Annex A – Issues not Covered by the Foregoing
Annex A – Issues not Covered by the Foregoing
Issue |
Response |
---|---|
1. General to the SRORv3 (Scotland). Errata in SROHv3 identified in re-print c. January 2012. These all appear to have been incorporated. | Noted. |
2. General to the SRORv3 (Scotland). New phrase requiring Road Authority (RA) to place information (as SEDs) on the Gazetteer have been provided at S1.9.1, S6.1(3), S6.4.5.5(1), S7.1(5), S7.1(6), S8.3.4(3). This is welcomed by Utilities, but query whether this should be Associated Street Data (ASD) rather than SEDs. Post SROHv3 (England) publication, the HAUC (UK) SROH WP joint-chairs liaised with the NSG Developers ahead of their revised Code of Practice. A fuller listing of all Sections in the SROHv3 (England) where data known to the Highway Authority being made available via ASD was provided. This is in line with the efforts of the RAUC(S) WP looking at SRORv3 (Scotland). |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
3. S0 Figure S0.1 Second Last and Last Grey Cells - reference to "Exceptions". SRORv3(S) has used the word "Provisions" in the relevant Clause. | Agreed. Diagrams have been revised accordingly. |
4. S1.6.1(iii) and S1.6.4(ii) Reference to A9.6 Typo - suspect this should be A9.5. |
Reference has been revised. |
5. S2.2.1(1) As-Laid tolerance revised to +6mm/-3mm The lower tolerance of -3mm is probably unachievable. Query whether this is in line with current RA laying practices. Presents an increased risk of 'soft' defects in reinstatements. Is there a body of evidence that this 3mm delivers an improved reinstatement quality in the eyes of the public? |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
6. S2.6 (General) Reference to there being no requirement to provide texture depth, PSV or AAV that is superior to the existing adjacent surfaces has been omitted. Recurs at several sub-sections of S2.6. This omission by default requires the Utility to provide minimum skidding resistance values irrespective of the condition of the existing road. In the event these minimum standards are not met by a marginal amount, this omission removes any engineering judgment when comparing the different skidding resistances. In reality, it arguably increases the potential for differential skidding instances between the Reinstatement and the Adjacent running surface. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
7. S3.1.5 Clause brought in verbatim from equivalent Notes for Guidance (NfG) Clause in SROHv3 (England) Believe this should revert to NfG section, as there is no remedy in the event that aesthetics are not taken into regard. Who determines such an assessment, and what guidance is provided? |
Agreed. The relevant paragraph has been moved to NG3.1.2. |
8. S6.4 Opening Sentence refers to 'provisions' rather than 'exceptions' (see S0 comment above) Not a big issue between Exceptions and Provisions. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
9. S6.4.5.3(e) Porous Asphalt - reference to HAPAS Bond Coats Are there such HAPAS approved bond coats; is there a differential cost increment in requiring this approved material. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
10. S6.4.10(1) Provisions for Small Excavations and Narrow Trenches limited to Types 3 and 4 Roads Limitation new to SRORv3 (Scotland). Affects potential for 1st time reinstatement in major roads, where such reinstatement Is actually most needed. Backward step, with no known data to support decision. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
11. S6.5.2.1(2) and Fig S6.1 Angles less than nominal 90 degrees SRORv3 (Scotland) does not permit angles less than 90 degrees. This retains SRORv2 (Scotland) provisions and does not consider flexibility built into SROHv3 (England) debated at much length by the HAUC (UK) SROH WP |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
12. S7.3 Opening Sentence refers to 'provisions' rather than 'exceptions' (see also S0 comment above) Not a big issue between Exceptions and Provisions |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
13. S8.3 Opening Sentence refers to 'provisions' rather than 'exceptions' (see also S0 comment above) Not a big issue between Exceptions and Provisions |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
14. S10.2.3(2) Air Voids Testing provisions Maximum and Bulk density Tests have incorrect references. |
Noted. References have been amended. |
15. S10.2.3(4) Coring proximities 75mm clearance to edge of reinstatements is a welcomed retention from the 2nd Edition - unlike SROHv3 (England). However, clearance of 75mm to edge of a fixed feature (especially) ironwork should be 100mm for safety/damage purposes. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
16. S10.3(2)-(4) Sub-Clauses taken from NfGs under SROH v3 (England) Whilst positioning in the Specification undoubtedly amplifies the importance of compaction good practice, it is guidance, rather than a Specification item.. These should therefore revert to the NfGs. |
Noted. The wording has been amended to clarify that this is a specification item. |
17. S11.5 Ironwork and Apparatus Some sub-Clauses from the SROHv3 (England) including Fig S11.1 have either been moved to NfGs or omitted under SRORv3 (Scotland). Subsequent to publication of SROHv3 (England) the HAUC (UK) SROH WP has published a FAQ re-affirming that S11.5 applies only to Carriageways and apparatus greater than 600mm in width - THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL CHANGE THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE SRORv3 (Scotland). |
Noted. Not agreed. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
18. Table S12.1 Maximum Crack Length Reference to 10% of the Reinstatement Perimeter noted in both current SRORv2 (Scotland and SROHv3 (England) has been omitted. This is a significant change, especially when a trench unit of 200m is considered. This must be reinstated. |
Noted. Not agreed. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
19. S12.3.2 Cracking Beyond Reinstatement Limits The minimum length of crack has been changed from a minimum 2000mm [noted in both current SRORv2 (Scotland and SROHv3 (England)], to (now) less than 500mm in carriageways (via Table S12.1 changes). The 2000mm minimum dimension must be reinstated in the absence of data to show that such cracks have otherwise been problematic. |
Noted. Not agreed. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
20. A2.0.1(1) As per S6.4.10(1) above, provisions for Small Excavations and Narrow Trenches limited to Types 3 and 4 Roads Limitation new to SRORv3 (Scotland). Affects potential for 1st time reinstatement in major roads, where such reinstatement Is actually most needed. Backward step, with no known data to support decision. |
Noted. Not agreed. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
21. Table A2.3 Laying Temperatures - Materials Material references to CGSC, DSC and DBC are old and need correct reference to ACCSC, ACDSC and ACBC respectively. |
Agreed. The wording of the Code has been amended to reflect this. |
22. Figures A2.3 to A2.5 (incl.) Top Right Grey Cell in each Figure - reference to "Exceptions". SRORv3(S) has used the word "Provisions" in the relevant Clause |
No exceptions in cells. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
23. Appendices A3.2 to A3.4 (incl.) Flexible Roads - Types 2 to 4 incl. Note 4 in all Appendices has been omitted - this is in reference to designed roads. Query RAUC(S) WP reasoning. |
Layer depths used come from HD26. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
24. A9.2(1) Inclusion of HBMs with FCRs as exempt from A9 trials/approvals. Fundamental reversal of a previous HAUC (UK) Advice Note and provisions included in SROHv3 (England) - can RAUC(S) WP provide supporting data to confirm its reasoning on this removal. |
The working group has taken a considered view and recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
25. A9.3.4 As above, provisions supporting HBMs removed under the SRORv3 (Scotland) As above. |
The working group has taken a considered view and recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
26. After A9.3.5.2 Reference to HBM Production noted in SROHv3 (England) omitted - follows above As above. |
Not agreed. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
27. After A9.3.5.2 Reference to SMF Material noted in SROHv3 (England) omitted. Can RAUC(S) WP provide supporting data to confirm its reasoning on this removal? Else SRORv3 (Scotland) provides no Specification or Guidance to industry. |
Not agreed. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
28. After A12.4 Reference to Pre-existing Surface Damage outside limits of Undertaker's Specification Clauses - noted in both current SRORv2 (Scotland and SROHv3 (England) - (ref A12.5) moved to NfGs. As a Specification Clause, obligations are placed on RAs to provide replacement modules; something RAs and HAs in England/Wales are poor in undertaking. Moving to NfGs devalues this obligation further. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
29. NG10.2.3(5) Coring adjacent to Apparatus Clearance of 75mm to edge of a fixed feature (especially) ironwork repeated. This should be 100mm for safety/damage purposes. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
30. NGA12.5 Joint Inspections and Cost Recovery As above, Specification Clauses - noted in both current SRORv2 (Scotland and SROHv3 (England) - (ref A12.5) moved to NfGs. As a Specification Clause, obligations are placed on RAs to provide replacement modules; something RAs and HAs in England/Wales are poor in undertaking. Moving to NfGs devalues this obligation further. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
31. New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in Roads Draft Third Edition Scotland It is not apparent in the document that there are any sections relating to processes for rectification of remedial works Whilst we do not endorse failed reinstatements it has to be accepted that in certain circumstances remedial works will be required to be undertaken. | Noted. Rectification should be undertaken as per the specification. |
32. Moreover in the current climate we are looking to reduce disruption to the travelling public and increase sustainability, the drafting of any new reinstatement document should give consideration and the opportunity to include processes that meet these criteria. I feel that now that the opportunity has arisen for the inclusion of thermal (infrared) processes, hence consideration of these processes should be included in the revised Specification. | Noted. This could possibly be covered in a future version of the Code. |
33. As long as the thermal process is BBA HAPAS approved for permanent repair. Thermal repair is now a widely accepted and proven remedy for failed reinstatements and is being used across the industry. |
Noted. |
34. It is disappointing to note that S12.3.3, Repair of Cracking remains unchanged from the previous version. Potholes studies and reports undertaken by both HMEP and Adept both stress the importance of sealing surface interfaces to prevent the ingress of water. S.2.2.1 - See S.2.2.2 below - does S.2.2.2.1 not contradict S.2.2.1.1? S2.2.2 - Edge depression limits of 10mm are unacceptable for new reinstatement. In order to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act this has to be reduced. DDA Good Practice Guide for Roads suggests that surfaces should be flush with an absolute maximum tolerance of 6mm (at dropped footway crossings). Likewise the DFT's Inclusive Mobility states 'level or flush access is essential for the majority of wheelchair users' (3.13). S2.3 of the draft refers to +/- 6mm at dropped crossings but 10mm at other locations? +/- 6mm should be adopted for all footway surfaces and crossing areas (as a minimum). S.2.2.3.2 - Surface depression intervention criteria needs reduced. It cannot be deemed acceptable to have a new footway reinstatement less than 1 metre wide, running to 1 inch lower than the adjacent footway. This has effects on accessibility, the aesthetical character of the area and is also likely to result in water ponding (see S2.2.3.3 below). S2.2.3.3 - Standing water in footways - very dangerous during winter due to freezing on untreated routes. We suggest that the 500mm intervention width is removed to prevent the formation of patches of black ice. Any reinstatement, which results in such obvious detriment to the existing network, cannot be deemed acceptable. The ethos of the RAUCS environment is to work together to encourage better working practices. If anything the clauses listed within this section oppose this ethos. |
Not part of this review. |
35. A12.2.1 4) This relates to bedding materials for modular surfaces. Some specialist materials such as rare or highly finished stone modules require particular laying courses e.g. DBM. In some cases the supplier may also have specified particular operative qualifications. This clause should be expanded to require Utilities to discuss specialist materials with Authorities. The relevant laying courses and appropriately qualified staff must be employed. In some cases this may result in specialist sub-contractors or Local Authority personnel carrying out the work. Acceptability Criteria. | Comment reviewed. The working group is content that is covered by SEDs. |
36. A study carried out by South Lanarkshire Council found that the ground near to reinstatements often settled over time. This phenomenon is likely to be due to loosening of the adjacent ground during excavation. Damage caused in this way is not picked up by the current inspection regime or the SROR. It is suggested that this can be improved by allowing assessment of collateral damage and also by lengthening the guarantee period. South Lanarkshire Council believes this to be a significant problem. This relates to bedding materials for modular surfaces. | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
37. S2.2.1 (1) Difficult to achieve and very difficult to measure on site, how do you lay a kerb against a road that was constructed to a different tolerance. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
38. S6.4.10 (1) Small excavations and narrow trenches now apply only to type 3/4 roads There is no data available that supports a need for this change. As most small reinstatements in the road also include a small reinstatement in the footway this change will mean there is now a need for 3 types of reinstatement materials at these locations. This will lead to a second vehicle being needed or increased turnaround time for reinstatements to be completed. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
39. S10.2.3 (2) The in-situ air voids content for all bituminous materials This section is incorrect Maximum density is determined by BS EN 12697-5 and bulk density is determined by BS EN 12697-6. |
Noted. Wording has been amended. |
40. S10.2.3 (2) Removal of The in-situ air void content shall be calculated as an average from all results obtained This is a standard procedure for all air void testing it is included in SROH 2 Scotland and SROH 2/3 England. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
41. S10.2.3 (2) Removal of, The overall accuracy of this test measurement is deemed to be + or - 0.5% FAQ on HAUK UK web site determined that as Table S10.1 gives limits in whole numbers then results should also be given in whole numbers. HAUC UK answer was that the + or - 0.5% be reinstated. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
42. S12.3 Repair of cracking 10% of the reinstatement perimeter has been removed from Table S12.1 this is a big change from the second edition of the SROH what research and evidence is there for tis change. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
43. S12.3.2 Cracking beyond reinstatement limits Limits changed from 2m to 0.5m What evidence or research is there for this change. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
44. It is not apparent in the document that there are any sections relating to processes for rectification of remedial works. Whilst we do not endorse failed reinstatements it has to be accepted that in certain circumstances remedial works will be required to be undertaken. Moreover in the current climate we are looking to reduce disruption to the travelling public and increase sustainability and the drafting of any new reinstatement document should give consideration and the opportunity to include processes that meet these criteria. [***] feels now that the opportunity has arisen for the inclusion of thermal (infrared) processes, hence consideration of these processes should be included in the revised Specification (as long as the thermal process is BBA HAPAS approved for permanent repair). | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
45. It is disappointing to note that S12.3.3, Repair of Cracking remains unchanged from the previous version. Permitting up to 2.5 mm cracks for a length of 500mm in a new patch before intervention should have been changed, as it is well known that any crack will allow the penetration of water. With subsequent freezing and thawing, this will inevitably result in a failure. We would like to see the reintroduction of overbanding. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
46. Bedding materials for high amenity surfacing materials, such as may be found in town centre streetscaping is not covered. East Ayrshire Council has introduced guidance for Undertakers working in such situations. | Comment reviewed. The working group is content that is covered by SEDs. |
47. S11.7 – should be clear that overbanding is not permitted without express prior agreement of the Road Authority. | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
48. S1.1.1. – Add to the end of the paragraph that the alternative specification will be recorded within the notice details for the given site. | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
49. S1.5.3. – Better clarity required on what a deep opening is | The working group is content that this is clear. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
50. S2.2.4. – What about the effects of multiple reinstatements close to each other causing a combined defect. | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
51. S3.1 – suggest renumbering and adding a new S3.1.1 as follows Before any works commence all obvious damage to the existing site should be noted and notified to the Roads Authority. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
52. S3.1.2 – suggest changing lifted carefully to hand excavated. The word securely should be added after stored. | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
53. S3.3.2 – remove as soon as practicable and replace with no later than by the end of the next working day. | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
54. S8.3.5.3).(i) – add hand in front of excavated and securely after stored. | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
55. S8.3.6 – question parts 4) and 5) and also diagram S8.1 – better clarity required. | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
56. S12.3.2 – better description of what “cracking is” required | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
57. A3.1. Type1 Flexible Roads – overall depth of bound materials has been reduced to 320mm – is this correct? | Yes |
58. S0.5 Using the Specification and Appendices to undertake the correct reinstatement. This section only gives ref to NSG data held within the register. Many roads have a greater depth of bound material which may have been a result of several overlays – there should be a requirement to match this existing specification if it is encountered. No guidance is given for this scenario. The latter notes are also relevant for S1.3.5 – The only reference to total thickness of a carriageway is given under S7.1 General – 1; this example is for a composite road with an existing overlay. SU’s, where in doubt, should contact the RA for further advice upon realising that specifications are differ from those given in the SRWR. This will ensure performance is uniform. RAs should record these as SEDs | Not agreed. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
59. S1.1.1 An Undertaker executing road works shall carry out the excavation and reinstatement in accordance with this Specification. Where this Specification allows alternatives, the Undertaker shall select one of the permitted options. Regardless of which alternative is selected, the Undertaker shall guarantee the performance of the reinstatement to the relevant standards, for the relevant guarantee period. (Proposed Additional Sentence) Where an undertaker chooses to incorporate one of the alternative specification(s), then this will be recorded within the notice details for that given site. | Not agreed. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
60. S1.5.3 Deep Openings - all excavations and trenches in which the depth of cover over the buried apparatus is greater than 1.5 metres. Trenches with a depth of cover that is intermittently more than 1.5metres for lengths of less than 5 metres are not deemed to be deep openings. (Proposed Section S1.5.3) Deep Openings - all excavations and trenches in which the depth exceeds 1.5m from the base of the trench will be considered as a deep opening. Trenches with an intermittent depth of more than 1.5m for lengths of less than 5m are not deemed to be deep openings. |
Not agreed. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
61. S1.6 Alternative Options (iii) Local agreements under this section only become valid when recorded using the procedure set out in Appendix 9.5. | Agreed. The working group recommends that this clause is adopted. |
62. S2.2.4 Combined Defect – Intervention 4) Earlier intervention shall be required if the depression alone results in standing water wider than 500 mm or exceeding one square metre in area, at 2 hours after the cessation of rainfall, (Proposed Addition to Sentence) also if the track is longitudinal and holds water during or after periods of rain. Working Group: Please consider the effect of multiple reinstatements, over short distances, and the cumulative effect they have on riding characteristics. | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
63. S2.2.5 Condition at End of Guarantee Period2) At the end of the guarantee period, where the profile of the existing surfaces adjacent to the reinstatement is uniform and the surface of the reinstatement is outside the intervention limits, the Undertaker shall carry out remedial works to restore the surface profile of the reinstatement to a condition consistent with the adjacent surfaces. Proposed Section S2.5.2.5 (2) Remain status quo as per original SROR text – Where the profile of the existing surface to the reinstatement is uniform and substantially superior to the surface of the reinstatement, the Undertaker shall carry out remedial work to restore the surface profile of the reinstatement to a condition consistent with the adjacent surfaces. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
64. S3.1 Breaking the Surface - (Proposed New Section S3.1.1) Before breaking the surface all obvious damage to the existing site should be notified to the road authority. | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
65. S3.1.2 When excavating in modular construction, the existing modules shall be lifted carefully, and stored for re-use. Where pre-existing damage has resulted in fragmentation or breakage of modules made out of natural materials the fragments shall be removed and stored, unless agreed otherwise with the Authority. (Proposed Section S3.1.2) When excavating in modular construction, the existing modules (pre-cast modules to be removed by hand) shall be lifted, in a manner to prevent any damage, and stored for re-use , at a location to be agreed by the RA. Where pre-existing damage has resulted in fragmentation or breakage of modules made out of natural materials the fragments shall be removed and stored (securely), unless agreed otherwise with the Authority. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
66. S3.3.2 Excavated material unsuitable for re-use shall be removed from site as soon as practicable. Excavated material retained on site shall be stockpiled within the confines of site barriers, at a safe distance from the trench edge and prevented, so far as is practicable, from entering any drainage system or water course S3.3.2 Excavated material unsuitable for re-use shall be removed from site no later than 16.30 the next working day. Excavated material retained on site shall be stockpiled within the confines of site barriers, at a safe distance from the trench edge and prevented, so far as is practicable, from entering any drainage system or water course. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
67. S4 Surround to Apparatus No guidance given for an acceptable backfill if the apparatus cannot be laid at a deeper depth i.e. will this require a concrete surround. See S5.3.3 also. Should a minimum depth be quoted for backfill, if the depth cannot be achieved? |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
68. S6 Flexible and Composite Roads S6.1.3 Method C - Permanent Base Reinstatement Addition - where (FCRs) have been used, a tack coat shall be applied if they are to receive subsequent bituminous layers. This may be clarified under S6.5, S6.5.1. |
Wording has been clarified at 6.5.1(2). |
69. S6.4.3 Asphalt Concrete Surface Course Materials Where the existing surface course material is asphalt concrete it may be reinstated with any of the surface course options in Appendix A2 to A4. (Proposed Section S6.4.3 ) Where the existing surface course material is asphalt concrete it shall be reinstated with an asphalt concrete to match the existing road surface. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
70. S6.4.6 Surface Treatments In Types 3 & 4 roads either: a) Surface dressing or other surface treatment is not required when any binder course and surface course option permitted by Section S6.4 is laid, or b) The surfacing layers and equivalent surface dressing or other surface treatment shall be reinstated by agreement. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
71. S6.4.10 Small Excavations, Narrow Trenches and Access Chamber Covers 1) In types 3 and 4 roads a permanent surface course material in accordance with Appendix A2 may be laid in place of a permanent binder course material at Base and/or binder course level in: i) small excavations and narrow trenches (as defined in Sections S1.5.1 & S1.5.2); Addition – notes should be added in this section that reinstatement shall be replaced in layers with-in the tolerances permitted. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
72. S6.5.2.2 Edge Sealing 1) At any interim stage and at the time of permanent reinstatement, the top 100 mm, at least, of all bound vertical edges at surface course and binder course levels, and the equivalent area on kerbs and exposed fixed features, shall be painted (by spray application or using a brush / roller - not poured, refer to NG6.5.(2 & 3)) with a bitumen based edge sealant or otherwise prepared with an edge sealing system or equivalent material There shall be no significant splashing, spillage or any deliberate over painting of the adjacent road surface, subject to the requirements of Section S11.7. |
Agreed. Working group considered proposal sensible. |
73. S6.5.2.3 Proximity to Road Edges, and Fixed Features Minimum width(s) should be stated as 150mm (on f/way) or 250mm (on c/way). |
Section is about carriageway, no reference to footway. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
74. S8 Footways, Footpaths and Cycle Tracks S8.3.5 Modular Footways, Footpaths and Cycle Tracks 3) Specific to the reinstatement of natural stone modular surfaces, the following shall apply: (i) Natural stone modules within the area to be excavated shall be removed and stored by the Undertaker for reuse. (Proposed Section S8.3.5 (3 (i)) When excavating in natural stone, the existing modules shall be removed by hand and shall be lifted in a manner to prevent any damage, stored for re-use, at a location to be agreed by the RA. Where pre-existing damage has resulted in fragmentation or breakage of modules made out of natural materials the fragments shall be removed and stored (securely), unless agreed otherwise with the RA. |
This is covered elsewhere. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
75. S8.3.6 Edge Requirements 5) Fixed features in the footway such as sign posts, lamp columns, valve cover boxes etc. that are less than 250mm diameter or 250 mm width on the side facing the reinstatement are exempt from the trim-line extension. No - a slither of less than 150mm (say 20mm) left insitu would not be acceptable S8.3.6 (5) should read; Fixed features in the footway such as sign posts, lamp columns, valve cover boxes etc. that are less than 250mm diameter or 250 mm width on the side facing the reinstatement are exempt from the trim-line extension when that distance is equal to or greater than 150mm – OR STATEMENT REMOVED COMPLETELY. |
Agreed that the statement should be omitted from the Code. Diagram Figure 8.1 revised. |
76. S9 Verges and Unmade Ground S9.3 Cultivated Areas 9.3.1 Unless otherwise agreed, cultivated areas containing shrubs, plants or bulbs shall be reinstated using the same or similar species. Thereafter, a reasonable growth shall be established within the following 12 months. Where the Authority knows of special features in verges (e.g. orchid sites etc.) it should inform the Undertaker in order to agree the best means of conserving the special features. Addition 9.3.2 – Where possible all excavated shrubs, plants or bulbs shall be retained for re-planting on completion of the work. Care shall be taken to ensure that root systems are retained during excavation and the shrubs, plants or bulbs are protected from drying out whilst waiting re-planting. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
77. S9.4 Grassed Areas 1) Grassed areas shall be reinstated using the original turf, replacement turf or an equivalent seed, depending on weather and growing season. In all cases, a reasonable growth shall be established within the following 12 months. 1) Grassed areas shall be reinstated using the original turf. Where this cannot be achieved then a replacement turf (to BS 3969 – 1998 or current) or an equivalent seed (to BS3883 – 2007 or current) may be used. In all cases, a reasonable growth shall be established within the following 12 months. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. Unnecessary specification. |
78. S12 Remedial Works S12.1 General S12.1.1 The Undertaker shall be responsible for ensuring that reinstatements comply with the required performance criteria throughout the interim reinstatement and guarantee periods. (Proposed New S12.1.2.) The Undertaker, upon reasonable request, shall provide details for any given site to ensure they have complied with S12.1.1. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
79. S12.3.3 (2) Two re-sealing operations, excluding the original sealing, shall be permitted during the guarantee period. Further significant cracking of the third seal shall require a surface repair, as follows: Clarification required - if sealing operation is not permitted after the guarantee period is ended e.g. cracking is evident during an SC inspection and the SU does not carry out a repair before the end of the initial warranty period, then would this result in only 1 application of sealer being permitted. b) Surfacing materials shall be removed over sufficient width to ensure that the repair patch extends beyond the edges of the crack, by a minimum distance equal to the nominal thickness of the replacement surface course. The minimum width of the repair patch shall be 100 mm. This is not in line with previous compaction requirements i.e. min width of compaction plant foot print. How can sufficient compaction be achieved in a width of 100mm. Also as a repair scenario this may end with 4 joints running along a reinstatement for any given distance. |
No obligation on undertaker following guarantee period. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
80. Clarification also required on timescale for SU to carry out repair i.e. if a defect is identified and the SU fails to respond for several months, then the open interface can and will be affected by the ingress of water and also hydraulic pressure from passing traffic. This will result in a further weakness of the joint to which a resealing operation may become ineffective. If the timescales are achieved for remedials (with-in 17 working days) then the resealing exercise should be complete with-in 34 working days of the first defect. Outwith this timescale (more than 34 working days), the remedial action should be escalated by engineering judgement to include. | Inspection Code issue. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
81. A3.1 Type 1 Flexible Roads See East Lothian Appendix 1 The above diagram shows the overall depth for bound layers on Flexible Road Type 1 as being 320mm. Current SROR states total bound layers depth 350mm – copy/paste from SROH? |
The diagram reflects the policy. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
82. It is disappointing to note that S12.3.3, Repair of Cracking remains unchanged from the previous version. Potholes studies and reports undertaken by both HMEP and Adept both stress the importance of sealing surface interfaces to prevent the ingress of water. Permitting up to 2.5 mm cracks for a length of 500mm in a new patch before intervention should have been changed, as it is well known that any crack will allow the penetration of water. With subsequent freezing and thawing, this will inevitably result in a failure. This clause directly contradicts all other guidance / studies / reports which highlight that water ingress as a major cause of network failure. | No recommendation. |
83. S.2.2.1 - See S.2.2.2 below - does S.2.2.2.1 not contradict S.2.2.1.1? S2.2.2 - Edge depression limits of 10mm are unacceptable for new reinstatement. In order to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act this has to be reduced. DDA Good Practice Guide for Roads suggests that surfaces should be flush with an absolute maximum tolerance of 6mm (at dropped footway crossings). Likewise the DFT's Inclusive Mobility states 'level or flush access is essential for the majority of wheelchair users' (3.13). S2.3 of the draft refers to +/- 6mm at dropped crossings but 10mm at other locations? +/- 6mm should be adopted for all footway surfaces and crossing areas (as a minimum). |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
84. S.2.2.3.2 - Surface depression intervention criteria needs reduced. It cannot be deemed acceptable to have a new footway reinstatement less than 1 metre wide, running to 1 inch lower than the adjacent footway. This has effects on accessibility, the aesthetical character of the area and is also likely to result in water ponding (see S2.2.3.3 below). S2.2.3.3 - Standing water in footways - very dangerous during winter due to freezing on untreated routes. We suggest that the 500mm intervention width is removed to prevent the formation of patches of black ice. Any reinstatement, which results in such obvious detriment to the existing network, cannot be deemed acceptable. The ethos of the RAUCS environment is to work together to encourage better working practices. If anything the clauses listed within this section oppose this ethos. See Fife Appendix 1 |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
85. S 2.2.1 and S2.2.2 seem to be contradictory. S2.2.1 states that construction tolerances at the edges of reinstatement shall not exceed +6mm/-3mm while S2.2.2 states that intervention is required when edge depression exceeds 10mm over a 100mm length. We would like to see +/- 6mm adopted for all footpath surfaces. This is also in line with Disability Discrimination Act – Good Practice Guide for Roads. | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
86. S 2.2.3 Intervention levels should be reviewed, +/- 25mm over 900mm width is excessive and should be reduced – we propose a maximum of +/- 10mm | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
87. S 12.3.1 The intervention level for remedial work has remained at 2.5mm – this is excessive and should be removed with a statement added that any edge cracking should be recorded as a failure. Our attached survey in response to S1.2 Guarantee Period clearly demonstrates that any edge cracking will ultimately result in the reinstatement failure which in turn unfairly increases the burden for repair on to the Road Authority. | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
88. Within Question 1, it asks about extending the Guarantee Period. This was discussed at length in the SROH working and was shown to have no supporting evidence that any reinstatement were failing in performance outside the existing length of time. The group supported that there may need to be further research to provide empirical evidence of instances and quantity. There are aspects to consider in respects to an extended guarantee which are design life of Road Markings, Anti-skid surfacing and surface treatments. Therefore, would require a multi-layered Guarantee system and this would be impractical. Possibly need to re-assess of the way inspections are carried out. Mo Abrahams initial reasoning for an increase of guarantee was not of increased defects after year 2 or 3. It was that it was difficult to complete even the basic sample inspection regime within this time. A five year would afford the Road Authority adequate time to do this to their satisfaction. It must be stressed that this is a resource issue rather than specification one. Other issues in this are the misunderstanding of the two different types of defect: Latent and Performance. If a reinstatement does fail after the existing guarantee period, it is usual down to a Latent issue if it is not attributed to an outside issue (i.e. adjacent reinstatement, existing carriageway, change of traffic issues. |
Should be considered if the guarantee period is extended in future. |
89. Question 2 does have issues although the requirements are clear. Due to the availability of higher PSV stone, even at 55, there will be a lot of local agreements to cope with local supply. In today’s environmental climate, we should be looking to the benefit of using local stone, which would have been used in the existing carriageway in most cases, to importing stone from sources like Wales. There is practical element to be considered in this as well in terms of laying techniques for trench work and proving defect after work is completed makes this difficult to be practical. |
Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
90. In respects to Q5, the text states that angles less than 90 degrees are allowed but not the diagram. | 6.5.2.1.4 to be omitted. Diagram amended. |
91. Question 13 relates to the PCSM’s. How about PCBM’s that may become available? Also the voiding aspects should not be given a specific value but rather to what the manufacturer’s requirements state as this is a performance characteristic to that particular brand. | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
92. Question 16, the issues against this that have been brought up are, essentially, not founded and are not progressive in nature. FCR’s and HBM’s have been used extensively within the Greater London area with considerable success and benefit. It is available to be used within the SROH and there are no reasons why this shouldn’t be so within the SROR. | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
93. Question 20: Even though the Specification allows for this to happen, it is still to the Road Authorities discretion on whether or not it can be used. Shows no consistency which is something the specification requires. | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
94. The Trimback rule will have a direct impact to the 2 square metre rule. This should relate to the actual extent of the reinstatement area rather than the surface area in this case. It is recognised that this would be difficult to enforce due to the visible issues relating to this - however this does highlight the similar issues that would occur in Coring Programme – National, Local or Internal (Utility). | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
95. S2.2.3(3): Standing water has always been an issue to reinstatements and would agree that this should not happen. However, when the existing road has an existing issue and impacts to the new reinstatement, in terms of tie-in, should this not be taken into account in a similar fashion to the requirements in S2.2.5? | Working group agreed that the condition of the surrounding road should be taken into consideration as per S2.2.5. |
96. S5.3.2: The requirements here would exclude GSB type 1 to clause 803 in terms of maximum size. Also in (2), should this be a 31.5mm sieve to the modern grading systems? | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
97. S6.4.5.3: The requirements here do not cover continuous drainage systems within the road space. Need to be amended for these eventualities. | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
98. S6.4.8: Some events have shown that the combined thickness does not allow for the correct depths for a particular material. What happens in these instances? | Noted. Wording has been amended to reflect this scenario. |
99. S6.5.2.5: Does this include an unbound step? | No |
100. S10.3.4(2): “rolls” should be “Drums” | Noted. Wording has been amended. |
101. S10.3.4(3): This could lead to voiding aspects not being achieved | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
102. S12.3.3(c): Should this be a HAPAS approved material? | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
103. A2.5(5a): Should be changed to “100mm of Bituminous Bound Materials” | Noted. Wording has been amended. |
104. A2.6.2 (Table A2.2): How do you compact a minimum of 75mm of Type 1 when the maximum particle sieve size is 67mm and oversize? | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
105. A9.3.3.(4): Should this not be classed as Damage rather than just continuing with a Plastic Sheet? | Noted. Wording has been amended. |
106. NG2.6(1): “Coated material to BS 594987” should be changed to “to BS 594987” | Noted. Wording has been amended. |
107. S6.3.3(2) & NG 6.3: Non-use of “Penning” – why? | Noted. The working group recommends that the wording in the draft consultation version of the Code be adopted. |
108. NG10.2.3(5): Why 75mm? SROH is 100mm and Advice Note 3 is 300mm. | Noted. Recommended that the this figure shall be 100 mm as per the Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in Highways. |
109. It is not apparent in the document that there are any sections relating to processes for rectification of remedial works. Whilst we do not endorse failed reinstatements it has to be accepted that in certain circumstances remedial works will be required to be undertaken. Moreover in the current climate we are looking to reduce disruption to the travelling public and increase sustainability, the drafting of any new reinstatement document should give consideration and the opportunity to include processes that meet these criteria. I feel that now that the opportunity has arisen for the inclusion of thermal (infrared) processes, hence consideration of these processes should be included in the revised Specification. As long as the thermal process is BBA HAPAS approved for permanent repair. Thermal repair is now a widely accepted and proven remedy for failed reinstatements and is being used across the industry. I would welcome this comment being considered for addition to the revised document, more information regarding the process can be supplied if required. |
See Section S12 |
110. Some specialist paving materials require particular bedding layers and lower foundation layers. The material supplier may recommend specialised laying requirements. It is recommended the Utility Companies consult Local Authorities and suppliers for the use of specialist paving materials. The recommended bedding layers and foundation layers must be used and experienced and qualified labour must be used. |
The new wording goes into this area in detail and covers how it should be carried out. |