milton keynes highways asset management plan€¦ · annex a milton keynes highway asset management...

Annex A

Milton Keynes Highway Asset Management Plan

MK HAMP v0.5

Milton Keynes Highways Asset Management Plan

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Scope and Purpose .................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Relationship with other Asset Management Documents ....................................................... 3

1.3 Outline Contents of HAMP ...................................................................................................... 4

2 Highway Asset Management in Milton Keynes .............................................................................. 5

2.1 Background and Context ......................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Overview of Asset Management Process ............................................................................... 5

2.3 How we are organised. ........................................................................................................... 6

2.4 Network Hierarchy .................................................................................................................. 6

2.5 Policies and Procedures .......................................................................................................... 7

2.6 Service Levels and Performance Targets ................................................................................ 7

2.7 Benchmarking and Efficiency Monitoring ............................................................................... 8

2.8 Risk Management ................................................................................................................... 8

2.9 Training and Skills ................................................................................................................... 9

2.10 Communication ....................................................................................................................... 9

3 Lifecycle Management Planning ................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Carriageways ......................................................................................................................... 10

3.2 Footways and Redways ......................................................................................................... 20

3.3 Bridges and Highway Structures ........................................................................................... 26

3.4 Street Lighting and Other Illuminated Assets ....................................................................... 33

3.5 Drainage ................................................................................................................................ 39

4 Budget Prioritisation and Allocation Process ................................................................................ 45

4.1 Indicative Budget .................................................................................................................. 45

4.2 Annual Budget Prioritisation and Allocation ......................................................................... 45

4.3 Planned Process Improvements ........................................................................................... 45

5 Programme Management and Delivery ........................................................................................ 46

6 Appendix A – Improvement Actions ............................................................................................. 47

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

1 Introduction

1.1 Scope and Purpose The purpose of this document is to describe how Milton Keynes Council (MK) will manage the highway asset in order to deliver the current Highway Asset Management Strategy (AMS). The Highway Asset Management Plan (HAMP) covers the most significant highway asset types that are the responsibility of MK, namely:

Carriageways Bridges and Highway Structures Footways and Redways Street Lighting and Other Illuminated Assets Drainage

1.2 Relationship with other Asset Management Documents The HAMP covers the five year period 2018-2023 in line with the AMS. It is part of a suite of documents that collectively provide a framework for the management of the highway asset as shown below.

As mentioned above, the HAMP describes how we will manage our assets. The planned maintenance interventions that we need to carry out over the asset lifecycles are be described in separate Asset Lifecycle Plans, which will refreshed on an annual rolling basis, while the specific

Asset Management Policy

Asset Management Strategy

Asset Management Plan

Asset Lifecycle Plans

Work Programme(s)

Council Plan

Local Transport Plan(Mobility Strategy)

Highways Policies

Emergency ProceduresCommunications Strategy

Codes of Practice(e.g. Structures, Lighting,

Highways etc.)

Plan: MK

Developer s Pack

SEMLEP

Local Investment Plan

Core Strategy(Planning)

Term MaintenanceContract/Specification

Winter Service Plan

Flood Risk Management Strategy

Corporate Documents

Highways Documents

Planning Documents

Key:

Figure 1 - Highways Asset Management Documentation

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

maintenance activities for the current year will be described in our annual Work Programme(s). Effectively, the Asset Lifecycle Plans and annual Work Programme(s) are outputs from the HAMP.

1.3 Outline Contents of HAMP The HAMP comprises the following sections:

Introduction Defines the purpose and scope of the HAMP, and how its relationship with other asset management documentation.

Highway Asset Management in MK

Describes the overall context and approach to highway asset management in MK.

Lifecycle Management Planning

Describes the approach taken for the management of each asset type.

Budget Prioritisation and Allocation

Describes the process for developing overall programmes of work and allocating budgets to individual asset types.

Programme Management and Delivery

Describes how programme delivery is monitored and managed.

Appendix A – Improvement Actions

A list of improvements to be made to our asset management processes during the period covered by the HAMP

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

2 Highway Asset Management in Milton Keynes

2.1 Background and Context Milton Keynes Council's highway infrastructure is its most valuable asset, valued at £6.0 billion (2018). It provides a transportation network for both businesses and travelling individuals. It supports the Council Plan and Mobility Strategy. We maintain our network in line with good highway asset management practice. We aspire to attain a position in the top quartile of the 153 authorities in the country and maintain this position as measured by NHT annual survey. Due to the generally narrow age profile of Highway assets in Milton Keynes a significant number of assets are or were approaching their end of life at the same time. In 2012 a successful case was made for Prudential Borrowing that allowed MK to address the carriageway, structures and lighting maintenance backlog and these assets on the network are now more or less in a steady state. The original Prudential Borrowing case proposed the following approximate split:

Street Lighting 8% Highways – 54% Bridges and highway structures – 38%

This percentage split has subsequently altered. However, revenue budgets are on the whole continuing to reduce which will limit the amount of routine maintenance which generally has a preventative effect, that MK Highways are able to do which, in turn, may increase the need for more significant maintenance in the future.

2.2 Overview of Asset Management Process This document describes the processes we will follow to manage the highway asset over the period 2018 to 2023 to deliver the Highway Asset Management Strategy. For each individual asset type this typically includes:

1. Knowing what assets we own, including their location, age and construction. 2. Defining the desired performance or service levels. 3. Identifying asset specific maintenance risks. 4. Assess current performance of the assets against the desired performance targets or

maintenance standards. 5. Identifying and analysing maintenance options over the whole life of the asset, in line with

asset specific maintenance strategies. 6. Developing a short-term and long-term maintenance and renewal programme(s). 7. Managing delivery of the maintenance programme.

Once programmes of work are developed for individual or groups of assets, they are evaluated and prioritised and budgets are allocated accordingly.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

2.3 How we are organised. The structure of our highway asset management team is illustrated in the following figure.

Head of Highways

Highways Client Service

Carriageway

Lighting

Drainage

Footways

Redways (Cycleways)

Bridge and Highway Structures Project Management

Capital Schemes

Figure 2 - MK Highway Asset Management Team Structure

2.4 Network Hierarchy Our network is organised into the following hierarchy:

Grid Roads Principal Non-principal Unclassified

Non-Grid Roads Principal Non-principal Unclassified

Other hierarchies are used for specific asset types (e.g. footways and redways, estate roads, etc.) and these are expanded upon in Section 3.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

2.5 Policies and Procedures MK Highways have a number of Policies and Procedures that are used to support the asset management processes described in Section 3. These include:

Codes of Practice

Highway Inspections

Street Lighting

Winter Service Communication Strategy Developers’ Pack Emergency Procedures Flood Risk Management Strategy Skid Policy Term Maintenance Contract Winter Service Plan

2.6 Service Levels and Performance Targets As an authority, we have a range of measures and targets that we use to measure our performance and the quality of service we provide. These include:

National Measures Asset Value (as measured by CIPFA WGA Valuation of Assets methodology)

DfT Incentive Fund Assessment DfT Single Data List:

130-01 Condition of Principal Roads

130-02 Condition of Non Principal Classified Roads

130-03 – Skidding Resistance Data

BVPI 224b Condition of Unclassified Roads

User Satisfaction NHT Survey – Ipsos/Mori

Internal Measures KPI 1a - Cat 1 & 1a Response Time KPI 1b – 28 day response time KPI 1d Safety inspection Compliance KPI 1e Street lighting and Structural inspections KPI 2 Remedial works (corrected work meeting standards

required within timescale) KPI 4 Design Changes schemes KPI 5 Forward Budget Programme KPI 6 Defined Costs within Target costs KPI 7a H&S Operating – Lost Time Incident Frequency Rate KPI 7b H&S Operating – Accident Frequency Rate KPI 8a H&S Training KPI 8b H&S Training Outcomes KPI 9 – sustainability KPI 11 Value for Money KPI 12 Culture / Team Effectiveness

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

KPI 51, 52, 53 and 54 Scanner, Scrim, DVI and FNS Surveys KPI 55 Street Lights Available – Non Grid Roads KPI 55A Street Lights Available – Grid Roads KPI 56 Street Lighting – Percentage of street Lighting Repaired

in 5 Days KPI 57 DNO Repair KPI 58 Insurance Claims KPI 59 Customer Enquiries – Time from receipt to completion

Contractual Measures Various measures we use to monitor the performance of Contractor in delivering the highway maintenance contract.

In addition, we will develop and publish an annual Highways Asset Management Assessment Report, which compares our performance to the targets for the condition and performance of our road network, and whether we are on track to deliver the improvement actions described in Appendix A. This will be delivered in time to inform the Budget setting process.

2.7 Benchmarking and Efficiency Monitoring The Midland Highways Alliance (MHA), which comprises 21 local highway authorities provide data on the performance of its members. We actively compare our performance and identify where we are performing well and where we need to target improvements. We will continue to institute a process to assess efficiency in how we deliver the service and compare our performance with those of comparable local authorities and to track improvements over time. We will establish measures of efficiency that will take into account expenditure, service quality and public satisfaction. The Highways Asset Management Assessment Report described above will also set out our efficiency performance and will identify where we will be targeting efficiency gains in the coming year.

2.8 Risk Management Over the period of the HAMP we will continue to adopt a risk based approach to asset management in line with Well Managed Highway Infrastructure: A Code of Practice. This will mean continually reviewing how and why we do things from a risk point of view (i.e. what risks are we mitigating) and providing evidence to justify those decisions. Fundamentally, this will mean that we understand what the risks are. Our approach to managing some of our assets (e.g. structures and street lighting) already includes an element of risk management but we will extend this to other asset types and other parts of the service. General risks that we are aware of include:

Narrow general age profile of assets in MK means that they are reaching their ‘end of life’ at the same time, which has been partially mitigated through Prudential Borrowing in 2012

Population growth is increasing size of and demand on the network. Population growth is also adding pressure to other service areas, which in turn leads to reductions in Highway budgets

Cuts in Government revenue funding is reducing budgets for reactive highway maintenance

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

Capital funding is tailing off as Prudential borrowing profile reduces extra funding over time. Climate change is increasing flood risks and winter service leading to accelerated

deterioration of highway assets Increasing demand on highway assets to support SMART City Technology Inadequate construction information Increase in number of claims against the Highway Authority General increase in traffic flows

2.9 Training and Skills Training is identified via 1 to 1s, during formal annual assessments and is discussed at Highway management meetings. Training requirements are entered onto individual training plans with the individual expected to ensure the training occurs. Training identified as being needed for a number of staff is organised by one of the management team with individuals that would benefit being identified and targeted or informed of required attendance. All Highways staff have, undertaken the Highway Maintenance Efficiency Programme Asset management e –training, which provide a basic knowledge and understanding of the area, allowing Asset Management to be considered as part of everyday decision making.

2.10 Communication Our approach to communication is set out in our Highway Communication Strategy. The Communication strategy will need amending to ensure communications are used to inform the public about Highways Asset Management, the changes they may witness and what they can expect.

2.10.1 Improvement actions The following improvement actions have been identified for communications:

Ensure Communications Plan is updated to ensure messages regarding what asset management is and what the public may witness are disseminated effectively.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

3 Lifecycle Management Planning This section describes the process to be followed to manage each of the main asset types through their lifecycle. Given the maturity of the network, this focusses on maintenance and renewal rather than asset creation or disposal. Separate subsections are included for:

Carriageways Bridges and Highway Structures Footways and Redway’s Street Lighting and Other Illuminated Assets Drainage

Each subsection follows the following structure:

Context Overview Asset Stock and Usage Asset Groupings and Hierarchy Asset History (Historic Funding, etc.) Asset Value and Risk Profile

Asset Performance Levels of Service Surveys and Inspections

Scenario Evaluation Maintenance Strategy Lifecycle Options Option Appraisal

Improvement Actions Asset Specific Improvements

3.1 Carriageways

3.1.1 Context In maintaining the Milton Keynes carriageway network we aim to keep them at a condition that ensures reasonable facility, safe and accessible for all users and provides a high degree of street-scene quality for local residents. In order to ensure cost-effectiveness and value over the whole lifecycle of the carriageways, and to ensure sustainable asset management practices we aim to maintain the overall carriageway network in a “steady state” as measured by the condition indicators, where each year the amount of network that requires maintenance is matched by annual funding. There are two distinct categories of carriageway in Milton Keynes; the new town network that has generally been well constructed, with an emphasis on good quality materials and design, that tends to have very little rutting, where the predominant need is for surface maintenance. In contrast to this the older network of un-designed generally rural carriageways tends to have more issues especially on unclassified roads, with deterioration resulting from a lack of designed drainage and a broader range of maintenance needs.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

Asset Stock and Usage

Table 1, below, summarises the lengths of carriageway network that exist within each of the categories that are used for reporting.

Construction

Road Type Flexible Flexible Composite

Rigid Concrete Rigid Composite

A Roads Urban 15.04 km

A Roads Rural 98.47 km

B Roads Urban 13.67 km

B Roads Rural 24.4 km

C Roads Urban 57.17 km

C Roads Rural 189.62 km

Unclassified 852.94 km

TOTAL 1251.31 km

Table 1. Carriageway Inventory

Surface Area M2 % Split

Bitumen 6,109,379 85.69%

Block 841,413 11.80%

Concrete 74,464 1.04%

Flag 24 0.00%

Other 81,964 1.15%

Surface Dressing 22,467 0.32%

Grand Total 7,129,711

Asset Groupings and Hierarchy For asset management purposes, we have adopted standard “Network Hierarchy” designations as follows:

Principal Non-principal Unclassified

The hierarchies apply to both Grid Roads and non-Grid Roads. Due to the importance of the ‘Grid Road’ network these roads have their own hierarchy designation and for capital maintenance purposes they are given their own set aside budget. The rest of the budget is split between Principal, Non-Principal and Unclassified roads.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

Asset History Historic Funding and Maintenance Strategies Historically capital budgets have been insufficient to maintain the existing network to a steady state condition and the strategy has been to prioritise the ‘worst first’ roads, this has led to an increasing backlog of repairs and a steady decline, and did not allow preventative treatments to be carried out that would extend life and minimise cost over the life of a carriageway asset. In order to move provide sufficient funding to adopt a preventative approach that represents better value for money in the longer term in 2014 Milton Keynes secured £50m through the prudential borrowing mechanism in order to arrest the decline of the assets and implement targeted longer term (5 years) works programme. Additional investment (circa £2 million per annum) from 2016 has targeted directly to preventative treatments. In recent carriageway revenue budgets used for small scale cyclical and reactive carriageway has significantly, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of total expenditure on carriageways.

Figure 3. Total Capital and Revenue Spend - Carriageways

£0

£1,000,000

£2,000,000

£3,000,000

£4,000,000

£5,000,000

£6,000,000

£7,000,000

£8,000,000

£9,000,000

Year 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19

Total Capital and Revenue Spend - Carriageways

C/W Revenue Spend C/W Capital Spend

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17

% W

here

Main

tenance S

hould

Be C

onsid

ere

d

Carriageway Condition - Percentage of Network Where Maintenance Should Be Considered

Principal - A Roads - 130-01 Non Princ. B & C Roads - 130-02 Unclassified Roads - 224b

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17

% N

etw

ork

Where

Main

teance S

hould

be C

onsid

ere

d

Unclassified Roads % Where Maintenance Should be Considered vs SE Regional and National Averages

Milton Keynes Regional Average (South East) National Average

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17

% N

etw

ork

Where

Main

teance S

hould

be C

onsid

ere

d

Principal (A) Roads - % Where Maintenance Should be Considered vs SE Regional and National Averages


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17

% N

etw

ork

Where

Main

teance S

hould

be C

onsid

ere

d

Classified (B&C) Roads - % Where Maintenance Should be Considered vs SE Regional and National Averages


Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

Asset Value and Risk Profile Our most recent highways infrastructure valuation exercise in 2018/19 assessed the “Gross Replacement Cost” of our carriageway network at some £1640 million; excluding the value of the land (i.e. this is would be what it would cost to build a new carriageway network). If one takes into account the degradation in value that occurs through deterioration and use, the “Depreciated Replacement Cost” figure is £1450 million for carriageways.

3.1.2 Asset performance Levels of Service In maintaining our carriageway network, we aim to manage safety risk to within acceptable limits through a regime of inspections and reactive and planned maintenance, and to ensure that we are fulfilling our statutory duty to maintain the network. We report a number of performance indicators on the condition of our carriageway network as shown below.

Network Reference Description

Principal (A) Roads

130-01 % of Network Where Maintenance Should Be Considered

Non Principal. (B & C) Roads

130-02 % of Network Where Maintenance Should Be Considered

Unclassified Roads

Former BV 224b

% of Network Where Maintenance Should Be Considered

Principal (A) Roads

NI130-03 Skidding Resistance: Percent of Survey Length Requirement Further Investigation

We generally perform well in comparison with our regional and national averages; we aim to maintain the condition of the network “steady state”, where the annual need for maintenance is matched by our funding and capacity to carry out maintenance. The authority’s aspiration is to attain a position in the top quartile of authorities in the country (out of 153) and maintain this position. We assess public satisfaction with the road network through our participation in the NHT (National Highways and Transport) public satisfaction survey; satisfaction levels related to carriageway conditions and maintenance in Milton Keynes in are above the national, regional (south east) unitary local authority averages. Risk management and mitigation Major risk relating to carriageways is normally associated with catastrophic failure of the construction, defects such as potholes or severe loss of skid resistance which could result in loss of life or serious injury. The risks can be mitigated by the inspection regime and structural condition assessments that are carried out which highlight serious defects in accordance with the intervention levels stated and the repair times given.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

Surveys and Inspections Condition surveys The condition of the principal and non-principal classified network is assessed through annual SCANNER (Surface Condition Assessment of the National NEtwork of Roads) surveys. This is a (traffic speed) machine based survey that measures a range of road condition parameters. These measurements are processed in the pavement management system (PMS) to create a road condition indicator (RCI) score for every 10 metre sub-section of this network. The condition of the unclassified network is assessed through the UKPMS coarse visual inspection (CVI) survey. Principal roads are subject to SCRIM surveys to determine skidding resistance, following which a risk assessment is carried out to determine if action is required to mitigate the risk of wet skidding accidents. In addition to these surveys, as part of Milton Keynes risk management regime we carry out routine “safety” inspections of roads to identify and respond to defects that represent a risk to the safety of users. We also inspect and assess risks where defects are brought to our attention from other sources, such as reports from residents.

3.1.3 Scenario evaluation

Lifecycle Options In developing our asset maintenance approach for carriageways, we carry out an options appraisal exercise at two levels;

1. At the strategic level to determine the investment and maintenance strategy that represents best value in terms of minimising lifecycle costs, managing and mitigating risk and delivering our desired level of service for footways. This looks at the treatment selection strategy, i.e. compares the whole life cost for each different family of carriageway construction and use to determine which sequence of treatments offer the optimal treatment scenario for each carriageway construction and use family e.g. the wholly bituminous principal grid roads may have the most appropriate combination of treatments as:

Year 0 Resurface – Plane off and inlay 40mm Year 2 Rejuvenator Year 9 Rejuvenator Year 16 Rejuvenator Year 23 Rejuvenator Year 30 Gripfibre Surface treatment Year 40 Gripfibre Surface treatment Year 50 Resurface – Plane off and inlay 40mm Repeat; and

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

2. At the street level to determine the most appropriate lifecycle option that best balances risk, performance and cost, and to prioritise forward programmes of maintenance works. E.g. the above may because of local issues mean that the above cycle is amended such that the year 40 Gripfibre treatment is removed and local repairs followed by resurfacing is utilised.

Maintenance and Funding Strategies At the strategic level, we evaluate a number of investment strategies, for example:

1. Zero funding 2. Minimum funding to manage risk 3. Fixed, historic based funding 4. Eliminate backlog and achieve desired level of service over 5 years 5. Eliminate backlog and achieve desired level of service over 10 years

Cyclic Maintenance Cyclic maintenance is the regular day-to-day work that services rather than repairs the asset, and is necessary to keep the asset in working order. Scheduled cyclical maintenance activities such as gully emptying, street cleaning and grip cutting are planned programmed work designed to have a preventative effect on the carriageways. Another Council Department carries out grass cutting and weed spraying. Although these activities are not explicitly designed to improve carriageway condition, they help prevent damage to the carriageway from water or vegetation and they have a significant effect on customer opinion about the level of service the council is providing. Reactive Maintenance Reactive maintenance covers ad hoc (unplanned/unscheduled) repairs to assets due to damage or the renewal of small elements or components which have become unserviceable due to general wear and tear or have deteriorated for other reasons. Reactive maintenance covers works necessary to maintain the highway assets in a safe condition to the standards set out in the Code of Practice for Highway Safety Inspections or in response to bad weather or other emergencies where a rapid response is required. Reactive maintenance includes pothole repairs, placement of warning signs, emergency tree works, response to highway flooding and other highway emergency work. Planned Maintenance (renewals or replacements) Even when the structure of the highway is in very good condition, the surface deteriorates due to age, trafficking and weather. Much planned capital maintenance is concerned with protecting or restoring the carriageway surface. This comprises the planned (programmed) work that does not increase the asset’s designed capacity, but restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original capacity and includes resurfacing and surface treatments Planned maintenance describes activities that are programmed in advance that are aimed at improving local road condition. Routine planned maintenance includes localised patching, edge strengthening and re-profiling to improve drainage. The scale of these works tends to be smaller and more localised as opposed to more strategic and larger scale structural maintenance schemes that include reconstruction and overlays.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

As such, these works can be either revenue or capital funded depending on the scope and projected longevity of the treatment. This type of work is often done in order to complete a better repair of a section of carriageway that gets repeated customer complaints or which is regularly highlighted for reactive pothole repairs through the highway safety inspection process. Asset Upgrading / Structural Maintenance Upgrading consists of major works that upgrade or improve an asset beyond its existing design capacity. Planned lifecycle or structural maintenance is the long term strategic renewal or replacement of highway assets. Structural maintenance generally comprises more extensive and therefore expensive treatments to restore the condition and value of the asset compared to more reactive treatment activities such as patching or pothole repairs. Structural maintenance tends to predominately be funded through capital budgets. A balance needs to be struck between the scale of planned maintenance and when a decision to replace or renew needs to be made. Renewal or replacement of an asset is the key part of lifecycle planning, minimising the whole life cost of the asset. Option Appraisal In determining our strategy and in developing our lifecycle plans we draw upon a range of asset data:

1. Financial data, including cost and budget information; 2. Asset network data, particularly the hierarchy which for many asset types determines the

maintenance priority at a particular location; 3. Asset inventory data on the location, specification, quantity and age of the road network,

both as a whole and in candidate locations for maintenance works; 4. Asset condition data from our cycle of surveys (SCANNER, CVI and SCRIM); 5. Treatment life and whole life cost assessments 6. Information on historic performance and maintenance activity on the network (e.g. history

of defects); 7. Risk and claims information; and 8. Assessments by local engineers.

We will make use of the Asset Optioneering Modelling tool (AOM), provided by Jean Lefebvre UK through our delivery partner, as our principal tool for evaluating investment options and for determining forward works programmes. The AOM is an options-based tool, which models highway asset management treatments by applying financial, commercial and technical criteria to develop the lowest whole life cost for a defined maintenance period. We use the AOM to evaluate a number of funding scenarios over an analysis period to derive, for carriageways:

Projected annual expenditure and quantities of treatment Whole life cost over the analysis period Projected condition over the analysis period

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

Scheme Prioritisation and Forward Works Programming In assessing whether and a carriageway section should be included in a future works programme, and to determine the timing of works we carry out a priority assessment drawing upon a combination of factors that include:

Condition data Hierarchy Risk assessment Claims history Cost Engineering and inspector assessment Value for money assessment Routine maintenance data

In determining whether a road section should be included in a future programme, to determine this we undertake a priority assessment utilising a number of factors if the section scores highly enough it will be added to the respective capital programme. Once added to the programme the section will be assessed to determine what stage in its life cycle it is and therefore what treatment can be considered. It is our intention to produce rolling 3 to 5-year forward works programmes for all parts of the network with a detailed 2-year programme for approval to enable advanced design and programming to take place.

3.1.4 Improvement actions The following improvement actions have been identified for carriageways:

Implement the Asset Optioneering Model, and use this to identify the preferred investment strategy for carriageway;

Identify innovative treatment options to extend life of carriageways and to maximise performance and minimise lifecycle cost;

Develop a 3 to 5 year programme of carriageway works to be updated on an annual basis; and

Report carriageway condition, performance and maintenance need on an annual basis as part of an annual asset performance report.

Review standard methodology of repairing intervention level potholes Introduce Rejuvenator products as part of the preventative treatment programme. Ensure improved Communications to inform Councillors and the public of what they are

likely to see as part of an Asset Management approach

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

3.2 Footways and Redways

3.2.1 Context In maintaining the footway and Redway network we aim to keep them in a condition that enables them to function effectively and provides a safe surface for users and to eliminate the backlog of repairs to ensure that the asset is managed in the most cost effective way. Works are identified and prioritised to carry out both preventative works to maximise the life of assets, needs based schemes in order to achieve a cost effective balance of preserving footways/cycleways that have not yet fully deteriorated and fixing those that have. Asset Stock and Usage Milton Keynes has a network of some 1480km of footways and cycletracks, including some 346km of “Redways” (cycletrack). This equates to some 2.5 million square metres of footway surface and just over 1.0 million square metres of Redway surface. The ‘new town’ footway and Redway network was constructed within a relatively short period of time (1969 to 1994), which means that much of the network is of like condition and reaches the point where maintenance intervention is required to maintain serviceability at the same time. Funding was increased in 2012 and with the award of the new highways term contract incorporating the following of sound principles for scheme selection and also increase the percentage of preventative treatments in both the ‘new town’ and traditional older areas this will result in an improvement in overall condition scoring and a more sustainable investment strategy. The footway network comprises predominantly concrete flags (18%) and bituminous footways (82%), and Redways of bituminous construction with red coloured surfaces. Central Milton Keynes is quite unique in that all footway surfaces are constructed from a silver grey granite faced paving flags. Asset Groupings and Hierarchy Tables xx and xx below show the hierarchies that are used to categorise all of our Footways and Redways; we use these categories for determining priorities for maintenance and for specifying the standard of service that we aim for on particular parts of the network.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

Hierarchy of Footway

Category 1 – Primary Walking Route – High use in CMK and town centres Category 2 – Secondary Walking Route - Medium use route through local areas feeding primaries, local shopping areas incl. CMK not included in Cat 1 Category 3 - Link Footways - Link local footways through urban areas & busy rural footways Category 4 - Local Access Footways - Low use, short estate roads & cul de sacs Category 5 - Public Rights of Way – responsibility of MKC Environment

Hierarchy of Cycleways and Redways

Category a – Cycleway that forms part of the carriageway Category b1 – Primary Redways, identified in salting routes Category b2 – All other Redways Category c – Leisure routes – not normally MKC responsibility

Asset History Funding and Budgets Historically capital budgets have been insufficient to maintain the existing network at a sustainable “steady state” condition that provides an acceptable level of service. This means that we have had to prioritise the worst condition footways, in order to manage risks to users rather than adopting a planned, preventative approach to treatments where we intervene to prevent deterioration to the point where more costly treatments are required. This has led to an increasing backlog of repairs and a steady decline and ultimately will be more costly, as increasing numbers of footways are reaching the ends of their useful lives.

Footways/Redways

Hierarchy Flexible Paving Flags Modular Rigid Concrete

Category 1 98.47 km

Category 2 0 km

Category 3 13.67 km

Category 4 24.4 km

Redways 346 km

TOTAL 1481 km (1135km footways)

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

In order to address this, Milton Keynes has borrowed some £50m part of which has, in conjunction with government “incentive” funding allowed us to tackle this backlog and to improve the condition of the footway network somewhere towards our desired condition and Level of Service. The budget assigned to footways is broken down to the following categories for practical management purposes. Programmes of work are developed for each of these:

Central MK Footways General Footways Cycleways / Redways

Footway and Redway Performance and Condition In order to monitor the condition and level of service provided by our footway and Redway network report we report our KPI 54 “Condition of Footways”. This KPI shows that in recent years the condition of the footway network has generally been worsening, resulting in degradation in the standard of service provided to users. The investment in the network through prudential borrowing from 2012 shows that, conditions are starting to improve. Asset Value and Risk Profile Our most recent highways infrastructure valuation exercise in 2018/19 assessed the “Gross Replacement Cost” of our footway and Cycleway (redway) network at circa £400million, excluding the value of the land. (i.e. this is would be what it would cost to build a new footway network). If one takes into account the degradation in value that occurs through deterioration and use, the “Depreciated Replacement Cost” figures is circa £305million for footways and Redways.

£0

£500,000

£1,000,000

£1,500,000

£2,000,000

£2,500,000

£3,000,000

£3,500,000

£4,000,000

Year 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18

Historic Capital and Revenue Spend (Footways and Redways)

Revenue Capital

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

For footways and Redways the principal risk that we are concerned with is safety risk for users which is mitigated through our proactive regime of inspections.

3.2.2 Asset performance Levels of Service In maintaining our footway network, we aim to manage safety risk to within acceptable limits through a regime of inspections and reactive and planned maintenance, and to ensure that we are fulfilling our statutory duty to maintain the network. We assess public satisfaction with the footway and Redway network through our participation in the NHT (National Highways and Transport) public satisfaction survey; satisfaction levels related to walking and cycling in Milton Keynes in recent amongst the highest in nationally and amongst unitary local authorities. Surveys and Inspections The general condition of the footway/Redway network is assessed through annual eFNS (enhanced Footway Network Surveys) surveys; this is carried out on 25% of the network each year so that the whole network is covered every four years. This is a national standard walked survey; the information collected as part of this survey allows to report on the condition of every part of the network and is used for determining where treatment is required, what that treatment should be and also for assessing the amount of useful life that remains. Since it is a standard survey it can also be used to compare the condition of Milton Keynes’ footway and Redway network to those of other local authorities and for compiling information for reporting on performance and asset value to central government and to support bids for funding. In addition to these surveys, as part of Milton Keynes risk management regime we carry out routine “safety” inspections of footways and cycleways to identify and respond to defects that represent a risk to the safety of users. We also inspect and assess risks where defects are brought to our attention from other sources, such as reports from residents.

3.2.3 Scenario evaluation In developing our asset maintenance strategy for footways and Redways, we carry out option appraisal exercise at two levels;

1. at the strategic level to determine the investment and maintenance strategy that represents best value in terms of minimising lifecycle costs, managing and mitigating risk and delivering our desired level of service for footways; This looks at the treatment selection strategy, i.e. compares the whole life cost for each different family of footway and redway construction and use to determine which sequence of treatments offer the optimal treatment scenario for each Footway and Redway construction and use family e.g. the wholly bituminous principal grid roads may have the most appropriate combination of treatments as

Yr 0 Resurface – Plane of and inlay 25mm

Yr 20 Microasphalt Surface treatment

Yr 40 Microasphalt Surface treatment

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

Yr 60 Resurface – Plane off and inlay 25mm and repeat

At the street level to determine the most appropriate lifecycle option that best balances risk, performance and cost, and to prioritise forward programmes of maintenance works.

Maintenance and Funding Strategies At the strategic level, we evaluate a number of investment strategies, including, for example:

Zero funding Minimum funding to manage risk Fixed, historic based funding Eliminate backlog and achieve desired level of service over 5 years Eliminate backlog and achieve desired level of service over 10 years

Lifecycle Options The specification for all footways/Redways is outlined in the specification within the term contract for Highways, Street Lighting and Network Infrastructure taking into account new materials, tried and tested materials and materials that have been proven to work effectively on the MK network. At the maintenance option level a range of maintenance options and lifecycle plans that have been developed. A typical lifecycle for footways might comprise 4 interventions over a 40-year period, ranging from full reconstruction, to resurfacing and surface treatments. Option Appraisal In determining lifecycle plans we draw upon a range of asset data:

Financial data, including cost and budget information Treatment regime’s derived in Scenario evaluation (above) Asset network data, particularly the hierarchy which determines the maintenance priority at

a particular location Asset inventory data on the location, specification, quantity and age of the footway and

Redway network, both as a whole and in candidate locations for maintenance works Asset condition data from our cycle of enhanced FNS surveys Information on historic performance and maintenance activity on the network (e.g. history

of defects) Risk and claims information Assessments by local engineers

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

We intend to make use of the Asset Optioneering Modelling tool (AOM), provided through our delivery partner, as the principal tool for evaluating investment options and for determining forward works programmes. The AOM is a unique options-based tool, which models highway asset management treatments by applying financial, commercial and technical criteria to develop the lowest whole life cost for a defined maintenance period. We use the AOM to evaluate a number of funding scenarios over an analysis period of xx years into the future and derive, for our footway Redway networks:

Projected annual expenditure and quantities of treatment Whole life cost over the analysis period Projected condition over the analysis period

Scheme Prioritisation and Forward Works Programming In assessing whether and a footway section should be included in a future works programme, and to determine the timing of works we carry out a priority assessment drawing upon a combination of factors that include:

Hierarchy Risk assessment Claims history Cost Engineering and inspector assessment Value for money assessment Condition data Routine maintenance data

3.2.4 Improvement actions The following improvement actions have been identified for footways and Redways:

Implement the Asset Optioneering Model, and use this to identify the preferred investment strategy for footways and Redways

Explore innovative treatment options to extend life of footways and Redways and to maximise performance and minimise lifecycle cost

Develop a 5 year programme of footway and Redway works to be updated on an annual basis

Report footway and Redway condition, performance and maintenance need on an annual basis as part of an annual asset performance report

To train inspectors to undertake condition assessments during safety inspections, to replace the cycle of enhanced FNS surveys

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

3.3 Bridges and Highway Structures

3.3.1 Context There is a wide range of bridges and highway structures on the network in Milton Keynes including historic bridges in the surrounding villages and a variety of modern bridges in the new town. Not all bridges within MKC are maintained by the Highway Authority; some bridges are the Responsibility of private land owners such as Network Rail and Canals and Rivers Trust, Highways Agency, Parks Trust. Other departments within the Council currently have the responsibility for bridges (Landscape, Public Rights of Way (PRoW) etc.) the management of these assets will be subject to review to consider the future asset management of these council assets. Asset Stock and Usage For asset management purposes the bridges and highway structures within Milton Keynes are classified by type as follows.

Asset Type Totals

Bridge: Vehicular (span >1.5m) and Pedestrian/Cycle (span >1.5m) 676

Cellar/Vault 2

Culvert: (drainage structures with span >0.9m passing beneath an embankment that has a proportion of embankment rather than a bridge deck)

94

Retaining Wall: (retained height>1.35m) 81

Sign/Gantry 1

Porte Cochere: (covered walkways unique to central Milton Keynes) 279

Grand Total 1133

Asset History Background As with other assets, the majority of bridges and highway structures in Milton Keynes were constructed over a relatively short period of time. This has created a backlog of major maintenance as components have reached the end of their designed working life or are approaching it all at the same time. A number of the structures are unique to Milton Keynes or designs used at the time were cutting edge with trials of new construction methods or materials/components that are no longer available. In order to reduce future maintenance costs and avoid delays in the event of a structural issue it is usual to retain as built records of structures however, in the case of Milton Keynes many records were destroyed prior to commencement of the Unitary Authority in 1997. Some construction information is completely missing and from time to time ‘new structures’ are found usually when they have significant defects. In 2009 the council invested in a bespoke Bridge Management System (BMS) currently Asset Management eXpert (AMX), this system contains details of all individual assets, inspections, condition, maintenance and performance. This information is continuously being improved and is essential to effective management of the stock.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

Historic Funding and Maintenance Strategies Historically the capital budget for Bridges and Highway Structures has been insufficient to enable necessary component renewals which extend the life of the structure. Funding was only available for strengthening or structure replacement which limiting the number of structures that could be upgraded due to the high costs and lengthy process from option, design to construction. The historic low level of revenue funding per structure has resulted in many items of routine maintenance being neglected over an extended period of time to concentrate on reactive maintenance and emergency works. Another added pressure to bridges and highway structures revenue maintenance budgets is due to the ‘garden city’ design which is now mature yet hides structures and damage and prevents inspection and or works. A high percentage of the budget is spent on vegetation clearance reducing the amount of money available to maintain the assets. Tree roots have also damaged drainage systems which often require costly replacement and major works. The need for regular cyclic maintenance has increased due to the aging stock and continues to be a maintenance liability. The cost of access (hoists, pontoons, traffic management, and consent for access to rail, canal or river structures on third party land) for carrying out Principal Inspections (PI’s) has historically been paid out of the revenue maintenance budget. Going forward these costs will be paid for out of the capital programme where the works identified are clearly identified as capital investment. In 2012, a case was made for prudential borrowing initially to start to address this backlog and then ensure funding was available to maintain the assets in a steady state through essential preventative measures to address the decline in asset condition. The investment programme for bridges and highway structures identified a requirement for 38% of the prudential borrowing being required to address the full backlog of works by 2027 with ongoing preventative major maintenance thereafter. Asset Value and Risk Profile The Gross Replacement Cost of the bridge stock is estimated to be £870M (based on the 17/18 valuation) making it the third most valuable council owned asset behind land and roads. Inventory data is used in the HAMFIG Structures Asset Management Planning Toolkit used for WGA reporting. Where inventory data is not available assets are grouped together based on type, size and condition. Missing data is continually collected to improve the accuracy of the valuation. Particular risks for the management of structures are:

Variety and number of different types of bridges on the network (e.g. multi-span bridges); Narrow age profile of many structures leading to ‘bow wave’ of maintenance; The large number of BACO Vehicle Parapets that are in need of upgrading; The lack of as-built records, inventory data and records of asset age; and The increased cost of vegetation clearance to enable inspection and or maintenance is

reducing the available maintenance budget available. Knock on effect of a historically small revenue budget compared to the size and complexity

of the assets.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

Asset performance Levels of Service All Milton Keynes Council Bridges and Highway Structures inspections are carried out by experienced in-house inspectors or specialist consultants where necessary. Bridges and Highway Structures are inspected in accordance with the Inspection Manual for Highway Structures which ensures that the inspection regime provides timely, accurate and appropriate detailed information on asset condition and performance together with BD 63 Inspection of Highway Structures. Defects inspected are given a score based on extent and severity, this score and inspection comments are reported on the inspection pro forma in AMX in order to determine the structures condition Bridge Condition Indicator (BCI), a nationally recognised standard for reporting which was adopted by MKC in 2004. From the individual BCI’s two further condition indicators are derived which allow us to determine the condition of the stock. BSCI Av. Average Stock Condition; and BSCI Crit. Condition of stock critical load bearing elements.

BSCI Range

Bridge Stock Condition based on BSCIAv

MKC Stock BSCIAv

(Sept 2018) Bridge Stock Condition

based on BSCICrit MKC Stock BSCIcrit

(Sept 2018)

100 - 95 Very Good

Bridge stock is in a very good condition. Very few bridges may be in a moderate to severe condition.

128 (11.3%)

Very few critical load bearing elements may be in a moderate to severe condition. Represents very low risk to public safety.

441 (38.9%)

94 - 85 Good

Bridge stock is in a good condition. A few bridges may be in a severe condition.

738 (65.1%)

A few critical load bearing elements may be in a severe condition. Represents a low risk to public safety.

0 (0%)

84 - 65 Fair

Bridge stock is in a fair condition. Some bridges may be in a severe condition. Potential for rapid decrease in condition if sufficient maintenance funding is not provided. Moderate backlog of maintenance work.

255 (22.5%)

Wide variability of conditions for critical load bearing elements, some may be in a sever condition. Some bridges may represent a moderate risk to public safety unless mitigation measures are in place.

446 (39.4%)

64 - 40 Poor

Bridge stock is in a poor condition. A significant number of bridges may be in a severe condition. Maintenance work historically managing decline, so there is a significant backlog of maintenance work.

12 (1.1%)

A significant number of critical load bearing elements may be in a severe condition. Some bridges may represent a significant risk to public safety unless mitigation measures are in place.

216 (19.1%)

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

39 - 0 Very Poor

Bridge stock is in a very poor condition. Many bridges may be unserviceable or close to it. Maintenance work historically focused on managing decline such that there is a large backlog of work.

0 (0%)

Many critical load bearing elements may be unserviceable or close to it and are in a dangerous condition. Some bridges may represent a high risk to public safety unless mitigation measures are in place.

30 (2.6%)

The overall BSCI scores for Sept 2018 were:

BSCI Av. 86.83 (Good)

BSCI Crit. 80.23 ( Fair)

The target BSCI scores for the period 2018-2023 are that 82% of the stock will remain in a Good or Very Good condition and that less than 3% will be in a Poor or Very Poor condition.

BSCI Average and BSCI Critical data of the bridge stock It should be noted that changes/improvement to the data over time can result in peaks and troughs. The decline indicated on the line graph above between 2011/12 and 2015/16 correlates with commencement of the PI Programme where structures were being inspected so that all parts were within touching distance. Condition starts to improve from 2015/16 as a result of Capital Investment.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

There is no outcome based performance measure for structures to measure the performance relating to the condition of the stock; the current KPI for structures is an output measure of PI and General Inspections (GI) carried out.

BSCI Average and Critical Average scores for MKC bridges and highway structures by asset type Surveys and Inspections In Buckinghamshire historically structures had a GI every 3 years and a PI every 9 years or if they were in an assessment programme. Milton Keynes Council moved to a 2 year GI frequency in 2010 and developed a PI programme in 2011. The current types of inspection undertaken by Milton Keynes Council are detailed below:

Inspection Type Description

Principal Inspection (PI) Detailed visual inspection of structural condition to within touching distance. Normally carried out regularly every 6, 8, 10 or 12-years, based on risk and set criteria reviewed annually.

General Inspection (GI) Bridges and highway structures

General visual inspection of structural condition. Carried out every 2-years plus or minus 6 months

General Inspection (GI) Porte Cocheres

General visual inspection of structural condition. Carried out every 3 –years, reduced frequency due to annual routine maintenance which includes a basic inspection.

Safety Inspections An inspection following a report of structure damage or concern that a structure is unsafe such as accident damage, fire damage, extreme events such as high winds or flooding. The emphasis is on ensuring the structure is safe to remain open.

Inspections for Assessment An inspection carried out in advance of a structural assessment in accordance with BD21.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

Special Inspection A detailed inspection often by specialists to review the condition of particular parts of the structure as a result of an extreme event or as a recommendation from an earlier inspection or investigation (structural damage, scour, cast iron bridges, post tensioned structures, half joints, monitoring of substandard structures)

End of Maintenance Inspection (EoM)

Carried out following major maintenance/strengthening works carried out as a PI which will act as a datum inspection for future PI’s and GI’s.

Acceptance Inspection These are inspections of structures that are not the responsibility of the Highway authority but will be adopted by the authority in the future (structures designed and constructed by developers or other private bodies). This inspection is carried out as a PI by Milton Keynes Council to ensure all defects and outstanding work is recorded and addressed prior to adoption as a new highway asset.

In March 2011 a Bridges Working Group was established to review inspections. The Group reviewed and revised the inspection regime for PI’s and GI’s of Highway Structures under the ownership of Milton Keynes Council. The result was an inspection regime based on risk which would be reviewed annually. The Principal Inspection Programme currently includes bridges that fall into the following criteria without exception:

i) Short span older bridges that have been subject to PI and assessment in the past ii) Large concrete footbridges over grid roads that require specialist access equipment to

inspect out of reach elements. iii) Structures that have mechanical bearings/half joints/post-tensioning systems etc. (these

may be coincident with Special Inspection packages for intrusive post-tensioned investigations, half-joint investigations etc.)

iv) Bridges spanning Railways v) Bridges spanning Canals vi) Bridges spanning Main Rivers vii) Bridges requiring inspection for assessment purposes (to be undertaken as an Inspection

for Assessment in accordance with BD 21)

This rationalisation identified 278 bridges requiring a PI in 2011. The programme has been extended and now contains 294 bridges that require a PI. In 2017 the PI programme was reviewed and structures in the programme were risk ranked further to refine the inspection frequency from a blanket 6 year programme to a range between 6 and 12 years at 2 yearly intervals. Any structures that are found to be substandard are managed on a risk-basis in accordance with DMRB Volume 3, BD79 ‘The Management of Sub-standard Highway Structures’. In September 2018 there are 6 no. structures being managed under BD79 (see table below).

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

MKC Structure No.

MKC Structure Name Element to inspect

88392 H6 River Ouzel Westbound Verge

82391 A422 Bradwell Brook

Bridge Verge

88350 Ward Road Culvert Deck

88366 Lissell Road Culvert Verge

80411 Galleon Canal Bridge South Verge

83411 New Bradwell Canal Bridge Deck

86413 Monks Way Canal Bridge Verge

83412 Stantonbury Canal Bridge Verge

Technical Approval Milton Keynes is still expanding and with this growth new bridges and highway structures are being built within new developments. All structural design and assessment is subject to a formal Technical Approval procedure in accordance with the requirements of BD 2 Technical Approval of Highway Structures. This ensures that appropriate standards are being followed.

3.3.2 Scenario evaluation Maintenance and Funding Strategies The primary maintenance objective for structures is to minimise safety risk on the network. The majority of capital maintenance schemes are carried out to address structural deterioration to prevent structures becoming unsafe leading to restrictions on the network. Programmes of preventative capital maintenance, replacing components of the assets, extend the overall life of the asset and reduce the need for reactive maintenance. When Major maintenance is required, asset removal or repurpose (where there is an alternative route) may also be considered. Programmes of work are developed by reviewing both BCIAv and BCICrit for the asset requiring maintenance and considering risk and engineering judgement to determine when intervention is required. Programmes are reviewed annually and also after concerns have been highlighted as a result of inspection. Lifecycle Options Potential maintenance interventions for bridges and highway structures include: Maintenance Activity Treatment Options

Emergency Emergency work to ensure the bridge is in a safe condition. For example following a vehicle collision.

Reactive maintenance Ad-hoc maintenance that comes about because of inspection and customer enquiries generally of a minor nature.

Routine maintenance Minor work that must be carried out in a regular or cyclic basis to help maintain the condition and functionality of the structure and

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

reduce the need for more expensive maintenance. Examples include, cleaning expansion joints and drainage systems, greasing metal bearings and removal of vegetation.

Preventative maintenance Minor work carried out to maintain the condition of a structure and protect it from further deterioration. Includes re-pointing, repainting, minor defect repairs, replacing small areas of concrete spall and replacing missing brickwork.

Major maintenance, strengthening and upgrading

Includes replacement of waterproofing systems, renewal of expansion joints and bearings. Larger schemes may include strengthening bridge decks to support new parapets and safety fences.

Reconstruction Only undertaken when structures reach a point where maintenance is no longer considered economic or where structure no longer meets the needs of its users. For example, a weight-limited bridge that cannot be strengthened or a bridge with low headroom.

Option Appraisal The condition and maintenance needs are recorded during inspections. This data is loaded into our bridge management system (Asset Management eXpert - AMX) which is used to calculate the BCI scores. The aim is to utilise the lifecycle management capabilities of AMX more extensively in the future to aid option appraisal.

3.3.3 Improvement actions The following improvement actions have been identified for structures:

Develop outcome based KPI’s for structures to assist monitoring structural performance in order to make a case for investment;

Extend use of AMX lifecycle modelling capabilities to support development of long term maintenance programmes;

Produce the Code of Practice for MKC Bridges and Highway Structures for publication. Ensure that Technical Approval process take due account of asset management principles. Prepare a paper for Head of Highways, Head of Place and Cabinet Member for Highways to

identify the likely future trends and future long term needs of the Bridges and Highway Structures Service;

The Council need to review how structure not currently managed by Highways are inspected and maintained e.g. PRoW, landscape structures etc.

3.4 Street Lighting and Other Illuminated Assets

3.4.1 Context Asset Stock and Usage As of August 2018, there are 60,135 illuminated assets in the borough, including 56,700 street lights, 2,870 traffic signs and 565 bollards, as well as feeder pillars, Porte Cochere lighting, Traffic Signals,

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

School Warning signs. The council is also responsible for the approval of seasonal and decorative lighting. As with other assets, there is a distinction between the older towns, which contain historic and aged infrastructure and the Designated New Town areas that are up to 50-years old. The distribution of lighting columns on different part of the network is shown below:

Column Location Number

Grid Roads 7,000

Redways 10,500

CMK 3,700

Industrial Estates 1,500

Estates and Rural 30,500

Underpasses 3,500

TOTAL 56,700

Asset Groupings and Hierarchy For the purposes asset management, street lighting is categorised into the following groups and components:

Asset Group Components

Lighting columns Lighting unit attached to wall/wooden

pole Heritage columns Illuminated bollards Illuminated traffic signs

Column and foundations Bracket Luminaires Control equipment, cables Control gear, switching, internal wiring

cabling (within ownership)

Lighting columns are further categorised by type and location on the network. The types of column present in MK are shown below:

Column Type Number

Mild steel painted 28,000

Mild steel galvanised 100

Mild steel painted and galvanised 25,848

Stainless steel 577

Concrete 250

Other (including aluminium, cast iron, wood) 1,925

TOTAL 56,700

Currently (August 2018), the following types and numbers of luminaire are used:

160 Mercury (MBFU) 29,600 High Pressure Sodium 2,460 Low Pressure Sodium

19,850 LED 8,065 Other

LED Other

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

MK Highways are currently replacing all Non LED luminaires with LED units which should be substantially complete by 2022. Most of the Low Pressure Sodium and Mercury luminaires will be replaced within the 18/19 financial year. Other illuminated furniture is categorised as follows:

Type Number

Bollards – Reflective Only 460

Bollards Solar 40

Bollards LED Merlin 121

Lit Signs – LED 165

Lit Signs – Sodium 2,700

TOTAL 4,420

Finally, feeder Pillars, underpass lighting units and cabling is categorised as follows:

Type Number

Bollards – Reflective Only 460

Bollards Solar 40

Bollards LED 121

Bollards Fluorescent Lit Signs – LED

444 165

Lit Signs – Fluorescent Lit Signs – Other

2,700 5

TOTAL 4,420

Finally, feeder Pillars, underpass lighting units and cabling is categorised as follows:

Type Number

Grid Road Feeder Pillars – Large 275

Grid Road Feeder Pillars – Small 75

Underpass Lighting Units (LED Converted) 3,500

MKC Private Cable Network 400,000 Linear metres

Asset History

As with other assets, the narrow age profile of street lighting and other illuminated assets in Milton Keynes, having been constructed over a relatively short period of time, has created a backlog of maintenance as these assets started to reach the end of their working life at the same time. For street lighting the major maintenance issue was the structural deterioration of the lighting columns; the vast majority being galvanised mild steel which had corroded below ground level making visual detection of any corrosion almost impossible. In 2012, it was estimated that 40,000 columns would need replacing over a 25-year period. Continued use of the thickness loss Structural test has led to a reduction in the number of columns requiring replacement. Continued monitoring will highlight when these columns actually need replacing.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

In 2012, a case was made for prudential borrowing to start to address this backlog. The investment programme for street lighting identified £15M of works up to 2018/19 to replace approximately 2,000 columns per year on a rolling programme, and a long term strategy maintaining the assets for the future. All underpass lighting units were converted from fluorescent tubes to LED tube technology in 2012, but needs further updating to accommodate the recent changes to British Standards, when major works are undertaken. Asset Value and Risk Profile The Gross Replacement Cost of the street lighting is estimated to be £156M. Particular risks for the management of street lighting are:

Narrow age profile of lighting columns leading to ‘bow wave’ of structural deterioration Accurate drawings of cable network are minimal & out of date. Street lighting assets being used to support new ‘SMART City’ technology

3.4.2 Asset performance Levels of Service As well as various specific contractual KPIs for safety, serviceability, availability and condition, public satisfaction with street lighting is measured as part of the NHT public perception survey where it is measured by Key Benchmarking Indicator KBI 25 ‘Street lighting’ and Maintenance Benchmark HMBI 05 ‘Provision of street lighting’. The results from the 2017 NHT Survey are shown below:

All Authorities MK Score Average Variance Rank/112 Trend

KBI 25 – Street Lighting 64 66 -1 75 0

MBI 05 – Provision of Street Lighting 64 66 -2 82 0

Peer Group (Unitary Authorities) MK Score Average Variance Rank/43 Trend

KBI 25 – Street Lighting 64 66 -2 33 0

MBI 05 – Provision of Street Lighting 64 67 -3 37 0

This shows that, as measured in terms of public satisfaction, Milton Keynes ranks below average compared with all authorities, and amongst its peer group.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

Surveys and Inspections All street lighting assets are inspected to the following cycle: Structural test 6-year cycle. This programme has been accelerated ahead of the

LED replacement programme (see below) Electrical test 6-year testing cycle carried out in accordance with IEE regulations.

This has been accelerated in line with the LED replacement programme (see below)

Visual safety check Every visit Scouting checks Monthly on all areas plus ad-hoc visits in response to public

comments. Network street lighting asset inventory survey

5-years

All inspections and maintenance are carried out by MK Highways Contractor under the highways maintenance contract.

3.4.3 Scenario evaluation Maintenance and Funding Strategies The primary maintenance objective for street lighting and other illuminated assets is to minimise safety risk on the network and this is managed through safety inspections and reactive maintenance. The strategy for street lighting and other illuminated assets is to replace existing High Intensity Discharge (HID) luminaires with pre-dimmed LED technology to achieve maintenance and energy savings. This can be done by replacing the gear tray rather than the whole luminaire. The replacement gear trays are pre-programmed to dim to 30% between 1000hrs and 0600hrs every night, and can be retrofitted to most existing luminaires, including heritage lighting. Where structural testing indicates that it is necessary existing columns, which in general have a 30-year design life, will be replaced with higher specification, galvanised mild steel painted columns that have a 40-year design life. Estate roads bollards and signs have been replaced with reflective non-illuminated versions. On Grid Roads, illuminated assets are being replaced with LEDs, controlled by photo cells, as road closures allow. The strategy for car park lighting in Central MK is to redesign the lighting to provider fewer but taller columns, with downward lighting using LED technology.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

Lifecycle Options Potential maintenance interventions for street lighting and other illuminated assets include: Reactive and emergency Emergency work to ensure the asset is in a safe condition. For

example following a vehicle collision. Routine maintenance Minor work that must be carried out in a regular or cyclic basis to

help maintain the condition and functionality of the asset. For example, luminaire or bollard cleaning or column painting.

Luminaire replacement Replacement of the luminaire is normally carried out when it gets to its end of life; however there is a current programme to replace all non LED luminaires, with LEDs and new gear trays.

Column replacement Columns are replaced where structural testing indicates that there is structural deterioration.

Option Appraisal Reactive and routine maintenance of street lighting and other illuminated assets is managed using our maintenance management system (Confirm). With respect to major maintenance, a 15-year indicative capital maintenance programme for street lighting was developed in 2012 as part of the successful Prudential Borrowing submission which included a programme of column replacement and conversion to LED luminaires. The LED replacement programme has been prioritised according to the age profile of the assets and the results of previous structural testing carried out to support the Prudential Borrowing submission. Further structural testing and any necessary column replacement, as well as routine maintenance activities, have been aligned to the LED replacement programme so that, where structural testing indicates that it is necessary, existing columns will be replaced at the same time as replacing the luminaire. As part of the LED upgrade programme, electrical testing is carried out and all feeder pillars and, where necessary, the existing cable network will be upgraded as well. Bollards on estate roads are kept clean and are more closely inspected now they are unlit.

3.4.4 Improvement actions The following improvement actions have been identified for structures:

Update inventory records Develop risk based approach to inspection and maintenance beyond the current capital

replacement programme and tools to provide graphical representations providing business cases for future capital works

Develop maintenance strategies for new ‘SMART City’ technology Reduce number of public queries regarding lighting by improving service provided within

current budgets Utilise “Smart Assets” to determine energy use

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

3.5 Drainage

3.5.1 Context The drainage asset is an integral part of the Milton Keynes’ highway network. Much of the Milton Keynes highway drainage network was constructed within a relatively short period of time (1969 to 1994) as part of the construction of the road network, but it also includes a number of rural towns with their associated drainage infrastructure, most of which is considerably older. Milton Keynes new town incorporated existing natural watercourses and drainage features into a developed environment causing some continuity issues for these existing features requiring accommodation through the construction of a number of significant ‘balancing lakes. As Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) Milton Keynes has also constructed a number of assets ‘off highway’ that contribute to the management of both watercourses and surface water. Asset Stock and Usage The table below summarises the extent of the highway drainage assets, where known as of 2017-18.

Drainage Asset Description Quantity / No.

Carriageway Gully 61000

Footway/Redway Gully 7000

Drainage Pipes 7000+ plans

Manholes Not yet recorded

Catch pits Not yet recorded

Headwalls Not yet recorded

Culverts > 900mm 103

Culverts < 900mm Not yet recorded

Trash Screens 42

Electric Pumps 21

Soakaways Not yet recorded

Ditches Not yet recorded

Grips 350

Linear Kerb Drainage Not yet recorded

Linear Drainage e.g. ACO Not yet recorded

Channelised Concrete Ditches 1

Swales Not yet recorded

Wet/Dry Balancing Ponds 9

Asset Groupings and Hierarchy For the purposes of prioritising maintenance and assessing risk, we make of the use of the appropriate network hierarchy for the carriageway or redway that a particular drainage asset supports, rather than defining a separate network hierarchy for highway drainage.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

Asset History Asset Funding Historically capital budgets have been insufficient to maintain the existing drainage network, in addition the responsibility as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) following the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 has transferred to Milton Keynes which bestows additional liability for assets and the creation and maintenance of these assets. This has placed a demand on the authority to move to a preventative approach; MK has used its Integrated transport block funding in conjunction with procuring a new term service contract in order to arrest the decline of the assets and through to a targeted longer term (5 years) planned works programme enabling a move to minimising ‘whole life costs’ whilst addressing immediate pressures. The investment has solved numerous drainage issues but many remain.

3.5.2 Cyclic/Reactive Maintenance (Revenue) An overall budget based on historic practice (increased approximately by the rate of inflation each year) and raised from various grants and the council tax is available for maintenance each year. Capital Maintenance Funding is secured from the central government grant maintenance settlement via the DfT and supplemented by loans from Prudential Borrowing secured in 2014. In 2012 Milton Keynes committed to prudentially borrowing an additional £50 million to invest in the main categories of its highway asset, in effect this realised an additional £250,000 per annum for drainage improvements (available from 2014). From 2012 DEFRA has made available funds (circa £150,000 per annum) to undertake drainage/flood related schemes and also to develop longer term strategic plans. In addition the DfT Challenge fund makes additional funds available, on a competitive basis. Asset Value and Risk Profile Major risk relating to drainage assets is normally associated with severe flooding causing risk of fatalities and or serious injury as well as damage to buildings. In recent times, significant flooding has occurred both fluvial (river) and pluvial (surface) causing major impact on properties and the highway network. Another cause during severe weather are drainage designs that don’t cater for the Higher rainfall experienced as a result of global warming and deterioration on older areas of the drainage system. The risks can be mitigated by the targeted cyclic maintenance, inspection regime and structural condition assessments on drainage assets that are carried out which highlight issues that when assigned priorities need to be addressed to prevent further problems.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

3.5.3 Asset performance We have adopted best practice from HMEP ‘Guidance on the management of Highways Drainage Assets’, and will be setting appropriate targets, monitoring and measuring performance against these, reporting outcomes, and reviewing service delivery. Statutory requirement As Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), Milton Keynes has a responsibility to investigate flooding events in accordance with Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. This duty also takes into account the Strategic Flood Risk Strategy and the Surface Water Management Strategy of Milton Keynes. This is in addition to the authority’s duty to maintain the highway network as highway authority. Levels of Service Performance management is measured by annual reporting of Contract KPI’s Those reported on are:-

KPI 1a – Emergency Response KPI 1d – 28 day Repairs HMBI 12 – Keeping Drains Clear and Working

Surveys and Inspections Condition surveys Measuring the condition of an asset that is in effect mostly buried underground is difficult to routinely measure in a cost effective manner, certain assets are accessible and undergo annual inspections i.e. culverts over 900mm, electrical pumps, trash screens and during the operational cleansing of gullies the condition of the visible asset is recorded by exception on the Gully Smart system. The condition of underground drainage systems are subject to Closed Circuit Television Surveys (CCTV) when identified as being defective or as part of a larger transport scheme. MK Highways has purchased a CCTV camera system for such inspections and records the condition of this asset electronically for scheme use and future maintenance. CCTV surveys are carried out in response to incidents rather than routinely. Asset Inventory Milton Keynes undertook a driven Asset Inventory Survey (completed by Yotta) in 2014, whereby all gully information was extracted. In addition a number of walked surveys of key assets (e.g. Pumping stations, grids and grilles) were undertaken also in 2014. In parallel with this Milton Keynes has also digitised in excess of 7,000 ‘as built’ plans of the highway drainage systems both on the main primary network and the secondary estate networks, this has all been catalogued and is available for reference.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

3.5.4 Scenario evaluation Investment Strategy The budget assigned to Drainage is based on historic figures and is not yet needs based by priority and risk. Historically, planned capital maintenance programmes have only been submitted for the year ahead. In 2012, the opportunity was taken to obtain funding using the Prudential Borrowing Code. An automated priority assessment is carried out to identify schemes and will be used to develop a forward programme updated each year in accordance with updated surveys/priorities. Maintenance and Funding Strategies Drainage priorities can and are determined by weather events highlighting weaknesses/problem on the network, with this in mind in order to enable the service to respond to these pressures a funding profile has been established for the next 5 years that allows a routine and planned programme to be delivered each financial year that is reviewed annually and modified accordingly. It is our intention to produce rolling 5-year forward works programmes for all parts of the network with a detailed 2-year programme for approval to enable advanced design and programming to take place. Systems and Data A key step towards ensuring that a number of recommendations in the HMEP guidance on drainage related to inventory data management is achieved is the investment by Milton Keynes in a system that performs multiple functions of supervision of the operational works (Kaarbontech Gully Smart) and logging and updating the drainage asset in both the field and in the office from historical investigatory records (Kaarbontech Pipe Smart), this system has the ability to record and capture assets in the field previously not held or recorded. Data from these systems is synchronised with Milton Keynes Asset management system CONFIRM to update the master asset database with more relevant additional metadata. NOTE: this is an ongoing activity and will continue especially following investigations using CCTV and tracing mapping to further refine and detail this asset group. Routine, Reactive and Planned Maintenance Routine Maintenance Cyclic maintenance is the regular day-to-day work that services rather than repairs the asset, and is necessary to keep the asset in working order. Scheduled cyclical maintenance activities such as gully emptying, clearance of grids/trash screens, grip cutting and clearance of ditches to maintain watercourses are planned programmed work designed to have a preventative effect on the function of surface water. Although many of these activities are not explicitly designed to improve drainage asset condition, they help prevent damage to the fabric of the highway from water or vegetation and they have a significant effect on customer opinion about the level of service the council is providing. Drainage systems also undergo both routine and scheme based ‘jetting’ and ‘root cutting’ to improve the condition of the system affected.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

Programme of 3-year cycle of gully cleaning. Records % level of silt - will then allow cycles to be altered based on level of silt encountered last time (i.e. through a risk based approach). Reactive Maintenance Reactive maintenance covers ad hoc (unplanned/unscheduled) repairs to assets due to damage or the renewal of small elements or components which have become unserviceable due to general wear and tear or have deteriorated for other reasons i.e. root ingress. Reactive maintenance covers works necessary to maintain the drainage assets in a safe condition to the standards set out in the Code of Practice for Highway Safety Inspections or in response to bad weather or other emergencies where a rapid response is required. Reactive maintenance includes localised jetting and root cutting (with externally hired gully cleansing tanker) to clear blockages, placement of warning signs in response to highway flooding and other highway emergency work. Planned Maintenance (renewals or replacements) This comprises the major planned (programmed) work that does not increase the asset’s designed capacity, but restores, rehabilitates, replaces or renews an existing asset to its original capacity. Planned maintenance describes activities that are programmed in advance that are aimed at improving local drainage condition. Routine planned maintenance includes gully cleansing and carriageway re-profiling to improve drainage. The scale of these works tends to be smaller and more localised as opposed to more strategic and larger scale structural maintenance schemes. As such, these works can be either revenue or capital funded depending on the scope and projected longevity of the treatment. This type of work is often done in order to uphold improved performance of the drainage system that gets repeated customer complaints or which is regularly highlighted for reactive drainage repairs through the highway safety inspection process. Asset Upgrading / Structural Maintenance Upgrading consists of major works that upgrade or improve an asset beyond its existing design capacity. Planned lifecycle or structural maintenance is the long term strategic renewal or replacement of drainage assets. Structural maintenance generally comprises more extensive and therefore expensive treatments to improve the condition and value of the asset compared to more reactive treatment activities such as localised repairs to drainage pipework. Structural maintenance tends to predominately be funded through capital budgets. A balance needs to be struck between the scale of planned maintenance and when a decision to replace or renew needs to be made. An example would be when a drainage culvert needs enlarging for safety purposes i.e. reduce flooding on a carriageway; there is a point when a replacement of the culvert would be a better long term option, even though it is more expensive. Renewal or replacement of an asset is the key part of lifecycle planning, minimising the whole life cost of the asset. Works Prioritisation and Programming The figure below shows the risk factors that are applied to determine the priority of drainage maintenance schemes. In addition to these risk factors, carriageway and/or Redway hierarchy is used to weight and prioritise maintenance.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

3.5.5 Improvement actions The following performance gaps have been identified during development of the drainage lifecycle plan. Further performance gaps are likely to be identified and addressed during implementation of the HAMP.

Review the existing Code of Practice for Highways Safety Inspections and develop a risk matrix for responsive and routine actions.

A review of inventory information is being undertaken. Undertake additional inventory data capture. Formulate a data management procedure to capture future changes to the asset.

Utilise data already collected to commence moving towards a data led approach for gulley cleansing, whilst continuing to collect data and refine approach as necessary.

Discussions with developers and adoptions team to ensure a process to capture all assets and update asset management system Formalise process and agree format ‘as built’ electronic data to update the asset inventory records accordingly

Additional information is being collected for use in the whole life costing process Procedures and processes need to be developed for undertaking a whole life financial costing exercise on the drainage asset using HMEP tool.

A review of existing risk documents is underway. Both in Strategic and Operational level. Following publication of UKRLG code of practice Nov 16, a review of the risk management strategy is required, with a focus on decision-making based on acceptable risk.

A number of initiatives are underway to collate the existing short-term works programmes. A focus on the information required to develop a long term works programme is required

Environment to develop a dedicated layer with significant drainage asset recorded. Publish all drainage asset on the web for public information.

Contract KPI from data in NHT surveys on drainage performance Review the highway maintenance strategy and the Code of Practice is required to assess

which of the suggested local performance indicators are applicable to MK and to identify any others that may be required.

Implement recommendations and align surface water flooding hotspots with cyclic and planned works.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

4 Budget Prioritisation and Allocation Process

4.1 Indicative Budget The original 2012 Prudential Borrowing submission provides an indicative budget profile for the main asset types, with the following changes: Surface treatments have subsequently been removed from the programme and are funded from capital maintenance on the basis of a 3-year surface treatment programme every 7-year’s in line with expected service life. Following a programme of structural testing carried out on a risk basis (i.e. Grid Roads and Redways first, prioritised on the basis of asset age and traffic management costs); columns are only replaced where needed. Luminaires are replaced with pre-dimmed LEDs by swapping the gear trays. The forward programme is based on column age and expected life.

4.2 Annual Budget Prioritisation and Allocation As described in Section 3, maintenance and renewal programmes for the year ahead are developed for individual asset types on a needs basis. The overall budget is based on the business case that supported the Prudential Borrowing submission and the Head of Highways, in consultation with elected members, decides how the budget is allocated between asset types. As well as the bottom-up needs analysis, this takes into consideration other ad-hoc demands for maintenance and also considers the need for additional capital maintenance funding that must be bid for. This is on ongoing process that involves discussions with Finance throughout the year.

4.3 Planned Process Improvements MK intends to develop a more objective method based on the Asset Optioneering Model (AOM) as a decision support tool that identifies programmes of treatments that can achieve a target network condition and allows different scenarios to be modelled. This will be rolled out during the period covered by the HAMP. Overall, MK will move towards developing longer-term maintenance programmes for each asset type to provide greater certainty of future condition and budget need. These programmes will be used to inform discussions with senior decision makers and, the aspiration is, to secure longer-term funding commitments, supported by a discretionary budget to allow for tactical decision making within the Highways Asset Management Team.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

5 Programme Management and Delivery Together with our highways contractor the council has formed “MK Highways” as a collaborative partnership. Mk Highways are responsible for delivering the Highway service. There are a number of supporting daughter documents such as the Code of Practice for Highway Safety Inspections that support Asset Management and Programme delivery.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

6 Appendix A – Improvement Actions

Carriageways Implement the Asset Optioneering Model, and use this to identify the preferred investment strategy for carriageway;

Identify innovative treatment options to extend life of carriageways and to maximise performance and minimise lifecycle cost;

Develop a 3 to 5 year programme of carriageway works to be updated on an annual basis; and

Report carriageway condition, performance and maintenance need on an annual basis as part of an annual asset performance report.

Review standard methodology of repairing intervention level potholes

Introduce Rejuvenator products as part of the preventative treatment programme.

Ensure improved Communications to inform Councillors and the public of what they are likely to see as part of an Asset Management approach

Bridges and other Structures

Develop outcome based KPI’s for structures to assist monitoring structural performance in order to make a case for investment;

Extend use of AMX lifecycle modelling capabilities to support development of long term maintenance programmes;

Produce the Code of Practice for MKC Bridges and Highway Structures for publication.

Ensure that Technical Approval process take due account of asset management principles.

Prepare a paper for Head of Highways, Head of Place and Cabinet Member for Highways to identify the likely future trends and future long term needs of the Bridges and Highway Structures Service;

The Council need to review how structure not currently managed by Highways are inspected and maintained e.g. PRoW, landscape structures etc.

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

Footways and Redways Implement the Asset Optioneering Model, and use this to identify the preferred investment strategy for footways and Redways

Explore innovative treatment options to extend life of footways and Redways and to maximise performance and minimise lifecycle cost

Develop a 5 year programme of footway and Redway works to be updated on an annual basis

Report footway and Redway condition, performance and maintenance need on an annual basis as part of an annual asset performance report

To train inspectors to undertake condition assessments during safety inspections, to replace the cycle of enhanced FNS surveys

Street Lighting and other Illuminated Assets

Update inventory records Develop risk based approach to inspection and maintenance

beyond the current capital replacement programme and tools to provide graphical representations providing business cases for future capital works

Develop maintenance strategies for new ‘SMART City’ technology

Reduce number of public queries regarding lighting by improving service provided within current budgets

Utilise “Smart Assets” to determine energy use

Drainage Review the existing Code of Practice for Highways Safety Inspections and develop a risk matrix for responsive and routine actions.

A review of inventory information is being undertaken. Undertake additional inventory data capture. Formulate a data management procedure to capture future changes to the asset.

Utilise data already collected to commence moving towards a data led approach for gulley cleansing, whilst continuing to collect data and refine approach as necessary.

Discussions with developers and adoptions team to ensure a process to capture all assets and update asset management system Formalise process and agree format ‘as built’ electronic data to update the asset inventory records accordingly

Additional information is being collected for use in the whole life costing process Procedures and processes need to be developed for undertaking a whole life financial costing exercise on the drainage asset using HMEP tool.

A review of existing risk documents is underway. Both in Strategic and Operational level. Following publication of UKRLG code of practice Nov 16, a review of the risk management strategy is required, with a focus on decision-making based on acceptable risk.

A number of initiatives are underway to collate the existing

Annex A


MK HAMP v0.5

short-term works programmes. A focus on the information required to develop a long term works programme is required

Environment to develop a dedicated layer with significant drainage asset recorded. Publish all drainage asset on the web for public information.

Contract KPI from data in NHT surveys on drainage performance

Review the highway maintenance strategy and the Code of Practice is required to assess which of the suggested local performance indicators are applicable to MK and to identify any others that may be required.

Implement recommendations and align surface water flooding hotspots with cyclic and planned works.

Communications Ensure Communications Plan is updated to ensure messages regarding what asset management is and what the public may witness are disseminated effectively.