Those present

Name

Authority

Email

Gordon Prangnell

LB Hammersmith & Fulham

gordon.prangnell@lbhf.gov.uk

Andrej Znak

Ditto

andrej.znak @lbhf.gov.uk

Stan Harvey

LB Bromley

stan.harvey@bromley.gov.uk

Chris Wilson

LB Barnet

chris.wilson@barnet.gov.uk

Martin Sachs

LB Newham

martin.sachs@newham.gov.uk

1.

Apologies for absence were received from

Terry Felstead, John Roberts, Chris Hamshar, Ian Knott and David Nutley

2.

Matters arising from the minutes of the meeting 13^th July 2000 not included elsewhere on the agenda.

Page 1 item 4.3 – the conference was on the 19^th September not the 18^th as recorded

Page 2 in para 2 item 4.4 the company name was Core Test Limited and not as recorded.

Mike Kendrick’s web-site is the same as the ALG website.

3.

Street Lighting topics

In absentia TF reported the following:

There is a National Lighting Seminar at the Commonwealth Institute on 18th October based around Public Lighting Strategies.

The review of the latest structural testing equipment which is being marketed by Wilkinsons in the UK.

SH tabled this paper – copy attached at appendix 1.

In summary the DG found that it was reasonable for an inventory to be audited but if errors are identified then the local authorities may have to pay the reasonable cost of the audit otherwise the costs would fall to the supply company.

4.

District Audit Bench Marking Questionnaire

To date 14 boroughs had sent responses although this number may still increase. The deadline had been extended in mid October to mid November and as a consequence borough that had promised to reply but had still not done so could respond. Copies of those boroughs participating is attached at appendix 2. The ultimate aim was probably to set up benchmarking standards and for the boroughs to be clustered into BM clubs.

GP had seen a useful power-point presentation from the IAG on a similar exercise and the results had been achieved with far fewer participants. He would email copies to sector chairs.

Action: GP

Bridges were being dealt with separately although some responses had been received.

5.

ROAD 2000 – Principal Road Condition Survey

GP reported that the Executive report had been completed for the Mayor in July 2000 but no response had been receive. There was a slight void arising from the transfer of staff from GOL/HA to the TfL. A second copy of the report was sent to TfL in September and contact made at officer level.

Whilst no formal response was received it was mentioned in the Mayors Transport Strategy and had picked up on the £100m requirement to bring all roads up to standard.

GP was to discuss the idea of a resource allocation model although it would not be used for the current round of ITP assessments.

The presentation of the results to LoTAG members had been planned for the 16^th November at Hammersmith. Owing to the limited available space and the possible interests spaces would be limited to a maximum of 2 but early bids for more places could be made on this understanding. There was no charge for the seminar and all the speakers had given their time at no cost.

Borough data covering the structural condition indicator results and maps had been produced. In addition all the other UKPMS performance indicators both London-wide and on a borough by borough basis had now also been eventually produced but with some difficulty. When the maps were put out into the public arena then many more errors and questions would be identified. There would be a period of time after the seminar for boroughs to give further feed back on the accuracy or otherwise of the results.

The effects of the difficulties with the ROAD 2000 programme would be to frustrate the progress of ROAD 2001. There were already some network issues for the delivery of the machine surveys and these difficulties needed to be resolved before the machine survey work progressed too far.

It was hoped that the entire network could be SCRIM and ground radar surveyed before the end of the year. Other surveys RAV, FWD, coring and deflectograph would have to be more selective and be included as part of the more detailed analysis work.. A short presentation would be given on this at the seminar in November.

SH enquired about the funding arrangements for the GRN principal roads. That is those PRs that have transferred to the Mayor and yet were still being maintained by the boroughs under agency arrangements. GP/AZ confirmed that the GRN principal roads were now not part of the ROAD 2001 survey work. The GRN PR would be funded by the Mayor. SH asked that this be clarified and details provided to the boroughs, possibly at the seminar.

Action: GP

UPKMS Owners Forum

This had been discussed at group 2 and Ian Knott had done a short note on this. He wrote:

"I have now had the opportunity to speak with Andy Picket at Chris Britten Consultants. he advises that the terms of reference for the User Forum is still being drawn up. However the group is intended to act as an opportunity for users to influence the ongoing development of UKPMS with the disbandment of the Project Management group which ws funded by DETR. Apparently it is intended to have a management group steering CBC, probably made up of people from the Project Group although this is still being discussed with CSS and TAG. the "user fee" was the only way continued project management could be funded with DETR withdrawing its funding when the project officially ended a few months ago.

For LoTAG meeting it may be worthwhile raising it as a concern that the project is likely to come to a halt if no identified group is tasked with pursuing ongoing development and maybe pressure should be brought to bear on TAG and CSS etc to secure funds from authorities to fund it instead of each authority paying CBC. It is not intended that CBC will continue to test UKPMS software for compliance as part of this brief which may result in non compliant software in subsequent years!!!"

As a consequence the group felt it was important for LoTAG to take a lead in order to continue to influence the way in which highway maintenance was being directed under best value. GP agreed that he would raise this at the next TAG national meeting and possibly also at the TAG/CSS meeting to seek their views of London taking this lead.

In terms of the future management of the ROAD 2000 project AZ felt that an additional full time team member needed to be recruited. This really needed to await the announcement of the next ITP settlement in order to ensure sufficient funding for a one or two-year fixed term contract.

6.

NRMCS – Consultation Paper

GP had nothing to report on this only that he had been nominated by the TAG sub-committee on Highway Maintenance to be the London representative and had not heard any further from them. [Post meeting note: contact has been made and GP will attend the next meeting in February 2001 – further details of the response to the consultation paper would be circulated when it became available]

7.

Feedback from Sector Meetings

The sector chairs reported that they had all held meetings. (Note: if other sector chairmen have minutes of their meetings between July and October could they please forward them to GP)

8.

Any Other Business

8.1

SH circulated an Associated Asphalt pack giving details of their recycling and surface dressing products. GlasGrid, Safedress. Further details of these products can be obtained from Associated Asphalt, Highlands Lane, Henley on Thames Oxfordshire RG9 4PS Tel: 01491 575921 or Fax: 01491 5759713.

8.2

SH suggested that Chris Waite LPAC might be invited to a future meeting to discuss Highways Waste Minimisation. This was thought to be a good idea but would be discussed at the next meeting.

Date of next meeting: 10.15 hours Thursday 11^th January 2001 City of Westminster

Circulation: All Steering Group Members, Roger Khanna, Graham Morse and John Roberts