Consultation outcome

Fourth edition of the specification for the reinstatement of openings in highways: summary of responses

Updated 14 May 2020

1. Introduction

On 6 May 2019, the Department ended a 12-week public consultation on a new (4th) edition of the Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in Highways.

The consultation sought views on 9 specific questions and invited general comments on the proposed document.

There were 125 responses in total, broken down as follows:

Type of respondent	Number who responded
Highway authority	40
Utility company	33
Contractor	10
Individual	14
Materials supplier	5
Testing laboratory	1
Consultant	3
Highway Authorities & Utilities Committee / Joint Authorities Group HAUC/JAG/SWUK	6
Institute of Highway Engineers	1
RAC Ltd	1
Road Haulage Association	1
Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning & Transport (ADEPT)	1
Internet Service Providers Association	1
Mineral Products Association	1
Society of Local Council Clerks	1
Energy Networks Association	1
Institute of Asphalt Technology	1
Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport	1
Scottish Road Works Commissioner	1
Network Rail	1
Insurance Co	1
Total	125

2. Questions, feedback and decisions

2.1 Question 1 - reinstatement guarantee period

The guarantee period for all reinstatements should be:

• a) left as they are? 60 (50%)
• b) 3 years? 4 (3%)
• c) 4 years? 0 (0%)
• d) 5 years? 57 (47%)

There was roughly an even split between those who wanted to leave guarantee periods as they are (mainly utilities) and those who preferred to see them increased to 5 years (mainly authorities).

The response from the utilities showed that there are some important issues that need to be investigated before changing the guaranteed periods can be considered because of the poternial for unintended consequences. It has therefore been decided that the guaranteed periods should remain as they are until further work on the financial impact of implementing such a change can be carried out.

Decision: guarantee periods to remain as per the 3rd edition until further work can be carried out.

2.2 Question 2 - reinstatement guarantee period

Are there any materials not listed in MCHW that are used in street works but could not reasonably be expected to meet a 5 year guarantee period?

The following list provides examples of products suggested by respondents:

• AC6, AC10, AC14 carriageway materials
• surface dressings,
• specialist materials
• high friction surfaces
• mastic asphalt
• bagged and tubbed cold lay materials
• self-adhesive road markings
• self-adhesive over-banding
• products not guaranteed by manufacturers for 5 years
• permanent Cold-lay Surfacing Materials (PCSMs) are often showing signs of wear much quicker than hot laid materials

Decision: none - In view of the decision to retain the current guarantee periods, the above is no longer relevant.

2.3 Question 3 – new materials for easier compaction

Do you agree that permitting new materials that are easier to compact is the correct solution to the long standing issue over air void compliance?

• yes - 77 (69%)
• no - 35 (31%)

Many utility companies asked if the 2017 Liverpool John Moore University (LJMU) study into air voids had been taken into account in preparing the 4th edition. In fact, the project’s contractor conducted an independent appraisal of this report in January 2018. The appraisal concluded that the LJMU study’s conclusions were not considered to be robust, and included inaccuracies that were not supported by evidence. However, the study raised some pertinent points and these were taken into consideration during the review of the document.

There were also many claims that air voids are not a reliable indicator of reinstatement integrity, they are not appropriate for hand-layed materials, and reinstatements should be judged on performance only. Several claimed that it was impossible to guarantee 100% air void compliance. However, some authorities said that competent contractors should achieve the air void requirements by deploying reasonable care under appropriate conditions.

Some would have preferred a relaxation in the air void limits. This option was considered and rejected at an early stage in the development of the 4th edition. While it is accepted that there can be problems in reliably complying with the air void requirements, removing the requirements would leave authorities without a way of establishing the integrity of a reinstatement.

Other comments included the following:

• if the bitumen content is increased, this might achieve the air voids but could be at risk of a bitumen rich surface causing different problems
• correct solution is an air void specific specification for hand lay materials
• cost of alternative options can be prohibitive for those who undertake smaller reinstatements - PMMA typically costs twice as much as currently used materials and requires investment in additional equipment for laying
• whilst workmanship is very important. Some materials are more inherently difficult to compact
• the use of new materials has already resulted in a big improvement with air void compliance
• although new materials will help improving compliance, we do not believe that these will ensure 100% air void compliance
• enhanced Materials are only part of the solution. We must also consider the Plant & Machinery we use

Decision: Alternative materials that are easier to compact will be permitted as options to conventional materials. These alternative materials are based on case study evidence from utility companies that started using proprietary asphalt materials developed in conjunction with the materials supply chain.

2.4 Question 4 – air void testing

Do you think that the Code should hone in on a single test method as either a mandatory or a preferred method?

• yes, mandatory - 85 (79%)
• yes, preferred - 11 (10%)
• no - 12 (11%)

The comments make it clear that differences in results between various testing methods is a real problem and support for specifying a single, mandatory, test method was overwhelming. However, it was ultimately decided to opt for a preferred method because of the impact on laboratories that have established entirely legitimate testing procedures conforming to British or European standards. Excluding those laboratories could have given rise to claims about barriers to trade. However, one laboratory suggested that methods of sealing specimens in certain circumstances could be made mandatory.

Other comments included the following:

• results vary depending on the sealing method used making interpretation of the results difficult
• any proposed introduction of such a test should be delivered in consultation with utility companies and their contractors as well as highway authorities
• all testing methods should be revisited
• current air void criteria cannot be met 100% of the time when following the prescribed SROH requirements
• welcome option to test 150mm cores as 100mm cores can sometimes result in insufficient material to establish target density
• some absolutes required, particularly on how long utilities keep the data, which should match the reinstatement guarantee perio
• making it compulsory to seal specimens is a key improvement as this has always been good practice

Decision: a preferred method of testing for air voids will be specified but not made mandatory.

2.5 Question 5 – innovation

Do you agree with the code’s approach to innovation?

• yes - 104 (92%)
• no - 9 (8%)

There was clear support for the new, more flexible approach to innovation although some common points were made, for example, a 5 year guarantee period would stifle innovation (now irrelevant), and concerns about authorities having to accept ARMs or ATs that have been successfully trialled in another authority’s area.

Other comments included the following:

• variable trial periods make sense, particularly in the context of some innovative techniques
• we should look to reduce the code’s requirements in terms of trial periods where positive outcomes have been seen previously
• good communication is vital between all parties
• each Highway Authority should have the right to agree the duration of any trials carried out on its network
• utility companies should be required to register reinstatements that incorporate innovative materials so that it is possible to identify them
• undertakers must inform the authority if they intend to use an ARM or AT even if a successful trial has been undertaken elsewhere
• each new innovation should be considered individually and on its own merit.
• all trials and innovation should be widely published
• more work is required regarding edges as this is one of the biggest causes of failure
• can introduce engineering concerns but a more appropriate approach would be to automatically give local authorities the option of insisting that utilities reproduce the trial results in their area before use
• utilities must seek approvals from HA even when a trial has been successful elsewhere.
• a more flexible approach is welcomed with the caveat that highway authorities are able to monitor, review and reject if necessary

Decision: the A9 process will be more flexible in the 4th edition.

2.6 Question 6 – micro trenching

Do you agree that micro trenching should be included as an approved reinstatement method in the Code?

• yes - 78 (72%)
• no - 31 (28%)

There was clear support for an approved reinstatement method for micro trenches. However, a large number of authorities were not in favour of the techniques. Many cited the shallow depth of apparatus and its location within the bound layer as being detrimental to the structural layers while increasing the risk of cable strikes.

Given the importance of this technique in rolling out broad band across the UK, we have included a method that has been derived from best practice. However, owing to the relative infancy of this technique in the UK, we will stipulate that approval for use of the technique must first be obtained from the highway authority. Consideration can later be given to removing this requirement if experience and confidence in the technique justifies this.

Other comments included the following:

• trenches must be accurately recorded by the utility company and responsibility for strikes must be borne by them if the location of their apparatus was incorrectly recorded
• clarity is required on the compaction specifications
• micro trenching results in high levels of cable strikes and causes compaction and sealing issues
• risks could be mitigated if utility companies agreed to accept liabilities for damage or diversionary works arising from the presence of their apparatus
• no evidence of holding up over time and shallow depth of cover increases risk of strikes
• methodology and location of the trench needs to be agreed beforehand
• this method would only be acceptable if it was replaced at the cost of the owner if damaged during subsequent works
• once a HA has undertaken any resurfacing work the warning material will have all but gone
• there are some remote areas where this may work, but not in areas congested with other utility apparatus
• micro trenching is ideal for a controlled environment such as a university campus or hospital or factory complex but it is totally unsuitable for general use in the public highway
• micro-trenching needs to be exempt from diversionary works costs, i.e. any diversionary costs relating to future highway schemes needs to be entirely met by utility companies
• in carriageways, micro-trenching must be of sufficient depth to allow routine carriageway resurfacing works to take place
• major concerns exist re inconsistent layer depths and cables ‘zig-zagging’ along the highway
• its use should be limited to rural or areas of low underground infrastructure density

Decision: a specification for micro trenching will be included but we will stipulate that approval for use of the technique must first be obtained from the highway authority.

2.7 Question 7 – sub-standard roads

Do you agree with the code’s approach to reinstatement in sub-standard roads?

• yes - 33 (31%)
• no - 73 (69%)

Sub-standard roads present a difficult problem for authorities and utilities. A technically sub-standard road can perform well if it is not disturbed. However, utilities often have no choice but to work in them. Depending on the existing condition, it may be impossible to comply with the SROH’s requirements when reinstating it. Opinions on authorities contributing to the cost of reinstatement on sub-standard roads were polarised. Those who opposed the idea felt that an authority should not have to incur expenditure for utility works that damage a surface that was previously working well. Utilities, however, claimed that much of the problem is a result of insufficient maintenance by the authority. It was also pointed out that working in such areas adds to utility costs considerably. There were calls for more clarity on identifying sub-standard roads, so the examples have been included in the Notes for guidance. Some considered this to be such a significant issue that it should be covered in far more detail, possibly as an appendix to the document . Other comments included the following:

• the concept of contributions is fine, the problems occur when people don’t agree.
• SU’s may use this as an excuse for non-compliant works
• there should be no option to the authority, they should always meet the cost of the additional reinstatement
• there is clearly a growing maintenance issue that will only become worse unless significant investment is introduced
• the principle that an authority can agree to meet the costs of reinstating an area of surfacing greater than would be required in normal circumstances is good in theory; however this could be difficult due to a HA budgets
• we do not expect reinstatements to be extended, however we believe the onus is on undertakers to notify the authority prior to works commencing
• the cost to us of operating in sub-standard roads is £487k through increased personnel required to manage, liaise and negotiate with authorities, and 875 hrs of additional highways occupancy
• any guarantee periods for reinstatements on sub-standard roads, should be removed
• a lot of slurry sealed paths hide sub-standard footways

Decision: guidance on reinstatement in sub-standard roads has been amended in line with comments received and included in section S2 and NG2.

2.8 Question 8 – cementitious infills

Do you agree that a one year guarantee period is appropriate for cementitious infills in modular surfaces?

• yes - 62 (57%)
• no - 46 (43%)

Cementitious infills in modular surfaces pose particular difficulties where the surrounding modules are uneven or in otherwise poor condition, and many utilities referred to their comments on working in sub-standard roads. Some commented that modular reinstatements are often damaged by vehicular overrun.

Other comments included the following:

• if the job is done correctly in the first place the infill will last
• any area of work relating to a specific notice should have a full two-year guarantee
• one year is appropriate as it also fits with LAs section 58 routine inspections
• a competent modular paving squad will be able to minimise the use of cementitious infills
• allowing 1 year may encourage substandard work
• any reduced guarantee period would have an adverse impact on sample inspections
• there should be no guarantee period, and where the footway is severely damaged, the option should be given for using tarmac as an alternative to a cementitious infill
• cementitious infills, by their nature, cannot always perform as adequately as other permanent reinstatement techniques
• it is not possible to guarantee infills where the existing modular surface is poor/uneven or where there is regular illegal vehicle overrunning
• in all cases, this discussion and agreement should be undertaken prior to works commencing
• the need to use this type of infill is typically due to poorly maintained surfaces and the cost should not sit with the SU.

Decision: infills to be subject to a 1-year guarantee period only where needed as a result of an existing uneven surface. PMMA included as an alternative option, subject to authority agreement.

2.9 Question 9 - familiarisation period

Statutory codes of practice usually come into force some time after initial publication to allow practitioners to become familiar with their contents. Do you think the familiarisation period for the SROH should be 3 or 6 months?

• 3 months - 18 (16%)
• 6 months - 92 (84%)

Utility companies, contractors and materials suppliers either chose 6 months or claimed that this was not long enough and the period should be 12 months. The time required to train and/or familiarise workers and suppliers, and to update admin systems was frequently mentioned. A common concern was that if teams did not have sufficient time to assimilate the new edition, they would not be able to comply with it. However, this should not be a problem because in general, compliance with the 3rd edition means compliance with the 4th. The 4th edition edition includes more options than the 3rd but the basic requirements remain largely unchanged.

Other comments included the following:

• 6 months is a suitable familiarisation period as this will allow members sufficient time to update and prepare.
• the familiarisation period should be extended for 1 year, due to the significant changes proposed, which will need to be embedded with all organizations & their suppliers.
• it would be realistic to expect a lead time of at least 12 months for introduction of a 5 year guarantee period, whereas other changes could be achieved with a 6 month familiarisation period.
• 6 month familiarisation period is too long. 3 months is more appropriate.
• it would be disadvantageous to defer the benefits of the new code for any longer than is absolutely necessary.

Decision: It has been decided to allow a 12 month implementation period, in particular, because the updated SROH is being published during the coronavirus pandemic and so more time is being allowed for familiarisation and training. It will therefore come into force as statutory guidance on 10th May 2021. It can, in the meantime, be used by agreement with the local authority especially if it helps deal with the current pandemic.

3. Summary of recommendations

• guarantee periods to remain as per the 3rd edition until further work can be carried out
• alternative materials that are easier to compact will be permitted as options to conventional materials
• a preferred method of testing for air voids will be specified but not made mandatory.
• the A9 process will be more flexible in the 4th edition
• a specification for micro trenching will be included but we will stipulate that approval for use of the technique must first be obtained from the highway authority
• guidance on reinstatement in sub-standard roads has been amended in line with comments received and included in section S2
• cementitious infills to be subject to a 1-year guarantee period only where needed as a result of an existing uneven surface. PMMA included as an alternative option, subject to authority agreement
• a 12 month implementation period is being given