Questions can be asked anonymously by e-mailing m.young@southwales-tra.gov.uk

‘All 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 -

Question [in respect of 2^nd Edition SROH (Wales)

Do you require 20mm DBC in footway reinstatements in areas greater than 2 sq.m?

Page 49 of the 2^nd 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

In small 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 2^nd 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).

Definitions:

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 Response:

The questioner is correct to reference Section A2.3.2(3) of the SROH 2^nd Edition (Wales), as limiting the use of Surface Course (SC) material to Small Excavations and Narrow Trenches.  This is an error in the SROH 2^nd Edition (Wales), which is a direct copy of the same Section (and error) contained in the SROH 2^nd Edition (England).  The same error also existed at Section A2.1.2(3) of both the SROH 2^nd Edition (England) and SROH 2^nd Edition (Wales), in respect of Hot Rolled Asphalts. 

At the time of drafting the SROH 3^rd 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: 

“A2.0.2      Footways, Footpaths and Cycle Tracks – General

(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 3^rd Edition (England), as a template to put forward for Consultation as SROH 3^rd 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 2^nd Edition (England) and SROH 2^nd Edition (Wales) effectively reversed the provisions of the SROH 1^st 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 3^rd Edition (England) restored this provision. 

It should also be noted that Section S8.4.3 of both current SROH 2^nd Edition (Wales) and SROH 3^rd 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 measures.

(2)     The reinstatement of such areas shall match the existing layer thickness, with similar or equivalent materials.” 

Question -

What is 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 months’ notice. 

Would 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 Works S58A)

What 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 surfacing)

How long can a Section 58 restriction apply when a carriageway has had a thin surfacing/surface dressing material applied?

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.
 

resurfaced, as set out in Table 6.1.

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 beacons.

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 justified. 

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 safety.

Question - (Over- banding)

  What 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)

HA's cannot really insist on anything other than what is in the reinstatement specification.

An authority 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).

There is 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 tarmac.

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 highway authority.

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)

After serving 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)

The 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.

Answer - (David Capon 15/07/14)

The 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 10/01/2017