• Foreword
• Purpose and Scope
  
  • Key Stakeholders
  • Asset Management Definitions
  • Relationship to other documents
• Benefits of Asset Management
• Inventory and Condition Data
  
  • Asset Types
  • Current Status
  • Current Asset Data
  • Current Data Management Practices
  • Asset Data
  • Data Management
  • Data Use
  • Condition data and Condition Surveys
  • Condition Data - 2020
• Business Processes
  
  • Customer Expectations
  • How Funding Need is assessed
  • How Effectiveness of Spending is Assessed
  • Year
  • Estimated Cost of Highway Maintenance
• Levels of Service
  
  • Current Practice
  • Legislative Requirements
  • Customer Expectations
  • Organisational Objectives
  • Best Practice Guidelines
  • Organisational Constraints
  • Current Performance
  • National Highways and Transportation (NHT) Survey
• Life Cycle Planning
• Financial Summary
  • Legal Claims Analysis
  • Prediction from Asset Management Plan
• Risk Management
  
  • Identifying risks - Tactical Risks
  • Identifying risks - Operational Risks
  • Assessing risks
  • Dealing with risks
  • Risk Matrix
  • Recording and reporting risks
  • Key risks
• Forward Work Programme
  
  • Scheme Backlog
• Performance Monitoring
  
  • Application
  • Review
  • Pavement Management System Indications
• Improvement Action Plan
  
  • Action Plan
• Appendix A - Asset Management Plan
  
  • Carriageway Lifecycle Planning Toolkit
  • Deterioration Modelling
• Appendix B - National Highways and Transportation (NHT): Customer Satisfaction Survey
  
  • Executive Summary - 2020 Survey
  • 2020 Authority Annual Report - Satisfaction Lowest and Highest Results
  • Accessibility Summary
  • Communications Summary
  • Highway Maintenance
  • Whole Summary of Differences
• Appendix C - Maintenance Backlog

Foreword

I am very pleased to be able to introduce Torbay Council’s latest published Strategic Transport Asset Management Plan dealing with the Highway Asset, which records our strategies and practices aimed at maintaining an efficient and effective network. The document indicates the manner in which our Highway Engineers have been obliged to prioritise and compare assets, in order to best manage the network, whilst coping with tight budgets and a general lack of investment in this most important and valuable of all assets to the community.

It also gives further details of the framework within which Highway Maintenance is carried out and as such is an invaluable working document for use by elected members and officers of the Council. It is an important but integral part of the Highway Maintenance Manual, which is a living document, incorporating other policies and plans that are subject to regular updating, to demonstrate the development of best practise in the discipline of maintaining highway infrastructure.

Torbay’s highway assets, which are used by all residents, businesses and visitors to the area, provide a vital contribution to the economic health of the community and reflect the quality of the environment. Ensuring the ongoing safety of all users of this network is a very high priority for this council.

I am sure that the information included will aid decision making in this complex area so that the interests and needs of the community are best served and the highway service is at the highest possible level.

Cllr Mike Morey
5 October 2021

Purpose and Scope

Asset Management is essentially a tool to ensure that funding provided for highway maintenance is spent in the most cost-effective manner. In simplistic terms, money spent on preventative treatments on roads that are in fair condition provides better overall coverage and value for money than treating roads that are already in a poor or very poor condition, where the only option then becomes full depth reconstruction, which is a process costing 20 times more than a preventative surface dressing. It is also when roads reach this very poor condition, that the increased cost in reactive maintenance becomes prohibitive and obvious defects such as potholes, rutting and delaminating surfacing, detract aesthetically and can soon start to become safety hazards to road users.

 Highway Authorities try to ensure that the money provided is spent in an efficient manner and that the overall condition of the network remains in at least a functional condition. The main dilemma facing Engineers or Asset Managers who are tasked with conducting this function is, whilst knowing that there is often insufficient funding to treat the entire network in the manner that it requires, they are still obliged to ensure that efficiency and transparency in identifying sites is maintained. This highlights the simple fact that despite all the improvements and toolkits being provided for Asset Management, there is still a large gap in the funding required nationally, compared to the funding that is provided, to stabilise or improve the network.

The purpose of this plan is to:

• Identify the maintenance requirements of Torbay's Highway Network and Associated Assets.
• Assist us in planning for future maintenance schemes.
• Offer guidance to the highways department in managing the Highway Network and Associated Assets.
• Provide improved information and analysis of the current maintenance of the Highways Network and Assets, so that we can better understand and face challenges that we are presented with.
• Offer a better explanation on how we currently manage the Highway Network.

In Torbay’s case specifically, the ‘Life Cycle Planning Toolkit’ suggests that a major cash injection in excess of £13m will be required before the principles of preventative treatments can be fully adopted. In fact, rather than a cash injection, years of austerity and concentrating central funding onto the nation's strategic highways, such as motorways and trunk roads (Torbay has none of these), have resulted in a shortfall of funding for the local road networks. Whilst the long-term effect of reducing funding takes time to become clear, the fragile nature of Torbay’s highway network is now only too obvious to residents and road users alike. Pothole numbers are increasing as are third party insurance claims and contractors are struggling to keep up with the increasing demands on urgent and emergency repairs. 

The present level of funding is not sufficient to allow enough preventative maintenance to take place to keep the overall asset in a stable condition. However, by continuing to prioritise funding on preventative treatments, there will still be 30% allocated to surface dressing and micro-asphalting treatments targeting ‘fair’ condition roads that are in danger of slipping into ‘poor’ condition if left untreated. Although some 60% of funding will then be used for resurfacing and reconstruction works, this is less than half of the proportion that is actually needed to treat roads, that are in real danger of being lost if recent adverse weather trends continue.

Torbay has always aimed to invest in preventative treatments, hence its road network being less severely affected than some other highway authorities, but the continuing reduction of the capital funding is restricting the ability to react in an appropriate manner and is directly contributing to the continuing deterioration of the highway network of which we are all aware. By continuing with preventative maintenance on roads that are suitable the overall effect of the budget challenge are being mitigated but our structural maintenance works are involving higher numbers of the more expensive 'full reconstruction' sites, which will further reduce the overall coverage of the network that can be addressed.

Whilst the above statements are certainly emotive and thought producing, the facts are backed up in this Strategic version of the Transport Asset Management Plan, particularly when the information produced by the toolkits in Appendix ‘A’ are considered and the unchecked trend in the increasing ‘Depreciated Replacement Costs’ reported by the Council’s ‘Pavement Management System’.

The Council’s priorities for maintaining this asset with the current levels of funding will be:

• Prioritise the A and B road network that carries the higher levels of traffic
• Use preventative maintenance treatments on roads that are still in a condition to benefit from these.
• Maintain modern estate roads in accordance with lifecycle planning guidance with timed preventative intervention at the optimum times.
• Use additional DfT funding on preventative treatments of older estate roads to reduce further pothole proliferation and to seal vulnerable unbound road formations.
• Target worst first responses at shorter lengths of affected carriageways.

By continuing to prioritise sites as suggested above, we are able to mitigate some of the impact on the highway network, however, readers of this Plan will need to recognise that a deteriorating trend in the condition of this asset will continue. 

The current asset register comprises of:

• 528km of Carriageway Network including:
  • 45KM of Principal A Class Roads
  • 50KM of Non Principal B and C Class Roads
  • 423KM of Unclassified Roads (Including Green Lanes)
• 645km of Footway
• 1424km of Inspected Footway (dual width, promenades etc.)
• Over 17,000 individual lighting assets comprised of Columns, Bollards, Wall Mounted Lanterns and Parks Lighting.

Back to top

Key Stakeholders

The Highway Network is the most valuable asset in Torbay Council's portfolio, with an estimated gross replacement cost of £659,500,000

Torbay Council understands that proper management of the Highway Network impacts directly on a variety of stakeholders and users of the network including:-

• Elected Members - Who will be expected to sign up to an Infrastructure Asset Management Policy to look after the best interest of the highway users and to promote sustainable economic growth, produce a better environment and in the process improve the health and well-being of service users.
• Residents and Visitors – Who will expect the highway infrastructure to be maintained in an appropriate cost-effective manner to meet local needs.
• Council Officers – Who strive to improve or maintain the condition of this valuable asset, despite the present climate of national austerity and who have a public duty to keep the highway in a safe condition for all users.
• Utility Companies – Who wish to service the needs of their customers and by working with the highway authority endeavour to keep traffic flowing and avoid unnecessary damage to the highway infrastructure.
• Public Transport Companies – Who want to provide a punctual and sustainable service for their customers.
• Local Businesses – Who use the highway network for business commuting, deliveries and transport needs.

Asset Management Definitions

Torbay Council recognises that Asset Management is defined as;

Asset management refers to a systematic approach to the governance and realization of value from the things that a group or entity is responsible for, over their whole life cycles.

Torbay Council also recognises the following themes;

• Scope - The Asset Management Plan is primarily to optimise maintenance of the entire network. The asset encompasses all areas of adopted highway and public rights of way within the boundary of Torbay.
• Strategic approach - A systematic process that takes a long term view in managing.
• Whole Life - The whole of life / lifecycle of an asset is considered.
• Optimisation - Maximising benefits by balancing competing demands.
• Customer focus - Explicit consideration of customer’s expectations

Relationship to other documents

• Corporate Strategy
  • Highway Maintenance Manual
    • Transport Asset Management Plan
      • Infrastructure Asset Management Strategy
      • Infrastructure Asset Management Policy
    • Winter Service Emergency Manual
    • Snow Resilience Routes
    • Highway Inspection Manual
      • Risk-based Inspections
    • Street Lighting Manual
      • Street Lighting Developers Guide

Back to top

Benefits of Asset Management

One of the key aims in Asset management is the move towards a preventative approach to Highways Maintenance and associated assets. Certain phases and types of maintenance maybe seen as "unnecessary" or "wasteful" however, using asset management principles, preventative maintenance is a necessary operation which can use allocated finances to the best of the authority's ability. Achieved by determining which roads can receive low-cost remedial repairs as opposed to letting a section of carriageway to degrade to the point where high-cost resurfacing is the only option left.

Focusing on "worst first" might prove to remediate high profile areas of carriageway which are excessively degraded; however, using a combination of informed knowledge, inspection data records, and quantifiable collected data, we can make a more informed decision on our yearly schemes and reduce our reliance on excessive reconstruction.

Some known benefits of Asset Management include

• Alignment of Torbay Council's corporate strategy with the delivery of service to the stakeholders.
• Full understanding of Asset Lifecycle Management.
• Increased liability defence.
• The ability to demonstrate and justify decisions for funding and schemes.
• Better risk management.

Back to top

Inventory and Condition Data

Effective asset management requires knowledge of an asset including its condition and its use. This requires the collection and maintenance of asset data that can assist decision makers to assess, analyse and to report on performance and progress.

The following asset data details are required:

• Inventory: comprising details of the number, location, size, type, age and component make up of each asset.
• Condition: comprising measurement and observational rating of the condition of elements of the asset derived from either physical testing or visual inspection.
• Use: comprising details of the use of assets in the form of data such as traffic counts, heavy vehicle routes, etc.

Good data is the foundation on which asset management processes are built. The availability of appropriate data will allow a consistent management approach.

Asset Types

The highway network comprises a combination of many diverse and differing assets as listed within the Highway Maintenance Plan. The principles of asset management however apply to all of these components.

Current Status

A detailed highway inventory is an essential prerequisite of establishing a cost effective and adequate maintenance regime. An inventory survey was undertaken several years ago of the entire network but it is still anticipated that further data collection will be required for certain highway features. This information then being held on a specialised computer database which will allow maintenance personnel convenient access to information on any aspect of the network. This will be of use when preparing budgets or letting contracts for maintenance work. The most recent example of collecting additional data being the recording of all of the vehicle restraint systems on the network. This enables planned condition testing programmes to be conducted, rather than previously being dependant on relying on observations following vehicle impacts and simple visual inspections.

Current Asset Data

The inventory data is contained in the Highway Maintenance Plan. However it includes the following:

• 528 kilometres of carriageway
• 20 kilometres of green lanes
• 817 kilometres of footways
• 77 kilometres of public footpaths
• 460,000 sqm of grass verges and shrubberies
• 22,000 no. road gullies

Other unmeasured highway inventory assets include:

• Seats
• Shelters
• Bridges
• Retaining Walls
• Unlit Road Signs.

Current Data Management Practices

There are a number of procedures in place for collecting and maintaining elements of data. Some involving specialist survey providers such as 'scanner' and 'scrim' surveys are also required for reporting purposes but also feed into our decision-making process.

The recent move of the highway team to become a single entity with the term maintenance contractor (SWISCo), will allow further investment into asset management systems, to formalise elements of our maintenance strategy and to allow more opportunity to allow our customers to see forward planning of surfacing schemes and to better explain some of the decision processes.

In addition to the proscribed condition survey data, we consider reports from our dedicated team of Street Scene Inspectors, who walk our network throughout the year, covering some roads on a monthly basis. Their observations, photographs and recording of the condition of the assets are weighted heavily in determining which areas require early intervention.

We also value third party reports from highway users and residents. When these are received our Inspectors are then able to carry out additional ad-hoc surveys, which can often mean reactive timely repairs can be ordered if required.

There are also other specialist surveying techniques that are developing with video surveys and intelligent learning software that are also being considered as this document is being prepared. These areas of activity will almost certainly eventually become adopted and will be expected to expand as Asset Management processes become established nationally.

Asset Data

It is recognised that it may not be cost effective to collect every piece of missing asset inventory data. However, trial surveys have been conducted using existing resources to fill some gaps. A particular example is the collection of types and locations of railings and guardrails. This information is now being gathered by using visual surveys and plotting locations by ‘Global Positioning Satellite’ technology (GPS). The information then being transferred to a digital mapping layer on the Council’s ‘MapInfo’ system. This system will provide a reliable base set of asset data on which need projections can be based. At the same time the UKPMS system is being updated and developed nationally with the intention that initially condition information will be able to be used to predict lifecycle stage of carriageways and footways. As Torbay Council possesses a full Pavement Management System suite this will be the cornerstone of the TAMP.

Data Management

All highway inventory additions must be recorded by an identified officer with a responsibility to assimilate the data set associated. Resources to undertake this task must be identified and allocated. The mechanism for data collection must be manageable and allow additional attributes to be added during the life of the TAMP.

Data Use

The collated data will support the following activities:

• Maintaining the inventory to demonstrate the extent of highway assets owned and maintained
• Routine Maintenance management; to enable us to demonstrate that inspections and repairs are undertaken in accordance with our policies.
• Customer Queries and Service requests; to enable us to track customer queries and to demonstrate that the appropriate actions have been taken.
• Performance Reporting; to enable National Indicators (NI) and local Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPI) to be collated and reported. This information being required for reporting to Department for Transport and for benchmarking purposes with peer group authorities within the south west region via the South West Highways Alliance.

Data management will enable us to improve in the following areas.

• Our ability to predict future needs; enabling the creation of better coordinated and potentially more cost effective plans.
• Our ability to meet future government requirements for asset valuation.
• Our understanding of the risks associated with managing the road network and to make more informed decisions about the road network.

Condition data and Condition Surveys

Carriageway scanner surveys

Currently condition surveys are required for reporting purposes to central government as used to generate performance indicators. However, the main purpose of this survey process is to drive the ‘Pavement Management System’ software, which in turn identifies lengths of highway that potentially require maintenance work. On classified roads ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ (and a few of the busier unclassified routes) the surveys are carried out in a vehicle operated by a recognised specialist contractor which is termed as a ‘SCANNER’ survey. The coverage of the classified highway carriageway network is approximately 80% of the total per annum, so it provides a good comparison year on year. However, the data collected by SCANNER surveys can be and is in fact altered by national rules and parameters to generate reports into a ‘UKPMS’ system, which then allows different authority’s results to be compared in order to prove that the funding provided is being used in an effective manner. Unfortunately, by Torbay Council Residents & Visitor Services Transport Asset Management Plan changing the survey calibration/intervention data in this way it can be difficult to trend condition data in a manner that enables a highway engineer to identify changes in condition versus expenditure which is an important part of the TAMP process. It is hoped that a steady state in reporting and surveying will eventually be achieved which will then make the asset management process more transparent and establish trends of expenditure versus condition.

Carriageway coarse visual inspection surveying

In addition to the SCANNER surveys on the classified network, there used to be ‘Coarse Visual Inspection’ surveys (CVI) carried out on the unclassified network. The annual coverage of these surveys, however, was only about 33% of the total network, thus meaning there was a 3-year gap between repeatable surveys, again making trending difficult to achieve. These were iterative surveys and not always repeatable, therefore increasing the coverage of 'scanner' surveys with smaller vehicles is being used, whilst the introduction of video-based surveys is also being considered.

During some of the recent lockdowns associated with the pandemic, our inspectors have trialled the use of vehicle mounted video equipment for some driven inspections, whilst vehicles have been restricted to a single operative, rather than the more usual driver and observer. The results have been promising and further consideration of the use third party specialist contractors is being given. Indeed, such a survey is underway as this is being written for carriageway markings to determine how to best prioritise these for replacement as cyclical maintenance in this area is to be improved.

As part of the TAMP process it is intended that localised surveys are to be conducted on all highways to ascertain the actual construction depths and material types that have been used. This is essential for long term planning, in particular where preventative maintenance treatments or in-situ recycling treatments are being considered. In turn the information held will also reduce the present dependence on historical knowledge of earlier maintenance schemes, or indeed obviate the need to make any assumptions concerning the expected residual life of the highway. Furthermore, it is intended that some condition surveys are to be carried out on all local roads by in house staff, in order that there is a starting point with 100% coverage of the highway network. By introducing our own repeatable survey, we will be able to better monitor the effects of any decisions made on future changes in maintenance funding, whether this be positive or detrimental

Footway visual surveys

Although this section has been mainly relating to the carriageway network, similar measures are proposed for footways which currently rely wholly on walked safety inspections and on data from our works management system. Some of the video techniques discussed previously also give condition data for footways thus allowing a more intuitive decision-making process in prioritising footway resurfacing programmes.

Currently, in order to reduce the number of trip incidents recorded on paved footways, the replacement of paving slabbed footways with a flexible surface remains the priority. Once these have been addressed, additional surveys will be arranged to allow the condition of remaining footway assets to be determined. The use of walked 'footway network surveys' was trialled but would require more staffing to get full coverage. Accordingly, there are no such surveys being undertaken presently and more credence is being given to the observations of Street Scene Inspectors who do still cover 100 percent of the network each year.

Other survey systems under development are being carefully monitored. If a preferred system is eventually given accreditation for national usage, this will be adopted to replace the former visual surveys.

The principal ability to be able to conduct readily repeatable surveys and to record asset condition to suitable parameters will make the TAMP reviews of much more use as a business tool, with the all important trending data being accessible to decision makers.

Specialist surveys of drainage assets using close circuit television cameras and testing of some of the highway safety barriers including post tension testing have also been commissioned and this type of exercise will need to be repeated as the plan develops.

The need for data collection has to be carefully judged and take into account staff and financial resources that are available. The drainage surveys were possible largely due to a one off cash injection being available from the Department for Transport to local authorities to encourage them to embrace the principles of asset management. Traditionally, Torbay Council has trialled using its own staff resource to collect data such as the footway condition surveys (FNS) but in these more austere times may have to accept that the opportunities to expand this are limited. The footway exercise was conducted by a single in house surveyor and provided coverage of 24% of the network in a two year period. This shows the challenge of expanding the data requirements with dwindling resources within local authorities.

As the FNS data has proved to be too much of a challenge for the resource provided, Torbay Council will now have to accept that complete network coverage is beyond our in house resources and await further advice from peers and the DfT to see how footway condition data is to be collected nationally. Pending this further advice the FNS surveys will have to be reactively targeted on footways where problems have been reported. The safety of pedestrians should not be affected as our Streetscene Inspectors will still conduct their all-important safety inspections on the frequencies given in the Highway Maintenance Plan.

Condition Data - 2020

Condition Data is collected yearly, and in terms of principal roads, it referred to as 130-01 and 130-02 reports.

• A Classified Roads are reported under 130-01
• 130-02 covers Classified B and C routes

Surveyed network

Road classification	A	B	C
UKPMS RCI DOT Classification	3	4	5
Selected network sections	284	94	379
Selected network length	53.854km	8.446km	49.647km
Possible survey lane length	89.6541km (99.4%)	16.111km	96.287km
Number of subsections	9124	1638	9525
Rural surveyed network	12.780km	0km	14.181km
Urban surveyed network	76.285km	15.579km	77.558KM
Undefined surveyed network	0 km	0 km	0 km
Total surveyed network	89.065km (165.4%)	15.579KM (184.5%)	91.739KM (184.8%)

PI Results

Road classification	A	B	C
Green: Good condition (<40)	69.067km (77.5%)	9.542km (61.2%)	59.388km (64.7%)
Amber: Plan investigation (>=40)	17.785km (20.0%)	5.191km (33.3%)	27.450km (29.9%)
Red: Plan Maintenance (>=100)	2.213km (2.5%)	0.846km (5.4%)	1.901km (5.3%)

Whilst the condition of reporting on the condition of local unclassified roads has been removed, it is essential that detailed knowledge of this is maintained. Presently surveys indicate that 7 to 9 percent of these roads are in need of planned maintenance, whilst over 50 percent of the total require consideration of preventative treatments.

Back to top

Business Processes

The potential benefits of implementing a robust asset management plan will be realised when all decisions relating to future and current works are related to the processes and procedures contained within the plan. Although it is felt that the broad application of this is undertaken with current service delivery the plan is required to demonstrate this to outside organisations.

The TAMP should lead to enhancement in the delivery of the highway service and show consequent benefits to all stakeholders through improvements in the efficiency or by financial savings. At the very least an appreciation of the challenges facing the network can be derived.

This section describes key business processes influencing the outcomes of management decisions and discusses possible enhancements.

Customer Expectations

The historical process that was in place for collecting customer feedback was by the use of ‘Viewpoint’ surveys. There is now a further option afforded by Torbay’s participation within a south west initiative within the ‘National Highways and Transport Network’ (NHT) where customer surveys have been conducted by MORI. The continuing participation in these latter surveys permits the trending of customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction. This process is carried out in Section 4 of this document.

The key to the use of this customer interaction is to ensure that data collected is used in a meaningful way to establish priorities and hence levels of service. The tables included in Appendix B sets this out in further detail.

How funding need is assessed

Current Practice

Funding needs are considered using condition assessment information and priorities are established to target performance indicators in particular. This information is available for the main assets such as carriageways and footways but some other areas need further work to be able to accurately predict demand. Condition assessment information on other assets such as safety barriers, pedestrian railings and non-illuminated signs will need to be developed further to enable better predictions for longer term planned maintenance operations. A greater consideration of whole life costing for works programmes is needed to demonstrate that they meet best value principles. Torbay Council Residents & Visitor Services Transport Asset Management Plan

Also a requirement for new funding that is to be increased year on year in line with demands generated by, amongst other factors;

• New adoptions and improvement schemes
• Increasing pressures from traffic growth
• Effects of major development projects
• Changes in regulations
• The effects of climate change

How effectiveness of spending is assessed

Current Practice

The measurement of effectiveness of expenditure in a previous year relies on comparisons of local ‘Performance Indicators’ (PI’s), National Indicators (NIs), ‘Sideway—force Coefficient Routine Investigation Machine’ (SCRIM) and condition surveys. However, by addressing these factors it is apparent that non classified roads are not so robustly surveyed or reported on and consequently are relatively overlooked. This is an area that is increasingly being mentioned in customer surveys and is one that the production and development of the TAMP should address. Torbay Council is awaiting the roll out of further UKPMS updates that will provide better access to depreciation data on the carriageway network and give a truer graphical representation of the residual value of the asset. Presently although the latest versions of the toolkits are in use and form the basis of the data provided in Appendix ‘A’ there are still assumptions required from Asset Managers. This has been recognised nationally and developments in UKPMS have been provided and evaluated as a result. Initially there will still be grey areas used in producing this information, such as suggesting a direct link between condition surveys and residual life of a carriageway, but as all UKPMS users will be reporting on a common baseline this will still produce useful comparisons.

The advances in UKPMS to estimate and indicate residual life of a carriageway are gradually becoming more available and depreciation models are in use this year. This now leads to the prospect of more useful information being made available for our own dedicated Pavement Management System. Other advances will then allow financial reporting to indicate the effects of progressing types of treatment schemes and permit better targeting of available funds. The reports that this system will generate will be invaluable for feedback to members and demonstrate the need to prioritise highway maintenance to get maximum value of this essential asset.

Interrogating the ‘Depreciated Replacement Cost’ (DRC) element of the UKPMS give us the following table:

The estimated cost of highway maintenance

Year	Estimated Cost
2018/2019	£44,103,034
2019/2020	£46,607,098

Please note that the DRC is the hypothetical figure that would be required to bring all of the highway network up to an as new condition. Realistically this is not attainable and would be a waste of financial resources. The table shows the magnitude of the outstanding maintenance works that the annual condition surveys have identified for Torbay in DRC terms. This is discussed in more detail in Section 9 ‘Performance Management’.

Back to top

Levels of Service

Levels of service are developed from both asset condition and demand aspirations. They can be described as “the defined service quality for a particular activity or service area against which performance may be measured. Service levels usually relate to quality, quantity, reliability, responsiveness, environmental acceptability and cost” A simple model for developing Service Delivery Levels in Torbay is shown in the diagram below:

A key challenge for the TAMP is to demonstrate a clear balance and link between customer expectations and asset integrity.

Current Practice

The Council concentrates its resources in targeting reportable activities that can influence future funding. By doing this although it is in line with most other highway authorities nationally, there is a danger of failing to meet local expectations. The TAMP must reflect whole life costing of work programmes and Members must be made aware of the potential funding issues if reportable targets fall as a result.

Legislative requirements

Statutory requirements and other important legislative framework documents influence the delivery and management of transport assets. The table below is divided into three elements of legislation but they all apply and must be considered as part of carrying out all of the day to day highway authority’s statutory functions.

The legislation essentially sets out rules for all of a highway authority’s various activities, including locations and sizes of traffic signs, duties and responsibilities, levels of setting fines, how to deal with public utility companies, coordinating streetwork activities, liaison with railway operators, reducing congestion, setting rights for service users and maintaining reasonable access at all times. This list of activities is by no means exhaustive but gives a flavour of what is covered.

Highway Legislation

• Highways Act 1980
• Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
• Rights of Way Act 1990
• New Roads and Street Works Act 1991
• Transport Act 2000
• Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002
• Railways and Transport Act 2003
• Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2003
• Traffic Management Act 2004

Environmental Legislation

• Noxious Weeds Act 1959
• Environmental Protection Act 1990
• Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
• Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005

Relevant General Legislation  Health and Safety at Work Act

• Construction (Design and Management) Regulation 2007
• Human Rights act 1988
• Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992
• Disability and Discrimination Act 1995 and 2005
• Freedom of Information Act 2000
• The Local Government Act 2003
• Audit Commission Comprehensive Performance Assessment – The Harder Test 2007

Customer Expectations

It is also intended that customer feedback and satisfaction surveys should feature more prominently in any future decision making processes. Torbay Council is one of a number of highway authorities taking part in annual surveys arranged by MORI on behalf of the National Highways & Transport (NHT) Network. The results of these surveys is shown in further detail in Appendix B

Organisational Objectives

The following objectives are taking from the Local Transport Plan and are still applicable;

• Ensure good access to all key services and facilities from all parts of Torbay
• Ensure good access to Torbay from outside and provide easily accessible information on travel options to and within Torbay
• Improve air quality in Torbay
• Relieve congestion at existing hot spots, improving conditions for all road users
• Ensure that Torbay Council continues to meet all of its casualty reduction targets
• Ensure a high standard of management of Torbay’s transport assets, by implementing a Transport Asset Management strategy, the Network Management Duty, and a Highway Maintenance Manual
• Support economic and social development initiatives in Torbay through the provision of good access by all modes
• Maintain and enhance the quality of the urban environment and the public realm by minimising the impact of transport on Torbay’s heritage.

Best Practice Guidelines 

Codes of Practice for assets including highways, structures and street lighting provide a template to use in peer group comparisons, and as an indicator of good practice, against which we can judge our own performance. Whilst not statutory requirements, the codes are likely to be used as a point of reference in any legal proceedings, and should, therefore, be instrumental in influencing and shaping desired Levels of Service. Other national documents that may influence eventual standards include:

• Design Manual for Road and Bridges
• Specification for Highway Works
• Manual for Streets
• ‘Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme’ (HMEP) Pothole Review
• HMEP Highways Infrastructure Asset Management Guidance
• Well Managed Highway Infrastructure

Organisational Constraints 

The development of Levels of Service must reflect organisational constraints. While it may be possible to influence and reduce some of these, many will remain as permanent restrictions. These will include:

• Inadequate or unpredictable financial resources – the desired level of service may not be achievable
• Resource constraints – if financial constraints are removed it still may not be possible to resource short term fixes
• Procurement constraints – again a consideration if finance is not a factor
• Political constraints – this may affect the availability of funding
• If whole life costings are to be rigidly implemented it may lead to the appearance that roads that ‘seem to be OK’ take precedence over some residential roads that are ‘falling apart’.

Current Performance

Torbay Council’s current levels of service have been compared within the south west as a whole, initially through the benchmarking organisation, South West Highways Service Improvement Group, more latterly the South West Highways Alliance (SWHA). In addition, the opportunity to trend customer satisfaction surveys nationally using surveys conducted by Ipsos MORI that are produced through the National Highways and Transportation Group (NHT) the latest such survey results being reproduced as Appendix B. Other benchmarking and sharing of best practice will continue through the SWHA and other national representative groups such as WSP Local Authority Asset Managers Best Practise Network, which Torbay has recently joined. Other benchmarking opportunities are always being considered, as by sharing best practices in this discipline, we can look to avoid some potentially painful lessons in some areas, whilst benefitting from experiences of colleagues who have produced promising techniques in improving their networks.

National Highways and Transportation (NHT) Survey

The tables included in Appendix B is the historic data relating to NHT survey returns for Torbay. It is reproduced from the NHT website with the colour coding referring to Key Benchmark Indicators (KBI’s) nationally.

Full NHT Survey Details can be found in Appendix B.

Back to top

Life Cycle Planning

The purpose of a life cycle plan is to document how a particular asset is managed and to identify current and future needs in terms of predicted works and anticipated funding availability.

Life cycle plans consider the condition of the asset and assess its future performance by applying agreed risk and investment policies. From this information it is possible to develop the works programmes and strategies that are necessary to achieve the specified levels of service.

Life cycle plans present a record, from creation to disposal, of available asset information and cover three main work activities used in the management of a highway network:

• Operations and Maintenance: Activities undertaken to ensure the efficient operation and serviceability of the asset.
• Renewal: Provision for progressive replacement of individual assets that have reached the end of their useful life and cannot be sustained by routine maintenance alone.
• Development: Improvement of systems that currently perform below set target service standards or that need upgrading to meet future demand.

Lifecycle plans for each significant asset group are to be further developed as the plan’s usage becomes established.

The identification and assessment of options is a critical part of asset management. Often individuals using their experience and judgements carry out this assessment using data from the Pavement Management System and historical knowledge. It is envisaged that Lifecycle Plans can be used as a more accurate tool to collect this knowledge for future reference and enhancement.

Future asset funding requirements, calculated from consideration of the life cycle, are determined by reference to several sources including:

Asset condition and age data with reference to predictive deterioration models based on asset lives and historical rates of deterioration.

• Projects identified in the forward work programme.
• Long term financial strategy projections.
• Historical cost trends.
• Major changes in market costs relating to highway materials and equipment.
• Changes to Performance Indicators and methods of measuring condition data.

Lifecycle plans for each significant asset group are to be further developed as the plan’s usage becomes established. However initial principles can be shared amongst different plans.

The identification and assessment of options is a critical part of asset management. Often individuals using their experience and judgements carry out this assessment using data from the Pavement Management System and historical knowledge. It is envisaged that Lifecycle Plans can be used as a more accurate tool to collect this knowledge for future reference and enhancement.

Future asset funding requirements, calculated from consideration of the life cycle, are determined by reference to several sources including:

• Asset condition and age data with reference to predictive deterioration models based on asset lives and historical rates of deterioration.
• Projects identified in the forward work programme.
• Long term financial strategy projections.
• Historical cost trends.
• Major changes in market costs relating to highway materials and equipment.
• Changes to Performance Indicators and methods of measuring condition data.

A basic diagram of the lifecycle process is demonstrated by the following diagram:

• The diagram shows the various options available to extend the useful life of a carriageway. The condition axis also effectively represents the cost associated with the various treatment options.
• The red line shows how the condition of a road will deteriorate with time if left unchecked.
• The green line shows a series of 'preventative' treatments being applied at regular intervals and is the most cost effective option as long as the condition is suitable for this application.
• The next option shown in yellow is a ‘planned’ maintenance involving a typical inlay or overlay surfacing treatment. Whilst the application of this type of treatment can be delayed beyond that of a ‘preventative’ alternative the cost is up to 10 times as expensive.
• The blue line shows the effect of waiting until the carriageway has effectively failed before carrying out any treatment. This is far more expensive to remedy and in the current financial climate is all but unaffordable. It represents a full reconstruction treatment costing more than twice that of a planned surfacing option.

The challenge for asset management must remain as prioritising the most cost effective treatment and applying them at the correct intervals. Lifecycle plans have been developed which indicate optimal treatment times for different assets.

Lifecycle plans have been created for:

• Carriageways
• Bridges
• Other highway structures
• Drainage
• Traffic signals
• Safety fencing
• Earthworks / embankments
• Footways / cycleways
• Street lighting
• Signs
• Road markings / studs
• Verge and landscaped areas

These assets, while intrinsically different share a common framework that is applied to their management. The following are the key aspects of lifecycle planning for an asset:

• Creation and Acquisition
• Routine Maintenance
• Renewal or Replacement
• Upgrading
• Disposal

However, for all highway authorities to be able to report and compare their networks on a similar basis, the ‘Transport Infrastructure Assets’ code of practice developed by CIPFA and the ‘Highways Asset Management Financial Information Group’ (HAMFIG) has recommended the use of tools being developed within the UKPMS. This is a ‘Pavement Management System’ (PMS) that all highway authorities already utilise for Performance Indicator data purposes.

This is slightly at odds to original guidance where each authority was expected to use age related data and a thorough knowledge of road construction depths rather than condition data, in order to determine where each of its carriageways sits on the life cycle graphs shown previously in this section. Although inspirationally it is intended that eventually this type of information will be gained, initially the condition data and some default width values will be used as a referenced start point for future meaningful asset management plans.

The CIPFA/HAMFIG Code was first published in 2010 and refers to developments being introduced to UKPMS that were then released in May 2013. The developed toolkit within UKPMS is now being used to allow a full audited run of highway data to report on network valuations using both ‘Gross Replacement Costs’ and ‘Depreciated Replacement Cost’. The difference between these two figures representing the maintenance backlog that each authority will have to address. The tools are then being used to permit a national audit of highway authorities as part of the ‘Whole Government Accounting’ process.

Back to top

Financial Summary

The maintaining of a highway asset involves both proactive planned preventative treatments and reactive maintenance such as patching to keep it safe for users. This latter area involves Torbay Council conducting a rigorous regime of safety inspections to locate and identify various types of defects that could be a hazard for highway users. Details of the safety inspections are given in the Highway Maintenance Plan but this is backed up with a further document which is the ‘Highway Safety Inspections Code of Practise’ which identifies defects and intervention levels. The inspections are recorded and used to defend against third party claims using the ‘special defence’ contained in Section 58 of the Highways Act 1980.

However, potential defects identified during the course of the safety inspections are required to be repaired within deadlines stipulated in the code of practice for this defence to be successfully applied. The use of handheld data capture devices and the ‘Yotta Mayrise’ software package which records details and dates of defects and inspections is an excellent defence mechanism and has effectively brought down the costs of insurance claims against the authority. See the trend graphs below which shows a sustained reduction in claims paid out despite a significant increase in potholes being reported.

 Legal Claims Analysis

Using available data, which is published up until 2020, we can see how many legal claims we receive on a yearly basis, and as stated above, despite a consistent reduction in budgets, we do not receive an increasing number of legal claims as a result.

Number of claims received per year

Year	Carriageway	Footway
2017	29	30
2018	55	20
2019	25	0
2020	25	0
2021	20	0

A well-maintained highway asset would be expected to demonstrate a significantly higher proportion of spend against proactive maintenance than that attributed to reactive measures. Unfortunately, with the recent spell of prolonged cold winters and associated freeze/thaw damage to any cracks in a carriageway surface has resulted is a rising propensity of pothole formation and record numbers of these now require treatment. The problems are particularly pronounced on the local unclassified road networks where the need to prioritise inadequate overall funding has led to these being treated as poor relations to the classified primary network. It is becoming increasing necessary to address the root cause of the deterioration of the unclassified network and in recent years more investment has been made on lower cost preventative treatments on these roads than was previously the case. Unfortunately, though, the benefits of this type of investment are being masked by further deterioration caused by some severe weather. However, it is proposed to continue concentrating on getting the maximum coverage of the local network by making full use of preventative measures, but this may be at the cost of seeing some condition deterioration in classified roads.

However, the need to continue to invest in preventative maintenance has been compromised to some degree in it now being necessary to conduct expensive intervention works on a number of roads that are now considered to be potentially dangerous. This will require almost £350,000 in the financial year 2021/22, this compares with £565,000 on preventative maintenance and only £300,000 on planned surfacing works.

In the March 2006 Local Transport Plan there was a section indicating the desired level of funding to achieve a standstill position with regard to highway condition trends. The figure quoted in this document was £6,037,000. It was claimed that this figure would by the end of 2011 prevent further deterioration in the network. This was developed using historic data and trending but has been reflected with the available lifecycle planning toolkits, so is still relevant.

Allocated Budget 2021/2022 for Carriageway and Footway

Type	Allocated budget
Surface Dressing	£200,000
Pre surface Dressing Patching	£50,000
Carriageway Markings	£50,000
Micro Asphalt/Thin Surfacing	£100,000
Footway Reconstruction	£50,000
Carriageway Reconstruction/Resurfacing	£902,578

In actual fact, the various changes made in the UKPMS survey parameters and as a result of targeting available funding on classified roads, a significant indicative improvement in these areas was recorded. However, at the same time customer dissatisfaction with local unclassified roads was seen as being a particular issue of concern. This was mirrored by our experiences of benchmarking this authority within the at that time South West Highways Improvement Group (SWHSIG) where measured performance tended to be high, whereas the NHT Customer Satisfaction surveys carried out by MORI at the same time rated this authority as being particularly poor. This suggested that more attention was required on local roads to address this imbalance. These were prioritised and this process continued over a 7 year period. More recently has there been a higher need to address the 'worst first' highways on some busier primary routes. However, continuing to apply preventative maintenance throughout the network has reduced some of the forecast downward trend in network condition. Unfortunately, customer perception of the network condition still remains at a low level of 34% satisfaction (see Appendix B).

Using information from the date that SCANNER data became standard the above performance indicators have been recorded. This shows that carriageway condition appears to have significantly improved whereas footways and skid resistance fall short of expectations. However, the target figures were set using different parameters than those that now exist within UKPMS and certainly do not reflect customer aspirations.

Despite the reduction of funding in real terms, over many years. Torbay Council has managed to maintain a consistent condition of it's highway, through intelligent use of allocated budget, technical innovation and planning of maintenance.

Prediction from Asset Management Plan

The above data is based on historic data whereas this later section is based on a more scientific exercise carried by interrogating our Pavement Management System.

In addition to the above deterioration of overall classified road condition, the potential side effects on the authority would also be of concern. There would be increasing demands made on the revenue budget to carry out reactive works together with higher numbers of third party accident claims to defend. The local road network would be expected to deteriorate further and by being obliged to address failed sections of the highway network, less funding would be available to address preventative maintenance schemes. This latter measure would mean that the RCI would no longer be linear and that deterioration would increase progressively. Also customer satisfaction levels would fall even further and road safety may also suffer. Appendix A shows the Lifecycle Planning Toolkit’s 10 year predictions on different expenditure profiles to bring the above statements into perspective.

Back to top

Risk Management

Managing risk is an integral part of managing our transport assets. All activities from management, identification and prioritisation of works to the establishment of budgets have risks associated with them. These risks need managing. The assessment of comparative risk is therefore a key asset management tool. It can be used at a tactical level within the asset management process, to assist with option appraisal and selection, via assessment of the comparative risks of:

• Providing differing levels of service;
• Funding works on different assets; or
• Funding network improvements as opposed to maintenance works.

Identifying risks - Tactical Risks

These risks can affect the Council’s ability to deliver annual programmes to specified budgets, for example – weather, changes in customer perception, local political pressures, the consequences of changes in levels of service. The management of the affects of these factors will be part of the asset management planning process that should be identified during the TAMP’s annual review. The most likely outcome of this process will be to vary the level of service or consider the effects of not being able to carry out all of the planned works. These tactical risks could adversely impact on medium term plans, typically being 3 – 10 years.

Identifying risks - Operational Risks

These risks are those encountered on a day to day basis as the Council manages and operates the network, e.g. service delivery, repair failure etc. These risks will be identified and managed by the appropriate service delivery teams, as part of the day to day management of the network.

Assessing risks

Once risks are identified, an assessment of their likelihood and impact is undertaken as defined in the key below. Each risk identified should be monitored by an appropriate officer who can assess the appropriate action. This needs to be done in a consistent manner to give a balanced view of the risk levels associated with the different service options.

Dealing with risks

The mechanisms by which risks can be dealt with are:

• Prevention – Act to prevent the risk occurring or having an impact on a project;
• Reduction – Reduce the likelihood of the risk occurring or limit its impact;
• Transference – Pass the risk to a third party (e.g. use of insurance or penalty clauses);
• Contingency – Plan of action to come into force when a risk materialises;
• Acceptance – Accept the possibility that the risk may occur (believing that either the risk will not occur, or that countermeasures are too expensive).

One or more of these mechanisms should be identified in the action and controls column in the Risk Log, together with details of what action is to be taken.

Risk Matrix

From the above table, risks can be simply rated as below:

• Green risks (low) - are the least urgent risks; this does not mean that they can be discounted, as all ‘green’ risks have the potential to become ‘amber’ or even ‘red’ risks.
• Amber risks (medium) – are potentially the red risks of the future. They have a higher likelihood and impact assessment potential and therefore monitoring should be more frequent. This ongoing monitoring should ensure that your mitigating actions are working.
• Red risks (high) – are high maintenance. All red risks need careful repeated monitoring if the objective or benefit is to be realised.

Recording and reporting risks

Issues relating from the use of a Risk matrix should be added to the Corporate Risk Register and . The TAMP management process will consider all recorded risks and encourage the development of appropriate Action Plans, these will describe how these risks are to be managed and identify control measures.

Asset issues recorded on the Corporate Risk Register should be periodically reviewed and revised as required to monitor changes in risks and to ensure that the control measures are still suitable. If new actions are to be adopted to better control the risk, this should be recorded in the risk log. As the risk management process is dynamic and constantly evolving, the periodic reviews shall be set at appropriate intervals, typically between 3 months and a year.

Key risks

Whilst the TAMP will identify appropriate responses to deal with risk and levels of service issues, several risks that can affect the recommended actions are as follows:

• Risk - Summary description
• Financial - Availability or impact to financing
• Economic - Changes in budget
• Political - Changes in political power, policy or uncertainty
• Legislative - Changes in legislation
• Legal - Delays associated with procuring and awarding contracts.
• Professional/Managerial - Policy decisions considered inappropriate
• Environmental - Environmental considerations or impacts and climate change
• Technological - Engineering or design failures.
• Social - Major Disruptions
• Customer - No customer gain
• Physical - Unforeseen difficulties or anomalies.
• Partnership/Contractual - Higher operation and maintenance costs
• Competitive - Delays due to competition
• Construction - Fault construction, cost escalations and delays
• Safety - Poor maintenance decisions
• Personnel - Inability to recruit staff and no appropriate skills in workplace

There is a shortlist of risks that have previously been assessed as part of the creation of this plan.

Back to top

Forward Work Programme

As the highway authority, Torbay Council complies with all current legislation including the ‘Traffic Management Act’ (TMA) concerning the expeditious movement of traffic, and the ‘New Roads and Streetworks Act’ (NRSWA) where there is a duty to co-ordinate works on the highway. Torbay now operates as a Permitting Authority in compliance with DfT guidance.

There are regular meetings held with representatives from all of the utility companies and scheme proposal lists are discussed at these to allow the effective planning and coordination of works on the highway network.

In addition to these third party proposals, the Network Management team’s ‘Pavement Management System’ (PMS) identifies an overall condition report of the entire highway network and also indicates carriageways and footways where intervention or maintenance works are required. This information is considered together with potential schemes that have been identified from either the ‘Mayrise’ suite as being potentially too expensive to continue to apply reactive maintenance measures to, as well as planned works recorded by the Highway Inspectors or as a result of customer reports.

Developments in the PMS and the national UKPMS are suggesting a correlation between condition data and the residual life of a carriageway. Torbay Council has already been interrogating the PMS in differing ways to endeavour to rationalise different types of treatments based on the condition reports with some promising results. This type of activity combined with in house condition surveys and local investigations will in theory provide us with a robust justification for our future work programmes.

The resultant list of candidate schemes is then broken down into sites where different forms of maintenance may be appropriate for, such as preventative treatments or further structural or resurfacing options. All sites are visited and assessed to determine the appropriate treatment and where necessary further investigation measures will be conducted such as trial holes or coring.

The lists represent the known backlog of schemes and the sites are monitored, reviewed and prioritised on a regular basis to create work programmes dependant on the sum of maintenance money that is anticipated. These lists are reviewed on at least an annual basis.

It is anticipated that the UKPMS developments will result in major changes to the early identification of candidate schemes and that this will strongly influence the works programme in future years for this plan. Early indications suggest that financial modelling and deterioration rate trending will enable far more detailed analysis of the effect of funding decisions on producing future scheme programmes.

Appendix A illustrates graphically the output from the latest Lifecycle Planning Toolkit giving 10 year trending the overall impact on the highway asset as a whole. Based on a number of different expenditure profiles.

Scheme Backlog

Presently there is a substantial backlog of schemes of all categories of treatment that are waiting for funding. The current lists based on visual and condition surveys are included in Appendix C.

In order to compile a list of the scheme backlog, we use a defined controlled process defined.

By using a mixture of quantifiable data procured through surveys, local knowledge, informed engineering knowledge and the ability to manage budgets effectively, we score potential sites based on these factors and can make an informed decision on whether to aim to programme maintenance on a section of the carriageway

The prioritisation of such sites against the available funding is the whole crux of the asset management challenge.

Back to top

Performance Monitoring

Asset Management is structured to support a process of continuous improvement in line with adequate funding provision. The performance monitoring and reporting regime will be used to review the plan and its processes. The review activities will include: -

• Ongoing Performance Review - reviewing results, the factors contributing to performance and the options for dealing lacking performance.
• Policy Review - All policies should be periodically reviewed where necessary, resulting from a change in legislation or local council changes.

Application

Traditionally performance monitoring has been reliant on having a repeatable series of data to enable the production of trending reports. Presently the only such data available that has remained relatively stable has been the various performance indicators that are used for audit reporting. The direct comparison with condition data against expenditure used may produce a rough guide but this does not really consider the overall rate of deterioration of an asset. The collection of relevant condition data using a simple repeatable survey, together with the determination of construction materials and depths used in the network should make future monitoring more readily achievable and reportable. This will be the key ingredient with the UKPMS developments that will make the TAMP a viable tool for decision making.

Review

The initial reviews will need to be conducted using the performance indicator data and using assumed construction types. As the PMS is updated with the newly acquired data and directions received on types of reporting that will be required for asset management, the review process will develop accordingly.

Pavement Management System Indications

Using the most recent additions to the PMS system which compares carriageway condition data to a ‘Depreciated Replacement Cost’ (DRC) produces the following breakdown as an example:

Depreciated Replacement Cost

Network group 1	Network group 2	No. of sections	Network length (km)	Average width (m)	Status	Total useful life	Renewal rate	Survey coverage (km)	Survey coverage (%)	Annual depreciation £000s/year	Accumulated %	Accumulated £000s
U	5	11	0.398	7.8	E	20	£13.32/m2	0	0%	2.073	0%	0
U	6	823	77.065	6.37	E	20	£10.68/m2	1.859	2.40%	274.478	16.60%	1021.058
U	NC	1	0	0	N/A	20	£10.68/m2	0	0%	0	0%	0
?	All	763	42.089	-	-	-	-	0	0%	18.772	0%	0
R	All	10	0.292	-	-	-	-	0	0%	1.836	0%	0
U	All	1602	120.049	-	-	-	-	1.859	1.50%	298.765	18.60%	1021.058

This simplistic table shows the impact of an inadequate level of maintenance funding, as well as the immediate impact of ever increasing severe winters. It also shows how a conscious effort to increase the proportion of preventative maintenance used over the last two years is apparently slowing depreciation. However, the main message is that as already argued in the LTP2 submission the level of funding required to reach a standstill position has not been met. LTP2 demonstrated that typically £2M would be required annually to achieve this.

The other message from the table, as evidenced by the indicative DRC’s is that it would require an investment in excess of £33M to return all carriageways to an ‘as new’ condition. However, it is estimated that approximately half of this sum would be required to return them all to a ‘good’ status

Members should be aware that the Capital investment made by the Department for Transport is nationally recognised of being on the low side. Consequently it is necessary to concentrate on ‘preventative’ maintenance sites at the cost of having to defer some ‘reactive’ sites to a time when funding levels may increase. However, this is only delaying the inevitable and we already have a list of sites awaiting treatment that will require some £10M to address.

Some of these deferred sites are in high profile areas, such as Old Mill Road, Torquay and New Road, Brixham. The recently reduced level of funding can only exacerbate this problem and public satisfaction of highway maintenance as a whole is reducing. The previous level of funding enabled the inclusion of a small programme of worse first type roads, but if we adhere rigorously to the principles of ‘Asset Management’, we should now only use low cost preventative treatments on carriageways that are suitable for such treatments and temporarily ignore the backlog of other sites.

This is not a desirable situation, but it is a realistic one, in that reducing already inadequate highway maintenance funding at such a time, will quickly increase the number of sites awaiting treatment and then require more substantial funding to rectify at a future date.

Back to top

Improvement Action Plan

This developing version of the TAMP is still an interim document. Improvement Actions will be developed over the coming years by obtaining missing data and using all available condition and feedback data that can be trended.

As things currently stand the Council have a list of schemes that need various forms of treatment, an overall condition rating based on surveys of up to three years age and an indication of what funding is to be made available for the next financial year. Therefore whilst it would be easy to state that we are to concentrate on lower cost preventative maintenance measures, in reality, we still need to address reactive schemes at extremely short notice.

However the introduction of this document within the scoping of the 'Highway Maintenance Manual' should assist engineers in presenting decisions and outcomes to elected members. This is the primary benefit of the asset management approach and is an opportunity welcomed by this authority.

Action Plan

The Council’s priorities for maintaining this asset with the current levels of funding will be:-

• Prioritise the A & B road network that carries the higher levels of traffic
• Use preventative maintenance treatments on roads that are still in a condition to benefit from these.
• Maintain modern estate roads in accordance with lifecycle planning guidance with timed preventative intervention at the optimum times.
• Use additional DfT funding on preventative treatments of older estate roads to reduce further pothole proliferation and to seal vulnerable unbound road formations.
• Target worst first responses at shorter lengths of affected carriageways.

The Action Plan statement for the year following the adoption of this TAMP is therefore to continue to make the best use of the capital funding that was provided by the Department for Transport whilst appreciating that it is not yet acceptable to abandon some of the highway network that remains in need of major surface intervention works. This will mean that targeted sections of roads will receive structural maintenance treatments rather than the more desirable whole lengths treated previously.

This means that although there will still be an element of responding to ‘worst first’ situations on the classified road network that preventative maintenance levels will still be the preferred option on the rest of the network. The capital allocation will cover only 50% of the roads that are identified as being in need of immediate investment. This situation will be reviewed as the year progresses, but it is anticipated that any additional grants for funding in response to pothole proliferation or repair to recent flood damage will be prioritised on preventative treatments on local roads. By continuing with this option, the local road network can be sustained at an acceptable condition pending the time that appropriate levels of investment are made to this national asset when circumstances permit.

Overall given the current financial situation practitioners in the field of highway maintenance have been obliged to accept that they are presiding over a deteriorating asset, but the toolkits that have now been adopted show that this situation requires a real determination by politicians to take up the mantle and allow engineers to tackle the backlog of maintenance schemes in a planned manner.

Meanwhile, the 2021 version of Appendix ‘A’ associated with this plan sets out the latest situation and allows the reader to see the decisions that are all too necessary at the current time.

The trend line diagrams in Appendix A represent a choice in investment levels, in order to produce desired levels of network condition. These probably represent the most important feature of this plan using the toolkits available at this time. With the introduction of a preferred Asset Management System, reporting more accurately on trends should be possible.

Back to top

Appendix A - Asset Management Plan

This appendix to the Torbay Asset Management Plan is to be reviewed on a regular basis to take account of advances in the associated ‘Codes of Practice’ and industry guidance. It relies on toolkits that were developed on behalf of the Department for Transport to enable a more evidence based approach to this process.

A series of charts and tables produced by running local highway condition data and construction costs in the toolkit have been included as visual aids to allow members and decision makers to be better aware of the financial issues that are present in the field of highway maintenance. The ‘Carriageway Lifecycle Planning Toolkit’ in its current form was released in May 2013 and assists in the strategic planning of carriageway maintenance over a minimum of 10 year cycles.

This toolkit enables highway engineers to demonstrate the predicted impact that financial restrictions will create to a highway network. It backs up what our customers have been saying in their various public satisfaction surveys that roads are deteriorating at an ever increasing rate, which is further evidenced by the presence of rapidly forming potholes and the very poor condition of some local estate roads.

The Network Management team hold an ever growing list of roads that are waiting for planned maintenance works with the backlog now totalling more than £10million. This list has been derived from a number of sources including condition surveys, walked safety inspections and third party reports or complaints and is reviewed periodically and validated whilst preparing design briefs for works programmes. It also has to take account of any planned work by the public utility companies and problems created by weather and accident damage. Whilst the list is a valuable local tactical aid it is not intended to replace decisions that are driven by the Council’s ‘Pavement Management System’ (PMS) and all sites on the list are constantly reprioritised to allow the maximum use of the limited funds that are available.

The overriding principle that applies to our decisions on dealing with the works backlog is that wherever possible preventative low cost treatments will be applied in preference to the more expensive reactive resurfacing schemes that so much of our network already requires. We have retained and extended the use of surface dressing treatments onto both local and strategic roads in recent years. Whilst the fragility of the network has meant that there are some roads with maximum weight restrictions due to adjacent weak structures and poor surfaces on some of the more heavily trafficked routes, we have not yet reached the stage where we are only treating the ‘worst first’ roads or resorted to abandoning roads in their entirety.

The Council is obliged to consider the adoption of Asset Management techniques and to sign up to both a Policy and a Strategy for its full implementation. The Policy is included in the Transportation Working Party documents that are to be presented and the ‘Strategy’ will be developed before being considered by Full Council.

Carriageway Lifecycle Planning Toolkit

This tool is a predictive spreadsheet that was developed by the ‘Highways Maintenance Efficiency Programme’ (HMEP). The HMEP initiative aims to maximise returns from investment and deliver efficiencies in highway maintenance services.

The spreadsheet in its current form uses default carriageway deterioration models that are also used in the ‘United Kingdom Pavement Management System’ (UKPMS) to derive the ‘Deteriorated Replacement Costs’ (DRC) that are used for ‘Whole Government Accounting’ (WGA) returns. The model associated with these calculations is at an early stage and will be further validated with experience.

The Torbay scenarios have been run using the latest surveyed condition data and historic costs associated with different planned maintenance treatments. The outputs are for each of 5 different types of Asset Groups in 5 condition bands ranging from Very Good (as new) to Very Poor (in need of urgent attention). By running a series of iterations it has been attempted to indicate the level of average annual budget that would be required to achieve or maintain various percentage performance targets.

The headline result of this exercise is that in order to maintain the highway network in its current overall condition will require an investment of £39million over the next 10 years. Even more worrying is that if the current inadequate level of investment is maintained (£7million over 10 years), the network will have more than half of its length in Poor or Very Poor condition.

Deterioration Modelling

Deterioration Modelling allows us to understand the rate at which Highway assets depreciate in condition and value. The below graphs show the rate of deterioration based on zero funding. Using UKPMS Scanner results of 2021 as a baseline over a 10 year period.

These graphs show the rate at which increased funding would allow us to rectify the condition of roads based on Hierarchy.

The series of graphs above indicate trends identified by using the new Life Cycle Planning toolkit provided by HMEP. The graphs enable the reader to see the average annual budget required to attain an overall highway condition. The lines are based on a 10 year planning cycle, therefore the graphs are showing what the percentage of poor or very poor condition roads will be present at the end of the 10 year period.

For direct comparison purposes the total actual capital budgets for the last two year have been less than £1,000,000 for all categories of road combined. If this budget is to continue at this level it is predicted that there would be more than 50% of our Urban Local Roads in a poor or very poor condition by 2030.

The above graph is part of the toolkit output associated with maintaining the present level of investment. The Urban Local Roads have been chosen to show the deterioration model as they represent 85% of the carriageway network length.

The colours on the graphs are:

• Red - Very Poor Condition
• Amber - Poor Condition
• Yellow - Fair Condition
• Green - Good Condition
• Dark green - Very Good Condition

For direct comparison purposes, zero investment produces a very similar graph over the same 10 year period. This is shown below.

The differences between these two graphs are barely discernible but at the end of the 10 year period more than 60% of the local road network will be poor with 36% being very poor.

To avoid these scenarios, another iteration of the toolkit based on maintaining the current proportions of poor and very poor performance standards produced the £39million budget over the 10 year period. Whilst this option could be fine tuned further to produce indicative works programmes the required expenditure profile is shown on the following graphs.

The bulk of the budgets would be targeted on the three lower cost preventative treatments (surface dressing, micro-asphalting and thin overlays). Admittedly the output options will need to be adjusted to reduce or remove the expenditure spikes from the scenario and some additional expenditure on the poor condition roads to stop them from reaching the very poor category is desired, but the graph clearly indicates the scale of preventative maintenance that is required to reduce the maintenance backlog.

This graph shows the outcome of concentrating resources predominantly on a preventative maintenance regime. It therefore shows the absolute minimum investment required to maintain this vital asset. However, it would probably not be acceptable to allow the proportion of very poor roads to increase in the manner shown, but it does establish a realistic baseline for other scenarios to compare against.

Back to top

Appendix B - National Highways and Transportation (NHT): Customer Satisfaction Survey

Torbay Council has been participating in the NHT survey since its inception in 2008. Whilst we are not taking part in the 2021 survey on cost grounds, it is intended to return on at least a bi-annual basis to enable public satisfaction trends to be monitored. The survey is arranged and analysed by ‘Measures 2 Improve’ and Ipsos MORI and was originally developed with input from the ‘South West Highways Service Improvement Group’. The survey involves comprehensive questionnaires being sent to random recipients in each authority area and asks respondents to rate their perceived performance.

The National Highway and Transport Public Satisfaction Survey (NHT Survey) collects the public's views on different aspects of Highway and Transport in local authority areas, it covers; Pavements, Cycle Routes/Lanes, Local Bus Services, Local Taxi (or mini cab) Services, Community Transport, Demand Responsive Transport, Safety on Roads, Traffic Congestion, Levels of Traffic Pollution, Street Lighting, the Condition of Roads and the local Rights of Way Network. It asks detailed questions about each aspect in turn and this year there are new questions canvassing opinion on climate change, changing travel habits and congestion charging.

Executive Summary - 2020 Survey

Torbay's theme scores are compared with the NHT Average theme scores below. Also shown are the year on year.

Change in Torbay's results (Trend) and the difference from the NHT Average (Gap), which are highlighted in colour; blue and green for improvements/above average scores and amber and red for reductions/below average score.

NHT Summary

Description	Torbay	NHT Average	Trend	Gap
Accessibility	68%	71%		-3% (Amber)
Public Transport	60%	57%		3% (Green)
Walking/Cylcing	51%	52%		-1% (Amber)
Takcling Congestion	46%	46%		0% (Green)
Road Safety	54%	53%		1% (Green)
Highway Maintenance	48%	49%		-1% (Amber)

Torbay's Key Benchmark Indicator results for this year are compared with the NHT Average, Highest and Lowest below.

The difference from average (gap) results are highlighted in colour; blue and green for above average, amber and red for below average.

Accessibility Key Benchmark Indicators

Keybench Mark Indicator	Torbay	NHT High	NHT Average	NHT Low	Difference
KBI 03 - Ease of Access (all)	77%	80%	77%	72%	0% (Green)
KBI 04 - Ease of Access (disabilities)	61%	74%	66%	59%	-5% (Red)
KBI 05 - Ease of Access (no car)	65%	81%	70%	54%	-5% (Red)

Walking/Cycling Key Benchmark Indicators

Keybench Mark Indicator	Torbay	NHT High	NHT Average	NHT Low	Difference
KBI 11 - Pavements & Footpaths (overall)	52%	67%	55%	43%	-3% (Amber)
KBI 12 - Pavements & Footpaths (aspects)	52%	61%	54%	48%	-2% (Amber)
KBI 13 - Cycle routes and facilities (overall)	50%	66%	49%	40%	1% (Green)
KBI 14 - Cycle routes and facilities (aspects)	47%	62%	46%	39%	1% (Green)
KBI 15 - Rights of way (overall)	55%	64%	57%	53%	-2% (Amber)
KBI 16 - Rights of way (aspects)	50%	60%	52%	48%	-2% (Amber)

Public Transport Key Benchmark Indicators

Keybench Mark Indicator	Torbay	NHT High	NHT Average	NHT Low	Difference
KBI 06 - Local bus services (overall)	66%	79%	60%	47%	6% (Blue)
KBI 07 - Local bus services (aspects)	69%	81%	57%	36%	12% (Blue)
KBI 08 - Public transport information	47%	73%	44%	23%	3% (Green)
KBI 09 - Taxi/mini cab services	69%	73%	66%	56%	3% (Green)
KBI 10 - Community Transport	57%	65%	58%	53%	-1% (Amber)

Tackling Congestion Key Benchmark Indicators

Keybench Mark Indicator	Torbay	NHT High	NHT Average	NHT Low	Difference
KBI 17 - Traffic levels & congestion	48%	62%	46%	33%	2% (Green)
KBI 18 - Management of roadworks	47%	58%	50%	44%	-3% (Amber)
KBI 19 - Traffic management	41%	57%	42%	34%	-1% (Amber)

Road Safety Key Benchmark Indicators

Keybench Mark Indicator	Torbay	NHT High	NHT Average	NHT Low	Difference
KBI 20 - Road safety locally	59%	64%	57%	49%	2% (Green)
KBI 21 - Road safety environment	55%	63%	54%	48%	1% (Green)
KBI 22 - Road safety education	48%	58%	50%	44%	-2% (Amber)

Highway Maintenance Key Benchmark Indicators

Keybench Mark Indicator	Torbay	NHT High	NHT Average	NHT Low	Difference
KBI 23 - Condition of highways	34%	55%	36%	21%	-2% (Amber)
KBI 24 - Highway maintenance	47%	61%	50%	42%	-3% (Amber)
KBI 25 - Street lighting	66%	73%	64%	51%	2% (Green)
KBI 26 - Highway enforcement/obstructions	44%	56%	45%	38%	-1% (Amber)

Torbay council's own survey score were within the mean 4% average compared to NHT averages. With notable exceptions applied to local bus services which were in excess of 6% and 12%. Further analysis of free text responses show that the congestion question and the lack of public satisfaction were mostly related to the condition of the public highway and ease of access for disabled users or for people without a car.

2020 Authority Annual Report - Satisfaction Lowest and Highest Results

10 Lowest Scores

Reference	Type	Indiciator	Theme	Score	Rank
HMBI19	BI	Cuts back overgrown hedges Highway Maintenance	Highway Maintenance	36%	105
TCBI03	BI	Time taken to complete roadworks Tackling Congestion	Tackling Congestion	37%	104
PTBI24	BI	Availability of community transport Public Transport	Public Transport	52%	102
HMBI09	BI	Maintenance of verges/trees/shrub Highway Maintenance	Highway Maintenance	41%	102
KBI15	KBI	Rights of Way (overall) Walking/Cycling	Walking/Cycling	55%	101
HMBI27	KBI	Cleanliness of road signs Highway MaintenancE	Highway Maintenance	53%	100
KBI18	KBI	Management of roadworks Tackling Congestion	Tackling Mongestion	47%	100
WCBI18	BI	Bridleways for horse riding/cycling Walking/Cycling	Walking/Cycling	53%	99
KBI12	KBI	Pavements & footpaths (aspects) Walking/Cycling	Walking/Cycling	52%	99
HMBI26	BI	Condition of road signs	Highway Maintenance	57%	97

10 Highest Scores

Reference	Type	Indiciator	Theme	Score	Rank
PTBI21	BI	Availability of taxis or minicabs Public Transport	Public Transport	76%	11
PTBI22	BI	Reliability of taxis or minicabs Public Transport	Public Transport	74%	12
PTBI05	BI	How easy buses are to get on/off Public Transport	Public Transport	74%	12
PTBI02	BI	Number of bus stops Public Transport	Public Transport	73%	12
PTBI09	BI	Helpfulness of drivers Public Transport	Public Transport	71%	13
KBI09	KBI	Taxi/mini cab services Public Transport	Public Transport	69%	14
KBI07	KBI	Local bus services (aspects) Public Transport	Public Transport	69%	17
PTBI10	BI	Personal safety on the bus Public Transport	Public Transport	69%	20
PTBI01	BI	Frequency of bus services Public Transport	Public Transport	68%	21
PTBI06	BI	The local bus service overall Public Transport	Public Transport	68%	21

Accessibility Summary

Accessibility - Number of indicators up or down since last year

Type	Up 4%+	Up 0 to 3%	Down 0 to 3%	Down 4%+
Key Benchmark Indicator	0	0	0	0
Benchmark Indicator	0	0	0	0

Accessibility - Number of indicators above or below average

Type	4%+ Above	Up to 3% Above	Up to 3% Below	4%+ Below
Key Benchmark Indicator	0	1	0	2
Benchmark Indicator	2	1	5	0

Accessibility - Key Benchmark Indicators and Benchmark Indicators

KBI/BI Ref	Indicator	Result	Trend	Average	Gap	Quartile	Rank
KBI03	Ease of Access (all)	77%		77%	0% (Green)	3	58
KBI04	Ease of Access (disabilities)	61%		66%	-5% (Red)	4	101
KBI05	Ease of Access (no car)	65%		70%	-5% (Red)	4	95
ABI01	Ease of access to where you work (if you do)	79%		75%	4% (Blue)	1	16
ABI02	Ease of access to post office/banks	75%		76%	-1% (Amber)	3	80
ABI03	Ease of access to local shops/supermarkets	81%		82%	-1% (Amber)	4	97
ABI04	Ease of access to hospital	72%		68%	4% (Blue)	1	21
ABI05	Ease of access to doctors and health facilities	76%		79%	-3% (Amber)	4	104
ABI06	Ease of access to school/college	82%		79%	3% (Green)	1	23
ABI07	Ease of access to leisure facilities	75%		76%	-1% (Amber)	3	80
ABI08	Ease of access to visit friends/family	75%		76%	-1% (Amber)	4	85

Communications Summary

Communications - Number of indicators up or down since last year

Type	Up 4%+	Up 0 to 3%	Down 0 to 3%	Down 4%+
Benchmark Indicator	0	0	0	0
Key Benchmark Indicator	0	0	0	0

Communications - Number of indicators above or below average

Type	4%+ Above	Up to 3% Above	Up to 3% Below	4%+ Below
Key Benchmark Indicator	0	1	1	0
Benchmark Indicator	0	8	4	0

Communications - Key Quality Indicators and Quality Indicators

KQI/QI Ref	Indicator	Result	Trend	Average	Gap	Quartile	Rank
KQI01	Enquiry Handling Overall	52%		51%	1% (Green)	2	49
KQI02	Communication (aspects)	47%		48%	-1% (Amber)	3	71
CMQI01	Ease of Contact for enquiries	63%		66%	-3% (Amber)	4	90
CMQI02	Professionalism of staff re enquiries	68%		69%	-1% (Amber)	2	70
CMQI03	Speed & quality of response to enquiries	57%		55%	2% (Green)	2	42
CMQI04	Informed about public transport	48%		48%	0% (Green)	2	48
CMQI05	Informed about highways and transport	45%		45%	0% (Green)	3	60
CMQI06	Informed about action to repair local roads	31%		33%	-2% (Amber)	4	85
CMQI07	Informed about local air quality	27%		27%	0% (Green)	3	61
CMQI14	Informed about council transport and highways services	40%		40%	0% (Green)	3	45
CMQI17	Reporting back what had been done	44%		44%	0% (Green)	4	54
CMQI18	Informed about climate change	63%		60%	3% (Green)	1	23
CMQI20	Informed about council actions on climate change	28%		29%	-1% (Amber)	4	47
CMQI21	Informed about personal actions on climate change	56%		55%	1% (Green)	1	45

Highway Maintenance

Highway Maintenance - Number of indicators up or down since last year

Type	Up 4%+	Up 0 to 3%	Down 0 to 3%	Down 4%+
Key Benchmark Indicator	0	0	0	0
Benchmark Indicator	0	0	0	0
Quality Indicator	0	0	0	0

Highway Maintenance - Number of indicators above or below average

Type	4%+ Above	Up to 3% Above	Up to 3% Below	4%+ Below
Key Benchmark Indicator	0	1	3	0
Benchmark Indicator	2	5	9	7
Quality Indicator	0	1	0	2

Highway Maintenance - Key Benchmark Indicators, Benchmark Indicators and Quality Indicators

KBI/BI/QI Ref	Indicator	Result	Trend	Average	Gap	Quartile	Rank
KBI23	Condition of Highways	34%		36%	-2% (Amber)	3	72
KBI24	Highway Maintenance	47%		50%	-3% (Amber)	4	83
KBI25	Street Lighting	66%		64%	2% (Green)	2	38
KBI26	Hgihway Enforcement/Obstructions	44%		45%	-1% (Amber)	4	60
HMBI01	Condition of road surfaces	34%		37%	-3% (Amber)	3	80
HMBI02	Cleanliness of roads	51%		54%	-3% (Amber)	4	88
HMBI03	Condition of road markings	50%		54%	-4% (Red)	4	96
HMBI05	Provision of Street Lighting	62%		62%	0% (Green)	3	67
HMBI06	Speed of repair to street lights	58%		58%	0% (Green)	3	66
HMBI09	Maintenance of verges/trees/shrub	41%		47%	-6% (Red)	4	102
HMBI11	Provision of Drains	52%		50%	2% (Green)	2	47
HMBI12	Keeping drains clear and working	50%		46%	4% (Blue)	1	28
HMBI13	Deals with potholes/damaged roads	33%		35%	-2% (Amber)	3	76
HMBI18	Provides information on Gritting	45%		44%	1% (Green)	2	50
HMBI19	Cuts back overgrown hedges	36%		42%	-6% (Red)	4	105
HMBI20	Deals with mud on roads	48%		48%	0% (Green)	3	64
HMBI22	Deals with flooding on roads	48%		44%	4% (Blue)	1	17
HMBI23	Speed of repair to damaged pavements	36%		39%	-3% (Amber)	4	87
HMBI24	Quality of repair to damaged pavements	45%		47%	-2% (Amber)	4	83
HMBI25	Weed killing on pavements	41%		45%	-4% (Red)	4	93
HMBI26	Condition of road signs	57%		61%	-4% (Red)	4	97
HMBI27	Cleanliness of road signs	53%		58%	-5% (Red)	4	100
HMBI28	Undertakes cold weather gritting (salting)	56%		58%	-2% (Amber)	4	83
HMBI29	Undertakes snow clearance	51%		53%	-2% (Amber)	4	84
HMBI30	Speed of repair to damaged roads	28%		31%	-3% (Amber)	4	83
HMBI31	Quality of repair to damaged roads	36%		38%	-2% (Amber)	3	78
HMBI32	Weed killing on and roads	45%		50%	-5% (Red)	4	97
HMQI11	Number of Potholes	23%		28%	-5% (Red)	4	91
HMQI12	Action to repair local roads	33%		38%	-5% (Red)	4	95
HMQI13	Provision of street lights	82%		79%	3% (Green)	2	30

Whole Summary of Differences

The table below summarises the difference between Torbay's results and the NHT average by size of the difference and type of indicator.

Whole Difference Summary

Result	Key Benchmark Indicators	Benchmark Indicators	Key Quality Indicators	Quality Indicators
4%+ Above Average	2	12	0	2
0-3% Above Average	12	38	4	14
0-3% Below Average	11	38	1	5
4%+ Below Average	2	12	0	2

Back to top

Appendix C - Maintenance Backlog

At the time of writing the categories of treatments required are considered to be accurate. However, as time passes the various identified roads can deteriorate beyond the point where the current indicative treatments are possible and then become more costly to repair. As well as this other road that are not in immediate need of treatments will be added to the backlog.

Highway maintenance backlog

Street Name	Note	Length	Width	Area	Unit Rate	Cost	Cumulative
Old Mill Road, Chelston	Goshen to Greenway.	214	9	1930.3	45	£86,862.60	£86,862.60
Chatto Road	Whole.	824	7.91	6517.8	25	£162,946.00	£249,808.60
Lymington Road	Roundabout juntion with Upton Hill	143	9.8	1407.1	45	£63,320.40	£313,129.00
Croft Hill, Torquay		102	6	612	25	£15,300.00	£241,566.40
Headland Park Road, Preston	Bend	100	7.6	760	30	£22,800.00	£351,229.00
Tor View Gdns, Paignton		82	6.5	533	45	£23,985.00	£375,214.00
Shiphay Lane	DD to Shiphay Ave	507	6.6	3346.2	75	£250,965.00	£626,179.00
Windmill Road, Paignton	Junction Dolphin Court to Shorton	75	7.2	540	55	£29,700.00	£655,879.00
Aspen Way, Paignton		170	5.2	884	55	£48,620.00	£704,499.00
Teignmouth Road	Happaway Road to roundabout/St Marychurch Bypass	242	7.7	1863.4	25	£46,585.00	£751,084.00
Youngs Park Road, Paignton	Start to car park	88	6	528	25	£13,200.00	£764,284.00
Trumlands Road, Torquay		280	6.5	1820	25	£45,500.00	£809,784.00
Florida Road, Torquay		163	5	815	25	£20,375.00	£830,159.00
Croft Road, Torquay		440	7.5	3300	25	£82,500.00	£912,659.00
Manscombe Road, Torquay		635	7.5	4762.5	35	£166,687.50	£1,079,346.50
Colley End Park	Whole road	207	5.9	1221.3	25	£30,532.50	£1,109,879.00
Higher Ramshill Lane, Paignton		1567	4.8	7521.6	25	£188,040.00	£1,297,919.00
Hayes Road, Paignton	Development end to school	100	5.2	520	35	£18,200.00	£1,316,119.00
Palace Avenue, Paignton		410	8	3280	35	£114,800.00	£1,430,919.00
Briwere Road, Torquay		228	4.8	1094.4	25	£27,360.00	£1,458,279.00
St Matthews Road, Chelston		530	7	3710	35	£129,850.00	£1,588,129.00
Seaway Lane, Chelston		361	5	1805	35	£63,175.00	£1,651,304.00
Chelston Road, Chelston		295	7	2065	25	£51,625.00	£1,702,929.00
Stoke Road, Collaton St Mary	Both ends (60x6) (250x6)	310	6	1860	25	£46,500.00	£1,749,429.00
Totnes Road	Blagdon Road to Blagdon Park	750	8	6000	25	£150,000.00	£1,899,429.00
Alders Way, Paignton		440	4.5	1980	25	£49,500.00	£1,948,929.00
Centry Road, Brixham		301	6	1806	35	£63,210.00	£2,012,139.00
St Marys Road, Brixham		1050	5	5250	25	£131,250.00	£2,143,389.00
Kelland Close, Paignton		172	5.2	894.4	30	£26,832.00	£2,170,221.00
Abbey Road	Top section	230	4.4	1012	45	£45,540.00	£2,215,761.00
Hayes Gardens, Paignton		230	5.8	1334	25	£33,350.00	£2,249,111.00
Hookhills Drive, Paignton		125	5.5	687.5	25	£17,187.50	£2,266,298.50
Saltern Road, Paignton		165	5	825	25	£20,625.00	£2,286,923.50
Torwood Street	Clock tower to Parkhill	155	11	1705	55	£93,775.00	£2,380,698.50
Tanners Road, Preston	Railway Bridge	55	4.3	236.5	25	£5,912.50	£2,386,611.00
Quinta Close	Whole road	206	5.6	1153.6	15	£17,304.00	£2,403,915.00
Totnes Road	Section by zoo	150	10	1500	35	£52,500.00	£2,456,415.00
Torbay Road	Princess Theatre section	614	6.8	4175.2	35	£146,132.00	£2,602,547.00
Totnes Road	Blagdon Road to Blagdon Park	750	8	6000	25	£150,000.00	£2,752,547.00
Vansittaart Road	Whole road	270	7.2	1944	25	£48,600.00	£2,801,147.00
Old Mill Road, Chelston		781	5	3905	25	£97,625.00	£2,898,772.00
Ruckamore Road, Torquay		168	6	1008	25	£25,200.00	£2,923,972.00
Rushlade Close, Paignton		158	6	948	15	£14,220.00	£2,938,192.00
Shirburn Road, Torquay		540	7.5	4050	25	£101,250.00	£3,039,442.00
Slade Lane, Galmpton		315	4	1260	15	£18,900.00	£3,058,342.00
Smallcombe Road, Paignton		640	6.5	4160	25	£104,000.00	£3,162,342.00
Southfield Road, Paignton		400	7.6	3040	25	£76,000.00	£3,058,342.00
Temperence Street, Torquay		60	6	360	25	£9,000.00	£3,247,342.00
The Roundings, Galmpton		75	6	450	15	£6,750.00	£3,254,092.00
Thorne Park Road, Torquay		390	7.6	2964	15	£44,460.00	£3,298,552.00

Back to top