Agenda item

Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet.

Members highlighted that the works selected for the Highways works programme differed from the suggestions made by members in their members surgeries. They also highlighted that the report did not provide any explanation for the rationale behind the decisions not to take the members suggestions forward.

Officers explained that the budget has remained static for the past 10 years aside from any additional grants from WG.  Officers prioritise relating to condition and risks for the authority rather than delivering a wish list.

Members were advised that officers conduct large surveys to assess the network, which faces significant issues due to a lack of investment over time. If members suggestions match the needs based on risk and condition of the roads then those suggestions can be included.

Officers are having to be more innovative and gave members the example of a membrane being used on Depot Road in Cwmafan of how they reduce costs.

Members were advised that inflation has reduced the council’s purchasing power by 30-40%, which means the amount of work officers can get done is also about 30-40% less. Officers explained that to bring the highway up to standard, they need a one-off £20 million investment and £3 million investment annually for maintenance.

Officers understand the community's wishes, but technicians and engineers base their assessments on condition surveys, which consider various factors like skid resistance and safety defects. There are many competing priorities and not enough money.

 

Members were advised that decisions are based on technical surveys, not politics. Historically, there was scope for small local projects, but now all funds need to be focus on dealing with risks. This is why there is a variance in how much is spent in each ward.

Members were happy to hear what the logic was behind the works chosen to be done following the surgeries.

Officers explained that if the council doesn’t spend money wisely, the £20 million backlog will keep growing as roads deteriorate. £20 million would need to be spent to bring roads to a reasonable level and £3 million annually for maintenance. Delaying investment increases future costs potentially year on year.

Officers try to make money go as far as it can by using techniques like micro surfacing to preserve roads. Officers also seal roads to protect them from rain and frost which prolongs the life of the road.

Members were advised that some roads require extensive work due to poor initial construction and they also encounter issues like coal tar which also costs more to remove than to relay the road. Officers strive to maximize the budget while effectively addressing various challenges.

Michael Roberts Head of Streetcare highlighted the difference between needs and desires and explained that due to cost increases and static budgets, officers now have to focus more on essential needs. He noted that previously, members had surgeries to prioritise their top concerns, but now critical issues must be addressed, many necessary repairs, like skid resistance on roundabouts, aren't visible to the public but prevent accidents.

Strengthening bridges and culverts is also vital, even if the changes aren't noticeable. Officers prioritise safety and risk management over visible improvements.

The chair acknowledged members' appreciation for the explanations but emphasised that Members want to understand why certain schemes suggested by members in surgeries are included or excluded, which helps them scrutinise the prioritisation process.

He felt that feedback is crucial as members discuss priorities during surgeries but lack insight into the rationale behind decisions. They need to know if schemes were excluded due to lack of need or funding.

The chair stated that members should be informed about the overall risk management and what priorities are missed due to budget constraints. This broader understanding helps them grasp the full scope of the program and the risks involved and the risks the council is carrying. He felt that including this is how reports should look.

 

Martin Brumby explained that member surgeries provide an opportunity for members to highlight their priorities, which officers strive to address. However, thoroughly evaluating every suggestion is resource-intensive and often impractical and take traffic section staff away from other tasks. Given the constraints of limited resources and a limited budget of £344,000 officers prioritise road safety issues first, followed by other concerns such as residents' parking. They are committed to delivering programmes within the year to secure funding and generate revenue for the council through fees.

He explained that the scrutiny meeting is an opportunity for officers to provide feedback on their work and decisions.

The chair noted that although the rationale for changes was to make things more transparent, much still happens behind the scenes. The chair felt that if officers are assessing members' priorities against data, this process should be made available. He said that this can be discussed further outside the meeting.

Michael Roberts advised that creating a comprehensive report covering every issue in every ward would be very large document and instead he suggested that officers could organise feedback sessions for individual members, which might be more practical. This can be discussed further with the scrutiny officers to find the best solution.

Members questioned the value of surgeries if member suggestions aren't implemented due to financial constraints. They understand the need for risk management but feel that the process creates unnecessary work if member input isn't considered.

Members queried whether the surgeries should be paused while officers focus is solely on risk management rather than addressing member concerns and then look at re-instating the surgeries once the budget situation improves in the future.

Dave Griffiths, Head of Engineering, agreed partly with members regarding the member surgeries but emphasised the need to understand members and their community concerns related to the highway network. He stated that assessing every single item would be impractical due to time constraints.

Members were advised that budget challenges means that the council must assess all projects across every directorate, based on statutory requirements and safety standards, they focus on meeting guidelines and statutory requirements such as essential safety measures like anti-skid surfaces and addressing accident hotspots.

The council faces a significant backlog of work and must protect its position to avoid severe consequences from accidents. For example, Heilbron Way needs urgent repairs to prevent potential disasters. Members were advised that whilst there was insufficient budget for these repairs luckily this year the Local Government Borrowing Initiative could be utilised for some work.

Members were informed that neglecting repairs, like the corroded bridge barriers, could lead to severe consequences, including accidents and legal issues such as corporate manslaughter or gross negligence charges for the Council/officers. Officers focus on safety to prevent fatalities and incidents on the roads, which is challenging but essential and the authority has a good record of reducing that.

Officers note community desires, but the council prioritises safety to ensure a secure environment. They use a risk-based approach to allocate resources effectively.

Members were advised that understanding community concerns is crucial, and external grants may help fund these schemes. The council aims to balance safety priorities with community needs, despite resource constraints.

Dave Griffiths explained that there is a substantial allocation being looked at that may be available for members to utilise to make a difference in their community in terms of Street care.

Members highlighted the disparity in funding across wards, while acknowledging the need to prioritise major works they explained that it is challenging to explain to their residents why the ward receives less funding compared to others. Residents feel that local issues are just as important as larger projects elsewhere and argue that they pay the same council tax as others and expect their concerns to be addressed. Members felt that balancing these priorities is difficult but necessary to ensure fairness and address local needs or smaller projects.

Members expressed the difficulty of explaining to constituents why certain requests in their ward may not be possible despite members pushing for those improvements.

Members suggested including details of requested schemes in future reports to show they were considered. This transparency would reassure constituents that their concerns are acknowledged.

Members noted that in some wards, small projects like drainage improvements have been completed and proposed adding a spreadsheet of achievements and costs to help explain spending to residents. Members felt this would facilitate better conversations about the council's efforts and expenditures in wards and help show how much work has actually been done in the community.

The chair added that active travel has been discussed in the committee before in relation to things that should have been funded by grant money, but from the public's point of view that work is going on on the highway such as drop kerbs, crossings and Safe Routes to Schools funding. The chair believed that examining all the expenditures on the highway in a holistic manner helps members better understand the council's activities.

The chair acknowledged that different works sit under different departments currently which makes it more challenging to have a singular view but felt that knowing what was happening from other pots of funding or works done in the middle of the year that aren't on the programme that aren’t shown in this report, knowing this would help members to explain to residents that work is being done in their ward.

Officers apologised for not sending members the minutes from the members surgeries. In relation to a more comprehensive report, members were advised that some reports are so extensive that it's difficult for people to understand all the details. Officers explained that the rationale behind decisions has been explained during member surgeries. Officers liked the suggestion to review and understand what has been done in the previous year, not just focusing on the capital programme.

For revenue budgets members were advised of the ongoing activities like pothole repairs and small drainage schemes, and the challenge of making this information readily available to ward members.

Members felt that to ensure efficient job management, there should be a clear completion and sign-off process. Members requested a straightforward spreadsheet to list the work carried out in each ward, rather than an extensive report. Members also suggested exploring the use of AI to help manage and present the information more effectively.

Members wanted to be able to provide their residents with transparent and accessible information about the council's activities.

Officers explained that the capital programme is presented as planned, however adjustments may be needed if issues arise or if tasks are completed more efficiently than expected.

Revenue teams handle different tasks, such as drainage and the pothole pro machine, Steve Owen advised that he oversees both the drainage team and the pothole pro team. He felt that estimating the cost of repairs by the pothole pro is challenging due to the variability in material costs and changing needs. He explained that there has been additional funding available for the pothole repair process.

Members were advised that changing needs at each location, make it difficult to provide accurate cost estimates. Teams must be agile to respond to unexpected changes and priorities, which impacts planning and reporting accuracy.

Michael Roberts confirmed that officers could explore AI tools to improve reporting processes. He explained that since detailed records for each pothole aren't kept, officers may need to estimate costs by dividing the total team cost by the number of potholes repaired annually. Providing precise costs for each pothole repair would require extensive work and might not be feasible.

Members were advised that a new pothole system, which has been in development for some time, is now nearing completion. Each team will have a tablet to record details such as photos of the pothole, time on and off site, and materials used. All information will be computer-generated, improving accuracy and efficiency. Supervisors can send out teams based on priority, with information going directly to the individuals in the cab. This system will replace the use of day sheets, streamlining the process and ensuring all data is sent back electronically.

Members understood that resources are tight and aim to avoid creating additional work for officers and felt that recording and reporting should be as simple as pressing a button.

Members stated that recording systems could be implemented for council tasks noting that refuse cabs already have systems to identify and record tasks, indicating that similar technology could be applied to other areas.

Officers feel that the new system is expected to bring significant benefits and efficiencies, allowing for more organised and efficient pothole repairs.

Officers aim to handle repairs in a more area-based manner, reducing travel time between jobs. The system will also help track where teams are, improving emergency response. There is recognition of the ongoing efforts to improve the system, and the challenges faced.

Members praised local teams for the good work done in wards.

The chair felt reassured that the council's move towards a database understanding of activities would help manage materials, budgets, and overall operations more effectively. He highlighted the distinction between lengthy reports requested by the committee and those that are not, noting that some lengthy reports are necessary for a full understanding at specific points in time.

The chair noted that the programme set at the beginning of the year often doesn't go as planned, and reporting back to the committee on what was intended versus what was achieved would be useful. He emphasised the importance of understanding unmet needs including schemes that roll over into the next financial year, which should be clearly reported to members.

The chair acknowledged the need to adapt plans based on actual progress and changing priorities, and this flexibility should be reflected in the reports.

Michael Roberts explained that differences in the capital programme are managed through the capital programme steering group and then reviewed by the strategic leadership team, cabinet, or council, depending on the need. This is a formal process which includes reporting.

Officers try to balance the positives and negatives throughout the year. While ‘carry forwards’ are reported in other finance reports, it might be beneficial to see everything in one place. Officers would investigate this and discuss with scrutiny officers how to consolidate reports, especially since active travel and engineering programmes could be reported to different committees under the new scrutiny model coming in the next civic year.

The chair agreed that the issue needs to be revisited.

The chair suggested he could summarise the committee's thoughts and discussions into a letter to clarify suggestions and practicalities. This summary can then be discussed outside the committee to improve the report for next year, regardless of who the chair is in the new scrutiny arrangements.

Scott Jones, the Cabinet Member for Streetscene, expressed his disappointment when the new policy in 2019 shifted from a wish list to a risk-based programme managed by officers. He felt that Members surgeries should continue and emphasised their importance of not just for road resurfacing, but for constructive feedback on neighbourhood services to ensure communities are clean and tidy.

The cabinet member acknowledged that Neighbourhood services manage various budgets, not just for road resurfacing but also for other needs like grit bins and temporary pothole repairs. He felt that because of this, discussions in member surgeries cover a wide range of topics and needs, reflecting the diverse aspects of neighbourhood services.

The Cabinet member acknowledged the lack of investment over the past decade and stressed the need to support officers' professional advice based on risk. He assured that decisions are not influenced by wards or politics and suggested a separate meeting or seminar to better understand road risk areas. He doesn't foresee the £20 million funding and £3million yearly investment coming soon. He emphasised the collective responsibility to keep people safe and protect the council.

The chair felt that member surgeries were important and should not be scrapped as members help highlight issues that machines don’t always spot. He noted that there are grants available for issues like drop curbs or safety concerns, which can be applied for even if they fall under the capital programme.

The chair felt that risk management was scrutiny’s main concern. He stated the importance of members having visibility of the decision-making processes of officers to understand the rationale behind decisions and assess the level of risk involved. While trusting the professional judgement of officers is essential, members also need to see and be assured that risk management is being handled appropriately. This visibility is crucial for members to fulfil their responsibility in overseeing risk management effectively.

Martin Brumby supported the cabinet member's comments, emphasising that surgeries serve two main purposes: informing members about ward concerns and communicating public issues. He stated that Members surgeries allow members to tell residents their concerns were raised, even if not immediately addressed due to risk analysis, costs, budget constraints, and other priorities. Martin Brumby stressed the importance of continuing surgeries for transparency and accountability, as they have worked well over the past 10 years. This process helps officers explain why certain issues were not addressed.

Members asked how projects are funded during the survey stage when costs are unknown. They also asked if money is carried over to the new financial year if the survey is completed but work hasn't started.

Members highlighted the ongoing Lodge Lights project which has seen many accidents and near misses and has been delayed for years. Members want to know how long it will take to complete and how funds are allocated for such projects.

Martin Brumby explained that approved works in the capital programme will be done, even if they take longer than expected and roll over to the next year. New work is also processed annually, and schemes are not lost unless they can't be taken forward due to standards, data, or budget constraints.

In relation to the Lodge Lights, a report and discussion with officers will be provided. Swansea Telematics has been employed, but the project is delayed due to their other grant work and limited resources. With only a few professionals available, progress is slow, but the work will be completed.

Members noted the challenge of carrying money across financial years when project costs are unknown during the survey stage. They questioned how officers can know much budget should be set aside for such projects, using the example from their ward to illustrate the concern.

Martin Brumby explained that managing a capital works programme with a fixed budget of £344,000 for 20 schemes requires careful planning and flexibility. While the budget is allocated at the start, it is challenging to provide a fixed figure without detailed designs.

Officers must manage these schemes internally, relying on their professionalism and impartiality. Budgets can fluctuate, and some schemes may need to roll over into the next financial year.

An example was given that a £10,000 scheme might become a £30,000 scheme, impacting other planned projects. This balancing process is complex, as detailed designs are not always available before approval. Members were advised that projects develop in conjunction with members, and adjustments are made based on actual progress and changing priorities.

Martin Brumby noted that the lodge lights project is a classic example of a rollover scheme. Despite spending thousands over five years, there has been no real outcome to date.

Members felt that spending £25,000 on a feasibility study for a pedestrian crossing in Aberavon Ward, especially considering the recent fatality and near misses, seemed substantial. Members felt that it might have been more efficient to allocate those funds directly towards implementing the pedestrian crossing.

Martin Brumby explained that officers must charge for their time, which affects scheme costs. Officers assess accident records, visibility, and safety standards, and gather data. Following the fatality, they will look at what can be done but it will take time. Funding comes from the capital programme or capped individual pots which are used for other things.

Martin Brumby explained that this is why the money was put against this project to give officers a chance to look at it with the degree of depth it deserves following concerns and the and the fatality that happened last year.

To start preliminary works there might be money available. This scheme requires significant attention from officers and discussion with members.

Members asked if the feasibility study for the crossing includes weekends and evenings, considering the church's busy schedule with events outside standard hours.

Officers agreed to that request and advised that they aim to deliver the best outcome and value for money through professional assessments and risk-based approaches. Officers strive to use funds effectively.

The chair felt that it was an important question to ask in terms of how that money moves around because effectively it's an allocation from the capital budget into Martin Brumby’s team to carry out that work as there was a bit of concern that the council is paying somebody external to do that study and he was happy that it had been clarified.

Members asked about the Glyncorrwg bridge project. Officers advised that it is a big scheme and does not sit within the maintenance programme. Dave Griffiths team has had grant monies for it and officers can share that information with members. The Glyncorrwg scheme is being dealt with via bids through Welsh government. It is critical to the location for access in the community.

Members were advised that the information comes to members in another report on the other side of the capital programme, which is grant bids which normally comes from David Griffiths team. There is also a local transport fund which would be in the report which has £730,000 for the next stage of that work.

The chair felt that this project touches on the issue of members getting an understanding of risk and how the council is dealing with risk noting that this project shows a huge risk in terms of community being cut off and the condition of structures being addressed. But members are not seeing all that risk together.

Members stated that the junction of the A4107 has had three accidents, and they had requested a mirror be installed at that junction to prevent accidents. Members stated this request had been refused because of the ongoing works.

The chair noted that officers had responded with the rationale there around why that's not been taken forward outside of the meeting and the chair suggested that the member can pick the matter up again with officers and perhaps speak to the cabinet member as well if they are not satisfied with how that's being dealt with.

Michael Roberts summarised the overall highways situation explaining that everything is now very expensive. Inflation has increased along with the cost of materials due to issues like the war in Ukraine, while the money available to spend on the roads is the same now as it was 10 years ago.

Steve Owen Highways and Drainage Manager noted that in the past they could get a whole table of works done but now they are lucky if they can do half of them.

The chair emphasised the importance of understanding risks and unmet needs to inform decisions about capital funding allocation. He felt that identifying and understanding risks and unmet needs is crucial for making informed decisions. He noted that the council has the authority to distribute limited capital funding to manage various risks, including highways, education, and social services and more information and understanding of the risks will help ensure that funding decisions are well-informed.

The chair suggested that the cabinet may decide to reprioritise funding in the future based on assessed risks and needs and felt that a continuous discussion is necessary to address these issues and make the best use of available resources.

David Griffiths noted that there will be new scrutiny committees in the new civic year and active travel, the bus franchising and all regional transport related projects and all the big projects discussed in today’s meeting are likely to be reported to a different committee He didn’t know how scrutiny chairs will manage that and felt it was a discussion that needs to take place with scrutiny officers.

Officers highlighted that from 2026, all grants will be processed through the Corporate Joint Committee. Including active travel projects, road safety schemes, local transport funds, and major projects, totalling nearly 300 regional projects.

Members were informed that qualitative and quantitative assessments will determine the priority of schemes in Neath Port Talbot. This process is becoming more centralised, and officers felt that members need to ensure the Council receives its fair share of funding and is crucial for the Chair to monitor this closely in scrutiny meetings to represent NPT interests effectively. Officers will also advocate for the region, but members vigilance is essential.

The chair agreed that it is important for members to note and stated that they will all have to keep an eye on how those processes reveal themselves.

The chair stated that the corporate joint committees are quite complicated and adds an extra layer of complexity, but members have got to work within the system and understand it as best as they can.

Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet.