Transport Insights

The chair of the Transport Select Committee has hit back at ministers over their response to its recent report on street works, which saw ministers largely reject the committee’s recommendations for fear of upsetting utility companies.

Committee chair Ruth Cadbury MP did not hold back in her disdain for ministers’ response: 

The Government’s rejection of all the major recommendations in our report risks making itself simply look unwilling to stand up to utility companies, on behalf of frustrated road users who have to endure unreasonable and often repeated street works delays. 

Among other recommendations, the committee said the Department for Transport (DfT) should support more local authorities to set up lane rental schemes by allowing them to do so without needing approval from ministers.

Ministers rejected this call to give up one of their powers, despite the DfT agreeing that the schemes have been effective where used.

The department suggested that there would be a risk of authorities introducing “poorly targeted schemes” that would increase costs for utility companies. 

The committee also recommended extending the period for which utility companies are responsible for the road surfaces they have reinstated, from two years after completion to five years, similar to the six years period operating in Scotland. But ministers said they want to see how the Scottish approach plays out. 

MPs also said the DfT should introduce timescales for companies to repair faulty reinstatements, with fines  increasing each time a deadline has not been met. But the DfT said it wants to work “collaboratively” and will discuss these recommendations with the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee (HAUC(UK)).

The Committee said it received concerns from highways authorities of increased misuse of immediate and urgent permits, “for example, when a company had known for a while that the work in question needed doing but still chooses to fix it with an immediate permit without any warning”.

The Committee said the DfT should consult on a new definition that prevents this but the department said it had found no evidence of misuse so far.

 Cadbury added:

It is all well and good for DfT to say it wants to explore ways to replicate best practice on a voluntary basis, but if the incentives are not changed, we carry on without carrots or sticks, then why should the Government expect anything to change? 

There is also a contradiction in the way Ministers oppose the wider adoption of lane rental schemes because it fears local authorities could misuse those powers. At the same time, they say they are fully behind devolution and empowering local decision makers on a host of other important issues. 

Road users in constituencies across the country trying to get around, access shops and service, deserve better. Our recommendations, if adopted, would help to grip this never-ending nuisance.

Once again, the DfT under Labour seems to be less a Plan for Change and more “careful now!”