Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1986 > Committee on Public Expenditure > Report No. 16 - Review of Procedures relating to road openings by utilities

APPENDIX 6

Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations of the Horne Report (U.K.)

“Roads and the Utilities” November 1985

This is primarily a list of our main recommendations for action, (shown in bold print). We have also included (in ordinary print) a few of our most vital conclusions that are important in their own right. However, we have not attempted to show here the arguments that lie behind the recommendations. for which the appropriate part of the report (as referred to at the end of each recommendation) should be consulted. The recommendations are set out in the order in which they appear in the report.

The confusion of responsibilities for reinstatements of utility openings that is inherent in the existing system must be resolved. The objectives should be that permanent reinstatements should be completed more quickly than is the case at present, and in particular as many as possible should be done immediately on completion of the utility works (paragraph 4.19).

1. The utilities should become responsible for all the excavation and reinstatement work associated with their activity in the highway, subject to the adoption of the related systems which we recommend in Chapters 5 to 11, which are necessary to enable the highway authorities to perform their statutory responsibility for the maintenance of the highway (paragraph 4.38).

The many variations around the country in specifications for the reinstatement of utility openings are undesirable.

There are serious weaknesses in the 1974 Model Agreement Specifications (paragraphs 5.1 to 5.9).

2. New specifications should be drawn up, and should be applied nationally without variation. There should be a new specification to replace the existing one on materials and workmanship involved in the reinstatement of excavations. There should also be an entirely new type of specification on the standard of performance that should be achieved by reinstatements after completion (paragraph 5.11).

3. The standard reinstatement performance specification should generally apply from the beginning, and should ensure that the road is restored to a satisfactory standard of riding quality, but in cases where an immediate permanent reinstatement is not possible or desirable, an interim performance specification should apply, which would be aimed primarily at ensuring that the safety of all classes of road user protected (paragraph 5.21).

The existing standards of training in excavation and reinstatement for the workmen of the utilities and their contractors are not good enough. There is an excessive reliance on ‘on the job’ training (paragraphs 6.12 and 6.13).

4. There should be a national training scheme in excavation and reinstatement work, which should apply to all organisations which have general powers to excavate in the highway, should cover both direct labour organisations and contractors, should embrace the different levels of staff from manual workers to senior supervisors and engineers, and should be provided at centres recognised for this purpose, with uniform national standards of assessment (paragraph 6.15).

5. The training scheme should be complemented by a system of certification. It should be made a requirement that, within five years, at every utility opening at least one man who has an appropriate certificate should be on site at all times when work is taking place. In addition, within two years, every job should be supervised by someone with a certificate of appropriate training at the supervisory level (paragraph 6.17).

The present PUSWA notices procedures are cumbersome, unsatisfactory and not appropriate to the current levels of street works activity (paragraph 7.15).

6. They should therefore be replaced by more modern procedures related to the respective needs of utilities and authorities. The revised procedures should avoid the over-legalistic approach inherent in the 1950 Act and should be based more on a ‘need to know’ and ‘protection of self-interest’ approach as the reason for participation and creating motivation (paragraph 7.15).

7. If liaison between authorities concerned with roadworks is to improve and if disturbance to road users is to be minimised, a new management tool is required in the form of a computerised central roadworks register which is easily accessed by all the relevant authorities and utilities, and which is capable of recording the significant events throughout the ‘interest life’ of each job. We recommend that such a system should be established (paragraph 7.16).

8. Highway authority works which have an impact on road users or the utilities should be treated similarly to utility works and should therefore be registered and recorded. In the case of excavations in the highway by bodies which do not have any general authority to excavate, but which are working under a specific licence from the highway authority, it should be the statutory responsibility of the highway authority acting as agents for the excavator to register the works. The same periods of notice should apply as for the different categories of utility works (paragraph 7.17).

9. There should be a statutory requirement to register all utility and all appropriate highway authority and private works, and with the exception of ‘immediate’ works registration should be completed at least seven working days in advance of work starting. ‘Immediate’ works should be notified within two hours of work starting (paragraph 7.20).

10. Highway authorities should be empowered to designate in advance lengths of roads where there are special engineering difficulties, and utilities proposing to carry out works on roads so designated should be required to submit by the date of registration plans and sections of the works for the approval of the highway authority (paragraph 7.28).

11. The statutory minimum notice of 7 days should be supplemented by code of practice on the minimum periods of notice; for ‘major projects’ months, for ‘carriageway and major footway works’ 29 days and for ‘mino 7 days (paragraph 7.40).

Although the utilities themselves must judge the level of supervision that is required to satisfy their responsibilities and safeguard their interests, we are satisfied that they will need to devote more attention to this than they generally do at present (paragraph 8.5).

12. The highway authorities’ powers of inspection should be extended to cover any site where utility excavation or reinstatement work is being done in the highway (paragraph 8.7).

13. The utilities should jointly consider the alternative possible arrangements for the inspection of reinstatements, of either each utility inspecting its own reinstatements, or all the utilities arranging a joint inspection service, or employing the highway authority as the utilities’ agent (paragraph 8.18).

14. The highway authority should have the power to require the utility to attend a joint inspection of a defective reinstatement, at a time agreed by the two parties. Any agreed shortcoming must be rectified by the utility within a specified period. If a utility fails to comply with either of these requirements, the highway authority should be able itself to rectify the reinstatement at the utility’s expense, after warning the utility of its intention to do so. If, following a joint inspection, agreement cannot be reached on whether a reinstatement is defective, then it should be possible to resort to arbitration (paragraph 8.19).

15. In addition where a reinstatement is found to be defective, the highway authority and the utility should have the right to extract cores and samples (paragraph 8.20).

Provided that special arrangements are made for exceptional cases, the argument for a general extension of the standard two-year guarantee period for reinstatements contained in the Model Agreement is quite weak. There are also powerful practical arguments against an extension of the standard guarantee period (paragraphs 9.2 to 9.4).

16 Where a utility does an immediate permanent reinstatement, the guarantee period should remain at two years (paragraph 9.5).

17. Where a utility opts to meet the interim reinstatement standard for the first six months, the guarantee period should run for 2½ years from the completion of the original utility works (paragraph 9.5).

18. Where a reinstatement has to be re-excavated, a fresh guarantee period of 2 years should commence at the time of the completion of the new reinstatement (paragraph 9.6).

19. There should, in the first instance, be a trial of a three-year warranty period for deep trenches, taken from the opening of the reinstatement to traffic where the utility accepts responsibility for attaining the standard performance specification immediately. Where the utility opts initially to perform only to the interim performance standard, the warranty period for deep trenches should be three and a half years, with the aim of achieving the standard performance for a period of at least three years (paragraph 9.11).

20. In addition, should the reinstatement, during the time when it is expected to satisfy the standard performance specification, show a performance outside the interim standard, the warranty period should be extended to three years after the completion of the remedial works which restored the reinstatement to the standard performance (paragraph 9.11).

21. The responsibility to take account of possible effects on reinstatements of parallel deep trenches that have completed their warranty period should be imposed on the utility carrying out the later trenching, that utility then being required to make good under his warranty any damage that his trench may cause to the former reinstatement. Where warranty periods overlap a joint responsibility should be imposed on the utilities involved, to be divided by agreement (paragraph 9.12).

22. A depth of 1.5 metres should be the limit beyond which the special arrangements for deep excavations should apply (paragraph 9.13).

The evidence available at this stage does not provide a solution to the problem of long-term damage. While there is certainly evidence that damage does occur, this has not been quantified or analysed to the extent that would be necessary either to assess the overall extent of damage or to propose any approach which might be capable of identifying causes and compensation in particular cases. We do not believe that it is practicable to defer a solution until the completion of a full investigation of all the factors involved (paragraph 10.13).

23. Existing procedures for assessing the residual life of pavements and for the assessment of maintenance needs should be exploited to monitor the effects of utility reinstatements on road damage and maintenance needs and costs (paragraph 10.18).

24. After experience has been gained, a review should be made of the way in which the formal specifications and the warranty periods have operated in order to assess the extent to which the arrangements have succeeded in monitoring, limiting and correcting structural damage (paragraph 10.25).

The main complaints concerning the present financial arrangements relate to the question of charges for reinstatements; these problems will entirely disappear if the system of responsibilities that we recommend is adopted (paragraphs 11.2 to 11.4).

As regards payments by utilities for other local authority functions, a distinction should be made between those general functions which apply to all utility openings and which should be financed from general taxation, and those functions which are specially required as a result of the circumstances of a particular opening, especially if there has been some deficiency by the utility, and for which it would be appropriate for the local authorities to levy specific charges upon the utilities (paragraphs 11.9 to 11.12).

25. The capital costs of establishing the electronic notice and data-base system represent an important national investment, and we recommend that there should be discussions between central government, local government and the utilities as to how these costs should be shared (paragraph 11.14).

26. Where a highway authority inspection reveals a deficiency that leads to a need for a joint inspection, the utility should pay to the highway authority their costs in respect of the initial inspection, the joint inspection and any subsequent inspection of the rectification (paragraph 11.15).

27. Where a highway authority has to step in to take any form of remedial action in default of the utility doing so, the highway authority should be able to charge the utility for its costs, including the cost of serving the requisite notice on the utility (paragraph 11.16).

28. Where a highway authority inspection of a reinstatement reveals it to be defective, there should be a charge to the utility to cover the inspection that detected the deficiency and a further inspection after the utility has corrected the deficiency. If a joint inspection is required, then the utility should pay the highway authority’s costs for that also (paragraph 11.17).

29. If sampling reveals that a reinstatement had not been done in accordance with the specification, then the highway authority should be able to charge its reasonable costs to the utility (paragraph 11.18).

30. The costs of joint pre-inspections should lie where they fall (paragraph 11.19).

31. The highway authority should be able to charge to the utility its reasonable costs for making temporary traffic orders and signposting diversions (paragraph 11.20).

32. Section 156 of the Highways Act 1980 should be repealed, and all utilities and highway authorities should establish coordination procedures for major projects in advance, and in addition to the requirements to register such projects, in order to avoid overlapping and to permit long-term planning (paragraph 12.8).

33. Local authorities should consider how information on possible future building developments, derived from the planning and building control systems, might be integrated into any future system of identifying in advance possible needs for excavation work by the utilities (paragraph 12.10).

34. A duty should be placed upon the highway authorities to produce maps designating those roads where utility works could cause the greatest disruption to traffic (paragraph 13.12).

35. Whenever a utility proposes to carry out works that will obstruct the carriageway on a road designated as traffic-sensitive, it should be required to consult in advance with the highway authority (paragraph 13.14).

36. We believe that there is a need for improved information about utility works for motorists, and indeed for cyclists, in order that they can decide to use alternative routes should they wish to do so. We believe that the computerised register of roadworks which we recommend could well assist in this, and that the central role should be played by the highway authorities, and we recommend that the many interests involved should come together to work out how best this could be arranged (paragraph 13.22).

The existing legal requirements on the recording of underground plant are inconsistent as between utilities and are inadequate (paragraph 14.5).

37. The various pieces of legislation relating to the recording by the utilities of their underground plant should be amended so as to:

(i) with regard to new apparatus, produce consistent and generally uniform requirements on mapping;

(ii) with regard to existing apparatus, recognise that it is not practicable to require the utilities to hold such accurate records; and

(iii) oblige the utilities to take advantage of excavations to make accurate records of all existing apparatus found, whether belonging to that utility or to other utilities (paragraph 14.12).

We should like to commend the Dudley Digital Records Trial, and in particular the cooperation being shown by all the utilities and the highway authority. We hope that it will be possible, assuming the trial is successful, to implement a digital record system incrementally across the whole country (paragraph 14.13).

38. The utilities should pursue the standardisation of their detailed recording practices and conventions (paragraph 14.14).

39. The utilities should take legal advice on the status of disclaimers regarding the accuracy of records, in the interests of the utilities themselves and of those who receive such records; and in the meantime the use of such disclaimers should be discontinued. All records handed over to third parties by the utilities should carry a warning that that record is subject to accuracy limitations (paragraph 14.15).

40. We believe all utilities, in the interests both of excavators and of preventing damage to their plant, should be prepared to assist in the locating and identifying of their plant on sites when requested to do so. Utilities should be statutorily required to attend the site of excavations where necessary (paragraph 14.16).

41. The material contained in Safety Guidance Notes should be built into the training programmes which we recommend in Chapter 6 (paragraph 15.7).

42. Both the standard and interim reinstatement performance specifications should take full account of the safety needs of cyclists, the reinstatement standards on cycle tracks should be just as good as on the carriageway, and cycle tracks should be covered by the legislation (paragraph 16.4).

43. Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual should be revised and updated so as to produce a comprehensive code on the signing and guarding of roadworks on all types of road (paragraph 16.12).

44. Guidance on the most effective use of traffic lights should be included in the new Chapter 8 (paragraph 16.13).

45. The HSE should have the sole responsibility for enforcing the requirements relating to the safety of workmen, and the police should have the sole responsibility for enforcing standards of signing and guarding (paragraph 16.16).

46. At utility work sites there should be displayed at all times a sign, of standard size and legibility, identifying both the promoting utility and the contractor (if any) carrying out the work, together with emergency telephone numbers (paragraph 16.17).

47. The utilities and the highway authorities jointly (as they are both affected) should continue to develop signs, lights and other equipment that are less susceptible to vandalism; the police should pay attention to this problem in relation to the dangers involved; and the sentences of those convicted should be made appropriate to the dangers (paragraph 16.18).

48. Solid barriers of adequate height should be erected on those sides of excavations that obstruct pedestrian flows, whether or not there is any special reason to expect blind people at that location (paragraph 17.5).

49. The associations representing the blind and the disabled should be fully consulted in the preparation of the changes to Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual that will be needed to implement our recommendations on this subject (paragraph 17.8).

50. Where local organisations of the blind or the disabled wish to take an initiative in providing advance information about street works to their members, the utilities and the highway authority should assist in providing the relevant information (paragraph 17.9).

51. The law relating to liability for damage to the highway resulting from bursts or explosions of utility apparatus (Section 18(2) of PUSWA) needs to

52. Highway authorities and utility representatives should reconsider the problem of vehicles damaging footways, with a view to finding a solution more acceptable to all (paragraph 19.4).

53. Highway authorities should be given a power to designate roads along which the laying of utility apparatus would be restricted; such laying could either be banned absolutely or be permitted only in compliance with certain conditions. It would be necessary in respect of any roads so designated that all the utilities should be relieved of their statutory obligations, for instance as imposed by the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act 1899, Section 21(2) (paragraph 20.2).

54. Those responsible for the layout of residential roads should take account of utility needs, including the problem of roads without footways, which leave utility equipment to be accommodated either in service strips in private land or under the carriageway (paragraph 21.2).

55. The utilities should study the standards for the design and location of their underground apparatus, with a view to minimising the whole-life costs, including social costs, of that apparatus (paragraph 21.3).

56. NJUG should institute a preliminary study of the possibilities for the use of prefabricated multiway duct systems, and invite representatives of the highway authority interests to participate (paragraph 21.4).

57. Data on the costs of utility works in highway schemes should be collected on a systematic basis and should be taken into account by government in policies relating to such schemes (paragraph 25.34).

58. Civil engineering work associated with the diversion of utility apparatus, apart from the bedding and immediate cover to agreed depth of that apparatus, should be carried out as part of the main highway authority contract (paragraph 25.46).

59. The Model Guidelines, amended as necessary to take account of our recommendations, should be formally adopted by the highway authorities and the utilities (paragraph 25.53).

60. Section 22(2) (a) of PUSWA should be repealed, and should be replaced by a new provision which applies to all utility works done as a consequence of a highway scheme, whether or not these works are required by the highway authority promoting the scheme. The new provision should require the promoting authority and the utilities involved to liaise together in order to secure that the various works are done in such a way as to reduce as far as is reasonably possible the delay to the overall scheme; compliance with the provisions of the Model Guidelines should be deemed to satisfy this requirement; and if either a promoting authority or a utility is proved to have contravened the requirement, then, if any party involved has suffered a financial loss as a result of that contravention, they should be able to recover that sum from the offending party (paragraph 25.55).

61. An arbitration facility should be available where both (or all) the parties concerned are agreeable, either simply to establish the facts or to make a binding award (paragraph 25.57).

62. Should the necessity for the provisions on betterment remain, these should be made fully comprehensive, so that all types of case in which there is a clear betterment are covered (paragraph 25.61).

63. Where highway authorities are required to pay for utilities’ costs, the utilities should publish rates and schedules on the basis of which estimates and costings for utility works consequential upon highway schemes should be made (paragraph 25.66).

*64. In all major highway schemes (to be defined by national agreement) there should be a statutory obligation on highway authorities to give notice to utilities likely to be affected by the scheme not less than five years before it is implemented. For other than major schemes the period should be two years. If notice is not given, and the utility installs new apparatus within five or two years respectively before implementation, the full costs of relocating that apparatus necessitated by the highway works should be borne by the highway authority (paragraph 25.72).

65. The utilities should consult the highway authorities, at both national and local level as appropriate, on the placing of apparatus which is particularly expensive to remove or replace, and at national level on the introduction of new techniques for the laying of apparatus in the highway, and on the manner and positions of all forms of apparatus in or on the highway associated with new utility services (paragraph 25.77).

66. The utilities should consider carefully the necessity for their apparatus to be moved, and they should only require this when necessitated by considerations of performance or protection of apparatus, or safety and frequency of access (paragraph 25.85).

*67. We recommend, as providing the best means of resolving difficulties and achieving a more equitable solution than the present arrangement, a change to the financial arrangement whereby utility apparatus costs in highway schemes are borne by the utility, and the costs of associated civil engineering work by the highway authority (paragraph 25.98).

*68. Where a bridge is reconstructed or replaced as a result of either a highway scheme or a transport authority scheme, utilities should pay for any addition to the cost of the new bridge caused by accommodating their apparatus, as well as paying for any costs incurred in replacing their apparatus (paragraph 26.17).

*69. Highway authorities as bridge managers should receive the protection already afforded to transport authorities as owners of bridges in Sections 10, 11 and 12 of PUSWA (paragraph 26.19).

70. When a highway scheme will cause a length of road or a bridge that contains utility apparatus to become redundant, the highway authority should inform the utilities involved, well in advance of the scheme, whether it intends to continue maintaining the redundant road or bridge as a public highway (paragraph 27.7).

*71. A utility which has apparatus in a road or bridge that is to become redundant should have the option of leaving its apparatus in position or moving it. If the utility decides to move its apparatus the normal cost-sharing arrangements that we have recommended in Chapters 25 and 26 should apply, namely that the utility should bear the cost of moving the apparatus itself and any resulting additions to the cost of constructing the new bridge, and the highway authority should bear the cost of any necessary civil engineering works in the highway. If a utility or utilities decide to leave apparatus in a road or bridge that will cease to be publicly maintainable, they will need to make their own arrangements for any necessary which had left its apparatus in position subsequently decides to move it, the utility should bear the full costs; and similarly if a highway authority which had stated that it would continue to maintain the redundant highway subsequently decides to cease maintaining it, the highway authority should bear in full the reasonable costs of any movements of apparatus to the replacement highway which the utilities wish to make. This last principle should also apply to any redundant highways already existing. Highway bridges maintainable by a transport authority and which become redundant as a result of a highway scheme should be subject to similar principles (paragraph 27.19).

72. A new body should be established to replace the existing PUSWA Conference, and should be given a new title; we will term it the ‘Street Works Advisory Council’ (paragraph 28.5).

73. The utilities and the highway authorities should draw up an agreement on the adoption of a readily applicable procedure for arbitration in appropriate circumstances (paragraph 28.27).