Joint Secretaries

Joint Secretaries

Quarterly Meeting

Held at Water U.K. London on the 24th January 2002

Attendees:

Peter Loft Thames Water, Chairman

Bob Hetherington London Borough of Bromley, Joint Chairman

Steve Barriff Corporation of London, Secretary,

Keith O’Brien 24 seven, Joint Secretary

Ali Ataie City of Westminster

John Roberts City of Westminster

Roger Bird British Telecom

Jim Blewett Thus plc

Keith Dowling Transco

Barry Lucas London Borough of Islington

Chris Nesbitt W.S. Atkins

Gary Hart W.S. Atkins

Martin Newton London Borough of Croydon

Charles Reed NTL

Les Wright TfL

1.  Apologies

Apologies were received from the following:

Peter Heather Transport for London

Karen Manu National Grid

Roger Khanna London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

2.  Minutes of the previous meeting

Accuracy

Page 2: Jim Blewett pointed out wrong spelling of his name

Page 2: item should read information board

Page 4: item f should read All Regions

Page 6: item 10a should read ‘over 30 years’ and applies to North London

only.

Page 6: item 10d should read Keith Dowling not Keith O’Brien

Fillet Specification

Jim Blewett has produced the fillet specification and sent it to Steve Barriff for consideration.

ACTION: Highway Authorities to respond

Metropolitan Police

The lack of presence of the Metropolitan Police at both London HAUC and Co-ordination meetings was again referred to.

Les Wright agreed to contact the police to seek their presence at future meetings

ACTION: Les Wright.

TfL Gazetteers

Roger Bird referred to the lack of Section 58 Notices appearing on the gazetteers although they are already in force. Barry Lucas stated that it would be inappropriate for them to be on the Street Gazetteer as they are only updated quarterly. The streets protected by virtue of Section 58 are tabled at the co-ordination meetings and this forum is the most appropriate for them to be distributed to Utilities.

Gary Hart asked why the TfL roads do not appear on the Gazetteer?

The Chairman indicated that ownership (maintenance responsibility) of a street is displayed on the Gazetteer and that Tfl are in correspondence with local highway authorities about updating records on these local gazetteers.

Ali Ataie agreed that it is currently the responsibility of Highways Authorities to manage Tel roads. However this will change from April 2002.

Valve Box Covers

Charles Reed to date has still had no response from Roger Khanna on specific instances of defective ntl covers.

ACTION: Roger Khanna to respond

3. NATIONAL AND REGIONAL HAUC matters.

Co-ordination Code of Practise. An update of the code is expected in April 2003 to include a revision of Notices.

Diversionary Works Code Now making progress and a report will be made to HAUC in January 2002.

Reinstatement Code of Practise. Still on schedule for introduction in July 2002.

It is envisaged that a summary handbook will be issued but no confirmation as to when it will become available. Gary Hart enquired as to whether or not there will be a lead in period prior to the implementation date. The Chairman had no information on this but did not believe it would hold up the implementation.

Confirmation was required from HAUC that the Code will be issued 3 months before implementation.

Peter Loft suggested that a small working party be set up to discuss the implications of the new code. Jim Blewett/Peter Loft volunteered from the SU’s. HA’s to consider.

Action: Highway Authorities

Inspections Code. Still some minor problems but on schedule for issue in July 2002. The joint chairs of HAUC have had discussions with concerned parties in an attempt to reach a compromise and the results of these negotiations will be reported to January HAUC 2002. Software companies have raised concerns about their ability to update software in the timescales and further information needs to be gathered on this aspect of the introduction.

Inspections Fee Review Group. Peter Loft informed the committee that discussions are taking place on the increase of the sample inspection fee. The latest figure being suggested from the Highway Authority side is £23.

Safety & Streetworks Code of Practise. The new code comes into effect from 1st February 2002. The Welsh HAUC website has provided a Q & A page. Gary Hart asked if this has been sanctioned by HAUC as there could be conflict? The Chairman stated that it is supported rather that sanctioned by HAUC and will be discussed at the next National HAUC meeting.

Peter Loft commented that all new codes should be dovetailed via the Training & Accreditation Working Party. Gary Hart added that all codes should include a lead in period.

Underground Apparatus. A draft of the Code should be available in October 2002 although there were reservations as to whether or not this date will be met.

Training & Accreditation Working Party. The working party is discussing a 5-year review on re-registration of operatives.

Ali Ataie referred to Pipeline Industry Guild that is promoting a centralised register (One Call System) for the recording of apparatus within the highway and thus to give excavators of the highway easy access to such information.

Future of Regional HAUC’s. The Chairman informed the committee of the debate about whether all Regional HAUC’s meetings should continue and he indicated that in future such meetings will only take place if there are specific issues to discuss, such as: Level 3 Gazetteers,

Arbitration panels &

PUSWA reinstatements etc.

Whilst future meetings have been pencilled in, it is anticipated items for resolution would be initially directed to the Working Parties not the Regional HAUC’s meeting.

London HAUC will consider and submit any items needed for discussion.

Seminars/Workshops. HAUC 2002 will be held in conjunction with the Surveyor on the 15th and 16th May in Nottingham. The programme for this event will be published in mid-March; copies available from e is also a 2 day reinstatement workshop sponsored by West Midlands HAUC in Birmingham on the 13th and 14th August 2002 to be held at the McNicholas yard, Millar Street, Aston Birmingham.

Meeting with Road Users. The notes of the meeting with Road Users was attached and discussed The Chairman suggested to the Committee that a 1-day Seminar be arranged and invite such groups as: The Pedestrian Association and Wheelchairs users. The Chairman volunteered himself and more volunteers are required to form a sub-committee.

Action: HA’s/SU’s

4.  London HAUC matters

Financial Account. Keith O’Brien, Bob Hetherington and Steve Barriff have now been authorised to sign cheques on behalf of London HAUC, however Peter Loft still requires authorisation status.

Change of Membership. Chris Nesbitt announced that this would be his last meeting and that Gary Hart, of W.S.Atkins, will now be the representative from C&W. Gary agreed to provide his contact details to the Secretary for circulation with the minutes.

Action: Gary Hart

Roger Bird also announced that this will be his last meeting and B.T. has yet to announce his successor

Action: B.T.

The Chairman on behalf of the committee thanked both Roger and Chris for their contributions and wished them well for the future.

5.  Section 74 and 74A

Gary Hart requested that a protocol for Highway Authority invoices is required.

Currently Westminster and Camden send indicative invoices for consideration by Utilities, who in turn are required to respond within 10 working days.

Utilities are finding it difficult to meet these timescales as each charge has to be individually scrutinised to confirm a genuine charge.

Steve Barriff commented that currently The Corporation of London are sending Section 74 invoices first times but are reviewing the situation with a view to also sending out indicative invoices.

The Chairman suggested that the timescales for invoices should be revisited with a view to extending them to 28 days.

The proposal from London HAUC is as follows:

1. All Highway Authorities to send indicative invoices.

2. Utilities to acknowledge receipt of indicative invoice.

3. Utilities will have 20 working days (i.e. 28 calendar days) to investigate and respond.

The Chairman informed the committee that a progress report on Section 74 is due in February 2002 from Halcrow Fox and the DTLR.

The Chairman also stated that there is a problem with the Transco duration times for emergency notices, not just in London but throughout the U.K.

Keith Dowling acknowledged that the 10-day blanket time for emergency works had caused problems and is taking steps to cease this practise. Transco are also discussing with Highway Authorities their historical data for duration times prior to the 1st April 2001. The Chairman view was that it is not just the 10-day durations but also the lack of justification on the notice.

It was also pointed out that all challenges received from Highway Authorities must have the reason for the challenge. Ali Ataie stated that Hammersmith & Fulham are heading a working group to discuss duration times with Utilities to form an understanding of the types of works undertaken against the duration times proposed.

6. LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES & TRANSPORT FOR LONDON BILL

An extract from the Bill was handed out. The Chairman informed the committee that Sections 13 (Provision of facilitating apparatus by Statutory Undertakers) which will have immediate effect and Section 14 (Fixed Penalty offences) which will come into effect 6 months later applies to Utilities.

Gary Hart asked whether the Bill has a higher order than NRSWA and that CDM regulations could be compromised. The Chairman replied that it would be an Act as opposed to an agreement whereas NRSWA is an enabling Act. Steve Barriff stated that the Corporation of London has already laid it’s own ducts alongside other utilities whenever those utilities are laying ducts along strategic routes. These ducts will be leased out to utilities wishing to go along these routes in the future thus saving unnecessary openings and minimising disruption in the streets.

7. CENTRAL LONDON PARTNERSHIP

Steve Barriff stated that the Project Centre have held a meeting attended by CLP, Corporation of London, Camden and Islington. No Utilities were invited. Les Wright agreed that TfL need to re-activate the scheme and Steve Kemp from CLP will liase with TfL and Utilities to move the scheme forward. The Chairman stated that CLP should be looking at longer term plans for major works, at least a year in advance.

Peter Loft was concerned that the group looking at congestion charges does not conflict with the CLP initiative.

8. LONDON BOROUGH OF CROYDEN & THAMES WATER

Steve Barriff handed out a communication from the London Borough of Croydon regarding the dispute with Thames Water. It is Croydon’s wish to use the Conciliation process, however Thames Water does not wish to use this route. The Secretary agreed to formally write to Croydon informing them of Thames Water’s position. A meeting has been arranged between Thames Water and Croydon to discuss Section 74 Notices and other financial matters.

Ali Ataie informed the meeting that Suffolk County Council have already issued court proceedings against Transco and 24seven, although it is not clear whether this is for non payment of invoices or for Section 74 offences. Keith O’Brien was unaware of any such prosecution against 24seven. Peter Loft agreed to raise this matter at the next Anglian HAUC. In light of this, Martin Newton indicated that he may wish to delay his meeting with Thames Water until the Suffolk issue is clarified.

9.  LOCAL AGREEMENT.

Ali Ataie referred to the World Squares scheme in Old Palace Yard. When the works undertaken by TfL are complete they will be handed over to Westminster City Council. He requested that as these works are unique he would wish for Westminster’s contractors to reinstate all works in this area. Ali felt that the code may not be adequate and that the two areas in Westminster deserve a better finish. Jim Blewett pointed out that Utilities employ competent contractors and that the Specification for Reinstatement in the Highway covers this type of work. Should there be a need for specialised surfaces it is the responsibility of the Highway Authority to provide the details of the supplier to the Utility. Furthermore there have been no complaints from other Highway Authorities. The Chairman added that these area major tourist areas and Highway Authorities have a duty to ensure that they are of the highest order as there is massive investment. Peter Loft commented that it is not just these 2 areas, other Highway Authorities, like Project Boulevard in Camden are asking the same questions. Gary Hart suggested that Westminster should put forward a proposal on their requirements. It was also felt that this should apply to all Highways Authorities in a similar situation.The Chairman enquired as to whether or not Utilities are prepared to enter into local agreements with Highway Authorities to resolve this issue. Utilities agreed to take this away for consideration.

10.  B.T. WORKING in LONDON

Roger Bird informed the meeting that he has produced a draft to the Chairman on communication and response times. The Chairman asked what are the standards for responses to Highway Authorities and such responses should include defects and invoices. The Chairman agreed to pass the final draft onto the Secretary for circulation with the minutes.

11.  ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Barry Lucas enquired as to what are the formal arrangements for streets that are full occupied with plant. It was agreed that this should be entered as a Special Engineering Difficulty.

Martin Newton asked if HAUC can provide guidelines on trench sharing.

Jim Blewett stated that this is covered in the Best Practise Document

Martin also stated that Croydon members are asking if Utilities standardise advanced warning signs. Gary Hart stated that this is covered in the revised Code of Practise for Safety at Streetworks.

Jim Blewett referred to the annual plan of co-ordination meetings he is preparing for the committee. Steve Barriff will provide details of the Highway Authority dates to Jim via e-mail.