Minutes of AHAUC Meeting

Held on Friday 31st January 2014

At Affinity Water, Hatfield

Present
P. Castleman / Hertfordshire County Council
M. Freeman / Amey for Central Beds
L. Drew (aka Lilian Bunyan) / Bedford Borough Council (Secretary)
M. Redgewell / Essex County Councy
A. Chatfield / Cambs County Council
S. Creighton / Luton Borough Council
C. Derry / Norfolk County Council (Chair)
S. Brothwell / Western Power Distribution
H. Cook / Essex County Council
K. O’Brien / Vodafone (Joint Chair )
G. Jackson / Affinity Water
D Suddards / Anglian Water
D. Giles / National Grid Gas
R. Boissieux / UK Power Networks
B Rainger / Thames Water
S Burley / Anglian Water
L Coveney / Essex and Suffolk Water
N Brown / Milton Keynes Council
V Stewart / Affinity Water
P Stalham / Open Reach
G Pearson-Green / Milton Keynes Council
J Mcgrath / Southend on Sea Borough Council
P Dobinson / Southend on Sea Borough Council
S Widdows / Bucks County Council
1. / Apologies
P Brigham, Peterborough City Council,
S Arnold, Greater Anglia Trains
D Capon, JAG (UK)
D Newson, Suffolk County Council
A Swift, Open Reach
A Mcgrath, Virgin Media
T Hoath, Scottish and Southern
2. / Minutes of Previous Meeting 1 November 2013
KOB advised that Vodafone was spelt with an ‘f’ not a ‘ph’
DN had sent out a diary invite to members, for the AHAUC meeting, and then forwarded the replies to GJ. This seemed to have worked well.
DN to note that Barry Rainger had taken over from Bruce Mottram as the Thames Water rep. / LD
DN
a) / DS still receiving marketing e mails, forwarded from LD to take up with A Prigmore / LD
b)
c)
d)
e) / 2 volunteers had been received from the AJAG side to form the working party looking into a possible AHAUC regional seminar/training session on the new Safety Code. Paula Hakon and Paul Castleman had joined Gavin Jackson and Dave Suddards at a meeting this week to discuss proposals.
Their proposals ( see attached ) was for a roadshow type event at Newmarket in September. Initial costings and a date had been discussed. However this did rely on getting exhibitors to commit to the event, and HAUC representatives would have to agree to underwrite the costs, to the region of £500 per head.
This was thought to be slightly ambitious, bearing in mind it was only 7 months away. One of the proposals was to approach Aldercross who ran these type of events, to see if they could organise it. There was also some discussion at this AHAUC meeting, that there were already other roadshows in September, and that this would not be a good time to hold a seminar.
It was decided that;
The proposed date would be moved to April/May 2015
DS would approach Aldercross to see if they would organise
LD to circulate the proposals from the working group
KOB to approach London HAUC to see if they were interested in a joint venture.
AJAG had selected two Authorities to attend the joint site inspections as requested by AJUG. Essex and Milton Keynes would join GJ and SB to start inspections. GJ agreed to lead this venture, and would be contacting the reps shortly
A spreadsheet showing which Authorities would be operating the Safety Code early had been provided, but was not completely updated as yet. All HA’s encouraged to populate so that it could be circulated
A spreadsheet showing who would be operating which part of EToN 6 and when, was circulating. This was not yet complete. CD and DN to chase the organisations that had not completed this. SB advised that there may be a problem with street lighting notices on EToN 6, due to the category of ‘works for road purposes’ being withdrawn. More testing needed to be undertaken on this / DS
LD
KOB
GJ
HA’s
CD/DN
3. / Performance Information
Authorities now providing two different types of data:
a) / Performance Figures
Performance spreadsheet circulated, ( KOB advised that he had not received this due to a glitch in his e mail system CD to re-send)
Concern over the trend of increasing ‘red’ indicators in the S/A columns.
Coring results were nearly all ‘red’
Affinity Water still the only Utility to send in data. Their data reflected the HA’s results, which seemed to indicate accuracy overall
It was noted that Bedford Borough Council had served an Improvement Notice on NGG, for reinstatement failures. / CD
b) / Perception Report
Quarter 3 information had not yet been circulated, as MF had not had the time to compile the results. Whilst MF was changing roles within Amey, and this would be his last AHAUC meeting, he was committed to preparing quarter 3 information before he handed over this work to HC.
AJAG wished to know what the utilities were going to do about the outstanding issues already flagged up as areas of concern. AJUG had decided that the Utility concerned would meet with Individual Authorities to discuss these matters. It was agreed that these meetings must take place in Quarter 4 of 2013/14 / MF/HC
RB
4 / County HAUC Hot Issues
Norfolk, the focus of this meeting had been on the worsening trend of failures in Cat A inspections, with 2 Utilities in the ‘red’ zone. Coring results, however, had shown an improvement.
5 / AHAUC Website.
DS still receiving e mails from the web site. DS had forwarded certain items to KOB/CD. This would now become a problem as DS will no longer be with AWS/AHAUC.
The question was raised as to who managed the site, as there were inaccuracies in members etc. LD advised that Andy Prigmore from Bedford Borough posted amendments and new information, but was unsure if he had complete administrative rights.
All to look at site, and send their updated contact details to LD so that site could be updated by AP / LD/AP
All
6 / AHAUC Finance Report
DS reported that he had still not been able to gain the access to the account. MR had had problems with the bank not recognising the form he had. LD had had her signature mandated, but the forms had been lost in the post to DS.
As DS was resigning from the post of Treasurer, it was now extremely urgent that access to the account could be made.
It appeared that the bank had taken off the existing signatories, and that there was now no one to counter sign with DS.
It was agreed that DS would confirm where the account was held, contact the manager/staff and organise a meeting so that LD/MR/KOB and DG could all sign appropriate papers to gain access. MR advised that 19th of Feb would be a good day as most of the Authorities were in Suffolk that day.
As DS was leaving Anglian Water, the post of treasurer would be vacant. AJUG thought that, as they had taken on this role for the last ten years, someone from the JAG side should now volunteer. JAG to discuss on 19th February
Invoices still not sent out for the year / DS
CD/
JAG
7 / Permit Schemes
a)
b)
c) / Bucks Permit Scheme had gone live on 4th November. SW advised that it seemed to be working well. Feedback had been positive. VS commented that it was a clearly defined Scheme, in accordance with the Code of Practice, and agreed that it was working well
Norfolk – Permit Scheme to start on 6th May 2014. One forum had been held and others would follow in the run up to the start date
EEPS – Stakeholder meeting held recently, well attended. JUG members asked to attend the operations group meeting on 28th Feb, ( as discussed at the stakeholder meeting ) and had put forward Steve Burley as their rep. LD to send him an invite. /
LD
8. / HAUC ( UK ) Items
Consultation on HAUC ( England ) currently circulated, believed to be ending today. It was thought that AHAUC should send a response, as to whether they were in support or not. Subsequently discovered the closing date for responses was 10 February, email in support of the proposal sent to the Secretariat on 3 February from the Joint Chair. / CD/
KOB
9. / TMA / Codes of Practice
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h) / Co-ordination Working Group.
Met on 27th January
Footway closure tick box, agreed on the wording and this would shortly go out for a mini consultation.
Section 58, HAUC advice note ready to go out for consultation
Storage on the highway, agreed wording, taking into consideration appropriate Gas/Water Acts etc. Out for mini consultation shortly
Forward Planning Information, Advice Note issued
Sub group to be set up to look into EToN 6 and its changes/ impacts ie. some c/way incursion
Permit Forum
Now to be separate from DfT. Smaller group proposed, with 8 Utility and 8 Authority members.
Managing Permit Schemes
A date had been agreed (18/19 Feb ) for a workshop to take place on how Permit Schemes were to be managed in the future ( with the DfT withdrawing from the process )
TMA Workshop
SB advised on a recent workshop that she had attended (invited attendees only, delegates from Utilities, Authorities and contractors ) There had been various presentations, and then ended with questions to small groups of attendees, who had to form an answer, and report the answer back to everyone.
10 / Health and Safety Items
AC advised of an issue that had happened in Cambs, on a BT site. The walkway that had been placed in the c/way was so wide that someone had driven into the walkway in a vehicle.
11
a)
b)
c) / AOB Urgent Issues
Section 50’s and water authorities. Clarification was sought as to when a private sewer connection was adopted. AWS/TW advised that they would adopt the sewer when it had been inspected and approved. This could be shortly after it had been placed in the highway, but this was not an automatic assumption. There was some talk about whether a Section 50 licence would be required, or whether it should just be a Section 171 licence ( permission to excavate in the highway ) HA’s were concerned that they were not advised if and when the sewer was adopted.
Thames and AWS to prepare a statement for clarification
Signs for verge works. AC queried why road narrows and other signs were left on the highway ( footways and sometimes c/ways ) when the works site was at the back of a wide verge. He thought that this was just providing street furniture clutter and obstructing the highway user. Utilities said that they needed specific sites to be able to comment.
Alternative Materials. GJ asked about the procedure for using alternative materials in reinstatements, as indicated by the SROH. HA’s indicated that there was usually a problem with hand mixing materials, but that if the plant and materials had been approved, all they would need was a note on the notice that indicated the use of alternative materials (ARMs). Placing this on a notice was a problem, as EToN 6 did not support a way of doing this. SW said that a comment would be acceptable, or the use of a suitable prefix on the works reference.
Norfolk wanted to be able to check the plant and process, but would approve if they could regularly sample and test this.
The AHAUC ‘advice note’ on alternative materials was mentioned, but very few people knew of this, and it had been prepared some time ago and may now be out of date.( AJAG to review these documents shortly ) JAG to update and review and then advise AHAUC / SB/BR
AC
AJAG

Next meeting on Friday 25th April 2014, at Affinity Offices,

Hatfield, at 12:30

Next meetings in 2014

Friday 25th July

Friday 31st October

G:\highways\Highway Works Co-ord Team\Streetworks\paula\HAUC

LD – Minutes of Meeting 25 th January 2013 PH