South West Wales HAUC

Minutes of meeting held on 5th April 2011 at The Quays, Neath Port Talbot

Present / Representing
Ian David (Acting chair) / Bridgend County Borough Council
Stacey Williams (Sec) / DCWW - Daniel
Arwel Davies / DCWW - Daniel
Michael McCalla / Network Rail
Cliff Cleaton / Carmarthenshire County Council
Gary Thomas / Neath Port Talbot County Council
Mike Young / SWTRA
Anthony Dennis / DCWW
Dean Howard / Swansea County Council
Ross Edwards / Virgin Media
Bob Argent / DCWW- Morgan Sindall
Amee Naish / Wales and West Utilities
Minute Ref / Minute / Action
1.0 / Welcome and introductions
The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, and thanked Neath Port Talbot County Council for sponsoring the day. ID wanted to pass on the groups best wishes to Jonathan who was recovering from an operation to remove his appendix.
2.0 / Apologies
Jonathan Willacombe / Swansea County Council
Marc Owen / Pembrokeshire County Council
Graham Bond / Wales and West Utilities
Jason Parfitt / DCWW – Daniel
Adrian Hughes / Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service
Stece
Steve Rudall / Western Power Distribution
Brian Jones / BT Openreach
3. 0
3.1
3.2 / Minutes of previous meeting
Accuracy
Apologies from RE missed.
Misspelling of The Quays. / SW
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.3.4
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8 / Matters Arising from previous meeting
All Utilities to be mindful that in instances where it is not possible to lay permanent road markings, temporary road markings should be utilised. No further issues to report since previous meeting.
ID advised that it was agreed at national level that section 58 restrictions are to be integrated into the gazetteer. ID informed the group that Bridgend CC use an Access database to manage section 81 which has been adapted from a system used in Swansea.
MY queried the timescales for Traffic Light Applications and informed the group that at least 7 days notice is required for multi-way signals.
It was agreed that there are no legal timescales for providing the Traffic Light application forms but utility companies should give as much notice as possible in order for HA to fulfil their network management duties.
DH raised concerns that traffic lights are not being removed in a timely manner following completion of works. All works promoters to ensure site is cleared within a timely manner.
GT notified Utilities that further advance notice is required where permanent traffic lights are required to be deactivated therefore all utilities to be mindful of this when planning works near permanent traffic lights.
ID raised an issue on behalf of MO relating to issues with the setting up of traffic lights with no work being undertaken on site. It was agreed that traffic lights should be set up to coincide with the arrival of the construction teams.
CC raised an issue regarding the incorrect details on traffic light application forms. All work promoters to ensure the correct details are populated on all traffic light application forms.
No further updates regarding the proposals to serve section 81 via return path.
No further issues to report with the 900*600 covers however Utilities to ensure that the reinstatement has gone off before the removal of barriers and lights particularly where there are likely to be HGV.
CC stated that the resins need to be correct to avoid issues with the reinstatement.
GT to distribute a proposed standard template for Performance Reports
Issues with Network Rail return path appear to have been resolved. Network Rail to discuss with relevant authorities if there is still a problem.
ID to liaise with BCBC Traffic Section to clarify whether there is an exemption in Parking enforcements for Streetworks. / All
All
All
All
All
All
All
GT
ID
5.0
5.1
5.2 / Workshops Subjects
Consideration of holding a workshop to view management of sending and receiving notices.
Confirmation of testing environment required.
HA to confirm they have a testing platform in Mayrise
GT informed the group that the matter of standardising comments was raised at national HAUC where it was confirmed that no standardised comments have been agreed. To be discussed further at next meeting. / AD
HA
GT
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5 / Performance Reports
Neath Port Talbot
Low volume of defects for all Utilities.
DCWW- High volume of cancelled works.
DCWW- High percentage of section 81s not complete.
Virgin Media- Jobs not being actioned.
All Utilities- High volume of section 65 due to failure to maintain pedestrian access in the footway. All Utilities to discuss with Operational teams.
Carmarthenshire
WPD- High volume of Section 65.
DCWW- High volume of section 81s not being undertaken.
DCWW- Traffic Light Application issues.
Low volume of defects.
Swansea
Virgin- Non compliance with Section 81s
WWU- High volume of early starts and Revised Duration Estimates with no work being undertaken on site.
Bridgend
DCWW- Low failure rate in random sample checks.
DCWW- Only 43% of section 81s completed and urgent section 81s not being dealt with in timely manner with little feedback to H.A.
Acceptable level of Noticing errors for DCWW and WWU.
Acceptable volume of defects.
WWU- Only 20% of section 81s being completed within timescales.
No issues with Section 65s.
SWTRA
WWU- Issues with response to Section 72 Defects.
/ JP & AD
AD
RE
All Utilities
SR
AD
SW
RE
AN
AD
AD
AN
AN
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3 / Working Practices
Return Path Comments
Concerns raised by MY that WWU are sending standardised return path promoter comments which are not specific to the individual job. MY to provide AN with examples for further investigation.
AN and SW suggested that some queries could be dealt with via telephone for a quick resolution and followed up with a comment to provide an audit trail.
Proposal for H.A to provide a subject matter on return path comments when requesting Utilities to contact inspector or route steward. This will help to ensure a quick and effective resolution.
Duration Challenges and Duration of works
HA and SU to be mindful of the reasons provided for RDE and Duration Challenges and to avoid automated standardised reasons and ensure they are job specific.
AN and SW informed the group that WWU and Daniel have reduced the duration for Interim to permanent works and Remedial works.
Signing and Guarding
Consideration of using base plates for additional information for advanced warning signs as best practice. / MY
All HA
All HA and SU
All
8.0
8.1 / Noticing Performance
Forward Planning
MM informed the group that Network Rail are working towards forward planning to aid with co-ordination.
GT raised an issue with forward planning notices received from WWU where the maps show multiple streets affected by the scheme but only one street stipulated on the notice. No issues reported by Bridgend County Council or Carmarthenshire County Council.
AN confirmed that all streets should be on the Eton Notice therefore will investigate by next meeting.
CC raised issue that the same duration is used for each street. AN clarified that the durations cannot be specific on a forward planning notice therefore the duration is set for one year.
Road Closures
AN queried on behalf of WWU whether it is required to follow the whole road closure process where there is a section 72 on the original works.
MY stated that the process differs in different authorities.
DH informed the group that for Swansea CC, the order would stand for 18 months for the same contractor to undertake similar work. However for other contractors undertaking other works, the whole process would need to undertaken again.
ID conveyed that a Temporary Traffic Order is valid for 18 months and that it is arguable that defects are not the same works as the original works. A Temporary Traffic Notice can be used where the work can be completed within 5 days therefore it would be necessary to reapply for the road closure under a Temporary Traffic Notice. There is scope within the Road Closure legislation to apply different rules for different streets, depending on the status / profile of those streets.
GT to raise in the Coordination meetings the general inconsistencies in road closure legislation and the applications for road closures.
BA raised the issue with inconsistencies between HA regarding cost implications for Road Closures.
ID explained to the group that the cost is dependant on the diversionary route and the cost of the notice in the press outlining varying diversionary routes therefore inconsistencies are likely. / AN
GT
9.0
9.1
9.2 / AOB
Welsh HAUC
Discussion held at WHAUC whether footway closures are to be included on an Eton notice. Utilities argued that where there is alternative pedestrian access the footway closure is not required on the notice. A decision on this issue is pending.
Registration of Reinstatement
GT raised a query regarding the use of partial reinstatement which was resolved by AN.
10.0 / Date and venue for next meeting
Tuesday July 5th 2011 at Wales & West Utilites Office at Llandarcy.

1