Agenda item

Report of the Director of City Highways.

5.1       The Committee received a report which looked at the possibility of the principle of lane rental being applied to streets managed by Westminster Council.  It highlighted the potential benefits and risks of such a change whilst setting out details of the existing scheme operated by TfL.

5.2       The item was introduced by Jonathan Rowing, Head of Road Management.  He referred to the two lane rental pilot schemes that were being operated by TfL and Kent County Council.  He advised that the item was timely for bringing before the Committee as a consultation had been undertaken by the Department for Transport (‘DfT’) on the potential to extend the schemes to other authorities.  With the agreement of the Cabinet Member for City Highways, officers had responded to the DfT consultation that lane rental schemes would create a positive pressure to reduce the duration of works and drive a technological change.  There were concerns about the impact on residents as a result of encouraging works taking place at night, restrictions on spend within the legislation and potential bureaucracy from having 33 different funds for the spend across London if all the boroughs introduced a lane rental scheme.  The consultation had now closed and DfT were now considering the responses to it.  

5.3       Also in attendance at the meeting were Kevin Goad, Director of City Highways; Jerry McConkey, CEO, Joint Authorities Group(UK); David Capon, Joint Authorities Group(UK) Manager; Peter Loft, Secretary, London Joint Utilities Group; Martin Zelder, New Roads and Street Works Act Compliance Manager, Cadent Gas and Keith O’Brien, Fixed Network Specialist, Vodafone.  The Committee heard from Mr McConkey.  He explained that JAG(UK) was the link between Central Government and every highway authority in the United Kingdom on all matters pertaining to roadworks and street works.  It also assisted Central Government in drafting relevant legislation and regulations and worked with colleagues from the utilities companies in writing code of practice guidance.  JAG(UK)’s aims included supporting the management of all maintenance events on the highway, maintaining public safety, improving journey experience and reducing levels of congestion whilst protecting the assets.

5.4       Mr McConkey stated that JAG(UK) promoted permit schemes.  He referred to an example of the benefits with Sefton Council having saved over 45,000 days in terms of the highway not being occupied.  He expressed the view that lane rental schemes offered significant additional benefits to the existing permit schemes as a result of behavioural changes.  One aim was to reduce the length of time that sites are unoccupied.  If a lane rental charge was being paid on a daily basis, it was less likely to be unoccupied.  Another objective was to improve planning and coordination so that it was known before companies were on site exactly what they needed to do so the work was carried out quickly and efficiently.  Works should take place outside peak periods when most disruption is caused.  The intention should be to try to complete the works in one go.  Mr McConkey said that in respect of Kent County Council’s pilot scheme, there had been a decrease in peak hour work of 15% and a 9% increase in works where they did not charge lane rental fees as a result of companies not working during peak hours. 

5.5       Mr Loft also addressed the Committee.  He advised that London Joint Utilities Group is an informal gathering of utilities business representatives.  He stated that there was a need to balance the needs of the users.  These were not just the people who travel across the network in Westminster but also the companies involved in undertaking the improvement works.  Any scheme that was implemented would have to apply to all works and activities.  He urged the Committee to look at the Kent County Council Lane Rental Scheme and the exemptions in how it is administered as he believed it was far more flexible than the TfL pilot scheme.  An example of this is that public spirited works like those relating to the emergency services’ assets are exempt. 

5.6       Mr Loft expressed concerns that costs are passed on and are absorbed by all customers as a result of lane rental schemes.  Most utilities did not have the ability to discriminate amongst its customers and those residents or business which receive any perceived benefit carry an equal share to those who do not.  Mr Loft was of the view that Westminster had existing powers, including through permit schemes, to control and influence utility works so that they were undertaken out of hours.  He believed that there was the potential for safety and quality of works being compromised if they were always taking place at night.  Mr Loft quoted a recent TfL report which suggested that 40% of damage to utility apparatus was caused by activities undertaken by local authority highway resurfacing contractors working at night.  He added that an outcome of the TfL Lane Rental Scheme was that many companies were not investing in their assets within the streets where the Scheme applied.  It was often being invested elsewhere.  He explained that was one of the reasons why the numbers of works had reduced.       

5.7       The Committee asked a number of questions on this topic, including the following:

·           Was it better to place the emphasis on using technology to improve the way in which the companies worked rather than promoting out of hours working?  Mr McConkey replied that JAG(UK) was keen on innovation.  Part of the incentive of permit schemes and lane rental schemes was to look at different and more effective and efficient ways of working.  Reducing the duration of the works would reduce the costs.  Mr Rowing recommended that a lane rental scheme, if adopted by Westminster, should be strongly based on innovative use of technology as part of a positive economic case.  He added there would potentially not be a significant amount of money raised by the implementation of a lane rental scheme because of a modal shift, including as a result of the innovative use of technology.

Mr O’Brien spoke about his experiences at Vodafone in relation to this matter.  He said that 90% of Vodafone’s work is customer driven so there was not necessarily the same forward planning of the works that some of the bigger utilities were able to do.  There was therefore a need to gain authorisation via the permit scheme and work out of hours.  He believed that the permit scheme was more than sufficient to drive better behaviours.       

·           Mr O’Brien was asked what was a typical out of hours job and what the relationship was with residents as a result.  He replied in response to the first question that it was customer driven work and Vodafone would apply for a three day minor works permit.  The Council set out when the company would be able to undertake works.  The works would generally involve the digging up of a pavement/footway, working on the apparatus and connecting the fibre to the building.  They would generally take place at night.  In respect of the second question, he responded that the relationship with residents was difficult. 

Mr Rowing clarified to the Committee that companies such as Vodafone would ask to carry out work out of hours and generally they would be refused unless there were good reasons for it to take place then.  The steer from the Cabinet Member for City Highways (which had become the policy) was the matter was discussed between officers and the relevant Ward Members before out of hours permission was granted.  Out of hours work generally led to a number of residents’ complaints.   

·           How long did it generally take for a hole dug by a company or utility to be filled?  Mr Rowing stated that it varies.  The duration of works tended to be two to three days.  Officers always pushed for the works and the filling of the hole to be resolved as soon as possible.  Mr McConkey commented that if a lane rental scheme was in place then the companies were more likely to improve the planning of the works and reduce their duration.     

·           Mr Loft was asked whether utilities could do more to be aware of where underground apparatus was located.  He replied that local authorities and utilities did not have a clear universal record of all the underground apparatus or type of road construction when the ground was broken.  There was a lot of work being done to try and rectify the lack of knowledge of underground apparatus and some of the money released from the TfL Lane Rental Scheme was being used for this purpose, including having artificial intelligence to predict where the apparatus is situated.  This technological advance was in its infancy.

·           As the concept of lane rental schemes had been around for some time, why had there only been two pilot schemes?   Mr McConkey responded that DfT had decided that pilot schemes were the best way forward as they were not sure of what the benefits might be.  He advised that there was a ‘sunset clause’ in place in the legislation so that by 2019 DfT either had to remove the sunset clause to enable the schemes to continue or discontinue them.  On the basis of the experience of the pilot schemes, DfT had taken the decision to remove the sunset clause so they had seen some benefits there.  Mr McConkey was of the view that part of the second phase of DfT’s consultation would be exploring how lane rental schemes might be rolled out across other local authorities.  

·           How much was it likely to cost if a lane rental scheme was introduced in Westminster?  Mr Rowing replied that there had been no assessment of cost at this stage.  Officers would need to understand what the model would be that would allow lane rental charges to be implemented.  Aspects that would need to be known included what the fee would be and how many roads in the borough and what sections of the roads were included.  In TfL’s pilot scheme, it was only a small section of the network which was included.  

5.8      The Committee concluded the item by responding to the questions raised in the report under paragraph 2, ‘Key matters for the Committee’s consideration’.  In response to the questions as to whether the Committee supported the principle of a lane rental scheme being implemented within the Council’s network and whether there were any particular areas of concern that need further investigation or action, the Committee recommended that it should only be implemented if there was a positive benefit in terms of working practices including there being more effective and efficient ways of working.  Such a case for lane rental schemes should be made when the matter was next scrutinised by the Committee.  Revenue increases were not fair on those they impacted upon.  In response to the questions as to the balance between the needs of residents and the needs of the road user can be achieved and does lane rental pose any challenges that would need to be addressed in any potential Westminster Lane Rental Scheme, the Committee recommended that in the event it was decided to proceed with the Scheme in Westminster that officers consult other London boroughs before setting out their proposals to try and achieve some consistency and joined up thinking which would aid those required to pay the rental fee.  Finally, in response to the question whether the Committee would like to see any potential Scheme apply to areas of high footfall which may not currently meet the thresholds for such a scheme, the Committee recommended that any pilot scheme introduced should not include the whole of the borough.  It was requested that a chart was produced which would show what the Scheme would add in comparison to the other permit schemes already in existence.      

5.9      RESOLVED:

            1.    The Committee recommended that:

1)     A lane rental scheme should only be implemented within Westminster Council’s network if there was a positive benefit in terms of working practices including there being more effective and efficient ways of working.  Such a case for lane rental schemes should be made when the matter was next scrutinised by the Committee.  Revenue increases were not fair on those they impacted upon;

2)     In the event it was decided to proceed with the Westminster Lane Rental Scheme that officers consult other London boroughs before setting out their proposals to try and achieve some consistency and joined up thinking which would aid those required to pay the rental fee; and,

3)     any pilot lane rental scheme introduced should not include the whole of the borough.

2.    That a chart be produced which would show what the Scheme would add in comparison to the other permit schemes already in existence.