Strategic Consultation on Works on Scottish Roads - April 2013

4. REVIEW OF OTHER CURRENT AND PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Introduction

4.1 With the appointment of a Commissioner in 2007 and the creation of the Policy Development Group with representatives from both roads authorities and utility companies, there has been much closer attention paid in recent years to the legislation under which road works are undertaken. The following are issues over and above those already discussed which have been identified by the Group and which it and the Commissioner consider could be improved by revisions to legislation:

Safety at Road Works

4.2 A revised version of the 'Code of Practice Safety at Street Works and Road Works', which details how the signing lighting and guarding of works on roads should be undertaken, was consulted on by DfT in 2010. It is currently mandatory for utility companies to operate to the Code but not roads authorities. It is proposed that the Code should also become mandatory for roads authority works. This would make it clear that roads authorities and utility companies are required to work to the same standards.

Views Sought

14 Do you agree that the Code of Practice for Safety at Street Works and Road Works should become mandatory for roads authorities? Please provide the reasons for your view.

Apparatus Records

4.3 The legislation relating to making available records of utility company underground apparatus was developed over 20 years ago in a pre digital age when paper records were kept in local offices. The only requirement is that utility companies "… shall make his records available for inspection at all reasonable hours and free of charge by any person having authority to execute works ....". RAUC(S) Advice Note 1 has been in place since 1995 and provides practical advice on the exchange of apparatus information using the SRWR.

4.4 In March 2012 the VAULT system for accessing underground apparatus records via the SRWR came into operation. Annex E provides details of the system. This is currently operating on a voluntary basis and utility companies and roads authorities are not obliged to submit their records.

4.5 Section 138(2) of the NRSWA provides that "The records … shall be kept in such form and manner as may be prescribed." It is proposed that all utility companies and roads authorities be required to keep their apparatus records in a digital format.

4.6 The Commissioner considers that the benefits of VAULT will not be fully maximised until all utility companies and roads authorities have submitted their records. It is therefore proposed that it should be made mandatory for all utility companies and roads authorities not only to hold digital records of their apparatus in roads but also to provide such digital records for use in VAULT on the SRWR.

Views Sought

15 Do you agree that it should be made mandatory for all utility companies and roads authorities to hold digital records of their apparatus in roads and to provide such digital records for use on the SRWR? Please provide the reasons for your view.

Section 109 Permissions

4.7 Where an organisation which is not a utility company with a statutory right wishes to place apparatus in a road it requires the permission of the roads authority. The roads authority can issue this under section 109 of NRSWA or under section 61 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. Section 61 is seen as being less onerous by roads authorities as it does not require that they retain records of the apparatus placed.

4.8 It is proposed that section 61 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 be repealed and section 109(2) of NRSWA revised to provide more clarity as to where responsibility for record keeping of apparatus should lie.

Questions

16 Do you agree that section 61 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 be repealed and section 109(2) of NRSWA revised to provide more clarity as to where responsibility for record keeping of apparatus should lie? Please provide the reasons for your view.

Road Managers

4.9 Section 112A(3) of the NRSWA requires the Commissioner to give access to the SRWR to those who are required to enter a notice and this includes "road managers". Given that road managers can range from major organisations such as airport and seaport owners down to individuals whose property has a frontage on an unadopted road, it is not possible, nor would it be desirable to provide them all with direct access.

4.10 The Commissioner proposes creating a new legal entity of "major road manager", each of which would be individually identifiable. This would require those organisations responsible for the more significant roads not under roads authority control to place notices of their works on the SRWR. This would aid the overall co-ordination of works on roads. It is envisaged that major road managers would be the major airport and seaport operators which own significant lengths of road open to the public. Small road managers such as individual household frontagers would be excluded.

Views Sought

17 Do you agree that the designation of "major road managers" be created? Please provide the reasons for your view.

Training and Accreditation

4.11 Regulations regarding the qualifications of supervisors and operatives are part of a separate review and will be the subject of a separate consultation in due course.