6. Report Summary
6. Report Summary
The consultation paper set out a series of issues identifying those areas within the Specification where significant changes had been made and where views were sought. The specific consultation questions were arranged to align with the order of the Specification. 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:
S1.2 Guarantee Period
The working group considered extending the current guarantee period of two years, or three years in the case of deep openings from completion of a permanent reinstatement but concluded that they did not have sufficient evidence to make a recommendation. However, given that road reinstatements are expected to have a service life of 20 years or more, it is suggested that the guarantee periods could be increased. It has been suggested that a 5 or 6 year period might be appropriate.
However, before coming to any decision the Scottish Government would welcome evidence from roads authorities relating to undertaker reinstatements which have passed their inspections at the end of the 2 and 3 year guarantee periods but which subsequently failed within the next 3 years and would have been within a 5 to 6 year guarantee period.
| Views Sought | |
|---|---|
| 1. | Do you consider that the guarantee periods should be extended? If yes, please explain why and provide evidence to support your view. |
Working Group Response
21 of the 29 respondents to this question agreed that the guarantee periods should be extended. All of the roads authorities responses considered that guarantee periods should be increased. All of the utility companies and contractors which responded considered that they should not.
The guarantee period in the code relates to surface profile and depression defects. Other defect types are generally not covered by the guarantee period and are not time barred. To clarify the position the working group suggests inserting the following wording into the code:
“Note: Where it is discovered at any time that a reinstatement has not been constructed to specification i.e. is not to the minimum depth, does not meet the air voids requirement or is the wrong material (normally identified following coring) then the undertaker will be deemed not to have met its obligations under section 130 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. In such a situation the undertaker remains liable even after the end of the guarantee period.”
This has been incorporated at S2.2.5. The working group felt that the note above would clarify the position for many roads authorities and go some way to meet their concerns.
The working group recommends that further research be undertaken into the nature of certain defects which occur in the longer term and that the guarantee periods should remain as they are.
S2.6 Skid Resistance
The changes in the Specification take into account the latest advice from the DfT in respect of the required skid resistance within various road types, and have resulted in the table of values for reinstatements being amended to reflect the change. The DfT guidance that has led to this change is:
Design manual for Roads and Bridges: Volumes 7 Pavement design and maintenance Section 3 Pavement Maintenance Assessment Part 1: HD 28/04 Skid Resistance
| Views Sought |
|
|---|---|
| 2. |
Are the requirements of the amended table clear? If not, please suggest improvements. |
Working Group Response
The vast majority of respondents (22 of 27) confirmed that the table is clear.
Five roads authorities responded ‘No’, but were commenting on the actual values within the table which they considered had been set too low. The working group considered this view but decided that the values in the table were appropriate.
It is anticipated that where local quarries are producing material with a higher value that this was generally being used.
The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Specification be adopted.
S3.5 Drainage and Water Related Matters
Changes have been made to S3.5, S11.4 and NG11.4.2 in relation to drainage and water. These introduce clearer guidance when water is detected at any stage in the construction or reinstatement process. Quick intervention removes the likelihood of greater problems at a later date.
| Views Sought |
|
|---|---|
| 3. |
Are the new guidelines for dealing with water clear and will they work? If not, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
Working Group Response
Of the 29 respondents to this question, a majority of 17 did not agree that the new guidelines were clear.
The working group reviewed the guidelines and decided that new clause 11.4.1(4) should be deleted.
S6.5.1 Base Preparation
The introduction of tack coat or bond coat is required in all circumstances.
| Views Sought |
|
|---|---|
| 4. |
Do you agree that this is good practice? If not, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
Working Group Response
27 of the 29 respondents to this question agreed that the introduction of tack coat or bond coat is required in all circumstances.
The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted.
S6.5.2.1 Edge Regularity
This section provides guidance on the shape of the reinstatement to ensure that adequate compaction can be achieved. This has been updated so that the reinstatement can be constructed with no loss of performance. There is also an additional diagram to provide guidance on longer trench openings.
| Views Sought | |
|---|---|
| 5a. | Do you agree that this change will facilitate better methods of working? If not, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
| 5b. | Do you agree that this method will improve the quality of reinstatements? If not, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
Working Group Response
28 out of 29 respondents agreed to the new diagrams whilst 21 of the 28 agreed that this method will improve the quality of reinstatements.
The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted.
S6.5.2.2 Edge Sealing
The revised code of practice strengthens the requirements for edge treatment to ensure a better performing sealed joint. It is a requirement to seal the vertical faces of the reinstatement as it offers better protection against water ingress. Best practice examples have been provided.
| Views Sought | |
|---|---|
| 6. | Do you agree that this method will enhance the performance of the reinstatement and reduce water ingress? If not, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
Working Group Response
25 of the 29 respondents to this question agreed that this method will enhance the performance of the reinstatement and reduce water ingress.
The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted.
S6.5.2.3 Proximity to Road Edges and other Fixed Features
Changes have been made to the requirements for the edge preparation of excavations.
| Views Sought | |
|---|---|
| 7a. | Do you agree with the change of the proximity rule? If not, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
| 7b. | Do you agree this will reduce the amount of cut back and edge preparation? If not, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
Working Group Response
All 29 respondents agreed with the change of the proximity rule whilst 21 considered that this will reduce the amount of cut back and edge preparation.
The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted.
S6.5.2.5 Stepped Joints
This provides updated guidance for the most heavily trafficked roads i.e. type 0 and 1 on how to provide a cutback, which is a step in the upper bound road layers. Unless a joint is properly formed, it becomes a potential water penetration point.
| Views Sought | |
|---|---|
| 8a. | Will this method provide an adequate seal to prevent water ingress? If not, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
| 8b. | Are there any potential problems with the cutback? If yes, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
| Working Group Response | |
|---|---|
| 8a. | All utility companies and contractors responded ‘No’ citing lack of evidence or that painting of the vertical joint is adequate. Ten roads authorities responded ‘No’, however, they were generally seeking a wider step and an increase in the classes of road to which it would apply. The working group considered the representations made in response to these questions, but remains of the view that a 75mm step is appropriate. The group also came to the view that type 2 roads should be included and the wording in the Code has been adjusted accordingly. This aligns with the requirements of the DMRB for maintenance. |
| 8b. | 15 of the 28 respondents to this question considered that there would be problems with the cutback. The view expressed by utilities and contractors was that there is potential for delamination, that water ingress into a horizontal joint could make matters worse and that a bevelled joint should be considered. The roads authorities which foresaw problems, were actually suggesting a 150mm step or that all reinstatements be subject to a step joint. |
S8.3.1 and 8.3.5 Match of surface materials in high amenity areas
Most road authorities have areas designated as high-amenity where high quality surface materials have been laid and maintained to a high standard e.g. shopping areas, tourist attractions and areas of historical significance. If works take place in those roads the undertaker must reinstate to the same maintenance standard.
This addition reinforces current practice and formalises it in respect of the Code of Practice.
| Views Sought | |
|---|---|
| 9a. | Do you agree that this method reinforces current practice being undertaken? If not, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
| 9b. | Do you agree that this method will enhance the performance of the reinstatement? If not, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
| Working Group Response | |
|---|---|
| 9a. | 28 of the 29 respondents to this question agreed that this method reinforces current practice being undertaken. |
| 9b. | 18 of the 27 respondents to this question agreed that this method will enhance the performance of the reinstatement, although there were some dissenting views expressed. These views were considered by the working group which recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
S9 Verges and Unmade Ground
Figure S9.1 provides clarification of the treatment to reinstatements where they are placed in verges at a short distance from the road edge, and highlights the need to strengthen the reinstatement to accommodate the thrust from wheel loading.
| Views Sought | |
|---|---|
| 10. | Do you agree that this method formalises current practice being undertaken? If not, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
Working Group Response
28 of the 29 respondents to this question agreed that this method formalises best practice being undertaken.
The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted.
S11.1 Road Markings
Changes have been made in the document, which include road markings as part of the permanent reinstatement.
| Views Sought | |
|---|---|
| 11. | Do you agree with this change? If no, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
Working Group Response
20 of the 28 respondents to this question agreed that road markings be treated as part of the permanent reinstatement.
For the majority of roads authorities which did not agree, the main issues were:
- the marking having an extended guarantee period if the guarantee were extended; and
- the status of the reinstatement during the 15 day period during which permanent markings can be applied.
As the working group recommendation is that the guarantee periods remain the same, there is no change regarding the life expectancy of markings. As regards the status of reinstatements during the 15 day period, the Co-ordination Code makes it clear that these should be treated as "interim".
The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted.
S11.5 Ironwork and Apparatus
Guidance and advice is provided for reinstatements adjacent to manhole covers and frames. Preferred reinstatement methods and construction have been introduced which remove uncertainty.
| Views Sought | |
|---|---|
| 12a. | Do you agree that this method formalises best practice being undertaken? If not, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
| 12b. | Does the new guidance improve the working methods and material selection to improve reinstatements around manhole covers? If not, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
| Working Group Response | |
|---|---|
| 12a. | 23 of the 29 respondents to this question agreed that the advice for reinstatements adjacent to manholes covers and frames formalises best practice. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted subject to a small wording clarification. |
| 12b. | 17 of the 26 respondents to this question agreed that the new guidance improved the working methods and material selection to improve reinstatements around manhole covers. The working group agrees that the construction details of manholes covers and frames are for the undertaker to determine to meet its obligations under section 140 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. |
A2.4.1 Permanent Cold-Lay Surfacing Materials (PCSMs)
Changes have been made to the permitted use of PCSMs.
| Views Sought | |
|---|---|
| 13. | Do you agree that PCSM materials with a HAPAS certificate are appropriate in all carriageway situations? If no, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
Working Group Response
16 of the 29 respondents to this question did not agree that PCSM materials with a HAPAS certificate are appropriate in all carriageway situations
Five roads authorities agreed but the remainder disagreed. The roads authorities are concerned regarding the longer term performance of such materials and that they will have to deal with any future defects which occur. They are concerned that the HAPAS trial was only over a two year period and suggest that a 5-6 year trial is required.
However, the working group recognised that PCSMs have been included in the English Code since 2010 and was not aware of any particular negative feedback regarding their use.
The working group recognised that there are situations where the use of such materials can provide benefits but also recognised the roads authority concerns that it would not be appropriate for use in certain situations such as locations with significant turning movements. The working group recommends that the use of this material be allowed except in cases where the roads authority identifies an engineering reason which would make the use of a PCSM unsuitable in that situation.
It is proposed that the SRWR be configured to alert the roads authority that an undertaker proposes to use a PCSM and a procedure for the use of such an alert be developed.
It is also proposed that a list of all HAPAS approved PCSMs should be held on the SRWR and the appropriate treatment selected from this list whenever a PCSM reinstatement is recorded on the SRWR. This will allow failure rates for each approved material to be monitored and if deemed unacceptable, allow the roads authority to remove agreement.
The working group also recommends that the Scottish Government undertakes a wider review of evidence to see if assurance can be given to roads authorities regarding the longer term performance of the material.
A8.3 Bituminous Mixtures
Compaction of the various bituminous layers is the most important factor to ensure quality and a long term life of the reinstatement. The revision has amended A8.3 to be a performance based specification where an air void criterion has been added for all reinstatements. The previous method which took into account the number of passes has been included in the notes for guidance.
| Views Sought | |
|---|---|
| 14a. | Do you agree that this method of compaction will improve the quality of the reinstatement? If not, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
| 14b. | Do you see any problems with the performance specification requirement? If not, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
| Working Group Response | |
|---|---|
| 14a. | 21 of the 29 respondents to this question did not agree that this method of compaction will improve the quality of the reinstatement. The philosophy is that we have moved from a method specification to an end product specification where the compaction achieved is the criteria and not the number of passes of the roller. This firmly places the responsibility onto the undertaker to achieve the compactions required. Notwithstanding the views expressed, the working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
| 14b. | 12 of the 26 respondents to this question could foresee problems with the specification requirements. Many respondents considered that the Permitted Air Void contents should be as per BS594987. The working group had decided that the air voids requirement should not be a stringent as required in BS 594987 as the compaction achievable for hand laid material cannot be as great as for machine laid. The group remains of this view. The guidance on the number of passes required remains in place to provide an indication of the minimum which would be expected to meet the specification. Some roads authorities have concern that this would push them towards more coring and testing. Notwithstanding the views expressed, the working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
A9 Alternative Reinstatement Materials
This section has been rewritten to facilitate the use of recycled materials which refers to any material excavated on site that can be:
- Immediately re-used;
- Sent off, treated then re-used; or
- Brought in from a recycling plant, not necessarily from the on-going site, but from a previous excavation.
| Views Sought | |
|---|---|
| 15a. | Do you believe that use of alternative materials will be beneficial? If not, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
| 15b. | Do you already use alternative materials? If so, please provide information on whether or not you have benefited from using them. |
| 15c. | Do you see the changes will support the increased use of alternative materials? If not, please explain what the remaining barriers are. |
| 15d. | If you are involved in a recycling initiative, would you be happy to supply Scottish Government with information? |
| Working Group Response | |
|---|---|
| 15a. | 23 of the 31 respondents to this question agreed that the use of alternative materials will be beneficial All of those who did not agree were roads authorities which although they believe that the use of recycled materials has the potential to provide environmental and economic benefits, wish to balance these benefits against any increased longer term maintenance consequences. Their feeling is that the benefits accrue to the utilities whilst the potential maintenance risk remains with the roads authorities. |
| 15b. | 15 of the 25 organisations which responded to this question confirmed that they already use alternative materials. This includes the re-use of excavated material and planings, SMR, HBM, foam concrete and reclaimed asphalt. |
| 15c. | 28 of the 29 organisations which responded supported the increased use of alternative materials. |
| 15d. | 25 of the 26 organisations which responded to this question confirmed that they would be happy to supply Scottish Government with information regarding their involvement in recycling initiatives. |
A9 Alternative Reinstatement Materials
A9.1 introduces hydraulically bound mixtures (HBMs) to BSEN14227 as approved materials without further trials.
| Views Sought | |
|---|---|
| 16. | Do you agree with this approach? If not, please comment. |
Working Group Response
15 of the 29 organisations which responded to this question confirmed that they did not agree with the introduction of HBMs as approved materials without further trials.
Views were polarised with all undertakers, Zero Waste Scotland and contractors being in favour. Only 5 roads authorities supported the proposal, but 15 were against. Those for, recognised the environmental benefits of re-using materials. The roads authorities against, raised concerns regarding the durability, impermeability, potential frost damage and compatibility with existing road constructions. They were concerned that longer term problems with HBMs would fall to them and suggested that further trials were needed to prove the long term performance of such materials.
The working group proposes the following:
- HBMs to BSEN14227 shall be deemed to be approved without further trials.
- This shall be subject to advance notification of the intention to use an HBM (requiring a revision to the SRWR) and an obligation on the undertaker to consult with the roads authority when proposed for Major works and for any trenches longer than 5 metres.
- Monitoring shall be undertaken until more experience is gained in their performance.
- SRWR will require reconfiguration to allow the use of such materials to be recorded. This will include supporting information including name of manufacturer, batch numbers etc.
- The Commissioner will take on responsibility for monitoring the use of HBMs and the level of failure in relation to more conventional materials. This will be reported on a 6 monthly basis.
- Any particular material which showed significant failure rates would be banned from use.
Where appropriate, the wording in the Code has been revised to reflect the forgoing. The wording in the Code of Practice for the Co-ordination of Works in Roads will also require to be reviewed to ensure that any processes required to deliver the forgoing are in place.
A9 Alternative Reinstatement Materials
A9.4 has been expanded to encourage group and area trials to facilitate approval for wider use.
| Views Sought | |
|---|---|
| 17. | Do you agree with this approach? If not, please comment. |
Working Group Response
All 29 respondents to this question confirmed their agreement to A9.4 being expanded to encourage group and area trials to facilitate approval for wider use.
A9 Alternative Reinstatement Materials
A9.5 requires the recording of trials and agreements on a central register.
| Views Sought | |
|---|---|
| 18. | Do you agree this adds value to the process? If not, please comment. |
Working Group Response
All 29 respondents to this question confirmed their agreement that the recording of trials on a central register be undertaken.
A11.2 Base and Binder Course Materials
The binder penetration table now reflects a much wider range of soft and hard binders that impact on reinstatement design thickness. The thickness can vary in different conditions, so the table provides options. This has been updated to show the different labelling of products introduced by the new European standards. There should be no additional impact on industry as this formalises current procedure.
| Views Sought | |
|---|---|
| 19. | Are the requirements of Table A11.1 clear? If not, please suggest improvements. |
Working Group Response
Of the 29 responses to this question, 18 agreed that the requirements of Table A11.1 are clear. Further reference can be found to this issue in Appendix A3 of the Specification. The working group considers the table to be acceptable and recommends that the version in the draft version of the Code be adopted.
A12.2.2 Modular Paving and use of Natural Materials
The reinstatement of modular surfaces recognises the need to manage the replacement of broken and defective paving. Natural paving materials such as ‘Caithness slabs’ are important materials as the reinstatement of those types of natural materials needs special consideration. In many cases they are cracked and chipped but still fit for purpose in the setting that they are placed. The revision sets out that natural materials even if broken will not be disposed of and may, in agreed circumstances, be reused for the permanent reinstatement.
| Views Sought | |
|---|---|
| 20. | Do you agree that there is a special case relating to the use of natural materials in reinstatements? If not, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
Working Group Response
All 29 respondents to this question confirmed that there is a special case relating to the use of natural materials in reinstatements.
Any issues not covered by the Foregoing
| Views Sought | |
| 21. | Are there any additional issues that are not covered by this consultation? If so, please describe why and provide all the necessary supporting evidence. |
Working Group Response
11 respondents provided additional issues for consideration. Annex A sets out the response to issues that were raised as part of the consultation process and not covered elsewhere.