Annex A – Issues not Covered by the Foregoing

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).

4. S1.6.1(iii) and S1.6.4(ii)

Reference to A9.6

Typo - suspect this should be A9.5.

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?

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.

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?

8. S6.4

Opening Sentence refers to 'provisions' rather than 'exceptions' (see S0 comment above)

Not a big issue between Exceptions and Provisions.

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.

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.

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

12. S7.3

Opening Sentence refers to 'provisions' rather than 'exceptions' (see also S0 comment above)

Not a big issue between Exceptions and Provisions

13. S8.3

Opening Sentence refers to 'provisions' rather than 'exceptions' (see also S0 comment above)

Not a big issue between Exceptions and Provisions

14. S10.2.3(2)

Air Voids Testing provisions

Maximum and Bulk density Tests have incorrect references.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

25. A9.3.4

As above, provisions supporting HBMs removed under the SRORv3 (Scotland)

As above.

26. After A9.3.5.2

Reference to HBM Production noted in SROHv3 (England) omitted - follows above

As above.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I would welcome this comment being considered for addition to the revised document, more information regarding the process can be supplied if required, or visit our web site @ www.nuphalt.com, to find out more regarding thermal repair, if you require more information please do not hesitate to contact me

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.

37. S2.2.1 (1)

As Laid tolerance changed to +6/-3

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

43. S12.3.2

Cracking beyond reinstatement limits

Limits changed from 2m to 0.5m What evidence or research is there for this change.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.