintenance Bituminous (Slurry 8 1.40 sealing) Blocked N/A - Paved N/A -

Renewal Bituminous(Resurfacing) 25 23.00 Blocked 30+ 20.00 Paved 30+ 17.00

* Maintenance requirement in many locations is likely to be negligible, but where the underlying construction is damaged by heavy vehicle overrun, utility works etc., relaying may be required.

Linking Condition with Treatment, Scheme Identification and Prioritisation

12. On completion of the Footway Network Surveys, the data and the defined rules and parameters will be used to form a treatment matrix that will link condition with treatment. With this matrix, it will be possible to identify and prioritise treatments to ensure that the asset is maintained at minimum cost using the appropriate treatment. At present, footway condition is assessed using safety inspection and visual inspection data.

Lifecycle Action Plan

13. Please refer to Section 9 of the Highway Asset Management Plan.

Risks

14. The risks involved in implementing the lifecycle action plan have been assessed against the Council’s standard grid of likelihood versus impact and are detailed in Tables 8 and 9 below, with an outline of the mitigation to be planned. The ‘red’ risks from each lifecycle plan are listed in Section 7 of the main TAMP document.

Page 67

Table 8

Extreme Impact - Extreme Impact - Extreme Impact - Extreme Impact - Rarely Moderate Likely Almost certain 4 8 12 16

High Impact - High Impact - High Impact - High Impact - Rarely Moderate Likely Almost certain 3 6 9 12

Medium Impact - Medium Impact - Medium Impact - Medium Impact - Impact Impact Rarely Moderate Likely Almost certain 2 4 6 8

Low Impact - Low Impact - Low Impact - Low Impact - Rarely Moderate Likely Almost certain 1 2 3 4

Likelihood

Table 9

Risk Level Mitigation Responsible 1. Insufficient staff 6 Highlight in Service Plan Head of Service, resources. Present Business Case Service Managers for additional support 2 Insufficient national 6 guidance and support 4. Materials/ labour/ 6 Ensure value fro money Project Managers, plant/ staff costs is being achieved Contractors 5. Reduced capital funding 12 Prioritise key assets to minimise overall deterioration whilst maintaining safety 6. Reduced revenue 12 Prioritise key assets to funding minimise overall deterioration whilst maintaining safety

Page 68 Appendix C Structures Lifecycle Plan

Introduction

1. The background to lifecycle pl ans, and the format of each, is described in Section 5 of the HAMP. This lifecycle plan covers highway structures owned and maintained by the Council.

2. The highway structures covered under this appendix are bridges, culverts, retaining walls, sign gantries and subways.

3. A significant number of bridges on the highway network are the responsibility of other owners, such as the Highways Agency and Network Rail, and so are not included in this plan.

Levels of Service

4. The desirable levels of service for this asset category are set out in Table 1 below and Table 2 overleaf.

Table 1

Attribute Service Level Measure

Safety Provide adequate Principal (alternates with containment for vehicles, General) inspections – every 6 pedestrians and livestock. years.

General and superficial inspections – every 2 years.

Special/safety – as required. Availability Provide adequate load- All bridges will be carrying capacity (which may capable of carrying include weight limits in lieu of European standard strengthening at appropriate locations), width and 40/44T vehicles (except headroom. where weight limits have been imposed). Serviceability Maintain appropriate Complaints. appearance, including NHT Survey. removal of:- Council surveys. • offensive graffiti ELM Reports. • debris in watercourse beneath bridges Condition At a level consistent with Bridge Condition Indices achieving minimum whole- (SCICRIT and SSCICRIT) life cost, that is SCICRIT for monitored on an annual all bridges to be basis. (See Table 2) above 75.

Page 69 Table 2 - Condition Related Service Levels

Service Level Target 1 SCICRIT No bridge spans will have a SCICRIT value below 75 Service Level Target 2 SSCICRIT The bridge stock will have a minimum SSCICRIT value of 86 Service Level Target 3 Strength All bridges will be capable of Assessment carrying European standard 40/44T vehicles (except where

weight limits have been imposed)

Service Level Target 4 Bridge All bridges will be inspected on a Inspections 2-year cycle

5. Later sections of this life cycle plan show how different levels of available funding will influence the extent to which the desirable levels of service can be achieved.

6. Failure to respond adequately to any of these four levels of service will produce risk to the authority. Table 3 below, which details the main risks, underlines the importance of responding properly to each:-

Table 3

Risk Type Description Example

Physical Accidents caused by asset defects Business Legal proceedings for failure in duty of care Financial Reduction in the net book value of the asset and increase in eventual maintenance costs arising from lack of timely repairs Corporate Image Poor condition reflects on the overall image of the Council. Environmental Increased risk of flooding if watercourses beneath structures are not properly maintained. Network Increased disruption to highway users caused by emergency unplanned maintenance arising from suboptimal maintenance

Asset Base and Characteristics

7. The highway bridge stock comprises many different types of structures including masonry arches, concrete, and steel. They carry a wide range of highways from A Roads to Public Footpaths. The council holds information and data about the highway bridges and other highway structures is held on the WDM computerised structures asset management system. The WDM system is also able to interrogate the data held.

Table 4

Asset Table to be added

Page 70

Asset Condition and Assessment

8. To asses the extent to which the desirable levels of service are met requires measurements covering the four dimensions of safety, availability, serviceability and condition. There are as yet no measures for serviceability and these will be considered further in the second edition of the HAMP.

9. Highway structures are subject to periodic inspection to determine their condition and to record any defects present. The regime is shown in Table 5 below.

Table 5

Type Frequency Assets Inspected General Inspections 2 years All bridges Principal Inspections 6 years All bridges except minor footbridges Diving Inspections Ad hoc Bridges which have substructures in deep, often fast-flowing, watercourses Special Inspections Ad hoc All structures as necessary Superficial Inspections 2 years Privately owned bridges

10 A Structure Condition Index (SCI) is determined for each individual structure, based on its condition at the time of the inspection. The SCI system is a nationally developed method, endorsed by ADEPT, with two SCI values calculated for each bridge:-

SCICRIT the value when only the critical load-carrying elements are considered SCIAV the value when every element of the bridge is considered

11. How the SCI value relates to condition is shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6

SCI Range Condition 100 – 95 Very Good condition 94 – 85 Good condition 84 – 65 Fair condition 64 – 40 Poor condition 39 – 0 Very Poor condition

12. An average value for the whole bridge stock, known as the Structure Stock Condition Index (SSCICRIT), is also calculated based on the individual SCICRIT values, and is weighted by area.

Page 71 13. Bridge condition deteriorates at different rates according to the construction type, exposure conditions, traffic flows and maintenance regime adopted. It is a complex interaction of variables which makes forecasting trends very difficult.

14. Condition values monitored over time are shown in Table 7 below.

Table 7

Date SSCIAV SSCICRIT % below SCICRIT 75 2009 93.79 90.75 12.80

2010 93.01 87.92 17.55 2011 92.77 87.79 16.81

15. In addition highway bridges are assessed to establish their ability to carry the loads which are imposed upon them. The assessment provides valuable information for managing the safety and serviceability of highway bridges. The road bridges in West Berkshire were last assessed under a national programme of assessment undertaken in the mid 1980s .

16. In accordance with current guidance bridges will be re-assessed at the following intervals:-

• a minimum of 12 years, to coincide with principal inspections; • whenever there is a significant change in the bridge condition.

Asset Valuation

17. The background to Asset Valuation is described in Section 4 and Appendix E. The interim value of the highway bridge stock, based on the Gross Replacement Cost (GRC), is estimated to be approximately £ 75,351,000

18. This valuation has been developed from an unrefined method which will eventually be updated in line with the Guidance Document for Highway Infrastructure Asset Valuation once published.

Page 72 Treatment Options and Costs

19. Treatment options and costs are summaries in Table 8 below.

Table 8

Maintenance Activity Treatment Option Reactive Emergency and non-programmed Ad-hoc emergency repairs. essential maintenance. Graffiti removal. Regular Routine and cyclic maintenance. Vegetation removal. Re-pointing of brickwork. Re-painting of metalwork. Drainage cleansing. Management of sub-standard Weight restriction. structures. Programmed Preventative maintenance. Concrete repairs. Re-painting of metalwork. Component renewal/upgrading. Waterproofing. Parapets. Joints. Bearings. Replacement. Replacement of Structure Replacement of deck Replacement of brick arches with precast concrete box culverts.

Page 73

20. Table 9 below shows the expected service life for the different bridge types and treatments with their respective estimated replacement costs.

Table 9

Structure Work Interval Cost (£000s) Masonry arch (span range 1.5m – 12.0m, average span – 4.6m, average area – 131m2) Brickwork repairs 10 years 15 Complete replacement(with modern 120 years 249 equivalent) Concrete bridge (span range 1.5m – 33.5m, average span – 5.0m, average area – 103m2) Drainage/bearing shelf cleaning 5 years 0.5 Parapet painting 15 years 7.5 Deck re-waterproofing 20 years 25 Expansion joint renewal 20 years 15 Concrete repairs 30 years 15 Bearing renewal 30 years 60 Complete replacement 120 years 196 Steel bridge (span range 3.0m – 39.0m, average span – 8.6m, average area – 265m2) Drainage/bearing shelf cleaning 5 years 0.5 Structural metalwork painting 12 years 10 Parapet painting 15 years 7.5 Deck re-waterproofing 20 years 30 Expansion joint renewal 20 years 15 Bearing renewal 30 years 60 Complete replacement 120 years 665

21. It should be noted that not all bridges will require each of the treatments shown.

Management Strategy for Minimising Whole-Life Costs

22. When considering whole life costs, account needs to be taken of the direct and indirect costs associated with the asset group, including works, design and supervision, and inspection. With bridges, which have a long life but are very expensive to replace at the end of that life, it is essential to plan preventative maintenance works in a timely manner, since delays will increase the whole life cost of the structure.

Page 74

23. Currently, our work programme is determined using the data in the bridge management system, and priority is given to the following:-

• structures with low SCICRIT values, i.e. those with structural defects which have a direct impact on their load-carrying capacity; • structures with safety-related defects; • structures with defects which, if not remedied, are likely to lead to more serious problems, for example failed waterproofing systems which will permit water ingress into decks, leading to corrosion of steel reinforcement.

24. The available funding is allocated to each of the above work-types on an annual basis to suit the importance or criticality of the works identified. This strategy is intended to deliver the identified levels of service.

25. Precedence is given to bridges on higher category roads and on roads carrying higher volumes of traffic.

26. Currently, maintenance works are identified in an annual programme, although major schemes are planned up to two years ahead.

Options and Targets within the Management Strategy

27. The analysis which follows looks at levels of maintenance spending against predicted outcomes for structures condition. The impact of spending on condition and service levels will continue to be developed over the course of HAMP.

Maintenance Budgets

28. The bridge maintenance budget is funded from Capital and Revenue budgets. Table 10 below shows the total level of funding over the last 3 years and how this funding has affected the condition of the bridge stock and service levels respectively.

Table 10 - Funding

Date Total SSCIAV SSCICRIT % below Funding SCICRIT (Capital and 75 Revenue) 2009 £862,790 93.79 90.75 12.80 2010 £938,000 93.01 87.92 17.55 2011 £708.000 92.77 87.79 16.81

Page 75 29. From the data collected to date, it has been established that the maintenance funding over the last three years has kept the condition of the bridge stock more or less stable. However, with reference to the set condition based service levels, Service Level 1 has not been met. Further development will take place over the course of this HAMP to refine the budget/service level relationship to enable us to set appropriate service levels for different budget allocations.

30. The Service Level Targets 2, 3 and 4 are all currently being achieved and there is a reasonable level of confidence that, with the same level of future funding, these service level will continue to be maintained.

31. Based on evidence currently available, minimum whole life cost is obtained if individual bridges have a SCICRIT value of 75 or above, i.e. in the ‘fair condition’ range. Reduced performance, that is lower SCICRIT values, will therefore lead to increased costs in the longer term. To achieve a level of condition which reflects minimum whole-life cost we need to reach a point where 100% of bridges meet this criteria. To achieve this may require some increased spending, though this can not be confirmed until more data is available to identify the correlation between maintenance spending and bridge condition.

Page 76 Risks

32. The risks involved in implementing the lifecycle plan have been assessed against a standard grid of likelihood versus impact as shown in Tables 10 and 11 below, with an outline of the mitigation to be planned. The ‘red’ risks are listed in Section 7 of the main HAMP document.

Table 10

Extreme Impact - Extreme Impact - Extreme Impact - Extreme Impact - Rarely Moderate Likely Almost certain 4 8 12 16

High Impact - High Impact - High Impact - High Impact - Rarely Moderate Likely Almost certain 3 6 9 12

Medium Impact - Medium Impact - Medium Impact - Medium Impact - Impact Impact Rarely Moderate Likely Almost certain 2 4 6 8

Low Impact - Low Impact - Low Impact - Low Impact - Rarely Moderate Likely Almost certain 1 2 3 4

Likelihood

Table 11

Risk Level Mitigation Responsible 1. Insufficient staff 8 Highlight in Service Plan Head of Service resources. Present Business Case for Service Managers additional support

2. Insufficient national 2 guidance and support

4. Materials/ labour/ 6 Ensure value for money is Project Managers plant/ staff costs being achieved Contractors 5. Reduced capital 12 Prioritise key assets to funding minimise overall deterioration whilst maintaining safety

6. Reduced revenue 12 Prioritise key assets to funding minimise overall deterioration whilst maintaining safety

Page 77 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 78 Appendix D Street Lighting Lifecycle Plan

Introduction

1. The background to lifecycle plans, and the format of each, are described in Section 5 of the HAMP . This appendix provides the lifecycle plan for street lighting. At this stage of development of the TAMP, feeder pillars, cabling etc have not been included in the life cycle plan.

2. Street lighting is divided into various categories for asset management purposes. The three main components of column, lantern and lamp have different requirements. The main consideration in terms of capital investment is column type. The following asset categories have been adopted:

Table 1

Category Description Aluminium (Cast) Refers to columns with cast aluminium base/root section. Aluminium (Extruded) Refers to columns manufactured from a single piece extrusion. Aluminium (Sheet) Refers to columns which have been fabricated from sheet aluminium. Cast Iron Refers to cast iron columns. Concrete Refers to cast concrete columns. Galvanised steel Refers to galvanised/galvanised and painted columns. Painted steel Steel columns which are painted (may be zinc/aluminium sprayed) Pole Bracket Fixed to DNO wooden distribution poles Subway lighting Fixed within pedestrian subways Wall Brackets Fixed to buildings

Levels of Service

3. In accordance with national guidelines, West Berkshire Council carries out a comprehensive programme of visual inspections and electrical testing. In addition to these inspections, the Council formally adopted a system of structural testing on steel columns in 2008.

4. Historically, condition/asset related data was collected and used to calculate national performance indicators, however, this has developed over the last two years and the data is now used to set budgets and priorities in accordance with the principals of asset management. Over the course of this HAMP, the management of the Street Lighting asset will continued to be developed in line with the recommendations given within the Institution of Lighting Engineers Technical Report 22 – Managing a Vital Asset; Lighting Supports and Well-lit Highways - Code of Practice for Highway Lighting Management 2004.

Page 79

5. The desirable levels of service for this asset category are set out in Table 2 below and the lifecycle plan, in later sections, shows how different levels of available funding may influence the level of service.

Table 2

Attribute Desired Standard Performance measures Safety Road and footways lit to Structural test results the recommended Electrical test results standards, to reduce ELM reports* accidents, crime and the fear of crime Term Contract performance indicators. Installations physically and electrically safe. Availability 98% of all lights working LI98 7 day average repair time. LI215a Serviceability Low levels of light pollution. ELM reports* Good visual appearance in Customer surveys**. high amenity areas. Condition Consistent with achieving Condition data. minimum whole-life cost, in terms of preventative maintenance and column replacement.

* ELM – West Berkshire Council’s enquiry logging manager. ** National Highway and Trasnport (IHT) survey 2009, 2010 and Council surveys

6. Failure to respond adequately to any of these four dimensions of level of service will produce risk to the authority. Table 3 below details the key risks and underlines the importance of responding properly to each risk.

Table 3

Risk type Description example Physical Accidents caused by structural defects or failure to maintain adequate structure. Electrical risk to the public. Injury to an operative working in the highway due to incomplete records, particularly underground cable records. Business/ Legal proceedings for failing in duty of care. Financial risk Increase in compensation payouts due to a rising number of accidents and third party claims. Fines imposed on the authority as a result of legal proceedings. Reduction in the net book value of the asset. Higher un-metered energy charges Corporate Image Ineffective or defective lighting reflecting on the overall image of the Council. Environmental Higher energy use and light spillage from old equipment.

Page 80 Asset Base and Characteristics

7. The street lighting asset group comprises street lighting, feeder pillars and cabling that is owned and maintained by West Berkshire Council. A summary of the street lighting asset is summarised in Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7 below.

Table 4 - Column Type

Column Material Number Aluminium (Cast) 1715 Aluminium (Extruded) 3828 Aluminium (Sheet) 122 Cast Iron 7 Concrete 818 Galvanised Steel 2755 Painted Steel 2928 Pole Bracket 95 Subway Lighting 157 Wall Brackets 67 Total 12492

Table 5 - Lamps

Lamp Type Wattage Number CDO 50 10 70 87 100 38 150 36 250 3 Compact 40 41 Fluorescent 55 4 Cosmopolis 45 26 60 19 Fluorescent 20 10 40 1 70 108 LED 21 20 29 153 31 6 37 45 42 34 61 17

Page 81

Table 5 - Lamps (continued)

Lamp Type Wattage Number MBFU 80 4 SON 50 434 70 1567 100 1064 150 1610 250 452 400 1 SOX 35 5753 55 256 90 435 135 346 180 52 Total 12632

Table 6 - Controls

Control Type Number Time switch – all night 3907 Time switch – part night 0 Photo cell – all night 8483 Photo cell – part night 38 24 hour operation 139 Dimmed equipment 0 Total 12632

Table 7 - Column Age

Column Age Number of Columns by Mounting Height Material (Year < 5m 5m 6m 8m 10m 12m Total s) Aluminium 0 – 20 17 17 (Cast) 21 - 30 843 843 31 – 40 822 3 825 Over 40 30 30 Total 0 1712 3 1715 Aluminium 0 – 20 2 1614 432 416 497 101 3062 (Extruded) 21 - 30 754 754 31 – 40 10 1 11 Over 40 1 1 Total 2 2379 432 416 497 102 3828 4

Page 82

Table 7 - Column Age (continued)

Column Age Number of Columns by Mounting Height Material (Years) < 5m 5m 6m 8m 10m 12m Total Aluminium 0 – 20 (Sheet) 21 - 30 37 35 72 31 – 40 50 50 Over 40 Total 87 35 122 Cast iron 0 – 20 21 - 30 31 – 40 Over 40 2 5 7 Total 2 5 7 Concrete 0 – 20 3 3 21 – 30 50 50 31 – 40 416 416 Over 40 349 349 Total 818 818 Galvanised 0 – 20 23 913 111 507 164 17 1735 Steel 21 – 30 319 59 125 21 0 524 31 – 40 214 13 44 124 45 440 Over 40 48 8 56 Total 23 1494 183 684 309 62 2755 Painted Steel 0 – 20 4 135 90 306 281 72 888 21 – 30 38 91 270 36 5 440 31 – 40 209 39 124 351 32 755 Over 40 716 40 72 17 845 Total 4 1098 220 740 740 126 2928 Pole Bracket 0 – 20 9 9 21 - 30 31 – 40 5 5 Over 40 75 6 81 Total 89 6 95 Subway 0 – 20 147 147 lighting 21 - 30 31 – 40 10 10 Over 40 Total 157 157

Page 83 Table 7 - Column Age (continued)

Column Age Number of Columns by Mounting Height Material (Years) < 5m 5m 6m 8m 10m 12m Total Wall Brackets 0 – 20 7 7 1 10 10 35 21 – 30 3 1 4 31 – 40 1 5 2 5 1 14 Over 40 6 5 3 14 Total 8 21 8 18 12 67 Total 196 7616 852 1858 1645 325 12492

Asset Condition and Assessment

8. To establish the condition of the street lighting assets and the extent to which the desirable levels of service are met, the routine inspections and tests detailed in Table 8 below are carried out. Whilst there are no current measures for serviceability, this dimension will be developed over the course of this HAMP.

Table 8

Inspection/Test Frequency Clean, inspect and change lamp 2 & 4 years dependant on lamp type Structural test 6 years Electrical test 6 years Visual safety check Every visit Scouting to check light operational 28 day cycle

9. Whilst there are no current national indicators for street lighting, the following Best Value Indicators have been retained as local indicators for reporting performance and for setting service levels:

• BVPI215a: Average number of days to repair a street light under the control of the Local Authority. • BVPI98: The percentage of street light not working as planned under the control of the Local Authority.

A summary of results for the period 2006 to 2010 is shown in Table 9 below.

Table 9

Indicator/Year 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 LI215a (formally BV215a) 4.24 5.90 3.87 3.75 6.22 L98 (formally BV98) 0.89 1.01 1.01 1.04 1.17

Page 84

Structural Testing and Inspection

10. Analysis has shown that different types of lighting columns have different structural problems. All street lighting columns are regularly inspected and specific structural testing has been undertaken on steel lighting columns. Visual inspections of concrete and aluminium columns are carried out at every visit as are brackets mounted on Electricity Board wooden poles, bridges and other buildings and structures not owned by the Council. Maintenance of the structure itself is the responsibility of others.

11. Steel street lighting columns over 12 years of age are tested every 6 years. Eddy current material thickness testing is used along with ultra sonic testing for the swage joint.

12. From the data obtained from these tests, colour based condition indicators are applied to the data to highlight the severity of each defect as detailed in Table 10 below.

Table 10

Colour Code Loss of Visual Outcome Thickness Inspection Red > 50 % Immediate replacement of column High 11 – 50 % Damage Next test and visual inspection Amber assessed visually set for 3 years Low 0 – 10% Damage Amber assessed visually Green 0 – 10 % Next inspection set for 6 years

13. The results of recent testing are summarised in Table 11 below:

Table 11

Red High Amber Low Amber Green Date Total Units % Units % Units % Units % 2008/09 2029 14 0.69 59 6.60 1182 58.26 774 38.15 2009/10 133 2 1.50 30 22.56 14 10.53 87 65.41 2010/11 2500 86 3.44 123 4.92 610 24.4 1681 67.24 Totals 4662 102 2.19 212 30.57 1806 38.74 2542 54.53

14 From the available asset data, it has been established that steel columns have the highest percentage failure rate where the primary cause of failure is through a loss of wall thickness to the root section up to ground level as a result of corrosion.

Page 85

15 In adopting the principals of asset management, initial consideration would be given to the high ambers in order to prevent these assets from deteriorating further and entering the red. However, because of the high safety risk associated with column failure, it is the Council’s current policy to tackle the reds before the high ambers and budgets are set accordingly. From Table 10 above, the current replacement rate for red columns lies between 0.69% to 3.44%. (testing period 2008/9 to 2010/11).

16. It has been established that concrete lighting columns vary in structural condition according to manufacturer and this is taken into account when the routine visual inspections are carried out. Because of the destructive and disruptive nature of the standard load test, visual inspections are the preferred method of identifying column condition using the green, amber and red condition criteria.

17. Aluminium columns also vary in structural condition according to the type of construction, for example, columns with a cast aluminium base suffer from corrosion of the underground base section and cracking of the casting, columns of a fabricated sheet construction suffer from corrosion of the underground base section and columns of an extruded construction have to date shown no significant structural defects. With this knowledge, it has been possible to apply the concrete column approach to assess condition.

18. A visual assessment of the structural condition of each lighting column is carried out on every visit. Lighting columns thought to be structurally unsound are further assessed and may be subject to an emergency “make safe” or are replaced. The visual inspection process will continue to be developed in accordance with recommendations given within TR22 Managing a Vital Asset: Lighting Supports over the course of this HAMP.

Electrical Testing

19. Electrical testing of each lighting column, feeder pillar and council-owned cable network is carried out every six years in accordance with the IEE regulations. By applying the red, amber and green condition methodology, the test results are prioritised in order of importance and programmed accordingly subject to the nature and severity of the defect and the inherent level of risk.

Page 86 Financial Management, Investment and Programming.

20. The Council’s constitution provides a flexible mechanism for ensuring effective and fully accountable financial management of the Council’s transport budgets, both capital and revenue.

21. The framework within which operational budgets are managed is as follows:

Annual B udget Setting Process

Scheme D evelopment Auditing and Delivery

Budget R eporting and Monitoring

22. Day to day budget control is the responsibility of the budget manager, a senior officer reporting directly to the Head of Service. The Head of Service has overall responsibility for the department’s financial situation, working very closely with the Directorate Group Accountant, who is a key member of the Directorate Management Team. Service budgets are monitored at Directorate Management Team level and a formal budget report presented monthly to Corporate Board.

23. To ensure compliance with the constitution, regular independent audits are undertaken particularly in areas of high cash turnover such as car parks and concessionary fares.

24. The process for managing capital expenditure is very similar but the Council’s Capital Group plays a key role in monitoring scheme progress and cost. Whilst an overview is taken by the Directorate Management Team, the details are closely monitored by Capital Group using detailed monthly reports. This group is a good example of cross service corporate working as it comprises representatives of all Council Services with a capital expenditure programme. A holistic view of the Council’s overall position regarding capital can therefore be taken.

25. To ensure that value for money is being achieved across the entire range of transport related budgets, the Council undertook a complete Zero Based Budget Review in October and November 2005. This review will continue to ensure that the Council’s resources are used to the best effect by directing funds to the most needed area.

Page 87 Budget Optimisation and Depreciation Modelling.

26. From the asset data, it has been possible to identify the level of funding required to meet the set service levels and this will be developed and refined in accordance with the recommendations of TR22 Managing a Vital Asset: Lighting Supports and Well-lit Roads – Code of Practice for Highway Lighting Management 2004.

27. Gross replacement cost and the depreciation cost have been calculated using the Code of Practice on Transport and Infrastructure Assets 2010 calculation template and standard rates and this will be developed in line with the Code of Practice recommendations over the course of this HAMP.

Maintenance Options

28. The limited number of types of lighting installation and ways in which they deteriorate, lead to a relatively short list of maintenance treatments. The key assets are summarised in Table 12 below. Short-term treatments are dictated by safety and serviceability requirements. Decisions on when to intervene with medium and long-term treatments are determined in accordance with the asset management strategy.

Table 12

Asset Type Material Treatment Service Life Height Unit Cost Type Years m £ Columns Steel** Painting 7 All 50 Replacement 40 5.0 750* 6.0 800* 8.0 1050* 10.0 1350* 12.0 1450* Concrete** Replacement 40 5.0 750* Aluminium** Replacement 40 + 5.0 750* 6.0 800* 8.0 1050* 10.0 1350* 12.0 1450* Lamps**** SOX Replacement 4 16.62 SON Replacement 4 5.60 CDO Replacement 3 22.62 COSMO Replacement 3 22.62 Fluorescent Replacement 2 2.09

Page 88 Table 12 (continued)

Asset Type Material Treatment Service Life Height Unit Cost Type Years m £ Lanterns*** LED Replacement 25 500.00 SOX Replacement 25 250.00 SON Replacement 25 250.00 CDO Replacement 25 250.00 COSMO Replacement 25 250.00 Electrical Under the present contract, electrical components are replaced as part of components an annual maintenance lump sum. In addition, the lanterns include for all the main components apart from the isolator and photocell. Compared to the key assets, their replacement cost is small and therefore have been included within the replacement cost of a column.

* including DNO service transfer cost * concrete columns are replaced with extruded aluminium where design parameters allow. *** lanterns are replaced with LED equivalents where designs parameter allow. Where it is not possible to fit an LED equivalent, the lantern will be replaced on a like for like basis. All replacement lanterns include lamps. **** To cover the various wattages, an average cost of a lamp has been calculated for valuation/assessment purposes.

Column Painting

29. In 2002, the Council introduced a policy that extruded aluminium columns would be used for new installations and to replace existing columns. The benefits of using aluminium columns are:

• To reduce routine maintenance costs • To reduce the whole life cost of the asset • To improve passive safety

30. Over time, aluminium columns will replace the current stock of steel columns, however, in managing the current stocks, unless painting is required for aesthetic reasons, the Council has adopted a non painting policy for the following reason. Whilst painting will arrest external corrosion, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that internal corrosion affects structural integrity and therefore painting of the exterior will not guarantee an extension to the service life of a column.

Lamp Replacement

31. Most lamp types have an expected service life between 2 and 4 years. In order to meet the set service levels, it is deemed more economical to replace lamps at the recommended intervals in order to minimise expensive reactive replacements, for example, control gear and lamp failure.

Page 89 Strategy for Minimising Whole Life Cost

32. An asset’s whole life cost includes the direct costs of works, design, supervision, testing and inspections. The main factors which will affect the whole life cost of an individual installation are:

• Specification and quality of materials and equipment. • Degree and type of damage and degradation. • Age of components. • Speed and quality of response to damage and degradation. • Timing of intervention and quality of medium and long term treatments.

33. The Council’s strategy for maintaining street lighting maybe summarised as follows:

• To deliver a high standard of initial installation. • To specify high quality materials and equipment. • To carry out routine electrical and structural testing. • To inspect lighting systems on a regular basis such that defects are identified within a reasonable period. • To ‘scout’ for out of service lighting. • To undertake reactive maintenance works expeditiously to prevent short term deterioration and keep in a safe condition. • To maintain an up-to-date inventory of lighting stock to facilitate asset management and enable competitive purchase of energy. • To bulk-change lamps to maintain light output at satisfactory levels. • To replace end of service life columns.

34. The above strategy is based on good practice and will continue be developed over the course of this HAMP in accordance with national guidelines. In carrying out routine inspections, the Council is able to monitor the condition and the rate of degradation of the key components and as a consequence, deliver timely and cost affective treatments.

Options and Targets Within The Management Strategy

35. In managing the street lighting asset, the Council’s policy is to first address columns that have been classified as being red followed by those that have been classified as high amber.

Page 90

36. Under the current strategy, columns that have either failed a structural test, or have failed a visual inspection (condition RED) are replaced immediately and budgets have been set accordingly. Columns that have been deemed as being close to failing the structural test (deemed as HIGH AMBER) are then programmed for replacement in order of severity on a rolling three year programme as summarised in Table 13 below.

Table 13

2010/11* 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14** 2014/15 2015/16

RED 5 and 6m Steel X - - - - - HIGH AMBER 5 and 6m X X X - - - Steel RED 8, 10 and 12m - - - X - - Steel HIGH AMBER 8, 10 and - - - X X X 12m Steel RED Aluminium (Visual X X X X X X Inspection) RED Concrete (Visual X X X X X X Inspection) RED Other X X X X X X (Visual Inspection)

* Following the testing of the 5m and 6m steel columns ** Following the testing of the 8m, 10m and 12m steel columns

37. As previously stated, the current column condition indicator calculation will be refined over the course of the HAMP using the Council’s WDM asset management system and the guidance given within TR22.

38. To reduce the Council’s carbon footprint and reduce energy and maintenance costs, focus is given to the replacement of aged and inefficient lanterns, lamps and control gear. Inefficient lanterns are being replaced with energy efficient LED luminaires on the existing column where residual service life of the column allows. LED luminaires provide improved quality ‘white’ light and have an expected useful life of 25 years. Currently 70w SON lanterns are being targeted for replacement as this gives the greatest energy saving.

Page 91 Risks

39. The risks involved in implementing the lifecycle action plan have been assessed against the council’s standard grid of likelihood versus impact and are detailed in Tables 14 and 15 below, with an outline of the mitigation to be planned. The ‘red’ risks from each lifecycle plan are listed in section 7 of the main TAMP document.

Table 14

Extreme Impact - Extreme Impact - Extreme Impact - Extreme Impact - Rarely Moderate Likely Almost certain 4 8 12 16

High Impact - High Impact - High Impact - High Impact - Rarely Moderate Likely Almost certain 3 6 9 12

Medium Impact - Medium Impact - Medium Impact - Medium Impact -

Impact Impact Rarely Moderate Likely Almost certain 2 4 6 8

Low Impact - Low Impact - Low Impact - Low Impact - Rarely Moderate Likely Almost certain 1 2 3 4

Likelihood

Table 15

Risk Level Mitigation Responsible 1. Insufficient staff resources. 6 Highlight in Service Head of Service Plan Service Managers Present Business Case for additional support 2. Insufficient national guidance 6 and support 3. Materials/ labour/plant/ staff 6 Ensure value for Project Managers costs money is being Contractors achieved 4. Reduced capital funding 12 Prioritise key assets to minimise overall deterioration whilst maintaining safety 5. Reduced revenue funding 12 Prioritise key assets to minimise overall deterioration whilst maintaining safety Use of energy efficient components.

Page 92 Appendix E

SCRIM (Measurement of Skidding Resistance of the Road Surface)

Introduction

1. West Berkshire Council has a “Skid Resistance Related Accident Reduction Policy” to manage and maintain an appropriate level of skidding resistance on running surfaces, with the overall aim of reducing the frequency of skid related accidents in wet conditions on its classified road network (referred to as the ‘critical network’).

2. Whilst a high skid resistance will not prevent the emergency braking situation from arising or improve driver judgment, it can often alleviate the effects of driver error and reduce the risk of an accident occurring or at least reduce the severity of a collision. This will not only reduce the amount of suffering but also save considerable costs to the community. The implementation of a robust Skid Resistance policy will also provide a defence against litigation.

3. The intention of the policy is to provide procedures and guidance to assist the Engineer in measuring skid resistance and offer a methodology in assessing the need for and the prioritising of remedial works in order to maintain an appropriate level of skidding resistance on the highway network.

4. The term “skid resistance” refers to the frictional properties of the road surface, measured using an approved testing device, under controlled conditions. Measurements obtained from skid resistance testing of a road surface are analysed in conjunction with individual site characteristics and accident statistics to assess the need for maintenance.

5. The Highways Agency has produced a standard for skid resistance referred to as HD28/04. This standard describes how the provision of appropriate levels of skid resistance for trunk roads will be managed. There is also an interim advice note IAN98/07 which was issued in 2007 and overrules some of the statements in HD28/04. The HD28/04 standard has been revised and will be reissued in due course as HD28/09.

6. The Skid Resistance Policy for the West Berkshire Council is based on the Highways Agency Standard HD28/04 and also takes into account the information from the soon to be issued HD28/09. However, it should be noted that the Highways Agency standard is specifically for the management of skid resistance for Motorways and Trunk Roads within the UK. Therefore, the policy also considers advice from the following key documents, for managing skid resistance on the local road network:

• County Surveyors Society (CSS) Guidance Note on Skidding Resistance • Horses and Highway Surfacing ENG 03/05 • Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance Management • Interim Advice Note IAN 49/03 ® • Skid resistance studies on Local Roads in the UK carried out by WDM

Page 93 Routine Testing (SCRIM)

7. Within West Berkshire, the SCRIM (Sideway-force Coefficient Routine Investigation Machine) is used for measuring skid resistance by measuring the force between a rubber tyre against a wetted road surface. The resulting value, referred to as the Sideway-force Coefficient, relates to the coefficient of friction and provides an indication of the polished state of a road surface.

8. The skid resistance policy only applies to the roads that are surveyed and this set of roads is referred to as the critical network. As a consequence, there is no formal skid resistance policy for the unclassified roads, however, there is a requirement for surfacing aggregates to meet minimum specified levels for Polished Stone Values to help maintain the skid resistance of the surface on the unclassified road network. The traffic levels on the unclassified roads are relatively low and so are the number of wet skidding accidents, therefore, this approach is considered an acceptable risk to achieve a cost effective output.

9. The Investigatory Level (IL) is a skid resistance warning level. If the skid resistance is found to be below the IL then an investigation is required to establish if treatment should be undertaken. The IL’s have been specifically established for West Berkshire Council by using previous studies and comparing the accident rates to the skid resistance at various site categories across the critical network. It has been found that different sites present different risks and as a consequence, the IL varies depending on the site in an attempt to present an equal risk across the critical network. A summary of the IL bands is shown in Table 1 overleaf.

10. With reference to Table 1, the initial IL’s are shown with an ‘I’ in the cell. The initial values will be applied to each site category but these initial values will be reviewed as each site is investigated and the IL will be confirmed or an alternative IL selected within the band highlighted in dark grey as appropriate to the risks presented by the site. Some site categories have a light grey cell below the dark grey band, as recommended in HD 28/04.These IL values may be used on sites that are considered very low risk.

Page 94

Site Categories and Investigatory Levels

Site Category and Definition Investigatory Level at 50 km/h 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0,60 0.65 A Motorway Class I B Dual Carriageway non-event I C Single Carriageway non-event I Q1 Approaches to and across minor I and major junctions Q2 Approaches to roundabouts I K Crossings and other high risk I situations R Roundabout I G1 Gradient 5-10% longer that 50m I G2 Gradient >=10% longer than 50m I S1 Bend radius <=500m – dual I carriageway S2<100 Bend radius <=100m – single I carriageway S2>100 Bend radius > 100m and <=250m – I single carriageway S2>250 Bend radius >250m and <500m – I single carriageway

Site-Investigation and Treatment

11. Once the SCRIM and accident data are processed, the information can be filtered and collated into lists that identify sites that are below the required SCRIM IL and or have disproportionately high accident rates. These sites will then be assessed and prioritised for investigation by a designated Site Investigator. In carrying out the investigation, the Site Investigator will carry out a risk assessment and make a recommendation based on the four options below for each site.

• The site requires a change in the investigatory level

• The site requires treatment to improve the skid resistance

• The site requires a treatment other than for the skid resistance

• The site does not require treatment.

12. The recommendation to treat sites for skid resistance will initially be made by the Site Investigator and then confirmed by the Highways Manager. The Highways Manager or his delegated representative will decide which sites are to be treated to improve the skid resistance and the time frame. If it is agreed that certain sites require treatment other than for the skid resistance, these sites will be considered as safety sites and passed over to the Traffic Services team within Highways and Transport.

Page 95 13. If treatment for skid resistance is required and the work cannot be started within a reasonable period of time, slippery road signs may be erected if highlighted as a risk. Once a site has been treated and on re-surveying, is found to be above the required IL, any slippery road signs will be removed as soon as is reasonably practicable.

Page 96 Appendix F Initial Asset Valuation for West Berkshire

1. Introduction

1.1 In 2010, CIPFA published the Code of Practice on Transport and Infrastructure Assets. This code provides guidance on the development and use of financial information to support asset management, financial management and reporting of local transport infrastructure assets.

1.2 The Code has been developed in collaboration with the Highways Asset Management Information Group (HAMFIG), whose work is supported by a number of government funded research projects.

1.3 This appendix describes the analysis carried out to produce the first valuation for our highways assets in accordance with the CIPFA guidance. The most detailed work has been carried out on carriageways and street lighting but simplified estimates have been made for footways, structures, traffic management and street furniture. The second version of the HAMP will include a more detailed analysis for these assets.

2. Carriageways, Footways and Cycletracks

2.1 The road lengths and categories are taken from R199B, an annual return of network length. The categories are A, B, C and unclassified roads, split between urban and rural, where rural is defined as roads with a speed limit of over 40 mph.

2.2 For each road class, the average carriageway width has been calculated using measurements from Ordnance Survey MasterMap data and the Council’s United Kingdom Pavement Management System (UKPMS) as supplied by WDM Ltd.

2.3 The UKPMS specification provides a national standard for management systems for the assessment of local road network condition and for the planning of investment and maintenance on paved areas of roads, kerbs, footways and cycletracks on local roads within the UK.

2.4 The estimated Gross Replacement Cost (GRC) has been calculated using the Carriageway and Footway Gross Replacement Cost Calculator as published by CIPFA. This calculator uses default unit construction rates for all classes of road as developed by the Highways Asset Management Financial Information Group (HAMFIG).

2.5 Adopting the Code of Practice - Well Maintained Highways classifications and the urban/rural split in accordance with the CIPFA recommendations, the annual depreciation has been calculated for each asset group using UKPMS and combined to produce a gross depreciation value for the network.

Page 97

Depreciation and Net Value of Carriageways

2.6 For all classes of road, the condition of the road network is determined using SCANNER surveys and the results are reported annually through national indicators. The condition indicators refer to the percentage of the road category that is exhibiting sufficient defects to merit repair. This is sometimes referred to as the “red” portion. The next level down is referred to as the “amber” portion, which suggests that it is acceptable at present, but will require attention in the future.

2.7 Depreciation parameters, including default renewal unit rates, total useful life and deterioration models for each road class are used to establish the Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC). The calculation is carried out using the United Kingdom Pavement Management System (UKPMS) in accordance with the guidance given in the Code of Practice on Transport/ and Infrastructure Assets 2010 and UKPMS Technical Note TN46 Part 1 June 2010.

2.8 The net value of the carriageway asset can then be determined by deducting from the Gross Replacement Cost (GRC) the DRC, where the GRC is the total cost of renewing the asset.

2.9 A summary report detailing the current GRC and DRC is included within this appendix

Depreciation and Net Value of Footways

2.10 In 2008/9, BV187 was formally removed by the Government as a national indicator. This indicator was calculated in UKPMS using condition data collected from annual detailed visual inspection (DVI) surveys on the Category 1 and 2 footway networks.

2.11 Following this change and with the knowledge that the routine safety inspection process would continue to identify any defects on the footway network in its entirety, the asset inventory and machine based condition surveys on the carriageway became the main focus point.

2.12 Using the estimated areas of each footway category, it has been possible to calculate the GRC for the footway network. However, in order to calculate the DRC, a detailed survey of the footway network is required in order to determine the necessary asset data. To achieve this, the Council has embarked on a full Footway Network Survey (FNS) and the depreciation modelling will be developed over the life of the HAMP using the collected condition data.

2.13 A summary report detailing the current GRC and DRC is included within this appendix

Page 98

3. Bridges

3.1 Although it was not a requirement to produce a valuation for bridges in 2010/11, the Council has estimated the GRC and DRC using the Roads Liaison Group’s Guidance Document for Highway Infrastructure Asset Valuation 2005 Edition. This methodology will be replaced once the new guidance has been published by CIPFA in 2012.

3.2 This Asset Valuation includes all the following Asset Groups.

• bridges • culverts • subways • footbridges

3.3 In West Berkshire, footbridges on surfaced and un-surfaced public rights of way are maintained as part of the highway infrastructure asset and so have been included in this valuation.

3.4 A summary report detailing the current GRC and DRC is included within this appendix.

4. Street Lights

4.1 This asset valuation includes all the following asset groups.

• columns • bollards • illuminated signs

4.2 A summary report detailing the current GRC and DRC is included at the back of this appendix.

5. Other Highway Assets including Land

5.1 In accordance with the CIPFA Code of Practice, the recommendation is for authorities to use rates broadly comparable to the two types of measures used in the Code until national rates have been published. Rural land will, therefore, be valued using the rates for mixed agricultural use and urban land at residential land values, which are at the upper end of the developed land values. These two measures are used because they are believed to provide good representative values for urban and rural land as a whole.

5.2 The urban/rural split has been determined using the standard local road urban/rural classification which is based on speed limits. This provides a good indicator of the nature of the adjacent land and it is one that can be applied readily and consistently.

Page 99 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 100 Appendix F STRUCTURES VALUATION 2011

Bridges

Item Item Bridge Bridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Type Code GRC £ DRC £ 14 BRIDGE 101 SWAN (NEWBURY) 390,099.20 385,099.20 25 BRIDGE 102 HAM (IRON) 912,960.00 897,960.00 26 BRIDGE 1027 CURRIDGE TURN 1,339,728.00 1,339,728.00 31 BRIDGE 1031 LOVE LANE 2,643,408.00 2,643,408.00 32 BRIDGE 1032 RIVER LAMBOURN 704,160.00 703,760.00 Page 101 34 BRIDGE 1034 LONDON ROAD 2,125,440.00 2,122,440.00 37 BRIDGE 104 BOURNE ARCH 4,800.00 4,800.00 38 BRIDGE 105 NORTHFIELD 222,583.70 222,583.70 40 BRIDGE 107 LONG 882,720.00 871,720.00 41 BRIDGE 108 QUAKING 187,200.00 183,250.00 42 BRIDGE 109 KINGS (BRIMPTON) 763,200.00 761,200.00 44 BRIDGE 110 ABEL 341,376.00 339,876.00 46 BRIDGE 1115 WALTON WAY 604,800.00 604,800.00 47 BRIDGE 112 SHALFORD 236,592.00 236,592.00 48 BRIDGE 113 WARRENS 58,379.04 55,929.04 52 BRIDGE 114 MALTHOUSE SOUTH 89,280.00 68,480.00 54 BRIDGE 115 MALTHOUSE NORTH 160,512.00 140,012.00 60 BRIDGE 116 ENBORNE DRAIN WEST 122,304.00 122,304.00

1 Bridges continued

Item Item Bridge Bridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Type Code GRC £ DRC £ 61 BRIDGE 117 OLD MILL WEST 217,488.00 216,488.00 65 BRIDGE 118 ALDERMASTON IRON 1,774,080.00 1,773,480.00 69 BRIDGE 119 OLD MILL 309,120.00 308,920.00 72 BRIDGE 120 OLD MILL EAST 44,640.00 41,640.00 80 BRIDGE 122 PADWORTH HIGH 39,600.00 36,600.00 81 BRIDGE 123 PADWORTH GREAT 673,941.60 673,941.60 85 BRIDGE 124 FORD SULHAMSTEAD 4,800.00 -1,200.00

Page 102 86 BRIDGE 1240 CHAPEL ALDERS (332A) 57,600.00 56,100.00 87 BRIDGE 1241 RED HOUSE (332B) 86,400.00 79,400.00 88 BRIDGE 1242 HAMSTEAD MILL RACE (333A) 48,000.00 38,600.00 90 BRIDGE 125 TYLE MILL 741,607.70 720,107.70 91 BRIDGE 1252 ENBORNE RD RLY 4,800.00 4,800.00 95 BRIDGE 126 SHEFFIELD MILL SOUTH 218,419.20 196,219.20 101 BRIDGE 127 SHEFFIELD MILL NORTH 391,579.80 380,579.80 102 BRIDGE 128 BRICK 206,185.00 205,735.00 103 BRIDGE 129 KENNET (THEALE) 226,386.70 226,386.70 105 BRIDGE 130 FOLLY 195,975.00 195,975.00 107 BRIDGE 131 CHALK PIT 82,168.80 82,168.80 110 BRIDGE 1313 HUNGERFORD MAIN ROAD 242,990.40 242,990.40 115 BRIDGE 132 HOG MOOR EAST 289,169.30 288,169.30

2 Bridges continued

Item Item Bridge Bridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Type Code GRC £ DRC £ 116 BRIDGE 1320 KINTBURY MAIN ROAD 139,920.00 139,920.00 126 BRIDGE 133 TIDMARSH MIDDLE 47,520.00 47,520.00 127 BRIDGE 1330 THATCHAM MAIN ROAD 456,000.00 445,000.00 137 BRIDGE 134 TIDMARSH LITTLE 802,584.00 800,584.00 144 BRIDGE 135 TIDMARSH 130,942.10 125,942.10 147 BRIDGE 136 TIDMARSH MILL 149,913.60 149,913.60 153 BRIDGE 137 ALBURYS 179,376.00 176,976.00 160 BRIDGE 138 MIDDLE CHAIN ARCH 181,440.00 181,440.00 Page 103 163 BRIDGE 139 EAST CHAIN ARCH 68,640.00 67,140.00 165 BRIDGE 1396 BASILDON PARK SKEW 1,586,880.00 1,586,880.00 167 BRIDGE 140 TUN 220,800.00 217,800.00 181 BRIDGE 1452 MANS HILL 47,520.00 46,320.00 205 BRIDGE 149 MILE END FARM 46,800.00 46,800.00 279 BRIDGE 1640 POTASH FARM SOUTH 10,752.00 9,552.00 FOOTBRIDGE 311 BRIDGE 1723 RAF CLAYHILL 4,800.00 2,500.00 312 BRIDGE 1728 OLD MIDDLE (NEWBURY) 292,464.00 290,464.00 317 BRIDGE 1738 RED SHUTE HILL 235,200.00 235,200.00 330 BRIDGE 18 GREENHAM MILL SOUTH 169,920.00 168,520.00 366 BRIDGE 19 GREENHAM MILL NORTH 396,480.00 394,230.00 397 BRIDGE 1955 KINGS MILL RACE 590,208.00 584,208.00

3 Bridges continued

Item Item Bridge Bridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Type Code GRC £ DRC £ 400 BRIDGE 1964 FURZEY GROUND FOOTBRIDGE 10,560.00 10,560.00 479 BRIDGE 2034 NEW FARM 76,800.00 75,800.00 505 BRIDGE 206 SNELSMORE BRIDGE 4,800.00 4,800.00 513 BRIDGE 2067 PITFIELD LANE 52,200.00 52,200.00 551 BRIDGE 217 WOOLHAMPTON MILL 91,392.01 91,392.01 557 BRIDGE 219 ENBORNE DRAIN EAST 126,144.00 126,144.00 597 BRIDGE 233 WELFORD PARK EAST 268,800.00 263,500.00

Page 104 600 BRIDGE 234 ROOKERY 93,264.00 91,264.00 602 BRIDGE 235 WELFORD PARK WEST 345,600.00 345,100.00 608 BRIDGE 2357 BREACHES GULLY FOOTBRIDGE 4,800.00 4,800.00 637 BRIDGE 243 WATER 348,816.00 347,816.00 639 BRIDGE 244 MAGPIE BRIDGE 15,840.00 12,340.00 673 BRIDGE 2506 MIDGHAM LOCK 237,600.00 237,600.00 694 BRIDGE 2574 TYLERS BRIDGE 14,400.00 14,400.00 700 BRIDGE 258 BUSHNELL GREEN BRIDGE 20,736.00 20,736.00 728 BRIDGE 314 UFTON SOUTH 35,020.80 33,020.80 729 BRIDGE 316 PANG 102,000.00 93,800.00 730 BRIDGE 317 EVERINGTON 4,800.00 4,800.00 731 BRIDGE 318 MILL (BOXFORD) 124,032.00 118,832.00 732 BRIDGE 319 KENNET (BOXFORD) 174,720.00 171,420.00

4 Bridges continued

Item Item Bridge Bridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Type Code GRC £ DRC £ 734 BRIDGE 321 BARE LEASE 39,780.00 34,780.00 735 BRIDGE 322 PEATPITS WOOD 76,608.00 73,608.00 736 BRIDGE 323 BRADFIELD NORTH 126,480.00 115,280.00 737 BRIDGE 324 BRADFIELD SOUTH 130,560.00 126,560.00 739 BRIDGE 326 BURGHFIELD 409,200.00 409,200.00 743 BRIDGE 332 BENHAM MARSH 191,520.00 180,520.00 744 BRIDGE 333 HAMSTEAD MILL 429,408.00 424,408.00 745 BRIDGE 334 WELFORD CHURCH 225,792.00 217,291.00 Page 105 750 BRIDGE 339 FROUDS 74,880.00 69,880.00 751 BRIDGE 340 BRIMPTON MILL 39,312.00 38,312.00 752 BRIDGE 341 KINTBURY FARM 26,880.00 25,880.00 753 BRIDGE 342 FROUDS BRICK 74,880.00 68,680.00 756 BRIDGE 345 DUCKS 62,208.00 62,208.00 757 BRIDGE 346 WINTERBOURNE 36,960.00 36,960.00 758 BRIDGE 347 WEST BAGNOR 47,328.00 43,828.00 759 BRIDGE 348 BAGNOR MIDDLE 50,880.00 48,880.00 760 BRIDGE 349 EAST BAGNOR 105,984.00 103,784.00 761 BRIDGE 350 BOURNE 4,800.00 4,800.00 762 BRIDGE 351 BISHOPS GREEN 238,896.00 236,896.00 764 BRIDGE 353 MARLSTON GREATER 67,200.00 67,200.00

5 Bridges continued

Item Item Bridge Bridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Type Code GRC £ DRC £ 766 BRIDGE 355 REDHILL VIEW 70,848.00 68,848.00 767 BRIDGE 356 WALNUT COTTAGE 115,200.00 115,200.00 768 BRIDGE 357 BUCKLEBURY MANOR FARM 80,640.00 78,640.00 769 BRIDGE 358 HAWKRIDGE 129,888.00 128,688.00 770 BRIDGE 359 FOUNDRY 67,680.00 66,680.00 772 BRIDGE 361 COCKS LANE 92,736.00 92,736.00 773 BRIDGE 362 POTASH FARM 57,120.00 53,920.00

Page 106 774 BRIDGE 363 STANFORD DINGLEY 35,008.80 32,008.80 775 BRIDGE 364 LAMDENS 4,800.00 2,100.00 776 BRIDGE 365 GOODBOYS COPSE 26,400.00 15,300.00 777 BRIDGE 366 ADMORE 33,696.00 31,396.00 778 BRIDGE 367 PADWORTH 4,800.00 -1,700.00 779 BRIDGE 368 PADWORTH HOUSE 53,582.40 49,582.40 780 BRIDGE 369 GOOSE GREEN 81,600.00 81,600.00 782 BRIDGE 371 BOCKHAMPTON 139,200.00 130,199.00 784 BRIDGE 373 MANOR FARM EASTBURY 76,320.00 76,316.00 785 BRIDGE 374 EAST GARSTON 77,952.00 76,951.00 786 BRIDGE 375 MIDDLE (EAST GARSTON) 98,496.00 97,496.00 787 BRIDGE 376 MABERLEYS 74,880.00 71,080.00 788 BRIDGE 378 MAIDEN COURT 64,896.00 61,396.00

6 Bridges continued

Item Item Bridge Bridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Type Code GRC £ DRC £ 790 BRIDGE 380 SHEFFORD MILL 94,377.60 94,177.60 791 BRIDGE 381 DUN MILL 190,195.20 169,995.20 792 BRIDGE 382 DENFORD MILL 104,163.40 79,363.41 794 BRIDGE 384 LOWER DENFORD SOUTH 150,672.00 150,672.00 795 BRIDGE 385 LOWER DENFORD NORTH 91,872.00 88,372.00 796 BRIDGE 386 FOXLEY BOTTOM 40,435.20 34,435.20 800 BRIDGE 390 PEBBLE HILL 72,907.20 68,807.20 801 BRIDGE 391 OLD HAT 49,680.00 47,380.00 Page 107 802 BRIDGE 392 HOLT MANOR 24,883.20 24,483.20 803 BRIDGE 393 HOLTWOOD WATER SPLASH 134,400.00 131,400.00 804 BRIDGE 394 WARREN KILN 46,080.00 45,880.00 805 BRIDGE 395 PUDDLE WHARF 80,352.00 67,652.00 807 BRIDGE 397 HAZELBY 4,608.00 2,508.00 808 BRIDGE 398 SMITHAM 199,680.00 197,680.00 812 BRIDGE 477 UFTON TWIN ARCH 120,960.00 118,460.00 813 BRIDGE 478 UFTON DITCH 63,148.80 58,648.80 814 BRIDGE 479 TYLE MILL DRAIN 4,800.00 -1,200.00 816 BRIDGE 5 DISCOVERY BRIDGE 192,000.00 192,000.00 831 BRIDGE 522 KINGS HILL 61,246.08 60,296.08 836 BRIDGE 529 CLAPPERS FARM 95,040.00 94,740.00

7 Bridges continued

Item Item Bridge Bridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Type Code GRC £ DRC £ 837 BRIDGE 532 TROWES 103,680.00 103,580.00 838 BRIDGE 533 MISSELS 89,856.00 86,506.00 839 BRIDGE 542 ELTON FARM SOUTH 115,248.00 112,245.00 840 BRIDGE 543 ELTON FARM NORTH 115,248.00 111,498.00 841 BRIDGE 550 BARRS FARM 4,800.00 1,300.00 842 BRIDGE 558 WARENNES WOOD 76,800.00 76,400.00 843 BRIDGE 561 HATCH HOUSE LANE 43,200.00 28,200.00

Page 108 849 BRIDGE 571 MILTON 60,672.00 60,172.00 850 BRIDGE 575 WESTBROOK FARM 258,048.00 251,048.00 852 BRIDGE 578 AMERICAN 864,000.00 864,000.00 855 BRIDGE 582 BRADFIELD LODGE 124,800.00 114,800.00 856 BRIDGE 583 GRAZELEY GREEN 68,160.00 68,160.00 857 BRIDGE 584 BURNTHOUSE LANE 55,440.00 54,940.00 858 BRIDGE 585 BURNTHOUSE 79,175.04 79,175.04 865 BRIDGE 616 SCOTALLS 49,632.00 49,632.00 873 BRIDGE 628 SCHOOL 259,200.00 257,000.00 874 BRIDGE 629 ILSLEY ARCH 56,784.00 54,284.00 875 BRIDGE 634 BURGHFIELD BROOK 29,568.00 29,568.00 876 BRIDGE 639 FROUDS LANE 44,160.00 43,660.00 877 BRIDGE 647 WINTERBOURNE ARCH 84,096.00 82,596.00

8 Bridges continued

Item Item Bridge Bridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Type Code GRC £ DRC £ 878 BRIDGE 648 UFTON RIVER 568,346.90 564,846.90 879 BRIDGE 649 WEST MEADOW NORTH 48,384.00 48,384.00 880 BRIDGE 650 WEST MEADOW SOUTH 48,384.00 48,384.00 881 BRIDGE 651 TIDNEY 7,200.00 7,200.00 882 BRIDGE 652 VICTORIA LODGE 7,200.00 2,200.00 883 BRIDGE 654 HILLFIELDS 4,320.00 2,820.00 884 BRIDGE 655 ACRES FARM 32,832.00 31,332.00 887 BRIDGE 662 RIVER BARN SOUTH 44,352.00 44,352.00 Page 109 889 BRIDGE 664 LODGE 4,800.00 4,800.00 897 BRIDGE 7 FOUR ACRE COPSE 15,552.00 15,352.00 898 BRIDGE 70 LAMBOURN 268,320.00 266,070.00 899 BRIDGE 702 RECTORY 83,232.00 78,832.00 900 BRIDGE 703 SULHAM TURN 45,552.00 45,552.00 902 BRIDGE 709 SCHOOL LANE 21,120.00 20,920.00 904 BRIDGE 710 ENBOURNE HILL 30,720.00 27,320.00 906 BRIDGE 714 PEAR TREE 27,648.00 27,648.00 907 BRIDGE 715 OLD LANE 48,000.00 47,500.00 908 BRIDGE 716 BRIDGES FARM 13,380.96 11,380.96 909 BRIDGE 72 EASTBURY 237,456.00 235,255.00 911 BRIDGE 722 LOCKRAM ROAD 56,640.00 55,740.00

9 Bridges continued

Item Item Bridge Bridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Type Code GRC £ DRC £ 913 BRIDGE 724 COMPTON STATION 73,440.00 66,440.00 922 BRIDGE 75 ASHBROOK 152,640.00 150,140.00 924 BRIDGE 752 TANHOUSE 40,320.00 40,320.00 925 BRIDGE 76 IVY HOUSE 71,424.00 69,224.00 926 BRIDGE 77 SWAN (SHEFFORD) 102,189.60 62,189.61 929 BRIDGE 79 BRIDGE STREET 235,200.00 220,500.00 931 BRIDGE 80 FAULKNERS 285,000.00 285,000.00

Page 110 932 BRIDGE 81 EDDINGTON 1,141,920.00 1,129,120.00 934 BRIDGE 82 JESSATS 128,207.50 121,607.50 935 BRIDGE 821 KENNET (NEWBURY) 4,944,960.00 4,942,460.00 937 BRIDGE 824 BLACKBOYS RAILWAY 772,991.90 771,491.90 938 BRIDGE 83 HIDDEN 312,000.00 310,000.00 944 BRIDGE 84 LITTLE 384,300.60 381,300.60 948 BRIDGE 85 KINTBURY MILL 216,000.00 213,600.00 949 BRIDGE 852 COMPTON RAILWAY 244,800.00 239,800.00 HAMPSTEAD NORREYS 950 BRIDGE 854 RAILWAY 295,776.00 295,776.00 951 BRIDGE 855 MARLSTON ROAD RAILWAY 195,216.00 184,216.00 953 BRIDGE 86 KINTBURY 147,278.40 146,278.40 954 BRIDGE 864 HAM MARSH 634,800.00 634,800.00 955 BRIDGE 87 KINTBURY LEVEL CROSSING 396,000.00 389,500.00

10 Bridges continued

Item Item Bridge Bridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Type Code GRC £ DRC £ 956 BRIDGE 88 KINTBURY SOUTH DRAIN 179,088.00 161,588.00 957 BRIDGE 89 KINTBURY MIDDLE DRAIN 58,911.36 49,911.36 959 BRIDGE 90 KENNET - BARTON HOLT 134,400.00 130,150.00 961 BRIDGE 91 BARTON HOLT DRAIN 84,238.56 75,788.56 965 BRIDGE 95 DONNINGTON MILL 174,528.00 174,528.00 966 BRIDGE 96 LOCKETTS 238,719.80 235,719.80 974 BRIDGE 97 SHAW MILL 289,440.00 286,840.00 978 BRIDGE 973 STATION ROAD UNDERBRIDGE 1,290,240.00 1,277,740.00 Page 111 985 BRIDGE 98 SHAW 289,440.00 286,940.00 996 BRIDGE 99 WHITE HOUSE 201,000.00 196,000.00 1176 BRIDGE 100 MIDDLE(NEWBURY) 551,346.70 548,346.70

Sub Total £ 49,683,601.15 48,943,390.17

11 Culverts

Item Item Type Culvert Culvert Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 29 CULVERT 103 HAM (ARCH) 128,160.00 127,760.00 39 CULVERT 106 SMALL (THATCHAM) 68,879.04 68,879.04 45 CULVERT 111 WASING 23,424.00 20,974.00 78 CULVERT 121 KENNET DRAIN 138,000.00 138,000.00 83 CULVERT 1238 CUNNING MAN (326A) 96,480.00 94,080.00 84 CULVERT 1239 WELFORD FARM (331A) 67,200.00 66,400.00 89 CULVERT 1243 PRIORS MOOR (337A) 139,200.00 132,800.00 93 CULVERT 1254 CRAVEN CULVERT 24,576.00 22,376.00 Page 112 98 CULVERT 1264 CROWN MEAD CULVERT 71,495.99 71,495.99 99 CULVERT 1265 WELFORD PARK CULVERT 103,680.00 102,980.00 145 CULVERT 1353 FIELD FARM CULVERT 96,000.00 95,500.00 172 CULVERT 141 CHURCH CULVERT 72,000.00 72,000.00 173 CULVERT 142 THE FORGE CULVERT 30,240.00 27,240.00 174 CULVERT 143 LOWER HENWICK FARM 126,000.00 126,000.00 CULVERT 176 CULVERT 144 HENWICK MANOR CULVERT 126,000.00 126,000.00 180 CULVERT 145 GORDON ROAD CULVERT 126,000.00 126,000.00 182 CULVERT 1454 WOODHOUSE POND CULVERT 86,400.00 85,900.00 183 CULVERT 1455 DRAYTONS GULLY CULVERT 86,400.00 86,400.00 184 CULVERT 1456 ALDERNBRIDGE GULLY 32,400.00 32,400.00 CULVERT

12 Culverts continued

Item Item Type Culvert Culvert Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 185 CULVERT 1457 HANDPOST GULLY CULVERT 32,400.00 32,400.00 186 CULVERT 146 BOWLING GREEN CULVERT 86,400.00 86,400.00 187 CULVERT 1462 SHALFORD LODGE 168,960.00 168,960.00 190 CULVERT 1469 PADWORTH CULVERT 96,623.99 96,623.99 192 CULVERT 1472 NEWBURY LANE EAST 108,528.00 108,028.00 193 CULVERT 1473 WESTFIELDS 44,880.00 39,380.00 194 CULVERT 1474 MANOR CRESCENT 73,440.00 72,940.00 195 CULVERT 1475 BURRELL ROAD 230,400.00 230,400.00 Page 113 238 CULVERT 155 WEST ILSLEY CULVERT 31,680.00 31,180.00 239 CULVERT 1553 LINDEN CULVERT 96,000.00 90,800.00 253 CULVERT 158 BARTON GABLES CULVERT 86,400.00 85,700.00 254 CULVERT 159 FLORENCE GARDENS F/P 25,920.00 25,720.00 CULVERT SOUTH 258 CULVERT 160 FLORENCE GARDENS CW 25,920.00 25,920.00 CULVERT WEST 260 CULVERT 161 FLORENCE GARDENS F/P 25,200.00 25,000.00 CULVERT NORTH 264 CULVERT 162 FLORENCE GARDENS CW 86,400.00 86,400.00 CULVERT EAST 267 CULVERT 1625 RED LANE CULVERT 46,656.00 46,456.00 268 CULVERT 1626 SPRING LANE CULVERT 32,400.00 29,900.00

13 Culverts continued

Item Item Type Culvert Culvert Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 273 CULVERT 1632 BUSINESS PARK CULVERT EAST 4,800.00 3,300.00 277 CULVERT 1639 CALCOT ROW CULVERT 115,200.00 114,400.00 280 CULVERT 1642 PIPERS LANE CULVERT 240,000.00 240,000.00 PROTECTION 289 CULVERT 1673 FIELD FARM CONVEYOR 79,200.00 77,500.00 CULVERT 290 CULVERT 1674 MOATLANDS FARM CONVEYOR 36,288.00 35,488.00 CULVERT

Page 114 301 CULVERT 1685 FAIRHOLME FARM CULVERT 52,800.00 52,800.00 315 CULVERT 1730 THE MEAD 110,400.00 110,200.00 326 CULVERT 1787 EDDINGTON FLOOD CULVERT 192,000.00 192,000.00 377 CULVERT 1917 FORBURY HOUSE 15,360.00 15,360.00 382 CULVERT 1921 BRICKPLACE CULVERT 40,320.00 39,220.00 394 CULVERT 195 FORGE CULVERT 17,280.00 16,580.00 406 CULVERT 197 NANPIE CULVERT 4,800.00 4,800.00 417 CULVERT 198 FISH CULVERT 13,824.00 13,824.00 441 CULVERT 200 OXENHEATH CULVERT 1,800.00 1,800.00 464 CULVERT 2020 MIDGHAM CULVERT 101,376.00 98,976.01 506 CULVERT 2060 BENNETTSHILL COPSE 217,536.00 217,536.00 554 CULVERT 218 CALCOT 70,560.00 70,560.00 570 CULVERT 224 ALDERMASTON PIT EAST 30,240.00 29,540.00

14 Culverts continued

Item Item Type Culvert Culvert Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 612 CULVERT 2365 HAM MARSH SURFACE WATER 192,000.00 192,000.00 CULVERT. 638 CULVERT 2435 YEW TREE STABLES 51,840.00 49,840.00 723 CULVERT 278 PAICES CULVERT 3,600.00 3,600.00 726 CULVERT 285 DRAINHILL 93,120.00 93,120.00 733 CULVERT 320 BOXFORD ARCH 46,080.00 45,080.00 738 CULVERT 325 HOLYBROOK FARM SOUTH 97,584.00 89,384.00 740 CULVERT 329 ALDERMASTON PIT WEST 23,328.00 22,128.00 Page 115 741 CULVERT 330 FORD BUSSOCK HILL 288,000.00 288,000.00 742 CULVERT 331 WELFORD LODGE 110,400.00 109,500.00 754 CULVERT 343 DUNSTON GREEN 73,080.00 72,330.00 763 CULVERT 352 MARLSTON WEST 36,720.00 36,720.00 765 CULVERT 354 ELM COTTAGE 59,760.00 59,260.00 781 CULVERT 370 MILL LANE (LAMBOURN) 53,406.72 53,406.72 793 CULVERT 383 DENFORD MILL DRAIN 86,400.00 79,600.00 797 CULVERT 387 OSMINGTON HOUSE 34,944.00 33,944.00 798 CULVERT 388 TEMPLETON 38,688.00 38,688.00 799 CULVERT 389 WALLINGTONS 23,760.00 23,760.00 806 CULVERT 396 SWAN (INKPEN) 22,464.00 22,464.00 824 CULVERT 515 NEWBURY LANE WEST 25,920.00 22,870.00 826 CULVERT 517 BOURNE COTTAGE 95,040.00 95,040.00

15 Culverts continued

Item Item Type Culvert Culvert Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 853 CULVERT 579 BAGSHOT MILL EAST 53,760.00 45,760.00 854 CULVERT 580 BAGSHOT MILL WEST 45,792.00 40,892.00 859 CULVERT 6 ILSLEY ROAD CULVERT 691.20 691.20 866 CULVERT 617 MUDDY LOWER WAY LANE 144,000.00 144,000.00 885 CULVERT 656 HOLYBROOK FARM NORTH 91,200.00 86,000.00 890 CULVERT 665 COLTHROP 182,400.00 181,400.00 891 CULVERT 666 WASING LODGE 30,240.00 29,439.00

Page 116 895 CULVERT 693 BOTTOMHOUSE FARM 48,816.00 45,616.00 903 CULVERT 71 CITY (LAMBOURN) 157,872.00 157,872.00 905 CULVERT 711 COUNCIL HOUSE HILL 28,800.00 22,799.00 914 CULVERT 725 FAIRFIELD 127,920.00 124,420.00 915 CULVERT 726 MAYFIELD FARM 50,688.00 48,188.00 916 CULVERT 728 DOWN HOUSE 67,680.00 67,680.00 917 CULVERT 73 CARTERS PIECE 101,952.00 100,952.00 918 CULVERT 74 BROOKSIDE (SHEFFORD) 88,128.00 86,428.00 927 CULVERT 78 WESTON MILL 57,600.00 57,200.00 933 CULVERT 819 CHAPEL ROW 51,840.00 51,840.00 946 CULVERT 846 NEWBURY CULVERT NORTH 203,688.00 203,688.00 947 CULVERT 847 NEWBURY CULVERT SOUTH 203,688.00 203,188.00 977 CULVERT 972 THEALE BY-PASS CULVERT 420,000.00 420,000.00

16 Culverts continued

Item Item Type Culvert Culvert Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 979 CULVERT 974 STATION ROAD CULVERTS 21,600.00 21,600.00 987 CULVERT 981 HOGMOOR CULVERT 1,462,272.00 1,460,272.00 1178 CULVERT 24 FOXGLOVE CULVERT 97,968.00 97,468.00

Sub Total £ 9,479,256.94 9,367,404.95

Page 117

17 Subways

Item Item Type Subway Subway Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 33 SUBWAY 1033 LAMBOURN SUBWAY 471,888.00 471,188.00 35 SUBWAY 1035 HUTTON CLOSE SUBWAY 1,069,200.00 1,069,200.00 36 SUBWAY 1036 ROBIN HOOD ROUNDABOUT 3,153,600.00 3,151,600.00 SUBWAY 150 SUBWAY 1367 HOWARD RD SUBWAY 334,080.10 334,080.10 151 SUBWAY 1368 GREENHAM RD SUBWAY 1 256,320.00 255,320.00 276 SUBWAY 1637 KINGS ROAD SUBWAY (NORTH) 331,200.00 317,200.00 622 SUBWAY 2391 GREENHAM ROAD SUBWAY 3 326,519.90 326,519.90 Page 118 921 SUBWAY 749 NEWBURY SUBWAY 1 130,272.00 129,772.00 936 SUBWAY 822 KINGS ROAD SUBWAY (WEST) 159,969.60 159,969.60 275 SUBWAY 1636 KINGS ROAD SUBWAY (EAST) 772,800.00 771,600.00 621 SUBWAY 2390 GREENHAM ROAD SUBWAY 2 261,345.60 260,345.60

Sub Total £ 7,267,195.20 7,246,795.20

18 Footbridges

Item Item Type Footbridge Footbridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 1 FOOTBRIDGE 1 WOKEFIELD COMMON 8,448.00 6,548.00 FOOTBRIDGE 62 FOOTBRIDGE 1175 NORTHCROFT CANAL 153,600.00 103,600.00 FOOTBRIDGE 63 FOOTBRIDGE 1176 SWAN FOOTBRIDGE 141,120.00 131,120.00 64 FOOTBRIDGE 1178 NORTHCROFT DITCH 305,136.00 305,136.00 FOOTBRIDGE 66 FOOTBRIDGE 1186 RIVER LAMBOURN 312,480.00 309,980.00 FOOTBRIDGE Page 119 67 FOOTBRIDGE 1187 CRANES MEADOW 9,120.00 9,120.00 FOOTBRIDGE 70 FOOTBRIDGE 1190 PADWORTH MILL 23,424.00 23,424.00 FOOTBRIDGE 71 FOOTBRIDGE 12 THATCHAM MOD BRIDGE 240,000.00 240,000.00 73 FOOTBRIDGE 1202 THEALE STATION 123,552.00 123,552.00 FOOTBRIDGE 76 FOOTBRIDGE 1206 TIDMARSH FOOTBRIDGE 54,144.00 54,144.00 100 FOOTBRIDGE 1266 STREATLEY CAUSEWAY 55,680.00 55,680.00 FOOTBRIDGE 123 FOOTBRIDGE 1327 GREENHAM MILL 482,400.00 476,400.00 FOOTBRIDGE 143 FOOTBRIDGE 1349 TANNERY FOOTBRIDGE 33,456.00 31,956.00

19 Footbridges continued

Item Item Type Footbridge Footbridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 146 FOOTBRIDGE 1356 OAKASH FARM 32,640.00 32,640.00 FOOTBRIDGE 149 FOOTBRIDGE 1366 GREENHAM COURT 587,400.00 586,200.00 FOOTBRIDGE 161 FOOTBRIDGE 1380 RUSHDENS FARM 28,800.00 28,800.00 FOOTBRIDGE 162 FOOTBRIDGE 1381 BOTTOM LANE 31,680.00 31,680.00 FOOTBRIDGE 164 FOOTBRIDGE 1393 PADWORTH MILL SOUTH 58,080.00 58,080.00 Page 120 FOOTBRIDGE 175 FOOTBRIDGE 1435 BRADFIELD HALL 46,080.00 46,080.00 FOOTBRIDGE 197 FOOTBRIDGE 1478 STRONGROVE HILL 94,464.00 94,464.00 FOOTBRIDGE 199 FOOTBRIDGE 148 ST. MARYS FOOTBRIDGE 144,000.00 143,500.00 200 FOOTBRIDGE 1480 MARSH GATE NORTH 7,200.00 7,200.00 FOOTBRIDGE 235 FOOTBRIDGE 153 KIMBERHEAD FARM 59,817.61 59,817.61 FOOTBRIDGE 236 FOOTBRIDGE 154 COMPTON MEADOW 15,552.00 15,552.00 FOOTBRIDGE 241 FOOTBRIDGE 156 WALTON WAY 180,000.00 179,800.00 FOOTBRIDGE

20 Footbridges continued

Item Item Type Footbridge Footbridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 242 FOOTBRIDGE 1562 CHAPEL COTTAGES 23,232.00 23,032.00 FOOTBRIDGE 249 FOOTBRIDGE 1575 ENBORNE STREET 41,472.00 40,872.00 FOOTBRIDGE 250 FOOTBRIDGE 1576 INWOOD COPSE 59,904.00 59,904.00 FOOTBRIDGE 255 FOOTBRIDGE 1598 WEIR FOOTBRIDGE 50,688.00 49,688.00 256 FOOTBRIDGE 1599 GREAT FISHERS 20,160.00 20,160.00 FOOTBRIDGE Page 121 261 FOOTBRIDGE 1613 WERGS PLANK 10,368.00 9,968.00 FOOTBRIDGE 266 FOOTBRIDGE 1624 BROCKS LANE 10,368.00 10,368.00 FOOTBRIDGE EAST 271 FOOTBRIDGE 163 LOWER SLOPE END 15,552.00 15,552.00 FOOTBRIDGE 272 FOOTBRIDGE 1631 HAMPSTEAD NORREYS 336,000.00 332,000.00 FOOTBRIDGE 281 FOOTBRIDGE 165 KENTS DOWN GULLY 7,200.00 7,200.00 FOOTBRIDGE 283 FOOTBRIDGE 1656 PITFIELD FOOTBRIDGE 45,360.00 45,360.00 284 FOOTBRIDGE 166 OLD SCHOOL HOUSE 5,184.00 5,184.00 FOOT BRIDGE 285 FOOTBRIDGE 1661 POTASH FARM NORTH 12,096.00 12,096.00 FOOTBRIDGE

21 Footbridges continued

Item Item Type Footbridge Footbridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 286 FOOTBRIDGE 1662 BUSCOT FOOTBRIDGE 4,320.00 4,320.00 287 FOOTBRIDGE 167 GREEN LANE 1,080.00 -120.00 FOOTBRIDGE 291 FOOTBRIDGE 1675 WELLMANS 51,840.00 48,940.00 FOOTBRIDGE 292 FOOTBRIDGE 1676 BENNETSHILL 25,920.00 24,320.00 FOOTBRIDGE 295 FOOTBRIDGE 1679 HILLFOOT FOOTBRIDGE 16,416.00 16,416.00

Page 122 299 FOOTBRIDGE 1682 HEATH ROAD 11,232.00 11,232.00 FOOTBRIDGE 302 FOOTBRIDGE 169 RUSHALL FOOTBRIDGE 6,000.00 6,000.00 305 FOOTBRIDGE 170 PAICES FOOTBRIDGE 15,552.00 15,552.00 307 FOOTBRIDGE 172 ARUNDEL FOOTBRIDGE 29,376.00 29,376.00 313 FOOTBRIDGE 1729 OLD SWAN (NEWBURY) 28,560.00 23,060.00 FOOTBRIDGE 322 FOOTBRIDGE 175 KIFF FOOTBRIDGE 5,184.00 5,184.00 323 FOOTBRIDGE 176 KIFF GREEN 16,416.00 16,416.00 FOOTBRIDGE 328 FOOTBRIDGE 179 BUTLERS FOOTBRIDGE 5,760.00 5,760.00 331 FOOTBRIDGE 180 PIGHTE FOOTBRIDGE 45,000.00 45,000.00 332 FOOTBRIDGE 181 BROOM FOOTBRIDGE 69,120.00 69,120.00

22 Footbridges continued

Item Item Type Footbridge Footbridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 334 FOOTBRIDGE 1815 LONG MEADOW 28,800.00 18,796.00 FOOTBRIDGE 335 FOOTBRIDGE 1816 FRIARS FORD 44,928.00 41,928.00 FOOTBRIDGE 341 FOOTBRIDGE 184 BOARMOOR WOOD 10,800.00 10,800.00 FOOTBRIDGE 343 FOOTBRIDGE 1854 TOMMYS BROW 23,760.00 23,560.00 FOOTBRIDGE 345 FOOTBRIDGE 1859 THE FISHERY 38,016.00 38,016.00 Page 123 FOOTBRIDGE 351 FOOTBRIDGE 1874 BRIFF VIEW 22,032.00 22,032.00 FOOTBRIDGE 352 FOOTBRIDGE 1875 REDHILL COPSE 42,600.00 42,600.00 FOOTBRIDGE 353 FOOTBRIDGE 1876 GREAT PARK 42,048.00 42,048.00 FOOTBRIDGE 355 FOOTBRIDGE 1879 IMPSTONE FOOTBRIDGE 13,824.00 13,824.00 NORTH 356 FOOTBRIDGE 188 ENGLEFIELD 15,552.00 15,552.00 FOOTBRIDGE 358 FOOTBRIDGE 1881 EDDINGTON MILL 15,360.00 15,360.00 FOOTBRIDGE 360 FOOTBRIDGE 1883 MARSH COTTAGE 36,288.00 36,288.00 FOOTBRIDGE

23 Footbridges continued

Item Item Type Footbridge Footbridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 361 FOOTBRIDGE 1884 WATERCRESS 27,432.00 26,932.00 FOOTBRIDGE 364 FOOTBRIDGE 189 HORNS CULVERT 10,080.00 10,080.00 367 FOOTBRIDGE 190 HORNS BOARDWALK 31,104.00 31,104.00 368 FOOTBRIDGE 1901 CASEY COURT 23,760.00 22,760.00 FOOTBRIDGE 370 FOOTBRIDGE 191 BELL PITS 1 15,552.00 15,552.00 373 FOOTBRIDGE 1913 INKPEN COMMON 10,368.00 10,368.00

Page 124 FOOTBRIDGE 374 FOOTBRIDGE 1914 GREAT PLANTATION 4,752.00 4,752.00 FOOTBRIDGE 375 FOOTBRIDGE 1915 WEAVERS FOOTBRIDGE 9,504.00 9,504.00 376 FOOTBRIDGE 1916 GODFREYS 26,880.00 26,880.00 FOOTBRIDGE 378 FOOTBRIDGE 1918 BARRYMORES 30,672.00 30,172.00 FOOTBRIDGE 380 FOOTBRIDGE 192 BELL PITS 2 15,552.00 15,552.00 381 FOOTBRIDGE 1920 FURZE PARK 6,336.00 6,336.00 FOOTBRIDGE SOUTH 383 FOOTBRIDGE 1922 SKEW WHIFF 15,552.00 15,552.00 FOOTBRIDGE 386 FOOTBRIDGE 1925 HOLT MANOR 10,368.00 10,368.00 FOOTBRIDGE

24 Footbridges continued

Item Item Type Footbridge Footbridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 387 FOOTBRIDGE 193 BURNTHOUSE FARM 15,552.00 15,352.00 FOOTBRIDGE 413 FOOTBRIDGE 1976 BUNKERS HILL 4,800.00 4,800.00 FOOTBRIDGE 414 FOOTBRIDGE 1977 SKINNERS GREEN FARM 15,552.00 15,552.00 FOOTBRIDGE 415 FOOTBRIDGE 1978 LONG COPSE 11,232.00 11,232.00 FOOTBRIDGE 416 FOOTBRIDGE 1979 HERRINGS COPSE EAST 11,232.00 11,232.00 Page 125 FOOTBRIDGE 418 FOOTBRIDGE 1980 CROCKHAM HEATH 8,640.00 7,140.00 FOOTBRIDGE 419 FOOTBRIDGE 1981 HAMSTEAD PARK 9,600.00 9,600.00 SLUICE FOOTBRIDGE 421 FOOTBRIDGE 1983 OLD LANE FOOTBRIDGE 15,033.60 15,033.60 423 FOOTBRIDGE 1985 OAKEN HEDGES 6,144.00 6,144.00 FOOTBRIDGE 424 FOOTBRIDGE 1986 NORTHBROOK 120,960.00 120,960.00 FOOTBRIDGE 439 FOOTBRIDGE 2 ARUNDEL WEST 20,736.00 20,736.00 FOOTBRIDGE 443 FOOTBRIDGE 2001 ELMHURST FARM 14,688.00 14,488.00 FOOTBRIDGE

25 Footbridges continued

Item Item Type Footbridge Footbridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 444 FOOTBRIDGE 2002 OSGOODS FARM 14,688.00 14,488.00 FOOTBRIDGE 452 FOOTBRIDGE 201 PADWORTH COMMON 3,600.00 3,600.00 FOOTBRIDGE 458 FOOTBRIDGE 2015 WESTROP FOOTBRIDGE 12,960.00 11,060.00 466 FOOTBRIDGE 2022 EIGHT ACRE 15,552.00 15,552.00 FOOTBRIDGE 471 FOOTBRIDGE 2027 WOOLHAMPTON HALT 21,504.00 21,504.00 FOOTBRIDGE Page 126 482 FOOTBRIDGE 2037 HILLFOOT WEST 15,552.00 15,552.00 FOOTBRIDGE 485 FOOTBRIDGE 204 ASHMOORE GREEN 10,368.00 10,368.00 FOOTBRIDGE 490 FOOTBRIDGE 2045 STREATLEY CAUSEWAY 1,624,800.00 1,624,800.00 495 FOOTBRIDGE 205 LONG FOOTBRIDGE 5,184.00 5,184.00 498 FOOTBRIDGE 2052 LINLEY SHAW 8,640.00 8,640.00 FOOTBRIDGE 500 FOOTBRIDGE 2054 GREAT FISHERS NORTH 13,824.00 13,824.00 FOOTBRIDGE 502 FOOTBRIDGE 2056 FISHERMANS DRAIN 17,280.00 17,280.00 FOOTBRIDGE 503 FOOTBRIDGE 2058 LOCKRAM FOOTBRIDGE 10,368.00 10,368.00

26 Footbridges continued

Item Item Type Footbridge Footbridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 507 FOOTBRIDGE 2061 LONGMOOR DRAIN 8,640.00 8,140.00 FOOTBRIDGE 509 FOOTBRIDGE 2063 PERRINS FARM 20,064.00 20,064.00 FOOTBRIDGE 512 FOOTBRIDGE 2066 ADMIRALS COPSE 15,552.00 15,552.00 FOOTBRIDGE 516 FOOTBRIDGE 207 VAUXHALL FOOTBRIDGE 5,760.00 5,760.00 520 FOOTBRIDGE 2073 CANNON BRIDGE 74,520.00 74,020.00

Page 127 521 FOOTBRIDGE 208 COMMON FOOTBRIDGE 6,624.00 6,624.00 524 FOOTBRIDGE 210 LITTLE DEANS 13,824.00 13,824.00 FOOTBRIDGE 525 FOOTBRIDGE 211 BENHAM FOOTBRIDGE 12,960.00 12,960.00 528 FOOTBRIDGE 2114 WALKERS SHAW 10,368.00 10,168.00 FOOTBRIDGE 531 FOOTBRIDGE 212 WEST FOOTBRIDGE 10,440.00 10,440.00 534 FOOTBRIDGE 214 PADWORTH 5,184.00 5,184.00 FOOTBRIDGE 544 FOOTBRIDGE 215 JACOBS FOOTBRIDGE 20,736.00 20,736.00 559 FOOTBRIDGE 2192 HOLLY FARM 27,648.00 27,647.00 FOOTBRIDGE 568 FOOTBRIDGE 222 BRIFF FARM 5,760.00 5,760.00 FOOTBRIDGE

27 Footbridges continued

Item Item Type Footbridge Footbridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 569 FOOTBRIDGE 223 SADGROVE FARM 31,737.60 31,737.60 FOOTBRIDGE 571 FOOTBRIDGE 2246 FURZE PARK 12,096.00 12,096.00 FOOTBRIDGE NORTH 579 FOOTBRIDGE 226 BRIFF COPSE 34,560.00 34,560.00 FOOTBRIDGE 592 FOOTBRIDGE 23 CHURCH LANE 13,824.00 13,824.00 FOOTBRIDGE 598 FOOTBRIDGE 2330 RAVENSWING 10,368.00 10,368.00 Page 128 FOOTBRIDGE 599 FOOTBRIDGE 2331 UPPER MOORS GULLY 10,368.00 10,368.00 FOOTBRIDGE 601 FOOTBRIDGE 2348 ROUND COPSE 10,368.00 10,368.00 FOOTBRIDGE 603 FOOTBRIDGE 2350 SMITHCROFT COPSE 31,680.00 31,680.00 FOOTBRIDGE 611 FOOTBRIDGE 2364 DUNSTON PARK 12,000.00 10,000.00 FOOTBRIDGE 628 FOOTBRIDGE 2418 DEVELOPER 33,264.00 33,264.00 FOOTBRIDGE 629 FOOTBRIDGE 2419 PLANTATION 33,264.00 33,264.00 FOOTBRIDGE 631 FOOTBRIDGE 2420 HARTSHILL 33,264.00 32,763.99 FOOTBRIDGE

28 Footbridges continued

Item Item Type Footbridge Footbridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 648 FOOTBRIDGE 246 SWAN WALK 69,888.00 69,888.00 659 FOOTBRIDGE 247 FENS FOOTBRIDGE 10,080.00 9,780.00 670 FOOTBRIDGE 248 WORKHOUSE 9,504.00 9,504.00 FOOTBRIDGE 674 FOOTBRIDGE 251 HELL FOOTBRIDGE 3,600.00 3,600.00 675 FOOTBRIDGE 252 OLD HAT FOOTBRIDGE 12,096.00 12,096.00 677 FOOTBRIDGE 254 CATMORE COPSE 8,640.00 6,640.00 NORTH FOOTBRIDGE

Page 129 679 FOOTBRIDGE 255 CATMORE COPSE 10,368.00 8,368.00 SOUTH 681 FOOTBRIDGE 256 HIGH TREE FOOTBRIDGE 10,296.00 9,096.00 683 FOOTBRIDGE 2562 BALSDON FARM 24,576.00 23,076.00 FOOTBRIDGE 684 FOOTBRIDGE 2564 ARUNDEL COPSE 20,736.00 20,736.00 FOOTBRIDGE 685 FOOTBRIDGE 2565 KINGS COPSE 11,750.40 11,750.40 FOOTBRIDGE 688 FOOTBRIDGE 2568 FOSTERS FOOTBRIDGE 15,552.00 15,552.00 692 FOOTBRIDGE 2571 RECREATION 12,960.00 12,960.00 FOOTBRIDGE 693 FOOTBRIDGE 2572 TRASH FOOTBRIDGE 14,688.00 14,488.00 699 FOOTBRIDGE 2579 LITTLE SALTS 19,344.00 19,344.00 FOOTBRIDGE

29 Footbridges continued

Item Item Type Footbridge Footbridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 702 FOOTBRIDGE 2581 KENNEL FOOTBRIDGE 15,552.00 15,552.00 710 FOOTBRIDGE 265 FLORAL FOOTBRIDGE 5,280.00 3,579.00 711 FOOTBRIDGE 266 OLD FISH FOOTBRIDGE 7,560.00 7,560.00 712 FOOTBRIDGE 267 KENTON FOOTBRIDGE 15,552.00 15,552.00 713 FOOTBRIDGE 268 ALDERS NO. 1 20,736.00 20,736.00 714 FOOTBRIDGE 269 ALDERS NO. 2 20,736.00 20,736.00 715 FOOTBRIDGE 270 ROMAN FOOTBRIDGE 15,552.00 15,352.00

Page 130 717 FOOTBRIDGE 272 MAY HOUSE SOUTH 15,552.00 15,552.00 FOOTBRIDGE 722 FOOTBRIDGE 277 LOWER HENWICK 15,552.00 15,552.00 FOOTBRIDGE 749 FOOTBRIDGE 338 THORNFORD 35,856.00 30,856.00 FOOTBRIDGE 771 FOOTBRIDGE 360 BUCKLEBURY FORD 34,840.32 32,340.32 FOOTBRIDGE 809 FOOTBRIDGE 399 PIG FOOTBRIDGE 14,688.00 14,388.00 810 FOOTBRIDGE 4 PIBWORTH FOOTBRIDGE 13,824.00 13,824.00 817 FOOTBRIDGE 506 BLOSSOMS END 15,552.00 13,352.00 FOOTBRIDGE 818 FOOTBRIDGE 507 BROOM COPSE 12,000.00 9,500.00 FOOTBRIDGE

30 Footbridges continued

Item Item Type Footbridge Footbridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 819 FOOTBRIDGE 508 FURTHER MOOR COPSE 53,040.00 52,540.00 FOOTBRIDGE 821 FOOTBRIDGE 510 OXLEYS COPSE 30,576.00 30,576.00 FOOTBRIDGE 822 FOOTBRIDGE 511 MOOR COPSE 15,552.00 15,552.00 FOOTBRIDGE 823 FOOTBRIDGE 512 HORSE MOOR 45,552.00 45,552.00 FOOTBRIDGE 825 FOOTBRIDGE 516 CALCOT MILL 48,600.00 38,899.00 Page 131 FOOTBRIDGE 829 FOOTBRIDGE 520 CLAYHILL FOOTBRIDGE 24,960.00 23,560.00 832 FOOTBRIDGE 523 GREYFIELD 5,184.00 3,384.00 FOOTBRIDGE 835 FOOTBRIDGE 526 WHITES LANE 34,560.00 34,560.00 FOOTBRIDGE 844 FOOTBRIDGE 564 FISHERMANS COTTAGE 23,040.00 23,040.00 NORTH FOOTBRIDGE 845 FOOTBRIDGE 565 FISHERMANS COTTAGE 6,912.00 3,512.00 MIDDLE FOOTBRIDGE 846 FOOTBRIDGE 566 FISHERMANS COTTAGE 22,176.00 22,176.00 SOUTH FOOTBRIDGE 847 FOOTBRIDGE 569 WASHWATER 19,676.16 18,676.16 FOOTBRIDGE

31 Footbridges continued

Item Item Type Footbridge Footbridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 848 FOOTBRIDGE 570 WATERLOO 4,800.00 4,800.00 FOOTBRIDGE 861 FOOTBRIDGE 610 IMPSTONE FOOTBRIDGE 13,824.00 13,824.00 863 FOOTBRIDGE 612 MAYMEAD FOOTBRIDGE 22,032.00 22,032.00 864 FOOTBRIDGE 613 MOSS FOOTBRIDGE 24,480.00 24,480.00 867 FOOTBRIDGE 618 CROSSWAYS 26,352.00 24,152.00 FOOTBRIDGE 868 FOOTBRIDGE 619 WOODSPEEN WEIR 48,000.00 41,800.00

Page 132 FOOTBRIDGE 869 FOOTBRIDGE 620 WOODSPEEN DRAIN 15,120.00 15,120.00 FOOTBRIDGE 870 FOOTBRIDGE 621 WATERMILL 8,412.48 8,412.48 FOOTBRIDGE NORTH 871 FOOTBRIDGE 622 WATERMILL 8,412.48 8,412.48 FOOTBRIDGE SOUTH 886 FOOTBRIDGE 658 WILLOW TREE 20,424.00 20,424.00 FOOTBRIDGE 888 FOOTBRIDGE 663 RIVER BARN 41,472.00 41,472.00 FOOTBRIDGE NORTH 894 FOOTBRIDGE 692 WINTERBOURNE 10,944.00 10,894.00 FOOTBRIDGE 901 FOOTBRIDGE 704 CHAMBERHOUSE FARM 57,600.00 57,600.00 FOOTBRIDGE

32 Footbridges continued

Item Item Type Footbridge Footbridge Name Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Code £ £ 910 FOOTBRIDGE 721 CHURCH FOOTBRIDGE 27,648.00 27,048.00 912 FOOTBRIDGE 723 HUNGERFORD FISHERY 66,720.00 66,720.00 FOOTBRIDGE 919 FOOTBRIDGE 740 ST LAWRENCES EAST 65,116.80 65,116.80 FOOTBRIDGE 941 FOOTBRIDGE 835 MARSH GATE SOUTH 105,312.00 104,412.00 FOOTBRIDGE 942 FOOTBRIDGE 836 HOPGRASS FARM 87,744.00 87,744.00 SOUTH FOOTBRIDGE Page 133 943 FOOTBRIDGE 837 HOPGRASS FARM 105,312.00 105,312.00 NORTH FOOTBRIDGE 958 FOOTBRIDGE 9 POT KILN FOOTBRIDGE 15,552.00 15,552.00

Sub Total £ 8,920,933.45 8,757,476.44

Summary

Bridges 49,683,601.15 48,943,390.17 Culverts 9,479,259.94 9,367,404.95 Subways 7,267,195.20 7,246,795.20 Footbridges 8,920,933.45 8,757,476.44 Totals £ 75,350,989.74 74,315,066.76

33 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 134 West Berks Test PMC1 - 8Jun11 Annual Depreciation Report

RCI Run Identifier: CCI Weighting Set ID: WSCCIv0102 RCI Run Date: 08/06/2011 From Date: 01/04/2009 To Date: 08/06/2011 Report Run Date & Time: 08/06/2011 16:02 UKPMS System: PMS UKPMS System Version: 4.4.0 Automatic Pass Run ID: ? Rule Set Identifier: RP10.01 Run Date: 07/02/2011 From Date: 01/04/2010 To Date: 31/03/2011 Merge Method: Fixed Parameter (CI tolerance): 12 Parameter (Length tolerance): 10

Depreciation Paramteters Deterioration Total Useful Life Renewal Unit Initiation TTUL Rate TINI R 3 3 20 20.00 R 4 3 15 18.00 R 5 5 25 12.00 R 6 3 20 10.00 U 3 3 20 25.00 U 4 3 20 20.00 U 5 5 20 15.00 Page 135 U 6 5 20 8.00

Total Average Total Renewal Depreciation Survey Coverage Number Network width Status Useful Unit rate Annual Accumulated Network Grouping of length (km) (m) Life £/m 2 £ '000s % £ '000s TTul Yrs km % Sections

R 3 109 88.734 6.8 D 20 20.00 81.276 91.6 603.391 36.5 4,404.756 R 4 70 62.785 6.5 D 15 18.00 62.753 99.9 489.723 42.1 3,092.601

R 5 396 357.423 6.5 D 25 12.00 356.336 99.7 1,115.160 52.9 14,747.988 R 6 509 374.389 6.5 D 20 10.00 359.504 96.0 1,216.764 54.5 13,262.730

R ALL 1,084 883.331 859.869 97.3 3,425.038 49.6 35,508.075 U 3 94 28.946 6.8 D 20 25.00 27.454 94.8 246.041 42.3 2,081.507 U 4 43 11.802 6.6 D 20 20.00 11.802 100.0 77.893 43.5 677.671 U 5 250 65.556 6.5 D 20 15.00 63.487 96.8 319.586 52.1 3,330.081 U 6 1715 280.035 6.5 D 20 8.00 208.657 74.5 728.091 54.3 7,907.068

U ALL 2,102 386.339 311.400 80.6 1,371.611 51.0 13,996.327

Report Version 1.04 26/01/2012 Page 1 of 2 Total Average Total Renewal Depreciation Survey Coverage Number Network width Status Useful Unit rate Annual Accumulated Network Grouping of length (km) (m) Life £/m 2 £ '000s % £ '000s TTul Yrs km % Sections 3 ALL 203 117.680 108.730 92.4 849.432 38.2 6,486.263 4 ALL 113 74.587 74.555 100.0 567.616 42.3 3,770.272 5 ALL 646 422.979 419.823 99.3 1,434.745 52.8 18,078.069 6 ALL 2,224 654.424 568.161 86.8 1,944.855 54.4 21,169.799 ALL DATA 3,186 1,269.670 1,171.269 92.2 4,796.649 50.0 49,504.402 Page 136

Report Version 1.04 26/01/2012 Page 2 of 2 * This Highways Infrastructure Assets data will not be audited in 2010-11 * Additional Information - Highways Infrastructure (21) 31-Mar-11

Highways Infrastructure Assets

Refer to the L Pack guidance and the WGA timetable paper "Accounting for Highways Infrastructure Assets in the Local Authority Sector on a Depreciated Replacement Costs Basis: Interim Accounting Arrangements for the Period up to 2012-13". This paper is available on the WGA page of the HM Treasury; DCLG; Scottish Government; and Welsh Assembly Government websites, and is based on the decisions made by the CIPFA Project Implementation Steering Group (PISG).

The original timetable required an audit review of GRC data in the 2010-11 Return. However, given the resources and cost involved in auditing the data in this era of substantially tighter public spending, the first audit review has been delayed until the more complete and full dry run year, 2011-12. This should not detract from the worth of the Highways Infrastructure work and the improved services and efficiency savings that will result. We stress the importance of providing the data below to the same quality that would have been given had the audit review been going ahead, given the size and complexity of the task, and so that the momentum of the work is maintained.

All estimates should be calculated on the basis set out in the CIPFA Code of Practice on Transport Infrastructure Assets - Guidance to Support Asset Management, Financial Management and Reporting (published March 2010).

Web-links: Code and information on it's development (CIPFA): http://www.cipfa.org.uk/pt/infrastructure/index.cfm Supporting materials and spreadsheet calculation templates http://www.cipfa.org.uk/pt/infrastructure/support.cfm WGA timetable paper and guidance (HM Treasury): http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/wga_guidance_index.htm

IMPORTANT: Figures should be rounded to thousands (£'000s) , and the 2010-11 figures in PP&E that feed into the Balance Sheet should still be Historic Cost in the L Pack and Statement of Accounts. Columns D, G and J MUST have a value in order for the Pack validations to pass. If you are a body that does not have Highways Infrastructure, or if you are unable to obtain the data to complete certain mandatory cells, please enter zeros in order for your Pack to validate. Please provide an explanation to support the entry of zero balances.

This is for information purposes only, and is to capture the progress being made by local authorities on revaluing their Highways Infrastructure Assets for Gross Replacement Cost (GRC) and Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC). Please be aware that in many cases local authority staff outside of the central finance team, such as asset management and engineering staff, are undertaking this work.

DATA REQUIRED: GRC, DRC & lands data estimates [These figures will be used as prior year comparatives in the 2011-12 full dry-run year (para 15 & 16 of WGA timetable paper)]

GRC less Depreciation (DRC) Estimated Gross Replacement Underlying Depreciation DRC estimate Highway Asset Types: (Level 1 categories percentage of Cost (GRC) calculation basis defined in Table 4.1 "Classification of work estimate (select from drop- highway assets", para 4.2.3, pgs 24 to 26, completed down list) of the transport Code) £'000 £'000 £'000 % Carriageway 1,152,082 - Footways + cycletracks 115,114 - Structures 1 (DRC not required)* 69,233 - - Lighting 1 15,936 - Traffic management 1 7 - Street furniture 1 10 - Land 1 NA - Total 1,352,382 - - Rounding Validation check: -3& 4#0#.-02#"+-0#2& ,-W ,-$" 2 Q.*# 1##,130#2&'1'1!-00#!2Q ,"2& 27-3& 4# ,-2$ '*#"2-0-3,"2-2&-31 ,"1T 1 These values are not populated from this spreadsheet * Structures depreciation data is not required in 2010-11 as the Structures DRC toolkit was not available at the time of preparation of the L Pack.

Please provide an explanation of the plans and progress on the valuation work, including any comments you have in respect of the above. (Please keep within the space provided):

Page 137 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 138 Appendix F continued Street Lighting Asset Valuation 2010/11

Columns

The rate includes the cost of the column, lantern, lamp and cable, and the cost of supply and installation.

No of Units Rate £ GRC £

Columns up to 6.0m 8,439 917 7,738,563 Columns up to 8.0m 1,854 1,392 2,580,768 Columns up to 10.0m 1,558 1,416 2,206,128 Columns up to 12.0m 328 2,762 905,936 Subway units 157 450 70,650 High-masts 0 11,000 - Heritage columns 249 2,000 498,000 Feeder Pillar Small 78 450 35,100 Medium 0 900 - Large 0 2,000 -

Illuminated Bollards

The rate includes the cost of the bollard, lamp and cable and the cost of supply and installation.

No of Units Rate £ GRC £ Illuminated bollards 640 800 512,000

Illuminated Signs

The rate includes the cost of the post, foundation, lantern, lamp, sign plate, cabling, but excludes any reinstatement. The rate includes for supply and installation.

No of Units Rate £ GRC £ Externally Illuminated signs Sign face up to 600mm 0 600 - Sign face 600 to 1200mm 1736 800 1,388,800 Sign face up to 0.75m2 0 600 - Sign face 0.75 to 2.00m2 0 800 - Sign face 2.00 to 3.00m2 0 1,200 -

Page 139 Appendix F continued Street Lighting Asset Valuation 2010/11

Illuminated Signs continued

The rate includes the cost of the post, foundation, lantern, lamp, sign plate, cabling, but excludes any reinstatement. The rate includes for supply and installation.

No of Units Rate £ GRC £ Sign face 3.00 to 4.00m 0 1,500 - Sign face 4.00 to 6.00m 0 2,000 - Internally illuminated signs Sign face up to 900mm 0 1,200 -

Total Gross Replacement Cost (GRC) £15,935,945 Depreciation £398,398 Total Depreciated Replacement Cost £15,537,547

Page 140 Agenda Item 7

Title of Report: Financial Performance Report (Quarter 3) Report to be Executive considered by: Date of Meeting: 09 February 2012 Forward Plan Ref: EX2290

Purpose of Report: To inform Ex ecutive of the latest financial performance of the Council.

Recommended Action: For Executive to note this report .

Reason for decision to be To ensure that members are fully aware of the latest taken: financial position for the Council.

Other options considered : None

Key background Papers held in Accountancy. documentation:

The proposals will also help achieve the following Council Plan Theme: CPT13 - Value for Money

The proposals contained in this report will help to achieve the above Council Plan Theme by: Ensuring that the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework is adhered to.

Portfolio Member Details Name & Telephone No.: Councillor Keith Chopping - (0118) 983 2057 E-mail Address: [email protected] Date Portfolio Member 17 January 2012 agreed report:

Contact Officer Details Name: Andy Walker Job Title: Head of Finance Tel. No.: 01635 519879 E-mail Address: [email protected]

Implications

Policy: n/a Financial: The finanical implications of the report have been detailed throughout the summary report and directorate appendices. Personnel: n/a Legal/Procurement: n/a

West Berkshire Council Executive 09 February 2012 Page 141 Property: n/a Risk Management: n/a Equalities Impact n/a Assessment:

Is this item subject to call-in? Yes: No: If not subject to call-in please put a cross in the appropriate box: The item is due to be referred to Council for final approval Delays in implementation could have serious financial implications for the Council Delays in implementation could compromise the Council’s position Considered or reviewed by Overview and Scrutiny Commission or associated Task Groups within preceding six months Item is Urgent Key Decision Report is to note only

West Berkshire Council Executive 09 February 2012 Page 142 Executive Summary

1. Introduction

1.1 This is the third report to Executive as part of the financial reporting cycle for the 2011-12 financial year.

1.2 The forecast revenue underspend for the 2011-12 financial year is £499k.

1.3 There are three service areas forecasting overspends against their budget. These are Adult Social Care (£1,306k), Children’s Services (£276k) and Planning and Countryside (£295k). The two services with the largest underspends are Education (£762k) and Social Care Commissioning & Housing (£331k).

1.4 The other Council services, and respective directorates, are all forecasting close to, or below, a breakeven position for the end of the financial year.

1.5 There are a number of management actions that have occurred in directorates to enable the forecast underspend reported. These are detailed further in appendices 2a to 2e.

2. Proposals

2.1 For Executive to note this report.

2.2 For Executive to note the use of the capitalisation directive of approximately £250k.

3. Conclusion

3.1 That Executive notes the corporate financial forecast of a £499k underspend.

West Berkshire Council Executive 09 February 2012 Page 143 Executive Report

1. Introduction

1.1 The financial performance report summarises the key financial activity and forecasts for the Council.

1.2 The revenue underspend position summarised in this report is a result of forecasts submitted by directorates. These forecasts are based on the projected net expenditure for the rest of the financial year and are adjusted for any management action which occurs to the deliver a forecast underspend position at the end of the financial year.

2. Summary revenue position

2.1 The current revenue budget forecast is showing an underspend of £499k.

2.2 There has been a decrease of £942k in the forecast outturn when compared to quarter 2 at the last Executive.

2.3 Amongst other service areas, the Children’s service is forecasting an overspend due to pressures on residential care placements as well fostering budgets, though these pressures are being mitigated wherever possible. The Adult Social Care service has seen further pressures, with management action reducing these forecasts wherever possible. The Planning & countryside service is forecasting a shortfall on income due to delayed legislation allowing local authorities to set planning fees for themselves which is prime reason for this service overspend.

2.4 The majority of services are forecasting an underspend at this point in the financial year. The service with the largest forecast underspend is education (£724k); this is primarily due to £300k savings on the Home to School Transport budget and is detailed further in the report.

2.5 The capital financing and management cost centre is also showing a significant underspend of £330k. This is detailed further in appendix 2e, but relates to two main areas; additional investment income from early payment of employer’s pension scheme payments to the Berkshire Pension Fund who earn a higher rate of interest than the Council can achieve and savings released from the Timelord working model.

3. Explanation of main variations from quarter 1 to quarter 3 forecasts

3.1 There have been three services where there has been a movement of over £250k between the quarter 1 and the quarter 3 forecasts, these are detailed in the table below:

West Berkshire Council Executive 09 February 2012 Page 144 Service Quarter 1 forecast / Quarter 3 forecast / Variance / £ £ £

Adult Social Care +241k +1,306k +1,065

Education +24k -763k -787k

Social Care +38k -331k -369k Commissioning & Housing

Adult Social Care

3.2 This has been detailed in previous reports to the Executive. The forecast overspend position at Quarter 2 has reduced by some £400k due to some of the management actions detailed in the paragraphs below. There has also been a decrease in the number of domiciliary care clients in past month.

3.3 This reduction has been completed by a more rigorous and robust approach to managing the care delivered by the Adult Social Care via the Resource Panel in response to the significant overspend forecast earlier in the financial year.

Education

3.4 In Month 9 the underspend in Education has risen by £159k from Month 8, now standing at £763k. Education savings have incrementally increased from Month 3, initially to address significant predicted overspend in Children’s Services, but also responding to the overspend position in Adult Social Care.

3.5 The budget area contributing most to overall savings has been Home to School Transport, some £331k. It is difficult to predict the budget’s out-turn, as spend for two thirds of the year is not established until the beginning of the academic year, hence reported in Month 7 onwards. Other significant areas of savings are Connexions £159k and West Berkshire’s contribution to the 14-19 Sub Regional Group (SRG), some £118k. Both of these are negotiated reductions in contract costs and feature in the service’s 2012/13 savings plan. This is also true of Early Years, where savings of £152k are predicted.

3.6 Overall, the service has been responsive to the need to find additional ‘in-year’ savings on top of its set savings and MVF. Some of these savings have been brought forward from 2012/13, which bodes well for delivering next year’s target, where the majority of CYP savings are born by Education

Social Care Commissioning & Housing

3.7 The savings have been delivered primarily from the Supporting People monies within the service budget. In response to the Directorate overspend in Community Services the remaining services, including Social Care Commissioning & Housing, have been seeking to reduce expenditure wherever possible to mitigate the Adult Social Care overspend.

West Berkshire Council Executive 09 February 2012 Page 145 3.8 With the exception of the Planning and Countryside service and Adult Social Care, every other Council service has forecast a greater underspend or lower overspend at month 9 compared to month 3 in response to the overspend position that was forecasts earlier in the financial year.

4. Management actions completed to reduce the overspend reported at month 5

4.1 Following the significant overspend position forecast at month 4 the Chief Executive instructed the organisation to complete a variety of management actions to reduce the predicted overspend and achieve a balanced budget; this was endorsed by the Management Board. These actions, in conjunction with a revised approach in Adult Social Care, have helped enabled the Council to now forecast an underspend corporately.

4.2 The figures included in appendix 1 are a forecast to the year end including the management actions that were reported previously; these are further expanded in appendices 2a to 2e and include:

(1) Recruitment freezes

(2) The movement of some teenagers back into the care of their extended families from expensive residential resources.

(3) Increased support to some families to keep children at home, although this is not always a long-term solution and can be resisted by the courts where they feel that overall risks are high.

(4) Expenditure in Children’s Centres and Early Years settings has been temporarily slowed

(5) In adult Social Care, the Resource Panel has been instructed to manage new commissioning within freed-up budgets, with a 30% reduction applied prior to reallocation, to set against unexpected high cost demand, and winter pressures.

(6) A specialist Continuing Health Care (CHC) worker has been employed to ensure assertive take up of NHS CHC

(7) The conversion of Walnut Close long stay beds (12 in total) into residential beds by October 2011. This allows the Council to collect extra income assuming the occupants are self funders, and ease pressure on delayed transfers of care.

(8) Robust audits of Direct Payments to release unspent monies.

(9) Capping the cost of high cost domiciliary care packages; currently being consulted upon

(10) A further 5% deflator added from mid October (10% in total) to Personal Budgets allocations which are based on the Resource Allocation System.

(11) Reducing pressures in the Highways and Transport Service by a managed reduction in highway maintenance. However, it should be

West Berkshire Council Executive 09 February 2012 Page 146 noted that the published road improvement programmes are not affected by this savings plan and will be completed as planned.

(12) In Planning, expenditure in Planning and Building Control has been reviewed with a view to addressing the shortfall in income, and savings are being made through internal restructuring in Development Control and early closure of the JSPU.

5. Commentary on the revenue forecasts

5.1 The current position shows an underspend of £499k.

5.2 The variances per directorate are highlighted on the chart below:

Summary of forecasts (by directorate)

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

Over Over /(under) spend £k Month 1 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9

-500

-1,000

CYP CS ENV CEX Levies and interest Corporate TOTAL

6. Overview of the 2011-12 budget position and implications for 2012-13

6.1 As detailed in the previous report to the Executive, the recommended minimum level of general reserve for the Council is £6.6m in 2011-12. The underspend, as forecast at present, would leave the Council with General reserves of £7.8m:

West Berkshire Council Executive 09 February 2012 Page 147

Item General reserves / £m General Reserves / £m

As at 31.3.2010 7.1

Underspend in the 2010-11 0.7 financial year

As at 31.3.2011 7.8

Utilising the Community (0.1) Solutions Fund

Utilising funding for the 2011- (0.4) 12 budget

Forecast underspend as at 0.5 month 9 of 2011-12

Predicted general reserves as 7.8 at 31.3.2012

Minimum level of reserves 6.6 from s151 officer

6.2 The 2012-13 budget, due for consideration at the same Executive meeting as this report, does contain a high level of savings, and a number of risks within these savings. The key savings risk that the Council has going forward is relates to the setting of planning fees under a new proposed regime, this totals £679k of saving for 2012-13.

6.3 There are a number of other risks moving forward into 2012-13 and beyond, and these are articulated more fully in the Medium Term Financial Strategy. In summary these relate to the further decreases to Government grants and the establishment of a business rate retention scheme and reduction to funding due to schools converting to academy status.

6.4 It is proposed that any underspend is allocated to a Medium Term Financial Volatility Reserve to mitigate the future impacts of the above risks.

7. Redundancy costs for the 2012-13 financial year

7.1 As reported previously, the Council has been given a capitalisation directive from central Government which will allow the Council to capitalise statutory redundancy costs.

7.2 The Executive is asked to approve the use of this directive to part fund some of the exit costs in respect of 2012-13 from capital resources.

7.3 The exit cost liability stands at about £1.2m. The use of this directive will fund about £250k of statutory redundancy costs; but until all of the proposals are finalised the exact figure for statutory redundancy costs will not be known. The Council has

West Berkshire Council Executive 09 February 2012 Page 148 constructed an Economic Downturn Reserve for funding restructuring costs and as at the end of the financial year it is anticipated that this fund will be able to cover the residual restructuring costs for the 2012-13 budget proposals.

8. Capital summary

8.1 The capital programme is over 95% committed at the end of quarter 3.

8.2 In Children and Young People, the Chieveley and Theale Green school projects have been completed. 90% of the current year’s budget is expected to be spent by year end with the remainder being reprofiled into 2012/13.

8.3 Approximately 69% of the Community Services programme has been committed so far this year. In addition approximately £840,000 housing grants have been allocated to clients, which do not yet show as commitments on Agresso. A one off saving of £80,000 is also anticipated from discretionary housing grants and the £50,000 budget for maintenance of Shaw House will be reprofiled to future years in line with the agreed maintenance schedule.

8.4 Approximately 90% of the Environment Capital Budget has been committed so far this year. £167,000 of the Property and Public Protection programme (mainly in respect of the Carbon Management Programme) and £340,000 of the Highways and Transport Programme (in respect of the Kennet Centre Car Park and the A4 Hambridge Road improvement) are planned to be reprofiled into 2012/13 and future years.

8.5 Expenditure against the Chief Executive’s programme is expected to be on budget for the year except for Special Projects because the Trinity School Scheme will be partly funded by a capital receipt which from the sale of land which will not now take place until 2012/13.

Appendices

Appendix 1a – Revenue summary position Appendix 1b – Capital summary position Appendix 2a to 2e – Directorate summaries

Consultees

Local Stakeholders: Not consulted Officers Consulted: Corporate Board, Budget Holders Trade Union: Not consulted

West Berkshire Council Executive 09 February 2012 Page 149 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 150 2011/12 Budget Monitoring Appendix 1a Period 09 Amended Consolidated Replies

Forecasted Performance Past Performance Expenditure Income Net Net Description Annual Outstanding Expenditure Annual Income Annual Net Cum. Budget to Cum Exp/Inc to Actual Variance Commitment for Budget for Forecast Expenditure Budget for Budget for 31/Dec/2011 31/Dec/2011 to date the year 2011/12 Expenditure Variance 2011/12 Forecast Income Income Variance Net Variance 2011/12 £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT 23,677,574 20,163,097 -3,514,477 282,447 113,082,700 112,721,956 -360,744 -113,782,590 -113,421,846 360,744 0 -699,890 CORPORATE DIRECTOR - CYP 150,957 129,046 -21,911 742 208,540 190,540 -18,000 0 0 0 -18,000 208,540 YOUTH SERVICES & COMMISSIONING 1,853,809 1,751,580 -102,229 86,096 3,173,790 3,096,784 -77,006 -546,950 -461,219 85,731 8,725 2,626,840 EDUCATION SERVICES 8,883,039 6,215,136 -2,667,903 2,339,538 16,412,930 16,745,101 332,171 -3,341,040 -4,436,048 -1,095,008 -762,837 13,071,890 CHILDREN'S SERVICES 7,770,346 7,857,753 87,408 1,239,649 11,893,070 12,225,486 332,416 -687,790 -743,838 -56,048 276,368 11,205,280 CUSTOMER SERVICES 730,754 643,533 -87,221 886 1,017,750 905,703 -112,047 -17,740 -17,740 0 -112,047 1,000,010 CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE DIRECTORATE 43,066,479 36,760,146 -6,306,333 3,949,358 145,788,780 145,885,570 96,790 -118,376,110 -119,080,691 -704,581 -607,791 27,412,670 CORPORATE DIRECTOR - CS 124,202 -282,654 -406,856 314 451,680 451,680 0 -250,000 -250,000 0 0 201,680 HOUSING & PERFORMANCE 5,064,775 4,693,534 -371,240 47,133 7,388,720 7,065,653 -323,067 -613,010 -620,549 -7,539 -330,606 6,775,710 Page 151 ADULTS SOCIAL CARE 25,690,602 26,753,202 1,062,600 482,344 47,939,530 51,089,051 3,149,521 -9,745,650 -11,589,304 -1,843,654 1,305,867 38,193,880 CULTURAL SERVICES 2,940,254 2,944,849 4,595 418,831 4,788,780 4,502,338 -286,442 -743,790 -612,416 131,374 -155,068 4,044,990 COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE 33,819,833 34,108,931 289,098 948,623 60,568,710 63,108,722 2,540,012 -11,352,450 -13,072,269 -1,719,819 820,193 49,216,260 CORPORATE DIRECTOR - ENV 119,748 115,621 -4,127 199 160,870 160,870 0 0 0 0 0 160,870 HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORT 5,487,897 4,221,211 -1,266,687 1,528,570 12,178,800 12,075,670 -103,130 -4,249,710 -4,262,900 -13,190 -116,320 7,929,090 PLANNING AND COUNTRYSIDE 2,698,073 2,855,160 157,088 266,838 6,299,070 6,124,195 -174,875 -2,492,650 -2,022,650 470,000 295,125 3,806,420 PROPERTY & PUBLIC PROTECTION 12,103,242 12,860,636 757,393 194,669 22,388,790 22,202,870 -185,920 -4,170,710 -4,115,500 55,210 -130,710 18,218,080 ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE 20,408,961 20,052,628 -356,333 1,990,276 41,027,530 40,563,605 -463,925 -10,913,070 -10,401,050 512,020 48,095 30,114,460 CHIEF EXECUTIVE 402,563 379,950 -22,613 0 546,090 513,090 -33,000 0 0 0 -33,000 546,090 HUMAN RESOURCES 848,410 751,957 -96,454 88,312 1,457,310 1,390,094 -67,216 -293,500 -269,335 24,165 -43,051 1,163,810 ICT 1,920,410 2,130,341 209,931 123,010 3,621,090 3,576,040 -45,050 -872,130 -884,880 -12,750 -57,800 2,748,960 LEGAL & ELECTORAL 624,287 660,600 36,312 20,666 1,497,740 1,498,162 422 -605,610 -654,848 -49,238 -48,816 892,130 POLICY AND COMMUNICATION 2,351,460 1,949,248 -402,212 78,061 4,129,970 3,916,330 -213,640 -750,390 -755,390 -5,000 -218,640 3,379,580 BENEFITS AND EXCHEQUER -7,231,159 -1,951,418 5,279,741 96,349 47,489,000 48,030,166 541,166 -46,318,010 -46,885,651 -567,641 -26,475 1,170,990 FINANCE 1,694,034 1,995,377 301,342 60,605 4,083,810 4,016,070 -67,740 -1,545,840 -1,479,670 66,170 -1,570 2,537,970 SPECIAL PROJECTS 266 217 -48 0 400 400 0 0 0 0 0 400 CHIEF EXECUTIVE'S DEPARTMENT 610,270 5,916,271 5,306,000 467,001 62,825,410 62,940,352 114,942 -50,385,480 -50,929,774 -544,294 -429,352 12,439,930 CAPITAL FINANCING & MANAGEMENT 655,131 2,027,516 1,372,385 0 6,141,090 6,185,390 44,300 -129,470 -561,720 -432,250 -387,950 6,011,620 MOVEMENT THROUGH RESERVES -735,550 -917,521 -181,971 0 -735,550 -678,222 57,328 0 0 0 57,328 -735,550 LEVIES AND INTEREST -80,419 1,109,996 1,190,414 0 5,405,540 5,507,168 101,628 -129,470 -561,720 -432,250 -330,622 5,276,070 GRAND TOTAL 97,825,124 97,947,971 122,847 7,355,258 315,615,970 318,005,417 2,389,447 -191,156,580 -194,045,504 -2,888,924 -499,477 124,459,390 West Berkshire Capital Programme: 2011/12 Budget Monitoring Appendix 1b Month 9 - Quarter 3 - Summary by Service 03/01/12

Service Area Budget for 2011/12 Expenditure Committed Budget Remaining %age of Budget 2011/12 to date (order placed, to be Committed remaining to be not yet paid) 2011/12 committed

Chief Executive's Directorate Special Projects 7,619,920 7,192,284 2,394,362 -1,966,726 0.00% ICT 1,748,060 1,269,787 114,068 364,205 20.83% Finance 582,900 56,617 10,893 515,391 88.42% Legal & Electoral 12,520 10,727 1,795 -2 0.00% Policy & Communication 185,890 105,012 26,446 54,432 29.28% Total for Chief Executive's Directorate 10,149,290 8,634,427 2,547,563 -1,032,700 0.00%

Community Services Directorate

Page 152 Adult Social Care 213,730 119,276 40,500 53,954 25.24% Social Care Commissioning & Housing 2,354,560 1,541,583 89,986 722,992 30.71% Cultural Services 880,650 334,955 254,515 291,180 33.06% Total for Community Services Directorate 3,448,940 1,995,813 385,000 1,068,127 30.97%

Environment Directorate Property & Public Protection 3,262,120 2,250,017 743,317 268,786 8.24% Highways & Transport 9,810,240 7,226,245 1,693,156 890,839 9.08% Planning & Countryside 905,250 551,487 123,882 229,882 25.39% Total for Environment Directorate 13,977,610 10,027,749 2,560,354 1,389,507 9.94%

Children's and Young People Directorate Education Services 15,869,780 11,375,725 4,192,882 301,174 1.90% Children's Services 122,270 50,946 11,310 60,014 49.08% Children's Commissioning & Quality 59,210 40,712 26,538 -8,040 0.00% Customer Services 42,740 6,027 31,790 4,923 11.52% Total for Children's and Young People Directorate 16,094,000 11,473,410 4,262,520 358,070 2.22%

Council Totals 43,669,840 32,131,400 9,755,437 1,783,003 4.08% 73.58% 22.34%

Previous year Percentages 41.71% 24.07% Appendix 2(a)

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE’S DIRECTORATE POSITION AS AT QUARTER 3:

Month 9 forecast £000 CORPORATE DIRECTOR – CYP -18k YOUTH & COMMISSINING 9k EDUCATION SERVICES -763k CHILDREN’S SERVICES 276k CUSTOMER SERVICES -112k Total -608k

CYP are forecasting £608k under spend. This is an improvement of £106k on period 8 position, and is net of the additional pressure on the service in respect of placements for Looked After Children.

The Directorate has responded to the need to manage down spend in-year, in order to off-set the Adult Social Care budget pressures. To achieve this, a number of areas of activity have been slowed, and proposed savings for 12/13 brought forward for earlier implementation.

The majority of the Directorate under spend is attributable to Education (£763k). The Education under spend has increased by £159k. This is attributable to increasing under spends in respect of Home to School Transport (£346k at period 9 a £15k increase on period 8), as activity is lower in this academic year than the previous one. SEN and Out of County transport budgets have seen significantly reduced levels of demand within this financial year. Across the Residential and Disability Support budgets, the deliberate move towards supplying greater volumes of support packages as opposed to high cost residential placements has generated in year savings of £64k at period 9 (a £47k saving on period 8). It is always difficult to accurately forecast for demand led budgets. Home to School Transport data is not reliable until the Autumn Term of the academic year, as a result the forecasting for these cost centres is often volatile. Residential and Disability budgets also being demand led are volatile high risk budgets, should a child with complex needs require care within the month, the forecast can dramatically fluctuate.

Other areas within the Education Service which have generated significant savings are: Early Years and Children’s Centre budgets, currently forecasting an under spend of £176k (an increase of £25k on period 8), resulting from lower than anticipated demand for development bursaries combined with a deliberate policy of continually slowing expenditure to offset pressures within the Council’s social care budget (Children’s and Adults). There have also been contractual savings within Connextions £179k (£20k increase on period 8), and £40k of additional income received from trading with Academy schools which is a focus area for continual growth.

Page 153 Appendix 2(a)

The forecast position for Children’s Services has increased from £162k in period 8 to £276k in period 9; this has been a result of an increased number of children being taken into care within the month. Youth & Commissioning has decreased the predicated overspend from £74k in period 8 to £9k. This reduction has been a result of deliberately slowing commissioning spend to offset increasing pressures within the Youth Service. The Corporate Director cost centre forecast savings has remained at £18k and Customer Services under spend has decreased marginally (£112k).

The MVF for the Directorate is £637k, a small shortfall is anticipated in Children’s Services and this has been factored into current forecast spending. All other areas of the Directorate are expected to achieve their MVF targets.

Pressures on the 2011-12 budget

The main pressure areas are in the Children’s Social Care budgets and underachievement of income targets within the Youth Service.

Children’s Services The Children’s Social care budget continues as one of the financial pressure points for the Council. The need to keep social work posts filled, and to find placements for all children in care, can make budget overspends hard to contain. In the current financial year, the main pressures are faced within the Residential Care, In house and Independent Fostering placement budgets.

Increasing numbers of children have been received into care since March 2011, most likely as a consequence of changes in referral patterns and pressure on eligibility thresholds post-Haringey. The pattern of higher numbers of teenagers with severe behavioural problems who cannot be contained within mainstream foster care has continued. We aim to place as many Looked After Children as possible in local foster placements, but on occasions these are all full, or the needs of particular children require specialist care. Investment in family support and early intervention services is designed to minimise the numbers of children entering care, thereby preventing higher costs. Tight gatekeeping of entry to the looked after system, and a review of all residential placements, has lessened the pressures on this budget somewhat.

Recruitment to the majority of social work vacancies is now relieving some of the financial pressure currently being experienced in the staff teams, and thereby on agency staffing costs. At the same time, Court-directed supervised contact – much of which takes place in the evening and at weekends – continues to put pressure on these same costs.

Youth & Commissioning The Youth & Commissioning overspend relates to non-achievement of income, exacerbated by both the recession and service reductions within the Youth Service. At month 9 the Youth Service pressure is £162k, this is post the peak usage period over the summer months. This overall service overspend is net of £9k. This is due to the Commissioning Function

Page 154 Appendix 2(a) generating a forecast £154k saving as a result of increased lead-in times to commission new provision under Early Intervention with families..

The overspends being generated within Children’s Services and Youth & Commissioning are being offset predominately by a significant under spend being generated in Education Services. The main savings generated in Education are within the various Home to School Transport budgets. The total Home to School Transport savings at month 9 are £346k. Due to the nature of these budgets being demand-led, and travel patterns relating to academic rather than financial years, take up figures are not fully received until September / October annually, and as a result savings could not be reliably predicted until month 7. Other savings within Education are being generated in Children’s’ Centre and Childcare EIG budgets (£176k) and various contract budgets, for example Connexions (£179k) and 14-19 Partnership Funding (£67k) – all these areas have been earmarked for savings in 12/13.

Management action taken to address emerging pressures

As noted above, the main problem relates to placement costs for looked after children. Tight controls are maintained on children entering the care system, but overall numbers cannot be controlled and court-ordered remands and large siblings groups cannot always be managed in local placements. Whilst new child protection referrals have decreased slightly this year, overall LAC numbers remain the same, with average costs per child increasing due to complexity of some children’s background and the need to use external residential and fostering placements.

Management action in Children’s Services includes: • Offsetting some of the residential and fostering overspend against under spends on the Guardianship and Kinship Care budgets. • All placements reviewed regularly, and children actively moved into and out of placements where this can be done appropriately. • The move of some teenagers back into the care of their extended families from expensive residential resources. • Increased support to some families to keep children at home, although this is not always a long-term solution and can be resisted by the courts where they feel that overall risks are high.

Across the rest of the Directorate steps taken to offset the pressures include: • Only specific, identified vacancies are being recruited to • Spend in Children’s Centres and Early Years settings has been temporarily slowed • Savings in Home to School Transport budgets are apparent now that the new academic year has begun, and these are helping to offset overspends elsewhere in the Directorate.

Page 155 Appendix 2(a)

• All other expenditure is scrutinised by managers, and possibilities for reductions have been identified.

In Children’s Services, precise forecasts cannot be made in respect of looked after numbers and the consequent pressure on placement budgets. Provided that overall numbers of looked after children remain at around 130, and provided that the number of court-ordered placements does not increase, it should be possible to contain the placement budgets spend and hopefully reduce it further. There is little flexibility in other budgets within this service – the majority relate to social work teams and Castle Gate which require minimum staffing levels. Reductions in Family Resource Services are counterproductive, given their role in reducing the need for children to be received into care in the first place.

The Youth Services budgets are coming under increasing pressure due to the current economic climate impacting upon the service’s ability to achieve income targets. Staff within the service are doing all they can to keep activity levels up, but reductions in staffing levels in the Youth Service mean that their ability to do so, and meet income targets, is limited.

A overview is taken of budgets and expenditure across the Directorate as a whole, and spend curtailed in as many areas as possible in order to identify ways of offsetting overspends on those budgets which are under particular pressure.

Risks identified

In respect of Children’s Services there remains a risk to the year-end budget position regarding the financial impact of Looked After Children. The fostering service is coming under increasing pressure with the in-house service being at full capacity resulting in increased usage of independent foster carers.

Page 156 Appendix 2(a)

CAPITAL BUDGET MONITORING

Summary of Overall Position for the Children and Young People’s Directorate

2011/12 Amount Forecast Forecast capital Spent/ Spend in Under/ Over Service programme Committed Year Spend in £000 to 30-9-11 £000 Year £000 £000 Education 15,870 15,569 14,000 -1,870 Children’s 122 62 97 -25 Services Children’s Commissioning 59 67 81 22 and Quality Customer Services 43 38 43 0

Total 16,094 15,736 14,221 -1,873

Since the end of quarter 2 there has been some further minor programme slippage on several projects. However the overall outturn is still forecast to be similar to that reported at Quarter 2. A further £4.38m has been spent since the end of Quarter 2 and it is still anticipated that approximately 90% of the 11/12 C&YP budget will be spent before the end of the financial year.

Page 157 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 158 Appendix 2(b)

COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTORATE POSITION AS MONTH 9

Revenue:

Month 9 forecast £000 CORPORATE DIRECTOR – CS 0 SOCIAL CARE COMMUNITY and HOUSING -331 ASC 1,306 CULTURAL SERVICES -155 Total 820

Director’s Summary

Overview

The Month 9 position reports a forecast overspend at year end for the Directorate of £0.811m. This represents a decrease of £210k compared with last month. Of the £1.3m ASC overspend, £1.2m relates to the cost of LD clients.

Adult Social Care

The overspend position is due to factors in Adult Social Care. A number of factors need to be understood to explain this position:

1. Investment 2011/12

The service received £3.2m of additional cost funding for the 2011/12 financial year. This was split, with just over half being utilised for preceding year’s overspends and their accompanying pressures and £1.5m for known additional costs in the 2011/12 financial year. Following a retrospective review of the clients, and their associated cost of care package as at the 1 st April 2011, the service commenced the year with a number of pressures on its budget. This was primarily driven by increased costs in Learning Disability services partly due to higher commissioning costs which started in Quarter 4 due to young people leaving the parental home, being placed in supported living and care home and therefore incurring greater costs. This unexpected pressure emerged after the 2011/12 budget build was finalised.

2.Learning Disability Services

There is a confirmed overspend on Learning Disability commissioning costs (£1,171k).However the service started the year with a potential overspend of £750k. This was partly due to higher commissioning costs which started in Quarter 4 due to young people leaving the parental home, being placed in supported living and care home and therefore incurring greater costs. This unexpected pressure emerged after the 2011.12 budget build was finalised. Management actions are in place to mitigate costs during 2011.12, but with further high need cases being identified in the first 5 months of this financial year and the Ordinary

Page 159 Appendix 2(b)

Residence pressure identified last month (£150k), an outturn position of £1,171k overspent on LD commissioning is forecast.

3. Reablement Services

The other contributing factor to the Adult Social Care position is the decision to stop charging for in-house reablement (pressure of £75k). This was flagged as a potential pressure in the risk register but was not included in 2011.12 budgets.

4. Older Persons and Physical Disability

Older Persons and Physical Disability budgets are forecast to be £369k overspent resulting from the changes in service delivery to meet the Day Centre closures and the increased use of Personal Budgets.

5. Supporting People contracts

Proposals are currently being discussed to make changes to the Supporting People sheltered housing contracts.

It is expected that MVF will be achieved across the Directorate although this will involve delaying recruitment on key posts. In ASC, savings of £160k after MVF achievement are forecast.

Pressures on the 2011-12 budget Pressures have already been identified with regard to commissioning budgets, specifically in relation to Ordinary Residence and in-house reablement. There are further emerging pressures in connection with ;-

1. NHS Foundation Trust Fines for Delayed Transfers of Care Previously, delays in the RBH were between 3-5 per week. As the budget allocation system has tightened over the past month these numbers have increased to 6-8 per week and are now being brought to the attention of the CEO who fined the Council last year. The Royal Hants and North Hants will continue to fine on any delay and the Great Western Hospital announced it was starting reimbursement on the 1 November 2011. The new community health provider BHCFT may also consider fining for the delays in West Berkshire Community Hospital and Prospect Park although there are no indications of this currently. WBC has between 7-9 delays per week in WBCH usually due to lack of beds. This has recently increased to 13. Staff are vetting all potential hospital discharges to ensure that the Council only seeks to fund those people for whom Continuing Health Care funding is not appropriate. . 2. Southern Cross These homes are being transferred in phases to new owners; whilst the local homes are full, it is not yet clear whether a new owner will seek to renegotiate fee levels. Officers will keep MB updated on this issue as information becomes available.

3. Continuing Healthcare The NHS continues to take a robust position in its review of those funded by the NHS by rejecting new requests or deciding an individual is no longer eligible for CHC funding.

Page 160 Appendix 2(b)

Those individuals with CHC funding are those with the most complex needs and thus the most expensive care costs. Currently one dispute is over £100,000 per annum. A new worker is in place with clear targets to achieve savings in this area. Actions include refusing to move people from hospital until an NHS contribution to their care is agreed; this may then impact (albeit at lower cost) on the fining situation for delayed transfers of care.

Two further pressures concerning capital depleters and limited bed capacity forcing up prices are currently controlled in terms of overspending but the risk remains.

Management action to address the emerging pressures

The Directorate has put a number of actions in place to control spend, and these will have an impact over time.

• The Resource Panel has been instructed to manage new commissioning within freed-up budgets, with a 30% reduction applied prior to reallocation, to set against unexpected high cost demand, and possible winter pressures. The restrictions are currently being met with a further small surplus available above the 30% • The ‘Critical’ eligibility threshold is rigorously applied. • Robust contract negotiations are ongoing with providers to reduce prices using the Care Funding Calculator • A specialist Continuing Health Care (CHC) worker is ensuring assertive take up of NHS CHC • Walnut Close has now converted all its beds to long stay (12 in total) and this will allow the Council to collect extra income assuming the occupants are self funders, and ease pressure on delayed transfers of care. • Robust audit of Direct Payments to release unspent monies. • Capping the cost of high cost domiciliary care packages. Currently out to consultation; • Vacancies kept vacant for the latter half of the year • A further 5% deflator added from mid October (10% in total) to PB allocations which are based on the RAS.

Risks identified

It should be noted that the forecast position contains a large risk in that it is based on the ability to hold demand at a static level, which experience has proved to be difficult.

Page 161 Appendix 2(b)

CAPITAL BUDGET MONITORING 2011/12

Summary of Overall Position for the Community Services Directorate

Amount 2011/12 Spent/ Forecast Forecast Service capital Committed Spend in Under/ Over programme to 31-12-11 Year Spend in Year £000 £000 £000 £000 Adult Social Care 214 160 214 0 Housing and 2,354 1632 2,229 -125 Performance Cultural Services 881 589 591 -290

Total 3,449 2,381 3, 034 -415

Approximately 69% of the Community Services programme has been committed so far this year. In addition approximately £840,000 housing grants have been allocated to clients, which do not yet show as commitments on Agresso.

Of the forecast underspend in Housing, £80,000 is a one off saving due to reduced demand for discretionary housing grants and the £45,000 will be reprofiled to 2012/13 because of delays to a temporary accommodation renovation project.

Within Cultural Services, £50,000 in respect of lifetime maintenance of Shaw House and £240,000 for modernisation of the Northcroft Leisure Centre (committed by the Council as part of the Leisure Centre management contract) will be reprofiled into 2012/13 and future years.

The consultation period for the initial design proposals for the Museum Redevelopment Project has now finished and changes have been made to the design in response to comments received from English Heritage. Applications for planning permission and listed buildings consent will be submitted shortly.

Page 162 Appendix 2(c)

ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE POSITION AS AT QUARTER 3:

Revenue:

Month 9 forecast £000 CORPORATE DIRECTOR - ENV 0 HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORT -116 PLANNING & COUNTRYSIDE 295 PROPERTY & PUBLIC PROTECTION -131 Total 48

Corporate Director’s summary:

Overview

1.1 The forecast revenue over spend for the Environment Directorate as a whole is £48,000 against the budget of £30.1 million. The over spend has decreased by £177,000 since Month 8 where the directorate was reporting an over spend of £225,000.

The improved position is a result of:-

• Improvements in income from parking, street work fines and S38 totalling £171,000. There have been other savings from holding posts vacant and reductions in activities e.g. building cleaning and maintenance totalling £60k. There has been a saving of £18k in the public transport budget.

• Against this there is an increased pressure of £75,000 in Development Control, Building Control and Planning Policy largely due to an increased pressure on income forecast from planning fees.

1.2 No variance is expected in the Corporate Director’s budget.

1.3 Highways and Transport is now forecasting an under spend of £116,000 whereas at Month 8 the forecast was a pressure of £96,000. There are pressures in car parking income, public transport and Section 38 and Section 278 fee income totalling £242,000. These are being managed by a reduction in highways maintenance and other budget areas. The service pressure has also been offset by a lower than expected spend on concessionary fares redemptions and over achievement of income from street works fines. Due to the mild winter the emergencies budget is currently forecasting to budget which could change during the last quarter depending on the cost of tree clearance following the high winds earlier this month and depending on the weather conditions over the next three months.

1.4 The Planning and Countryside service is forecasting an over spend of £295,000, an increase of £55,000 from month eight. The delay in the introduction of legislation surrounding the setting of Development Control planning fees will mean that the

Page 163 Appendix 2(c)

new fee structure is unlikely to be implemented in 2011-12. This will result in a pressure of £279,000 against the income target. Income from Development Control since month eight has been below expectations and the service is now forecasting a pressure of £325,000 on fee income. Building Control income levels are consistently below budget and are forecasting a pressure of £150,000.

1.5 The Property and Public Protection budget is expected to be under spent by £131,000. This is to be achieved by delaying recruitment, cutting back on expenditure plans, and savings on contract maintenance.

Pressures on the 2011-12 Budget

1.6 In Highways and Transport, despite a £220,000 reduction in income target in 2011/12, income from the parking operation during the first nine months is below the expected level. There is expected to be an overall shortfall of £81,000 in income. This is due to lower car parking income, lower than expected PCN income and a new pressure from a reduction in Season Ticket income. However, this is offset by a new income stream from the Automatic Number Plate Recognition system installed on Parkway Bridge in late 2011.

1.7 The majority of the MVF target has been identified but £33,000 remains a pressure. There is a pressure following the withdrawal of Newbury Buses from the Newbury/Tesco and Newbury/Wash Common services and subsequent re- tendering of the contract. The contract was renewed which has led to a pressure of £47,000. There is a £108,000 pressure on Section 38 and Section 278 fees due to the continuing economic climate and its effect on development. It is anticipated that income from developers’ fees will increase from 2012/13 provided that Newbury Racecourse and other schemes in the pipeline go ahead.

1.8 The delay of legislation surrounding the setting of Development Control planning fees is expected to result in a pressure of £279,000 against the income target. Previously the service was forecasting to offset some of this pressure by improved income from Development Control in the first seven months. However, income since month eight has been lower than expected and this can no longer offset the pressure. The total pressure on Development Control in come is now forecast to be £325,000. Building Control income is forecasting a year end income pressure of £150,000; income is consistently below budget due to the economic climate and competition, resulting in the loss of domestic market share and some major contracts.

1.9 There are pressures in Property and Public Protection of £36,000 in rental income together with a shortfall in fair funding income of £33,000.

Management action taken to address emerging pressures

1.10 Pressures in the Highways and Transport Service will be managed by a reduction in highway maintenance. It should be noted that the published road improvement programmes are not affected by this savings plan and will be completed as planned.

Page 164 Appendix 2(c)

1.11 In Planning, until the legislation relating to planning fees is introduced the income will continue to suffer. Expenditure in Planning and Countryside has been reviewed with a view to addressing the shortfall in income, and savings are being made through reductions in expenditure on consultancy and advertising and the early closure of the JSPU. A number of posts have also been held vacant until the end of the financial year.

1.12 The pressures in Property and Public Protection will be reduced through delaying recruitment, savings from cleaner greener and office cleaning. £31,000 of the £38,000 shortfall in fair funding income will be met from savings within the service.

Risks identified

Potential risks include:

• Further pressure on car park income, planning and building control income due to the impact of changes in demand

• Severe weather would put pressure on winter maintenance budgets

• An unforeseen property maintenance issue would put pressure on the reactive maintenance budget

• Increased expenditure on the Local Development Framework following the suspension of the Examination in Public

Page 165 Appendix 2(c)

CAPITAL BUDGET MONITORING

1. Summary of Overall Position for the Environment Directorate

Amount 2011/12 Spent/ Forecast Forecast Service capital Committed Spend in Under/ Over programme to 31-12-11 Year Spend in £000 £000 £000 Year £000 Property and 3,262 2,993 3,105 -157 Public Protection Highways and 9,810 8,920 9,470 -340 Transport Planning and 905 675 905 0 Countryside Total 13,977 12,588 13,480 -497

Approximately 90% of the Environment Capital Budget has been committed so far this year. £167,000 of the Property and Public Protection programme (mainly in respect of the Carbon Management Programme) and £340,000 of the Highways and Transport Programme (in respect of the Kennet Centre Car Park and the A4 Hambridge Road improvement) are planned to be reprofiled into 2012/13 and future years.

These underspends are expected to be partly offset by a £10,000 overspend on works to the former Landfill Site in London Road Bracknell which was not budgeted for in 2011/12 because of a lack of information from Bracknell Forest.

Page 166 Appendix 2(d)

CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S DIRECTORATE POSITION AS AT QUARTER 3

Revenue:

Month 9 forecast £000 CHIEF EXECUTIVE -33 HUMAN RESOURCES -43 ICT -58 LEGAL & ELECTORAL -49 POLICY & COMMUNICATION -219 BENEFITS & EXCHEQUER -26 FINANCE -1 SPECIAL PROJECTS 0 Tot al -429

Corporate Director’s summary:

Overview

The Directorate is forecasting to be £429k under spent at outturn. Services have cut back on expenditure plans and are freezing vacancies to achieve these savings which are part of a wider exercise to bring the Council’s overall revenue budget back into balance.

During month 9 further savings have been identified compared to previous months; ICT have identified £20k savings in IT maintenance and refunds of £20k have been negotiated with telecoms suppliers. In Legal & Electoral, an additional £13k income is being forecast in the Registration service. HR have identified a further saving of £10k from training courses that will now not be run in 2011/12. Further vacancy savings have been identified across the directorate of £28k.

Pressures on the 2011-12 budget

There is a £35k pressure in ICT on print room income, which would appear at first sight to be due to lower work volumes. This is being looked at in greater detail.

Management action taken to address emerging pressures

Savings are being identified across the Directorate to manage emerging pressures largely at a corporate level. These savings primarily relate to holding vacant posts open. In some areas expenditure plans are being cut back.

Risks identified

No major risks have been identified at this point.

Page 167 Appendix 2(d)

CAPITAL BUDGET MONITORING

1. Summary of Overall Position for the Chief Executive’s Directorate

Amount 2011/12 Spent/ Forecast Forecast Service capital Committed Spend in Under/ Over programme to 31-12-11 Year Spend in Year £000 £000 £000 £000 Special Projects 7,619 9,587 9,325 1,706 ICT 1,748 1,384 1,748 0 Finance 583 67 407 -176 Legal and Electoral 13 13 13 0 Policy and 186 131 186 0 Communication Total 10 ,149 11,182 11,679 1,530

Forecast spend for Special Projects is £1.7 million over the budget for the current year. This is mainly because the Trinity School Scheme will be partly funded by a capital receipt which from the sale of land which will not now take place until 2012/13.

Page 168 Appendix 2(e)

BELOW THE LINE FORECASTS AS AT Quarter 3:

As at month 9 the levies and interest line is showing a benefit of £331k compared to the budgeted figure.

This is because the Council paid over its pension contributions to the Royal Berkshire Pension fund at the start of the financial year. This has enabled the Pension Fund to give the Council a discount of approximately 3% on the total amount which would have been due, if payment had been made in monthly instalments. This saving is significantly higher than the rate of interest which the Council would earn on the additional amounts which it could have invested throughout the year if the pension contributions were paid monthly (the Council’s net rate of return on its investments was 0.66% in 2010/11). This arrangement therefore brings a net benefit to the Council of approximately £280k.

There is also a benefit from releasing savings as part of the Timelord cost model. Now that phase 3 is drawing to a close this saving will be further reviewed but a figure of at £100k is anticipated.

There is however a cost due to the Discretionary Housing Payment scheme of £43k that would need to be funded from general reserves as outlined in the main report.

Page 169 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 170 Agenda Item 8 Establishment Summary Report Title of Report: Quarter Three 2011/12

Purpose of Report: To provide a summary report on changes to the Council's Establishment over the third quarter of 2011/12

Key background • HR Resourcelink Database documentation: • Q3 Establishment Summary 2010/11 • Q4 Establishment Report 2010/11 • Q1 Establishment Summary 2011/12 • Q2 Establishment Summary 2011/12 • Agresso data • Payroll data

Summary collated by Name: Kate Toone Job Title: Management Information Officer Tel. No.: 01635 519819 E-mail Address: [email protected]

West Berkshire Council Resource Management Working Group 28 February 2012 Page 171 Executive Summary

1. Introduction

1.1 This report summarises the changes to the WBC Establishment over quarter three 2011/12.

2. The Total Establishment

2.1 During quarter three 2011/12 the total WBC Establishment decreased by 2.65 FTE. The total Establishment now totals 1544.75 FTE.

3. WBC Funded Establishment

3.1 The WBC funded Establishment increased by 1.82 FTE in quarter three. The total FTE which is WBC funded now totals 1451.00 FTE.

4. External and Joint Funded Establishment

4.1 The external and joint funded Establishment decreased by 4.48 FTE in quarter three. The total FTE which is externally and jointly funded now totals 93.75 FTE.

5. Proposal

5.1 None – for information only

6. Conclusions

6.1 The total Establishment has decreased over the quarter.

6.2 The total Establishment at the end of quarter three 2011/12 was 1544.75 FTE, a decrease of 2.65 FTE when compared to the total of 1547.40 FTE at the end of quarter two 2011/12.

6.3 The amount of vacant FTE decreased to 142.66 FTE. At the end of quarter two there was 148.59 vacant FTE.

6.4 The overall vacancy rate was 9.24%, down from 9.60% at the end of quarter two. For comparison the vacancy rate at quarter three 2010/11 was 12.80%.

6.5 The rolling annual turnover rate was 15.78%. For comparison the rate at quarter two was 18.02%.

6.6 The rolling annual voluntary turnover rate (excludes redundancies) was 6.83%. For comparison the rate at quarter three 2010/11 was 7.02%.

West Berkshire Council Resource Management Working Group 28 February 2012 Page 172 Executive Report

1. Introduction

1.1 The data used to complete this report is taken from the HR/Payroll system Resourcelink and previous quarterly Establishment reports.

1.2 This report summarises the changes to the WBC Establishment over quarter three 2011/12.

2. The Total Establishment

2.1 During quarter three 2011/12 the total WBC Establishment decreased by 2.65 FTE.

2.2 The total Establishment now totals 1544.75 FTE.

2.3 The graph below shows how the Establishment has decreased over the past year; a reduction of 10.84% or 187.85 FTE.

Total WBC Establishment FTE over the last year (Q3 2010/11 to Q3 2011/12)

1750.00 1732.59 1700.00

1650.00 1628.88 1600.00 FTE 1576.07 1550.00 1547.40 1544.75

1500.00

1450.00 Q3 FTE Q4 FTE Q1 FTE Q2 FTE Q3 FTE 2010/11 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12

2.4 The total change to the whole Establishment over the past year can also be seen in the table below

The Total Establishment Total % Q3 FTE Q4 FTE Q1 FTE Q2 FTE Q3 FTE difference difference 2010/11 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 over the over year year 1732.59 1628.88 1576.07 1547.40 1544.75 -187.85 -10.84

West Berkshire Council Resource Management Working Group 28 February 2012 Page 173 2.5 The quarter’s changes by directorate are made up as follows:

Chief Executive + 0.01 FTE Children and Young People - 0.86 FTE Community Services - 1.50 FTE Environment - 0.30 FTE Total change - 2.65 FTE 2.6 A summary of total WBC Establishment FTE by service is shown at appendix one.

3. WBC Funded Establishment

3.1 The WBC funded Establishment increased by 1.82 FTE in quarter three.

3.2 The total FTE which is WBC funded now totals 1451.00 FTE.

3.3 The total change in WBC funded Establishment over the past year can be seen in the table below.

WBC Funded Establishment Total % Q3 FTE Q4 FTE Q1 FTE Q2 FTE Q3 FTE difference Difference 2010/11 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 over the over Year year 1492.27 1418.39 1493.47 1449.18 1451.00 -41.27 -2.77

3.4 The change in WBC funded Establishment by directorate over the past year can be seen in the table below.

WBC Funded Total % Q3 FTE Q4 FTE Q1 FTE Q2 FTE Q3 FTE difference Difference 2010/11 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 over the over Year year Chief Executive 278.54 243.49 254.26 250.76 249.96 -28.58 -10.26 Children and Young People 357.22 335.98 414.62 398.40 401.82 44.60 12.49 Community Services 568.43 559.49 512.43 491.67 490.17 -78.26 -13.77 Environment 288.08 279.44 312.16 308.35 309.05 20.97 7.28 Total 1492.27 1418.39 1493.47 1449.18 1451.00 -41.27 -2.77

West Berkshire Council Resource Management Working Group 28 February 2012 Page 174

3.5 The table below shows how the WBC funded Establishment has changed by service area in quarter three 2011/12 when compared to quarters four 2010/11 and quarters one and two 2011/12. A summary of funding by directorate can be seen at appendix two.

WBC Funded Establishment Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 FTE FTE FTE FTE CEO & Support 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.42 Benefits & Exchequer 53.59 53.59 50.59 50.59 Finance 53.42 57.23 57.23 56.23 Human Resources 20.79 27.44 27.44 27.44 ICT 49.76 52.76 53.76 53.76 Legal & Electoral Services 26.89 26.54 25.89 25.89 Policy & Communication 32.62 34.28 33.43 33.63 Special Projects 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Chief Executive 243.49 254.26 250.76 249.96 Children's Services 126.67 154.58 152.16 151.69 Youth Services and Commissioning 48.01 58.80 51.20 56.49 Customer Services 35.99 35.99 35.99 35.99 Education Services 123.31 163.25 157.05 155.65 Director & Support 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Total Children and Young People 335.98 414.62 398.40 401.82 Adult Social Care 425.80 371.00 356.59 355.22 Cultural Services 72.99 76.03 75.03 75.03 Social Care Commissioning and 58.70 62.39 57.04 56.92 Housing System Transformation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Director & Support 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Total Community Services 559.49 512.43 491.67 490.17 Property and Public Protection 85.76 91.56 90.96 92.74 Highways & Transport 104.90 113.96 113.96 112.88 Planning and Countryside 86.77 104.64 101.43 101.43 Director Support 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Total Environment 279.44 312.16 308.35 309.05 GRAND TOTALS 1,418.39 1,493.47 1449.18 1451.00

4. External and Joint Funded Establishment

4.1 The external and joint funded Establishment decreased by 4.48 FTE in quarter three.

4.2 The total FTE which is externally and jointly funded now totals 93.75 FTE.

4.3 The total change in external and jointly funded FTE over the past year is summarised in the table below.

Joint and Externally Funded Establishment Total % Q3 FTE Q4 FTE Q1 FTE Q2 FTE Q3 FTE difference Difference 2010/11 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 over the over Year year 240.32 210.48 82.60 98.22 93.75 -146.58 -60.99

West Berkshire Council Resource Management Working Group 28 February 2012 Page 175

4.4 The change in joint and externally funded Establishment by directorate over the past year can be seen in the table below.

Joint and Externally Funded Establishment Total % Q3 FTE Q4 FTE Q1 FTE Q2 FTE Q3 FTE difference Difference 2010/11 2010/11 2011/12 2011/12 2011/12 over the over Year year Chief Executive 37.43 37.62 33.98 33.97 34.78 -2.65 -7.08 Children and Young People 140.86 124.32 39.62 47.05 42.76 -98.10 -69.64 Community Services 27.44 18.87 6.00 8.00 8.00 -19.44 -70.84 Environment 34.59 29.67 3.00 9.20 8.20 -26.39 -76.29 Total 240.32 240.32 82.60 98.22 93.75 -146.58 -60.99

4.5 The table below shows how the joint and externally funded posts on the Establishment have changed by service area in quarter three 2011/12 compared to quarter four 2010/11 and quarters one and two 2011/12. A summary of funding by directorate can be seen at appendix two.

Joint Funded Establishment External Funded Establishment Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE FTE 10/11 11/12 11/12 11/12 10/11 11/12 11/12 11/12 CEO & Support 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Benefits & Exchequer 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 21.97 22.98 22.97 22.97 Finance 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 Human Resources 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ICT 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Legal & Electoral Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 Policy & Communication 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Special Projects 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Total Chief Executive 7.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 30.62 29.98 29.97 30.78 Children's Services 26.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.00 5.23 6.03 6.03 Youth Services and 6.29 0.00 5.29 0.00 3.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 Commissioning Customer Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Education Services 21.79 6.38 6.38 5.51 58.41 27.01 28.35 30.22 Director & Support 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Children and Young People 54.29 7.38 12.66 6.51 70.03 32.24 34.38 36.25 Adult Social Care 3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cultural Services 2.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 1.00 1.00 Housing and Performance 3.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 System Transformation 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Director & Support 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Community Services 9.65 5.00 6.00 6.00 9.22 1.00 2.00 2.00 Property and Public Protection 3.60 0.00 1.60 1.60 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Highways & Transport 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Planning and Countryside 1.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.26 1.00 4.60 4.60 Director & Support 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Environment 7.41 0.00 1.60 1.60 22.26 3.00 7.60 6.60 GRAND TOTALS 78.35 16.38 24.26 18.11 132.13 66.22 73.96 75.63

West Berkshire Council Resource Management Working Group 28 February 2012 Page 176 5. Conclusions

5.1 The total Establishment has decreased over the quarter.

5.2 The total Establishment at the end of quarter three 2011/12 was 1544.75 FTE, a decrease of 2.65 FTE when compared to the total of 1547.40 FTE at the end of quarter two 2011/12.

5.3 The amount of vacant FTE decreased to 142.66 FTE. At the end of quarter two there was 148.59 vacant FTE.

5.4 The overall vacancy rate was 9.24%, down from 9.60% at the end of quarter two. For comparison the vacancy rate at quarter three 2010/11 was 12.80%.

5.5 The rolling annual turnover rate was 15.78%. For comparison the rate at quarter two was 18.02%.

5.6 The rolling annual voluntary turnover rate (excludes redundancies) was 6.83%. For comparison the rate at quarter three 2010/11 was 7.02%.

Appendices

Appendix 1 Establishment trends Q4 2010/11 to Q3 2011/12 (figures for comparison over the past 4 quarters) Appendix 2 Trends in funding for established posts Q4 2010/11 to Q3 2011/12

Consultees

Local Stakeholders: Corporate Directors, Head of HR Cllrs Jones, Stansfeld, Chopping (Conservative) Cllr Brooks (Liberal Democrat) Resource Management Working Group Officers Consulted: As above Trade Union: Not consulted

West Berkshire Council Resource Management Working Group 28 February 2012 Page 177 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 178 APPENDIX 1

Establishment Trends Q4 2010/11 to Q3 2011/12

The quarterly tables below show Establishment data for West Berkshire Council. This includes Establishment FTE, Occupied FTE, Vacancy details, Headcount and Turnover for the current quarter.

Quarter 3 2011/12 Quarter 2 2011/12 Permanent and Fixed Term Establishment as at 31 December 2011 Permanent and Fixed Term Establishment as at 30 September 2011 Per Service Per Per Service Per Vacant FTE CurrentWBC CurrentWBC CurrentWBC OccupiedFTE (rolling year) (rolling % year) (rolling % StaffHeadcount StaffHeadcount Annual Turnover Annual Turnover EstablishmentFTE EstablishmentFTE VacancyRate byDirectorate CEO & Support 2.42 2.61 -0.19 3 0.00 CEO & Support 2.42 2.42 0.00 Benefits & Exchequer 77.57 70.34 7.23 78 7.45 Benefits & Exchequer 77.57 77.57 4.91 Finance 57.04 51.53 5.51 55 7.34 Finance 57.23 57.23 13.91 Human Resources 27.44 25.36 2.08 29 21.05 Human Resources 27.44 27.44 20.34 ICT 53.76 50.57 3.19 54 3.70 ICT 53.76 53.76 9.17 Legal & Electoral Services 25.89 25.78 0.12 33 11.59 Legal & Electoral Services 25.89 25.89 9.38 Page 179 Policy & Communication 35.63 30.41 5.21 36 20.78 Policy & Communication 35.43 35.43 25.58 Special Projects 5.00 5.00 0.00 5 0.00 Special Projects 5.00 5.00 18.18 Total Chief Executive 284.74 261.59 23.16 293 10.05 8.13 Total Chief Executive 284.73 284.73 12.40 Children's Services 158.73 144.49 14.23 165 14.46 Children's Services 159.19 159.19 14.46 Youth Services and Commissioning 56.49 47.86 8.64 72 28.05 Youth Services and Commissioning 56.49 56.49 36.16 Customer Services 35.99 31.50 4.49 38 7.69 Customer Services 35.99 35.99 7.41 Education Services 191.38 180.48 10.90 240 17.21 Education Services 191.78 191.78 20.72 Director & Support 2.00 2.00 0.00 2 0.00 Director & Support 2.00 2.00 0.00 Total Children and Young People 444.58 406.33 38.26 517 17.26 8.61 Total Children and Young People 445.45 445.45 20.26 Adult Social Care 360.22 316.87 43.35 387 24.88 Adult Social Care 361.59 361.59 25.43 Cultural Services 76.03 65.94 10.09 100 14.78 Cultural Services 76.03 76.03 20.10 Social Care Commissioning and Housing 58.92 51.35 7.57 57 11.38 Housing and Performance 59.04 59.04 13.64 Director & Support 3.00 2.41 0.59 3 0.00 Director & Support 3.00 3.00 0.00 Total Community Services 498.17 436.57 61.60 547 21.66 12.37 Total Community Services 499.67 499.67 23.12 Property and Public Protection 95.34 86.05 9.29 93 4.32 Property and Public Protection 94.56 94.56 6.52 Highways & Transport 113.88 110.96 2.92 118 11.45 Highways & Transport 114.96 114.96 13.33 Planning and Countryside 106.03 98.60 7.43 108 6.48 Planning and Countryside 106.03 106.03 9.13 Director & Support 2.00 2.00 0.00 2 0.00 Director & Support 2.00 2.00 0.00 Total Environment 317.25 297.61 19.64 321 7.59 6.19 Total Environment 317.55 317.55 9.81 GRAND TOTALS 1544.75 1402.09 142.66 # 15.78 9.24 GRAND TOTALS 1547.40 # 18.02 *** ***

# The headcount per service should not be totalled to give a total headcount. Some employees may have several posts and this would give an inaccurate figure. *** Represents turnover based on leavers from WBC in past rolling year and calculated through average headcount throughout the year. Turnover relates to crude turnover only and only measures external leavers not internal movement. APPENDIX 1

Quarter 1 2010/11 Quarter 4 2010/11 Permanent and Fixed Term Establishment as at 30 June 2011 Permanent and Fixed Term Establishment as at 31 March 2011 Per Service Per Per Service Per CurrentWBC CurrentWBC (rolling year) (rolling % (rolling year) (rolling % StaffHeadcount StaffHeadcount Annual Turnover Annual Turnover EstablishmentFTE EstablishmentFTE CEO & Support 2.42 3 0.00 CEO & Support 2.42 3 0.00 Benefits & Exchequer 80.57 81 4.85 Benefits & Exchequer 80.57 82 4.82 Finance 57.23 56 12.17 Finance 56.42 53 12.39 Human Resources 27.44 29 31.03 Human Resources 20.79 26 31.58 ICT 52.76 52 9.26 ICT 52.76 51 13.21 Legal & Electoral Services 26.54 32 21.88 Legal & Electoral Services 27.54 36 17.39 Policy & Communication 36.28 38 32.18 Policy & Communication 35.62 39 29.21 Special Projects 5.00 5 18.18 Special Projects 5.00 5 18.18 Total Chief Executive 288.24 296.00 15.31 Total Chief Executive 281.11 295.00 15.24 Children's Services 160.81 163 14.07 Children's Services 160.88 168 13.45 Youth Services and Commissioning 58.80 74 41.34 Youth Services and Commissioning 57.92 77 38.25 Page 180 Customer Services 35.99 38 10.00 Customer Services 35.99 40 9.64 Education Services 196.64 235 20.93 Education Services 203.51 238 18.59 Director & Support 2.00 2 0.00 Director & Support 2.00 2 0.00 Total Children and Young People 454.24 512.00 21.34 Total Children and Young People 460.30 525.00 19.49 Adult Social Care 376.00 394 21.79 Adult Social Care 429.61 459 9.73 Cultural Services 76.03 101 22.64 Cultural Services 76.05 106 25.00 Housing and Performance 63.39 58 16.79 Housing and Performance 68.70 66 14.39 Director & Support 3.00 3 0.00 System Transformation 2.00 2 66.67 Total Community Services 518.43 556.00 21.22 Director & Support 2.00 2 0.00 Property and Public Protection 92.56 92 4.32 Total Community Services 578.36 635.00 13.04 Highways & Transport 114.96 110 12.56 Property and Public Protection 92.36 92 4.35 Planning and Countryside 105.64 106 12.90 Highways & Transport 108.90 107 10.09 Director & Support 2.00 2 0.00 Planning and Countryside 105.84 108 12.44 Total Environment 315.16 310.00 10.17 Director & Support 2.00 2 0.00 GRAND TOTALS 1576.07 # 18.28 Total Environment 309.10 309.00 9.19 *** GRAND TOTALS 1628.88 # 14.69 *** APPENDIX 2

Trends in Funding for Established Posts Q4 2010/11 to Q3 2011/12

The figures below show the position over the past four quarters for WBC, joint and external funded posts. All posts (permanent or fixed term) are included in this report.

WBC Funded Established Posts

WBC funded post FTE increased by 1.83 FTE over the quarter. 600

WBC Funded 500 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 400 Chief Executive 243.49 254.26 250.76 249.96 Children and Young People 335.98 414.62 398.40 401.82 300 Community Services 559.49 512.43 491.67 490.17 200 Environment 279.44 312.16 308.35 309.05 Total 1418.39 1493.47 1449.18 1451.00 100

0 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

Joint funded post FTE decreased by 6.15 FTE over the quarter. Joint Funded Established Posts

60 Joint Funding 56 52 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 48 Chief Executive 7.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 44 40 Children and Young People 54.29 7.38 12.66 6.51 36 32 Community Services 9.65 5.00 6.00 6.00 28 Environment 7.41 0.00 1.60 1.60 24 20 Total 78.35 16.38 24.26 18.11 16 12 8 4 0 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

Externally funded post FTE increased by 1.67 FTE over the quarter. External Funded Established Posts

80 External Funding Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 60 Chief Executive 30.62 29.98 29.97 30.78 Children and Young People 70.03 32.24 34.38 36.25 40 Community Services 9.22 1.00 2.00 2.00 Environment 22.26 3.00 7.60 6.60 Total 132.13 66.22 73.96 75.63 20

0 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 KEY Chief Executive diamond Children and Young People square Community Services triangle Environment circle

Page 181 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 182 Agenda Item 9

Title of Report: Timelord Programme - Closure Report to be Resource Management Working Group considered by: Date of Meeting: 28 February 2012

Purpose of Report: To update the Resource Management Working Group at the closure of the Council’s Timelord Programme Recommended Action:

Resource Management Select Committee Chairman Name & Telephone No.: Councillor Tony Vickers – Tel: (01635) 230046 E-mail Address: [email protected]

Contact Officer Details Name: Jackie Jordan Job Title: Timelord Programme Co-ordinator Tel. No.: 01635 519301 E-mail Address: [email protected]

West Berkshire Council Resource Management Working Group 28 February 2012 Page 183 Executive Summary

1. Introduction

1.1 Timelord Programme Board - the governance group that has overseen the implementation of this change programme - has now authorised the closure of the Programme and the Board has been disbanded. The programme sponsors - Nick Carter and Pamela Bale - have requested that a final update is provided to both Corporate Board and Management Board

1.2 Accordingly, this report provides readers with:

(1) the background to the Timelord Programme (the Council's mobile and flexible working change programme) with a brief outline of how it has been structured and implemented over the past three years;

(2) re-states the benefits that were envisaged at the programme outset and considers whether or not these have been achieved as well as identifying originally unforeseen benefits;

(3) details the total capital costs of the programme, broken down by phase and how these have been managed; separates the capital costs associated with achieving the Council's Accommodation Strategy (office accommodation acquisition and fit out costs) from the "Timelord" element, (the ICT costs associated with mobilising the workforce) and determines the cost avoidance - through reduction in office footprint - that has been made possible by the Timelord investment;

(4) re-states the business case which has been reviewed at Programme end to provide a picture of the impact on revenue.

West Berkshire Council Resource Management Working Group 28 February 2012 Page 184 Executive Report

1. Introduction

1.1 The Timelord Programme - a programme to introduce mobile and flexible working in West Berkshire Council - was first proposed in 2008 following a Feasibility Study carried out with our partners in the venture, Vodafone. In August 2008 Members agreed to a pilot phase (Phase 1 - Turnhams Green); in January 2009 Phase 2 was commenced (West Street House which was later supplemented with West Point) and following a further feasibility study Phase 3 was approved in September 2010. With the completion of Phase 3, the programme has now come to an end – on time and within budget.

2. Benefits Realisation

2.1 The original vision for the Timelord Programme looked to achieve "triple win" benefits for West Berkshire Council, its customers and staff. These were:

Benefits for WBC Benefits for Customers Benefits for Staff

Ø Increased productivity for Ø Increased face to face Ø Improved staff flexible staff advisory time available satisfaction

Ø Reduced travel and Ø Increased face to face Ø Reduced travel time and expense advisory time available cost Ø Quicker and easier for Ø Reduced turnover Ø Improved work/home life customers to contact balance Ø Reduced office footprint WBC staff Ø Reduced stress and sickness

2.2 The Programme's timescale December 2008 to December 2011 has coincided with a difficult period in terms of external economic influences and for that reason it has proved particularly difficult to precisely measure some of the benefits. Some purely statistical data, such as reduced turnover, reduced travel which was demonstrated in Phases 1 and 2 cannot if measured again today be attributed wholly to Timelord. Conversely if we attempted to measure staff satisfaction with Timelord today (which was more positive than negative at the end of Phases 1 and 2), it would be hard to divorce it from other influences such as Adult Social Care Restructuring, redundancies, pay freezes etc. However, it is not unreasonable to assume that the benefits brought about by Timelord which were demonstrated in the earlier phases will have lessened the negative impact of external influences latterly.

2.3 Some benefits have been realised that were not originally foreseen and these are

• An enabler for business continuity (winter of 2010/11 was an example of this) • Reduction in unproductive time caused by officers travelling between offices • Improved communications enabled between staff now based in same office • Improved environment for all staff based in corporate offices, including

West Berkshire Council Resource Management Working Group 28 February 2012 Page 185 o Newly decorated, cleaner, brighter office accommodation o Office fixtures, fittings and furniture fit for purpose for next 10—15 years o Best practice power/network/cable management fit for purpose for next 15- 20 years o More formal and informal meeting space • Opportunity for improved disaster recovery/business continuity through use of new ICT Data Centres located at Turnhams Green and West Street House • Unified Communications for all flexible staff – enabling them to manage their own voice communications and keep in touch wherever they are working, through use of one-number/audio conferencing/instant messaging • Savings in printing/consumable costs resulting from withdrawal of the vast majority of table top printers/fax machines in favour of leased far more efficient multi-functional devices • Reduction in the number of PCs supported/workstation software licences in estate through the introduction of shared desking for homeflex staff. • Whilst areas of Market Street were emptied the opportunity was taken to remove all asbestos panels from the radiators and overhaul the heating system, add solar film to the windows on first and second floors to improve temperature control, redecorate, fill in all floor traps many of which had become persistent trip hazards. • Properly equip all meeting rooms with overhead projectors to avoid necessity to print meeting documentation • Natural progression towards paperless working as more staff work at home and need to access scanned images rather than hard copies • Positive impacts on the environment and the local and national economy as outlined on the latest research “The Shifting Nature of Work in the UK – Bottom line benefits - 2011” http://www.flexibility.co.uk/flexwork/location/workshifting-uk- 2011.htm

2.4 In terms of the Office Accommodation Strategy 2006-2011, all of the success criteria outlined in the strategy have been achieved during the Programme implementation, namely

• Two or three main offices based in Newbury with Council having security of freehold possession or long leasehold security of its premises. Market Street site would be retained under this scenario • Accommodation costs contained to a level that could be supported through the MTFS • Co-location of the Council’s four directorates • An improved standard of accommodation designed to facilitate flexible working • Single point of contact based in the East and West of District • Office accommodation aligns well to Newbury 2025 - Phase 3 will clear way for London Road regeneration (with the closure of Faraday Road offices) • Overall reduction in office footprint of 30%

3. Programme Capital Costs

3.1 The table below shows the actual capital programme costs by phase. A distinction has been made between the direct costs associated with introducing mobile and flexible working (Timelord) and those associated with the purchase, acquisition and fit out of buildings (Accommodation Strategy).

West Berkshire Council Resource Management Working Group 28 February 2012 Page 186

Phase Accommodation Mobile & Flexible Total Costs Strategy Costs Working Costs (Bldg (Technology Acquisition/Fit provision/infrastruc- Out/Furnishings/ ture, Training,

Removals) Programme Manpower Resources) Phase 1 – Turnhams Green (66 staff / 650 sq m) Actual 2,256,000 56,430 2,312,430 Phase 2 – West Street House (430 staff / 2500 sq m) - subsequently included West Point (400 sq m) and costs of Feasibility for Phase 3 Actual 8,284,000 600,000 8,884,000 Phase 3 – Market Street (670 staff/ 5400 sq m) Actual 1,086,000 534,000 1,620,000 PROGRAMME Actual Cost 11,626,000 1,190,430 12,816,430 Less Capital £880,000 0 £880,000 Receipts for Sales Programme Final Cost £10,746,000.00 £1,190,430.00 £11,936 ,430.00

3.2 In 2008, our office estate totalled 12,640 sq m. At the end of the Timelord Programme our office estate totalled 8,994 sq m. The total reduction in required office footprint enabled by mobile and flexible working (desk sharing) across the whole corporate estate amounts to approximately 3,500 sq m. The cost of this plus fit out is estimated to be at least £6 M of borrowing requirement and associated impact on revenue. This cost avoidance alone has justified the return on investment of £1.2 M being the Timelord element of the capital cost.

3.3 The implementation of the programme has resulted in an overall 30% reduction in office footprint thus far. There is an opportunity to reduce the office footprint still further by closing other satellite offices as the numbers of established staff drops over the next few years.

4. Business Case – Impact on Revenue

4.1 No further cashable savings that could be directly attributable to Timelord have come to light during the implementation of the final phase of the programme, so the cost model has remained unchanged from that presented to Members at the start of Phase 3:

West Berkshire Council Resource Management Working Group 28 February 2012 Page 187

Timelord Programme/Accommodation Strategy Revenue Cost Model

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000 Costs/Savings

-100,000

-200,000 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Annual Programme SURPLUS/DEFICIT (-) Cumulative Programme SURPLUS/DEFICIT (-) Annual Original Vodafone model

Item 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 COSTS Phase 1 177,865 163,065 163,065 163,065 163,065 163,065 163,065 163,065 Phase 2 151,787 357,900 357,900 357,900 357,900 357,900 357,900 357,900 Phase 3 30,260 63,920 63,920 63,920 63,920 63,920 63,920 Ongoing Annual Revenue COSTS (excl contributions to capital) 329,652 551,225 584,885 584,885 584,885 584,885 584,885 584,885 SAVINGS Phase 1 80,022 80,022 80,022 80,022 80,022 80,022 80,022 80,022 Phase 2 117,499 489,250 489,250 489,250 489,250 489,250 489,250 489,250 Phase 3 33,180 172,719 278,034 278,034 278,034 278,034 278,034 Ongoing Annual Revenue SAVINGS (excl contributions to capital) 197,521 602,452 741,991 847,306 847,306 847,306 847,306 847,306 REVENUE IMPLICATION OF CAPITAL COSTS

Phase 1 2,333 2,333 2,333 2,333 2,333 2,333 2,333 2,333 Phase 2 -6,687 -6,687 -6,687 -6,687 -6,687 35,591 35,591 35,591 Phase 3 -80,451 -166,060 -166,060 -166,060 -166,060 -137,645 -128,173 Revenue Contributions to Capital Projects SURPLUS/DEFICIT (-) -4,354 -84,805 -170,414 -170,414 -170,414 -128,136 -99,721 -90,249 SURPLUS/DEFICIT (-) Phase 1 -95,510 -80,710 -80,710 -80,710 -80,710 -80,710 -80,710 -80,710 Phase 2 -40,975 124,663 124,663 124,663 124,663 166,941 166,941 166,941 Phase 3 -77,531 -57,261 48,054 48,054 48,054 76,469 85,941

Annual Programme SURPLUS/DEFICIT (-) -136,485 -33,578 -13,308 92,007 92,007 134,285 162,700 172,172

Cumulative Programme SURPLUS/DEFICIT (-) -136,485 -170,063 -183,371 -91,364 643 134,929 297,629 469,801

4.2 The revenue savings brought about by the programme (which have funded the £11.9 M of capital borrowing to execute it) are being managed through a Timelord Revenue Cost Centre, the budget manager for whom is the Chief Accountant, Joseph Holmes. Savings generated in 2012/13 (£92 K) have already been re- aligned to address pressures elsewhere in the corporate revenue budget. The Programme will, of course, create greater savings as loans come to an end for the various categories of borrowing.

West Berkshire Council Resource Management Working Group 28 February 2012 Page 188