Code of Practice for the Co-ordination of Works in Roads - Consultation Analysis Report

1. Road closures can have quite an impact on hauliers' operations and on a quick run through the Code of Practice I couldn't see any section which relates to the conditions under which a road can be closed for repair. Can you point me in the right direction please or is this perhaps an issue that should be added to the Code of Practice?

This was responded to individually.

The timing of road repairs is a matter for the roads authority.

2. Here is an apparent anomaly in Appendix A where the definition of a Day has been amended. Reference to 2nd January has been removed and replaced by "the day following boxing day". This seems an odd day to include as it's not regarded as a public holiday whereas the day following New Years day is.

This was a drafting error. The wording should have been "the day following New Year's day".

3. Whilst there is emphasis on the need to Undertakers to enter advance notice onto the SRWR at the earliest possible date, I think that this may lead to confusion within the community.

Adding works to the SRWR as potential would not be of any benefit as the information would be so vague. There would also have to be guidance for Road Authorities to prevent objections/requests for more information whilst works are still at the potential stage.

Notwithstanding this, most undertakers employ Agents to carry out their works and delegate noticing responsibilities to them. The agents are unlikely to be involved so far in advance and will only get sight of the work when it is ready to be executed. For this reason it is unlikely that there will be a cultural change in this area.

The working group does not agree that the proposed wording will cause confusion.

4. Overall I find the new Code of Practice to be an improvement, better laid out and clearer to understand. However, I noted some errors on page 84 regarding legislation and other guidance books. The page makes reference to Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual 2006 but this should be "Traffic Signs Manual 2009". At C7.7 Risk Assessments there is a reference to Construction, Design and Management Regulations 1994. Should this not be "Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007?

And the "Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 should be "The Management of Health and Safety at Works Regulations 1999" At C7.3 the paragraph reads

"Traffic control at or near level crossings are to be in accordance with the guidance set out in Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual 2006

Part 1 Design: D5.15.

Part 2 Operations: O3.24"

I think this should probably read:

"Traffic control at or near level crossings are to be in accordance with the guidance set out in Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual 2009

Part 1 Design: D5.17.

Part 2 Operations: O3.25"

The wording in Appendix C has been revised to reflect these helpful comments.

5. Overall we believe there needs to a level playing field which is both auditable and demonstrating parity across all road works authorities and utilities.

This Code of Practice and initiatives taken by the Scottish Road Works Commissioner have aimed to ensure that as far as possible road works authorities and utility companies operate within the same set of rules.

6. The validity period for minor works notices has been increased from 'day one of the noticed duration' to 'by 12pm on the second day of the noticed duration'. While a change to urgent works may be appropriate given their unplanned nature, there is no valid reason to change planned works and the change brings in additional confusion.

If promoter A proposes works between Monday and Wednesday of week one, and promoter B proposes works between Thursday and Friday of the same week, there is no conflict. At present promoter A must start on Monday and promoter B must start on Thursday. This means the works are likely to be complete by their end dates as they are starting as soon as possible.

Under the new rules, this is less probable. If promoter A can now start on Tuesday, it isn't clear if he must be complete by his proposed end date (Wednesday) or if he can carry the duration forward, in this case being on site for three days until Thursday. Promoter A has now conflicted with promoter Bs works, but both promoters have met the conditions set out in the Code of Practice.

This will be untenable in practice.
Changing the validity will also reduce the likelihood of Roads Authorities being able
to undertake sample A inspections, as the time where the works are most likely to
be visible on site has been obscured.

The working group members found this response rather confusing.

Having considered it, the decision was taken to retain the wording in the draft consultation version.

7. Actual start notices are still not prescribed in regulation as being required under S114. This needs to be addressed as soon as is practicable, as this information is vital for co-ordination.

This is out with the scope of this consultation.

8. Could bullet points be removed & numbering inserted.

Where appropriate, bullet points have been removed and replaced with numbers.

9. 5.1.2 - before an undertaker commences work for the first time in an area…this should be taken out of chapter 5 and put in chapter 2. It does not fit in chapter 5.

The working group did not agree. The issue relates to commencing noticing and therefore is considered to be in the correct Chapter.

10. Substantial works for roads are generally only carried out by Roads Authorities so we cannot understand why they are included in the Utility Table for reinstatements.

This was an error and has been removed.

11. We agree with follow up notices for road restrictions, with the validation remaining at 1 month.

This was covered in the response to question 7

12. The definition of major works should read in excess of 10 days, take out 3 days of traffic management as this leads to confusion and can be used as a work around on the SRWR.

This is a statutory definition and is out with the scope of this review.

13. There is not a definition of Standard Works in the document.

The definition given in Table 5.1 is the statutory definition.

14. Figure 5.4 does not tie up or cross reference with anything. It is not clear.

Section 5.4.9 has been revised to try to clarify these statutory validity periods.

15. 5.4.9.2 Refers to accurate dates being input into the SRWR. This is a great idea but not practicable on the existing system as it automatically requires an early start or if ignored records a registration failure as it assumes a new notice is going through and does not take into consideration that although the dates are being changed this is an amendment to aid co-ordination not a new notice.

This sounds like a training issue.

16. 5.8 Information for a notice - It should be mandatory that contact details are put on a notice.

This is not a statutory requirement, however it was agreed that this would be desirable. This issue will be passed to the SRWR Management Group to consider revising the system to require this.

17. 11.9 - we support this however, clarity is required as to how this should be notified.

This would appear to be a training issue.

18. Our view is that all leaks and not solely those classed as significant would be repaired as urgent works. All leaks require to be repaired timeously to hit regulatory targets, meet customer demands and minimise damage. "As soon as reasonably practicable" must also include directions from the road works authority to delay commencement for network management reasons e.g. Edinburgh Festival or engineering reasons e.g. danger of subsidence. Utility companies should not be penalised for not commencing work in time where a delay results from / is a consequence of complying with such directions.

The working group reviewed this response but felt that the proposed wording in the draft consultation in relation to urgent works reflected the intent of the legislation.

9.6 in the Code of Practice makes it clear that urgent works are exempt from embargos.

19. It is also quite common that road works are often scheduled within a 'window' and buses may be diverted needlessly for a period without any work having started. We would support any measures to restrict this practice so that disruption is limited to a short a space as possible.

The "window" within works can be undertaken are statutory and out with the scope of this consultation.

20. With reference to Section 5.3 (Minimum Notice Periods for each Works Category Noticing) we would ask that all roads carrying registered Local Bus services should be termed 'Traffic Sensitive Situation' within the Act. Should this not be the case, then the minimum notification period required for 'Non Traffic Sensitive Situation' should be much longer than those outlined.

The criteria for traffic sensitive roads are set out in regulations and are out with the scope of this consultation.

Again the minimum period for the notification of works on non-traffic sensitive roads is set out in regulations and is out with the scope of this consultation.

21. In respect of 'Traffic Sensitive Situation', we consider 3 working days notice for Minor works ('without excavation' and 'mobile & short duration') and for Remedial Works (non-dangerous) to be tight should it involve temporary relocation of bus-stops (and, if relevant, new bus information for passengers).

Again the minimum period for the notification of works is set out in regulations and is out with the scope of this consultation.

22. The seven working days notice required for 'Minor Works' (with excavation), 'Standard Works', 'Major Works' and 'Substantial Works for Road Purposes' is adequate should it, in respect of public transport, only involve relocation of bus stops but should be deemed inadequate should a change of route be required.

These comments have been taken on board and wording has been inserted to recommend that where planned work are likely to have an impact on bus services, that early consultation should take place with the bus operators affected.

23. I presume that if the work involves full (temporary) road closure, the notification period is much longer.

If roads closures are required then the specific requirements for these have to be met including any notice periods required.