City of Westminster
Item No.
CMfED&T/58/2004
Decision-maker
Date
Title of Report
CABINET MEMBER FOR
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND
TRANSPORTATION
27 October 2004
Maintenance Management of
Bridges and Other Highway
Structures
Classification
Report of
FOR GENERAL RELEASE
Director of Environment and
Leisure
Wards Involved
All
Policy Context
To maintain and improve the quality of the City
Councils’ streets and buildings through a planned
maintenance and improvement programme.
The costs of capital works recommended in this
report total £626,000 for which financial approval is
sought.
Provision exists in the approved capital programme
for this expenditure.
Financial Summary
1
Summary
1.1
This report provides:
1.2

A review of the strategy adopted in maintaining the City Council’s Bridges
and Other Highway Structures.

An update of the Assessment and Strengthening Programme, particularly in
respect of Bridges and Structures owned by Network Rail and London
Underground Limited where slippage in programme have resulted in rephasing of expenditure.
And seeks approval to:

Implement the 2004/05 programme of Planned Preventative Maintenance to
Bridges and Structures owned and maintained by the City Council.

Continue with the Administration of the London Package for Bridges and
Other Highway Structures.

A financial contribution to the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea in
respect of essential repainting to Ladbroke Grove Bridge under the terms of
an existing legal agreement.
1
2
Recommendations
2.1
That approval be given to capital expenditure of £551,000 in 2004/05 in
respect of Planned Preventative Maintenance of the City Council’s Bridges
and other Highway Structures necessary to maintain their structural integrity
and ensure public safety.
2.2
That approval is given to capital expenditure of £75,000 in 2004/05 for the
Administration of the London Package for Bridges and Other Highway
Structures.
2.3
That approval is given to contribute £48,000 to the Royal Borough of
Kensington and Chelsea for the scheduled repainting of Ladbroke Grove
Canal Bridge.
3
Background Information
3.1
Bridges form a key part of the highway system by nature of their strategic
location and because of the consequences when they fail or when their
capacity is impaired. Inspection is an essential part of bridge maintenance
and must be conducted systematically and not just confined to those
occasions when there is a breakdown or failure. The emphasis of all bridge
inspection and maintenance in Westminster is on public safety and prolonging
the economic life of the structure.
3.2
The City of Westminster has a high concentration of structures of varying age,
size and strategic importance. Many of these structures date back to before
1922 when the first national loading standard was introduced. A number of
these structures are also of significant historical value.
3.3
Within the City there are also a considerable number of structures owned by
London Underground Ltd. and many of these are on the earliest lines
constructed, namely the Metropolitan, District and Circle lines. In addition
there are also structures owned by Network Rail, Transport for London (on the
TLRN), British Waterways and the Public Utility Companies.
3.4
Previous reports to the former Traffic Sub-Committee have outlined the
Management Strategy adopted in maintaining the City Council’s Bridges and
other Highway Structures. (A “highway structure” is a structure either over,
under or adjacent to a public highway which may at any time be expected to
withstand the effects of vehicular and/or pedestrian loading).
3.5
In 1987 the Department for Transport introduced a “15-year Rehabilitation
Programme”, to improve the quality of maintenance and to upgrade substandard features. The Assessment and Strengthening programme to cater
for the European Community (EC) requirement to allow 40 tonne vehicles on
UK Roads, formed a substantial part of this programme.
3.6
Both the Government’s 10-Year Plan for Transport and the Mayor of London’s
Transport Strategy highlight the objective of the “…elimination of the
maintenance backlog for local roads, bridges and lighting, as part of a £30
2
billion programme”. The City Council is working closely with other London
Borough’s, via the LoBEG (London Bridges Engineering Group) Forum, in
producing a Strategy for identifying the backlog in bridge maintenance and
producing a forward investment programme to meet this objective.
4
Inspection
4.1
To ensure that these structures are maintained to the highest standards it is
essential that their condition is reviewed and monitored on a regular basis.
The City Council has adopted the standards set by the Department for
Transport (DfT) and carries out regular inspections and reporting of structures
with the following frequency:




Principal Inspections
General Inspection
Superficial Inspections
Special Inspections
- 6 yearly
- 2 yearly
- Yearly
- Ad-hoc
Appendix 2 explains the inspection regime in more detail.
4.2
The regular inspection process gathers information on a highway structure in
respect of defects and can record deterioration over time (defects are
recorded in terms of extent, severity and priority).
4.3
It is vital that the right information is collected, stored and used in the correct
way. To this end the City Council operates a Bridge Management System
(BMS) that enables prioritised programmes of work to be produced. This
ensures that the best use of financial resources is achieved.
4.4
The Maintenance of Bridges and other Highway Structures is carried out
under the following headings:



Routine and Ad-hoc Maintenance
Planned Preventative Maintenance Other Structural Maintenance & Improvements -
Revenue expenditure
Capital expenditure
Capital expenditure
5.
Routine and Ad-hoc Maintenance
5.1
Routine Maintenance comprises those items of work, such as cleaning of
drains and expansion joints to Bridges, walls and ceilings to Subways and
Underpasses, and the maintenance of services, lighting etc.
5.2
Ad-hoc maintenance comprises ‘reactive’ maintenance work following damage
caused by vandalism and vehicle damage. Also included is the removal of
graffiti and urgent repairs to ensure that public safety is maintained.
5.3
The opening of the Golden Jubilee Bridges to the public in 2002 has resulted
in these structures being added to the City Council’s Routine and Ad-hoc
Maintenance programme.
5.4
Routine and Ad-hoc Maintenance are both funded from Revenue.
3
6.
Planned Preventative Maintenance
6.1
All structures deteriorate over time and any work aimed at maintaining the
durability of the bridge or other highway structure is classed as Planned
Preventative Maintenance. Such work can be divided into two broad headings:
Structural -
This is essential to ensure the integrity and load carrying
capacity of the Bridge/Structure is maintained.
Non-Structural - Such work includes:
 Renewal of Mechanical and Electrical equipment
 Renewal of Lighting
 Major Repainting / Corrosion Protection
 Renewal / Replacement of drainage systems etc.
6.2
The programme of Planned Preventative Maintenance in 2004/05 for which
financial approval is sought is as follows:
Structural
Strand Underpass
Strand Underpass
Waterloo Bridge Link
Subway
Strand/Aldwich Tunnel
£
Structural Repair and partial re-waterproofing
Replacement of defective expansion joints
Replacement of defective expansion joint and
minor repairs
Replacement of access gantry and minor
repairs
42,000
30,000
Replacement of Emergency (SOS) Telephones
Electrical Upgrades (Identified from Electrical
Integrity Testing)
Upgrade Fire Panel (Fire Safety)
Electrical Upgrades (Identified from Electrical
Integrity Testing)
Upgrade to Emergency (SOS) Telephones
Drainage Pump replacement (end of useful
life)
Electrical Upgrades (Identified from Electrical
Integrity Testing)
14,000
12,000
38,000
Non-Structural
Piccadilly Underpass
Piccadilly Underpass
Piccadilly Underpass
Strand Underpass
Strand Underpass
Piccadilly Underpass /
Wellington Arch
Various Structures
65,000
5,000
60,000
20,000
40,000
70,000
Asbestos Study (Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002)
Vehicle Incursion Study and Risk Assessments
Development of Bridge Management Database
35,000
8,000
10,000
Provider’s Management Fee
Client Costs
38,000
16,000
Overall Total
£503,000
4
6.3
The work detailed above has been identified as being high priority and is
essential to prevent any serious safety or structural consequences.
6.4
The new Contracts for Transportation Services commence on 1 October 2004
and advantage will be taken of the reduced prices provided by the new
Provider, West One Infrastructure Services (A Joint Venture comprising
J.Murphy & Sons Ltd, F.M Conway Ltd and WSP Consultants supported by
Hyder Consulting) to deliver these essential works.
6.5
The estimated costs quoted above are based upon the rates and prices
contained in the new contracts.
7.
Ladbroke Grove Canal Bridge
7.1
Ladbroke Grove Canal Bridge is owned and maintained by the Royal Borough
of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC). The bridge spans the Grand Union Canal
at the boundary between the two councils.
7.2
In 1994 the bridge was strengthened with the costs being shared equally
between Westminster and RBKC. At the time a legal agreement was entered
into with RBKC for the strengthening work and future maintenance costs on
the bridge. This agreement requires the City Council to contribute 50%
towards these costs.
7.3
The RBKC have advised of the need to undertake re-painting work of the
bridge during the summer 2004 at a cost of £96,000. In accordance with the
legal agreement City Council’s contribution to those works will therefore be
£48,000.
7.4
Approval is therefore sought to contribute to the cost of the Project.
8.
Assessment & Strengthening Programme - Update
Assessment
8.1
The City Council commenced a programme of Bridge Assessment Studies in
April 1991 for those Bridges and other Highway Structures that they own and
maintain. This was completed in March 1996.
8.2
The necessary structural assessments were carried out in association with the
regular 6-yearly Principal Inspections. This ensured that maintenance needs
and any sub-standard features, in line with the Department for Transport’s 15year rehabilitation programme, were identified. This also enabled the service
life of the structure to be assessed, before determining the extent of any
necessary strengthening and/or repair.
8.3
The assessment process is split into four stages:




Stage 1 – Inspection and simple assessment
Stage 2 – Detailed assessment
Stage 3 – Risk Analysis and Feasibility Study for Interim Measures
Stage 4 – Feasibility Study for Strengthening
5
Interim Measures
8.4
Interim Measures are an essential and integral part of the assessment and
strengthening programme. Any structure that is found to be sub-standard
needs to be kept in a safe condition pending permanent strengthening or
replacement. It is however not possible to predict in advance of an
assessment (Stage 3) the need for such measures. A contingency allowance
is therefore made in the capital programme to allow for such measures.
8.5
In December 2003 Interim Measures in the form of barriers in the central
reserve were introduced on Lord Hills Bridge spanning the railway in
Paddington. The bridge carries public highway but is owned by Network Rail.
8.6
The need for Interim Measures was identified after a structural assessment
carried out by consultants employed by Network Rail found the bridge to be
sub-standard.
Strengthening
8.7
The final strengthening scheme in the City Council’s bridge strengthening
programme was the Strengthening and Structural Repairs to the Elevated
Harrow Road.
8.8
The aim throughout the City Council’s strengthening programme has been to
carry out all the necessary work, where possible, to a structure in one visit
thereby keeping traffic disruption to a minimum.
8.9
All City Council owned and maintained structures have been subject to a
detailed structural assessment. Those structures found not to meet the
requirements of the new loading standards have been strengthened and all
structures have been returned to the routine inspection and maintenance
programme.
8.10
Although all structures owned and maintained by the City Council have been
assessed and strengthened, there are a number of structures owned by the
Transport Undertakers, and others, which have yet to be dealt with. An update
in respect of these structures within the City is provided below.
9.
Structures Owned by the Transport Undertakers
9.1
Previous reports to both the former Planning and Transportation Committee
and the former Traffic & Works Sub-Committee advised members of the
limitations of responsibility of the Transport Undertakers (British Rail/Network
Rail, London Underground Limited and British Waterways Board) for
maintaining the load-bearing capacity of their bridges.
9.2
The responsibility for assessing and upgrading bridges owned by them, to the
new standard, falls to the City Council.
London Underground Limited (LUL)
6
9.3
London Underground Limited (LUL) had previously advised that they had
completed the necessary assessments to bridges and other highway
structures owned by them that support the public highway in Westminster.
9.4
LUL further advised that they had examined 21 additional structures
supporting station concourses within the City. Of these 20 have failed to meet
the new loading standards.
9.5
LUL’s approach has been to carry out a Stage 1 assessment followed by an
Assessment to determine their legal liability as defined in the Transport Act
1968.
9.6
Consultants have been appointed to review the work carried out by LUL, and
to undertake Stage 2, 3 and 4 Assessments as necessary to determine the
City Council’s liability. However, LUL have agreed to carry out Stage 2
assessments at their own expense although there has been very little
progress on this.
9.7
It was anticipated that the assessment work would have been completed by
now. However, LUL have been undergoing significant organisational changes
recently with the creation of the following Infraco’s (Infrastructure Companies)
which has significantly affected their programme: 


JNP (Jubilee, Northern, Piccadilly)
BCV (Bakerloo, Central, Victoria)
SSL (Sub-Surface Lines)
9.8
Recent meetings between LUL have advised that at present there is no need
to install any Interim Protection Measures to any of their structures. During
their assessment studies they have been endeavouring to minimise the need
to carry out strengthening works by further rigorous analysis and testing.
9.9
Progress has been made this year with the JNP Infraco. There are three
structures that have been determined as under-strength. However, further
work is underway which is likely to show that they may not require any
strengthening.
Network Rail (NR)
9.10 A detailed update on Network Rail owned bridge structures was given to the
Transport and Infrastructure Overview and Scrutiny Committee in February
2004. Further reports will be presented when details of required strengthening
and their programme for implementation has been agreed with Network Rail.
Cost for Assessment of Network Rail and LUL Bridges
9.11 The current delay in progressing the assessment programme has not resulted
in any increases in expenditure. However there is a need to reschedule the
expenditure over a longer period.
9.12 Expenditure for the Assessment of both Network Rail and LUL Structures is
met by 100% Grant from TfL.
7
9.13 The required re-phasing of expenditure for this work is shown in Section 16 of
this report.
10.
Structures Owned by Statutory Undertakers
10.1
The responsibility for the assessment and strengthening of structures owned
by the Statutory Undertakers is considered to rest solely with the undertakers
themselves. However, the Statutory Undertakers are seeking legal opinion on
this issue.
11.
Privately Owned Structures
11.1
There are a substantial number of privately owned structures, which support
the public highway within Westminster. The responsibility for the assessment
and upgrading such structures, to meet the new loading standards, has yet to
be determined by the Department for Transport (DfT).
11.2
Privately owned structures include vaults lying beneath the highway and
highway authorities have a duty to ensure that they can support highway
loading. Many of these vaults are poorly maintained by the owner and
consequently collapse. A protocol is currently being developed to manage the
vault collapses in Westminster. This protocol will be the subject of a separate
Cabinet Report in the near future.
12.
Package Approach for London
12.1 A report to the former Traffic Sub-Committee in March 1997 set out the
‘Package Approach’ for the Assessment, Strengthening and Other Structural
Maintenance of Bridges and Other Highway Structures which was introduced
in London from the 1997/98 financial year. This was set up to provide a more
co-ordinated and prioritised approach to Assessment and Strengthening to
ensure maximum use of available Government funding.
12.2 Since April 2001, the Annual Transport Capital Expenditure Settlement for
Bridge Assessment, Strengthening and other Structural Maintenance in
London, has been provided from Transport for London (TfL) in the form of
direct Grant.
12.3 Allocations of funding between the Boroughs is based upon an agreed
Prioritisation Strategy which provides a fair basis for the allocation and
ensures that those structures most at risk and on the most important routes
are dealt with first.
12.4 Throughout the year actual expenditure against allocation is monitored and
under-spends can be re-allocated to those Boroughs with over-spends and
new schemes that can be progressed.
8
12.5 The City Council has taken a leading role in the setting up of the London
Package for Bridges and Structures and acts as lead advisor to ‘Transport for
London – Borough Partnerships’ on behalf of the 33 London Boroughs.
12.6 For 2003/2004 the City Council received grant in respect of the following:




12.7
Administration of the London Package
Assessment of Network Rail LUL/Structures
Interim Measures Lords Hill Bridge
Elevated Harrow Road (Retention)
£ 75,000
£ 115,000
£ 150,000
£ 40,000
For 2004/2005 the initial grant allocation to the City Council is as follows:


Administration of the London Package
Assessments (Network Rail)
£ 75,000
£ 60,000
12.8 Approval is sought to continue with the Administration of the London Package
for Bridges and Other Highway Structures and for capital expenditure of
£75,000 in 2004/05.
13.
Vehicular Incursions onto the Railway
13.1 In February 2001 the Selby Train Disaster occurred in which 10 people were
killed after a vehicle left the M62 motorway, ran down the railway embankment
and onto the East Coast Mainline where it was subsequently struck by a
passenger train.
13.2 The crash raised general concerns about the issue of accidental incursion of
road vehicles onto the railway. In February 2003 the Department for Transport
published the document “Managing the accidental obstruction of the railway by
road vehicles”. This document set out the steps that should be taken jointly by
railway infrastructure authorities and highway authorities to manage the risk of
the accidental incursion of road vehicles onto the railway.
13.3 Included in the document are the protocol for apportioning responsibility and
costs of improvements at locations where roads maintainable at public
expense meet, cross or run close to railways, and also the risk ranking
exercise used to prioritise the comparative risk at each site.
13.4 Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA), railway companies
have a legal obligation to assess risk not only to its employees but also to
anyone else potentially affected by its activities and implement actions
identified through the risk assessment process.
13.5 Highway authorities, under the Highways Act 1980, have a duty to maintain
the highway to ensure the safe passage of road users. They also have a duty
under the Road Traffic Act 1988 to study road traffic accidents and to take
such measures, as they consider appropriate to prevent them.
9
13.6 It is recognised that it may be difficult for a railway infrastructure authority to
fulfil its duties under the HSWA if the actions it identifies from its risk
assessment need to be taken on land outside the railway boundaries, where it
has no authority to take action. The agreed protocol therefore sets out the
responsibilities between the rail and highway authorities at the various stages
in the risk mitigation process.
13.7 The first stage in the risk mitigation process is to carry out risk ranking and
assessments at vulnerable sites. City Council Officers have undertaken risk
rankings at a number of sites in the City of Westminster (mainly bridge sites)
using the guidance developed by Network Rail the County Surveyors Society
(CSS) and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
13.8 The results of the risk ranking exercise on Network Rail infrastructure
concluded that the probability of vehicles leaving the public road and reaching
the railway line is very low. The built up nature of the City combined with
relatively low vehicle speeds and line speeds of trains are dominating factors
in the result. The conclusion of the exercise is that no additional protection
measures will be required on the City’s roads to cater for the possibility of
errant vehicles reaching the Railway.
13.9 A similar exercise needs to be undertaken for London Underground
infrastructure where the public highway crosses over or meets any “at surface”
lines belonging to London Underground and it is proposed to carry out this
work during this financial year at an estimated cost of £8,000.
13.10 At this stage it is not anticipated that the risk-ranking exercise will result in the
need to provide additional protective measures on the highway in mitigation
against the possibility of errant vehicles reaching LUL’s railway tracks.
However, any exceptions to this will be reported to the Cabinet Member.
14.
The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002
14.1
A new duty to manage asbestos in ‘non-domestic premise’ has been included
in the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2002. This requires duty holders to:



Assess whether premises contain asbestos
Assess the risk from asbestos; and
Take action to manage the risk from asbestos
14.2
Although the supply and use of asbestos was almost entirely banned in the
1980’s and it’s use in construction and refurbishment is now illegal there were
many asbestos-containing materials used in construction in the past. Where in
place asbestos-containing materials still pose a danger to Health and Safety if
disturbed.
14.3
The new regulations impose a new duty to carry out an assessment to
establish whether asbestos is likely to be present.
10
14.4
Many of the City Council’s Bridges & Structures are old and may contain
asbestos-containing materials. (It is noted that blue asbestos was discovered
in the Strand/Kingsway Underpass which led to it’s closure and refurbishment
in the early 1990’s.) It is therefore proposed to carry out a study to:



Assess whether asbestos-containing materials are present
Assess the risk
Prepare a detailed action plan to manage the risk from any asbestoscontaining materials identified.
This work will involve a desk study of available information (record drawings,
files etc..) together with an inspection of each structure.
14.5
The ‘Action Plan’ will form an integral part of an individual Maintenance and
Health & Safety File required under the Construction Design & Management
Regulations (CDM Regulations) for each structure.
15.
National Initiatives – Update
15.1
The DfT has set up a National Roads Liaison Group (RLG) together with a
number of National Boards to provide an overall co-ordinated approach to the
identification and implementation of National Policy. There are three ‘Boards’
covering Highways, Lighting and Bridges.
15.2
The National Bridges Board has identified a number of key areas for
development where the industry is lacking in clear policy and standards.
These are:
 Code of Practice for the Inspection & Maintenance Management of
Bridges & Other Highway Structures
 Bridge Management Systems
 Best Value Performance Indicators and other Performance Monitoring
Tools
15.3 The City Council is represented on the National Bridges Board and is taking
the lead in the development of both the Code of Practice and the Best Value
Key Performance Indicators.
15.4 Development of Best Value Key Performance Indicators (kpi’s) is underway. A
‘Bridge Condition Indicator’ has been produced for use from 2003/04 and
further indicators will be available sometime during 2004/05.
15.5 Development of the “Code of Practice for the Maintenance Management of
Bridges & Other Highway Structures” commenced in January 2004 and will be
available by January 2005. The City Council’s Policies and Standards will be
reviewed when the Code of Practice is available.
15.6 In respect of the Best Value kpi’s, these will be applied when they are issued
by either the DfT or Audit Commission. However, data collection for
production of Bridge Condition Indicators commenced during 2002/03.
11
16.
Financial Implications
Inspection and Maintenance Management
16.1 Approval is sought to expenditure of £503,000 in 2004/05 in respect of
Planned Preventative Maintenance to the City Council’s Bridges and other
Highway Structures as detailed in 6.2 above.
16.2
Approval is also sought to expenditure of £48,000 in respect of a contribution
to the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea in respect of essential
repainting to the Ladbroke Grove Bridge under the terms of a legal
agreement.
16.2 The proposed expenditure in respect of both the Planned Preventative
Maintenance and the contribution to the Royal Borough of Kensington &
Chelsea will be met from the provision of £551,000 that exists in the approved
capital programme for 2004/05 in respect of Structural Repairs &
Refurbishment of Bridges and Highway Structures, funded from the Parking
Places Reserve Account. Some of this expenditure may be entitled to direct
grant from TfL and officers will continue to press for funding from this source.
16.3 The revenue implications of the capital expenditure of £551,000 assuming an
asset life of 10 years, over the next four years would be as follows:
Capital
Charges
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
£80,584
£78,035
£75,487
£72,939
Administration of the London Package
16.4 Approval is sought to expenditure of £75,000 in 2004/05 for the Administration
of the London Package for which provision of exists within the approved
capital programme. This expenditure will be met by way of direct grant from
TfL.
16.5 The revenue implications of the capital expenditure of £75,000 assuming an
asset life of 10 years over the next four years would be as follows:
Capital
Charges
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
£10,969
£10,622
£10,275
£9,928
Bridge Assessment Studies to Network Rail and LUL Bridges
16.6 As stated above, in paragraph 9.11, the delayed Bridge Assessment Studies
to Railtrack and LUL Structures within the City has resulted in the need to
revise the current expenditure profile.
12
The revised expenditure Profile is as follows:
£000’s
Previous 2002/03
Years
Capital Programme 526
Provision
Revised
526
Expenditure Profile
2003/04 2004/05 TOTAL
100
229
-
865
100
60
169
865
16.7 Up to and including 2000/01 this expenditure was met from the General Fund
and received grant support in the form of SCA. From 2001/02 onwards this
has been fully funded by Transport Grant from TfL.
17.
Legal Implications
17.1 Section 13 of this report identifies a responsibility for dealing with potential
risks at vulnerable sites where Railways (Network Rail and London
Underground) and Roads interact. Agreed ‘protocols’ have been issued by the
Department for Transport setting out the responsibilities between rail and
highway authorities and the need to carry out risk assessments. These ‘risk
assessments’ are to be undertaken jointly by the rail authority and the City
Council and will determine whether any risk mitigation is necessary.
17.2 Section 14 of this report identifies a new duty to manage asbestos in ‘nondomestic premise’ under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2002. These
new regulations impose a new duty to carry out an assessment to establish
whether asbestos is likely to be present and to prepare a detailed action plan
to manage the risk from any asbestos-containing materials identified.
17.3 Previous reports to both the former Planning and Transportation Committee
and the former Traffic & Works Sub-Committee advised members of the
limitations of responsibility of the Transport Undertakers (British Rail/Network
Rail, London Underground Limited and British Waterways Board) for
maintaining the load-bearing capacity of their bridges. The responsibility for
assessing and upgrading bridges owned by them, to the new standard, falls to
the City Council.
18.
Staffing Implications
18.1
There are no staffing implications arising from this report.
19.
Outstanding Issues
19.1
There are no outstanding issues.
13
20.
Performance Plan Implications
20.1
There is no specific reference contained within the Performance Plan.
21.
Consultation
21.1 This report was considered at the Transport & Infrastructure Overview and
Scrutiny Committee on 12 October 2004. The Committee agreed that this was a
significant issue with widespread financial, safety and traffic disruption
implications in the short and long term and recommended that the relevant
Cabinet Members note the implications.
22.
Crime and Disorder Act
22.1
There are no Crime and Disorder Act implications arising from this report.
23.
Health and Safety Issues
23.1
All works undertaken will be closely monitored and carried out to the
requirements of the Health & Safety at Work Act and the Construction Design
and Management Regulations.
23.2
A new duty to manage asbestos in ‘non-domestic premise’ has been included
in the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2002. These new regulations impose a
new duty to carry out an assessment to establish whether asbestos is likely to
be present. It is proposed to carry out a study to leading to the preparation of
a detailed action plan to manage the risk from any asbestos-containing
materials identified.
24.
Co-operation with Health Authorities
24.1
There are no implications arising from this report requiring co-operation or coordination with the Health Authorities.
25.
Human Rights Act 1998
25.1
There are no Human Rights Act implications arising from this report.
26.
Conclusion
26.1 Planned Preventative Maintenance is required to maintain the structural
integrity of the structures in Westminster and to ensure public safety. If this
work is not carried out, there may be serious public safety implications in
addition to potential financial consequences to the City Council.
14
26.2 Under a legal agreement between Westminster City Council and the Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster are required to contribute
£48,000 in 2004/05 towards the maintenance painting of Ladbroke Grove
Canal Bridge. It is proposed to fund this work out of the 2004/05 Planned
Preventative Maintenance Budget.
26.3 The City Council is taking a leading role in managing the London Package for
Bridges and Structures and acts as lead advisor to ‘Transport for London –
Borough Partnerships’ on behalf of the 33 London Boroughs.
26.4 The results of the risk analysis into vehicular incursions onto the railway line
concluded that all the potential sites identified in Westminster were very low
and that there is no need to provide additional protective measures on the
highway in mitigation against errant vehicles reaching the railway.
26.5 A new duty to manage asbestos in ‘non-domestic premise’ has been included
in the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2002. These new regulations impose a
new duty to carry out an assessment to establish whether asbestos is likely to
be present. It is therefore proposed to carry out a study to leading to the
preparation of a detailed action plan to manage the risk from any asbestoscontaining materials identified.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUERIES ABOUT THIS REPORT OR WISH TO
INSPECT ANY OF THE BACKGROUND PAPERS, PLEASE CONTACT
David.A.Yeoell on 020 7641 2622
EMAIL ADDRESS: dyeoell@westminster.gov.uk
FAX NUMBER: 020 7641 2658
BACKGROUND PAPERS
The documents used or referred to in compiling the report were: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Report to Traffic & Works Sub-Committee March 1996
Report to Traffic Sub-Committee March 1997
Report to Traffic Sub-Committee March 1998
Report to P&T Operational Sub-Committee March 1999
Report to T&H Operational Sub-Committee March 2001
Report To Cabinet Member for T&I March 2003
Report to the Transport & Infrastructure
Overview and Scrutiny Committee - February 2004.
Report to Transport & Infrastructure
Overview and Scrutiny Committee - October 2004
15
For completion by Cabinet Member
Declaration of Interest
I have no interest to declare in respect of this report
Signed ……………………………. Date ………………………………
NAME:
I have to declare an interest
State nature of interest ……..……………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………..
Signed ……………………………. Date …………………………………
NAME:
(N.B: If you have an interest you should seek advice as to whether it is appropriate
to make a decision in relation to this matter.)
For the reasons set out above, I agree the recommendation(s) in the report entitled
Maintenance Management of Bridges and Other Highway Structures and reject any
alternative options which are referred to but not recommended.
Signed ………………………………………………
Cabinet Member for ……………………………….
Date …………………………………………………
If you have any additional comment which you would want actioned in connection
with your decision you should discuss this with the report author and then set out
your comment below before the report and this pro-forma is returned to the
Secretariat for processing.
Additional comment: …………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….
16
NOTE: If you do not wish to approve the recommendations, or wish to make an
alternative decision, it is important that you consult the report author, the Director of
Legal and Administrative Services, the Chief Financial Officer and, if there are
staffing implications, the Head of Personnel (or their representatives) so that (1) you
can be made aware of any further relevant considerations that you should take into
account before making the decision and (2) your reasons for the decision can be
properly identified and recorded, as required by law.
Note to Cabinet Member: Your decision will now be published and copied to
the Members of the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee. If the decision
falls within the criteria for call-in, it will not be implemented until five working
days have elapsed from publication to allow the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee to decide whether it wishes to call the matter in.
17
APPENDIX 1
Bridges and Structures owned and maintained by Westminster
Structure Name
Ward
THAMES BRIDGES
Waterloo Bridge
Golden Jubilee Footbridges
St.James’s
St.James’s
OTHER BRIDGES
Elevated Harrow Road (Westbound)
Lancaster Place Vaults
Bishops Bridge Road
Westbourne Terrace Bridge
Harrow Road Gyratory
Warwick Avenue
Carlton Bridge
Wedlake Street Footbridge
Formosa Street Footbridge
Hyde Park/ Westbourne/Bayswater
St.James’s
Hyde Park
Little Venice
Little Venice
Little Venice
Westbourne
Westbourne
Westbourne
ROAD UNDERPASSES
Piccadilly/Hyde Park Corner
Strand/Kingsway
Harrow Road (Westbound)
West End
St.James’s
Little Venice/Hyde Park/Westbourne
PEDESTRIAN SUBWAYS
Charing Cross/Strand Complex
Harrow Road/Porteus Road
Lord Hills
Trafalgar Square/Cockspur Street
Parliament Street
Bridge Street
Bessborough Street (Pimlico Station)
Waterloo Bridge Link Subway
St.James’s
Hyde Park/Little Venice
Westbourne
St.James’s
St.James’s
St James’s
Tachbrook
St.James’s
PIPE SUBWAYS
Strand/Aldwich Complex
Kingsway
Charing Cross Road
Shaftsbury Avenue
Northumberland Avenue
Piccadilly Circus
Cranbourne Street
Marble Arch
Marylebone
St.James’s
St.James’s
St.James’s/West End
St.James’s/West End
St.James’s
St.James’s/West End
St.James’s
Knightsbridge and Belgravia
Bryanston and Dorset Square
Victoria Embankment
Garrick Street
St.James’s
St.James’s
RETAINING WALLS
18
Various
Various
19
APPENDIX 2
Maintenance Management of Bridges and other Highway Structures
Routine Inspection Programme
Principal Inspections - 6 yearly
This level of inspection requires a close examination (within touching distance) of all
inspectable parts of the structure, including access equipment and both destructible and
non-destructible testing.
General Inspection - 2 yearly
This consists of a visual inspection of all external parts of the structure. Access equipment
may be required in some cases.
Superficial Inspection - 1 yearly
This type of inspection consists of a cursory check for obvious deficiencies, which might
lead to traffic accidents or high maintenance costs.
Special Inspections
A special inspection may be required for the following reasons:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
To investigate a specific problem that has been found;
Structures that are either weight restricted, cast iron or have been subject to
impact or fire damage;
Before and after the passage of abnormally heavy loads on a structure that
has been proved sub-standard by calculation.
20