Supplementary Memorandum by BT (RPM 47A)
ROAD AND PATHWAY MAINTENANCE
1. PROVIDE CONFIRMATION
OF THE
FINES PAID
AND LEVIED
BUT AS
YET OUTSTANDING
UNDER SECTION
74 (OVERRUN CHARGES)
We understand that, at the hearing, the Committee
was using the figures from the Department of Transport that we
have reproduced in Annex A. These figures are for just nine authorities
and do not cover the whole country. In addition it should be noted
that the figures are by industry sector and not broken down to
individual company.
As stated at the session on 5 February, BT has
paid circa £3 million pounds in overrun charges since 1 April
2001. The precise figure paid to the 105 highway authorities currently
operating the scheme was £3,442,380, from 1 April 2001 to
7 January 2003. The detail is shown in Annex B.
At the Committee hearing on 5 February, it was
suggested that BT had adopted a policy of not paying Section 74
(overstay) fines levied for periods after its works in the street
had actually been completed, but where a formal statutory notice
of completion was not served at the time of completion. We would
like to clarify our stance on this issue.
This matter is currently the subject of litigation
between Transco and Leicester County Council. In many cases, the
amounts involved are very large (up to £100,000), and it
appears that in some cases authorities have allowed fines to accumulate,
despite knowing that the works have actually been completed. Like
Transco and other utilities, BT feels that it is unjust and inappropriate
under the legislation that it should be required to pay fines
in instances where it has restored the highway to normal use,
but for a variety of reasons, (in particular the unfamiliarity
of contractors with the scheme in its early stages), a formal
notice was not served. For this reason, BT has decided not to
pay invoices for such cases of purely "administrative"
overrun, pending the resolution of this important issue by the
Transco litigation.
BT is co-operating fully with authorities in
the payment of invoices in respect of periods where it has actually
occupied the highway beyond the allotted time
The difficulties BT has experienced in this
area contribute to our view that the responsibility for co-ordinating
streetworks would be better conducted by an independent organisation,
rather than the highway authorities, which are themselves responsible
for the majority of streetworks.
2. PROVIDE DETAILS
OF THE
PERCENTAGE OF
WORKS WHICH
HAVE OVERRUN
PRIOR TO
AND SINCE
THE INTRODUCTION
OF SECTION
74
Prior to April 2001 the concept of overrun did
not exist in its present form and there are therefore no figures
available with which to compare the before and after situation.
The importance of the independent evaluation of schemes, which
are intended to reduce the impact of streetworks on congestion,
was a point BT made in its evidence to the Committee.
For the period immediately after the commencement
of overrun charges, Halcrow has provided some relevant data. Its
figures show that in the period between April 2001 and September
2002 there was a reduction in average works duration from six
days to three and a reduction in overstay days as an average of
the total duration of the works from 14% to 0.4%.
3. PROVIDE AVERAGE
NOTIFICATION TIMES
FOR MAJOR
WORKS AND
BT'S VIEWS
ON WHAT
A LONGER
REASONABLE PERIOD
FOR ADVANCED
NOTIFICATION COULD
BE
BT carries out a very small number of Major
Works (as defined by the Act these are works that appear in the
annual operating plan). BT makes these works known to the highway
authorities at co-ordination meetings at an early stage to maximise
the potential for advanced planning. This is followed by formal
notifications as required by the Act.
BT believes that the most important factor is
the use to which forward information about streetworks is put,
rather than the formal notice period. It is the way in which this
information is recognised, shared and acted upon by the highway
authorities, that is crucial.
4. EXPLAIN WHY
OF 5 MILLION
REQUESTS ONLY
250,000 RESULT IN
NOTICES (WITH
REFERENCE TO
Q14)
The 5 million requests relate to demand for
service (both provision and repair). The majority of these are
completed without the need to carry out notifiable street works.
The 250,000 is the proportion of that 5 million which require
excavation/reinstatement and give rise to notices, which under
the current rules, are subject to s74 charges. Furthermore, of
the 250,000, 90% do not require work in the carriageway, but are
confined to the verge or pavement and do not of themselves cause
congestion on the street.
5. WHAT ISSUES
WOULD NEED
TO BE
RESOLVED BEFORE
THE TWO-YEAR
GUARANTEE FOR
REINSTATEMENT WORKS
COULD BE
EXTENDED?
The main issue to be resolved is clarification
of the advantage to be obtained from extending the guarantee period.
While, at first sight, it may seem obvious that extending the
guarantee would be beneficial, we believe that, in reality, it
could cause additional problems to the highway authorities and
the utilities, without providing benefits to road users.
Two winters are sufficient to show up any major
inadequacies in the surface levels of the reinstatement. Any cases
of the reinstatement subsiding due to inadequate compaction or
the use of unsuitable materials should also usually be revealed
within a two-year period.
The longer the period of time since the completion
of the reinstatement the more difficult it would be to establish
with any certainty that a defect in that part of the road could
be attributed to the reinstatement, particularly if the reinstatement
had performed satisfactorily for the first few years. There could
therefore be conflicts between highway authorities and utilities
as to which was responsible for rectifying any deficiency in the
road in the area of a reinstatement.
Moreover, highway authorities have the added
protection afforded by the 1999 BT v Nottinghamshire County Council
case in that if a reinstatement is not constructed in accordance
with the specification at the outset then the guarantee period
does not start to run. Liability for future maintenance of a reinstatement
will only revert to the highway authority where the reinstatement
has been properly constructed in accordance with the Specification
and two years have elapsed. Since the High Court ruling there
have been a number of occasions where utilities have been called
back to carry out remedial works long after the expiry of the
two year guarantee period.
Furthermore, we note that the highway authorities,
which are responsible for reinstatement inspections, did not request
a longer guarantee period in either their written or verbal evidence.
6. WHETHER YOU
ALLOW OTHER
CABLE COMPANIES
TO SHARE
YOUR DUCTS,
IF NOT
WHY NOT?
BT does share its duct with other cable companies
at "pinch points" (bridges etc). However, apart from
these special circumstances we have good reasons for not doing
so. Widespread duct sharing would have serious impacts on security
and integrity of the network with the potential for accidental
and malicious damage by third parties. It becomes very difficult
to plan for investment for growth and repair when demand for duct
space could be subject to sporadic and unpredictable demand from
other operators.
It is also worth recalling the recent context
in which telecommunications infrastructure has developed. The
liberalisation of telecommunications 20 years ago was carried
out by the Government on the principle of encouraging the development
of competing networks. Existing cable operators now have fully
mature networks such that any initiative to share would now have
a minimal impact on the volume of streetworks. More recently the
policy has shifted in the UK from the former emphasis on constructing
separate networks to one in which the sharing of cable capacity
is encouraged. This goes beyond duct sharing and, where practiced,
avoids altogether the need for multiple operators to dig the streets.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
— BT has stressed in its written and
oral evidence the positive contribution that telecommunications
and other infrastructure makes to reducing congestion on our roads.
A good telecommunications infrastructure can reduce the need for
certain journeys. In many other cases it can enable individuals
to choose less congested periods in which to travel. We believe
that this makes a positive contribution to reducing congestion.
— A point arose during the hearing
of evidence from the highway authorities on which we would like
to comment. There was a suggestion that BT does not always advise
highway authorities of the need to conduct streetworks as early
as it might in response to customer demands for service and repair.
This can sometimes appear to be the case when customers order
new services. As explained above in most cases these orders require
no notifiable streetworks to take place. However, when streetworks
are required this is only known after checking on the status of
the existing infrastructure. If it is then found that streetworks
are required the highway authority is immediately advised.
February 2003
Annex A
The following is an extract from the Department
for Transport's report for "Assessing the Extent of Street
Works and Monitoring the Effectiveness of Section 74 in Reducing
Disruption" (Halcrow Report)
October 2002—Volume 1
INVOICES SENT
AND INCOME
RECEIVED
6.6.3.1
Table 61 shows details of invoices from data
that has been submitted by the following authorities to Halcrow:
— two Inner London Boroughs;
— one Unitary Authority; and
— two Metropolitan Boroughs.
This is a relatively small sample, and consequently
the robustness of any conclusions that can be drawn from it is
likely not to be as great as one would hope. Halcrow will work
with the Local Government Association and the sample authorities
to increase the delivery and reliability of this data in time
for the next report. An approach will also be made to the undertakers
to check the amounts paid.
6.6.3.2
The column "Invoice Period" refers
to the month in which invoices were dispatched by the authorities.
The month of billing could be up to six months after the month
in which the overrun that incurred the charge occurred
6.6.3.3
Halcrow has examined the records of invoices
sent to ascertain what was agreed in each case between the authority
and undertaker concerned. It emerges that in the majority of cases
a greatly reduced sum was agreed. For those invoices where agreement
had been reached, the original invoices amounted to £1.1
million whereas the amounts agreed for payment amounted to £308,000
in all. The breakdown in terms of amounts initially billed and
eventually agreed is as follows:
Table 61
NINE AUTHORITIES—RECORD OF OVERRUN
CHARGES INVOICED AND RECEIVED APRIL 2001—MARCH 2002
| Invoice Period |
Data | Elec | Gas
| Telecom | Water
| Total |
| Apr-01 | Invoice Amount | 4,900
| 2,250 | 200 | 2,000
| 9,350 |
| Amount Recovered | 4,900
| 1,000 | 200 | 1,500
| 7,600 |
| May-01 | Invoice Amount | 7,300
| 28,200 | 5,850 | 8,600
| 49,950 |
| Amount Recovered | 2,300
| 25,000 | 5,850 | 7,700
| 40,850 |
| Jun-01 | Invoice Amount | 12,700
| 160,000 | 18,400 | 43,600
| 234,700 |
| Amount Recovered | 2,800
| 1,400 | 7,800 | 600
| 12,600 |
| Jul-01 | Invoice Amount | 3,200
| 65,600 | 5,100 | 31,950
| 105,850 |
| Amount Recovered | 3,200
| 51,400 | 5,100 | 2,800
| 62,500 |
| Aug-01 | Invoice Amount | 11,400
| 56,600 | 6,150 | 71,350
| 145,500 |
| Amount Recovered | 8,200
| 29,750 | 3,850 | 15,200
| 57,000 |
| Sep-01 | Invoice Amount | 438,150
| 299,900 | 142,350 | 100,750
| 981,150 |
| Amount Recovered | 28,100
| 43,450 | 12,600 | 21,750
| 105,900 |
| Oct-01 | Invoice Amount | 32,600
| 393,700 | 59,900 | 47,650
| 533,850 |
| Amount Recovered | 4,500
| 102,100 | 9,000 | 10,950
| 126,550 |
| Nov-01 | Invoice Amount | 131,200
| 276,050 | 277,850 | 32,450
| 717,550 |
| Amount Recovered | 100
| 43,050 | 6,900 | 600
| 50,650 |
| Dec-01 | Invoice Amount | 9,100
| 324,950 | 24,100 | 6,850
| 365,000 |
| Amount Recovered | 0
| 14,450 | 15,400 | 2,750
| 32,600 |
| Jan-02 | Invoice Amount | 2,850
| 234,000 | 7,350 | 153,200
| 397,400 |
| Amount Recovered | 0
| 18,400 | 7,050 | 18,600
| 44,050 |
| Feb-02 | Invoice Amount | 240,850
| 127,750 | 232,700 | 192,200
| 793,500 |
| Amount Recovered | 6,850
| 18,600 | 2,950 | 4,300
| 32,700 |
| Mar-02 | Invoice Amount | 27,050
| 178,500 | 6,400 | 336,750
| 548,700 |
| Amount Recovered | 1,950
| 16,850 | 1,800 | 2,050
| 22,650 |
| Total Invoice Amount | 921,300
| 2,147,500 | 786,350 | 1,027,350
| 4,882,500 |
| Total Amount Recovered | 62,900
| 365,450 | 78,500 | 88,800
| 595,650 |
End of Halcrow Report Extract
Annex B
| Highway Authority | Value
| Highway Authority | Value
|
| BARNSLEY METROPOLITA Total | £42,200.00
| NORTH EAST LINCOLNSH Total | £9,600.00
|
| BEXLEY COUNCIL Total | £200.00
| NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE C Total | £29,800.00
|
| BLACKBURN WITH DARWE Total | £9,100.00
| NORTH SOMERSET | £30,450.00
|
| BLACKPOOL BOROUGH CO Total | £3,300.00
| NORFOLK | £1,025,300.00
|
| BOLTON METROPOLITAN Total | £17,200.00
| NORTH TYNESIDE COUNC Total | £3,500.00
|
| BOURNEMOUTH BOROUGH Total | £100.00
| NORTH WEST LEICESTER Total | £100.00
|
| BRACKNELL FOREST BOR Total | £12,000.00
| NORTH YORKSHIRE COUN Total | £25,500.00
|
| BRADFORD METROPOLITA Total | £72,950.00
| NORTHUMBERLAND COUNT Total | £6,500.00
|
| BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUN Total | £310,850.00
| NORWICH CITY COUNCIL Total | £400.00
|
| BURY METROPOLITAN BO Total | £6,300.00
| NOTTINGHAM CITY COUN Total | £450.00
|
| CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNT Total | £1,900.00
| NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUN Total | £4,350.00
|
| CHARNWOOD BOROUGH CO Total | £3,500.00
| OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY C Total | £16,550.00
|
| CHRISTCHURCH BOROUGH | £500.00
| POOLE BOROUGH COUNCI Total | £700.00
|
| CITY OF WESTMINSTER Total | £11,800.00
| PORTSMOUTH CITY COUN Total | £14,200.00
|
| CITY OF YORK COUNCIL Total | £9,200.00
| READING BOROUGH COUN Total | £4,800.00
|
| CORNWALL COUNTY COUN Total | £4,500.00
| ROCHDALE METROPOLITA Total | £900.00
|
| COVENTRY CITY COUNCI Total | £11,100.00
| ROTHERHAM METROPOLIT | £8,600.00
|
| CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNC Total | £13,000.00
| ROYAL BOROUGH OF KEN Total | £28,600.00
|
| DARLINGTON BOROUGH C Total | £23,310.00
| ROYAL BOROUGH OF WIN Total | £16,450.00
|
| DERBY CITY COUNCIL Total | £300.00
| RUTLAND COUNTY COUNC Total | £3,200.00
|
| DERBYSHIRE COUNTY CO Total | £1,600.00
| SANDWELL METROPOLITA Total | £24,150.00
|
| DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL Total | £106,500.00
| SEFTON METROPOLITAN Total | £40,200.00
|
| DORSET COUNTY COUNCI Total | £12,000.00
| SHEFFIELD CITY COUNC Total | £2,500.00
|
| DURHAM COUNTY COUNCI Total | £21,350.00
| SOLIHULL METROPOLITA Total | £13,350.00
|
| EAST SUSSEX COUNTY C Total | £13,500.00
| SOMERSET COUNTY COUN Total | £5,100.00
|
| ENTERPRISE-LIVERPOOL Total | £2,200.00
| SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIR Total | £4,900.00
|
| ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL | £79,850.00
| SOUTHAMPTON CITY COU Total | £1,550.00
|
| GATESHEAD METROPOLIT Total | £1,600.00
| ST HELENS METROPOLIT Total | £400.00
|
| GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUN Total | £18,800.00
| STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY Total | £5,500.00
|
| HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COU Total | £37,800.00
| STOCKTON-ON-TEES BOR Total | £1,100.00
|
| HARTLEPOOL BOROUGH C Total | £4,700.00
| STOKE ON TRENT CITY Total | £59,150.00
|
| HEREFORDSHIRE COUNCI Total | £1,200.00
| SUFFOLK COUNTRY COUNCIL | £18,901.00
|
| HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY Total | £68,000.00
| SURREY COUNTY COUNCI Total | £200,750.00
|
| IPSWICH BOROUGH COUN Total | £25,500.00
| SWINDON BOROUGH COUN Total | £16,350.00
|
| ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY Total | £500.00
| THURROCK BOROUGH COU Total | £17,900.00
|
| KENT COUNTY COUNCIL Total | £35,100.00
| TORBAY COUNCIL Total | £1,900.00
|
| KINGSTON UPON HULL C Total | £1,000.00
| WANDSWORTH BOROUGH C Total | £13,400.00
|
| KIRKLEES METROPOLITA Total | £44,700.00
| WALSALL METROPOLITAN | £104,100.00
|
| LANCASHIRE COUNTY CO Total | £16,400.00
| WARWICKSHIRE COUNTRY COU | £48,350.00
|
| LEEDS CITY COUNCIL Total | £28,000.00
| WEST SUSSEX COUNTY C Total | £11,300.00
|
| LEICESTERSHIRE COUNT Total | £62,350.00
| WAVENEY DISTRICK COU | £23,400.00
|
| LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY Total | £4,000.00
| WIGAN METROPOLITAN B Total | £1,050.00
|
| LONDON BOROUGH OF BA Total | £6,300.00
| WILTSHIRE COUNTY COU Total | £36,100.00
|
| LONDON BOROUGH OF BR Total | £6,500.00
| WOKINGHAM DISTRICT C Total | £7,200.00
|
| LONDON BOROUGH OF CA Total | £20,100.00
| WOLVERHAMPTON CITY C Total | £2,300.00
|
| LONDON BOROUGH OF CR Total | £20,300.00
| WORCESTERSHIRE COUNT Total | £1,700.00
|
| LONDON BOROUGH OF EA Total | £3,700.00
| | |
| LONDON BOROUGH OF GR Total | £26,069.00
| | |
| LONDON BOROUGH OF HA Total | £21,200.00
| | |
| LONDON BOROUGH OF ME Total | £29,600.00
| | |
| LONDON BOROUGH OF RI Total | £3,200.00
| | |
| LONDON BOROUGH OF SU Total | £11,500.00
| | |
| LONDON BOROUGH OF WA Total | £14,400.00
| | |
| LUTON BOROUGH COUNCI Total | £17,750.00
| | |
| MANCHESTER CITY COUN Total | £38,000.00
| | |
| MIDDLESBROUGH BOROUG Total | £14,000.00
| | |
| MELTON BOROUGH COUNCIL | £3,900.00
| | |
| MILTON KEYNES BOROUG Total | £170,600.00
| | |
| NEWCASTLE CITY COUNC Total | £2,750.00
| Grand Total | £3,442,380.00
|
|
