Agenda item

An update on schemes paid for by member budgets.

Shail Chohan (Head of County Highways) introduced this item, drawing out key aspects of the report.:

Updates to members

·       A monthly spreadsheet has been sent to all members including scheme details. A new, member specific spreadsheet, has now been created to allow members to see details specific to schemes, making it clearer to understand. Improvement on the information around finance has made it clearer about what funds have been used and what remains available.

·       Appendix 2 details a draft of a “shopping list” which contains the estimated costs of common, delegated budget items. This should assist members in the early estimations of what scheme costs.

·       Progression had been made on the Highways Communities Action Fund. This is a website in the build phase and has not been launched yet. It is a match funding scheme allowing Parishes and other groups to bid for up to 50% of funding for repairs to Highways improvement works locally.

·       County Highways have worked with Balfour Beatty to identify a dedicated resource to deal solely with Delegated Budgets to improve communication, planning and programme dates.

Shail Chohan confirmed that the County Highways team produced a shopping list (shown at appendix 2 of the report) with recommendations that members work with their highway area surveyors in the final quarter of each financial year to confirm what they would like delivered the following year. In May 2024 a list of the requests will be sent to the contractor allowing them to pre-plan and programme works, allowing them to start the works much earlier.

Shail Chohan referred members to Appendix 1 of the report which details the increase in delivery of schemes over the last four years and the forecast to continue that increasing trend.

Councillor Jan Matecki stated that members needed to be more focused on what they could and could not have. There had been complaints and issues with some members not engaging enough and others over engaging which had impacted on officer time. Hopefully the shopping list will free up officer time and give an idea of funding requirements. Funds have to be allocated in the year they were requested. There would be some changes which would help these projects to be delivered within the required time frame.

Councillor Pemberton referred to the shopping list, requesting that his comments be noted in the minutes. He stated that there needed to be more coherence between officers and members, and better communication. There needed to be a clearer outline of what was going to be delivered, when and how it was going to be delivered to the taxpayers, who were the customers. He asked how the Council was going be smarter at doing this and be more integrated? Councillor Pemberton considered he could not be the only member experiencing this and the officers were being hindered in doing a better job by this system.

In response to Councillor Pemberton, Councillor Matecki (Portfolio Holder for Transport and Planning) stated that the shopping list would assist with managing delivery and expectations. The shopping list would outline the costs involved before it was sent to officers. Not every scheme would be approved however a reason would be sent back if this is the case. The Council was looking at a more can-do approach with members.

Mark Ryder (Executive Director for Communities) acknowledged that there had been issues with the scheme and that these had been listened to. He acknowledged that the Council was the end user and had to be looking across the whole service. Changes had been implemented since 2020 and the delivery of schemes had increase immensely. With the implementation being led by the Portfolio Holder of Transport and Planning. Mark Ryder reiterated that concerns had being listened to and there would be areas to improve on. 

Councillor Fradgley commented on the shopping list saying it would be very useful. Shail Chohan (Head of County Highways) added that he would take the information back to his team for investigation and would come back with further information. Councillor Matecki (Portfolio Holder for Transport and Planning) offered his support to members experiencing any delays with projects and would liaise with the relevant officers.

In response to Councillor Wright, Shail Chohan advised that much of the work taken on by Balfour Beatty had been sub-contracted out. The price of the work would remain the same regardless of what Balfour Beatty paid their sub-contractor. Only a small minority of jobs would have price changes. Councillor Wright was not convinced the pricing was competitive. Shail Chohan replied stating that the tender had been completed in 2016 following standard procurement rules. He offered to speak with the councillor directly on the matter.

Councillor M Humphreys commented that the crossing at Birchwood school was still on hold. Mark Ryder (Executive Director for Communities) would investigate and reply directly to the councillor.

Councillor Watson (Portfolio Holder for Economy) agreed that the shopping list was very useful. He noted that VAS (vehicle activate signs) had been listed and sought clarification on whether such schemes were still provided. Shail Chohan advised that the Council could install vehicle activated signs however they had to be aligned with policy and meet certain criteria.

Councillor Sinclair asked about the differences in costs between patching and resurfacing a roadway, Shail Chohan advised that it was the technique used. Patching roads was a higher labour and resource cost than that used to resurface.

Councillor Fradgley questioned that the cost of a sign was on the shopping list but not the cost of a post. Shail Chohan replied that he would take the question away and investigate and have the extra detail added to the shopping list. A cost of a signage post would depend on where it is located as highspeed areas needed to meet certain criteria. 

Councillor Matecki (Portfolio Holder for Transport and Planning) added that this was not the final draft of the shopping list, and it would be refined.

The Chair asked for clarification on the variance of costs for the same item, Councillor Matecki stated that as part of the refinement of the shopping list, some aspects would be modified to make them easier to understand. Shail Chohan added that the final shopping list would include a more detailed description with photos of each scheme type, making it easier to understand the works involved.

The Chair questioned the timeline of getting projects delivered. Being able to advise residents on the time frame was important. Councillor Matecki agreed with the comment made. A solution was being investigated which would offer members notification of where projects were up to. Councillor Matecki advised that the shopping list might also include an indication of timeframes to help manage expectations.

The Chair closed the discussion saying that this would be appreciated by Members and the public.

The Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee noted:

1) The progress made against agreed proposals set out in the June 2020 Cabinet paper on the new Delegated Budget Scheme Process.

2) The current process for delivery of Delegated Budget Schemes.

3) The proposed new guidelines for Delegated Budget Schemes and next steps.