calderdale mbc permit scheme report - year 2 · 2017-08-09 · ycps – njs – calderdale mbc...

YCPS – NJS – Calderdale MBC Permit Scheme Year 2

Yorkshire Common Permit Scheme for Road Works and Street Works

Permit Scheme Evaluation Report

Tranche 2 Authorities

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Year 2 – 2016/2017

THE PIECE HALL, HALIFAX


Contents Part Description Page 1 Executive Summary 3 2 Introduction 5 3 Objectives of the Yorkshire Common Permit Scheme 5 4 Fee Structure 6 5 Costs and Benefits 8 6 Performance Indicators 9 7 TPI Measures 16 8 Authority Measures 17 9 Conclusion 24 10 Glossary 26


1 Executive Summary The Yorkshire Common Permit Scheme (YCPS) commenced operation on the 12th June 2012 and was initially operated in six authority areas (Barnsley, Doncaster, Kirklees, Leeds, Rotherham and Sheffield). The scheme benefits were assessed by Bradford, Calderdale and Wakefield districts, commonly known as the Tranche 2 (T2) Authorities and was subsequently adopted and brought into operation in those areas on 31st March 2015. The scheme focuses attention on the strategically sensitive highway network and the New Roads and Street Works Act (NRSWA), noticing rules apply on the remainder of the highway network. The T2 Authorities consulted utility stakeholders prior to adopting the YCPS and committed to work within the existing governance arrangements and working parties developed as part of Tranche 1. This included a commitment for a T2 Authority to co-chair the Yorkshire Permits Operational Group to ensure a successful transition. This, combined with assistance from the Tranche 1 Authorities has resulted in a successful adoption of the scheme. This is the second annual evaluation of the T2 Authorities within the YCPS covering the period from 31st March 2016 to 31st March 2017. The report evaluates the progress of the permit scheme in meeting both the stated objectives and parity of treatment of both works for road purposes and utility street works. The main objectives of the Scheme were to minimise delay and reduce disruption arising from works on the highway, and to demonstrate parity of treatment amongst all works promoters. In the second reporting year, Calderdale MBC has adopted the HAUC (England) Report Template for the Evaluation of Permit Schemes, and – as per the requirements of the guidance given and the 2015 Amendment Regulations, is reporting solely on the operation of the scheme in Calderdale Area. In compiling the data, the limitations of the reports available to the Authority via the EToN reporting system has meant that some performance indicators cannot be reported on. It is anticipated that through support of the EToN provider such data can be collated in the future. During Year 2 of the scheme, 2934 PAA applications, Permit Applications, Variation Applications and Permit Modification requests were received, checked and coordinated. 406 of those Permit applications were refused. In the first reporting year, Calderdale MBC saw a decrease in average days of occupation from 9.07 to 8.75 days. During the second year of scheme operation, this has further improved and the figure decreased to an average of 7.87 days. Much of the average duration is down to Major works, many of which have been in challenging areas from both a geographical and engineering point of view. There have


also been a number of Immediate Emergency jobs that have escalated in to more complex jobs than a “localised repair” and these have inflated the average duration in this category. It can be seen from the graph in “8.3 AM 3 - Days of Disruption Saved / Number of collaborative works” that significant improvement has been made in the afore mentioned categories during the second year of the Permit Scheme. Immediate Emergency duration fell from 9.17 days to 6.85 days as a result of closer monitoring and co-ordination of works and an effort to reduce the time spent occupying the highway, especially the period between undertaking repairs and the backfill and reinstatement process. Major Works duration was also reduced from 21.43 days to 18.02 days during the past year and again, this was down to better co-ordination and pre-planning with promoters. Permit refusal rates for Utility promoter’s remains relatively consistent, rising from 12.72% to 14.75% with the small increase thought to be due to an increase in applications and a number of permits being submitted without any conditions whatsoever, which led to an automatic refusal. The refusal rate for Authority applications did improve significantly, falling from 13.61% to just 2.31% but this is due to a new member of staff submitting the applications and in-house training on conditions, together with local knowledge of our network in relation to congestion and the relative traffic management. Calderdale MBC is committed to working with all promoters with an aim to drive down refusal rates to the lowest possible levels and will always accommodate works where possible on the provision that permit conditions are correct and suitable for the works and location in question. The range of refusal rates identified in Section “8.4 AM 4 - Response Codes”, indicates that there are still areas of improvement to be made by all works promoters but it is hoped that the introduction of the National Response Codes will help both the permit authority and promoters to identify the reasons for refusal and improve the rates by providing better information and implementing the correct/necessary conditions on key routes. Section “8.2 AM 2 – Inspections”, identifies the number of failed Sample A (S/A) inspections that have taken place over the reporting period. The percentage of Category A Inspection passes for both Permit and Non-Permit sites is somewhat of a concern and one that Calderdale MBC intends to address with immediate effect. During Year 2, S/A inspections have been a high priority and scrutinised in more detail in order to ensure the safety of both site operatives and users of the public highway. The pass rate for Permit and Non-Permit roads combined was just 79% and specifically, Permit Roads saw a pass rate of just 65%, with Non-Permit Roads having a pass rate of 81%. Moving forward, Calderdale MBC will be analysing the specific reasons for the failures in more detail and issuing improvement notices where required. Overall, the performance of the Scheme during its first and second full year of operation has demonstrated that it is meeting the objectives that were set-out at the inception of the scheme. It is providing the authority with a valuable tool to help co-ordinate works, reduce delay and minimise disruption that shows a benefit to the local economy.


It has also encouraged more effective and efficient communication between permit authorities, work promoters and highway users. This second annual report has highlighted some areas where further development of the scheme and improved reporting capabilities are required to evaluate and maximise the scheme benefits. Work will continue with all stakeholders to achieve these goals and continue the successes achieved in the first and second evaluation period. 2 Introduction The Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA), Part 3 Sections 32 to 39, and the Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) Regulations 2007 make provision for Permit Schemes to be introduced in England. The Yorkshire Common Permit Scheme for Roadworks and Streetworks was adopted by Calderdale MBC on 31 March 2015 and has been amended to reflect the requirements introduced in 2015 as required. This report sets out an overview of Yorkshire Common Permit Scheme operational performance in its second year. The report provides detailed scrutiny of the available data in relation to street works and activities in Calderdale. 3 Objectives of the Yorkshire Common Permit Scheme The objectives of Yorkshire Common Permit Scheme were laid out in Section 3 of the Yorkshire Common Permit Scheme, Calderdale MBC Scheme Supplementary Information. These are summarised below along with how they have been met. 1) Key Objective:

Minimising delay and reducing disruption to road users arising from road and street works activity.

2) Parity Objective:

Ensuring parity between promoters of street works and works for road purposes. 3) Supplementary Objectives:

To protect the structure of the street and the integrity of apparatus in it.

To encourage proactive, rather than reactive, attitudes to activities by promoters. The change in culture should result in the supply of more information to permit authorities, which will better enable them to manage their network, coordinate activities within their area and across adjacent authorities’ areas, and reduce disruption to users of the highway. Information on road works and street works is provided to the general public enabling informed journey choices.

To ensure safety for those using, living or working on the street, including those

engaged in activities controlled by the Permit Scheme.


To improve activity planning by all promoters.

An aid to help public transport efficiencies. 4) Transport Objectives

To make substantial progress towards a low-carbon transport system.

To improve connectivity to support economic activity and economic growth.

To enhance the quality of life of people in the region’s diverse communities, visitors and commuters to the region (including health, safety, equality, air quality, noise and the natural environment).

Any activity carried out in the street has the potential to cause disruption depending on how long it lasts, where it is carried out, its scale and potential relation to other activities which may be taking place. The YCPS created an opportunity to realise a number of benefits to road users, local residents and businesses in the Yorkshire area through better control, planning and coordination of works, and a more robust framework for checking and challenging activities on the highway. The YCPS intends to ensure that the conditions of the permit promote the expeditious movement of traffic through road works, reducing disruption and promoting safety at road and street works sites.

4 Fee Structure The Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 require that the permit authority shall give consideration to whether the fee structure needs to be changed in light of any surplus or deficit; The Traffic Management Act 2004 introduced the concept of permits for works on the street as a tool for local highway authorities to reduce the disruption caused by those works. Separate permit regulations set out many of the details for how schemes will operate and include the powers for an authority to set up a scheme in which fees may be charged to statutory undertakers. The permit regulations state that the income from fees must not exceed the proportion of costs for operating the permit scheme incurred in relation to statutory undertakers. The permit code of practice supplements this by stating that the fee income should only cover the extra costs incurred in relation to statutory undertakers over and above the costs of carrying out the previous coordination duty under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.


The Traffic Management (Calderdale MBC) Permit Scheme Order 2015 commenced operation on 31 March 2015 as part of the Yorkshire Common Permit Scheme. In making an application to the Secretary of State each authority provided their proposed permit fees for each category of work and a comprehensive justification of those fee levels using the Department for Transport (DfT) matrix. In completing the matrix, care was taken to follow the advice contained in the Permit Fees Guidance published by the DfT. Each authority originally committed to undertake an annual review of the permit fees and an initial review to identify and evaluate the sums paid by way of fees and the prescribed costs of operating the scheme. Following each evaluation if fee income has exceeded the prescribed costs the necessary adjustments will be made in the subsequent year’s fee levels. Under legislation from 1st October 2015, any adjustment of the fee levels will require an Order application to be made and signed by the Chief Officer of Highways and Transportation. The annual fee review undertaken to cover the period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 has shown that costs were 1% greater than the permit income.

4.1 Permit Fee Review Methodology 4.1.1 Review Period This review of the permit fee levels covers the period from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 inclusive. The current Calderdale MBC Permit Fees and the maximum fee levels are shown in the table below;

Type of Application CMBC Fee Max Allowable Fee (DfT)

Provisional Advance Authorisation (PAA) £89 £105

Major works – over 10 days and all major works requiring a traffic regulation order £190 £240

Major works – 4 to 10 day £125 £130

Major works – up to 3 days £55 £65

Standard activity permit £117 £130

Minor activity permit £48 £65

Immediate activity permit £33 £60 Invoices for allowable permit fees are sent to statutory undertakers for payment monthly. The total invoiced amounts over the review period have been included in Section 5. The total amount over the review period forms the income element of the income and cost comparison.


5 Costs and Benefits Costs The time spent on each permit type was identified by each Officer in the NRASWA and Co-ordination Team to allow for the costs of pre site inspections, assessing permits, inspecting and reporting on such works. A number of operational costs were identified, including administration, training and associated IT equipment/systems maintenance - 21% of these costs were attributed to the Permit Scheme (21% being the percentage by length of permit streets compared to the total length of Highway Network in the Calderdale MBC area). Care has been taken to ensure that they are permit specific costs and that they have been adjusted to ensure that they represent costs over and above the equivalent costs under the previous NRSWA duty. Permit Fee Income and Allowable Cost Comparison Calderdale MBC Permit Fee Review – 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 Proportion of Permits Granted

Calderdale MBC Statutory Undertakers Volume % Volume %

211 8.3 2317 91.7 Permit Scheme Costs for Statutory Undertakers

Operational Costs Staffing Costs Total Costs £6,518.64 £123,854.17 £130,372.81

Permit Scheme Income

Total Permit Fees for 2016/17 £129,082.00 The comparison tables above show that Calderdale MBC has agreed permit invoices with Statutory Undertakers totalling £129,082.00 during the review period. The allowable costs that Calderdale MBC has incurred relating to Statutory Undertakers permit applications is £130,372.81 during the review period. The allowable cost is 1% higher than the amount invoiced to statutory undertakers in permit fees. This figure will be monitored annually as required to ensure fees are appropriately costed. Taking into account the levels of income, against allowable costs it does not appear that any amendment of the fee levels is required at this stage. This will be monitored and assessed at the end of year three of the Permit Scheme. As such it is recommended that the permit fees should remain at the levels set until the next fee review is undertaken. The Traffic Management Permit Scheme (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 require that the permit authority also shall give consideration to whether the permit scheme


is meeting key performance indicators where these are set out in the Guidance. This report contains performance indicators and authority measures to which Calderdale MBC has provided data where technically possible to evidence that the Authority is meeting key performance indicators and the objectives as set out in the YCPS. 6 Performance Indicators 6.1 PI1 The number of permit and permit variation applications The number of permits and permit variation applications received, the number granted and the number refused and shown as:

The total number of permit and permit variation applications received, excluding any applications that are subsequently withdrawn.

The number of applications granted as a percentage of the total applications made.

The number of applications refused as a percentage of the total applications made.

6.1.1 Results The chart below shows the number of all permit applications received, the number of permit applications granted and the number of permit applications refused

The Number of PAA, Permit and Permit Variation Applications Received, the Number Granted and the Number Refused


Permits Granted and Refused The table below shows a breakdown of permit applications received, granted and refused for the second year of operation (2016/17) in Calderdale.

Description TOTAL COMBINED Highway Authority Utilities Number % of total Number % of total Number % of total

Permits/variations granted 2528 86.16 211 97.69 2317 85.25

Permits/variations refused + PAMR 406 13.84 5 2.31 401 14.75

Total 2934 100.00 216 100.00 2718 100.00 The table below shows the same data for the first year (2015/16) of the permit scheme.

Description TOTAL COMBINED Highway Authority Utilities Number % of total Number % of total Number % of total

Permits/variations granted 2340 87.22 165 86.39 2175 87.28

Permits/variations refused + PAMR 343 12.78 26 13.61 317 12.72

Total 2683 100.00 191 100.00 2492 100.00 Below, the data is further broken down by activity type into applications granted and refused. This is shown for both years of the scheme to show a comparison of data.

PROMOTER GRANT PAAGRANT

PERMIT

GRANT

VARIATIONPAMR

REFUSE

APPLICATION% REFUSED % PAMR

% REFUSED +

PAMRGRAND TOTAL

BT 1 293 69 41 56 12.17 8.91 21.09 460

CALDERDALE 5 157 49 3 2 0.93 1.39 2.31 216

Fulcrum Pipelines Limited 1 1 1 0.00 33.33 33.33 3

GAS TRANSPORTATION CO LTD 1 3 1 2 28.57 14.29 42.86 7

National Grid Electric PLC 2 2 1 1 0.00 16.67 16.67 6

NETWORK RAIL -PROMOTERS NATIONAL 7 23 4 1 4 10.26 2.56 12.82 39

Northern Gas Networks 39 155 124 30 29 7.69 7.96 15.65 377

Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc 6 267 98 15 14 3.50 3.75 7.25 400

Romec 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 2

Telefonica (O2 (UK) Limited) 1 2 1 1 20.00 20.00 40.00 5

T-Mobile (UK) Limited 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2

VIRGIN MEDIA 1 92 18 14 13 9.42 10.14 19.57 138

Vodafone 4 2 2 25.00 0.00 25.00 8

WEST YORKSHIRE PTE 15 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 17

Yorkshire Water 12 786 281 102 73 5.82 8.13 13.96 1254

Grand Total 73 1800 655 210 196 2934

PROMOTER GRANT PAAGRANT

PERMIT

GRANT

VARIATIONPAMR

REFUSE

APPLICATION% REFUSED % PAMR

% REFUSED +

PAMRGRAND TOTAL

BT 396 87 54 28 4.96 9.56 14.51 565

CALDERDALE MBC 25 104 36 24 2 1.05 12.57 13.61 191

GAS TRANSPORTATION CO LTD 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 2

NETWORK RAIL -PROMOTERS NATIONAL 1 5 2 2 0.00 20.00 20.00 10

NORTHERN GAS NETWORKS 16 199 166 42 19 4.30 9.50 13.80 442

NORTHERN POWERGRID (YORKSHIRE) LTD 5 258 117 23 9 2.18 5.58 7.77 412

ROMEC 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 1

t-MOBILE (UK) LTD 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 4

VIRGIN MEDIA 98 19 16 2 1.48 11.85 13.33 135

VODAFONE 4 2 1 2 22.22 11.11 33.33 9

YORKSHIRE WATER 3 570 220 85 34 3.73 9.32 13.05 912

Grand Total 50 1640 650 247 96 2683


Comparison of Year 1 and Year 2 – All Works defined by Activity Type / Individual Promoters

IMMEDIATE

(EMERGENCY)

IMMEDIATE

(URGENT)MAJOR MINOR STANDARD Grand Total

BT 17 24 1 437 89 568

CALDERDALE 2 34 116 45 197

GAS TRANSPORTATION CO LTD 2 2

NETWORK RAIL -PROMOTERS NATIONAL 2 3 3 8

Northern Gas Networks 162 7 51 101 124 445

Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc 15 235 15 74 74 413

Romec 1 1

T-Mobile (UK) Limited 4 4

VIRGIN MEDIA 1 11 124 136

Vodafone 1 1 7 9

Yorkshire Water 7 237 10 561 108 923

Grand Total 205 515 113 1428 445 2706

PROMOTER OF WORKS

COMBINED 2015/16

IMMEDIATE

(EMERGENCY)

IMMEDIATE


BT 30 30 5 361 39 465

CALDERDALE 1 30 122 63 216

Fulcrum Pipelines Limited 1 2 3

GAS TRANSPORTATION CO LTD 4 3 7

National Grid Electric PLC 3 3 6

NETWORK RAIL -PROMOTERS NATIONAL 1 15 16 7 39


Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc 234 13 68 87 402

Romec 2 2

Telefonica (O2 (UK) Limited) 5 5


VIRGIN MEDIA 1 6 6 111 14 138

Vodafone 3 5 8

WEST YORKSHIRE PTE 17 17

Yorkshire Water 18 319 31 806 82 1256

Grand Total 140 595 219 1576 416 2946

PROMOTER OF WORKS

COMBINED 2016/17


Comparison of Year 1 and Year 2 – Works Granted by Activity Type by Individual Promoters

Comparison of Year 1 and Year 2 – Works Refused by Activity Type by Individual Promoters

IMMEDIATE

(EMERGENCY)

IMMEDIATE


BT 16 22 382 66 486

CALDERDALE 1 34 102 34 171

GAS TRANSPORTATION CO LTD 2 2

NETWORK RAIL -PROMOTERS NATIONAL 2 2 2 6


Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc 15 219 15 69 63 381

Romec 1 1



Vodafone 1 1 4 6

Yorkshire Water 7 222 8 485 82 804

Grand Total 191 480 105 1251 336 2363

PROMOTER OF WORKS

GRANTED 2015/16

IMMEDIATE

(EMERGENCY)

IMMEDIATE


BT 24 26 4 285 29 368

CALDERDALE 1 30 117 63 211

Fulcrum Pipelines Limited 1 1 2


National Grid Electric PLC 3 2 5

NETWORK RAIL -PROMOTERS NATIONAL 1 12 16 5 34


Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc 225 13 62 73 373

Romec 2 2



VIRGIN MEDIA 1 6 4 95 5 111

Vodafone 3 3 6

WEST YORKSHIRE PTE 17 17

Yorkshire Water 15 270 27 701 68 1081

Grand Total 120 533 201 1353 333 2540

PROMOTER OF WORKS

GRANTED 2016/17

IMMEDIATE

(EMERGENCY)

IMMEDIATE


BT 1 2 1 55 23 82

CALDERDALE 1 14 11 26

NETWORK RAIL -PROMOTERS NATIONAL 1 1 2

Northern Gas Networks 12 5 7 37 61

Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc 16 5 11 32

VIRGIN MEDIA 2 16 18

Vodafone 3 3

Yorkshire Water 15 2 76 26 119

Grand Total 14 35 8 177 109 343

PROMOTER OF WORKS

REFUSED 2015/16

IMMEDIATE

(EMERGENCY)

IMMEDIATE


BT 6 4 1 76 10 97

CALDERDALE 5 5

Fulcrum Pipelines Limited 1 1


National Grid Electric PLC 1 1

NETWORK RAIL -PROMOTERS NATIONAL 3 2 5

Northern Gas Networks 11 8 8 32 59

Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) plc 9 6 14 29



Vodafone 2 2

Yorkshire Water 3 49 4 105 14 175

Grand Total 20 62 18 223 83 406

PROMOTER OF WORKS

REFUSED 2016/17


Total Number of Works in All Categories

Total Number of Works in All Categories

The following considerations must be noted in relation to this data; Each application has an appropriate response period which means that the number of applications received in any one period does not correspond to the permits granted and refused within that same period. In other words, a permit application received in one period may be responded to within the next period. These issues mean that there are a number of permit applications, the status of which cannot be determined.

QuarterIMMEDIATE

(EMERGENCY)

IMMEDIATE

(URGENT)MAJOR MINOR STANDARD Combined

2014-15 Q1 54 142 47 242 122 607

2014-15 Q2 45 113 10 165 128 461

2014-15 Q3 38 110 19 173 108 448

2014-15 Q4 32 86 8 183 91 400

2015-16 Q1 28 94 6 188 48 364

2015-16 Q2 30 83 11 175 48 347

2015-16 Q3 28 100 12 179 46 365

2015-16 Q4 36 132 7 282 43 500

2016-17 Q1 30 69 17 152 57 325

2016-17 Q2 20 86 11 128 45 290

2016-17 Q3 15 99 17 158 63 352

2016-17 Q4 24 102 13 128 43 310


Number of Permit Applications The following graph shows the split of permit applications received from both Highway Authority and Utility Promoters. On average, Calderdale MBC generated 7.4% (216) and Utility Promoters 92.6% (2718) of the applications received.

Works in all Categories split between CMBC and Utilities

6.1.2 Analysis Permits Granted and Refused Refusal rates are relatively consistent across the two years of operation, with the main reason for the increase being due to certain promoters failing to provide any conditions on a number of their permits. The result being that it was not possible to consider the application and an automatic refusal. Number of Permit Applications The number of applications has increased slightly, and this can be attributed to two factors

Aging infrastructure in the parts of the Borough (reflected in the increase in major, minor and immediate works)

An Improvement in the procedure for permit applications by the works department within Calderdale MBC and our Contractors.


6.2 PI2 The number of conditions applied by condition type. This will be measured by promoter and shown as:

the number of permits granted the number of conditions applied, broken down into condition types. The number of

each type being shown as a percentage of the total permits issued. 6.2.1 Results Calderdale MBC is unable to supply this information at the present time due to unresolved technical issues with the Symology Insight system. 6.3 The number of approved revised durations This will be measured by promoter and shown as:

the total number of permits granted. the number of requests for revised durations shown as a percentage of permits

issued. the number of agreed revised durations as a percentage of revised durations

applied for. 6.3.1 Results It has not been possible to extract accurate information on the number of revised durations to permits that have been agreed because the functionality within the street works register is not currently available to do this automatically. This functionality is currently being developed and will be implemented as soon as practicable in the YCPS. Calderdale MBC request that any revised durations requests are made via the telephone and then requested via EToN. 6.4 The number of occurrences of reducing the application period Also known as “early starts”, his will be shown as:

the total number of permit and permit variation applications made the number of requests to reduce the notification period as a percentage of total

applications made the number of agreements to reduce the notification period as a percentage of

requests made. 6.4.1 Results Calderdale MBC has not been able to extract accurate information on the number of “early start” requests that have been agreed because the functionality within the street works register was initially not available to do this automatically. This has now been resolved and early starts are now being logged within the system with the intention to report on this fully during Year 3.


6.4.2 Analysis This measure was considered to be in relation to the number of times promoters were allowed by Calderdale MBC to start their works without having to comply with the minimum permit application lead-in period, commonly known as an early start agreement. The Yorkshire Common permit scheme provides a framework for Calderdale MBC to treat all activities and activity promoters covered by the scheme on an equal basis. Early start requests are considered individually on their own merits by Calderdale MBC and are never refused without a valid reason. 7 TPI Measures This section outlines the Permit Indicators (TPI) contained as Annex A within the Statutory Guidance for Highway Authority Permit Schemes. These indicators for permit schemes are additional to the general TMA Performance Indicators (TPIs), which are already being produced. 7.1 TPI1 Works Phases Started (Base Data) Unable to produce this report due to the limitations of the reporting systems on the EToN database (Symology Insight) 7.2 TPI2 Works Phases Completed (Base Data) Unable to produce this report due to the limitations of the reporting systems on the EToN database (Symology Insight) 7.3 TPI3 Days of Occupancy Phases Completed Unable to produce this report due to the limitations of the reporting systems on the EToN database (Symology Insight) 7.4 TPI4 Average Duration of Works Unable to produce this report due to the limitations of the reporting systems on the EToN database (Symology Insight) but details with regards to average duration of works can be found in Section 8.1 Authority Measures 7.5 TPI5 Phases Completed on time Unable to produce this report due to the limitations of the reporting systems on the EToN database (Symology Insight) 7.6 TPI6 Number of deemed permit applications There was one (1) deemed permit application in the 2016/17 year, which occurred due to a network connection issue and subsequently, no connectivity to grant the permit before the deadline. For this reason, there is absolutely no concern in relation to this.


7.7 TPI7 Number of Phase One Permanent Registrations Unable to produce this report due to the limitations of the reporting systems on the EToN database (Symology Insight) 8 Authority Measures In addition to the above measures, Calderdale MBC has collated its own data. 8.1 AM 1 - Average duration of works by permit type

The average duration of works in days by works type from 2014/15 QTR1 until 2016/17 QTR4

The average duration of all works in days by category from 2014/15 QTR1 until 2016/17 QTR4

QuarterIMMEDIATE

(EMERGENCY)

IMMEDIATE

(URGENT)MAJOR MINOR STANDARD Combined

2014-15 Q1 6.43 4.34 24.87 1.90 9.93 9.49

2014-15 Q2 7.00 5.03 21.40 2.19 7.93 8.71

2014-15 Q3 10.24 5.05 22.95 2.50 8.39 9.82

2014-15 Q4 9.50 5.21 17.38 2.28 6.86 8.24

2015-16 Q1 9.75 4.01 21.67 2.06 7.19 8.93

2015-16 Q2 9.33 4.70 16.55 1.93 7.67 8.03

2015-16 Q3 9.11 3.31 27.50 1.72 6.26 9.58

2015-16 Q4 8.47 5.28 20.00 1.95 6.63 8.47

2016-17 Q1 5.43 4.43 17.76 2.00 8.51 7.63

2016-17 Q2 10.15 4.67 20.64 2.03 7.49 9.00

2016-17 Q3 4.73 4.44 18.59 2.23 9.35 7.87

2016-17 Q4 7.08 3.98 15.08 2.42 6.30 6.97


AM 2 – Inspections This measure was intended to provide two separate performance indicators:

Number of failed Sample A inspections shown as a percentage of the total undertaken within a period.

Number of failed permit conditions checks (where one or more permit conditions

have been breached) shown as a percentage of the total undertaken within a period.

8.2.1 Results The chart below shows a breakdown of Category A inspections completed by Calderdale MBC for both Permit and Non-Permit works and provides a comparison with the previous year’s failure rates for the same periods.

Percentage of Category A Inspection Passes - Permit and Non Permit Works 2014/15 QTR1 until 2016/17 QTR4


Percentage of Category A Inspection Passes - Permit and Non Permit Works for 2016/17

8.2.2 Analysis The percentage of Category A Inspection passes for both Permit and Non-Permit works is somewhat of a concern and one that Calderdale MBC intends to address with immediate effect. During Year 2, S/A inspections have been a high priority and scrutinised in more detail to ensure the safety of both site operatives and users of the public highway. The pass rate for Permit and Non-Permit works combined was just 79% and specifically, Permit Roads saw a pass rate of just 65%, with Non-Permit Roads having a pass rate of 81%. Moving forward, Calderdale MBC will be analysing the specific reasons for failures in more detail and issuing improvement notices where required. Permit Condition checks are continually undertaken but there is insufficient data available to automatically report on this at the present time. Improved methods of recording are being looked at and it is hoped that figures will be available for the Year 3 report. 8.3 AM 3 - Days of Disruption Saved / Number of collaborative works The Streetworks team at Calderdale MBC has worked hard with Utilities to improve works durations and challenged jobs where duration is deemed to be unacceptable i.e. dormant sites awaiting backfill and reinstatement etc. Calderdale MBC works proactively with all promoters to co-ordinate their works programmes and aims to identify any areas where collaborative working could be achieved and also, to avoid clashes with works and or events where possible.


The average duration of all works in days for all categories combined from 2014/15 QTR1 until 2016/17 QTR4

The average duration of all works in days for all categories during the past 3 years


8.4 AM 4 Response Code – broken down by promoter This measure is the number of refusals broken down by response code where this has been used by the authority. 8.4.1 Results Calderdale MBC began utilising the National Response Codes on 1 July 2016 and therefore, not all refusals have been issued a response code (1st April to 30th June). However, the response codes and the number of times it has been used per promoter are shown in the table below;

8.4.2 Analysis The permit refusal rate has increased in the reporting year of 2016 / 2017. When examining the reasons for such refusals the National Response Code data has been obtained and identified in Section 8.4. The most frequent reasons for refusal are;

RC11 - Conditions not Provided – Usually the failure to add manual control of TM RC31 - Clash of works – Collaboration is always looked at in the first instance RC40 - Lack of approval – Usually in instances where a Promoter wishes to deploy

TM on a Key Route, with the sole purpose being for the parking of works vehicles, when alternative parking is immediately available and for small remedial works in a footway where tools and materials can be barrowed to site

RC41 - Incorrect traffic management. Calderdale MBC is actively seeking to reduce the number of refusals and aims to do so by way of good and effective communication with works promoters. We also aim to highlight the specific issues that are causing refusals in the first instance and where necessary or applicable, provide guidance to those who both plan the works and submit permit applications.

Promoter RC10 RC11 RC12 RC22 RC23 RC30 RC31 RC32 RC33 RC40 RC41 RC42 RC44 RC50

BT 2 20 1 2 6 1 8 4 9 4 1 3

CMBC 2 2

FULCRUM 1

GTC 1

NGT

NETWORK RAIL 1 1 1 1 1

NGN 14 2 2 1 1 6 3 4

NPG 6 1 2 1 1 3

ROMEC

O2 1 1

T-MOBILE

VIRGIN MEDIA 1 7 3 3 2 1 1

VODAFONE 2

WYPTE

YW 1 49 4 4 18 7 2 15 14 1 4 3


8.5 AM 5 FPNs (Permit Breaches) Calderdale MBC did not issue any FPNs in the reporting year of 2016 / 2017, although it has now introduced the practice of doing so from 1 April 2017 and therefore intends to report on this during Year 3. 8.6 AM 6 Levels of Customer Enquiries The Streetworks team at Calderdale MBC receives a large number of enquiries (almost 24 a week) that are specific to Streetworks or require assessment/assistance from us. These are in addition to the day to day running of the Permit Scheme and co-ordination of Streetworks across the Borough and prove a real drain on already limited resources. In addition to those that are logged and shown in the tables below, we are at times inundated with calls and emails from residents, bus companies and Councillors about the level of congestion on the A646 as a whole and in particular, the Burnley Road section through Hebden Bridge and Mytholmroyd. The reason for the high volume of work in this area is that we are still recovering from the Boxing Day Floods of 2015 and the ongoing flood alleviation works. This work is forecast to continue for at least another 12 months and puts tremendous pressure on resources within Streetworks and other teams across Calderdale MBC as a whole, whilst trying to co-ordinate the works and answer/help those affected understand why so much work is in progress, at the same time and so often. In general, Calderdale MBC encourages all contacts to be directed via our Contact Centre so that each call is logged and registered, but as above, a percentage of calls do go directly to the Streetworks team. The data provided in the tables below relates to those that have been logged by the Contact Centre and provides a valuable insight into the types of enquiries that are received by the Streetworks Team on a daily basis. In 2015/16 the Customer Contact Centre received 1277 enquiries, although it is not clear from the way in which data is logged, how many of these relate to permit streets without manually assessing each and every one of the calls. 2016/17 saw the Customer Contact Centre receive 1232 specific Road / Streetworks customer enquiries. Such enquiries requested information relating to;

Utility/Private works in progress or closed Scaffolding, be it complaints, queries or general enquiries for permits Skips, many regarding complaints and inappropriately placed units Manholes that are dangerous or noisy and causing a nuisance Mud on the road from either Streetworks or sites relative to new builds Dropped Kerbs and people requesting new/extended accesses Road closures and diversion routes, many as a result of emergency works Temporary Traffic Signals and problems caused by them


Other issues regularly dealt with by the Streetworks Team involve:

The conduct of Utilities and their Contractors and the state that sites are left in Access issues / concerns during the road / streetworks Delays on the network due to road / streetworks The timing of traffic lights Reinstatement concerns Duration enquiries Clarifying which section of road will be closed When works will be complete Out of Hours works causing noise pollution Apparatus left on site following road / streetworks Enquiries regarding spray markings on the highway surface

2015/16 Calls Logged relative to Streetworks

2016/17 Calls Logged relative to Streetworks

Call Type Volume

F10 Utility/Private Work 339

F110 Scaffolding 23

F120 Skips 80

F20 Manhole/Stop Tap 316

F30 Mud DEVELOPMENT/FARM 30

F40 Mud OTHER 47

F50 Drop Crossing 194

F80 Road Closure HWAYS 39

F90 Road Closure OTHER 24

G100 Traffic Lights TEMP 185

Grand Total 1277

Call Type Volume

F10 Utility/Private Work 289

F110 Scaffolding 14

F120 Skips 62

F20 Manhole/Stop Tap 361

F30 Mud DEVELOPMENT/FARM 55

F40 Mud OTHER 43

F50 Drop Crossing 158

F80 Road Closure HWAYS 34

F90 Road Closure OTHER 35

G100 Traffic Lights TEMP 181

Grand Total 1232


9 Conclusion The main objectives of the Scheme are to minimise delay and reduce disruption arising from works on the highway, and to demonstrate parity of treatment amongst all works promoters. Whilst the number of works on our network has increased, the permit scheme has allowed us to achieve a reduction in the average duration of works and again shows that the scheme is meeting its objectives. Calderdale MBC is still in the midst of recovery after the Boxing Day Floods of 2015 and the ongoing flood alleviation works. As previously mentioned, this work is forecast to continue for at least another 12 months and puts tremendous pressure on resources within Streetworks and other teams across Calderdale MBC as a whole due to the number of complex and major schemes involved with this. The impact on the A646, which is a major route down the Calder Valley, is significant and impacts heavily on our Permit Network/Scheme. Despite the high workload involved with this and the obvious problems caused whilst co-ordinating streetworks in conjunction with the flood works, Calderdale MBC is committed to driving forward the benefits of the permit scheme for both the authority and works promoters across the entire Borough. This report demonstrates that all works promoters are engaging with the process to obtain permits, and that permit authorities have demonstrated parity of treatment for its own authority works as well as for other works promoters. The range of refusal rates indicates that there are still areas of improvement by both permit authorities and works promoters. By adopting the National Response Codes the permit authority is able to improve consistency and parity in making and dealing with permit applications and granting or refusing permits. Reasons for refusals continue to be scrutinised and both the authority and promoters are aware of the need to provide accurate and detailed information on permit applications and to adopt a consistent approach when dealing with refusals. There has been a decrease in the number of Sample A passes on permit streets and this is an issue that Calderdale MBC intends to prioritise going forward, in order to ensure a safe environment for both highway users and operatives alike. In the second reporting year, the Tranche 2 Authorities have adopted the HAUC (England) Advice Note – Report Template for the Evaluation of Permit Schemes. In compiling the data, the limitations of the reports available to the Authority via the EToN reporting system has meant that some performance indicators cannot be reported on. It is anticipated that through support of the software developer such data can be collated in future reports. Calderdale MBC will continue to work with utility and highway authority promoters. The early and regular communication between permit authorities and works promoters was a key element in the successful transition to, and implementation of, the Scheme. This communication needs to continue in order to ensure the continued effective and efficient operation of the Scheme and culture change.


Calderdale MBC will also continue to review performance measures to take account of improvements in data collection and data availability. It will review permit durations, particularly for emergency and immediate works where lesser durations are to be expected. The Authority will work to reduce the number of permit refusals and continue to utilise and raise awareness of Roadworks.org as an information (for residents, business and road users) and coordination resource (for activity promoters) and continue to utilise the National Response Codes to aid the collection of data for monitoring and reporting purposes. The Yorkshire Common Permit Scheme continues to be represented at the National Permits Forum, in order to share and disseminate information and good practice relating to the operation of permit schemes. Overall, the performance of the Scheme during its first and second full year of operation has demonstrated that it is meeting the objectives that were set-out. It is providing permit authorities with a valuable tool to help co-ordinate works, reduce delay and minimise disruption. It has encouraged more effective and efficient communication between permit authorities, all work promoters and highway users. This second annual report has highlighted some areas where further development of the scheme and where improved reporting capabilities are required to evaluate and maximise the scheme benefits. Work will continue with all stakeholders to achieve these goals and continue the successes achieved in the first and second evaluation period.


10 Glossary

1. YCPS – Yorkshire Common Permit Scheme

2. DfT – Department for Transport

3. EToN system – The Electronic Transfer of Notices, the nationally agreed format for the transmission of notice information.

4. EToN developers – representatives of the main software developers involved in street

works

5. EToN Strategy Group – responsible for the development of the EToN system

6. NMD – Network Management Duty, a legal obligation created by the Traffic Management Act 2004 for highway authorities to secure the expeditious movement of traffic

7. AM – Authority Measure

8. PAN – Permit Advice Note

9. TMA – Traffic Management Act 2004

10. Sample A – An inspection undertaken during the progress of the works as defined in

Section 2.3.1 of The Code of Practice for Inspections 2002

calderdale mbc permit scheme report - year 2 · 2017-08-09 · ycps – njs – calderdale mbc...

Documents