Code of Practice for the Co-ordination of Works in Roads - Consultation Analysis Report
3. Report Summary
The consultation paper set out a series of issues which identify those areas within the Code of Practice where significant changes have been made and where views are sought. The specific consultation questions were arranged to align with the order of the Code of Practice. The following sets out the key questions, the general response to the consultation exercise given and the outcome of the deliberations of the working group convened to consider the response:
Co-ordination and Co-operation in Action
3.1 The details of Co-ordination and Co-operation in Action are given within Chapter 2. There have been some significant revisions to clarify the outline process and the general aims of the Code of Practice.
Views Sought
1. Do you consider that the outline aims of the Code of Practice are clear, and if not, explain your reasons for this?
Working Group Response
All of the 21 respondents to this question agreed that the outline aims of the Code of Practice are clear.
Urgent Works
3.2 Section 5.2.4 now clarifies that under normal circumstances it would be expected that urgent works would be commenced as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event within hours of the need being identified. This has been introduced because of concern regarding proposed works being entered onto the SRWR categorising them as being urgent but with the actual works not being commenced for days or even weeks. This section also clarifies that under certain conditions, leaks from water pipes may be deemed to be urgent. This should also be read in conjunction with Figure 5.4 which requires that urgent work commence no later than noon the following day.
Views Sought
2. Do you agree that urgent works should be commenced as soon as is reasonably practicable and at the latest by noon the following day?
3. If you do not agree please give the reasons why and suggest an alternative which would provide some degree of control of the use of the urgent works category.
Working Group Response
21 of the 22 respondents to this question agreed that urgent works should be commenced as soon as is reasonably practicable and at the latest by noon the following day. The principle of entering urgent works notices by noon the following day was agreed by the working group as having a specific target time would prove beneficial.
The working group recommended that consideration should be given to developing the Scottish Road Works Register to include a drop down menu of standard reasons for the urgent works. This would enable the use of the urgent category to be kept under review.
The working group reviewed the comments provided and concluded that the wording in the consultation draft should remain.
Minor Works (Mobile and Short Duration)
3.3 Following the completion of the current Code of Practice, RAUC(S) agreed that mobile working, defined as:
- mobile operations which are continuous or involve movement with periodic stops;
- short duration static works; and.
- minor works which do not include excavations, involving the use of a single vehicle or a small number of vehicles
on non-traffic sensitive roads, would be unlikely to cause disruption and co-ordination problems and should be treated differently from other works. This was to reduce the administrative burden of placing statutory notices on the SRWR in situations where there would be no benefits to co-ordination.
3.4 RAUC(S) Advice Note 13 was published in August 2007, setting out that mobile working at specific location shall take no longer than 30 minutes and where carried out on non-traffic sensitive roads shall not require the entry of a notice on the SRWR.
3.5 Given that the non-legislative process set out in RAUC(S) Advice Note 13 has been used since August 2007 and is now common practice, the process has been adopted into the Code of Practice. This falls under the heading of Minor Works (Mobile and Short Duration).
Views Sought
4. Do you agree that the process has worked well and should be adopted into the Code of Practice?
5. If you do not agree, what problems have been encountered and what alternative proposals do you suggest?
Working Group Response
Although 19 of the 22 respondents to this question agreed that the process had worked well, three roads authorities disagreed. All of the comments submitted were reviewed by the working group which considered that the wording in the consultation draft should remain.
The definition will require to be considered again, should revised periods come into force in any revised Safety Code of Practice.
Site Reinstatement Details Notice Period
3.6 Although there is no statutory requirement for undertakers to enter details regarding their reinstatements, including dimension, onto the SRWR, they have for some considerable time recognised the merits in doing so. Currently the period within which these should be entered is 7 working days and it is proposed that this be reduced to 5 working days.
Views Sought
6. Do you agree that the period be reduced to 5 working days?
Working Group Response
15 of the 22 respondents agreed that the period within which site reinstatement details should be entered be reduced to 5 working days.
The seven respondents which did not agree either suggested the status quo or a longer 10 day period as is used in England. It was thought by the roads authorities that some utility companies were already finding it difficult to meet the 7 day timescale.
The working group reviewed all of the comments but remained of the view that reducing the period to 5 working days was appropriate as the longer the period taken in which to enter information, the less reliable it is likely to be. It is proposed that the wording in the Code of Practice remain the same as the in the Draft consultation version.
Validity Periods
3.7 In the current Code of Practice at 4.9.1 there is a non-statutory one month validity period set for Major Works based on the estimated date given in the original advance notice. This requirement has been removed to provide greater flexibility for works promoters to revise their proposed starting dates as they refine their works programmes.
3.8 The one month restriction tends to lead works promoters to wait until the last minute to enter their Advance Notices rather than to enter them as soon as their works programmes are available. This tends to restrict the opportunities for advance co-ordination of works.
3.9 Section 5.4.9 of the draft Code of Practice shows a table which explains the validity periods for Notices of Expected Starting Date of Works. These are the periods set out in the current legislation.
Views Sought
7. Do you agree that the non-statutory validity period of one month linked to the advance notice be removed? If you consider that it should be retained then explain the reasons why and the benefits which you consider this would provide.
Working Group Response
12 of the 21 respondents to this question agreed that the non-statutory one month validity period linked to the advance notice be removed.
The nine roads authorities which disagreed with the removal of the non-statutory validity period linked to the advance notice seem to have misunderstood what was being proposed.
The validity periods shown in Figure 5.4 are the statutory periods set out in the NRSWA and in supporting regulations. They only come into force when the Notice of Expected Starting Date of Works is entered onto the SRWR. So for example when a 7 day Notice of Expected Starting Date of Works is entered onto the SRWR, it means that the works promoter has 7 days from the date given to commence the works.
The non-statutory one month validity period in the current Code of Practice relates to the Notice of Starting Date of Works. As currently written it means that you have one month from the date set out on that notice to complete the works. If the date is not met the notice falls and a new notice has to be issued. However, other provisions incorporated in the draft Code of Practice such as early and late starts provide considerably more flexibility than this. If Notices of Starting Date of Works are kept under review and the starting dates kept as up to date as possible, then the process should work well.
The group thought that the new process wasn't dissimilar to the current processes being used. A diagram has been included to help to clarify the process and to aid understanding.
The working group has endorsed the process within the draft consultation version of the Code of Practice subject to the insertion of the clarification wording and diagram described above.
Early and Late Start Consent and Works Extension Procedure
3.10 By early 2008 it was obvious that advice was required in situations where co-ordination could be aided by bringing works forward or deferring them. The Commissioner drafted Advice Note 17 which was adopted by RAUC(S) in September 2008. The advice note provided additional flexibility to the noticing process through the introduction of procedures for early/late start consents and works extensions. This added flexibility was introduced to facilitate improved co-ordination of works undertaken by road works authorities and undertakers.
3.11 Given that the non-legislative procedures set out in RAUC(S) Advice Note 17 has been used since September 2008 and is now common practice, the procedures have been adopted into the Code of Practice. These can be found at section 5.9.
Views Sought
8. Do you agree that the procedures have worked well and should be adopted into the Code of Practice?
9. If you do not agree, what problems have been encountered and what alternative proposals do you suggest?
Working Group Response
All respondents to this question agreed that the procedure should be adopted into the Code of Practice. However, some concerns were expressed by utility companies as to the inconsistent application by roads authorities and from roads authorities regarding the process and the valid reasons for objection. It seemed that some respondents didn't realise that the guidance had been split in two and also appeared under Appendix H. Some roads authorities also mentioned the need to monitor usage.
The working group agreed that the wording consulted upon remain in the Code of Practice.
Recommended Minimum Notice Periods of Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 Functions
3.12 There are no statutory notice periods for works undertaken under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Table 5.5 in the draft revised Code of Practice sets out recommended minimum notice periods to broadly align the requirements to those under NRSWA and to allow road works authorities to better co-ordinate works within roads for which they are responsible.
Views Sought
10. Are the minimum recommended notice periods reasonable and workable?
11. If you consider that other periods might be more appropriate, please state the periods and the advantages provided by such revised periods.
Working Group Response
19 of the 22 respondents to this question agreed that the minimum notice periods were reasonable and workable. The section 109 periods were however recognised as being incorrect and have been revised to be the same as the periods contained in tables 5.2 and 5.3.
The working group recommends that the wording in the draft Code of Practice remain with the exception of the section 109 periods mentioned.
Restrictions Following Substantial Works for Road Purposes
3.13 This can now be found a Chapter 6 of the draft revised Code of Practice and includes some revisions and additions, in particular:
- the definitions of reconstruction and resurfacing at section 6.6.4.
- a process for dealing with road authority consents on roads with restrictions is set out in Appendix H.
3.14 The process at Appendix H aims to balance the need of the roads authority to preserve their asset following investment and that of the undertaker to carry out planned work.
Views Sought
12. Are you content with the wording of this Chapter? If not, provide further details.
13. Are you content with the process for consents as described in Appendix H?
Working Group Response
16 of the 21 respondents to this question were generally content with the wording of this Chapter.
The working group reviewed the comments received and:
- agreed to remove the final sentence from the table at 6.6.4.
- added additional wording to clarify that when a roads authority applies for an early start, that if no objection is received within 10 working days, that the section 107 notice shall be deemed to be valid.
However, 13 of the 21 respondents were not content with the process for roads authority consent to works on roads with restrictions as described in H. The working group recommends that Appendix H be removed from the Code of Practice for the time being and that the Resurfacing Working Group be reconvened to consider the responses and make recommendations. This could then be considered at a later date for inclusion in a revised version of the Code of Practice.
The Completion of Works Within Reasonable Periods
3.15 This is a new Chapter 8 and is based on Commissioner Advice Paper No 5. This provides advice on the use of section 125 of the NRSWA in appropriate situations. The advice has been in place since October 2010.
Views Sought
14. Are you content with the wording of this Chapter? If not, please explain your views?
Working Group Response
19 of the 20 respondents to this question were content with the wording of the Chapter. One respondent sought clarification of the wording in section 8.7. Revised wording has been provided to clarify.
The Scottish Road Works Commissioner confirmed that he will continue to monitor the giving of such notices and follow up with organisations who receive a high number.
The working group recommends that subject to the revised wording at section 8.7, the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code of Practice be adopted.
Some respondents commented on the inability of utility companies to be able to challenge section 125 notices. This is out with the scope of this consultation and would require new legislation to be promoted.
Procedure For Embargos On Road Works
3.16 This is a new Chapter 9 and is based on RAUC(S) Advice Note 20. This provides advice on the use of embargos in both statutory and non statutory situations.
Views Sought
15. Are you content with the wording of this Chapter? If not, please explain your views?
Working Group Response
21 of the 22 respondents to this question were content with the wording of this Chapter regarding embargos on road works.
The one respondent which disagreed thought that voluntary embargoes should not be included in such a Code of Practice. The working group considered that it was clear that such embargos were voluntary and could not be imposed on utility companies. The working group therefore recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code of Practice be adopted.
Composite Works by more than one Organisation
3.17 This is a new Chapter 10. Road works carried out by undertakers exercising powers under section 109 of the NRSWA are required to be completed with due dispatch, even when a second undertaker or other organisation is involved in the works. In such situations there is a need for both the section 109 undertaker and the second undertaker or organisation to carefully co-ordinate their works to minimise the inconvenience caused to road users through limiting the duration of the road opening. This Chapter provides advice as to how such works should be managed.
Views Sought
16. Are you content with the wording of this Chapter and its inclusion within the Code of Practice? If not, please explain your views?
Working Group Response
17 of the 22 respondents to this question were content with the wording of the Chapter on Composite Works. Of the 5 which did not agree, 3 felt that with Chapter should not be included until the section 109 working group had reported. The working group reviewed this proposal but did not agree. It is felt that these provisions will be useful in managing such works and that if the section 109 working group comes up with additional proposals, that these could be included within a further version of the Code of Practice. One respondent considered that the Chapter should encompass section 56 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. The working group did not agree as section 56 contains provisions which allow the roads authority to impose reasonable conditions. One respondent also asked that the period be increased to 5 days from the recommended 2 days. The working group did not agree to this counter proposal.
The working Group recommends that the draft consultation version of Chapter 10 be adopted.
Any Issues Not Covered By the Foregoing
3.18 If you have any concern or issues which you would like to raise which have not been covered in the foregoing then we would wish to hear them.
Views Sought
17. Are there any further concerns or issues which you would wish to have considered?
Working Group Response
Annex A sets out the response to the issues that were raised as part of the consultation process and not covered elsewhere.