Fix It, Don't Defend It
On Monday 14th July, I wrote to the newly minted Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport about pavement works in Sandgate High Street that had run all weekend, leaving the High Street under traffic light control causing disruption to neighbours and through traffic.
My email to Peter Osbourne said:
On Friday 11th July, workmen turned up to start doing this water connection job, I think to 78 Sandgate High Street. The pavement closure, and consequential traffic lights, were apparently approved by Kent County Council in advance, and were timetabled to last until Wednesday. OK - sounds like a big job.
Except that didn't need to happen. By the end of Friday the Affinity Water Southeast Limited contractors had actually dug their hole, seem to have done the works and partially refilled. If a team had worked a couple of hours longer, or turned up Saturday morning if feels to me they could have completed, got the slabs back, flattened up and removed the lights by midday.
But that's not what happened. No-one, absolutely no-one, has been working on those works on Saturday or Sunday.
By not completing the job then, it leaves the traffic lights in place, causing delays, exhaust fumes and upset for another 2 days while nothing happens. I think it's outrageous that you can keep a road closure / traffic lights in place while not actually working on the problem (at least during the day. I'll accept night time working may not be OK).
This morning workmen were on site by 8.45am. They wackered (technical term!) the area to be reinstated with the previously lifted slabs, and by 10am had left. The pavement not reinstated, roadworks still in place, another full day of disruption to businesses, residents, buses and more. Because insufficient resource was put in place to complete the job as fast as possible.
So - is it actually OK by you that there are lights there for 3 days they simply didn't have to be if the job was completed?
How much did that disruption cost Affinity Water in "road licensing" (utilities have to pay for such closures or disruption. How much, for this?). And how is it not better for everyone that when works start you power through and get it done and the road back fully open?
if it's cost effective for Affinity to do no work in 2 days (and only an hour on the third day,), then it absolutely shouldn't be. It clearly costs less for the road to have a longer than required lane closure than for Affinity to do the works fast. They seem to have no incentive to get it done quick and return the road to full running: please reassure me otherwise.
And then, we wait (it's OK - the pavement was finally laid, and the traffic lights removed, on Tuesday 15th). And a reply makes its way back to me on Thursday 24th July, in Peter's name.
I was hoping for an understanding of the frustration of residents on seeing roadworks where no-one is working, and ways we could encourage utilities to clear quicker, and give the road back, and remove unnecessary traffic lights. That is not the letter I got. This is the letter I got.
I've been more impressed: this goes no way to actually answering the question.
I've been a Councillor a looooog time. I know the reasons for scheduling issues, what rights utilities have to take streets, and broadly the charging mechanism and restrictions (although there was a little additional detail in the paste, for which I'm grateful).
However, the reason I raised this specific instance is because there was a failing which was not listed in his letter's extensive and cut and pasted list of reasons we should keep traffic lights when we don't have to.
The repair work and reinstatement of the works was done broadly by 4pm on Friday 11th July. These were water works, and the hole had been refilled by that time: it required wackering, and the slabs replacing. It didn't need curing, going off time, new equipment, fitments or a visit from : it needed two people to spend an hour wackering and putting the slabs back. That did not happen. There was then no-one on site until 30 minutes on Monday morning, when they wackered and then cleared again, and the same on the Tuesday, when they finally came and reinstated the slabs and cleared within an hour.
And I know that because I was on site and could check through the weekend, and did (it being 50m from my house) whereas Kent Highways were not.
This is not a hypothetical example: its a real one, but by a long way not the only one - it happens across Kent all the time.
Perhaps the Highways Team could speak to the contractors and find out why, in this specific case, they did not complete earlier and clear. And perhaps as a new Cabinet Member Peter could consider if we have the right balance of risk and reward in place for contractors to work as quickly as possible to clear a road. You can have all the reports you like saying that they do, but surely Peter you know too: its just not true. You said you were elected to fix things, not apologise for them.