Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources which provided an update on risks in the Corporate Risk Register, emerging risks and the internal audit  of the Council’s risk management process.  A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 10’, is filed with these minutes.

 

As part of this item, the Committee also received a presentation from the Director of Environment and Transport on the emerging risk of the significant increase in demand for reactive highway maintenance repair work to address the highest ever levels of road defects the department had seen over a winter period.  A copy of the presentation is filed with these minutes.

 

Arising from the discussion, the following points were made:

 

Presentation

 

i)               The Director of Environment and Transport explained that the level of repair work had significantly exceeded previous years, although this was an issue being experienced across the country.  It was anticipated that the pressure on the service was likely to continue and as a result, the department had changed the way it worked to deal with this peak in workload.  The normal operation was for first time permanent repairs to be made to the vast majority of defects.  The majority of repairs carried out over the winter period however had been temporary to ensure the road network remained safe, with more permanent repairs being undertaken over the summer. 

 

ii)              Some local authorities were trialling new technology on refuse lorries which would identify defects on roads.  The Highways Service had trialled this type of technology, but to date had found some of the visual inspection systems were less than 50% accurate.  New technology would continue to be trialled.

 

iii)            It was noted that the UK was now experiencing more extreme weather which was affecting the condition of the roads.  Other countries with wetter and colder climates used specific materials to protect the road surface.  Whilst it was not possible to retrofit the whole road network in the UK, local authorities were working with various research projects to understand alternative materials that would be more resilient to the changing climate conditions.  However, there was a reluctance to invest in something new in the event that it did not perform, for instance, it failed after only a few years and required further investment to remedy.  It was noted that Leicestershire had used recycled rubber to repair some roads five years ago, and its effectiveness was being monitored.

 

iv)            There was concern that many roads in newly built housing estates would not be adopted and therefore would not be up to the required standard.  The Director gave assurance that there was a highway design guide and if developers wanted a road to be adopted, they had to meet a required standard, which included the local highway authority monitoring the condition of a road for at least twelve months. 

 

v)             It was stated that new housing estates were often built as low classification roads which were not designed to withstand heavy traffic, and it was queried whether it was possible to change how planning applications were assessed.  The Director of Environment and Transport reported that any planning application had to accord with the national planning policy framework, which set the bar high for refusing an application.  The authority had to consider whether the application was safe and had to be able to defend a recommendation for refusal.

 

vi)            A member also commented that utility companies often left roads in a poor condition and requiring some repair work.  The Director stated that it was a process that required the utility companies to return to make the road back to the required standard. 

 

vii)           In response to a member query around whether it was possible for the County Council to use some of its contingency to pay for road repairs, it was stated that contingency funding was often confused with reserves.  Reserves were used for already identified projects, whereas contingency was reviewed throughout the year.  It was noted that potholes were prioritised from a safety critical level, which meant that some were not filled initially.  The Director acknowledged how this appeared to the public, but it was not possible to fill every pothole and priority was given to those posing the greatest safety risk.

 

viii)         In terms of capacity within the team, a number of agency staff were due to commence after Easter to assist with the increased workload.  The demand for highway inspectors was currently very high so it was difficult to recruit to permanent positions.  Due to changes in funding allocations, the department was developing a plan for delivery over four years which may assist with the ability to recruit staff.

 

ix)            A member commented that vehicles were now getting heavier, traffic on the roads was increasing and the cost of materials to repair the roads had increased.  The Director stated that work was taking place to review the current strategy to ensure that there was a more innovative approach to try and deal with these challenges.  It was also noted that Leicestershire engaged with the Department of Transport’s Live Labs 2 £30m research initiative looking at innovation for the highway sector.

 

x)             Compared to many other local authorities, Leicestershire paid out less in insurance claims, primarily due to the authority being in a position through how it carried out its work to be able to defend claims well and provide a better service overall.  However, the general opinion of the public around potholes was not underestimated.  The authority would rather direct money to repairing potholes than vehicle repairs.

 

xi)            A member raised concern that a number of rural roads had become ‘rat runs’ which had resulted in large holes in the side of the roadside due to traffic having to pull in to let oncoming traffic pass.  The Director stated that all traffic was entitled to use any road, unless there was a weight restriction.  However, it was acknowledged that this was an ongoing challenge – a regular programme of work to repair the edge of the carriageway had ceased some time ago due to affordability but the impact of this was now being seen.  Roads had to be prioritised and as such, ‘A’ roads would be repaired before rural roads.

 

xii)           It was queried whether it was possible to have pothole wardens in local areas, or have a focus on repairing specific areas.  This would not be possible due to potential health and safety issues of having laypeople working on the highway and it would be difficult to deal with one area and still meet safety requirements across the network.  Consideration would be given to how to communicate better with local residents.

 

xiii)         It was requested that information around highways issues be circulated to residents so that they were more aware of the difficulties faced by local authorities.  The Director stated that it was an ongoing challenge to ensure that residents were well enough informed of issues.  However, although communication with the public already took place, a more specific note would be produced in conjunction with the Council’s Comms Team.  This could then be shared with members, the public and parish councils.

 

Main Report

 

xiv)         Two new risks had been added to the Corporate Risk Register around Children and Family Services, one of which related to if maintained primary schools submitted significant licensed deficit budgets over time, creating a financial burden for the Council, then individual schools could fail.  The Director of Corporate Resources stated that this was an area of spend which had been prioritised with district councils.  However, even where an agreement was in place, there was not always sufficient funding.  A presentation would be provided to a future meeting to highlight the work being undertaken.

 

xv)          It was also felt that the new risk around if there was insufficient DfE capital funding, the Council could fail to meet its place planning requirements including SEND could increase the burden on academies.  Further consideration would be given as to whether this should be expanded to cover more schools in Leicestershire and whether there was a risk on available places in schools.

 

xvi)         A member commented that the MTFS gap had escalated to £85m and sought assurance that current mitigation plans were more than just descriptive.  The Director of Corporate Resources stated that a plan was developed at the beginning of the MTFS which was monitored throughout the year and reset annually.  Assurance was given that even where budget gaps had been approved, it had been possible to close these gaps.

 

RESOLVED:

 

a)    That the status of the corporate and strategic risks facing the County Council be approved;

 

b)    That recommendations be made on any areas which might benefit from further examination;

 

c)    That the emerging risks on the Iran war and the update on Local Government Reorganisation be noted;

 

d)    That the outcome of the internal audit of the Council’s risk management processes be noted.