Questions can be asked anonymously
by e-mailing email@example.com
questions answered in good faith in order to assist those requiring advice,
this based on the knowledge, interpretation and experience of the individual
answering the question at the time. Further detailed investigation is likely
to be required in the event of any serious dispute.’
Please contact the above e-mail address if you identify any errors in
responses given below.
Question [in respect of 2nd Edition SROH (Wales)
require 20mm DBC in footway reinstatements in areas greater than 2 sq.m?
Page 49 of
the 2nd Edition SROH Wales, A2.3.2 paragraph 3, Footways.
Footpaths and Cycle Tracks states the preferred binder course mixture
shall be 20mm DBC, 125 or 190 pen, to clause 6.5
excavations and narrow trenches, the preferred mixture may also be
replaced by any surface course mixture that complies with the
Specification for Footways, Footpaths and Cycle Tracks provided that the
same mixture is used for the surface course.
Page 74 SROH
2nd Edition Appendix A7.1: Flexible Footways, Footpaths &
Cycle Tracks - Method A all permanent – the options are 50mm DBC 30mm
CGSC 6mm or 60mm CGSC 6mm (which I understand is for small excavations
and narrow trenches only).
Page 114 -
Narrow trenches: All trenches 300mm surface width or less, with
a surface area greater than 2 square metres.
Page 115 -
Small excavations All openings with a surface area of 2 square
meters or less.
Answer (13/02/16 -
SROH Working Group
The questioner is correct to
reference Section A2.3.2(3) of the SROH 2nd Edition (Wales),
as limiting the use of Surface Course (SC) material to Small Excavations
and Narrow Trenches. This is an error in the SROH 2nd
Edition (Wales), which is a direct copy of the same Section (and error)
contained in the SROH 2nd Edition (England). The same error
also existed at Section A2.1.2(3) of both the SROH 2nd
Edition (England) and SROH 2nd Edition (Wales), in respect of
Hot Rolled Asphalts.
At the time of drafting the
SROH 3rd Edition (England), the HAUC (UK) SROH Working Party
(the “WP”) identified these errors, and made the relevant
amendments by removing both Sections and introduced a new Section
“A2.0.2 Footways, Footpaths and Cycle Tracks –
(1) In all excavations, the preferred binder course
mixture may be replaced by any surface course mixture that complies with
this Appendix and with Section S8. This substitution is limited solely
to the binder course layer. Void contents shall meet the requirements
of Table S10.1 for footways.”
Currently, the Welsh HAUC
SROH Working Party (the “WHAUC WP”) is reviewing the SROH 3rd
Edition (England), as a template to put forward for Consultation as SROH
3rd Edition (Wales). The WHAUC WP has already accepted the
above error and amendments.
It should be noted, that the
typographical error in both the SROH 2nd Edition (England)
and SROH 2nd Edition (Wales) effectively reversed the
provisions of the SROH 1st Edition (the 1992 Code of Practice
equally applicable to England and Wales), which, via Appendix A7.1
(Method A – All Permanent), allowed SC material at 60mm total thickness
in lieu of 2-layers of differing material 30mm + 50mm, for all sizes of
excavation. The SROH 3rd Edition (England) restored this
It should also be noted that
Section S8.4.3 of both current SROH 2nd Edition (Wales) and
SROH 3rd Edition (England) supports the possibility of the
Undertaker being required to match any increased thickness and/or
materials, where footways are known to suffer vehicular overrunning or
parking. Whereas it is not stated, Undertakers would expect Highway
Authorities to confirm such known instances, ideally during the Noticing
period, but certainly before the works commencing.
“S8.4.3 Other Trafficking
(1) Where a footway, footpath or cycle track,
including specified pedestrian areas or precincts, is subjected to
regular vehicle overrunning or parking, the existing structure may
include thicker layers, higher quality materials or other strengthening
(2) The reinstatement of such areas shall match the
existing layer thickness, with similar or equivalent materials.”
the minimum requirement to issue a proposed S58 restriction? Currently
issue a consultation document on our council website, send a copy via
email to the utilities, issue a restriction through (Eton), giving the 3
it be enough just to issue the proposed restriction through our (Eton)
system? Making sure that the restriction is also published on the
internet via Elgin or another roadwork’s portal? The same basic text
that is on the consultation document, advising that the LA will be
undertaking works and that the LA wish to protect the new surface
through S58. Would the LA be fulfilling the legal requirements by doing
it this way? Does anyone else do something similar?
Answer - (Ian David 05/06/15)
The only statutory requirement under Section
58(2) of NRSWA is the ‘notice issued in the prescribed manner’. The
advanced notice of the proposed Section 58 Restriction issued as an
electronic notice via the Street Works ETON System – at least 3 months
in advance of the works commencing.
Failure to distribute the information using
the other methods mentioned in the Code of Practice and copy notices
mentioned in the act does not invalidate the restriction.
I would guess that the lists of proposed
Section 58 restrictions placed on authority’s web-sites have a pretty
low hit rate, but it still seems to be accepted practice to circulate by
e-mail a document of planned works and Section 58 restrictions in
conjunction with co-ordination meetings.
Question - (Restrictions following substantial Street
embargo would be put in place following substantial Street Works?
Answer - (Mike Young 15/01/15)
Section 58 serves a two-fold
purpose: it aims to prevent the street from being dug up within a short
while of being resurfaced or reconstructed and it seeks to avoid
repetitive disruption of traffic by works being carried out in the
street. Currently it can only be invoked after the Highway Authority has
undertaken substantial road works. These are defined as works that
consist of resurfacing, reconstruction, widening or alteration in the
level of the part of the street concerned. The works must extend for
more than 30 metres continuously. If in the footway, footpath,
bridle-way or cycle track, they must extend over two-thirds of its
width; if in the carriageway, they must affect more than one-third of
the width. The restriction will apply only to the length of the street
on which substantial road works have been carried out.
The TMA extended the scope
of Section 58 NRSWA and gives an authority the power to not only impose
restrictions to prevent further highway works but also restrict further
street works. This is referred to as Section 58A. The timescales for
restrictions were varied by the TMA and are dependent on the nature and
type of works carried out. Longer timescale restrictions will apply
where streets (carriageways, footways or cycle ways etc.) have been
newly constructed, reconstructed or resurfaced. The duration of any
restrictions will also be dependent on the impact the works have had on
the travelling public and/or local neighbourhood. There are two
exemptions to this: immediate works and customer connections.
The issuing of Section 58A
notice is pretty much the same to a standard S58 notice.
There is an advice note
regarding this: http://www.whauc.com/site/Best%20Practice/Section%2058%20Advice%20Note%20For%20Consultation%2001%2004%202014.pdf
Question - (Duration of S58 restriction for thin
How long can a
Section 58 restriction apply when a carriageway has had a thin surfacing/surface
Answer - (Welsh HAUC Strategy Group 12/01/15)
The Co-ordination COP
specifically states that ‘Resurfacing is the removal of the running
surface and its replacement’ in the case of surface
dressing nothing is removed, the new surface being applied over the top
of the existing. On this basis we agreed that the longest a S58 can be
applied for surface dressing is 12 or 6 months, dependent on road type &
TS status, under the ‘Other substantial road or street works’ category.
Alternatively, a utility could agree to paying the reasonable costs for
the re-laying of surface dressing along the area affected by the
trench, if this can be cost effectively achieved when a surface dressing
contractor is next working in the area.
they have on
apply where streets,
Question - (Safety Code & Use of Beacons)
Where a vehicle is used
for storage of materials, fittings, technical monitoring etc. on a large
or long term scheme should beacons be used constantly throughout is
presence on a site or is it intended that they are only used when the
vehicle is moving?
Answer - (Ben Beachel 10/10/14)
Beacons are used when setting up the site,
but once all the signing and cones are set up, any vehicle within the
coned area becomes part of the site and does not therefore need the
beacons to be illuminated. Vehicles entering and leaving the coned area
should have the beacons on for the approach, exit and for manoeuvring
into the site. In addition on poor visibility / higher speed roads the
cones have warning lamps (p19) which would override vehicle beacons for
vehicles in the site. Mobile works and short duration works would use
Question - (Temporary Orders)
The issue of using of Temporary Notices as opposed to
Temporary Orders for Road Closures was discussed internally following
the introduction of the Traffic Management Act in 2009.
Works that appear to the authority to not be an emergency
but need to be completed with some urgency can be dealt with under a 5
day ‘notice’. This is not advertised, so doesn’t need the 8 week advance
notice, however the reason to restrict the road must be sufficiently
Answer - (Ian David 10/09/14)
We have used temporary notices regularly
since where for example; a water service is not leaking too badly, but
may damage the highway structure; where surfacing/reconstruction works
are dealing with a road surface that is in urgent need of repair i.e.
may break up at any moment (this happened quite a bit after the severe
winters) and where unforeseen events during a project that is in
progress means that a road closure becomes necessary in the interests of
Question - (Over- banding)
are the requirements for over banding? Some authorities don’t want it, some
only want tape and some want hot pitch etc.
Answer - (Ian David 16/07/14)
really insist on anything other than what is in the reinstatement
cannot say you must over band seal in the footway, or the carriageway,
or both or even neither, this is the choice of the utility company and
the reinstatement measures it is comfortable with using.
Where a utility
company does decide to use over-band seal, it does need to comply with
the performance requirements itemised in the reinstatement specification
and the product ‘should’ be HAPAS approved (although not that many
products are and hot pitch is more generic, so that is not really
encompassed by the HAPAS approval process).
generally a reluctance to use over band seal in the footway, because in
the past products have melted on a hot day and the bitumen product can
then be carried into people’s houses on their shoes.
The thing to
focus on is getting a well-sealed vertical joint, with a good bond and
dense enough interface between the adjacent tarmac and the existing
tarmac – a common problem area where over-band seal is sometimes used to
try to compensate for a poor joint between the existing and adjacent
One point that
I have missed above is that where a non-HAPAS approved product is likely
to be used, that this will need to happen following consolation with the
In summary; you do not have to ask the authority whether
over-band seal should be used or not – but if it is used, it does need
to perform effectively in compliance with the specification. The
vertical joint must always be sealed.
Question - (FPN Section 55)
an FPN for a Section 55(5) notice (wrong street) the SU has queried the
offence date. The SU refer to the COP and contend that the date is the
last day on which they could have sent the notice, a Standard Notice, so
10 days before the start date. I claim it is the date that work starts
on site. My argument for this is that the description of all other
offences in the COP and Schedule 4A state the offence as "Failure to
comply with" or "Failure to give notice" whereas this offence is
"Beginning to execute works in contravention of s.55" thereby the actual
offence is beginning the works and not sending the notice.
Answer - (Ian David 15/07/14)
offence is committed on the day that the SU actually undertake works
without a valid notice being in place and not when they last had the
opportunity to serve the notice.
(David Capon 15/07/14)
offence date in this instance has to be the first day of the works
starting on site where no notice existed.
Home | News Items | Documentation | Contacts | Minutes | Year Planner | Working Groups | Area Plans | NJUG | Highway Charges | Roadworks | Useful Links | Disclaimer | Regional Events | FAQ's | Jobs
This page was last updated