Agenda item

This purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive review of Brent Council's highways maintenance service, including its performance, effectiveness and value for money. It responds to the Committee's request for a detailed assessment of the Council's approach to maintaining the borough's highway network, including carriageways, footways and associated highway assets.

Councillor Knight (Cabinet Member for Cleaner Streets, Transport & Public Realm) was invited to introduce a report providing a comprehensive review of Brent Council's highways maintenance service, including its performance, effectiveness and value for money. It was noted that the report had been provided in response to the Committee's request for a detailed assessment of the Council's approach to maintaining the borough's highway network, including carriageways, footways and associated highway assets.  Members heard that the report explained how the Council balances reactive safety repairs with planned and preventative maintenance, the arrangements in place for managing and monitoring the highways maintenance contracts, and the outcomes being achieved through the Council's asset management approach. It was also noted that the report considered the condition of the highway network, investment levels, customer experience, compensation claims, and the challenges associated with managing tree root damage. It was further stated that the report had identified a number of opportunities for further improvement, including strengthening customer communication, enhancing performance reporting and benchmarking, continuing the development of the Council's Highway Asset Management Plan, and making greater use of digital technologies to support future investment decisions.

 

In continuing, Chris Whyte (Director Public Realm) outlined the principal challenges facing the Council’s highways service and advised that a key challenge was maintaining sufficient levels of funding to enable highway works to be delivered to an appropriate standard. The need to effectively manage residents’ expectations regarding the condition of the highway network and the Council’s ability to respond to maintenance demands was also highlighted. It was further stated that improving communication with residents and increasing customer satisfaction remained important priorities. It was additionally noted that significant inflationary pressures continued to impact the cost of highway maintenance and improvement works, creating further financial challenges for the service. The Committee was informed that managing demand for highway maintenance represented a substantial and ongoing task for officers within the highways function. In terms of future priorities, Chris Whyte advised that continued efforts would be focused on securing investment for planned maintenance programmes, further developing the Highways Asset Management Plan to maximise its effectiveness, and exploring innovative approaches to service delivery. This included the use of AI and digital surveying technologies to improve highways outcomes and inform investment decisions. The importance of enhancing resident communications and performance reporting whilst supporting the Council’s environmental objectives through carbon reduction initiatives and securing the maximum available external funding to support these ambitions was also highlighted.

 

Having thanked Councillor Knight and Chris Whyte for introducing the report, the Chair then moved on to invite questions and comments from the Committee in relation to the Highways Maintenance report, with the following main comments and issues discussed:

 

• As an initial query, the Chair sought details regarding the reasons for continued resident dissatisfaction with highway conditions despite the additional investment being made and the volume of repairs undertaken each year. In response, Chris Whyte (Director Public Realm) advised that the primary reason was that, despite the additional investment, funding levels remained insufficient to maintain the full extent of the Council's highway and footway responsibilities to the standard expected by residents. Tony Kennedy (Head of Highways Management) further added that the Council operated both planned and reactive maintenance programmes. It was explained that the additional investment had primarily supported the planned maintenance programme, enabling a greater volume of footway improvements to be undertaken. However, whilst repairs were being completed in some locations, other footways continued to deteriorate, meaning that substantially higher levels of investment would be required to achieve a sustained improvement in condition across the network. In relation to carriageways, it was advised that improvements had been delivered on a number of roads, although many complaints related to unclassified residential roads. It was also explained that greater priority was often given to main routes carrying higher traffic volumes, weights and stresses, resulting in a larger proportion of funding being directed towards maintaining those roads. In relation to reactive repairs, it was noted that reported defects often reflected the underlying condition of sections of highway requiring more significant attention.

 

• Supplementary queries were raised by the Chair regarding future funding arrangements once the current programme of investment had been expended. In response, Tony Kennedy (Head of Highways Management) acknowledged that securing sufficient funding remained a significant challenge. It was noted that the Council was considering the potential introduction of lane rental charging during the following year, whereby utility companies and contractors undertaking works on strategic routes would be charged for working during peak periods in order to encourage off-peak working and the more efficient completion of works, whilst generating income that could be reinvested into highway maintenance. It was further advised that opportunities to secure additional funding, including SCIL funding, would continue to be explored. In addition, consideration would be given to whether revenue generated through the parking account could be utilised to support medium priority repairs. It was further mentioned that more than 2/3 of reported defects were unable to be repaired at the time, which represented one of the most common causes of complaint from residents.

 

• Members sought details regarding the contract awarded to Velocity in 2024 for spray injection pothole repairs and the effectiveness of the repair method, Tony Kennedy (Head of Highways Management) advised that injection patching formed one of several maintenance techniques available to the Council. It was explained that the method had been utilised successfully over a number of years, beginning with a pilot programme delivered by Velocity, followed by subsequent contracts delivered by both Velocity and another provider. It was reported that the repairs had generally performed well and that the Council now utilised video surveys and AI technology to identify potholes and clusters of defects across the network, assisting in the development of targeted repair programmes, particularly on unclassified roads.

 

• When asked as a further question whether spray injection repairs were as durable as alternative methods used by other local authorities, Tony Kennedy (Head of Highways Management) explained that not all pothole repairs utilised injection patching and that the technique was also used to address cracking and other defects before they developed into larger potholes. It was noted that the principal advantage of the method was its ability to treat multiple defects along the full length of a road. It was confirmed that alternative approaches, including JCB Pothole Pro and Rhino patching, had been explored and assessed. Whilst some methods were more suitable for larger carriageway repairs, injection patching had proven effective on lighter traffic and unclassified roads. It was further stated that some injection patching repairs undertaken by the Council had remained effective for up to 6 years.

 

• In response to a members’ queries regarding benchmarking compensation payments for pothole damage claims and the possibility of bringing highway repairs in house, Tony Kennedy (Head of Highways Management) advised that the option of bringing the highway repairs contract in house had previously been explored and that the earlier report on the matter would be provided to the Committee, following the meeting.

 

• Members sought clarification regarding the potential use of SCIL funding to support a long-term highway investment programme. In response, Councillor Knight (Cabinet Member for Cleaner Streets, Transport & Public Realm) advised that SCIL funding would be utilised for highway improvements where appropriate. However, the scale of the maintenance challenge was emphasised, noting that the current unallocated SCIL balance was approximately £6.2 million, compared with a priority roads backlog estimated at £44.7 million and a pavement maintenance backlog of over £310 million. Whilst SCIL funding could assist in addressing some maintenance requirements, it would not be sufficient to resolve the overall backlog.

 

• Following on from the previous question, members sought details regarding the level of annual investment required to reduce the maintenance backlog. In responding, Tony Kennedy (Head of Highways Management) advised that the current footway maintenance backlog for areas classified as being in poor condition was estimated at approximately £180 million. However, the cost of undertaking a comprehensive programme of full repairs to those footways was estimated to be closer to £250 million. It was explained that footway condition surveys were undertaken at 20 metre intervals, with sections classified as red, amber or green according to their condition, and noted that individual footways often contained a mixture of these classifications.

 

• Members then questioned the extent to which newly resurfaced roads were subsequently reopened by utility companies and the frequency with which reinstatement works failed Council inspections. In response, Tony Kennedy (Head of Highways Management) explained that utility companies were notified in advance of planned highway maintenance works and had a 3-month period within which to complete any planned works prior to resurfacing. It was advised that, following resurfacing, utility companies were generally prohibited from undertaking further works on the affected road for a period of 12 months. However, exceptions applied in cases of emergency works and new service connections, where statutory powers entitled utility companies to undertake works regardless of the restriction period. It was further advised that all utility works were subject to a 12-month defect liability period. Council inspectors undertook inspections following the completion of notified works and could require remedial action where workmanship or materials failed to meet the required standards. Any necessary corrective works during the defect period were undertaken at the utility company's expense and not at cost to the Council.

 

• Details were requested by members on ward-by-ward highway condition data alongside details of investment over the previous 2 years to enable the Committee to assess whether funding allocations reflected both need and equitable distribution. In response, Chris Whyte (Director Public Realm) advised that the information would be provided to the Committee, following the meeting.

 

• Referring to the committee report, which had detailed that only around 35% of medium priority defects could currently be funded, Tony Kennedy (Head of Highways Management) explained that available reactive maintenance funding was allocated across the full 12-month period to ensure resources remained available throughout the year. Members were advised that high priority defects represented the first call on available funding, with any remaining resources then directed towards medium priority repairs. The number of high priority defects fluctuated according to findings arising from inspections and customer reports, which in turn affected the proportion of medium priority works that could be undertaken.

 

• Clarification was sought regarding how long it would take to resurface the entire highway network at current funding levels and the proportion of the annual programme funded through one-off allocations rather than the base budget. In response, Tony Kennedy (Head of Highways Management) informed the Committee that the Council's asset management process considered different investment scenarios and assessed the outcomes that varying levels of investment would achieve over time and advised that this information would be provided to the Committee, following the meeting.

 

• In response to a question concerning the significant increase in customer reports since 2023 and whether this reflected genuine deterioration or improved reporting mechanisms, Chris Whyte (Director Public Realm) advised that the Council had introduced the Fix My Street reporting platform, which had significantly increased the volume of resident reports and customer contact received by the service.

 

• Members requested further information regarding the weighting applied to factors used when determining road repair priorities, including engineering judgement, councillor nominations, compensation claims and AI analysis. In response, Tony Kennedy (Head of Highways Management) advised that the primary factor remained the independent condition data collected across the network. It was explained that other factors were weighted alongside this information and that councillor nominations generally influenced prioritisation where roads had similar condition scores, enabling one road to be prioritised over another of comparable condition.

 

• When asked how the Council sought to prevent potholes arising through freeze thaw processes, Chris Whyte (Director Public Realm) once again referred to the injection patching programme, which enabled the early identification and treatment of small cracks and weaknesses within road surfaces before they developed into potholes. By undertaking preventative repairs at an early stage, the Council was able to strengthen vulnerable sections of carriageway and reduce future deterioration.

 

• Members were keen to seek details regarding how highway maintenance activity supported the Council's climate change objectives. In response, Chris Whyte (Director Public Realm) advised that there were a number of opportunities to reduce environmental impacts through the choice of materials and maintenance approaches adopted. The Council's commitment to recycling materials arising from highway and footway improvement works was highlighted. It was further noted that a greater emphasis on preventative maintenance promoted a more sustainable approach to network management by reducing the need for continual reactive repairs and the associated environmental impacts. Tony Kennedy (Head of Highways Management) further added that the Council's contractor utilised warm mix materials when undertaking repairs, which resulted in a lower carbon footprint than traditional hot mix asphalt. It was also advised that contractual targets required the recycling of materials wherever possible. Materials removed from highways and footways were processed and reused for future schemes, supporting both carbon reduction and the wider environmental objectives of the Council.

 

• Members questioned whether knowledge of the increased costs that had arisen would have influenced previous decisions relating to the potential insourcing of highway repairs. In response, Chris Whyte (Director Public Realm) advised that the Council was currently part way through a 7-year contract with the option to extend for a further period of up to 3 years followed by a further extension of up to 1 year. Given the need to maintain continuity of service provision, it was considered that the Council would need to begin considering whether to renew the existing contract, extend the current arrangements or pursue an alternative model. It was indicated that a future review of those options would likely be required, although no formal programme had yet been established.

 

• Concerns were raised regarding locations where the same potholes appeared to require repeated repairs or where multiple potholes arose in close proximity. In response, Tony Kennedy (Head of Highways Management) explained that potholes typically developed where the carriageway was already in decline and subject to ongoing stresses. As a result, whilst one pothole could be repaired, a further defect could subsequently emerge nearby. Members were advised that this issue was particularly prevalent during colder and wetter periods, when multiple defects often appeared within fatigued carriageways. Whilst preventative maintenance and planned carriageway improvements would provide a more sustainable long-term solution, these interventions required substantially greater levels of investment. It was further noted that pothole repairs were undertaken following assessment of individual defects and that, if contractors repaired every adjacent defect encountered, available maintenance budgets would be quickly exhausted.

 

• The Chair queried whether information existed identifying roads that had experienced a particularly high number of pothole repairs and whether this was used to support resurfacing decisions. In responding, Tony Kennedy (Head of Highways Management) confirmed that the frequency of reactive repairs formed one of the factors considered when prioritising the highway network and contributed towards the overall scoring used to determine resurfacing priorities.

 

• When asked by members whether information could be provided regarding the condition of footways by ward, Tony Kennedy (Head of Highways Management) confirmed that condition data was available and that a ward level breakdown of footway conditions would be provided to the Committee, following the meeting.

 

• Details were sought regarding how residents were updated on repairs. In response, Chris Whyte (Director Public Realm) advised that communications represented an area requiring further improvement and identified three key opportunities for improvement. Firstly, there was a need to raise awareness of the investment already made and the improvements delivered in recent years. Secondly, there was value in providing greater public understanding of the natural causes of pothole formation and the factors contributing to highway deterioration. Thirdly, it was considered that residents should be better informed regarding reporting mechanisms and should receive feedback confirming when defects they had reported had subsequently been repaired. It was emphasised that improved communication across all three areas would help manage expectations and improve public awareness of the Council's highways work.

 

• Members questioned whether resurfacing techniques could be improved to reduce cracking along carriageways and whether effective engagement was taking place with TfL regarding the condition of bus lanes. In response, Tony Kennedy (Head of Highways Management) advised that bus lanes remained the responsibility of the Council. It was noted that TFL had historically provided principal road maintenance funding of approximately £1 million per annum, although this funding had been frozen in 2017/18 and had largely been replaced by limited emergency funding only. It was further explained that a variety of recognised resurfacing methods existed within the industry and that it was essential that any joints created during resurfacing works were properly sealed, as such locations inevitably represented potential points of weakness within the carriageway.

 

• In response to a question regarding Brent's rating within the Department for Transport's Local Highway Authority Highways Maintenance Ratings 2025, Tony Kennedy (Head of Highways Management) advised that local authorities had received limited notice regarding the assessment method before ratings were published. It was explained that the Department for Transport had assessed the Council's performance based on a particular year during which preventative maintenance activity, specifically thin surface sealing, had not been undertaken because condition data and AI analysis had not identified it as a priority. It was noted that preventative maintenance had been undertaken in years before and after the period assessed and that discussions with the Department for Transport regarding the method remained ongoing, alongside a number of other local authorities. Chris Whyte (Director Public Realm) further added that the Council's understanding of the Department for Transport's expectations and assessment method had since improved. It was advised that the Council did not consider that its overall performance justified the rating received and expected future assessments to reflect a more accurate position as understanding of the requirements continued to develop.

 

• In considering longstanding concerns regarding the condition of infrastructure around Staples Corner Flyover and the associated roundabout, members requested an update on discussions with TfL. In addressing the concerns raised, Tony Kennedy (Head of Highways Management) advised that responsibility for the area was shared between Brent, Barnet and Transport for London. It was explained that TfL maintained its own prioritisation programme for resurfacing works and undertook to obtain an update regarding the current position of Staples Corner within that programme.

 

• Returning to the earlier discussion regarding communications, Councillor Knight (Cabinet Member for Cleaner Streets, Transport & Public Realm) suggested that greater use could be made of educational information, including material explaining the lifecycle of a pothole and the impact of weather conditions and water on highway deterioration. The significant achievements delivered by the service despite limited funding from TfL and wider financial constraints was also highlighted.

 

• Further queries were raised regarding whether the current contractual arrangements incentivised the speed and volume of repairs or the quality and durability of repairs. In response, Chris Whyte (Director Public Realm) advised that both factors formed important components of the current model. It was explained that the Council now operated a dual contractor arrangement across the borough, with one contractor undertaking reactive repairs and planned works being shared across separate north and south borough contracts. It was noted that this represented a different approach to arrangements that had existed prior to 2003 and reflected lessons learned from earlier contractual difficulties. It was considered that the current model was delivering improvements in highway condition, maintaining quality standards and benefiting from strong working relationships with both contractors.

 

• Highlighting concerns relating to bus lanes needing to remain safe and fit for purpose given the high levels of usage experienced on key routes across the borough, raised further questions around preventative maintenance measures for bus lanes, particularly on heavily used routes where significant stress was placed on the carriageway. Officers were requested to provide further information on this matter to the Committee, following the meeting.

 

In seeking to bring consideration of the item to a close, the Chair thanked officers and members for their contributions towards scrutiny of the Highways Maintenance report. As a result of the outcome of the discussion, the following Cabinet recommendations, suggestions for improvement, and information requests identified were AGREED:

 

Recommendations to Cabinet Member:

 

·       To review the extent to which Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding is being used to support highways maintenance and improvement works and identify any further opportunities to maximise its contribution towards addressing the maintenance backlog.

 

·       To engage with Transport for London (TfL) to explore funding opportunities and partnership arrangements to support the maintenance and improvement of bus lanes, helping to reduce pressures on the Council's highways maintenance budget.

 

Suggestions for Improvement:

 

• Develop a quarterly highways (inclusive of footways and carriageways) dashboard, with information presented at ward level where practicable. This should provide an accessible overview of network condition, including annual condition survey data, investment levels, planned and reactive maintenance activity, and key performance indicators.

 

• Develop and implement a communications and engagement programme to improve public understanding of pothole management and highways maintenance. This should include, but not be limited to:

o   Explaining the root causes of potholes, the factors that accelerate their deterioration, and why pothole formation remains a significant highways maintenance challenge.

o   Improving public understanding of the wider challenges associated with maintaining the highways network, including funding constraints and the factors that influence maintenance priorities.

o   Providing information on the investment being made in pothole repairs and highways maintenance, and the outcomes being achieved.

o   Promoting the channels available for residents to report potholes and other highway defects.

o   Providing greater transparency on how reported defects are assessed, prioritised and repaired.

o   Exploring opportunities to keep residents informed of progress and outcomes where they have reported a pothole or other highway defect.

 

Information Requests

 

·       Provide a one-off baseline analysis of ward-by-ward highways condition and associated investment over the past two years.

 

·       Provide a detailed briefing note on the borough's methodology for prioritising highways maintenance and investment, including the factors taken into account when determining priorities and allocating resources, supported by illustrative case studies demonstrating how the methodology is applied in practice.

 

·       Provide an assessment of the extent to which current levels of highways investment are sufficient to maintain and improve the condition of the borough's highways, including an estimate of the time required to address the existing maintenance backlog.

 

·       Provide a breakdown of the current highways maintenance programme, distinguishing between reactive and planned preventative maintenance, and setting out the contribution made by each funding source, including the Council's base budget, grants, CIL, Section 106 contributions, Mayoral funding, and any other external funding streams. The information should identify which elements of the programme are supported by recurring funding and which are dependent on one-off or time-limited funding sources.

 

·       Provide an update on external partner contributions to highways maintenance and improvement programmes across the borough over the last three years, including the respective responsibilities of the Council and partner organisations, the funding and resource contributions made by each party, any outstanding commitments, and progress in delivering agreed responsibilities and contributions. The update should include a specific case study on the Staples Corner maintenance programme, setting out the respective responsibilities of the Council and external partners, funding and resource contributions, any outstanding commitments, and progress against agreed delivery timescales.

 

·       Provide benchmarking information from comparable London boroughs on pothole management, including:

o   Average repair times.

o   Repeat repair rates.

o   Resident satisfaction levels.

o   Compensation claim volumes, compensation costs, and claim success rates.

o   Service delivery models (in-house, outsourced or hybrid).

o   Annual expenditure on pothole management services.

o   The proportion of highways maintenance expenditure allocated to reactive pothole repairs compared with planned preventative maintenance.

o   Pothole repair methodologies and intervention thresholds.

 

• Provide information on the assessment undertaken of insourcing in relation to the following contracts:

o   O'Hara Bros. Surfacing Ltd - Highways Maintenance Contract

o   GW Highways Ltd - Highway Infrastructure Contract

o   Velocity UK Ltd - Injection Patching Contract

 

The information should include any options appraisals, business cases and/or benchmarking undertaken, together with an assessment of the potential implications of insourcing for service performance, resilience, workforce capacity, risk and value for money compared with the current outsourced arrangements.

 

·       Provide a detailed briefing on the Council's broader approach to improving customer satisfaction in relation to highways maintenance, with a particular focus on pothole management.

 

·       Provide information on the preventative maintenance measures currently undertaken for bus lanes to ensure they remain safe and in good condition.

 

·       Provide details of the preventative maintenance and inspection programme for newly planted trees, including how the Council monitors and manages the risk of trees causing damage to adjacent footways and carriageways, and what measures are in place to enable early intervention before significant repairs are required.

 

·       Provide information on carriageway and footway reinstatement works carried out by utility companies following excavations, including:

o   How often utility companies are required to return and correct works that fail Council inspections or do not meet the required standard.

o   The powers and processes available to the Council to ensure utility companies rectify substandard work and cover any associated costs.

o   Measures being taken to improve the quality of reinstatement works and minimise disruption to residents.

o   How the Council ensures that the cost of correcting poor-quality reinstatement work is met by the responsible utility company rather than the Council.

 

Please note, whilst the Cabinet recommendations, suggestions for improvement and information requests agreed as an outcome of each item were based on discussions and issues identified during the meeting, the final requests have been refined following the meeting to improve clarity and readability, while remaining consistent with the Committee's discussions and intended outcomes.