Concerned by the lack of meaningful action on potholes that I have reported, I asked the council how they determined which potholes to do something about and which not to. The response is a cause for great concern. Intriguingly some holes I had reported acquired some white paint marking them out for repair, presumably. This is the only visible action on site for these long standing reports.
One part of it is about a particular pothole. I was sent an e-mail exchange in which it appears someone had immediately classified the pothole as "not dangerous". On what basis or with what authority did they do this? The highways department replied to their colleague (in Customer Services?) that as the holes are not dangerous they will only monitor them. It appears that the holes were arbitrarily classified as not dangerous and then actual decisions built on this.
The second part of the reply was a spreadsheet categorising footway and road defects into 5 response priorities, depending on criteria like size and location. None of the priority categories is labelled 'dangerous', though there is text about dangerous faults under the priority 1. The sheet does not say what the response should be - only how quick.
Road (carriageway) defects can apparently only be priority 2 - no higher, no lower. The text in the priority 2 column says "Potholes with a depth greater than 40mm and extending more than 200mm in any direction", so we know that potholes of this size should be 'responded to' in 24 hours, but the spreadsheet is utterly silent on smaller potholes and other response times. Apparently no pothole qualifies for being repaired as part of planned works, even.
I have asked the questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment