The Environment, Economic Growth and Transport Scrutiny Committee met to discuss the Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP), the processing of Definitive Map Modification Orders, and the committee's work programme for 2025/26. Councillors agreed to review the TAMP refresh at their next meeting in October and requested more information on the council's approach to processing applications to modify definitive maps¹, the legal record of public rights of way. The committee also decided to hold a separate meeting to discuss potential additions to their work programme.

Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP)

The committee received an overview of the TAMP, a 15-year strategy for managing and maintaining Lancashire's highway infrastructure assets. Paul Binks, the Highways Asset Manager, explained that the TAMP is now in its third phase and is data-driven, which is a requirement of the Department for Transport (DFT) to receive maximum funding. Failure to meet the DFT's criteria could result in 25% of the additional £12 million in funding being withheld, which would mean a stop to many works in quarter four.

Binks stated that the data indicates the TAMP has been successful since its inception in 2014, with a dramatic improvement in the road network's condition. He also noted that the council aims to be average among shire authorities in terms of road maintenance, as there are not enough funds to be excellent across all assets.

The TAMP uses a risk-based approach to prioritise schemes, considering factors such as condition data, councillor and officer suggestions, the road network's classification, bus routes, public complaints, pothole frequency, and claims. Preventative treatments like surface dressing are prioritised to maximise the impact of available funds.

Challenges include ensuring first-time fixes for potholes and other repairs, maintaining the ABC road network² in good condition, and addressing the backlog in streetlights, traffic signals, and structures. Councillor Warren Goldsworthy, Cabinet Minister for Highways and Transport, acknowledged the maintenance backlog, estimating that over half a billion pounds is needed to bring everything up to a maintainable standard.

Gully Cleansing

Councillor Cottam raised concerns about flooding near the Capital Centre in Preston due to uncleaned gullies. Director Townsend responded that the council has a two-pronged approach to gully cleansing: first, clean every gully in Lancashire over the next two years, and then move to a risk-based approach. He also noted that reactive cleaning is more expensive than planned cleaning, which is why they are moving towards a preventative approach.

Councillor Stubbings asked if residents should continue reporting blocked gullies via Love Clean Streets³. Director Townsend confirmed that residents should report any issues, as the council will risk assess and take action if there is a risk of flooding or danger to road users.

Performance Indicators

Councillor Stubbings raised concerns about performance indicators for highways maintenance, suggesting additional KPIs that reflect road condition, as the current KPI of 9.5 out of 10 for pothole repairs does not align with residents' perceptions of road conditions. Director Townsend agreed to consider additional KPIs for the following year.

Councillor Potter asked about a KPI for first-time fixes. Director Townsend responded that while it is a principle they are adopting, it is difficult to implement as a KPI due to incidents requiring temporary fixes before a permanent repair can be carried out.

Rural Networks

Councillor Potter raised concerns that the last five years of the 15-year plan seemed dedicated to rural networks, while urban unclassified networks were being neglected. Director Townsend clarified that the ABC roads cover both urban and rural networks, and the approach to rural unclassified areas was a find and fix approach, funded by government funding that comes with certain criteria, including having an asset management strategy and KPIs embedded in the TAMP.

Preventative vs Reactive Maintenance

Councillor Potter sought clarification on the approach to preventative versus reactive maintenance for gully cleaning. Director Townsend confirmed that the council is taking a risk-based, preventative approach, cleaning what needs cleaning based on a risk hierarchy. He also committed to returning to scrutiny at a future date with more information on the metrics being used to determine the risk hierarchy.

AI and New Technologies

Councillor Cottam inquired about using AI for pothole repair and road scanning. Councillor Goldsworthy responded that the council is using AI mapping for potholes and is considering purchasing more AI technology to scan roads. However, he cautioned against investing in obsolete technology and assured the committee that they would be kept informed.

Councillor Tetlow asked about modern methods, such as recycled plastic, for pothole repairs. Binks responded that plastic trials are falling by the wayside due to concerns about recyclability and leaching. He added that the council keeps accurate records of trials and works with national bodies and utilities to explore innovative ways of managing highways.

Tree Replacement Strategy

Councillor Potter inquired about the council's strategy for replacing trees that have to be cut down, asking if the council was moving to a one-to-one replacement strategy. Director Townsend responded that there is work happening within Debbie King's team to proactively plant trees, supported by district and parish councils. He also noted that there is a tension between planting in urban and rural areas, as it is often cheaper to plant in rural locations. He committed to providing figures on tree replacement and engaging with parish councils.

Public Communication

Councillor Tetlow stressed the importance of improving public communication about the good work being done by the council. Councillor Goldsworthy agreed, acknowledging that the public often perceives that nothing is being done.

Public Rights of Way - Processing of Definitive Map Modification Orders

The committee reviewed the processing of Definitive Map Modification Orders (DMMOs) following a complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The ombudsman had investigated a complaint about delays in processing a DMMO and requested that the council refer the decision to the relevant scrutiny committee.

Debbie King, Head of Environments and Climates, explained that the Public Rights of Way team manages a 5,500-kilometre network with limited resources. David Goode, Public Rights of Way Manager, added that the team is reactive rather than proactive, with half their effort focused on maintenance and enforcement and the other half on mapping issues and planning consultations.

Goode clarified that a DMMO is an application to correct an error on the definitive map, while changes to legal rights are handled through public path orders. He also noted that the council cannot recharge for DMMO applications, as they are correcting their own records.

Councillor Worthington asked about the possibility of charging for changes to the map. Goode clarified the differences between DMMOs, public path orders, and changes due to development, noting that the council can only charge for public path orders requested by landowners.

Councillor Singleton inquired about incentives for parish councils to maintain pathways. King responded that the Local Delivery Scheme, which offered £500 grants, has been discontinued due to budget cuts.

Councillor Stubbings expressed concern about the backlog of DMMOs and suggested finding efficiency improvements and reallocating resources. Goode responded that the process is bureaucratic and that they are waiting for the Deregulation Act 2015 to be commenced, which would allow for more efficient handling of DMMOs.

Councillor Cottam suggested using legal services to help with DMMOs and potentially hiring someone with cartography experience. King responded that they already use legal services and are open to suggestions for improving efficiency.

The committee discussed the possibility of delegating more decisions on DMMOs and legal rights to officers, as well as revisiting the Local Delivery Scheme to involve parish councils. They agreed to set a timescale for the officers to come back to the committee with proposals for efficiency improvements.

Environment, Economic Growth and Transport Scrutiny Committee Work Programme 2025/26

The committee considered its work programme for 2025/26 and discussed potential additions. Councillor Snort criticised the programme as being too light on environmental and economic growth topics. Councillor Stubbings suggested adding items related to the Lancashire Growth Plan, environment and climate strategy, communication strategy, and local transport plan.

Councillor Potter suggested including flooding and tourism as topics. Councillor Wade expressed concern about the disconnect between the current committee and the previous committee that had looked at flooding.

The committee discussed the process for adding items to the work programme and the need for more information before making decisions. Councillor Stubbins proposed adding specific items, but some members felt that they needed more information first.

Ultimately, the committee voted to have a separate meeting before the next scheduled meeting in October to discuss potential additions to the work programme.