Highways Asset Management Plan: HAMP ... - Hounslow Council

Highways Asset Management Plan 

Version 3 

August 2009

London Borough of Hounslow Streetcare 

Services 


Version 3: 2009

London Borough of Hounslow Highways Asset Management Plan 2009 

Foreword to HAMP Version 1 

At Hounslow we are continuously striving to improve the levels of service 

provided to our community. We recognise the key role that our street 

environment plays in achieving the diverse goals set out in our Community 

Plan, and that the ‘Highway’ is a public space shared by all those who live, 

work, shop and pass through our Borough. The road network is perhaps the 

most extensive and valuable asset we own and manage on the public’s behalf, 

so it makes sense to plan the investment we make in it, and ensure the public 

get value for money in all we do. 

The directorate of Street Management & Public Protection (SM&PP) took the 

initiative to produce a Highways Asset Management Plan (HAMP) in February 

2005, and this document is the result of that important work. We are proud 

that Hounslow was one of the first Councils in London to publish a full 

HAMP, and we intend to put it to good use in the years ahead. 

The HAMP will be a living document, designed to reflect the changing needs 

and priorities of the community, and we have already started work on 

improvements identified in this first release. It encompasses all parts of the 

street ‘assets’, and sets out a way of setting targets and measuring performance 

of all our services that contribute to improving and maintaining the whole 

street environment. The Plan recognises that it is the outcomes of what we do 

that matter. 

The HAMP is an important first step on the path towards more effective 

management of the highway network. It is forward-looking and sets the 

framework for much longer-term planning than has been the case in the past. 

A Steering Group has been established to ensure that the HAMP moves 

forward and is effectively put into practice. 

We take this opportunity to thank the members of the Steering Group, other 

members of SM&PP and our technical advisers, Chris Britton Consultancy 

Limited for the excellent work done in initiating and developing the HAMP. 

We commend it to everyone who has an interest in maintaining and enhancing 

the quality of our street environment, and as a working guide for those directly 

involved in this activity, both in our SM&PP Department and in partner 

organisations. 

Barbara Reid Suresh Kamath 

Lead Member for Environment Director of Street Management 

and Planning and Public Protection 

July 2006


Steering Group Members 

NAME DESIGNATION ROLE 

Krishnan 

Radhakrishnan 

Head of Service, Streetcare Sponsor 

Satbir Gill Highways Asset Manager Lead Officer and Chair of 

Steering Group 

Fazlul Huq Borough Principal Bridges & 

Structures Engineer 

Steering Group Member 

Sonny Pham Area Highway Engineer Steering Group Member 

Aivaras Jasiunas Area Highway Inspector Steering Group Member 

Gowry Thevakantha Area Highway Inspector Steering Group Member 

John Reynolds Environmental Projects Manager Steering Group Member 

Anna Humphries Development Officer (PROW & 

OM) 


Michael Croke Infrastructure Engineer Steering Group Member 

Ian Goodger Borough Senior Public Lighting 

Engineer 

Rebecca Behrendt Community Environment 

Manager 



Lorraine Srivastav Contracts Officer Steering Group Member 

Tehmina Khan Community Environment 

Officer 


Andy Williams Highway Manager DSO Steering Group Member 

Trevor Collett Network Operations and 

Streetworks Manager 

External Advisors – Chris Britton Consultancy Limited 


Chris Britton Technical Advisory Support Steering Group Member 

Andy Pickett Technical Advisory Support Steering Group Member


Version 3 (2009) 

Page 4


Contents 

Progress Since HAMP Version 1 ........................................................................................................ 10 

Progress to Date ............................................................................................................................... 11 

Collection of an Asset Inventory and Asset Register and of Condition Data .................... 11 

Asset Valuation ............................................................................................................................. 12 

Levels of Service ........................................................................................................................... 13 

Options Appraisal, Works Prioritisation and Value Management ........................................ 13 

1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 15 

2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 17 

2.1 What is our Highways Asset Management Plan? ................................................................... 18 

2.2 Why do we need a HAMP? ...................................................................................................... 19 

2.3 Benefits of Highways Asset Management .............................................................................. 20 

2.4 What’s new about Highways Asset Management .................................................................. 21 

2.5 Relationship with other Planning Documents ....................................................................... 24 

3 Management of Hounslow’s Highways Asset .......................................................................... 27 

3.1 What Asset Groupings and Services does the HAMP Cover? ..................................... 27 

3.2 Goals, Policies and Objectives ................................................................................................. 28 

3.2.1 How the HAMP Supports Policy Making .................................................................. 30 

3.2.2 Stakeholders with an interest in the HAMP ............................................................... 31 

3.3 Knowledge of the Asset ..................................................................................................... 32 

3.3.1 Role of Data and Systems in Asset Management ...................................................... 34 

3.3.2 Asset data currently held ............................................................................................... 35 

3.3.3 Street Network Asset Data............................................................................................ 36 

3.3.4 Asset Inventory and the Asset Register....................................................................... 38 

3.3.5 Asset Valuation Data ..................................................................................................... 42 

3.3.6 Dissemination of Asset Information ........................................................................... 44 

3.3.7 Systems to Manage the Asset ........................................................................................ 44 

4 Levels of Service ........................................................................................................................... 47 

4.1. What are Levels of Service? ............................................................................................... 47 

4.2. How will we derive and use Levels of Service? .............................................................. 48 

Network Performance Gap ........................................................................................................ 50 

Link and Place............................................................................................................................... 51 

NPG Scoring mechanisms – Minimums, Targets and Performance Gaps ......................... 53 

Streetscene Index ......................................................................................................................... 54 

4.3.1 Performance Indicators ................................................................................................. 55 

5 Planning and Options .................................................................................................................. 56 

5.1. Performance Gaps .............................................................................................................. 56 

5.2. Options and Priorities ........................................................................................................ 56 

5.2.1 Option Identification ..................................................................................................... 57 

5.2.2 Value Management ......................................................................................................... 58 

5.2.3 Priority Setting ................................................................................................................ 59 

5.3 Approach to Works Programming and Unified Works Programme .......................... 60 

5.4 An Introduction to Lifecycle and Investment Planning ................................................ 63 

5.4.1 General Approach to understanding the assets ......................................................... 66 

5.4.2 General Approach to Value Management as part of Lifecycle Planning ............... 66 

5.4.3 General Approach to Routine Maintenance ............................................................... 68 

5.4.4 Investment implementation and review ...................................................................... 68 


Page 5


6. Decision Making and Management Processes .............................................................................. 70 

6.1. The Annual Highways Asset Management Process ....................................................... 70 

6.2. Involvement of Stakeholders in the Highways Asset Management Planning ............ 73 

6.3. Finance and budget considerations .................................................................................. 75 

6.4. Organisational Structure and Resources .......................................................................... 76 

6.5. Risk Management ................................................................................................................ 77 

6.5.1 What is Risk Management? ........................................................................................... 77 

6.5.2 Risk Management in Hounslow ................................................................................... 77 

6.5.3 Risk Identification .......................................................................................................... 78 

6.5.4 Risk Analysis .................................................................................................................... 78 

6.5.5 Risk Reduction ................................................................................................................ 80 

6.5.6 Ongoing Monitoring and Review ................................................................................. 80 

6.6. Data Management and Information Systems ................................................................. 80 

6.6.1 Data management regime .............................................................................................. 80 

6.6.2 Highways Asset Management Systems ........................................................................ 81 

7 Service Delivery ............................................................................................................................ 84 

7.1. Procurement of Works and Services and Mechanisms for Future Service 

Delivery .............................................................................................................................................. 84 

7.2. Benchmarking the Services ................................................................................................ 86 

8 Implementation of the Highways Asset Management Plan ................................................... 87 

8.1. Implementing Asset Management within LB Hounslow .............................................. 87 

8.2. Improvement Actions ........................................................................................................ 88 

9 Communication, Monitoring and Reporting ............................................................................ 93 

9.1. Internal Management and Delivery of the HAMP ........................................................ 93 

9.2. Communication and Consultation with Stakeholders ................................................... 93 

9.2.1 Consultation Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 94 

9.3. Performance Monitoring .................................................................................................... 96 

9.3.1 What is Performance Monitoring? ............................................................................... 96 

9.3.2 Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 96 

9.3.3 Performance Reporting ................................................................................................. 96 

References .......................................................................................................................................... 98 

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. 99 

Appendix 1 – Summary of Current Highways Asset Data and Systems ............................... 100 

Appendix 2 - Terminology and Glossary ................................................................................... 101 

Appendix 3 - Organisation Chart – LBH Streetcare Services ................................................. 102 

Appendix 4 - Report on HM Magazine Highways Asset Management Customer 

Perception Questionnaire ............................................................................................................. 103 

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 103 

Approach and Design of Questionnaire ................................................................................ 103 

Responses ................................................................................................................................... 104 

Analysis of Results .................................................................................................................... 107 

Observations and Conclusions ................................................................................................ 125 

Annex I ....................................................................................................................................... 128 

Appendix 5 Asset Inventory and Asset Register ....................................................................... 129 

Area Items .................................................................................................................................. 129 

Count items ................................................................................................................................ 129 

Length items............................................................................................................................... 130 

Breakdown by Ward ................................................................................................................. 130 

Breakdown of Footway Types (including paved verges) ..................................................................... 131 


Page 6


Appendix 6: Transcript from the Agenda of Executive Public Meeting – 4 April 

2006 132 

Appendix 7. Lifecycle Management Plans ................................................................................. 139 

Road Carriageways Lifecycle Management Plan ................................................................... 140 

Footways and Cycle Tracks Lifecycle Management Plan .................................................... 164 

Street Environment Lifecycle Plan ......................................................................................... 175 

Lighting Lifecycle Management Plan ..................................................................................... 189 

Bridges and Structures Lifecycle Management Plan ............................................................ 209 

Drainage Lifecycle Management Plan .................................................................................... 222 

Non-Illuminated Street Furniture Lifecycle Plan ................................................................. 229 

Appendix 8 – Interim Asset Valuation Report ......................................................................... 234 


Page 7


Document History 

Version 

No 

Status Author Date Changes from Previous Version 

1.01 Draft CBC/LBH First release for internal review by 


1.02 Revised CBC/LBH 16 

Draft 

th Dec Second release for internal review by 

05 Steering Group following review and 

updating by CBC 

1.03a Revised CBC/LBH February Incorporating comments from 

Draft 

2006 Steering Group. 

1.04 Revised CBC/LBH February 

Draft 

2006 

1.05 Final CBC/LBH April 2006 Final Version Incorporating latest 

Draft 

Lifecycle Management Plans 

Header and Footers updated. 

2.01 Draft CBC/LBH October Updated to reflect progress since first 

2008 version. 

2.01 Final CBC/LBH/AG October Final version incorporating Client 

2008 comments. 

3.01 Draft CBC June 2009 Updated to reflect progress since 

second version, and the development 

of the highways PFI project 

3.02 Final CBC August Updated to incorporate comments 

Draft 

2009 and updated statistics from the HAMP 

steering group 

3.03 Final CBC August 

2009 

Final Version. 


Page 8


Preamble – How to read this document 

As with any such Plan, the HAMP should be read in its entirety to understand 

Hounslow’s current position, what it intends to do to improve, and the action plan 

arising from the proposals. The HAMP is written with a wide range of stakeholders in 

mind. However, this document is also intended as a ‘ready reference’ for managers and 

practitioners and as such, has been designed to assist the quick identification of key 

points and actions. It contains some formatting of box-outs designed to this end, as 

follows; 

Grey box-outs highlight a Key Point or Conclusion. 

� 

Improvement Action #1 

Orange box-outs alert readers to 

an Improvement Action arising in 

the text. 

These are collated together in 

section 8.2 of the document 

Timescale: Year 1( 2006/07) 

� 

Green box-outs highlight 

examples and references to good 

Asset Management practice in the 

text 


Page 9


Progress Since HAMP Version 1 

Version 1 of the London Borough of Hounslow’s Highways Asset 

Management (HAMP) plan was approved by the Executive on 4th April 

2006; the HAMP sets out a logical and systematic approach to sustaining 

and improving the streets in Hounslow, to the benefit of all those who use 

them – by whatever means, and for whatever purpose. The streets, 

pavements and all their associated furniture and apparatus not only serve a 

functional purpose but also contribute to public safety, and the 

environment in which people live, work, shop and pursue leisure activities. 

Well-maintained highways make an important contribution to the 

liveability of public spaces, and in turn people’s quality of life in general. 

It was also agreed that the HAMP be updated on an annual basis to reflect 

progress in implementing the Asset Management processes and practices 

to Hounslow’s street network. This section provides that update, and in 

particular focuses upon the “Improvement Actions” identified in the 5year 

improvement plan, as part of the HAMP version 1, specifically: 

▪ The collection of an Asset Inventory and the completion of the asset 

register 

▪ The integration and roll-out of Hounslow’s asset management 

computer systems 

▪ Progress with the evaluation of options for the funding of the street 

network. 

▪ Asset Valuation 

▪ The further development of levels of service 

▪ Options appraisal and value management, including budgetary 

allocation and prioritisation 

▪ The production of a Street Maintenance Plan 

▪ Changes to Hounslow’s highway inspection processes to adopt the 

risk-based approach proposed in Well-Maintained Highways, the national 

code of practice for highways maintenance management, and to make 

use of handheld computers to improve the effectiveness and 

auditability of inspections. 

The project organisation that was established to develop the HAMP 

version 1, has been retained to progress the implementation and further 

development and in addition task-specific working groups have been 

established to progress various improvement actions for versions 2 and 3 

of the HAMP. The project structure is described in the figure below. 


Page 10


HAMP Sponsor 

Krishnan 

Radhakrishnan 

HAMP Project 

Manager 

Satbir Gill 

HAMP Steering 

Group 

Hounslow’s HAMP is a fundamental element of Hounslow’s Highways 

Private Finance Initiative (PFI) pathfinder project, and of the Outline 

Business Case recently submitted for DfT approval. This project will allow 

us to make significant improvements to the levels of service identified in 

the HAMP, and to the quality of the borough street network. The HAMP 

remains integral to the ongoing development and implementation of the 

project. This updated Version 3 of the HAMP incorporates some of the 

innovative aspects developed for the specification of performance and 

serviceability for the PFI project. 

Progress to Date 

HAMP Advisors 

Chris Britton 

Consultancy 

Collection of an Asset Inventory and Asset Register and of 

Condition Data 

The collection and maintenance of an appropriate, fit-for-purpose and up 

to date asset inventory is an important priority for the implementation of 

the Asset Management Plan, and a key action for the HAMP v1 was the 

collection of an asset inventory. Having awarded a contract for the 

collection of a full asset inventory, surveying started in October 2006 with 

site surveys completed in December 2007. The validation of the data and 


Page 11


integration onto the Confirm system and GIS was completed in Autumn 

2008. The contracted work requires the collecting and recording of data on 

the location, type and, where required, condition of all the assets on the 

public highway; and to provide the data in a format that can be displayed 

on the Council’s GIS system and managed and updated on the Street 

Management Confirm System. 

Data has also been collected on areas outside of that shown on the 

highway register that are owned by the Council but managed by other 

departments, e.g. housing estates managed by Hounslow Homes. This data 

may be used to identify and agree the boundaries between the public and 

private areas owned by the Council and may be used by Hounslow Homes 

for the management of their streets. 

As part of the work in support of the PFI project considerable effort was 

made in validating and enhancing existing inventory data and in collecting 

new data to ensure that the assessment of the extent and condition of our 

highway asset is as accurate as possible. This also included validation and 

enhancement of the street lighting and arboricultural inventories in 

addition to our collected asset inventory. 

In addition asset condition data continues to be updated, including surveys 

of carriageways and footways in excess of the frequencies required for 

national performance reporting, to ensure that our assessment of the cost 

of the PFI project is as accurate as possible. In addition, to support the 

PFI project and to provide accurate data to potential bidders for the 

project, the following additional items of asset data have been collected; 

• A video survey of the whole network that will allow Council staff 

and potential bidders to validate inventory and network condition 

• A survey of the construction of the entire carriageway network, 

from core samples 

• A sample survey (in one ward) of footways using the new version 

Asset Valuation 

Appendix 8 of the HAMP is a report presenting the results of the first year 

interim highway asset valuation for the London Borough of Hounslow, 

carried out in accordance with current national guidelines. A project to 

develop a new Code of Guidance on Financial Information to Support 

Transport Asset Management, Financial Planning and Reporting is 

currently being developed nationally, in project being steered by the Roads 

Board/CSS and TAG Highways Asset Management Financial Information 

Group (HAMFIG). This guidance is expected to be available in Autumn 

2009, following which a full, depreciated, benchmark valuation will be 

produced, to meet national government requirements. The headline figures 

from the interim valuation are as follows: 


Page 12


Assets Valuation £ 

Roads including Drainage 472,643,518 

Segregated Footpaths 2,009,085 

Structures 30,321,000 

Lighting 20,738,600 

Total 525,712,203 

Value per km 1,211,318 

That is, the “value” of Hounslow’s road network (at 2007 prices), when 

depreciation (condition) is not taken into account, i.e. the cost of replacing 

the whole network with one of modern standard, is £526 million pounds, 

that is an average of £1.2 million pounds for each km of road network. 

Comparisons with results from other authorities indicate that the valuation 

is of the correct order of magnitude. 

Levels of Service 

Levels of Service provide the mechanism for achieving service quality from 

the Highways Asset. The Level of Service therefore reflects the way our 

service is delivered and how it is perceived by our customers. Levels of 

Service include the performance and condition of the asset itself, the 

quality of the service that the asset provides and the performance of 

Streetcare Services in delivering that service. 

The HAMP v1 established 8 “Levels of Service” for the management of 

Hounslow’s highways asset; an additional 9 th Level of Service, 

“Sustainability of the Asset” has been established for the HAMP v2. For 

the HAMP v3, we have revised our approach to Levels of Service to make 

use of the measures of network serviceability and performance that have 

been developed for the PFI. So that we are able to use these to monitor 

the quality of service that we provide in relation to our network in prior to 

as well as following the commencement of the PFI project, planned for 

2012. 

Options Appraisal, Works Prioritisation and Value 

Management 

Local Authorities have, through their Highways Asset Management Plans, 

a requirement to establish Levels of Service for the performance of their 

networks. Associated with this is a need to measure, monitor and manage 

improvements to levels of service, at network level, by predicting 

outcomes of decisions on the level and allocation of investment and on 

maintenance policy and standards. 

A process, based upon a 48%/52% split of the total planned maintenance 

budget between carriageways and footways respectively for determining 


Page 13


the highway maintenance area works programmes has been developed for 

the prioritisation of highways maintenance works. 


Page 14


1 Executive Summary 

Hounslow Streetcare Services (SCS) is responsible for managing 

perhaps the most visible, well-used and valuable physical asset owned 

by the Council on behalf of the local community. The streets are vital 

to all aspects of everyday life. SCS is committed to a programme of 

improving the management efficiency of that asset – in terms of 

Customer Service, Safety, Serviceability and Sustainable Preservation 

of the infrastructure. All of these aspects are brought together, for the 

first time, in the Highways Asset Management Plan (HAMP) which sets 

out objectives and targets for delivery, procedures for efficient 

management of the asset lifecycle, and a programme of 

improvements, for all parts of the public space which we call the 

Highway Network. The HAMP sets out to balance the needs of 

customers, who expect a high-quality of current service, with the 

desire to preserve integrity and value of the street network for future 

generations. 

There are many current government drivers and recently published 

industry Codes of Practice aimed at improving the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the local Highway Authority’s management of the 

road network. These are succinctly described in the recent document 

‘Maintaining a Vital Asset’ (2005) published by the Roads Liaison 

Group and endorsed by Ministers as well as the Mayor of London. 

The Hounslow HAMP is written to be consistent with all appropriate 

parts of the associated new Codes of Practice. The HAMP is a 

structured document that sets out: 

� The scope, extent and condition of existing assets and associated 

processes, 

� Improvements required and planned as a result of this review, 

� A description of asset management objectives and policies linked 

to the Council’s business objectives, 

� A definition of outcome-based ‘Levels of Service’, 

� ‘Lifecycle’ maintenance strategies based on long term, sustainable 

use of physical resources and minimising whole life costs, 

� Service delivery and associated Plans 

� Identification of a means of establishing future funding 

requirements to maintain target levels of service, 

� The approach to managing the risks of falling short of the target 

levels of service, 

� The development of co-ordinated forward programmes for 

highway maintenance, operation and improvement, and 

� A regime for measurement of performance and continuous 

improvement. 


Page 15


The HAMP is only the first step in adopting Asset Management 

principles for our street network; the full benefits will be realised in 

the coming years as we develop and implement the actions set out in 

our improvement programme. Progress will be reviewed annually, 

and the Plan, as a ‘living’ document, updated accordingly. 


Page 16


2 Introduction 

This, the London Borough of Hounslow’s first annual Highways 

Asset Management Plan (HAMP) sets out our vision for 

improvements in the management, operation and funding of 

Hounslow’s streets for the next year and for the next five years. 

The intention is that at the end of the 5-year Improvement Plan, 

which is a key part of the HAMP, our streets will be: 

� Providing a better level of service to residents and street 

users 

� In better condition 

� Of higher value 

� Providing services that Customers want, based upon a true 

understanding of their needs and expectations 

Highways Asset Management is relatively new to local authorities 

in the UK, and the approach now being promoted was formally set 

out in the Framework for Asset Management 1 document published in 

2004. The adoption of Highways Asset Management is also 

recommended in Well Maintained Highways, the national code of 

practice for highway maintenance, in Well Lit Highways, the street 

lighting code of practice and in Management of Highway Structures. 

Hounslow has decided to adopt these national recommendations, 

the starting point of which is the development of a Plan. The 

introduction of good asset management practice to the 

management of the highways network should result in 

improvements both in the delivery of services to customers and in 

the preservation of the Highways Asset for future generations. 

The production of Hounslow’s first HAMP is only the start of the 

process; the introduction of the culture and processes involved in 

better asset management will take some time to develop and 

implement, and a key element of the HAMP is the five-year 

programme of asset management improvement actions. 

The road network for which Hounslow is responsible consists of 

39km of Borough Principal Roads (PR), 14km of B Roads, 31km 

of C Roads and 348km of urban unclassified roads (UC), with over 

775km of footways, over 16,000 street lights, 91 bridges, 30,000 

gullies and over 10,000 trees. The motorways and all-purpose 

trunks roads that traverse the Authority are not part of this plan, 

and are the responsibility of Transport for London. 

� 

All latest national codes 

may be found at 

www.roadscodes.org 


Page 17


The highway is the most valuable publicly owned asset managed by 

the Council but historically has not received the attention or 

funding required to maintain it in the optimal state of repair and 

operation, or to effectively take account of the needs of all our 

customers. The HAMP, for the first time, considers all parts of the 

asset together, and sets out an approach that considers and 

prioritises between them, in delivering the highway management 

service, and balances the preservation and enhancement of the 

highway network with the best use of resources and the delivery of 

services to Hounslow’s residents and to the users of the highway 

network. 

The HAMP considers all parts of the asset together, and sets out 

an approach that considers and prioritises between them and 

balances the preservation and enhancement of the highway 

network with the best use of resources and the delivery of services. 

2.1 What is our Highways Asset Management Plan? 

The HAMP is intended for information and operational use, both 

for officers within Streetcare Services, and any others involved in 

delivering the highway service. It is also available for Council 

Members within Hounslow, and to our customers and stakeholders 

as well as other organisations as required. The HAMP sets out the 

way that we manage the Highways Asset currently, but more 

importantly it sets out the changes that we are planning to 

implement over the next 1-5 years in order to achieve the benefits 

that good asset management practices can bring about. 

The HAMP comprises a number of Key components: 

1. The HAMP 

The main body of the HAMP is a statement of current practice and 

future plans and aspirations for the main elements of good asset 

management planning, including: 

� Processes for determining annual programmes of work and for 

securing funding and allocating budgets 

� Processes for updating the HAMP as part of Hounslow’s 

annual cycle of business planning 

� Processes for setting annual targets for quality of service for 

Hounslow’s streets within the wider context of local and 

national Best Value Performance Reporting and the CPA 

(Continuous Performance Assessment) regime. 

� Systems and data that support Asset Management planning 


Page 18


� Mechanisms for Member, customer and stakeholder 

involvement in the Asset Management process 

2. Service Levels 

The HAMP sets out Levels of Service that will form the basis for 

target setting, strategic planning and service monitoring and 

improvement. Associated with the service levels are more detailed 

performance measures and improvement targets for the next year, 

and for the longer term. 

3. The 5-Year Improvement Programme 

This identifies the actions that have been identified as necessary to 

improve Asset Management for Hounslow’s streets for the first 

five years of operation of the HAMP, and provides updates on 

items where progress has been made. Each action has a priority 

and timescale allocated to it. Additionally, the improvement actions 

are highlighted separately in the relevant section of the HAMP. 

4. Lifecycle Management Plans 

The Lifecycle Management Plans set out for each component of 

the asset (Roads, Footways, Street Lighting, Structures, etc.) how 

Asset Management will be applied over the whole life of that asset 

from its creation to its removal. 

5. Service Plans 

The Service Plans set out how good asset management principles 

will inform service delivery for those services that are not specific 

to a particular asset component, such as street cleansing, flyposting 

and graffiti removal. 

6. Asset Register 

The Asset Register will set out what exists within Hounslow’s 

highway network and the condition that it is in, and is an essential 

prerequisite for carrying out an Asset Valuation. The Asset Register 

is as yet incomplete, although the completion of our asset 

inventory has enabled us to make considerable progress and the 

Improvement Plan sets out the process for compiling a complete 

asset register. 

2.2 Why do we need a HAMP? 

There are many catalysts for Asset Management, not least good 

practice and the achievement of ‘value for money’. Importantly, it 

encourages a performance-based approach to setting levels of 

service, which will cover all aspects of concern to customers such 

as minimising disruption on the network, improving the street 

scene, contributing to community environment and safety and 

many other issues. 


Page 19


The Department for Transport (DfT) is encouraging local 

authorities to prepare Transport Asset Management Plans 

(TAMPs) as part of the Local Transport Plan (LTP) process. 

Within London, as a devolved administration, TfL is encouraging 

London Boroughs to produce TAMPs. The HAMP is the first 

stage in the process to produce a TAMP, and will form a key part 

of the TAMP, which will cover wider issues of managing the 

transportation infrastructure. The TAMP will establish a clear 

relationship between its programme and the authority’s targets and 

objectives set out in the LIP submission. 

Transport for London has also indicated that the LIP assessment, 

and hence funding provision, will be affected by the quality of the 

TAMP. It also considers the production of a HAMP as essential in 

providing the information necessary to ensure that the authority 

both spends to an appropriate level and can more effectively 

consider the need for local road maintenance spending against the 

requirements of other services. 

A further, more specific, need for the HAMP is to obtain and 

organise information to support Asset Valuation (AV) as part of 

Whole Government Accounts (WGA). 

2.3 Benefits of Highways Asset Management 

A number of important benefits to Hounslow have been identified 

that will be realised by the move towards Asset Management. 

These include: 

More Informed Decision Making 

Better information, and a clearer understanding of the link between 

the performance of individual assets and the delivery of service, 

will enable decisions to be made in an informed way that will result 

in a better level of service. 

Reduced Whole Life Costs 

The move towards lifecycle management and long-term investment 

planning will enable a ‘right place, right time’ approach to 

investment that will reduce costs over the life of the asset, and 

promote the long-term preservation of the asset. 

Customer Focussed Delivery 

The continued development of effective customer consultation and 

the development of Service Levels that support both the corporate 

objectives of Hounslow and customer priorities will encourage 

more customer focussed decision making, and will help to ensure 


Page 20


that services provided by the street network reflect resident and 

user needs and expectations. 2 

Transparency & Ownership of Decision Making 

Asset management will introduce transparency and objectivity into 

decision making that traditionally has often been subjective. This 

will help Streetcare Services justify investment decisions and will 

also enable decision-makers to take informed ownership of 

decisions that they make. 

2.4 What’s new about Highways Asset Management 

Asset management builds on existing processes and tools to 

develop a continuous improvement framework by using “Levels of 

Service” to express customer needs and expectations, to monitor 

performance against them and then to identify the most cost 

effective ways of closing performance gaps. It will require us to 

make significant changes to the way we work over the next five 

years. 

The asset management decision-making framework is guided by 

performance goals, an extended time horizon, economics and 

engineering principles, and considers a broad range of 

infrastructure asset types. Asset Management provides for the 

economic assessment of alternative improvements and investment 

strategy across the whole highway network to be treated as a single 

“entity”. This is fundamentally the trade-off between levels of 

service and costs, with the aim of providing best value for money 

in the use of public funds. 

The contribution of the local highway network extends far wider 

than just transport. It is seen as fundamental to the economic, 

social and environmental well-being of the community, and its 

management and maintenance must maximise the wider 

contribution. Therefore, there needs to be a shift to preserving 

and operating the investment in the local highway network for the 

full benefit of the community. At the same time the UK public has 

undergone a change in its view of effective governance, resulting in 

the increased expectation that all tiers of government will be more 

accountable and will be managed more like a commercial 

operation. The Asset Management Plan supports these changes. 

2 The involvement of Hounslow’s “Residents Panel” in the highways asset 

management process and the Highways Asset Management Customer 

Questionnaire carried out for the first time in July 2005, and reported in 

Appendix 7 are examples of initiatives that are intended to promote customerfocussed 

service delivery. 

� 

“Levels of Service 

describe the quality of 

services provided by 

the asset for the benefit 

of customers” 

(Framework for Highways 

Asset Management i) 


Page 21


Continuous improvement in service delivery will be achieved 

through the Improvement Action Plan (see Section 8.2). This 5year 

plan prioritises individual improvement actions over this 

period. The HAMP will be reviewed on an annual basis to 

determine the benefits and progress delivered as a result of the 

improvement actions identified for that period. 

The application of an asset management approach to our Highways 

Network implies that we change and develop the way we operate 

in a number of ways: 

� Greater emphasis upon the quality of the service provided 

by the highways network in decision making and 

investment planning, rather than a purely technical focus 

based upon engineering considerations, as has historically 

been the case 

� An improved understanding of the likely implications of 

decisions upon the future quality of service to the users of 

the street network (residents, pedestrians, drivers, cyclists 

etc.) and upon the long-term preservation of this valuable 

asset 

� Continuing a move away from the management and 

operation of the various components of the street (roads, 

footways, lights, trees etc.) separately towards holistic, 

integrated management of the whole street, that considers 

the quality of service provided by the asset as a whole, and 

that gives greater emphasis to whole street enhancements 

in the public realm, and to tackling public realm issues 

generally 

� A move towards a longer-term planning horizon for 

funding, investment and works 

� A focus on the Council’s wider policy objectives in 

determining strategic objectives for the street network 

� An emphasis on the value of the highways network as an 

asset, and upon the Council’s role as long-term custodians 

of that Asset 

� Strategic planning of levels and priorities of investment and 

funding based upon an informed evaluation of different 

funding options, taking into account likely future 

implications for quality of service and preservation of the 

condition and the value of the asset, resulting in informed 

decision making on the part of those responsible for 

allocating funds both within the Council and externally 

� Consideration of the costs and value of investments and 

associated works over the whole service life of that 

investment, in decision making and planning, rather than 

purely short-term costs and benefits 


Page 22


� Determining budgets and funding requirements based 

upon measured need rather than historic precedence 

The new approach is summarised in the following table: 

Focus on ‘Outcomes’ Explicitly considering 

customer needs and 

expectations 

Management operation Taking a ‘whole life’ and ‘life 

cycle’ approach 

Needs based Explicitly identifying and 

documenting needs 

Informed decision making Allocating resources based on 

assessed need 

The general highways asset management cycle is described in figure 

2.4.1, below. 


Page 23


Plan 

Maintenance 

and 

Improvement 

Set Budgets 

Measure 

Performance 

and Review 

Set Targets and 

Manage Risk 

Figure 2.4.1 General Asset Management Cycle 

It should be noted that our 25-year Highways PFI Project is the 

now the principle means by which these objectives will be 

delivered, by identifying contractual levels of service and by 

securing the necessary funding to ensure that sufficient funding will 

be made available to invest in restoring the condition of our 

highway network to achieve these objectives. 

2.5 Relationship with other Planning Documents 

Know your 

Asset 

A number of other documents already exist that set out the 

Council’s policy and practice that either directly or indirectly have 

implications for the HAMP. The HAMP does not replace these, 

but complements them by showing how corporate policy and 

Identify 

Investment 

Need 

Set 

Desired and 

Minimum 

Levels of 

Service 


Page 24


priorities are reflected in the management of Hounslow’s streets. 

These documents include: 

The Local Implementation Plan (LIP) 

The Annual Borough Spending Plan 

The Community Plan 

The “West London People” document 

The Residents Panel Survey 

The Executive, Departmental and Streetcare Services 

business plans 

The Local Area Agreement 

The Hounslow Plan 2006 -2010 

The latter in particular is used to derive the Service Levels that are 

a key part of the HAMP; this interaction with the Council’s 

business planning process is described in Section 4.1.2 below. 

The HAMP will enable delivery of best value in Highway 

Maintenance and hence demonstrate “effective Asset 

Management” as outlined in the LIP. 

The HAMP is consistent with the Core Values and Challenges set 

out in the Corporate Performance Plan. 

Asset management planning will shape both the Highways and 

Engineering, and Neighbourhood & Environment Service Plans, 

and ensure that the objectives of the Community Plan (“Fast 

Forward”) are met, so that highways service levels reflect the needs 

and priorities of customers in a way which “engages with and 

reflects the needs of local communities, develops cohesive 

communities and leads to sustainable improvements”. 

The levels of service and performance required to deliver the seven 

Themes in the Community Plan will be measured in order to 

support continuous improvement in maintaining the highway 

network. To ensure commitment to the public, Street 

Management & Public Protection (SMPP) has identified various 

Service Levels, set out in section 4 of the HAMP, as a means of 

promoting the Themes set out in the Community Plan: 

1. A Growing Community 

2. A Cleaner and Greener Community 

3. A Safer and Stronger Community 

4. A Healthy and Caring Community 

5. A Creative Community 

6. A Children and Young People’s Community 

7. An Economically Active and Skilled Community 


Page 25


The HAMP is consistent with the Core Values and Challenges set 

out in the Corporate Performance Plan and will enable delivery of 

best value in Highway Maintenance and hence demonstrate 

“effective Asset Management” as outlined in the LIP. 


Page 26


3 Management of Hounslow’s Highways Asset 

3.1 What Asset Groupings and Services does the 

HAMP Cover? 

Our Highways Asset Management Plan applies to the whole of the 

highway network, and covers the full range of asset components that 

exist within Hounslow’s streets: 

▪ Carriageway, footway and cycleway pavements, including speed 

calming facilities 

▪ Road Lining and markings, including road studs 

▪ Highway Trees and other vegetation 

▪ Street Lighting including Illuminated Signs and Advertising 

▪ Unlit Signs, including directional, informational signs, and street 

name plates 

▪ Street Furniture, including environmental monitoring stations 

and public toilets 

▪ CCTV 

▪ Parking meters and payment machines 

▪ Grassed and other landscaped areas associated with the highway 

▪ Bridges and structures, including culverts, retaining walls and 

subways 

▪ Highway Drainage, including gullies 

The HAMP also makes reference to those items within the street 

that are the responsibility of third parties, such as utility providers, 

rather than the Council, but which nonetheless have implications for 

the quality of service provided by our streets. 

In addition to these, the HAMP covers the activities and processes 

associated with services delivery related to the above assets: 

▪ Street Lighting and electrical testing 

▪ Planned Maintenance and improvement schemes 

▪ Inspections and Assessments (condition surveys) 

▪ Whole street improvement schemes 

▪ Reactive small-scale maintenance, in response to public reports 

and arising from routine inspections 

▪ Winter Maintenance 

▪ Structural Testing and inspection 

▪ Highway drainage maintenance and improvement works 

▪ Maintenance of Highway Structures 

▪ Street Cleansing, Fly-Posting and Graffiti Removal 


Page 27


▪ Tree Maintenance 

▪ Highway Grounds Maintenance 

▪ Enforcement and removal of abandoned and untaxed vehicles 

▪ Highway Law enforcement (excluding parking enforcement) 

▪ Maintenance of illuminated and non-illuminated street furniture 

▪ Monitoring of statutory undertakers 

▪ Co-ordination of works on the highway 

▪ Management of highways liability claims 

▪ Refuse collection and recycling 

3.2 Goals, Policies and Objectives 

The Framework for Highways Asset Management advises that “asset 

management processes and plans must be guided by the existing 

overarching corporate objectives of the authority. It is essential to 

define the relationship that is desired between asset management 

priorities and other corporate goals and objectives” 

Hounslow’s HAMP therefore, as well as embodying national 

standards and good practice, includes processes to ensure that the 

management of the highways network is always contributing to 

delivery of the Council’s policy objectives, as well as adopting 

national good practice for managing and preserving the asset. 

The Council's new administration has set out its priorities for the 

next four years in the Hounslow Plan. The Plan's focus falls into 

three main areas: Organisational Delivery, Quality of Life, and 

Looking to the Future. Within these policy themes, there are ten new 

priorities: 

1. Ensuring value-for-money, high performance and quality 

services 

2. Transparency, accountability and participation 

3. Safeguarding and enhancing the environment 

4. Tackling crime and disorder 

5. Improving schools standards 

6. Building a stronger and more united community 

7. Supporting the vulnerable 

8. The Community Strategy Objectives (taking forward the projects 

in the current Community Plan 2004-2007) 

9. A new Community Strategy for 2008-2011 

10. A vision for the physical development of the Borough 

The Borough Road Network has a role to play in the promotion and 

delivery of a number of these priorities; the HAMP and, in 

particular, the service levels within the HAMP has the Executive 

Priorities as its starting point. 


Page 28


Our asset management planning process will derive detailed 

processes and priorities from the “top down” – in other words, will 

take existing Council and national high-level goals, policies and 

objectives – and then derive from these desired “Levels of Service” 

applicable to the road network which will, in turn, inform the 

practices to be adopted for maintaining and operating each element 

of that asset. 

This top-down approach is represented in Figure 3.2.1, with a direct 

relationship between the Priorities that are set for the Council in the 

Executive Business Plan, helping set those for the Street 

Management and Public Protection Department, which in turn 

determine those for Streetcare Services and for the management of 

the highways asset. The Service Levels and priorities that have been 

determined for our Highways Asset Management Plan are therefore 

consistent with, and directly contributing to, the success of the 

Service priorities for Streetcare Services, the Directorate Priorities, 

and Hounslow’s Ten Executive Priorities. 


Page 29


Figure 3.2.1 Identification of Priorities 

The process for determining asset management priorities and 

objectives from those at corporate and national level is described in 

section 6.1; the HAMP will be reviewed and updated on an annual 

basis and the improvement plan and works programme updated on 

an annual basis. 

3.2.1 How the HAMP Supports Policy Making 

If the HAMP is to be successful, it must not only reflect the 

Council’s policies and priorities, but also support informed 

strategic decision-making about levels of funding, priorities for 

investment, and desired levels of service by providing information 

about the implications of those decisions on the future value, 

condition and service quality of the highways asset and the whole 

life cost of operating the asset and delivering services. 

A measure of the success of the HAMP is the extent to which it 

provides tools and information that support the political process. 

It is intended that the processes for determining service levels and 

for determining and prioritising potential asset investments will, as 

part of the implementation and development of the HAMP, 

involve Council Members in a number of respects: 

1. Through the development of formal processes for determining 

service levels and associated performance measures and targets 

derived from corporate objectives. 

2. By informing members, and eliciting their approval, in the 

development of the performance standards for Hounslow's 

highways PFI project, as set out in the output specification. 

Asset management planning requires a structured, cyclical 

approach to the process of determining and monitoring target 

levels of service, and for setting a long-term, prioritised programme 

of investment in the asset that takes account of both desired levels 

of service and the need to minimise whole life costs of the asset, 

and to maintain the value of the asset by maintaining an 

appropriate level of condition. 


Page 30


The current overall process for business planning within Streetcare 

services, in particular the fact that highways asset management 

objectives and priorities are explicitly derived from and link to 

those of the authority, provides a good basis for the further 

development of the HAMP and for the implementation of good 

asset management practices. The process will be further developed 

during the implementation of the HAMP in the following respects: 

1. As well as corporate policies and objectives being reflected, 

other high level objectives and strategies need greater emphasis 

in determining those for the HAMP: 

� Transport-related objectives, particularly those set out in 

the LIP and those determined by TfL and by government 

that are relevant to Hounslow’s highway network 

� National standards and good practice as set out in Well 

Maintained Highways and national standards for Asset 

Management, such as the CSS Framework, Asset Valuation 

Guidance etc. 

2. A more explicit link to customer and stakeholder consultations 

and feedback mechanisms in determining standards and 

practice. 

3. A more robust mechanism for feeding back and reviewing 

actual performance and condition of the asset components and 

associated services and for linking that feedback to policy 

making. Future initiatives for assessing condition and 

performance should reflect this need 

4. A more explicit target setting mechanism related to business 

planning 

With our Highways PFI planned to start on the ground in 2012, 

the above objectives will need to be built into the contract 

documentation associated with this project. 

One of the key benefits of Asset Management is the introduction 

of objectivity and transparency into what has often traditionally 

been subjective decision making. By making the connection 

between asset components and service levels, it is possible to 

demonstrate the impact of decisions, and therefore better enable 

decision-makers to take informed ownership of their decisions, and 

to justify particular decisions on an objective basis. 

3.2.2 Stakeholders with an interest in the HAMP 

As the service being provided by Streetcare Services responds to 

the entire community which uses or has an interest in the Highway 

network, it is vital that all these stakeholders are consulted and 

their aspirations are reflected in the HAMP. Stakeholders have 


Page 31


been identified and broad consideration given to their main 

interests in asset management planning; section 9.2 describes this 

process in more detail. Hounslow has established a Residents’ 

Panel of around 2000 people, selected to be representative of the 

local demographic profile. The Panel is regularly consulted on 

topics of local interest to help inform policy-making and streetrelated 

topics are included in its brief for the September 2005 

survey. Specifically to support the development of the HAMP, 

reference was made to previous consultation exercises with the 

Residents’ Panel, and a special questionnaire was commissioned 

through the local ‘HM Magazine’ in July 2005. This is described in 

more detail in section 9.2.1, and in Appendix 6. The Residents’ 

panel have also have also been communicated and consulted with 

as part of the development of the PFI project, as part of the PFI 

communications plan. 

3.3 Knowledge of the Asset 

It is an obvious, but sometimes overlooked, fact that in order to 

develop an asset management strategy and associated business 

processes and systems, it is essential to have a thorough and up-todate 

knowledge of the assets involved. This includes, but is not 

limited to: 

▪ The extent of the road network itself 

▪ The extent and detail of every asset type and component 

present within that road network 

▪ Information about the quality and condition of each asset 

component, and the quality of service that is provided 

▪ Information about the historical life cycle of the assets, 

including age and dates of major maintenance interventions 

and improvements 

▪ Information about historical costs 

Hounslow is typical of most local authorities in that during the 

development of its first HAMP it has recognised that the 

knowledge of its assets leaves room for improvement. In the 

‘Current State Assessment’ carried out as part of the highways asset 

management planning exercise, knowledge of the data held about 

each asset group was gathered. During the subsequent gap analysis, 

the need for improved information was identified. These 

improvements are identified in respect of key assets groups in the 

paragraphs below, and form part of the Improvement Plan in 

section 8.2. 

Information about the asset may be found in a number of different 

sources, including: 


Page 32


▪ Formal written records and reports, including archives 

▪ On maps, drawings and plans 

▪ In computer records and databases 

▪ In contract documents 

▪ As ‘head knowledge’ by members of staff 

▪ Ad hoc notes and records held by members of staff 


Page 33


One of the overall objectives in respect of improving the 

knowledge of the highway assets is to bring together, extend and 

enhance existing information, in whatever form it is held, and 

make it accessible for asset management purposes. 

3.3.1 Role of Data and Systems in Asset Management 

Data is essential to support decision making at every stage in the 

asset management cycle. It must be emphasised that there is a 

difference between “data” and “information” in this context; data 

becomes information only when it is put to constructive use and 

can assist decision making to add value to the business. Public 

organisations such as Hounslow are accountable for their 

decisions, and good data management provides the necessary audit 

path to demonstrate the basis of decision making leading to cost 

savings. 

Information systems support the following elements within 

successful asset management systems: 

▪ The asset register, comprising an inventory of assets 

▪ Systems to integrate data from different asset components for 

the whole asset 

▪ Condition Assessment and reporting systems 

▪ Systems for calculating and reporting asset value and 

depreciation 

▪ Systems to allow Performance Monitoring against service levels 

and targets 

▪ Predictive decision and option appraisal models 

▪ Budgeting tools 

▪ Operational systems 

Data is of little use, however, if it is not fit-for-purpose and up-todate. 

This is described in more detail in section 6.6. Effective 

management systems and processes will depend upon good data in 

all aspects of owning, operating, maintaining and enhancing the 

highway assets. 

Good data quality, managed through an effective data management 

regime, and turned into information useful for informed decisionmaking 

through effective systems, is an essential part of the 

successful implementation of Hounslow’s HAMP. 

� 

The European Best 

Practice Guide on Data 

Management (see 

www.roaddata.org) gives 

guidance on good data 

management for roads data 


Page 34


When embarking on the asset management planning process, 

Hounslow Streetcare Services undertook a review and ‘health 

check’ of its existing data and systems. This is an essential prerequisite 

to designing what systems and data are going to be 

required in future. This is not just to ‘plug any gaps’, but also to 

identify new and improved systems that will in turn provide 

efficiency savings to the organisation. As part of the preparation 

for the Highways PFI project, substantial investment has been 

made in improving the quality and coverage of our existing asset 

data sets and in collecting new data (for example, the video 

inventory survey and the survey of carriageway construction). 

3.3.2 Asset data currently held 

Streetcare Services currently holds a vast amount of data that 

describe the various components of the asset and how they are 

managed. These data are held primarily as: 

� Paper records 

� Computer records 

� Maps and plans 

Data sets include: 

� Asset Inventory 

o roads, bridges, segregated footways and highway 

lighting ,etc. 

o carriageway construction 

o Video survey 

� Asset Condition 

o Historical 

o Current 

o Projected 

� Operational data 

o Scheme planning & works 

o Routine Maintenance 

o Winter Maintenance 

o Traffic and congestion 

� Financial data 

o Budgets, expenditure, etc. 

Whilst some of these data already exist, Hounslow is typical of 

many authorities in that data are fragmented, incomplete and, in 

many cases, cannot be easily integrated. 

Appendix 1 summarises the current data sets and associated 

systems used in the management of the highway asset in Hounslow 


Page 35


Streetcare Services. What is apparent is that there is wide variation 

in the quality, scope and detail of asset data, particularly inventory 

data. For some asset components, such as street lighting, good 

quality asset inventory data should be referenced to a map 

background. Other asset components have little or no coverage. 

We have now completed a full asset inventory survey of the whole 

borough. 

3.3.3 Street Network Asset Data 

Knowledge of the Highways assets starts with a knowledge of the 

road network, in its widest sense. For the purpose of this Plan, the 

network asset comprises every part of the Highway between its 

boundaries, and which is the responsibility of the Borough. This 

will include associated public rights of way, footways and cycle 

tracks. 

While, historically, Hounslow like most local authorities maintained 

its road network as a statutory register of streets, in recent years 

this has rapidly been replaced by computer-based databases of the 

road network and street locations. Since one of the objectives of 

our HAMP is the adoption of a more “holistic” approach to the 

management of our street network, it is essential that the various 

gazetteers and street registers that support the various systems, 

data and processes are used to support such an integrated 

approach. These various street network representations are listed 

and their current quality assessed in Appendix 1. 

3.3.3.1 Street Network Referencing 

Effective highways asset management requires that data held in 

different systems used to manage the different parts of the asset 

can be brought together to give a view of the performance and 

condition of the street as a whole. Key to this is the role of the 

street referencing that is used to locate such data on the network; 

whilst the ideal is that a single referencing system is used for all 

systems. This is rare in practice, both for historical reasons, and 

because of the different technical requirements and characteristics 

of the different asset components. 

Much of the data for the management of the highways service are 

fragmented across a variety of systems within and outside 

Streetcare Services and, where the spatial location of the data is 

relevant, is referenced to either a grid reference or to a variety of 

highway network representations. For example, the highways 

condition assessment data are referenced to a number of meters 

� 

Improvement Action 

#1. 

Procurement and 

implementation of a fullasset 

inventory and Asset 

Register. 

Completed 


Page 36


along a section of road, whereas street lights are referenced by a 

map co-ordinate. Other data items have a simple text description, 

such as “outside number 12 High Street”. This situation is not 

uncommon amongst highway authorities in the UK. 

A number of representations of the highways network, (both 

spatial and textual) are used (or are available but unused) within 

Streetcare Services. The Pavement Survey Network was created 

within the MapInfo system and a sub-set of it is used within the 

MARCH system (MARCH in LBH has no spatial components). A 

similar but separate network is also held within the department’s 

GIS system. 

All local authorities are required to maintain for their network a 

Street Gazetteer which forms part of the National Street Gazetteer 

(NSG). This can be held at various levels of detail from Level 1, 

(an outline of the Streets in the Borough) , to Level 3, (a full 

Street/ESU description with linear geographic data to provide 

location). Hounslow’s Streetworks system in the Confirm system 

uses Level 1 copy of the National Street Gazetteer (NSG) that is 

undergoing revision , whilst the master Level 3 version of NSG is 

held on the Corporate GIS system and exported monthly in the 

correct and current format to the national NSG Hub. 

Responsibility for this, the Authority’s “master” NSG is within the 

Planning directorate due to the need for it to maintain it in parallel 

with a land and property gazetteer. Within the Streetworks system, 

Associated Street Data (ASD) (reinstatement categories, sites of 

engineering difficulty, etc.) and also Section 58 new pavement 

details are to be added. These data are are available in the 

corporate “master” system and therefore are reported to the NSG 

concessionaire , but there are some concerns as to the correctness 

and completeness of these data . 

In addition the directorate has a copy of the Planning directorate’s 

gazetteer (not NSG) that is occasionally updated from data 

supplied by the Planning department and also a gazetteer supplied 

by TfL which is not updated. 

Data supplied by third parties to LBH, such as pavement condition 

Roads2000 data from LB of Hammersmith and Fulham, are 

referenced to externally maintained representations of parts of the 

network. In the case of Roads2000, pavement condition data are 

maintained and analysed against principal roads only, using a 

network representation within the LBH&F Confirm system. 

Work is currently being undertaken to rationalise these discrete 

network representations into a single “correct” and maintained 

� 


#2. 

We will establish a Single, 

Definitive highway network 

representation, together with 

associated processes to 

maintain that network and 

ensure that all Highways 

Asset systems and data sets 

make use of that networks 

Timescale: Ongoing 


Page 37


network within the department’s GIS 3 system, which will become 

the single definitive version of the network. The intention is to 

bring together the best data from the existing systems (such as the 

spatial data from the Pavement Survey Data) into a single GIS 

based network for all classes of road. It is intended that the local 

road hierarchy 4 attribute for each length of road will be included 

and populated in this network. We will then establish processes for 

maintaining this single definitive network and for ensuring that the 

single network is used within highways asset management systems, 

ideally by giving those systems access to the “live” controlled 

version of the network, but as a minimum by regularly copying 

controlled “snapshots” of the network to those systems. 

Generating a single, coordinated road network model will be a key 

objective in the development of asset management planning 

systems in Streetcare Services. 

3.3.4 Asset Inventory and the Asset Register 

The inventory of highway assets owned and maintained by 

Hounslow is a crucial element of information required to support 

the Asset Management Plan, and specifically to support valuation 

of the assets and to determine strategies for their management. 

Streetcare Services have identified that the quality and coverage of 

their “Asset Register” is an issue to be addressed in their Asset 

Management Plan. 

We have recently undertaken a complete survey of all location, 

dimensions and physical characteristics of all of the assets within 

the Borough highway network, as detailed in the following table. 

Item 

Code 

Inventory Item Definition 

AD Advertising Advertising space / unit on the highway - see 

catalogue 

BD Bollards All non illuminated devices placed to keep 

vehicular traffic from entering areas of the 

carriageway reserved for pedestrians. 

BH Benches / Seats A bench / seat used by the public / 

pedestrians on the public highway. 

4 Hierarchy classifications, which are different for road classification, are set by Councils for their 

road networks based upon national guidelines, based upon the “importance” of a road or footway, 

taking into account both the amount of vehicle or pedestrian traffic, but also the type of usage, so 

that for example footway used by larger numbers of disabled users would be treated as more 

important. These classifications are then used to determine standards for services and treatments, 

such as frequency of inspection or need for and type of treatment. 

� 

Well Maintained 

Highways iii recommends 

‘Authorities should prepare 

detailed inventory or register 

of all highway assets 

requiring maintenance’ 

(R8.3) 


Page 38


Item 

Code 


BL Bus Lane A dedicated lane on the carriageway for buses 

BO Bridges - over A structure which spans the road being 

surveyed, including bridges belonging to 

Network Rail and the Underground. 

BSP Bus Stop A sign erected on the highway for pedestrians 

to access public transport. 

BSH Bus Shelter A construction to provide pedestrian shelter. 

BU Bridges - under A structure carrying the road being surveyed, 

including bridges belonging to Network Rail 

and the Underground. 

CA Cabinet A box containing electronic equipment. 

CI Central Island A raised obstruction in the carriageway to split 

the traffic in to two lanes or to provide a 

pedestrian refuge. 

CR Central Reserve A raised area separating the carriageway of a 

dual carriageway road. 

CS Cycle Stands A stand used to store / park bicycles or 

motorbikes on the public highway. See 

photographs included. 

CT Cycle track A dedicated lane on the highway for cycles. 

CW Carriageway The part of the highway that is designated for 

use by vehicular traffic. 

DK Dropped Kerb A drop in the kerb to allow pedestrian 

crossing. 

FG Fencing A barrier erected on the highway between two 

or more areas to mark a boundary ( normally at 

the rear of the footway ) 

FW Footway The part of the highway reserved specifically 

for pedestrian use. 

GB Gate / Barrier A lockable barrier or structure erected on the 

highway to prevent unauthorised vehicle access 

GV Grass Verge / Area A grassed area that’s part of the highway, lies 

outside of the carriageway but not part of the 

footway 

GY Gully A drainage chamber at the side of the 

carriageway. 

KB Kerb A stepped block that borders the carriageway 

and limits the footway. Includes kerbs on 

central reserves and islands. 

LB Litter bins A container used for the collection of refuse 

on the public highway. 

MH Manhole / Inspection cover A covering in the highway for utility access for 

maintenance or inspection purposes 

MP Mast / Pole A mast or pole with CCTV camera attached or 

for radio transmitter purpose 

PB Parking Bays A designated area marked out on the highway 

providing for vehicles to be left for a period of 

time. 

PC Pedestrian Crossing A transverse strip across the carriageway to 

indicate where pedestrians cross. 

PD Pay and Display machine A meter provided for the printing of slips for 

purchase of parking time 

PG Pedestrian guardrail Railing along the side of the footway to 

prevent pedestrians entering the carriageway. 

Please see photographs included. 


Page 39


Item 

Code 


PL Planter Free standing container on the public highway 

containing plants or flowers 

PM Parking meters A meter provided for purchase of parking time 

PT Public Toilets Toilet facilities on the highways for public 

convenience. 

RB Roundabout A raised or painted surface in the carriageway 

where traffic circulates. 

RC Recycling Centre A location for a bin, or series of bins providing 

for the collection of recyclable waste including, 

paper, glass and plastic. 

RH Road Hump A raised surface in the carriageway used to 

slow traffic flow 

RM Road Markings As prescribed in "The Traffic Signs 

Regulations and general Directions 2002" 

Schedule 6 

RW Retaining wall A structure constructed to resist lateral 

pressure from the adjoining ground, or to 

maintain a mass of earth in position. 

SA Soak Away Off highway drainage, other than a gully used 

to drain water from the highway. 

SB Shrub / Flower Bed Raised constructed bed on the highway 

containing plants or flowers 

SF Safety Fence A continuous barrier alongside the carriageway 

to minimise the consequences of a vehicle 

leaving it. 

SG Signs All standard and non standard non-illuminated 

signage for the purpose of information, 

regulation, warning or guiding traffic excluding 

all temporary signs. 

SM Statues / Monument A monument or statue on the public highway 

that represents historical or artistic purpose. 

SN Street Nameplates The nameplate indicating the name of the 

street on which it is found. See photo's 

included. 

TB Telephone Box A public telephone booth or unit on the public 

highway. 

TR Trees A woody plant having a main trunk 

TS Traffic signals A system of different coloured lights for 

stopping streams of traffic or permitting them 

to move. 

VC Vehicle Crossover A drop in the kerb allowing vehicle access to a 

property / driveway. 

Inventory survey work has also been carried out by London 

Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham on behalf of Transport for 

London on the Borough Principal Road network which now 

includes the following infrastructure assets: 

� Trees 

� Gullies 

� Lighting Columns 

� Traffic Lights 

� Bollards 


Page 40


� Street Furniture 

� Posts 

� Signs 

These data are being continuously updated. 

Appendix 5, the Asset Register, gives details of the overall 

quantities of inventory items recorded as part of the inventory 

survey. 

In determining the specification for the asset inventory the 

following factors were considered: 

▪ What should be recorded? (items, attributes, condition data, 

documents and photographs, locational information, etc.) 

▪ The purposes and intended benefits of recording asset data 

items 

▪ The standard of accuracy to which data should be recorded 

▪ The priority for collection of the various data items and 

attributes 

▪ The need to calculate an Asset Value for the whole network 

▪ The requirements of UKPMS, the Bridge Condition Index and 

other national standard systems and reporting mechanisms 

▪ Location referencing considerations 

It will also be necessary to ensure that the necessary information 

systems are in place and have been appropriately configured in 

order to ensure that the full value of the asset inventory can be 

realised. 

In order to ensure that maximum value is realised from the 

inventory survey, and to ensure the ongoing quality and currency 

of the inventory survey, it is essential that an effective data 

management regime is established at an early stage. 

Collection and maintenance of an appropriate, fit-for-purpose and 

up to date asset inventory is an important priority for the 

implementation of the Asset Management Plan. 

An important element of the development of the Asset Inventory 

and Asset Register is the implementation of a Data Management 

regime, in order to ensure that maximum value is realised from the 

inventory survey, and to ensure the ongoing quality and currency 

of the inventory survey, that will set out procedures for keeping the 

survey up-to-date and for ensuring that the latest data is made 

� 


#1. 

Procurement and 

implementation of a fullasset 

inventory and Asset 

Register. 

Completed 

� 


#3. 

Establishment of a Data 

Management Regime for 

the asset inventory 

In progress 


Page 41


consistently available to end users. The principles and practice set 

out in the data management regime for the asset inventory will be 

extended to all highways asset data held. 

The project to develop the Confirm system as Streetcare Services’ 

principal asset management system will also assist in the promotion 

of good data management practices. 

3.3.5 Asset Valuation Data 

The CSS Guidance Document for Highway Infrastructure Asset Valuation 

(July 2005) iv recommends that local authorities should establish a 

valuation regime for their highway infrastructure – as a minimum: 

▪ a benchmark valuation should be performed every 5 years 

▪ annual adjustments should be made to reflect changes to the 

stock and fluctuations in construction prices 

Prompted by government concerns about the inadequacy of 

information about transport infrastructure, the slow progress in 

implementing asset management, and the need for consistent 

information to support Whole of Government Accounts (WGA) 

HM Treasury and the Department for Transport commissioned 

CIPFA to undertake a review of accounting, management and 

financing mechanisms for local authority transport infrastructure 

assets. The report on this review, published in June 2008 

concluded that there was the potential for significant value for 

money and service improvement benefits from the implementation 

of an asset management approach. It also concluded that an asset 

management approach would support sound financial management 

and decision making and effective long-term stewardship of the 

highway asset. It conservatively quantified these benefits as at least 

5% per annum in the longer term. The report recommended a 

number of updates and developments to the CSS asset valuation 

guidance to facilitate an updated accounting treatment in the 

“Statement of Recommended Practice” (SORP). 

This updated reporting is scheduled to take place as a “dry run” in 

2010/11 and in light of this dry run, a decision to be taken on 

whether to change accounts for 2011/12 or have a second dry run 

year. 

Following on from the CIPFA review a working group, HAMFIG 

(Highways Asset Management Financial Information Group) was 

set up to fully develop the guidance to replace the CSS guidance 

and to produce “quick start” information to ensure that asset 

valuation and financial reporting is carried out in a nationally- 


Page 42


consistent way for highway networks. This new guidance will 

cover; 

▪ The detailed management of assets, including life cycle 

planning and whole life cost optimisation 

▪ Financial management 

▪ Long term financial planning and budgeting 

▪ Resource allocation and policy development. 

▪ Transparent, informative financial reporting that is IFRS 

compliant and supports WGA. 

The intention is to issue guidance as a draft for formal consultation 

in and to finalise the guidance in February 2010. 

The Asset Value for a road network is a reflection of both what 

exists on the road network, and how much it would cost to replace, 

and the state that it is in (and by implication how good or bad a 

service it is providing). Expressing the extent and condition of the 

highways asset in financial terms is a useful means of expressing 

what, for most Councils is their most valuable asset, and to allow 

comparisons to be made with other assets, such as property, on a 

common basis. 

Since the publication of the first version of the HAMP, Streetcare 

Services has undertaken an interim valuation of the Gross 

Replacement Cost highways asset. Appendix 8 details this 

valuation. 

The key drivers for Asset Valuation are: 

1. To emphasise the need to preserve the highway 

infrastructure by placing a monetary value on highway 

infrastructure assets – but not forgetting that the AV represents the 

monetary (capital) value of the assets and not the service provided 

by the assets, i.e. what the assets are ‘worth’ to society. 

2. To demonstrate asset stewardship by monitoring the 

AV over time; however, AV should not to be used in isolation but 

should be used in combination with other recognized Performance 

Measures such as Best National Indicators (NIs) and other 

Performance Indicators (PIs). 

3. To support Whole of Government Accounts and 

promote greater accountability, transparency and improved 

stewardship of public finances. 

� 


#6. 

We will carry out a full, 

benchmark asset valuation 

in making use of the full 

asset inventory. 

Timescale: Year 3-5 

(2010) 

� 

The inventory data to 

support asset valuation is 

described in the CSS 

Guidance, Section 5 


Page 43


4. To support Highway Asset Management – Asset 

Valuation provides one facet of the robust financial framework 

that Asset Management should operate within. 

The following timetable has been adopted for implementation of 

highway infrastructure AV: 

▪ Financial Year 2007-08: Interim Gross Replacement Cost 

Valuation (Completed) 

▪ 2010: Full “dry run” valuation for 1011/12 Accounts 

▪ Financial Year 2011-12 and beyond: Calculate in-year 

movements (e.g. depreciation, impairment etc). 

3.3.6 Dissemination of Asset Information 

In order for the full value of asset data to be realised, it is 

important that effective mechanisms are in place to ensure that 

data are made available, in an appropriate form, to those within the 

organisation that can make use of the data. A number of initiatives 

are already underway that will assist in this respect. 

The corporate GIS system provides a mechanism to distribute 

map-based information in a readily understood and web-based 

mapping functionality as part of the intranet for internal users. 

This mechanism will be extended through the Council’s web site, 

for customers and other data users. Currently, relatively little data 

related to Highways Asset Management has been distributed, but it 

is anticipated that this will be extended in future. 

The adoption of Confirm as the departmental standard for Asset 

Management will assist in integrating and distributing data and 

associated functionality within the department, and potentially to 

contactors and other partners. 

3.3.7 Systems to Manage the Asset 

Much of the data for the management of the highways service are 

currently dispersed across a variety of systems within and outside 

Streetcare Services and, where the spatial location of the data is 

relevant, are referenced to either a grid reference or to a variety of 

highway network representations. This situation is not uncommon 

amongst highway authorities in the UK. 

As part of the HAMP improvement programme, a number of 

initiatives are proposed, including the rationalisation of systems 

and supporting data and referencing, with the Confirm Asset 

� 


#5. 

We will undertake an 

interim, pilot asset 

valuation in April 2006, 

drawing upon the data 

collected in the pilot 

inventory survey. 

Completed 

� 


#8. 

Following the 

implementation of the Asset 

Inventory and Register, we 

will, as appropriate, make 

data available to 

stakeholders and customers 

though the Intranet and 

Council web set, using 

Mapping tools where 

appropriate. 

Timescale: Years 3-5 

(2008-10) 


Page 44


Management System adopted as the preferred system, in order to 

promote sharing and integration of data and functionality. 5 

Systems in use in Streetcare Services have evolved as a series of 

investments in systems and data, each investment made either to 

satisfy the needs within a part of the organisation or for a part of 

the organisation to participate in a London wide initiative. For 

example, some highway maintenance data is held within the 

MARCH system, whilst Streetworks data is within Confirm. In 

addition street lighting data is also Confirm based, whilst bridges 

data is maintained in the LOBEG/Bridge station system. This 

fragmentation is also a result of historic organisational structures. 

The various systems currently used in the management of our 

highways are summarised in Appendix 1. 

Steps have already been taken to adopt Confirm as the principal 

integrated highways asset management system in Streetcare 

services, and whilst further development is required, early 

indications are that this system should meet most of the currently 

identified needs. 

We will continue to adopt Confirm as the principal integrated 

highways asset management system, which will include an asset 

inventory/register. This system can only be successful if sufficient 

resources and time are allocated to its development and operation. 

It is also noted that other systems, particularly the GIS and Street 

lighting systems are already delivering benefit, and have the 

potential to provide further value. 

No system can be successful unless sufficient resources and time 

are allocated to its development, operation and upkeep. It is noted 

that some existing systems, particularly the GIS and street lighting 

systems are already delivering benefit, and have the potential to 

provide further value. However, improved resources will be an 

essential part of the successful implementation of Hounslow’s asset 

management systems. 

5 Although in some instances there will be a specific technical need to diverge from Confirm, for 

example which uses the London-wide Bridge condition reporting system. 

� 


#9. 

Implementation of the 

“Confirm” System as the 

principle integrated asset 

management system within 

Streetcare Services 


(2006-11) 

� 


#10 

Development and 

integration of Asset Data 

systems 


(2007-11) 


Page 45


We will continue to develop the systems, including the GIS and 

Intranet/Internet to ensure the maximum integration, use of and 

benefit from our asset data. 


Page 46


4 Levels of Service 

4.1. What are Levels of Service? 

In implementing highway Asset Management, a key challenge is to 

balance the need to invest in order to preserve the integrity and 

value of the physical asset, with the need to provide high-quality 

service to the users of our highway network. Figure 4.1.1 describes 

this challenge and indicates how measures of condition and 

performance contribute. 

Asset Preservation 

Physical Condition 

Figure 4.1.1 Balancing Asset Preservation and Service Delivery 

Service Delivery Performance 

Perceived 

Condition 

Levels of Service provide the mechanism for achieving service 

quality from the Highways Asset. The Level of Service therefore 

reflects the way our service is delivered and how it is perceived by 

our customers. Levels of Service include the performance and 

condition of the asset itself, the quality of the service that the asset 

provides and the performance of Streetcare Services in delivering 

that service. 

This Highways Asset Management Plan describes the mechanisms 

that we will put in place to monitor and improve the quality of the 

services provided by the highways asset, whilst at the same time 

Non- 

Condition 

Related 

Performance 

� 

The national framework 

for highway Asset 

Management defines “Level 

of Service” as a term used 

to describe the quality of 

services provided by the 

highway asset for the benefit 

of customers 


Page 47


ensuring that the long-term integrity and cost-effectiveness of the 

asset is provided for. 

For this, version 3 of our HAMP, we have fundamentally revised 

our approach to Service Levels, to incorporate the measures of 

serviceability that have been developed for our Highways PFI 

project. This will allow us to monitor progress in delivering 

improvements to the service provided by our highway network, 

both prior to the commencement of the PFI project, planned for 

2012 and then throughout 25 years of the project’s operation. The 

PFI contractor will be required to achieve the desired standard or 

level of service throughout the contract, as specified by the output 

specification, and to improve the condition of the assets to a 

required standard during the first five years of the project, and then 

to maintain that standard through the remainder of the project. 

4.2. How will we derive and use Levels of Service? 

In this Asset Management Plan, our measures of quality of service 

and infrastructure condition are intended to reflect the wide range 

of assets and services that we provide and to reflect the 

contribution of Streetcare Services to the overall objectives of the 

London Borough of Hounslow as defined in our ten Executive 

Priorities: 

▪ One Hounslow 

▪ Promoting Community Development, Cohesion & Safety 

▪ Children & Lifelong Learning 

▪ Supporting Vulnerable People 

▪ Enhancing Our Environment 

▪ Sustainable Mixed Housing 

▪ Positive Regeneration 

▪ Improving Customer Care 

▪ Better Performance 

▪ Resources for Future Improvement 

As part of the PFI contract documentation, we are identifying 

required standards of service for all assets and services associated 

with the highway network. 

In order to monitor how well we are delivering our services in 

accordance with these priorities, we have defined a number of 

Performance Measures for each Level of Service and, where 

possible, have set targets against which we will measure our 

performance. 


Page 48


The processes for determining service levels, for setting targets for 

those service levels and for monitoring achievement of those 

targets is essentially a “top down” process, determined by the 

strategic objectives for the highway network as determined by the 

Council, by regional government 6 and by central Government as 

described in broad terms in figures 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 below. 

Strategic 

Objectives 

Service Levels 

Performance 

Measures & 

Targets 

Figure 4.1.2 The Strategic Objectives – Service Levels - Performance Measures Hierarchy 

For Hounslow’s HAMP, the strategic objectives are derived from 

both the Council business planning process and from Transport 

Policy set down by the Government and Transport for London, as 

set out in the Councils Transport Local Implementation Plan 

(LIP). This is described in Figure 4.1.3, below which also shows 

that for the Service Levels that have been derived for the HAMP, 

there are many performance measures and targets which, in many 

cases, contribute to the monitoring of more than one service level. 

6 Government Office for London (GOL), Association of London Government 

(ALG) and Transport for London (TfL) 


Page 49


Council 

Executive 

Priorities 

SMPP Business 

Plan Targets 

Street Care 

Services 

Business Plan 

Targets 


Service Levels 

Performance Measures and Targets 

Figure 4.1.3. Strategic Policy Documentation and the HAMP 

Network Performance Gap 

TfL 

London 

Transport 

Policy 

Local 

Implementation 


Borough 

Spending Plan 

Government 

Transport 

Policy and 

Legislation 

The Network Performance Gap (NPG) has been developed to 

measure the difference between the target condition and the actual 

condition of roads and footways within throughout the PFI period. 

The NPG is a composite of the output from a selection of 

different condition surveys depending on the location and 


Page 50


significance within the network and ‘Link & Place’ of the road 

section length. The indicators that contribute to the NPG, along 

with the relevant survey used to obtain the information required to 

calculate the indices are given in the table below. 

Condition 

Index 

Survey 

PCI Deflectograph 

SRI SCRIM 

MSCI SCANNER 

SCI ST 

SCI WC 

SCI SF 

FCI 

Detailed Visual 

Inspection (DVI) 

Footway Coarse 

Network Survey (CNS) 

The NPG uses a different selection of surveys and different 

condition targets depending on the significance and location of the 

Road Section Length (RSL) within the network. The relative 

importance of each RSL has been determined through the use of 

the ‘Link & Place’ methodology (P Jones et al, 2007) resulting in 

each RSL having a ranking based upon its level of importance as a 

link, a street where users aim to pass through as quickly and 

conveniently as possible, and a place, which are destinations in 

their own right where people are encouraged to spend time. The 

method bases the importance of a link on the movement of 

people, rather than vehicles, and therefore streets can be important 

links in terms of walking, cycling, driving or using public transport. 

Link and Place 

The classification of the road section lengths for both link and 

place significance is represented in a ‘Link & Place’ matrix. The 

‘Link’ status is closely related to the Carriageway Hierarchies as 

described in Well Maintained Highways (Roads Liaison Group, 

2005) as there is good relation between the carriageway hierarchy 

and the ‘Link’ status, although some sections may be increased in 

significance due to important bus or cycle routes. The ‘Place’ status 

is based more on the catchment areas of major land uses on or 

alongside the street, or on the heritage or cultural significance of 

the buildings. Local knowledge has been used to define the ‘Places’ 

that are significant to the whole of the Borough, or are of just local 

importance. The ‘Link & Place’ matrix used within the London 

Borough of Hounslow, along with the definitions of each category, 

is given in the figure below. 


Page 51

Link Status 

Place Status 


Link status level 

Strategic route 

Main distributor 

Secondary distributor 

Link Road 

Local Access Road 

Regional 

Category Description 

Funds/ 

Maintains 

1 Strategic Route 

Principal roads between primary destinations. (TfL 

Network) 

TFL / TFL 

2 

Major urban network and inter-primary links. (Borough 

Main Distributor 

Principal Road Network) 

TFL / LBH 

3 

Secondary 

Distributor 

Classified roads (B & C) and other roads of more than local 

LBH / LBH 

importance including unclassified urban bus routes. 

4 Link Road 

Roads linking between the Main and Secondary Distributor 

LBH / LBH 

Network. 

5 

Roads serving limited numbers of properties carrying only 

Local Access Road 

local access traffic. 

Destinations of regional (London) or national significance 

LBH / LBH 

A Regional (e.g. regional shopping centres, heritage sites, sporting 

venues) 

Places that contribute and important and valued role to the 

LBH / LBH 

B Borough whole borough, although they may not be widely known at a LBH / LBH 

London or national level. 

Streets/Places that serve a role (e.g. shopping or commercial 

C Area uses) at an area or town level but are not frequently accessed LBH / LBH 

by users from other wider areas. 

D Neighbourhood 

Local streets/Places acting as destinations to local users such 

LBH / LBH 

as small local centres and streets with corner shops. 

E Local 

Most local access streets with no interest from wider area. 

Used for ‘Place’ activities only by adjoining frontages. 

LBH / LBH 

1A 

2A 

3A 

4A 

5A 

Borough 

1B 

2B 

3B 

4B 

5B 

Place Status level 

Area 

1C 

2C 

3C 

4C 

5C 

Figure ‘Link & Place’ Matrix with category definitions 

Neighbour - 

hood 

1D 

2D 

3D 

4D 

5D 

Local 

1E 

2E 

3E 

4E 

5E 


Page 52


NPG Scoring mechanisms – Minimums, Targets and 

Performance Gaps 

Each indicator used within the NPG has been given a Target 

Score; There is also a Minimum Score assigned to each RSL, which 

is the minimum acceptable level for the RSL at any time. 

The Target and Minimum Scores vary depending on “Link & 

Place” category of the RSL, allowing for different condition 

requirements on different parts of the network. There is a 

likelihood that the significance of the carriageway in terms of its 

link status, is going to be different to that of the off carriageway 

features, such as the footways and off carriageway cycle ways. This 

is because there are likely to be different key travelling routes for 

people travelling by vehicular modes of transport, such as cars and 

buses, and those on foot. Also, the importance of a footway has a 

relation to the place importance, as footways in pedestrianised 

shopping centres may not be a key link but are of importance to 

the high volumes of people using the shopping centres, whilst key 

‘links’ may have no, or very little, interest as a ‘place’ such as dual 

carriageways and other principal routes. 

The surveys used and the targets required for the carriageway 

surveys are based on the “Link” status of the RSL, as the 

carriageways main purposes is as a transport link. The footways 

will be based on the “Place” rating as the importance of the 

location as a ‘Place’ is likely to be the most significant in terms of 

ranking the importance of a footway within an RSL relative to the 

overall network, such as key shopping areas and busy areas outside 

schools for example. 

The NPG is a measure of Performance Gap, which is calculated as 

the difference between the Target Score, and the actual scores 

calculated for each of the constituent condition indices. Therefore, 

the overall aim throughout the PFI is for each RSL to be to 

upgraded to, and maintain at or above, the Target Score, therefore 

reducing the NPG to zero. To avoid ‘gold plating’ of the network, 

and reduce the impact of RSLs that have been upgraded to higher 

than the Target Score offsetting deficits in other RSLs, where the 

Condition Indices have a score greater than the Target Score, a 

Performance Gap of zero is assigned. The PFI project is intended 

to improve (i.e. reduce) the NPG to zero by the end of the 5 th year 

of the project (planned for 2017) and then to maintain that level of 

service throughout the rest of the contract. 

The current (2008/09) values for NPG for Ward, Council Area 

and for the whole borough are given in the figures below; 


Page 53



6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 


7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Bedfont 

West 

Feltham West 

Feltham North 

The NPG is clearly focussed on carriageway and footway 

pavements, which form the most significant proportion (73%) of 

the value of the highway assets in Hounslow. The PFI Output 

Specification will also addresses the maintenance backlog, lifecycle 

maintenance and general levels of service for other key assets, 

notably bridges and structures, drainage, trees and lighting. 

Streetscene Index 

Current (2009) Network Performance Gaps for Areas and the Whole Network 

Heston & Cranford 

In addition to the NPG, which measures the quality of the roads 

and footways, a new Service Level measure is also being developed 

for the PFI project, and will be reported in the HAMP, which 

measures the quality of the “Street Scene”. The Streetscene index 

will be calculated for each Ward and for the Network as a whole. 

The Streetscene index is to be based on the Local Environmental 

Quality Surveys (LEQ) carried out on 50m sample lengths of street 

throughout the borough, of which a summarised version of the 

results are reported for National Indicator 195, to assess visually 

Central Hounslow 

Area 

Current (2009) Network Performance Gaps for Ward and the Whole Network 

Hanworth Park 

Hanworth 

Cranford 

Heston West 

Heston Central 

Heston East 

Hounslow West 

Hounslow Heath 

Ward 

Hounslow Central 

Isleworth & 

Brentford 

Hounslow South 

Isleworth 

Osterley and 

Spring Grove 

Syon 

Chiswick 

Brentford 

Turnham Green 

Chiswick Riverside 

Borough Network 

Chiswick 

Homefields 

Borough Network 


Page 54


both the cleanliness of the streets within the borough, and the 

condition of the street furniture. 

During the surveys, each 50m length is scored on a scale from -8 to 

+8, with scores above 0 being satisfactory or good. A Target Index 

is reported for the LEQ surveys, which reports the percentage to 

which the Borough meets an average target standard of +4. 

In addition to our own performance measures and service levels, 

we are required to produce a number of statutory indicators, which 

are used by Central Government to monitor the performance of 

each Local Authority in England. 

4.3.1 Performance Indicators 

There are a number of sets of Mandatory Performance Indicators 

that we already have to report including the new national 

performance framework indicators, Public Service Agreement 

(PSA) indicators, and Hounslow’s own Corporate Indicators. 

In addition to the various Mandatory Indicators, Streetcare 

Services have developed a number of Local Indicators relevant to 

the specific priorities and services provided by Streetcare Services 

in Hounslow. 


Page 55


5 Planning and Options 

5.1. Performance Gaps 

In implementing this HAMP it is recognised that, for the various 

asset components and services associated with the highway 

network, there are inevitable gaps between the current 

performance and the level of performance that is desired. There 

are two categories of performance gaps: 

1. Where the condition of an asset or an asset component is 

below that desired to preserve the value and integrity of the 

asset, for example where the carriageway has deteriorated to 

such an extent that major works will be required to restore 

condition. 

2. Where the level of service provided to the users of the highway 

network is below that desired, for example, where the 

appearance of the street scene is poor. 

Our service levels developed for the PFI, specifically the Network 

Performance Gap and the Streetscene Index, are explicitly 

measures of the difference between current and desired 

performance, with a value of zero for a street, ward or the borough 

as a whole indicating that desired performance is being achieved. 

In monitoring service levels and associated targets will make use of 

the customer and resident consultation mechanisms described in 

section 6.2. 

We will also ensure that the targets set for the Council as part the 

government Local Area Agreement (LAA) regime are consistent 

with those set for service levels and supporting performance 

measures. 

5.2. Options and Priorities 

A key element of Streetcare Services’ adoption of asset 

management principles and practice for Hounslow’s Street 

Network is a move towards longer-term, life-cycle investment 

planning; specifically the desire to move beyond annual, historicbased 

budget allocations to look at future investment need over a 

longer period. Our Highways PFI project is our chosen mechanism 

for achieving longer term value and performance. 


Page 56


This is likely to lead to better value for money and lower whole life 

costs by ensuring that investment is made at the right time. This 

approach also recognises that there are different options that must 

be considered, with different impacts at all stages of the asset 

investment process: 

� Options for overall level of budget 

� Options for splitting the overall budget between different 

services, asset components, geographical areas, etc. 

� Options for where to invest within budget programmes 

� Options for the type of works that should be carried out 

Note that the implementation of our Highways PFI project will, by 

its very nature, as a 25 year project, bring a longer-term view and 

planning horizon to the management of the maintenance of our 

highway network. 

5.2.1 Option Identification 

The move towards asset management implies the introduction of a 

lifecycle approach to the management of individual assets, where 

the costs and benefits of an investment in an asset is considered 

over the whole life of that asset, which will be different depending 

upon the specification for that asset and of any maintenance or 

improvement works that take place. This may be founded on a 

sophisticated approach to modelling future investment need or a 

more empirical approach based on the age of particular asset 

components. In any case it is important to develop a long term 

view of investment need. Key to effective lifecycle management is 

the recognition that there will, in general, be a number of options 

available whenever an investment decision is made and a 

consideration of the lifecycle costs associated with each option 

should be made. 

This intention is linked to the improvement action for a more 

integrated approach to budgeting for Asset Management and to the 

introduction of long-term investment planning. It should result in 

benefits, including reduced whole life costs, based on right-time 

investment and better financial planning and management. 

Both as part of the life-cycle management plans produced for the 

principle asset components services, and for the processes that are 

set up for asset investments as a whole, the HAMP will ultimately 

provide for the consideration of a number of possible options as 

the “solution” to the need to intervene and invest to restore 

condition, level of service or value of the asset. 


Page 57


The tools that are currently used and those that will be 

implemented over the life of the improvement plan (both the 

specialist, asset component-specific systems and the whole asset 

tools) must be able to support such an option-based approach by 

considering different options, and evaluating the impact of 

investment options over different return periods in terms of 

condition, level of service and impact upon asset value and 

depreciation, as well as accounting for cost, benefit and risk. 

There is an intention to implement option appraisal processes in 

relation to investment decisions that take account of factors such 

as: 

▪ Risk 

▪ Condition 

▪ Level of Service including minimum levels of service 

▪ Whole lifecycle costs 

The proposed integrated work programme described in figure 5.3.1 

also reflects that, for the funding available for the highways asset as 

a whole, once defined minimum levels of service and condition are 

met Streetcare Services has considerable choice in where those 

funds may be spent to realise greatest benefit. There are of course 

organisational and political barriers to such flexibility and choice, 

and we will need to explore further the extent to which, and the 

speed with which, SCS are prepared to move towards such an 

approach. Moreover, the move to our PFI project will, through the 

output specification, impose a requirement on the service provider 

to integrate works, including a requirement to implement 

integrated “Whole Street Environment” (WSE) schemes. 

5.2.2 Value Management 

“Value Management is about getting the right project, whilst Value 

Engineering is done to get the project right.” (Value Management in 

Construction, Harry Hammersley, 2002) 

Value Management is defined, in the Highway Maintenance Code 

of Practice (Well-maintained Highways, Roads Liaison Group, 2005) as: 

“a process that may be used to prioritise the competing needs of 

highway schemes, identified through condition and economic 

prioritisation. It provides a structured, consistent and quality 

approach for assessing the benefits of undertaking maintenance 

and the associated risks of not undertaking maintenance. The 

outcome should be a prioritised programme of schemes that will 

be entered into the HAMP” 


Page 58


It is worth noting that much of the work involved in the 

implementation of this approach is now part of the work to 

develop the PFI project, both in the identification of the long-term 

investment need to eliminate maintenance “backlog” and to restore 

levels of service, and in the work that the eventual contractor will 

carry out to develop a 5 year programme of schemes during the 

core investment period. 

For Hounslow’s HAMP, the original intention was that we would 

design a 3 level (“Strategic”, “Programme” and “Project”) value 

management process, to be used to set strategic investment 

priorities and levels of budget, to identify investment priorities and 

to determine treatment specifications. 

In the light of the development of Hounslow's PFI project, it is no 

longer appropriate to pursue this approach. The concept of a 

highways PFI is based around an "output specification" that sets 

out the levels of service, and the structural condition that the 

contractor is required to provide over the life of the (25 year) 

contract. In their proposals, the bidders for this contract will set 

out their own assessment of how they can best manage and 

minimise costs of delivering that level of service, based upon their 

own assessment of good asset and value management practice. 

Whilst the council will need to satisfy themselves that the bidders 

proposals are viable and make good engineering sense, their 

primary concern is that the quality of the street network is 

acceptable through the life of the contract and that the network is 

handed back at the end of the 25 year period with an acceptable 

level of residual life. The detailed "value management" procedures 

that that will be in place are a matter for the service provider as 

long as they achieve the desired results, although the Council will 

take into account whether they adopt good asset management 

practices in assessing their bids for this contract. 

5.2.3 Priority Setting 

The good progress that has already been made for a number of the 

asset components, particularly roads, footways and street lighting, 

in determining priority for budget allocation on the basis of an 

objective assessment of condition and performance will be further 

developed over the life of the improvement plan: 

▪ Condition and performance assessment techniques and systems 

will be further developed; these are described for each asset 

component in the Life Cycle Management Plans 


Page 59


▪ Information related to the measurement of service and 

performance will be collected to support investment 

prioritisation 

▪ Information and systems that allow potential investment 

options to be evaluated on an economic and whole life cost 

basis, giving priority to preventative maintenance, which reduce 

the risk of more costly future intervention and preserve the 

value of the asset over the longer term. For roads and 

footways, the Scheme Engineer system, that has been 

implemented to support the PFI project provides this 

capability. 

▪ Systems and information that support whole asset prioritisation 

as part of the integrated works programme 

Classified (A, B) Roads 

Unclassified Roads and Footways 

Road n 

SCANNER 

Surveys 

Detailed 

Visual 

Survey 

United 

Kingdom 

Pavement 


System 

“Backlog" 

“Plan Maintenance” 

Included in BVPI 

“Plan Investigation” 

“Good Condition” 

“Backlog” 

Included in BVPI 

Not included in BVPI 

Whole Borough 

Carriageway Works 

Priority List 

Road Condition Index 

Road 1 140 

Road 2 139 

Road 3 128 

: : 

Road 300 99 

Road 301 98 

: : 

Road 400 19 

Road n 0 

Whole Borough 

Footway Works 

Priority List 

Footway Condition Index 

Footway 1 45 

Footway 2 36 

Footway 3 28 

: : 

Road 300 17 

Road 301 16 

Road n 0 

48% of Total Budget 

52% of Total Budget 

Figure 5.2.1.1 Prioritisation of Footway and Carriageway Area Works Programmes 

The figure above illustrates the agreed process for determining 

works programmes for footways and for carriageway, on an area 

basis. 

In order to support such an approach, improved record keeping 

will be required to ensure that whole life costs are captured and 

used for improvements to the process in future. 

The detail of this is developed in the life cycle plans for each 

component as well as the whole asset processes, procedures and 

systems for the integrated investment programme. 

5.3 Approach to Works Programming and Unified 

Works Programme 

Area Carriageway 

Works Programmes 

Road Priority 

Road 

Road 

Road 1 

Priority 

Priority 1 

Road 

Road 

Road 

Road 2 

1 Priority 

Road 

Road 1 2 

1 

1 

Priority 1 

Road 

Road 

Road 3 

2 1 

Road 

Road 2 

2 

1 

3 

2 

Road 3 3 

2 

2 

1 

etc 

3 3 

Road 

etc Road 

Road 3 

3 

2 3 

3 

2 

etc Road 

etc 

3 3 

etc 

Area Carriageway 

Works Programmes 

Footway Road Priority 

Footway Road 

Road 

Road 1 1 

Priority 

Priority 1 

Footway Road 

Road 

Road 

Road 2 Priority 

Road 

Road 

2 

1 

1 2 2Priority 

1 

Road 1 

Priority 1 

Footway Road 

Road 

Road 3 1 

Road 

Road 

3 

2 

2 

2 

1 

3 

2 

Road 3 3 

2 

2 

1 

etc 

3 3 

Road 

etc Road 

Road 3 

3 

2 3 

3 

2 

etc Road 

etc 

3 3 

etc 


Page 60


The introduction of highways Asset Management has implications 

for: 

▪ The way that budgets are structured 

▪ the balance between capital and revenue funding 

▪ the timescales over which budgets are set 

▪ the processes for determining level of budget and for securing 

funding and for determining priorities and allocations and the 

processes 

It is intended that in the next three to five years, a considerably 

more flexible approach to funding and budgeting in relation to the 

operation and improvement of the highways asset be developed. 

Since the PFI project will largely remove the need for such an 

approach, we will need to assess how far it is beneficial to move 

towards this objective in the next two to three years. The desired 

approach is described in Figure 5.3.1 and embodies the following 

features: 

1. Minimum levels of service and/or condition are defined for 

each asset component and each service delivered, derived 

both from the Council’s objectives and from statutory 

requirements, and from risk assessments (The process of 

determining minimum and target service levels is described 

below). 

2. Asset component and service-specific work programmes 

aimed at ensuring the maintenance of the minimum levels 

of service are compiled separately on an annual basis. 

3. A unified Whole Asset Works 5 year prioritised works 

programme will be produced. Underpinning this 

programme is a model which allows improvements to the 

disparate asset components and associated services to be 

considered on a common basis, and for the benefits 

associated with improvements to be considered on a 

common basis. The exact nature of this model has yet to be 

developed, but it is likely that it will take into account 

factors such as: 

▪ Risk Analysis, taking into account risks to service 

delivery and asset value as well as purely safety 

considerations 

▪ Minimisation of Whole Life Costs 

▪ Asset Value, including depreciation and condition 

considerations and Economic value of investments, so 

that lower-cost preventative treatments that mitigate 

against more costly future treatments are favoured. 


Page 61


CAPITAL 

BUDGET 

REVENUE 

BUDGET 

£ 

£ 

£ 

▪ The cost of potential investments 

▪ “Hard” benefits, that can be expressed in financial or 

quantifiable terms, and “Soft” benefits that cannot be 

so expressed, but which are nonetheless important 

▪ Political priorities and policies, and priorities 

determined by consultations with service users and 

stakeholders 

▪ Location, including hierarchy designations 

▪ Life cycle costs 

▪ National Standards of Good Practice 

Unified Programme 

(Whole Asset Options) 

Annual Service Programme 

(‘Do Minimum’) 

ASSET/SERVICE 

ASSET/SERVICE 

ASSET/SERVICE 

YR 1 YR 2 YR 3 YR 4 YR 5 

Figure 5.3.1 The Unified Works Programme 

Investment ‘ramping up’ to improve overall 

value 

Level of expenditure varies according to 

changing conditions 

The unified works programming process will provide a single, 

prioritised 1 and 5 year investment programme with a means of 

evaluating investments in different asset components, in multicomponent 

schemes or in whole-asset schemes on a common 

basis, so that the most beneficial receive the highest priority. Since 

under the PFI project the service provider will be contractually 

required to both restore the condition and integrity of the asset 

over 5 years and to provide minimum levels of service, this is our 

preferred means of delivering such an approach. Not withstanding 

this, however, prior to the implementation of the PFI, we will 

make progress towards this objective in the shorter term, drawing 

upon the enhanced data and systems that are being made available 

through the development of the PFI and the associated reference 

project. 

IMPROVE 

ASSET 

VALUE 

OUTCOME 

� 

ACHIEVE 

MINIMUM 

LEVELS 

OF 

SERVICE 

A useful introduction to 

these concepts can be found 

in the book ‘Road 

Version Maintenance 3 (2009) Management 

Concepts and Systems’ 

Page 62 

v


5.4 An Introduction to Lifecycle and Investment 

Planning 

The current maintenance practices in Streetcare Services could, to a 

large extent, be described as ‘managing the lifecycle’ of each asset 

component. However, in common with most other Local 

Authorities, this has been done in the past in a way based on 

experience and largely without cross-reference between the 

different asset groups. The aspirations for future asset management 

in Hounslow, as described in the preceding sections of this Plan 

and in particular the concept of working towards target service 

levels, means that it is necessary to take a much more integrated 

and long-term view than previously. This, essentially, is what 

Lifecycle Planning is about. 

Lifecycle Planning recognises that there are key stages in the life 

cycle of each asset component and that there are options at each of 

these stages for the investment required. One objective is to ensure 

that each part of the asset achieves its full expected life, at 

minimum cost. The analysis of options using these criteria is what 

is generally known as ‘Life Cycle Costing’ or ‘Whole Life Costing’, 

and many models for this exist in the Engineering industry – 

including in the Highways sector – but few are in use actively in 

Local Highway Authorities. 

Streetcare Services have set, as one of their aspirations, the 

introduction of Life Cycle Costing in Hounslow. 

Disposal 

Upgrading 

Creation or 

Acquisition 

Figure 5.4.1 The Generic Asset Life Cycle 

Routine 

Maintenance 

Renewal or 

Replacement 


Page 63


The generic asset life cycle, that can be said to apply to all aspects 

of the Highway, is illustrated in Fig 5.4.1 above. 

Generally, as identified in the CSS Framework (2004), these key 

stages involve the following interventions by the asset managers; 

Creation or 

Acquisition 

Routine 

Maintenance 

Renewal or 

Replacement 

Build or purchase a new asset in response to one 

of three demands; 

New Development or Major Upgrading (see 

below) 

Capacity (new demands on the service) and 

Performance (to meet level of service targets) 

Carry out routine maintenance to maintain the 

asset in a serviceable condition. The definition of 

such performance standards is dealt with elsewhere 

in the HAMP but in the lifecycle management 

plan, the implications for each aspect of the asset 

and on the different road hierarchies will be 

explained. 

In many instances routine maintenance regimes are 

principally based on historical practices rather than 

identified needs. Asset management demands the 

explicit identification of need. 

Carry out work to return the asset to its “as new” 

capacity and condition. 

Renew or replace the whole asset, or elements of 

it, when routine maintenance alone cannot sustain 

the asset. 

Upgrading Improve the asset, or part of it, above its original 

standard to meet future needs (a special case of 

‘Creation’) 

Disposal Decommission or demolish obsolete assets. 

In the case of Highways, roads themselves are 

rarely fully decommissioned; however individual 

asset components are constantly being 

decommissioned, and may or may not be replaced 

depending on current demand. 

As an illustration, three example asset components are given in the 

table below for carriageways, trees and street lights respectively. 

Lifecycle 

Stage 

Creation or 

Acquisition 

Example for 

Carriageways 

Provision of a new 

road as part of a 

new housing 

development. 

Example for Street 

Lights 

Provision of street 

lighting for a street 

where no lighting 

existed previously or 

as part of a newly- 

Example for 

Trees 

Provision of trees 

within a street. 


Page 64


Routine Street cleansing. 

built or adopted street. 

Bulk changing of Annual, routine 

Maintenance 

lanterns, cleaning or 

painting of columns. 

pruning 

Renewal or Replacement of the Replacement of Replacement of 

Replacement road surface. columns in a street diseased or fallen 

with those of a similar 

specification. 

trees. 

Upgrading Improvement of Replacement of Replacement of a 

the road surface to columns in a street young tree with a 

cater for heavier with those of an mature specimen 

vehicles, for improved 

example if the road 

becomes part of a 

bus route. 

specification. 

Disposal Removal of a Removal of street Felling and 

redundant street as lighting within a street. removal of trees 

part a traffic (This happens rarely, within a length of 

scheme. (This 

happens rarely in 

practice) 

if ever, in practice) street 

In this Asset Management Plan, Streetcare Services has set out its 

approach to each of these stages in the lifecycle of each of a series 

of key asset groups. Where existing practice already delivers a 

rational approach to the lifecycle maintenance requirements, there 

will be no need to change. However, it is recognised that in many 

areas of activity change will be inevitable. The changes needed are 

those identified through the gap analysis, and which form part of 

the Improvement Actions in section 8.2. 

In each of the following Lifecycle Management Plans, the specialist 

needs of that part of the asset, and the way that the level of service 

can be achieved, is set out. In each Plan it is recognised that there 

is almost never a single solution to achieving the desired objective. 

Therefore the evaluation of lifecycle costs will, in future, play a 

large part in deciding which option is the best in each set of 

circumstances to deliver ‘minimum whole life cost’ solutions. 

In addition, the definition of desired service levels will be based on 

several criteria, based not solely on engineering but also social and 

environmental factors (see chapter 3), and will often cut across 

more than one asset group. In each Lifecycle Maintenance Plan, 

the methods that are used – or will be used in future – to monitor 

condition and levels of service are described. 


Page 65


The life-cycle plans describe the option appraisal and investment 

prioritisation process for each asset component, and cover the 

whole life-cycle: 

1. Creation of the asset 

2. Maintenance of the asset to maintain serviceability 

3. Renewal of the asset to bring it back to “as-new” condition 

and to restore its value 

4. Improvement of the asset to bring about improved 

performance 

5. Disposal of the asset 

The plans also describe how service levels and condition are 

measured and monitored and how the interaction with the 

investment option appraisal process is managed, including any 

tools such as the Asset Investment Option Model that will support 

the process. As part of our 5 year asset management improvement 

programme we will be developing Option Appraisal processes for 

each of the main assets covered in life-cycle plans that will take 

into account the need to balance costs over the life-cycle of those 

assets and to deliver high-quality services. 

5.4.1 General Approach to understanding the assets 

The knowledge of the asset inventory is an area of improvement 

within SCS identified in the Asset Management Plan, and the 

implications of this on each asset group are referred to in Lifecycle 

Management Plans. 

During the life of each asset component, key interventions in the 

form of maintenance or upgrading will be recorded. This is part of 

the data management regime that is proposed in section 6.6. 

Implementing this in practice, while straightforward, is known 

from past experience to create a number of institutional hurdles. 

However, it should be stressed that without this information being 

regularly and accurately recorded, the ability of the asset manager 

to fully adopt the Lifecycle Planning approach could be seriously 

hampered. 

5.4.2 General Approach to Value Management as part of 

Lifecycle Planning 

In section 5.2 of this Plan the part of the overall asset management 

process concerned with option identification and evaluation is 

described, and the concept of ‘Value Management’ (VM) is 

introduced. First developed by the Highways Agency in connection 

with large Motorway and Trunk Road schemes, VM is now being 

recommended as good practice for local authorities through Well 

iii 

Maintained Highways , the Code of Practice for Highway 

� 


#14 

We will develop and implement 

asset-specific option appraisal 

processes as part of the ongoing 

development of life-cycle plans. 

� 

Well Maintained 

Highways (R12.3) states 

‘Value Management 

should be applied to 

highway maintenance 

schemes in order to balance 

priorities and improve value 

for money’ 


Page 66


Maintenance Management. Value Management is a step in the 

design process for maintenance schemes that identifies feasible 

options, identifies the benefits of each based on objective criteria, 

and facilitates the selection of the best value solution in each case. 

Generally, when designing scheme options it will be the policy of 

Streetcare Services to seek to: 

1. Combine scheme options in different disciplines at the 

same location wherever possible 

This approach is likely to save traffic management costs, and 

minimise disruption to the travelling public and to reduce 

congestion and travel times, and to bring about environmental 

benefits. In the longer term, it should be possible to place an 

economic value on some of these parameters, thus enabling an 

objective total whole life cost to be calculated for each scheme 

option, whether singular or hybrid. Initially, SCS will give a 

preferential weighting to hybrid schemes in the value management 

and engineering process. 

2. Extend scope of scheme options to include preventative 

maintenance where possible 

SCS will adopt the approach of examining the potential to extend 

the scope or scale of a scheme option at the design stage, as it may 

be more costs effective to carry out other preventative 

maintenance to other asset components at the same time. In 

addition, this would save traffic management costs, and minimise 

disruption to the travelling public in a similar way as a hybrid 

scheme. 

3. Design for future ease of maintenance and minimisation of 

costs 

In order to minimise whole life-cycle costs, a true evaluation of 

routine and cyclic maintenance costs should be undertaken at the 

scheme option stage, something that is rarely done at present. A 

change is necessary in both the culture within the design teams and 

the specific local guidance notes (for example the Hounslow Street 

Scene Design Guide, the draft of which was submitted to TfL in 

February 2006 as part of the LIP) to ensure that designs and 

components are selected not just on initial cost, or purely aesthetic 

grounds, but on the basis of ease of access for repair or 

replacement in the event of damage, deterioration or end of service 

life. 

� 


#15 

We will develop and implement 

provisions to ensure the 

management of risk and 

liability as part of our value 

management processes. 


Page 67


4. Determine scheme options that reduce risk and potential 

liability 

As part of the value management process, we will assess risk, both 

in terms of the service levels and service delivery and to safety and 

potential liability of the Council. As part of this process we will 

introduce an audit trail of investment decisions. The first step in 

the process will be to consider the implications of the forthcoming 

document on claims reduction and highways liability, to be 

published by the Roads Board. 

5.4.3 General Approach to Routine Maintenance 

Routine Maintenance regimes are currently largely based on 

historical practices. The opportunity will be taken to review these 

practices at regular intervals, to establish whether they still 

represent best value for money, and, importantly to adjust them 

such that they deliver the desired levels of service or outcomes 

stated in this Plan. The Highway Maintenance Plan addresses 

routine maintenance considerations. 

It is recognised that this may take some time, and is likely to be 

linked to procurement and contract specifications (see section 7.1). 

5.4.4 Investment implementation and review 

To support the HAMP and to allow the success of the HAMP to 

be appraised, a process of investment review will be developed, 

described in the asset component Lifecycle Management plans and 

in the HAMP with the following features: 

▪ Benefits identification, management and review 

▪ Capturing information post-implementation to inform future 

improvements to asset management processes, in particular 

reviewing actual costs, and review quality and specifications 

Information about the impact of investment on service levels and 

upon life-cycle and operating costs will also be captured. 

� 


#16 

We will design and implement 

a post-investment review 

process 


Page 68



Page 69


6. Decision Making and Management Processes 

6.1. The Annual Highways Asset Management 

Process 

Figure 6.1.1 describes the annual process to update the HAMP, 

encompassing: 

� The setting of service level targets 

� Determining works and investment programmes 

� Customers and stakeholder consultation 

� Council Member involvement 

� Interaction with the Council’s Business Planning Processes. 

The Council Management Team gives overall direction to SCS 

along with all other parts of the service, in the Hounslow Plan. In 

principle, the Street Management Departmental Plan is framed by 

the Executive Plan, and in turn the three Divisional Plans 

(Streetcare, Public Protection and Internal Services) contribute to 

the Departmental Plan. This represents a ‘top-down’ approach to 

business planning. In practice, for this process to work smoothly, 

the release timings of the various Plans must be well coordinated. 

This is an issue that will be raised and dealt with through the 

existing management mechanisms. 

Business Plans are reviewed every 6 months, with business-critical 

performance indicators reviewed every quarter; it is proposed that 

the HAMP is updated on an annual basis. 

The Service Levels identified for Streetcare Services in the HAMP 

have been linked to the Executive Priorities, and thus provide an 

audit trail showing how the HAMP will address the Council’s 

higher level objectives. 

Other Plans and Strategies are produced at regular intervals, which 

are complementary to the Business Plans, rather than superseding 

them. These include: 

▪ Hounslow Community Plan 

▪ The Hounslow Plan 

▪ Borough Spending Plan (submitted to TfL annually) 

▪ Street Tree Strategy (awaiting approval) 

▪ Highways Enforcement Strategy (October 2004) 


Page 70


▪ Highway Maintenance Policy (to be prepared in line with Well 

Maintained Highways) 

▪ Local Implementation Plan (submitted to TfL in February 

2006) 

▪ Highways Management Strategy – Removal of 

Client/Contractor Split (improvement plan under 

implementation) 

▪ Benchmarking reviews of Client and internal service providers: 

o Highways (scheduled for May 2006) 

o Street Lighting (scheduled for May 2006) 

o Street Cleansing, Graffiti and Fly-posting 

(Completed January 2006, improvement plan now 

being implemented) 


Page 71


Annual HAMP Planning Process 

Customers 

Members 

Council 

Executive 

SMPP 

Department 

Street Care 

Services 

Service 

Providors 

April 

May June July July August September October November December January February March 

Executive 

Business 


Annual HAMP 

Review 

Residents Panel 

SMPP Business 


HAMP 

(Annual 

Revision) 

SCS Business 


LIP and (annual) 

Borough Spending 


Residents Panel Residents Panel 

Residents Panel 

Scrutiny Panel 

and Area 

Committee 

Budget Review 

Develop Candidate Schemes and 

Options 

Condition Surveys and Performance Assessment 

Implementation of Works Programme 

Capital 

Revenue 

Figure 6.1.1 The Annual HAMP Planning Process 

Area Committee 

Value Management 

Annual HAMP Review 

Including Setting of Service Levels and Targets for Coming Year 

Budget 

Announced 

Finalise Works 

Programme 


Page 72


An essential difference between Asset Management and 

maintenance management is that, whereas the focus of 

maintenance management is on the infrastructure itself, the focus 

on Asset Management is on the service provided by the 

infrastructure. 

Asset management planning requires a structured, cyclical 

approach to the process of determining and monitoring target 

levels of service, and for setting a long-term, prioritised programme 

of investment in the asset, that take accounts of both desired levels 

of service and the need to minimise whole life costs of the asset 

and to maintain the value of the asset by maintaining an 

appropriate level of condition. 

Figure 6.2.1 represents a structured view of the business planning 

cycle within the context of the HAMP. LBH, and Streetcare 

Services in particular, already has – to a greater or lesser extent - 

many of the components of this business planning cycle in place. 

6.2. Involvement of Stakeholders in the Highways 

Asset Management Planning 

At the highest level, Council policies and priorities inform and 

guide the service priorities for Streetcare Services. These were 

described in section 3.2. The road network is a shared resource and 

as such has a very large number of stakeholders interested in it – 

they in turn shape these service priorities. A list of stakeholders 

was identified in the preparation of this Plan and is reproduced in 

table 6.2.1. 

Stakeholders Interest 

Users/Community (residents, All outcomes 

businesses, cyclists, 

pedestrians, vehicle users, bus 

users) 

Transport providers (Network Infrastructure, links 

Rail, London Underground, 

British Waterways Board, 

Freight Hauliers) 

Councillors Their own ward/locality, 

achieving political success, good 

stewardship of financial 

resources 

Officers/Staff Good Practice, managing 

enquiries from the Public, 


Page 73


improving levels of service 

Investors/Developers Good business environment, 

physical restrictions 

Chief Executive/Finance Dept Better/clearer spending 

rationale 

Residents Associations To obtain more say in decisions 

TfL, DfT, LoTAG, LoBEG, 

Road2000, ALG, GOL, 

ODPM 

on road improvements etc. 

Funding, Good Practice 

Police & Emergency Services Public safety, access 

Highways Agency Interface – access etc. 

Schools & Disability Groups Accessibility, safety, provision 

Environment Agency & Assets maintained on their 

DEFRA 

behalf 

Professional Organisations Good Practice 

Pressure Groups Various, anti-social activities 

Neighbouring Boroughs Work scheduling at the 

boundaries, other local interface 

issues 

Contractors & Utilities Works programmes, 

coordination, planning 

Table 6.2.1 Stakeholders with an interest in the Highways Asset Management Plan 

As with any public service, there are many legal responsibilities and 

constraints placed upon Streetcare Services, particularly the 

requirements of the Highways Act 1980, New Roads and Street 

Works Act 1991, Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Clean 

Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. The Business Plan 

sits at the heart of this, and must address how the sometimes 

conflicting priorities will be managed, within budget constraints, 

and what specific actions are planned for the year ahead. During 

the HAMP planning process, it was identified that there is scope 

for the Business Plan to be more effective in making an objective 

case for increases in funding to maintain or improve service 

outcomes. 

It is anticipated that the HAMP will provide the opportunity for 

improvements to this process by making explicit the links between 

levels of service, asset condition, asset value and decisions on levels 

of funding and budgetary allocation. 

Hence, as illustrated in Figure 6.2.1, the HAMP has the Business 

Plan at its centre, and is framed by external drivers, namely the 

demands and requirements of legal, corporate and stakeholder 

interests. 


Page 74


Stakeholder 

Interests 

Highways Asset 

Management Plan 

Monitor & 

Review 

Implement 

Works 

Council Policies 

Service 

Priorities 

Business 


Budgeting 

Figure 6.2.1 Highways Asset Management Business Planning Cycle 

6.3. Finance and budget considerations 

Legal 

Constraints 

Identify 

Improvements 

and Risks 

Set Targets 

Financial planning in Hounslow Streetcare Services – as in almost 

all areas of local government – has historically been on an annual 

basis. The long-term planning approach implicit in the Asset 

Management Plan requires a review of the financial planning and 

budgeting cycle in order to explore options for: 

� Longer term budget planning (3-5 years) 

� Greater flexibility in moving monies between budget heads 

� Creating a unified works budget and programme for crossasset 

investments 


Page 75


Is intended that there will be a move to a more flexible approach to 

financial planning over the life of the HAMP Improvement plan. 

6.4. Organisational Structure and Resources 

A simplified view of the current organisation structure within 

Streetcare Services, and the context of Streetcare Services within 

the Council’s Departmental structure, as part of Street 

Management and Public Protection, is shown in Appendix 3. The 

organisational structure within Streetcare Services is largely in line 

with the current service delivery mechanisms, although some 

activities do cut across the organisational boundaries such as 

inspections. 

Key staff involved in Highways and Street asset management have 

been identified, and there is good buy-in at senior and middle 

management level to the introduction of the HAMP. Several 

members of staff are engaged in academic courses related to Asset 

Management. In the process of developing the Plan, it was felt 

there was no major organisational barrier to its introduction. Staff 

training and development including staff appraisals (Performance 

Development Assessment, PDA) are linked to Business Plan 

targets. 

In the development of the Plan, members of staff were receptive to 

the concept of Asset Management and showed a willingness and 

intention to ‘break down silos’ within the organisation. However, 

there will be a number of challenges to successful delivery of the 

Plan. Winning staff over to using new processes and models is one 

of these. 

Having the right resources, with requisite skills and experience, is 

also essential to successful delivery of the HAMP. Staff retention is 

therefore a risk to the project as it is imperative that existing 

knowledge and skills are made full use of, and ultimately handed on 

to newly appointed staff when the experienced practitioners retire. 

When considering the delivery of the HAMP, it was felt that the 

necessary experienced in-house resources were currently available 

to achieve this, provided that they are able to devote the necessary 

time to the tasks in the Improvement Plan. However, this situation 

will need to be continuously monitored. 


Page 76


6.5. Risk Management 

6.5.1 What is Risk Management? 

The process of risk management is widely applied in other asset 

sectors and has an important role to play in the management of 

highway assets as poorly managed assets are likely to create risks to 

the public and hence to the asset owner. It is important to 

recognise that risk management is more than just about safety and 

avoiding accidents but also includes business risks and the risk of 

failure to deliver an acceptable level of service to the customer. 

Effective risk management improves decision making at both a 

strategic and operational level, enabling organisations to allocate 

funding more effectively and providing greater transparency in the 

way decisions are made 

Within an Asset Management context, Risk Management ensures 

that: 

▪ Causes of physical failures can be identified 

▪ Levels of acceptable risk can be evaluated 

▪ Critical risks are identified and managed 

▪ Consequences of failure can be identified including loss of 

service 

▪ Risks can be avoided or reduced 

Risks can rarely be eliminated altogether so risk management is 

about reducing the exposure of the organisation to risks. 

6.5.2 Risk Management in Hounslow 

The way in which risk management contributes to the way we 

manage our highway assets in Hounslow is described in the 

individual Lifecycle Management Plans in Section 5.5. 

Risk to the achievement of service level targets will also be 

considered as part of the value management and investment 

evaluation processes supported by the Highways Asset Investment 

Option model. 

There are some common aspects to our risk management approach 

which is based on the three components of Risk Management; risk 

identification, risk analysis and risk reduction. 

� 

The Framework for 

Asset Management i 

(section 2.4.3) promotes 

the use of risk 

assessment, risk 

identification and risk 

analysis for UK road 


Page 77


6.5.3 Risk Identification 

Risk identification is the formal recognition and documenting of 

events that have the potential to adversely affect our ability to 

deliver a quality service to our customers. There are different types 

of risk that all local authorities are faced with including: 

Safety 

Including the safety of both road users and the 

safety of those involved in delivering the 

service (e.g. road workers) and any resulting 

public liability claims. 

Natural Events This predominately includes the weather and 

its effects and as such we have little or no real 

control over timing and impact. 

Physical Risks This includes risks where the physical failure of 

the asset could lead to failure. For example: 

� The collapse of a structure 

� Street-lighting failures 

� Collapse of drains leading to flooding 

External Risks Includes risks associated with legislative and 

economic changes outside our direct control 

such as: 

� Oil price rises affecting the cost of 

bituminous materials 

� Dramatic increases in inflation increasing 

costs 

� Changes to key pieces of legislation 

� Changes in government policy 

� Failure of external organisations to deliver 

services 

Internal & 

Corporate Risks 

Includes the reliance on key personnel for 

service delivery, the potential loss of valuable 

information if systems fail, changes of policy 

within Hounslow resulting in changes in 

priority and funding etc. 

6.5.4 Risk Analysis 

Risk analysis is a process by which we determine which events are 

the most critical to us and our ability to deliver the required level of 

service. Determining the level of risk involves: 

Determining 

the impact of 

the event 

occurring 

Considerations are likely to include: 

� Loss of life, or injury 

� Failure to meet statutory requirements 

� Loss of revenue 

� Repair costs 


Page 78


Determining 

the likelihood 

of the event 

occurring 

� Third party losses 

� Reduction in the service provided, e.g. 

reduction in the level of network availability if 

closures are required in order to undertake 

unplanned maintenance activities 

This will often be based on our experience but 

might also make use of other information if it 

exists such as: 

� Numbers of claims 

� Statistics for flood events 

� Accident statistics 

Our intention is to develop a systematic process of risk analysis 

based on ranking the impact and likelihood of each risk event 

occurring based on a risk matrix approach as illustrated in the 

diagram below. This will provide us with a sound documented 

basis about the level of risk that we take on and therefore to 

identify the actions required to minimise existing risks to an 

acceptable level. The first step in the process will be to consider the 

implications of the forthcoming national guidance on claims 

reduction and highways liability, to be published by the Roads 

Board. 

Impact of Risk Occurring 

Low Medium High 

Low Medium High 

Likelihood of Risk Occurring 

Figure 6.5.1 Risk and Impact 

These are the most 

critical risks to 

manage 

Other methods that we will consider include the development of a 

risk model that places a monetary value on the risks by pricing the 

“consequence of failure”. By doing this it then becomes possible to 

evaluate the cost benefit ratios of differing risk reduction actions. 

If developed this could be a useful tool to inform decision making 

and to set priorities for different investment options. 


Page 79


6.5.5 Risk Reduction 

The development of a more systematic approach to risk 

management will enable us to assess the cost of acceptance of a 

risk or to plan appropriate risk reduction actions. There are a 

number of actions that we can take to reduce risk including: 

▪ Carrying out appropriate maintenance to reduce the likelihood 

of a physical failure occurring, for example by timely 

replacement of lighting columns 

▪ Reducing the impact of a failure by producing appropriate 

contingency plans 

▪ Insuring against the consequential loss 

▪ A combination of the above 

Alternatively we can accept the risk and the consequential cost met 

should failure occur. 

6.5.6 Ongoing Monitoring and Review 

Like all the processes that we are adopting as part of the 

management of our highway assets, the way we identify and 

manage risks will be subject to ongoing monitoring and review to 

identify opportunities for improvement. We anticipate that, by 

building on our existing experience of managing highway assets, 

the formal identification and analysis of risks and the 

documentation of appropriate actions to manage or mitigate those 

risks will become a routine task that runs through all aspects of our 

work and improves the way we do business. 

6.6. Data Management and Information Systems 

6.6.1 Data management regime 

In the context of highway Asset Management, best practice in data 

management requires an organisation to: 

� Recognise that data are an asset that are vital to the effective 

management of highway assets 

� Have a clear understanding of what data are needed to manage 

its highway assets including required levels of quality and 

currency 

� Clearly define responsibilities for collecting and maintaining 

those data 

� Have clearly defined processes in place for the collection or 

creation; storage and retrieval; and archiving or deletion of data 

� 

Examples of good Data 

Management practice may 

be found in ‘Data 

Management for Road 

Administrations’ vi 


Page 80


� Take a service-wide view to ensure that data are available to be 

shared and used by different parts of the organisation 

� Minimise the collection and storage of redundant and duplicate 

data 

The main benefits to an organisation of effective data management 

are: 

� Better data quality that enables more effective decision making 

� Improved service delivery based on better and more timely 

information 

� A better understanding of the data needs of the organisation 

makes it more responsive to change 

� Cost savings through more efficient use of data and reduce the 

amount of duplicate or redundant data that are collected and 

stored 

� Sharing of data and information will improve co-operative 

working and lead to more co-ordinated service provision 

� Employees will be better equipped to take decisions 

� A more detailed understanding of the data held by the 

organisation will enable faster and more cost effective system 

development 

A key part of the projects to specify and procure asset inventory 

and pavement condition surveys will be the design and 

implementation of good data management practices that are 

embedded within the procedures and processes. Moreover, as the 

Confirm asset management system develops as the primary systems 

supporting the HAMP, it will be necessary to design and 

implement a robust data management regime to ensure that an 

appropriate level of data quality currency and cost that meets the 

needs of users at an appropriate level of cost. Additionally, work to 

develop the Corporate GIS and an integrated asset management 

system will provide the opportunity to introduce good data 

management practices. 

6.6.2 Highways Asset Management Systems 

Steps have already been taken to adopt Confirm as the principal 

integrated highways asset management system in Streetcare 

Services, and whilst further development is required, early 

indications are that this system should meet most of the currently 

identified needs. The adoption of Confirm will provide the 

opportunity to address many of the requirements of the HAMP, 

particularly a more integrated approach to the management of the 

highways asset, but it may be necessary to develop further whole 

asset models and systems to support: 

� 


#4. 

We will extend the good data 

management practices 

established for the asset 

inventory to all asset data 


Page 81


Key Accidents 

ACCSTATS 

� Whole asset investment appraisal and prioritisation and the 

unified works programme as described above 

� Monitoring of performance in respect of service levels 

� Systems to make data and functionality available across the 

whole asset – GIS, Intranet 

� Public-facing systems 

We have embarked on a project to implement Confirm as the 

primary asset management system for Streetcare Services. 

No system can be successful unless sufficient resources and time 

are allocated to its development, operation and upkeep. It is noted 

that some existing systems, particularly the GIS and street lighting 

systems are already delivering benefit, and have the potential to 

provide further value. However, resources will be an essential part 

of the successful implementation of Hounslow’s asset management 

systems. 

Paper Records 

Traffic Accident Traffic Regulation 

Traffic Data 

Data Orders 

Aggresso 

Financial 

Information 

Corporate System 

Excel 

Spreadsheets 

Public 

FLARE 

Customer 

Care 

enquires 

RESPOND 

Customer 

Care 

complaints 

POST 

Customer 

Care 

post 

Customer Care 


Highways Law 

Enforcement 

Database 

Permits & 

Licensing 

Highway 

Network 

(GIS) 

Highway 

Network 

(Pavement 

Surveys) 

Highway 

Network 

(NSG level 3) 

Paper Records 

Safety 

Inspections 

CVI 

(non PR) 

Figure 6.6.1 Current Highways Asset Systems Architecture 

trees 

Paper Records 

Insurance 

Claims 

CadCorp GIS 

Footways & 

Cycleways 

Highway 

Network 

(Pavement 

Surveys) 

March 

UKPMS 

LoBEG 

Bridgestation 

Structures 

Streetlighting 

& Illuminated 

Signs 

Streetworks 

Inspections 

Streetworks 

Notices 

Highway 

Network 

(NSG level 1) 

Works 

Orders 

Customer 

Care 

NOT USED 

Confirm 

Thames 

Water 

Surface Water - 

Paper Records 

Sewers - Freestanding 

viewer & 

data 

Drainage 

BVPIs 

TTS, SCRIM, 

Deflectograph 

(PR only) 

CVI 

(UC) 

LB H&F 

(ROAD2000) 

Symology 


Page 82


Key Accidents 

ACCSTATS 

Traffic Accident 

Data 

Paper Records 

Traffic Regulation 

Orders 

Excel 

Spreadsheets 

Traffic Data 

Highways Law 

Enforcement 

Database 

Permits & 

Licensing 

Aggresso 

Financial 

Information 


Public 

FLARE 

Customer 

Care 

enquires 

RESPOND 

Customer 

Care 

complaints 

POST 

Customer 

Care 

post 

Customer Care 


UKPMS 

Principal 

Road 

Condition 

Surveys 

(ROAD2000) 

Symology 

Streetworks 

Notices 

Streetworks 

Inspections 

Street 

Works 

Inspections 

Highway 

Network 

(NSG level 3) 

CadCorp GIS 

Confirm Asset Management System 

Insurance 

Claim 

Records 

Insurance 

Claim 

Inspections 

Safety 

Inspection 

Records 

Safety 

Inspections 

Highway 

Network 

Works 

Orders 


Inventory 

Defect 

Inspection 

Records 

Defect Inspections 

Figure 6.6.2 Proposed Future Highways Asset Systems Architecture 

Drainage 

Records 


Inventory 

Streetlighting 

& Illuminated 

Signs 

LoBEG 

Bridgestation 


Page 83


7 Service Delivery 

7.1. Procurement of Works and Services and 

Mechanisms for Future Service Delivery 

Although the implementation of Asset Management does not 

imply the use of any particular contractual or supply chain 

mechanism for the delivery of services, it is important that the 

current and future service delivery mechanisms do not present 

actual or potential barriers to the delivery of effective Asset 

Management. 

In order to implement Asset Management it will be necessary to 

review and possibly update such mechanisms to ensure that: 

▪ They support holistic service delivery focusing on value for 

money 

▪ They are sufficiently flexible to allow funds to be re-directed 

towards where there is greatest need or priority. Contracts 

should support allocation of funds based upon need, rather 

than merely encouraging spending budgets in full 

▪ They allow for different options and specifications for 

maintenance and upgrading 

▪ Any data supply and maintenance requirements are built into 

contracts (for example where works take place to upgrade the 

asset, information is fed back to allow the asset register to be 

updated) 

▪ Suppliers commercial needs are aligned with what is best for 

the asset 

Within LBH some aspects of service delivery are already focussed 

‘holistically’ on the full asset, e.g. Street Enhancement Schemes. 

The delivery of maintenance and improvements on the Highway is 

currently achieved through a combination of in-house and 

externalised contracts (summarised in table 7.2.1 below). With the 

exception of Street Trees and Horticulture, no major changes are 

currently underway. However, there is an ongoing review of the 

client/contractor relationship taking place with regards to the 

DLO, Environmental Direct Services (EDS). The strategic review 

will streamline the service delivery in accordance with a revised 

outcome based service level agreement, implemented in October 

2005. 


Page 84


Service Area Contract Arrangements 

Street Cleansing, internal (EDS) 

Fly-Posting and 

Graffiti Removal 

Tree Maintenance being externalised 

Drainage contracted out (most activities) 

Bridges contracted out 

Street Lighting internal (EDS) 

Capital Works external contracts (e.g. resurfacing & 

footway recon 2 yr + 1yr ext) 

Road Maintenance internal (EDS) 

Footway internal (EDS)/external mix 

Maintenance 

Winter 

internal (EDS) 

Maintenance 

Table 7.2.1 Current Service Delivery Mechanisms 

In order to deliver a more flexible, service-wide approach to the 

management of highway assets, it is likely to be necessary to 

consider introducing greater flexibility into the way in which 

services are delivered. This may require greater flexibility and skills 

transfer amongst Streetcare Services’ staff and possibly the 

consideration of innovative approaches to the procurement of 

services. 

Streetcare Services are in the process of reviewing contractual and 

procurement arrangements for delivering services related to the 

installation, improvement, maintenance and operation of the 

highways asset. As contracts are reviewed and re-tendered, the 

needs of highways Asset Management will be taken into account, 

in particular to ensure that contracts: 

▪ are sufficiently flexible to support Asset Management 

▪ provide for a range of appropriate treatment and improvement 

options 

▪ support a “whole asset” 

▪ are consistent with a longer term, unified works programme 

▪ are consistent with allocation based upon need rather than 

encouraging spending of budgets 

We intend to adopt the new Engineering Contract, 3 rd edition as 

our standard form of contract. 

In the longer term, we have been successful in securing 

government approval for a highways Private Finance Initiatives 

(PFI) project, in order to ensure long-term investment in the 

� 


#18 

We will investigate possible 

longer term funding, 

procurement and service 

delivery mechanisms, such as 

Public-Private Partnerships 

(PPP) and Private Finance 

Initiatives (PFI). 

Completed 


Page 85


highway network. It is intended that this project will commence in 

2012. 

7.2. Benchmarking the Services 

Benchmarking against similar organisations is encouraged as part 

of Best Value and is useful when identifying improvements. In 

order to demonstrate value for money from current contractual 

mechanisms for service delivery, and to identify areas for 

improvement, a number of recent benchmarking exercises have 

been undertaken with the following objectives: 

� To undertake a benchmarking exercise, and establish the 

effectiveness and ‘value for money’ being achieved by the 

Highways DLO under the new contract. 

� To establish whether the service provided by the Highways 

DLO under the new contract has improved from that provided 

under the old contract. 

� To undertake a benchmarking exercise to establish the 

effectiveness of the Highways Service ‘Client’ organisation in 

undertaking both its highways duties and responsibilities, and 

in the management of the contract with the Highways DLO. 

� To undertake a benchmarking exercise, and establish the 

effectiveness and ‘value for money’ being achieved by the 

Street Lighting service. 

The Street Cleansing, Graffiti and Fly-posting benchmarking 

exercise was completed in January 2006, and an improvement plan 

is now being implemented. 

� 


#19 

We will carry out a 

benchmarking exercise on the 

delivery of Highway 

Maintenance services, by both 

Client and Contractor, in 

order to demonstrate value for 

money from current contractual 

mechanisms for service delivery, 

and to identify areas for 

improvement. 

Completed 


Page 86


8 Implementation of the Highways Asset 

Management Plan 

8.1. Implementing Asset Management within LB 

Hounslow 

Our Version 1 HAMP for 2006/07 was only the first step to the 

full implementation of good asset management practices for our 

highways network; it is recognised that there will be both an annual 

process of asset management and a programme of development 

and implementation, based upon the improvement actions 

identified throughout this document. 

The highways Asset Management business planning cycle 

described in figure 6.2.1, shows that the process should include 

regular review, both of individual investment schemes and of the 

operation of the HAMP as a whole, as part of a process of 

continuous improvement to consider whether: 

▪ Desired levels of service are being achieved 

▪ Anticipated costs are accurate 

▪ The value of the asset is being maintained 

▪ Option appraisal is being meaningfully applied 

▪ Future projections are realistic 

▪ Service level standards are appropriate 

As part of this review process this version of the HAMP is being 

submitted to Transport for London for peer review. 

Whilst post-implementation review is currently being undertaken in 

an “ad-hoc” way on some investment schemes, a much more 

extensive, formal process is required as part of the HAMP. 

� 


#20 

We will submit the 

HAMP to Peer review by 

TfL as part of the annual 

HAMP Review Process 


Page 87


Figure 8.1.1 Asset Management Continuous Improvement Cycle 

8.2. Improvement Actions 

Hounslow’s first HAMP, for 2006/07 was not a description of 

complete, well developed asset management processes; it was a 

commitment to the development of such processes. Central to this 

commitment is the improvement plan, which sets out a series of 

actions over the next five years for the full development and 

adoption of asset management for our highway network. Each year’s 

annual review and revision of the HAMP includes an updated 

improvement programme, and will report upon progress towards the 

full development and implementation of the HAMP. The process 

that was undertaken to develop this improvement programme is 

outlined in figure 8.2.1 below. Having carried out a review of current 

processes to identify our current state in respect of highways asset 

management, we then assessed our “desired state”, drawing upon 

good practice and national guidance, as well as on local priorities and 

policies in order to identify gaps in our asset management processes. 

We were then able to identify improvement actions to address those 

gaps, assign priorities to these actions, and to draw up our 5-year 

highways asset management improvement plan. 


Page 88


No 

Figure 8.2.1 The HAMP Improvement Plan 

The improvement actions identified for our HAMP over the next 5 

years are described and highlighted throughout this document and 

are set out in the tables below, and have been updated from the 

first version of the HAMP, both to reflect progress and changes in 

priority. 


Section 

Ref 

1. 3.3.1 and 

3.3.4 

Current State 

Now 

Strategy 

Processes 

Culture & Organisation 

Finance & Budgeting 

Data & Systems 


Procurement and implementation of 

a full-asset inventory and Asset 

Register. 

2. 3.3.3 Establish a Single, Definitive highway 

network referencing model, together 

with associated processes to maintain 

that network and ensure that all 

Highways Asset systems and data sets 

make use of that networks 

Timescale 

(Year 1 = Implementation 

plan, 

Years 2-5 = Improvement 

Plan) 

Year 1 (2006/07) 

Year 1-5 (2006/07 on) 

3. 2.3.4 Establishment of a Data Management 

Regime for the Asset Inventory Year 1-5 (2006/07 on) 

4. 5.6.1 We will extend the good data 

management practices established for 

the asset inventory to all asset data 

5. 3.3.5 We will undertake an interim, pilot 

asset valuation in April 2006, drawing 

upon the data collected in the pilot 

inventory survey. 

6. 3.3.5 We will carry out a full, depreciated 

benchmark asset valuation in, making 

use of the full asset inventory. 

Improvement Plan 

Year 

1 

Mgmnt of Assets in Year 1 

Year 1 of Improvements 

Year 

2 

Year 

3 

HAMP/TAMP 

Year 

4 

Plan annually revised/updated 

Year 5 (2010/11) 

Year 1 (2006/07) 

Year 4 (2009/10) 

Year 

5 

Ongoing Lifecycle Maintenance 

Yr 2 

Year 3 improvements etc. 

Improvements 

Year 1 Bid/Budget Long term budgeting 

Work Programme Yr 1 5 Year Rolling Programme 

Desired State 

Next Three - Five Years 

Revised Goals/Outcomes 

Improved Processes 

Changed Culture & Organisation 

Long-term Financial Planning 

Integrated Data & Systems 

Responsibility Notes 

Environmental 

Projects 

Systems 

Administrator and 

GIS Team 

Asset Management 




Environmental 

Projects 



Completed 

Partially 

Completed; being 

further refined to 

support the PFI 

Project 

Partially Complete 

Completed 

Pending national 

guidance 


Page 89


No 


Section 

Ref 


7. 3.3.5 We will implement mechanisms to 

allow ongoing changes in asset value 

to be calculated and reported on an 

annual basis 

8. 3.3.6 Following the implementation of the 

Asset Inventory and Register, we will, 

as appropriate, make data available to 

stakeholders and customers though 

the Intranet and Council web set, 

using the Confirm system and 

Mapping tools where appropriate. 

9. 3.3.7 Implementation of the “Confirm” 

System as the principle integrated 

asset management system within 

Streetcare Services 

10. 3.3.7 Development and integration of 

Asset Data systems 

11. 4.1.2 We will review and update service 

levels and associated performance 

measures and targets as part of an 

annual HAMP review process. 

12. 5.2.2 Development and implementation of 

the 3-level Asset Investment Value 

Management process. 

13. 5.3 We will implement more flexible 

budgetary processes and a long term 

works programme for all asset 

investments. 

14. 5.4 We will develop and implement assetspecific 

option appraisal processes as 

part of the ongoing development of 

life-cycle plans. 

15. 5.4.2 We will develop and implement 

provisions to ensure the management 

of risk and liability as part of our 

value management processes, and will 

assess and implement national 

guidance on Highways Liability 

Claims. 

16. 5.4.4 We will design and implement a post- 

8.1 

investment review process 

17. 6.3 We will review financial processes for 

highways asset investment with the 

aim of introducing a more flexible 

approach. 

18. 7.2 We will investigate possible longer 

term funding, procurement and 

service delivery mechanisms, such as 

Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) and 

Private Finance Initiatives (PFI). 

19. 7.3 We will carry out a benchmarking 

exercise on the delivery of Highway 

Maintenance services, by both Client 

and Contractor, in order to 

demonstrate value for money from 

current contractual mechanisms for 

service delivery, and to identify areas 

for improvement. 

20. 9.1 We will submit the HAMP to Peer 

review by TfL as part of the annual 

HAMP Review Process 

21. 9.1 Asset Management Training and 

Education Programme 

22. 9.1 We will update Job Descriptions to 

reflect the requirements of Asset 


Timescale 


plan, 



Year 5 (2010/11) 




Pending National 

Guidance 

Years 3-5 (2008/09-10/11) GIS Team In progress 

Years 1-5 (2006-11) 

Years 2-5 (2007/08-10/11) 

Years 2-5 (2007/08-10/11) 

Year 1-2 (2006/07-07/08) 

Year 3 (2008/09) Finance 

Highway Network 

and Maintenance 







Years 2-5 (2007/08-10/11) Asset Owners 

Years 2-5 (2007/08-10/11) 

Year 5 (2010/11) 

Year 2 (2007/08) Finance 

Year 1 (2006/07) 

Year 1 (2006/07) 

Years 2-5 (2007/08-10/11) 

Year 1-3 (2006/07-9/10) 

Year 1 (2006/07) 















In progress 

In progress 

Replaced with PFI 

performance 

measures 

No longer required 

in the light of the 

PFI Project 

Unlikely to be 

required, the light 

of the PFI Project 




In Progress 




Completed. PFI 

Project now being 

developed. 

Completed 

Completed 

Completed 


Page 90


No 


Section 

Ref 


23. 98.2 We will undertake a “Closing the 

Perception Gap” initiative, in order to 

ensure that customers have realistic 

expectations of level and quality of 

service that they can expect of the 

highways asset. 

24. 5.5.3 We will implement the Borough Tree 

Strategy. 

Timescale 


plan, 



Year 3-5 (2008-11) 

Year 1 (2006/07) 

25. 5.5 We will produce Highways Design 

Guide manual. Year 1 (2006/07) 

26. 9.3.3 We will develop and implement a 

performance reporting framework 

based upon our highways asset 

management service levels. 

27. 5.5.1 

Carriageway 

s LMP 

28. 5.5.1.2.4 

Carriageway 

LCP 

We will implement tools that will 

allow the whole-life cost implications 

of highway maintenance and 

improvement options to be assessed. 

We will implement more robust 

models for the calculation of 

maintenance backlog, linked to the 

calculation of asset depreciation, as 

part of asset valuation. This model 

will include a predictive capability, to 

allow the future implications of 

possible budgetary scenarios to be 

assessed. 

Year 1 (2006/07) 

Year 2-4( 2006/07) 

Year 2-4( 2006-10) 

Table 8.2.1 The HAMP Improvement Programme 














Being progressed 

as part of the 

Highways PFI 

Communications 

Strategy 

Completed 

Completed. To be 

updated to support 

PFI Project 

Replaced by the 

PFI Project 

performance 

reporting 

mechanism 




Being developed as 

part of the models 

to support the PFI 

Project 


Page 91



Page 92


9 Communication, Monitoring and Reporting 

9.1. Internal Management and Delivery of the HAMP 

One of the key challenges of Asset Management is the introduction 

of a holistic approach to the delivery of services that removes 

organisational ‘silos’ and promotes integration of processes, 

information and systems. This leads to a more efficient way of 

working by removing duplicate and redundant processes and by 

service-wide decision-making, but will also require changes to the 

working culture to engender greater co-operation and flexibility 

amongst staff. 

In order to ensure the successful adoption of highways asset 

management, we have been proactive in informing staff and 

involving them in the process. An asset management steering 

group has been established to produce the HAMP and to manage 

implementation, comprising those with responsibility for all the 

major highways assets under the direction of the Head of 

Streetcare Services, who has overall responsibility for asset 

management. Senior management have been involved at key points 

and have been fully supportive of the process, and are keen to see 

the potential benefits realised. 

A programme of training and education in good asset management 

practices has been set up. This includes releasing staff for training 

and education in asset and infrastructure management as part of 

their professional development, and seminars to inform a wider 

range of participants, including interested external parties, about 

asset management and about Hounslow’s progress and intentions. 

It is intended that the HAMP, as it develops, will be a key 

reference document to all of those involved in management of 

service delivery on the highway network. It will be made available 

both as a printed document and through the Council intranet. 

9.2. Communication and Consultation with 

Stakeholders 

Levels of Service that underpin the HAMP must be based upon a 

good understanding of Stakeholder and customer priorities and 

expectations, and essential to the success of the HAMP are 

effective mechanisms to communicate service standards and 

outcomes and to manage customer expectations. 

� 


#21 

Asset Management Training 

programme 

Completed 

� 


#22 

Update Job Descriptions to 

reflect the requirements of 

Highways Asset Management 


Page 93


The intention is that the HAMP will include a set of service levels 

for all services and asset components that have associated 

measures that address relevant outcomes. Ideally these measures 

should address both customer perception of the success in meeting 

those desired outcomes and objective measures of actual 

performance in these respects. 

The definition of service levels and the models used in assessment 

of the service levels and other factors to determine priorities for 

asset investment should be founded upon good-quality information 

as to views, expectation and priorities of stakeholders and 

customers. 

The levels of service that are to be expected by customers, and the 

reasoning for prioritising some asset components and levels of 

service over others should be clearly communicated to Members 

and customers; by making the link between level of investment, 

level of condition and level of service provided explicit the HAMP 

should, if it is effective make such communication simpler. 

Both of the above require the adoption of a new, explicit and 

repeatable method for determining outcome-based levels of 

service. 

Determining and monitoring customer aspirations is going to be a 

vital element of the implementation of Hounslow’s HAMP. It is 

envisaged that the methods used for acquiring this information, 

described above, will be used again in the future, revised and 

augmented as the understanding of Asset Management develops. 

While there is a need for continuity in the questions being asked, to 

enable trends, changes in attitude and success in achieving 

objectives to be monitored, there will also be a need to develop 

new approaches to understanding customer aspirations. 

9.2.1 Consultation Questionnaire 

To support the development of the HAMP, a specific 

questionnaire survey was commissioned by Streetcare Services, 

through the local HM Magazine, in July 2005. 

� 


#23 

We will undertake a “Closing 

the Perception Gap” initiative, 

in order to ensure that 

customers have realistic 

expectations of level and 

quality of service that they can 

expect of the highways asset. 

Timescale: Year 3-5 


Page 94


Appendix 4 describes the results of the questionnaire in detail; the 

key features are: 

▪ Quick method to get feedback for the HAMP 

▪ Inserted a 1-page questionnaire in ‘HM’ magazine 

▪ Circulation 98,000 

▪ Response by post 348 (0.36%) 

▪ Positives 

o Gave indication of relative priorities 

o Statistically benchmarked against population 

▪ Negatives 

o ‘Self-selecting sample’ 

o Limited scope of questions 

It is intended that the questionnaire will be carried out on an 

annual basis and the results used to inform the setting of priorities 

for service levels and investment as part of the annual review of the 

HAMP. 

The results of the 2005 Residents Panel survey will be used to 

complement the findings of the questionnaire, and the proposed 

annual asset management processes will include mechanisms for 

input from both sources in setting priorities and in reviewing and 

updating the HAMP. 

For the future, in order to support the PFI project, in addition to 

support Asset Management within SCS, a improved consultation 


Page 95


mechanisms are being developed, including the use of the residents 

panel. These will be included in the communications strategy for 

the PFI Project. 

9.3. Performance Monitoring 

9.3.1 What is Performance Monitoring? 

As described in section 4, there are a number of requirements for 

monitoring the performance of Hounslow Streetcare Services 

including: 

▪ LAA National Performance Framework Indicators 

▪ Local Transport Plan Indicators 

▪ Benchmarking and market analysis 

9.3.2 Data Collection 

A large amount of data is needed to support all of the Performance 

Measures and the national Framework for Asset Management 

recommends that, where possible: 

▪ Data is gathered as an integral part of carrying out the work, 

rather than as a separate task 

▪ Data is collected by the people who need it to make decisions 

As far as possible we have designed Performance Measures to 

make use of readily available data but, where this has not been 

possible, we will review our processes and systems to ensure that 

the provision of data to support Performance Monitoring becomes 

integral to our operations and that existing data is easily accessible. 

9.3.3 Performance Reporting 

Once we have produced our performance measures, we must 

report our performance both within the Council and to our 

customers. As part of our implementation of Asset Management, 

we will confirm our performance reporting requirements. In 

accordance with the national Framework for Asset Management, we 

will aim to introduce a reporting framework that: 

▪ Shows the alignment between the measures and the 

outcomes/strategic goals 

▪ Reflects a balance between competing demands 

▪ Presents only information that the audience requires 

▪ Keeps the number of measures to a manageable level 


Page 96


As part of the development of this reporting framework, we will 

also consider the most appropriate frequency of reporting, given 

the recommendations for data collection set out above. Again, the 

national Framework for Asset Management identified the following 

options: 

▪ Monthly, Quarterly and 6-Monthly – performance statistics 

from established management systems 

▪ Annual – The availability of some data may limit its use to 

annual reviews 

▪ Random Auditing – this might take the form of customer 

satisfaction surveys, sample inspections etc. 

Other options may also exist. We will consult with our internal 

stakeholders to determine the most appropriate reporting 

frequency. 


Page 97


References 

Framework for Highway Asset Management, 2004 published by CSS 

and endorsed by the Department for Transport, London Technical 

Advisors Group (LoTAG), the UK Roads Board and other groups. 

GIS – Geographic Information System, allows data to presented, 

interacted with and analyses using maps and co-ordinate 

referencing 

iii 

Well Maintained Highways, 2005, published by UK Roads Liaison 

Group 

iv Guidance Document for Highway Infrastructure Asset Valuation, July 

2005 published by CSS/TAG Asset Management Working Group. 

v Road Maintenance Management Concepts and Systems, by Robinson, 

Danielson & Snaith, 1998, Macmillan, ISBN 0-333-72155-1 

vi Data Management for Road Administrations, A Best Practice Guide, 

WERD SubGroup Road Data, 2003 


Page 98


Appendices 


Page 99


Appendix 1 – Summary of Current Highways Asset Data 

and Systems 

Data System Coverage Reliability Rating 

Highway Network (Pavement MARCH (copy in High 

Surveys) 

MapInfo) 

1 High High 

Highway Network (NSG) (2 copies) Confirm (copy in 

MapInfo) 

High High High 

Highway Network (GIS) MapInfo High High High 

Footways and Cycleways MARCH High High High 

SCANNER (PR only) H&F Confirm High High High 

SCANNER (Non-PR classified) H&F Confirm High High High 

DVI (unclassified local roads) MARCH High High High 

Safety Inspections Paper records High Medium Medium 

SCRIM (PR only) H&F Confirm High High High 

Inventory (exc. Street lights and 

Trees) 

Construction (Surface Type only) Being collected to 

support PFI 

GIS/Confirm High High High 

Vehicular Traffic1 Spreadsheets N/A3 Pedestrian Traffic1 Spreadsheets N/A3 High High High 

Structures (Register) Bridgestation/ LOBEG High High High 

Structures (Condition Indices) Bridgestation/ LOBEG High High High 

Surface Water Drainage Paper records Low 

Sewers Thames Water High Medium Medium 

Customer Care (Enquiries) FLARE N/A3 Customer Care (Complaints) RESPOND N/A3 Customer Care (Post) POST N/A 3 

Streetworks Notices Confirm High High High 

Streetworks Inspections Confirm High High High 

Streetlights and Illuminated Signs Confirm High High High 

Road Traffic Accident 1 ACCSTATS/ Key 

Accidents 

N/A 3 

Trees MapInfo High High High 

High-level Summary of Current Asset Data 

1- excludes unadopted and private streets. 

2 - not currently part of Streetcare Services 

3 – not assessed as not a Streetcare Services system 

4 – except trail data loaded to Confirm 


Page 100


Appendix 2 - Terminology and Glossary 


Definition 


Term 

The Asset The entire extent of the Highway, from 

boundary to boundary, and including all 

physical infrastructure that is owned and/or 

maintained by LBH Streetcare Services 

Asset Group An ad-hoc grouping of asset components, 

linked for management and reporting purposes 

in the HAMP (note that this may not be the 


Components 

Delivery 

Groupings 

same as the Delivery Grouping) 

A discrete type of asset infrastructure that 

comprises the Asset (e.g. street lighting, 

drainage, carriageway and footway pavements, 

signs, markings etc. 

A logical grouping of services for the purpose 

of planning effective delivery of maintenance 

and operation to meet current objectives (note 

that these groupings may affect different asset 

components and may change from time to time 

depending on the policy objectives) 

Gap Analysis The process of identifying differences (‘gaps’) in 

performance or processes between the ‘current’ 

Improvement 


Improvement 

Programme 

Option 

Identification 

and ‘desired’ states. 

The plan of action identified to bring the 

Authority’s levels of service, including condition 

of the assets, and processes, up to the Desired 

standard(s) 

The sequence and priority of tasks identified to 

deliver the Improvement Plan (generally 

focussed on a one year look ahead, but also with 

key longer-term milestones included within it. 

The process of identifying delivery options 

(including maintenance and operation, and 

rehabilitation and construction schemes) to 

achieve a given objective – expressed in terms 

of addressing the gap between existing and 

desired level of service or condition 


Page 101


Appendix 3 - Organisation Chart – LBH Streetcare Services 

Department 

Divisions Public Realm 

Regulatory & 

Development 

Services 

Leisure 

Streetcare 


Maintenance, Operations 

& Improvements 


Maintenance/ 

Improvements 


Operations 

Highway Licensing & 

Risk Management 

Bridges & Structures 

Asset Systems & 

General Administration 

Traffic Management / 

Road Safety 

Environmental & Special 

Projects 

Improvements to 

Mobility through 

Accessibility and 

Movement. 

Project management 

Holistic Street 

Enhancement Scheme 

Delivery 

Street Lighting 

Water Courses & 

Drainage 


Environment 

Spatial (or 

Sustainable) 

Planning 

Parking Mangement and 

Enforcement 

Community Environment 

Clean, Greener, Safer 

Issues and Enforcement 

Litter & Street 

Cleansing 

Nuisance Vehicle 

Service 

Tree Management 

Service 

Grounds Maintenance 

Service 


Corporate 

Property & Project 

Coordination 

Business Support 

Waste Management 

Highways PFI Project 


Page 102


Appendix 4 - Report on HM Magazine Highways Asset 

Management Customer Perception Questionnaire 

Introduction 

This report summarises the results of a customer consultation exercise 

commissioned by Hounslow Streetcare Services in July 2005, and 

carried out by Chris Britton Consultancy Ltd in conjunction with 

ongoing work on Hounslow’s Highways Asset Management Plan, 


The objective of the exercise was to obtain some broad feedback on 

the priorities for the different sectors of the local community in respect 

of the service they receive from the local street network. This touches 

upon issues of design, maintenance and operation of these important 

assets, and the interests of different users, and different types of 

locality. The intention is to make use of the results in the asset 

management process, for example in the setting of desired service 

levels, and this will be reported on in the HAMP. 

Approach and Design of Questionnaire 

The mechanism for the questionnaire selected by Street Care Services 

was to use a one-page advertisement feature in the local ‘HM’ 

Magazine. This is circulated to all homes and businesses in the 

Borough, so has a good market penetration in the ‘customer’ base 

required. Other factors in selecting this method were (a) cost and (b) 

timescales. However, it is acknowledged that this approach has some 

drawbacks; in particular, the sample is self-selecting and so may show 

some bias, and the space available limited the extent of the questions. 

The criteria we adopted for the design of the questionnaire were; 

� To obtain the maximum range of information from the 

minimum number of questions (the limitation of space meant 

that only 2/3 of the page was available, allowing only 4 questions 

to be fitted in, along with respondent information) 

� To capture sufficient respondent information to enable 

correlations of results with key location and user interest 

categories 

� To design questions to be as unambiguous and simple as possible 

to allow the maximum response rate and accuracy 

As an incentive to returning questionnaires, and to the completion of 

the respondent’s address details, a small cash prize was offered (to be 

drawn from completed questionnaires received by the deadline of 6 th 

July 2005). 


Page 103


Responses 

A copy of the published questionnaire is shown in the Annex to this 

report. 

A total of 348 questionnaires were received in response to this survey, 

equivalent to 0.36% of HM’s 98,000 circulation. Of the 348 responses, 

58 were either partially or entirely misinterpreted, making the results of 

at least one, and more often 3 questions invalid. The invalid 

questionnaires mainly had the ranking questions (1, 2 and 4) 

misinterpreted, whilst only 4 people misinterpreted question 3. The 58 

questionnaires with missing results represent 16.7% of the sample. The 

‘work’ section of question 4 was filled in rarely, as many respondents 

did not work in the borough so left the section out. 125 people did fill 

it in however, making the results still suitable for analysis. One other 

factor to consider in the results of question 4 is that many respondents 

duplicated their scores for all 3 sections, possibly reflecting personal 

views, but potentially being unrepresentative of opinion. 

The age range of the sample showed a slight bias toward the higher age 

brackets compared to the census population, but perhaps not as much 

as had been anticipated: 

20.12% 

21.87% 

0.58% 

35.28% 

22.16% 

Figure 1: Age of Sample 

Age 

14 and Under 

15 to 39 

40 to 59 

60 to 69 

70 and over 

The important factor when analysing using age is that all sectors, 

except the 14 and under sector, are well represented with a large 

number of respondents, so that results will be significant, unlike if very 


Page 104


small numbers from certain age categories had arisen. When the age 

range was compared with the statistics published for Hounslow’s 

population 7 some differences became clear. The first step in finding 

meaningful differences was to discount the 14 and under age category 

from the census data, as the number received in the sample of the age 

was so low as to be insignificant. This gave a comparison of the adult 

population in Hounslow, against the adult respondent samples. 

Table 1: Population comparison 

Age Hounslow 

Sample age 

population 

structure 

15- 

39 

50.9% 22.2% 

40- 

59 

29.56% 35.3% 

60- 

69 

9.28% 20.1% 

70+ 10.18% 21.9% 

As the sample respondents consisted more of the 60+ age groupings as 

opposed to the 15-39 bias actual population, the results are not 

representative of a realistic subset of the Hounslow population. This is 

expected in a questionnaire of this kind, as it is a self selecting sample, 

with those with the most time to respond replying, in effect the older 

and retired population are more likely to have the time to respond to 

the questionnaire, so make up the majority of the sample. This problem 

was dealt with later on when the results were weighted. 

There is also an element of natural bias to the sample, as those who are 

most likely to respond are those with ‘extreme’ views. This includes 

people with bad experiences of street management, such as those who 

have had roadworks outside their house, or experienced a deteriorating 

street scene. Therefore, the sample may have a bias towards those who 

have particularly bad experiences, whilst the majority, who may not 

have a negative view, will not feel strongly enough to respond. This is 

shown in the notes occasionally written on the questionnaires relating 

to specific issues that people were concerned about. 

The sample consisted of 323 people with a permanent home in the 

borough, whilst only 89 worked in the borough. This gives more 

precedence to the live results rather than the work results in question 4. 

3.2% of the sample did not provide a postcode, but the significant 

majority did, and the postcodes entered could be analysed further as an 

extension to the study, providing detailed information on the 

geographical distribution of the sample. 

7 www.statistics.gov.uk 2001 census,NeSS geography hierarchy 


Page 105


The respondent information graph shown below indicates the travel 

tendencies of the sample, with more classifying themselves as regular 

pedestrians rather than regular car users. This may not be 

representative of the population of Hounslow, especially considering 

that 56.3% of the working population in Hounslow travel to work by 

car, 8 and could affect the results of the questionnaire. Whilst the results 

show a similar, 54.5%, amount of car users, the level of regular 

pedestrians, 67.4%, may be slightly higher than that of the total 

population. 

13.8% were regular cyclists, with 51.6% saying that they were regular 

bus users, which again may show a higher bus than the population, 

representing the higher age level of the sample, who traditionally are 

more frequent bus users. 14.7% said that they had mobility difficulties, 

providing a significant enough percentage to draw conclusions from. 

Compared with given statistics for the Hounslow population, this is 

high, but there is a lack of harmonisation. In Hounslow Borough, 4% 

claim disability living allowance, which is provided for “people under 65, 

who are disabled, and need help with personal care and/or getting around” 

8www.statistics.gov.uk 2001 census,NeSS geography hierarchy 


Page 106


No. of Respondents 

However, this figure represents only those under 65, whilst half of the 

respondents who said they had mobility difficulties were over 70. It 

also only includes those who are receiving benefits because of their 

mobility difficulties; many may continue working or classify themselves 

as having difficulties without needing to claim benefits. Overall, it is 

hard to make a firm conclusion on whether or not the population with 

400.00 

300.00 

200.00 

100.00 

0.00 

Has 

Permanent 

home in 

Borough 

Works in 

Borough 

Regular 

Car User 

Regular Regular 

Pedestrian Cycle User 

Regular 

Bus User 

mobility difficulties is representative, but it is large enough to be 

significant. 

Figure 2: Respondent Information Graph 

Analysis of Results 

The questionnaire surveyed the views on a number of different issues 

relating to street asset management, and in particular the priorities of 

the public in both spending and street or works qualities. To collate the 

Has 

Mobility 

Difficulties 


Page 107

Mean level of importance 


8.00 

6.00 

4.00 

2.00 

0.00 

results, they were entered into the statistics software SPSS 12.0.1, with 

questions 1,2 and 4 entered as ranked scores, and question 3 as 1 or 0, 

representing a tick or blank box. The respondent information was 

entered as 1 or 0 similarly, and the age was entered on a scale from 1 to 

5, 1 being 14 and under, 5 being 70+. Once the data was entered, it 

could then be analysed, but with 1 being representative of the highest 

score the graphs and statistics would use a low mean showing a higher 

level of importance. This is not ideal for analysis, so the data was 

transformed in other columns to invert it, thus giving a higher mean 

being representative of a higher level of importance. This did not in 

any way alter the results, merely made them easier to analyse. 

The first question asked “What qualities should Hounslow’s streets 

have?” and was answered using a ranking from 1 to 8. This was then 

entered, and inverted to produce mean scores for each option, with a 

higher mean representing a higher level of importance to the 

respondent. 

7.02 

Safe for 

pedestrians 

4.06 

Safe for 

cyclists 

3.75 

Quick, 

reliable car 

journeys 

4.94 

Quick,reliable 

bus and taxi 

journeys 

3.76 

Good 

signage and 

information 

Figure 3: Graph showing relative importance of different qualities 

4.10 4.21 4.23 

Safe and 

easy parking 

Attractive Reliability for 

street journeys in 

environment all weather 


Page 108



As the figure 3 shows, the customers valued “Safe for pedestrians to 

walk and cross streets” as being the most important quality Hounslow’s 

streets should have. The result for this category was exceptionally high, 

with it having a mean rating of 2. “Quick reliable bus and taxi 

journeys” was the next most important quality, with the other 

categories fairly similar in their means. The result for the “quick and 

reliable car journeys” was lower than expected, the sample showing a 

distinct tendency against cars, and in favour of other means of 

transport. 

When these results were plotted against the age of respondents, some 

other trends became clear. 

8.00 

6.00 

4.00 

2.00 

0.00 

15 to 39 40 to 59 60 to 69 70 and over 

Age 

Figure 4: Graph showing importance against age 

The mean for ‘Quick reliable bus and taxi journeys’ increased evenly 

with age, as expected showing a higher importance for older people in 

bus and taxi’s as methods of transport, and the ‘safe for pedestrians’ 

mean also increases with age. Also as expected, cycling is more 

Safe for pedestrians 

Safe for cyclists 

Quick, reliable car 

journeys 

Quick,reliable bus and 

taxi journeys 

Good signage and 

information 

Safe and easy parking 

Attractive street 

environment 

Reliability for journeys in 

all weather 


Page 109


important to younger people. One other interesting correlation is for 

‘Attractive street environment’ as the mean for that category decreases 

with age. 

Figure 5 shows how the importance of qualities changed for car users 

and non car users. The patterns shown were as predicted, with car 

journeys and easy parking more important to car users, and pedestrian 

and bus and taxi journeys less important. This correspondence with 

expected results adds credence to the data, making it more likely that 

questions have been filled in to actual beliefs and views. 


8.00 

6.00 

4.00 

2.00 

0.00 

No Yes 

Regular Car User 

Figure 5: Graph showing importance of qualities to car users 

Safe for 

pedestrians 


Quick, reliable 

car journeys 

Quick,reliable 

bus and taxi 

journeys 

Good signage 

and information 

Safe and easy 

parking 


environment 

Reliability for 

journeys in all 

weather 


Page 110



8.00 

6.00 

4.00 

2.00 

0.00 

No Yes 

Has Mobility Difficulties 

Figure 6: Graph showing importance of qualities to those with 

mobility difficulties 

Safe for 

pedestrians 


Quick, reliable car 

journeys 

Quick,reliable bus 

and taxi journeys 

Good signage and 

information 

Safe and easy 

parking 


environment 

Reliability for 

journeys in all 

weather 

Those with mobility difficulties gave similar means when analysed, 

‘reliability for journeys in all weather’, and ‘Bus and Taxi Journeys’ 

being slightly higher for those with mobility difficulties. 

Question 2 asked “In your opinion what priorities should we be 

spending your money on?” and was answered in the same way as 

question one, with answers ranked from 1 to 8. . This was then entered, 

and inverted to produce mean scores for each option, with a higher 

mean representing a higher level of importance to the respondent. 

The graph below shows the mean level of importance for the different 

categories, with ‘Making the streets feel safer’ and ‘Making the streets 

cleaner’ the 2 most important priorities for spending. Using high 

quality materials and making the streets greener are also important for 

spending, but the car related categories, ‘Making car travel easier’ and 

‘Making parking easier’ are the least valued priorities, continuing the 

trend from question 1 in favour of non car travel. 


Page 111



7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

1.00 

0.00 

4.68 

High 

quality 

materials 

3.99 

Look of 

street 

scene 

4.34 

Making 

the 

streets 

"greener" 

Making 

streets 

cleaner 

Figure 7: Graph showing priorities for spending 

Making 

car travel 

easier 

Making 

travel 

easier for 

non-car 

users 

Making 

the 

streets 

feel safer 

The priorities for spending (below) for pedestrians show the expected 

trend in that the mean scores for ‘Making car travel easier’ and ‘Making 

parking easier’ are much lower for pedestrians. The other values are 

very similar, however, with making the streets greener and cleaner 

being slightly higher. 

5.70 

2.86 

5.29 

6.09 

3.06 

Making 

parking 

easier 


Page 112


Mean 

7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

1.00 

0.00 

No Yes 

Regular Pedestrian 

High quality 

materials 

Look of street 

scene 

Making the streets 

"greener" 

Making streets 

cleaner 

Making car travel 

easier 

Making travel 

easier for non-car 

users 


feel safer 

Making parking 

easier 

Figure 8: Graph showing priorities for spending for pedestrians 

The graph for priorities of cyclists shows a high priority for travel of 

non car users as expected, whilst also showing a decrease in car user 

priority. The means for high quality materials, look of the street scene 

and making the streets greener have all risen, reflective of cyclists 

placing more value in the street scene and materials than other users. 


Page 113



7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

1.00 

0.00 

No Yes 

Regular Cycle User 

Figure 9: Graph showing priorities for spending for cyclists 

High quality 

materials 

Look of street 

scene 


"greener" 

Making streets 

cleaner 

Making car travel 

easier 

Making travel 

easier for non-car 

users 


feel safer 

Making parking 

easier 

In question 3 respondents were asked the 3 most important factors 

when major works to roads and footways take place. This was recorded 

using 1 to represent one of the 3 ticks, and all others were 0. This gave 

a total sum for each option, reflecting how many people chose it as 

being important. The graph below shows the sum and percentage of 

total in a pie chart. 


Page 114


169 

31 

208 

118 

Figure 10: Graph-most important factors during works 

The pie chart shows that the most customers chose ‘Money is well 

spent’ as an important factor, with ‘Works take place as quickly as 

possible’ also important. Traffic being kept flowing is the next most 

important factor, with the workforce being courteous and considerate 

not being much of a factor to the customers. The main priorities 

during roadworks therefore are that they are necessary, take place 

quickly and with little impact as possible. 

Question 4 explored the differing priorities between the areas where 

respondents live, work and shop. This was achieved by asking a 

ranking based question, with different rankings for each area. The 

rankings went from 1 (highest) to 9 (lowest) and were then inverted for 

analysis. A higher mean represents an area were the customer believes 

money should be spent. 

Below are the 3 basic graphs depicting the mean for each category, for 

the ‘live’, ‘work’ and ‘shop’ questions: 

122 

238 

144 

Money is well 

spent 

Works take place 

at the same time 


at night 


as quickly as 

possible 

Traffic is kept 

flowing 

Workforce is 

courteous and 

considerate 

Good information 

provided 


Page 115



8.00 

6.00 

4.00 

2.00 

0.00 

Cleaning the 

street (Live) 

Lighting the 

street (Live) 

Resurfacing 

the road 

(Live) 

Providing 

traffic free 

zones (Live) 

Improving 

drainage 

(Live) 

Figure 11: Streets in which I live 

Improving 

road signs 

(Live) 

Upgrading 

street 

furniture 

(Live) 

Resurfacing 

footways 

(Live) 

Trees and 

grass 

maintenance 

(Live) 


Page 116



8.00 

6.00 

4.00 

2.00 

0.00 

Cleaning the 

street 

(Work) 

Lighting the 

street 

(Work) 

Resurfacing 

the road 

(Work) 

Providing 

traffic free 

zones 

(Work) 

Improving 

drainage 

(Work) 

Figure 12: Streets in which I work 

Improving 

road signs 

(Work) 

Upgrading 

street 

furniture 

(Work) 

Resurfacing 

footways 

(Work) 

Cleaning and lighting the street are the top priorities irrespective of 

location, but there are some other significant differences between the 

different types of area. Traffic free zones are much more desirable, as 

expected in shopping areas, shown below. This fits again with the 

expected model, increasing the credence of the results. The same 

pattern is shown in the street furniture category, where again it takes 

more importance on the pedestrian focused shopping areas. 

Trees and 

grass 

maintenance 

(Work) 


Page 117



8.00 

6.00 

4.00 

2.00 

0.00 

Cleaning the Lighting the 

street (Shop) street (Shop) 


6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

1.00 

0.00 

Resurfacing 

the road 

(Shop) 

Providing 

traffic free 

zones 

(Shop) 

Improving 

drainage 

(Shop) 

Improving 

road signs 

(Shop) 

Figure 13 Streets in which I shop 

3.717 

4.192 

Figure 14: Importance of traffic free zones by area 

Upgrading 

street 

furniture 

(Shop) 

Resurfacing 

footways 

(Shop) 

5.017 

Live Work Shop 

Trees and 

grass 

maintenance 

(Shop) 


Page 118



5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

1.00 

0.00 

3.992 

Live Work Shop 

Figure 15: Importance of upgrading street furniture by area 

One important analysis to make is of the results of those who live in 

the borough when looking at the results from the live section of 

question 4. As the respondents mainly lived in the borough (323 of 

348) excluding those who live outside the borough will not make a 

significant difference, but it is still important. The main change arises in 

that those who live in the borough place more importance for spending 

in ‘Resurfacing footways’ and ‘Trees and grass maintenance’. 

Upgrading street furniture is much less important to those who live in 

the borough, as is resurfacing the road. These factors may be 

determined by individual and local experience, but are representative of 

an overall trend. One other factor to consider is that these results are 

more significant as the large number of people who live in the borough 

allows for results that are very representative of the resident’s views. 

4.317 

4.61 


Page 119



8.00 

6.00 

4.00 

2.00 

0.00 

No Yes 

Has Permanent home in Borough 

Figure 16: Graph showing spending importance by residence 

Cleaning the street 

(Live) 

Lighting the street 

(Live) 

Resurfacing the 

road (Live) 

Providing traffic 

free zones (Live) 

Improving drainage 

(Live) 

Improving road 

signs (Live) 

Upgrading street 

furniture (Live) 

Resurfacing 

footways (Live) 

Trees and grass 

maintenance 

(Live) 

Figure 17 shows another important reference, of those people who 

work in the borough, and their answers to the work section of question 

4. This comparison is perhaps more significant than with the 

permanent home in the borough graph, as there are a smaller number 

of people in the sample who work in the borough. This should give a 

better comparison, as the majority who do not work in the borough 

may influence the overall results. However, in view of the small 

number who actually completed the work section, the data may not be 

statistically significant; only 60 people make up the segment that work 

in the borough (and filled in question 4 work section). 


Page 120



8.00 

6.00 

4.00 

2.00 

0.00 

No Yes 

Works in Borough 

Figure 17: Graph showing spending against whether respondent works in borough 

The graph shows an increased priority for resurfacing and improving 

drainage in those who work in the borough, meaning that alongside 

cleaning and lighting the street resurfacing of both roads and footways 

are a high priority for those who work in the borough. 

Once all the results had been collated, the need for weighting because 

of population difference arose. To create weighted means, the 

following formula was used: 

Σ {Mean (age group) * %total population} 

So for each mean, the different age groups means would be multiplied 

by the percentage of the total adult population of Hounslow. For 

example, for the 15-39 age group, 50.9% of Hounslow’s adult 

population fits into this category, so the mean would be multiplied by 

0.59. 

Cleaning the street 

(Work) 

Lighting the street 

(Work) 

Resurfacing the 

road (Work) 

Providing traffic 

free zones (Work) 

Improving drainage 

(Work) 

Improving road 

signs (Work) 

Upgrading street 

furniture (Work) 

Resurfacing 

footways (Work) 

Trees and grass 

maintenance 

(Work) 


Page 121


e.g. (7.01 * 0.59)+(6.89*1.296)…. 

So, when all the age brackets are summated, a weighted mean is given. 

This was carried out for the means of every rankings based question (1, 

2, 4). The results obtained gave mainly a slight variation from the 

original, with the weighted means giving more emphasis to the 15-39 

age group, which makes up over half of Hounslow’s adult population, 

and less importance to the 60+ groups which make up a large part of 

the sample. 

Table 2: Question 1 with weightings 

Question 1 Mean Weighted Mean 

Safe for Pedestrians 7 6.985 

Safe Cycle Routes 4.087 4.362 

Quick, reliable car journeys 3.775 3.657 

Quick, reliable bus and taxi journeys 4.947 4.630 

Good signage and information 3.792 3.730 

Safe and easy parking 4.117 4.214 

Attractive street environment 4.117 4.403 

Reliability for journeys in all weather 4.117 4.123 

The main differences that have occurred during the weighting in 

question 1 are in the cycling, bus and taxi and street environment 

categories. The higher cycle and street environment weighted means 

indicate a higher importance of these to younger age groups, whilst 

being less important to the 60+. This is very clear in the cycling 

category, which previously had a lower mean, as older people naturally 

cycle less. The ‘reliable bus and taxi journeys’ mean has fallen by .3 due 

to the increased use of buses by the elder age groups. 

Table 3: Question 2 with weightings 

Question 2 Mean Weighted Mean 

Using high quality materials 4.703 4.512 

Look of the street scene 3.987 4.095 

Make the streets greener 4.367 4.518 

Make the streets cleaner 5.723 5.609 

Making car travel easier 2.873 2.871 

Making travel easier for non car users 5.311 5.410 

Making the streets feel safer 6.102 6.116 

Making parking easier 3.067 3.044 

In question 2, there are much less distinct differences in the means 

after weighting, which suggests that priorities for spending are less 

affected by age than the street qualities. This could suggest greater 


Page 122


harmonisation in views on spending than the slightly more subjective 

street qualities. 

Table 4: Question 4 (live) with weightings 

Question 4-Live Mean Weighted Mean 

Cleaning the street 7.528 7.418 

Lighting the street 6.5 6.429 

Resurfacing the road 5.38 5.055 

Providing traffic free zones 3.53 3.729 

Improving drainage 4.54 4.477 

Improving signs and markings 4.17 4.093 

Upgrading street furniture 3.82 4.034 

Resurfacing footways 5.61 5.399 

Trees and grass maintenance 5.09 5.277 

In question 4, for the ‘live’ area, there is a decrease in the means for 

both types of resurfacing, showing that older people place more 

importance on resurfacing than younger, whilst the increase in means 

of ‘trees and grass maintenance’, ‘traffic free zones’ and ‘street 

furniture’ all show more importance placed in the environment, and 

especially pedestrian environment in the area young people live. 

Table 5: Question 4 (work) with weightings 

Question 4-Work Mean Weighted 

Mean 










The most significant change in the ‘work’ area of question 4 when 

weighted arises in the upgrading of street furniture, changing by 0.43, 

indicating an increased importance for street furniture amongst the 

younger age groups, maybe as they are more appreciative of the long 

term look of the street scene, reflected in higher weighted means for 

trees and grass maintenance and resurfacing the road. 


Page 123


Table 6: Question 4 (shop) with weightings 

Question 4-Shop Mean Weighted Mean 










There are much fewer large variations in the ‘shop’ category of 

question 4, with there being a general small change in some categories 

such as an increase in the importance of trees and grass maintenance. 

The lack of large changes shows that there is more of a harmonisation 

of priorities in shopping areas, likely as the area is used by all age 

groups (unlike the ‘work’ category), and without variation in the type of 

area (as in ‘live’ category). 

One other area of analysis was to carry out a test of the correlation 

between different questions or categories, and test the significance of 

any relationships that might arise. This was carried out using a bivariate 

correlation test, using the Pearson correlation model. 

The test created a Pearson correlation coefficient, and a 2 tailed 

significance level. The coefficient indicates how strong the correlation 

between the variables is, giving a value between -1 (very strong negative 

correlation) and 1(very strong positive correlation). The significance 

level, or P value, is always below 1, and represents the likelihood of the 

relationship occurring by chance. For example, a P value of 0.1 would 

show a 10% chance of the relationship having arisen by chance. 

Therefore, a P value of 0.01 has been used to indicate a significant 

relationship, at the 1% level. 

The results created showed some significant relationships, below the 

1% level, but with relatively low (under 0.5 or above -0.5) coefficients, 

indicating relationships that were not exceptionally strong, but, due to 

the low total numbers, were very significant. The first set of significant 

relationships, were with car users on question 1. There was a very 

significant (below 0.000) relationship between car users and the ranking 

of quick and reliable car journeys, as expected. In reverse, there was a 

very significant (below 0.000) relationship negatively between car users 

and ‘Quick reliable bus and taxi journeys’. This showed car the trend of 

car users ranking car related categories highly, and non car categories 

lower, was definitely significant. 


Page 124


A similar pattern was true of non car users on question 1, with regular 

cyclists, bus users and pedestrians all having significant negative 

relationships with ‘Quick, reliable car journeys’. Data from other 

questions also supported the expected findings, with there again being 

significant relationships between car users and car related categories, 

and vice versa. 

Observations and Conclusions 

Overall, the questionnaire received a large enough response to enable 

the drawing of some valuable conclusions. Correlations performed give 

additional confidence in the reliability of the entries, and allay some of 

the fears inherent in a self selecting sample. The results indicate a 

number of factors that the public clearly see as the most important in 

street management, and also locate important relationships between 

different types of customer and their priorities for asset management. 

The validity of the data was slightly affected by the self selecting 

sample, which resulted in the sample age range significantly different to 

the actual population of Hounslow; however, this was later overcome 

through applied weightings. The data was given credence by the results 

of some groups, and questions, fitting accepted patterns e.g. car users 

placed ‘Making car travel easier’ as a higher priority than non car users. 

A number of important results arose from the data analysis, showing 

trends that carried through the whole study. The major, and first trend, 

is the precedence of non-car users, over car users. Figure 3 showed the 

importance of pedestrian, and bus and taxi qualities in a street, whilst 

making streets quick and reliable for cars and with ample parking came 

lower down in terms of priorities. This was reinforced later on by the 

data from question 2, showing car travel and parking as the lowest 

priorities for the customer. Making the streets safer and cleaner were 

top priorities, again reflecting a desire for a street geared toward 

pedestrian travel. Correlation analysis supported this, giving significant 

relationships between pedestrians ranking car use low, and car users 

ranking it high. The significant relationships show that customers 

responded as expected according to whether or not they were a regular 

car user. That is, the larger numbers of pedestrians determined the high 

means for pedestrian related categories, and low car related categories. 

This non-car trend could be unrepresentative, due to the self selecting 

nature of the sample, and a very high percentage of regular pedestrians. 

There were some other trends relating to the age of the respondents, 

such as the increase of importance of bus and taxi journeys with age, as 

expected, as well as an increase in the importance of keeping the streets 

safe. The results of those with mobility difficulties showed only a slight 

difference from the other results, reflecting either those who 

responded as having mobility difficulties either not answering to reflect 


Page 125


any specific needs in the street, or having no need for different priority 

in street management. The results for cyclists showed a significant 

relationship again for non car travel, as well as a significant desire to 

resurface footways. When viewed in conjunction with the high overall 

level of concern to ‘make the streets feel safer’ (Figure 7) this might be 

interpreted as a need for improving non-motorised transport assets, for 

example cycle tracks. 

The results concerning question 3, and the most important factors 

during roadworks showed ‘money being well spent’ as the top priority, 

with works taking place quickly and traffic being kept flowing being the 

other main concerns. This shows a desire from the customer for quick 

and cost effective works, but also a need to know that the money they 

effectively contribute is being spent in the right areas, on necessary 

works. These are important facets of good Asset Management, and so 

customers appear to be supporting the Council’s approach by their 

responses to this question. 

Question 4 showed the differing priorities for different area usage, 

showing an overall importance of cleaning and lighting the street, again 

both pedestrian focused options. The upgrading of street furniture and 

the creation of traffic free zones were of more importance in shopping 

areas, as expected, adding further credence, and showing the 

importance of the non car elements in shopping areas. 

The general trend of results in the survey showed many as expected, 

with pedestrians ranking pedestrian categories highly, car users 

favouring resurfacing roadways and improving parking. The results 

from different subsets such as age groups and cyclists, showed results 

that matched significantly with the perceived idea of the different 

groups, giving much credence to the results in other sections. The 

priorities given for street management focus on non car areas, such as 

making the streets cleaner and safer. The priorities for roadworks 

showed a desire for cost effective, necessary works, but with the least 

disruption possible. 

The questionnaire results and responses also helped to indicate what 

questions are the most effective in this type of survey, and many areas 

of question design were highlighted as being important lessons to be 

learnt for future surveys. Firstly, the ranking questions, whilst 

appearing simple, gave effective results, but were often misinterpreted. 

16.7% of respondents misinterpreted the ranking questions, whilst only 

1.15% did not fill in the third question, which required ticks in boxes. 

The question type has to be effectively balanced between being user 

friendly and understandable, but while still giving good results. The 

relatively good survey response meant that, even with the large 

percentage of missing answers, the ranking questions still gave valuable 

and significant results, and the ranking style questions have a much 


Page 126


higher potential for analysis when compared with the simpler ticks in 

boxes questions. 

Some specific question options could have confused respondents, for 

example the question 1 “reliability in all weathers” option drawing a 

number of comments for being too vague. The definition of mobility 

difficulties is a hard issue to tackle, but a more harmonised description 

in future would allow for better analysis against given statistics for the 

borough. The same applies to age ranges, which could be harmonised, 

the national statistics profile of Hounslow 9 uses different age ranges to 

the survey. This was overcome in analysis by finding detailed raw data, 

but this could be avoided if the same age categories were used. The 

inclusion of a 14 and under age category also did not seem effective, 

with very few (2) responses in this age range received as expected. 

It could be argued that, while the definition of certain terms used in the 

questionnaire (such as ‘safe’, ‘attractive’ etc.) could be ambiguous, these 

terms describe common perceptions of the street environment. It is 

these perceptions, as well as the more objective ‘engineering’ aspects of 

the asset which will inform the development of service levels in the 


9 http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/AreaProfile2.do?tab=2 


Page 127


Annex I 


Page 128


Appendix 5 Asset Inventory and Asset Register 

Area Items 

Asset Area (m2) Length (m) 

Anti‐Skid 70,569 17,458 

Bus Lane 6,659 2,352 

Carriageways 2,788,627 385,466 

Central Island 10,999 5,129 

Central Reserve 5,820 2,580 

Cycle Track 28,598 22,815 

Footways 1,390,509 680,827 

Grass Verge 419,672 116,985 

Layby 45,347 12,861 

Hatched Lineas 50,169 31,738 

Parking Bay 154,073 76,272 

Count items 

Asset No 

Camera 97 

Comms Cabinet 3,022 

Crossover 25,553 

Cycle Stand 278 

Dropped Kerb 6,241 

Gates 55 

Gully 19,123 

Litter Bins 900 

Manhole 49,313 

Parking Meter 259 

Pay&Display Machine 244 

Pedestrian Crossing 263 

Planter 208 

Postbox 243 

Sign 

Statues and 

11,872 

Monuments 20 

Street Name Plates 2,441 

Telephone Boxes 136 


Page 129


Length items 

Asset Length (m) 

Fences and Barriers 10,724 

Kerbs 711,389 

Kerb Markings 32,199 

Longitudinal Lines 305,799 

Pedestrian Rail 14,459 

retaining wall (non structural) 5,769 

Road Hatching 5,157 

Safety Fence 1,361 

Breakdown by Ward 

Ward 

Carriageways Footways Verges Kerbs 

Area 

(m2) 

Length 

(m) 

Area (m2) 

Length 

(m) 

Area (m2) 

Length 

(m) 

Length 

(m) 

Longitudinal 

Lines 


Page 130 

Signs 

Length (m) Number 

Bedfont 193,406 27,886 94,842 47,430 46,834 8,370 50,952 18,175 292 

Brentford 86,773 11,684 48,136 23,246 9,182 2,213 23,640 11,909 441 

Chiswick 

Homefields 120,165 16,037 54,156 26,416 5,441 1,890 28,521 13,666 1,051 

Chiswick 

Riverside 144,434 18,528 70,230 33,156 24,775 14,038 33,932 11,008 489 

Cranford 110,986 16,829 46,831 26,835 7,449 3,709 31,842 6,356 170 

Feltham North 168,592 23,434 86,772 42,381 25,375 3,033 43,419 20,136 336 

Feltham West 125,535 18,762 66,499 31,966 19,849 5,760 34,836 12,737 202 

Hanworth 145,585 21,060 70,484 36,538 27,760 5,038 39,791 10,229 371 

Hanworth Park 164,327 23,173 86,119 41,667 40,211 8,893 34,190 16,637 456 

Heston Central 120,461 18,367 58,645 32,977 18,748 5,449 33,876 9,421 382 

Heston East 133,944 18,552 61,757 31,936 37,158 10,337 34,755 9,272 353 

Heston West 141,204 18,417 61,435 31,513 26,906 9,140 34,005 10,962 294 


Central 184,953 24,292 96,912 43,670 16,732 4,163 44,859 35,166 1,431 

Hounslow Heath 130,899 18,729 77,437 33,509 16,852 4,881 36,184 15,910 717 

Hounslow South 135,399 18,719 75,683 37,718 29,411 12,739 39,102 13,747 416 

Hounslow West 105,379 14,156 54,350 27,264 3,747 1,050 27,240 12,726 304 

Isleworth 137,862 19,514 76,972 34,047 19,562 4,511 36,612 21,515 892 

Osterley and 

Spring Grove 207,472 27,218 94,790 48,652 25,981 7,731 49,065 25,270 997 

Syon 141,355 18,756 66,930 33,528 8,995 1,822 33,647 22,321 584 

Turnham Green 111,500 13,694 49,783 18,964 1,294 435 24,277 11,936 1,570


Breakdown of Footway Types (including paved verges) 

AREA (m2) PERCENTAGE 

Ward 

Bituminous Flag Concrete Block 

TOTAL 

AREA 

Bituminous Flag Concrete Block 

Bedfont 65,371 26,116 175 4,590 96,251 67.9% 27.1% 0.2% 4.8% 

Brentford 

Chiswick 

29,224 18,174 391 934 48,723 60.0% 37.3% 0.8% 1.9% 

Homefields 

Chiswick 

8,212 45,065 832 47 54,156 15.2% 83.2% 1.5% 0.1% 

Riverside 10,282 59,333 512 103 70,230 14.6% 84.5% 0.7% 0.1% 

Cranford 20,201 25,559 758 313 46,831 43.1% 54.6% 1.6% 0.7% 

Feltham North 78,439 10,921 1,160 811 91,331 85.9% 12.0% 1.3% 0.9% 

Feltham West 54,477 9,734 645 1,525 66,380 82.1% 14.7% 1.0% 2.3% 

Hanworth 42,063 25,960 2,755 609 71,386 58.9% 36.4% 3.9% 0.9% 

Hanworth Park 56,855 27,352 2,661 5,793 92,661 61.4% 29.5% 2.9% 6.3% 

Heston Central 19,264 35,025 2,185 2,535 59,009 32.6% 59.4% 3.7% 4.3% 

Heston East 25,546 36,551 2,217 121 64,436 39.6% 56.7% 3.4% 0.2% 

Heston West 


22,254 37,888 610 1,588 62,340 35.7% 60.8% 1.0% 2.5% 

Central 51,970 52,062 2,956 15,370 122,358 42.5% 42.5% 2.4% 12.6% 

Hounslow Heath 41,920 31,110 887 10,272 84,188 49.8% 37.0% 1.1% 12.2% 

Hounslow South 16,442 59,313 2,109 94 77,958 21.1% 76.1% 2.7% 0.1% 

Hounslow West 20,035 31,072 1,042 2,450 54,599 36.7% 56.9% 1.9% 4.5% 

Isleworth 

Osterley and 

28,761 43,711 1,959 2,931 77,363 37.2% 56.5% 2.5% 3.8% 

Spring Grove 44,021 49,206 2,589 618 96,434 45.6% 51.0% 2.7% 0.6% 

Syon 19,323 42,321 1,143 4,334 67,122 28.8% 63.1% 1.7% 6.5% 

Turnham Green 5,603 42,866 458 1,142 50,069 11.2% 85.6% 0.9% 2.3% 

TOTALS 660,263 709,338 28,044 56,180 1,453,825 45.4% 48.8% 1.9% 3.9% 


Page 131


Appendix 6: Transcript from the Agenda of Executive 

Public Meeting – 4 April 2006 

HOUNSLOW – HIGHWAYS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN VERSION 1 

Report by: Councillor Ron Bartholomew – Lead Member for Enhancing the Environment 

SUMMARY 

The Highways Asset Management Plan (HAMP) sets out objectives, targets for delivery 

and procedures for efficient management of the asset lifecycle, and a programme of 

improvements for all parts of the public space which we call the Highway or the 

Network. The HAMP seeks to balance the needs of customers, who expect a highquality 

of current service with the desire to preserve the integrity and value of the 

Street network for future generations. The HAMP is only the first step in adopting 

Asset Management principles for our street network. The full benefits will be 

realised in the coming years as we develop and implement the actions set out in our 

improvement programme. 

1.0 RECOMMENDATION 

That the Executive: 

1.1 Note the contents of the Report. 

1.2 Approve the adoption of Hounslow’s Highways Asset Management Plan 

(HAMP) Version 1 as an important first step on the path towards Infrastructure 

Asset Management for local borough roads and its associated structures with 

effect from April 2006, that will eventually meet the requirements of the Whole of 

Government Accounts (WGA). 

1.3 Agrees to receive an annual progress report that updates the development of 

processes for implementing Asset Management and improvements made in 

routine maintenance to ensure the infrastructure asset is in a serviceable condition 

or is returned to its ‘as new’ capacity and condition, or is improved above its 

original standard. 


Page 132


2.0 BACKGROUND 

2.1 There are many current government drivers and recently published industry 

Codes of Practice aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the local 

Highway Authority’s management of the road network. These are succinctly 

described in the recent document ‘Maintaining a Vital Asset’ published by the 

Roads Liaison Group and endorsed by Ministers as well as the Mayor of London. 

The Hounslow HAMP is written to be consistent with all appropriate parts of the 

associated new Codes of Practice. It is now expected that each Authority put in 

place a structured HAMP that sets out: 

� The scope, extent and condition of existing assets, 

� A description of objectives and policies linked to business objectives, 

� A definition of outcome-based ‘levels of service’, 

� ‘Lifecycle’ maintenance strategies based on long term, sustainable use of 

physical resources and minimising whole life costs, 

� Identification of future funding requirements to maintain target levels of 

service, 

� The approach to managing the risks of falling short of the target levels of 

service, 

� The development of co-ordinated forward programmes for highway 

maintenance, operation and improvement, and 

� A regime for measurement of performance and continuous improvement. 

2.2 The HAMP becomes the starting point for making a case for the funding of this 

vital asset, against the background of strong competition for limited resources. It 

will support capital bids, for example in conjunction with the Local 

Implementation Plan (LIP), currently with the Mayor of London for approval. 

The Department for Transport has recently announced that the government is 

making available £600 million in PFI credits for Highways Maintenance and has 

invited Local Authorities to submit an Expression of Interest by September 2006. 

They have indicated that submissions should include a description of how the 

scheme is generally consistent with agreed Asset Management Plans. The HAMP 

will provide evidence that Hounslow is seeking to secure continuous 

improvement in the way that we exercise our functions, having regard to a 

combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness; and simultaneously will 

provide the basis for local decision making on a wide range of services that 

impact on the day-to-day maintenance of the whole street environment. This 

must be set in the context of the 430km of local roads, 775km of footways and 

channel, 16,123 street lighting units, 4417 illuminated street furniture, 105 bridges 

and structures and 10,220 trees, as well as all the associated structures managed by 

Streetcare Services in Hounslow. 

2.3 Hounslow Streetcare Services commenced a project in February 2005 to establish 

such a Plan, and to identify the actions needed to improve their procedures, 

systems and data. This Plan (the ‘HAMP’) has been drawn up under the auspices 

of an internal steering group, with the assistance of an outside consultant, Chris 

Britton Consultancy Limited. 


Page 133


3.0 PROPOSALS 

3.1 It is proposed that, as from April 2006, the Council adopts the HAMP which sets 

out a logical and systematic approach to sustaining and improving the streets in 

Hounslow, to the benefit of all those who use them – by whatever means, and for 

whatever purpose. The streets, pavements and all their associated furniture and 

apparatus not only serve a functional purpose but also contribute to public safety, 

and the environment in which people live, work, shop and pursue leisure 

activities. Well-maintained highways make an important contribution to the 

liveability of public spaces, and in turn people’s quality of life in general. 

3.1.1 Hounslow’s HAMP provides a description of current practices and future plans 

and aspirations for the main elements of good asset management planning, 

including: 

� Processes for determining annual programmes of work and for securing 

funding and allocating budgets, 

� A process for setting annual targets for quality of service for Hounslow’s 

streets within the wider context of local and national Best Value 

Performance Reporting and the CPA (Continuous Performance 

Assessment) regime, 

� Systems and Data that support asset management planning, 

� Mechanisms for Member, customer and stakeholder involvement in the 

asset management process, and 

� Processes for updating the HAMP as part of Hounslow’s annual cycle of 

business planning. 

3.1.2 The Asset Register, will set out what exists within Hounslow’s highway network 

and the condition that it is in. It is an essential prerequisite for carrying out an 

Asset Valuation. The Asset Register is currently incomplete and the 

Improvement Plan sets out the process for compiling a complete asset register. 

3.1.3 A description of Levels of Service (LoS) will form the basis for target setting, 

strategic planning and service monitoring and improvement. This includes how 

each service level contributes to the Council’s Ten Executive Priorities. 

Associated with the service levels are more detailed performance measures and 

improvement targets for the next year, and for the longer term. 


Page 134


Levels of Service defined in the HAMP are: 

1. Accessibility of Services 

2. Availability & Accessibility of the Asset 

3. Providing a Safe Street Environment 

4. Quality of Street Scene 

5. Serviceability of the Asset 

6. Providing Information about Street Care Services 

7. Quality of Service Delivery 

8. Effectiveness of Internal Management 

Looking at the ‘Levels of Service’ it will be apparent that a balance must be struck 

–between investing in the ‘soft estate’ that makes streets, smarter, cleaner and 

safer, at the same time as investing in the long term preservation of the asset, or 

the ‘hidden’ value in its construction and fitness for purpose. 

3.1.4 An initial 5-Year Improvement Programme identifies the actions necessary to 

improve asset management for Hounslow’s streets in the short/medium term. 

Each action has a priority and timescale allocated to it. Additionally, the 

improvement actions are highlighted separately in the relevant section of the 


3.1.5 Preparation of an Asset Valuation for the Highway network; is part of the 

national requirement for Whole of Government Accounts (WGA). Local 

Authorities are expected to publish information on the value of their highway 

network, taking into account both what exists and the condition it is in. This first 

full “benchmark” valuation will be produced in 2006/07, providing an opening 

book value for 2007/08, and will allow for the calculation of in-year movements. 

3.1.6 Lifecycle Management Plans, will set out for each type/group/component of the 

asset (Roads, Footways, Street Lighting, Structures etc) how asset management 

will be applied over the whole life of that asset from it’s creation to its removal. 

3.1.7 The Service Plans will set out how good asset management principles will inform 

service delivery for those services that are not specific to a particular asset 

component, such as street cleansing, graffiti and flyposting and the usage of 

powers and the meeting of requirements under the Clean Neighbourhood and 

Environmental Act 2005 (some of which are Best Value Indicators by reference 

to which the authority’s performance in exercising functions can be measured). 

3.2 Once adopted, it is intended that the HAMP will be implemented from April 

2006 onwards. A programme of actions and improvements has been drawn up, 

and will form the first phase of delivering the benefits of this approach to the 

community. The Plan makes out a case for funding. For the improvements to be 

actually delivered, funds will have to be made available by the Council for the 

targeted improvement work on the ground. The Plan is, therefore, just a first step 

in a long-term programme. Continuous monitoring of performance will be 


Page 135


necessary and feedback will have to be obtained on the effectiveness of every 

measure that contributes to the newly-defined levels of service. This will be a 

continuous, iterative process, involving members of the public, Councillors, local 

interest groups as well as the technical experts employed by Streetcare Services. 

4.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 

4.1 The Director of Legal Services comments that there are no implications arising 

from the recommendations in the report, at this stage. As the HAMP is 

implemented there are likely to be legal implications relating to the procurement 

of works, goods and services, PFI and meeting the requirements of relevant 

legislation. 

5.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 

5.1 The Director of Finance comments that he has been involved in the development 

of the HAMP and there are no direct financial implications arising from this 

report’s recommendations. However as Asset Management develops, then funding 

needs to be identified for schemes. If so, these proposals will each be the subject 

of an appropriate report to the Executive. 

6.0 EQUALITIES / DIVERSITY IMPLICATIONS 

6.1 The introduction of the concept of Asset Management regime into the highway 

network and its associated structures in Hounslow will positively affect universally 

the population who live, work, visit and shop in the borough. 

The concept will economically benefit the borough and its stakeholders, and 

eliminate discrimination by enhancing social inclusion through the improvement of 

mobility, accessibility/availability and movement. 

6.2 An Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) is under preparation and it is considered 

that there are no adverse affects on equalities arising from this report. 

7.0 NETWORK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 

7.1 The Traffic Manager Comments that an assessment will be made on each 

individual project within the Improvement Programme with regard to maintaining 

traffic flow and minimising traffic congestion arising from the works, both on the 

borough’s roads and on adjoining Traffic Authorities’ road networks. 


Page 136


7.2 Consultation will take place with adjoining Traffic Authorities and effective 

measures put in place to minimise any disruption to traffic flows on each project as 

and when appropriate. 

8.0 CONCLUSIONS 

8.1 The adoption of the Highways Asset Management Plan by Streetcare Services will 

be the first – and most important – step by the London Borough of Hounslow 

towards a more rational, justifiable, and transparent approach to identifying and 

prioritising the actions and associated need for funding to make best use of its vital 

road network asset. 

8.2 The HAMP puts Hounslow in the forefront of best practice, particularly in the 

context of London, and positions SCS well for implementing improved processes 

and delivery in its investment in street infrastructure, operation and maintenance. It 

is, however, only a start. Having established the objectives and targets in the Plan, 

SCS will continue to manage the implementation of asset management over a 

number of years. This will involve commitment both in terms of investment and in 

a willingness to make changes, educating staff, involving stakeholders and working 

together to reap the benefits that good asset management can bring. The ultimate 

objective of the new approach is to provide continuous and visible improvements 

in the whole street environment in Hounslow, through an optimised approach to 

identifying needs, allocating funds and delivery of services on the ground. 

8.3 The above aligns with the results of the Panel Survey in September 2005, where it 

was identified within the Community Environment that resources should be 

prioritised and redirected towards improving street lighting, reducing noise and air 

pollution followed by resurfacing of footways and roads. 

Background Papers: 

London Borough of Hounslow Streetcare Services: 

- Maintaining a Vital Asset. (see www.roadscodes.org) 

– Highways Asset Management Plan – Version 1 

This report has been or is due to be considered by: 

C.M.T. – 1st March 2006 

Executive Briefing – 21st March 2006 

Executive Public – 4th April 2006 

This report is relevant to the following wards/areas: 

All. 


Page 137


Resolutions 

Hounslow Highways Asset Management Plan (HAMP) Version 1 

Councillor Bartholomew presented a report outlining the objectives, targets for delivery, 

and procedures for efficient management of the asset lifecycle, and a programme of 

improvements for all parts of the public space which we call the Highway or the 

Network. The Plan seeks to balance the needs of customers, who expect a high quality of 

current service, with the desire to preserve the integrity and value of the Street network 

for future generations. Members were informed that the HAMP was only the first step in 

adopting Asset Management principles for the Borough’s street network. Councillor 

Bartholomew explained that the full benefits would be realised in the coming years as the 

actions set out in the improvement programme were implemented. 

Resolved 

(i) That the contents of the Report be noted. 

(ii) That Hounslow’s Highways Asset Management Plan (HAMP) Version 1 be 

adopted as an important first step on the path towards Infrastructure Asset 

Management for local borough roads and its associated structures with effect 

from April 2006, that will eventually meet the requirements of the Whole of 

Government Accounts (WGA). 

(iii) That the Executive agrees to receive an annual progress report that updates the 

development of processes for implementing Asset Management and 

improvements made in routine maintenance to ensure the infrastructure asset is in 

a serviceable condition or is returned to its ‘as new’ capacity and condition, or is 

improved above its original standard. 


Page 138


Appendix 7. Lifecycle Management Plans 


Page 139


Road Carriageways Lifecycle Management Plan 

Our road carriageways (the paved road construction which carries 

traffic) comprise the most valuable single asset within our highways 

asset management plan. One of the key challenges for the introduction 

of Asset Management to the management of our road network is the 

introduction of a Life Cycle Planning approach to the management of 

investments in our carriageways. 

Our current approach to the management of investments in our roads 

asset has a number of strengths, in particular: 

▪ Needs-based assessment of maintenance requirements based upon 

UKPMS surveys 

▪ A long-term works programme, which has every road in the 

borough included, based upon UKPMS outputs and, in the coming 

year, the outputs of the Scheme Engineer software, being used for 

the PFI project 

▪ A calculation of network backlog 

▪ Appraisal of the future implications of various possible funding 

scenarios 

We acknowledge, however, that if we are to be successful in meeting 

the challenges of asset management planning for our Carriageways we 

will need to develop our processes, systems and data in a number of 

areas: 

▪ The implementation of predictive models that allow the future 

implications of investment options upon future condition, quality 

of service and asset value and preservation, including the ability to 

assess and prioritise on whole-life cost principles 

▪ The implementation of a more sophisticated methodology for the 

calculation of maintenance backlog, ideally using nationally agreed 

standard definitions of backlog 

▪ The implementation of a value management process for 

determining the most appropriate scheme options, and for 

balancing the requirements of service quality and asset preservation 

and structural improvement 

▪ Asset valuation 

▪ The development of service levels related to the carriageways 

Much of the future development of asset management for carriageways 

is addressed through the improvement actions for all assets, described 

elsewhere in the HAMP. Specifically for Carriageways, however, an 

improvement action has been highlighted relating to the development 

of the ability to assess the costs and impacts of investments in 

� 

Improvement Action 27. 

We will implement tools that 

will allow the whole-life cost 

implications of highway 

maintenance and improvement 

options to be assessed. 


Page 140


carriageway maintenance and improvement schemes over the life of 

those investments. The “Scheme Engineer” software that has been 

implemented to support the PFI project will provide these most 

capabilities for roads and footways, and it is intended that we will make 

use of these in the coming year. 

Scope of Life Cycle Plan 

This section deals with all parts of the Carriageway not included in 

other Life Cycle plans including: 

� The whole depth of the carriageway pavement 

� Lines and road markings 

� Studs and zebra crossings etc. 

� Ironwork 

� Special Surfaces including Anti-skid and bus-lanes, cycle lanes 

etc. 

� Kerbs and other features 

Introduction and Background 

Road Categories 

Table 5.5.1 (below) sets out the Road Categories used within London; 

these are set by Transport for London, and are linked to 

responsibilities for maintenance and funding as follows: 

� Category 1 roads are maintained by DfT 

� Category 2 roads are maintained by TfL 

� Category 3 roads are maintained by LBH, but funded by TfL 

� Category 4, 5 and 6 roads are maintained and funded by LBH 


Page 141


Category Hierarchy Type of Road Detailed 

Description 

1 Motorway Limited access Routes for fast- 

Motorway moving long 

regulations apply distance traffic. 

Fully grade 

separated with 

restrictions on use. 

2 Strategic Trunk Roads and Routes for fast- 

Route some Principal movinglong- “A” roads distance traffic with 

between primary little frontage 

destinations access or pedestrian 

traffic. Speed limits 

are usually in excess 

of 40mph and there 

are few junctions. 

Pedestrian 

crossings are either 

segregated or 

controlled and 

parked vehicles are 

generally 

prohibited. 

3 Main Major Urban Routes between 

Distributor Network and Strategic Routes 

Inter-Primary and linking urban 

links. 

centres to the 

Short to medium strategic network 

distance traffic. with limited 

frontage access. In 

urban areas speed 

limits are usually 

40mph or less, 

parking is restricted 

at peak times and 

there are positive 

measures for 

pedestrian safety. 

4 Secondary Classified Road In rural areas these 

Distributor (B and C class) roads link the larger 

and unclassified villages and HGB 

urban bus routes generators to the 

carrying local Strategic and Main 

traffic with distributors 

frontage access Network. In build- 

and frequent up areas these 

junctions. roads have 30mph 


Page 142


Category Hierarchy Type of Road Detailed 

Description 

speed limits and 

very high levels of 

pedestrian activity 

with some crossing 

facilities including 

zebra crossings. 

On-street parking 

is generally 

unrestricted except 

5 Link Road Roads linking 

between Main 

and Secondary 

Distributor 

network with 

frontage access 

and frequent 

6 Local Access 

road 

Lengths of road maintained by LBH 

junctions. 

Roads serving 

limited numbers 

of properties 

carrying only 

access traffic. 

Road Categories 

Length Road Type 

38.7 km Principal A Roads 

14.0 km B Roads 

30.5 km C Roads 

347.9 km Unclassified Roads 

2.9 km Back lanes 

434.0 km Total Length 

Existing Funding mechanisms 

for safety reasons. 

Residential or 

industrial 

interconnecting 

roads with 30mph 

speed limits, 

random pedestrian 

movements and 

controlled parking. 

Often residential 

loops or cul de 

sacs. 

The Principal Road Programme is entirely funded by TfL. Following 

assessment a 5 year programme of carriageway resurfacing and 

associated footway re-construction is included in the BSP. Over the 

past 7 years Hounslow has made a strong case for a high level of 

funding and has consistently demonstrated its ability to fully spend its 

allocation plus any additional funding received due to under spend by 


Page 143


other London Boroughs. This has placed us just outside the top 

quartile of all London Boroughs. 

In order to make effective use of the available LBH planned 

maintenance funding allocation, roads and footways of more than local 

importance are targeted for implementation. 

Roads of more than local importance include: 

� Classified non-principal roads 

� Bus routes 

� High density vehicle routes 

� Accident hot spots 

� High density pedestrian areas such as town centres 

� Schools / Old peoples homes 

� Hospitals / medical centres 

These roads form the Corporate Prioritised List and are listed by order 

of priority from Condition Factors. 

Draft area programmes are extracted from the Implementation 

Priorities and submitted to Area Committees for approval. Members of 

each Area Committee have the opportunity to either agree their area 

priorities or advise of their own perceptions of those roads which 

should be included in the Area Programme from the implementation 

priorities. This allows Area Committees for example, to propose 

substituting roads for others of approximately similar priority within 

their own area but not to impact on resources available to other areas. 

This will establish a prioritised list for each Area Committee and those 

schemes of the highest priority will be implemented as funds are made 

available throughout the year. As only those roads with a condition 

factor indicating they require reconstruction are included in the 

implementation priorities the effect of altering the order of priority by 

Area Committees will not adversely affect the relevant PI. 

Maintenance Backlog 

On an annual basis, maintenance backlog is assessed, based upon most 

recent survey data processed using UKPMS; the backlog is determined 

using a simple model based upon the road lengths included in the 

published road condition performance indicators for each part of the 

network. Backlog figures are then projected using simple “straight-line” 

predictive models, at various possible funding scenarios, to predict 

future backlog. The Figures below illustrate this approach; such 

projections are used as part of our annual budgetary process. It is 

acknowledged that these current models lack robustness, and that to 

support life-cycle planning for our carriageways, we will need to 

develop a more sophisticated approach in future, ideally drawing upon 

� 

Improvement Action 28 

We will implement more 

robust models for the 

calculation of maintenance 

backlog, linked to the 

calculation of asset 

depreciation, as part of asset 

valuation. This model will 

include a predictive capability, 

to allow the future implications 

of possible budgetary scenarios 

to be assessed. 


Page 144


nationally agreed definitions and models, and making more extensive 

use of the functionally provided by UKPMS. 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

£k 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

20000 

18000 

16000 

14000 

12000 

10000 

8000 

6000 

4000 

2000 

0 

Maintenance Backlog to Roads 

Roads Maintenance Backlog 

5-Year Programme to Remove Roads Maintenance Backlog 

Current Annual 

Funding 

Required Annual 

Funding 

Backlog 

5 Year Programme to Remove Roads Maintenance 

Backlog 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 


Funding 

Total Funding to 

remove backlog 

Annual Funding 

Required 

Backlog 


Page 145


£k 

£k 

30000 

25000 

20000 

15000 

10000 

5000 

0 

35000 

30000 

25000 

20000 

15000 

10000 

5000 

0 

10Year Programme to Remove Road Maintenance 

Backlog 


15Year Programme to Remove Roads 

Maintenance Backlog 

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 



Funding 




Required 

Backlog 


Funding 




Required 

Backlog 


Page 146


£k 

60000 

50000 

40000 

30000 

20000 

10000 

0 

25 Year programme to Remove Roads 

MaintenanceBacklog 


Base Level Annual 

Funding 

Actual Annual Funding 

Funding to remove 

backlog 

Backlog 

Defect vs. Planned maintenance – non-optimal (graphs – annual 

budget projections) 

The figure below gives a different perspective on the current level of 

backlog; at current and recent historic levels of budget, the amount of 

planned maintenance that we were able to carry out is at such a low 

level that we are not able to arrest network deterioration, and to 

prevent planned maintenance backlog increasing over time. The 

implication of this is that in order to maintain minimum levels of 

service and safety, we are having to spend increasing amounts on 

unplanned, reactive maintenance, further restricting the budget 

available for planned preventative maintenance, and therefore further 

increasing maintenance backlog. It is recognised that this position is 

unsustainable, and it is intended that the introduction of an Asset 

Management approach to the management of our network will allow us 

both to better manage the limited funds that we have available, and to 

better make the case for increased, sustained funding of our network. 

Allied to this intention is the initiative to explore opportunities for new 

ways of funding investment and for delivering service on our network, 

described in section 7.1 and in improvement action 20. 


Page 147


£ million 

1.80 

1.60 

1.40 

1.20 

1.00 

0.80 

0.60 

0.40 

0.20 

0.00 

Projected Budgets 

Reactive v Planned Maintenance 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Figure: Projected Budgets: Reactive vs. Planned Maintenance 

Approach to condition and need assessment 

The flowchart below gives an overview of our current approach to 

assessment of condition and need for our carriageways. 

Planned 

Reactive 


Page 148


NETWORK PLAN 

OF SURVEY 

SITES PROVIDED 

TO SUB 

CONTRACTOR 

CONTRACTOR 

UNDERTAKES 

CVI / DVI 

SURVEY 

CATEGORY 1 

DEFECTS 

REPORTED TO 

CLIENT 

National and Local PIs 

DATA 

DOWNLOADED 

SUMMARY 

SPREADSHEET 

WITH RATING 

CALCULATIONS 

RE-DEFINE 

NETWORK 

QUERIES AND 

SUBMIT TO 

CLIENT 

DATA 

EDITED, 

VERIFIED AND 

VALIDATED 

PROCESSING 

INTO HMDIF 

DATA 

EXTRACTED AND 

VALIDATED 

PI’s 

PRODUCED 

� Principal roads (ROAD2000 surveys) plus local roads 

� Network vs. scheme level use 

� Use of contractors 

� QA provisions – Engineers check outputs from UKPMS 

The graph below set out the values of road condition indicators over 

recent years. Note that over the life of these indicators their definition 

and the supporting data has changed a number of times, so that they 

are not directly comparable, over time. 


Page 149


40% 

35% 

30% 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 


2005/06 BVPI 


2006/07 BVPI 

Data and Systems that are used 

Section 3.3 of the HAMP describes the data and systems, used in the 

management of our service delivery and maintenance of our 

carriageways. The key systems for carriageways are: 

� Confirm (Highway maintenance and inspections) 

� March PMS and Scheme Engineer (Pavement Management) 

� Confirm Works ordering 

� Confirm Streetworks 

Current state of inventory and asset register 

Following the completion of the full asset inventory survey, we now 

have complete, up-to-date information on all of our roads and 

footways. In addition, we have completed a survey of the construction 

of all carriageways in the borough, using core samples. 

Documentation and standards 


2007/08 BVPI 


2008/09 NI + LI 

The principal reference documents for the management of 

maintenance and service delivery of our carriageways are set out in our 

highways Procedures and Method Statements. We have also adopted 

the principles set out in Well Maintained Highways, and will be assessing 

the implications for the management of the highways network over the 

coming months. 

Consultation mechanisms 

Carriageway-specific consultation mechanisms include: 

BV 187 Footways 

BV223/NI168 (Principal Roads) 

Bv224a/NI169 (Classified Roads) 

BV 224b (Unclassified Roads) 


Page 150


� with the general public, timing and other information about 

works 

� post-implementation questionnaires 

� with elected Members on programme, timing of works, bustour 

of potential sites 

In addition, consultation on the programme of major works takes 

place with: 

� Police 

� Traffic Management Liaison Group 

� Statutory Undertakers (3 months in advance) 

� TfL (PRN) 


Page 151


Process Descriptions 

Condition assessment 

Carriageway Condition is monitored using industry-standard surveys, 

contracted out for cost effectiveness and quality control. The range of 

survey types utilised in any given year will vary, but will generally be 

selected from the following list: 

Type Application Coverage Standard 

Visual (CVI/DVI) General and structural All Road UKPMS 

condition 

Classes 

SCANNER General Condition Principal and SCANNER Specification 

and Performance Classified (Carried out as part of the 

Road 2000 project) 

SCRIM Safety (skidding Principal HA DMRB 

resistance) 

(Carried out as part of the 


Ground Penetrating Construction, voids Principal HA DMRB 

Radar 

etc. 

(Carried out as part of the 


The management of condition surveys follows the following process: 


Page 152


NETWORK PLAN 

OF SURVEY 

SITES PROVIDED 

TO SUB 

CONTRACTOR 

CONTRACTOR 

UNDERTAKES 

CVI / DVI 

SURVEY 

CATEGORY 1 

DEFECTS 

REPORTED TO 

CLIENT 

DATA 

DOWNLOADED 

SUMMARY 

SPREADSHEET 

WITH RATING 

CALCULATIONS 

RE-DEFINE 

NETWORK 

QUERIES AND 

SUBMIT TO 

CLIENT 

DATA 

EDITED, 

VERIFIED AND 

VALIDATED 

PROCESSING 

INTO HMDIF 

DATA 

EXTRACTED AND 

VALIDATED 

PI’s 

PRODUCED 


Page 153


Defect maintenance 

CATEGORY 1 

DEFECT 

DETAILS 

UPLOADED TO 

CONFIRM 

SYSTEM ORDER 

RAISED DSO 

REPAIR OR 

MAKE SAFE 

WITHIN 

24 HOURS 

PERMANENT 

REPAIR WITHIN 

APPROPRIATE 

TIMESCALE 

CONFIRM 

SYSTEM 

ELECTRONIC 

NOTIFICATION 

OF RSI TO 

APPROPRIATE 

INSPECTOR 

CATEGORY 2 

DEFECT 

DETAILS 

UPLOADED TO 

CONFIRM 

SYSTEM ORDER 

RAISED DSO 

PERMANENT 

REPAIR WITHIN 

APPROPRIATE 

TIMESCALE 

NOTIFICATION 

OF DEFECT BY 

LETTER / E-MAIL 

TO HIGHWAYS 

INSPECTION 

UNDERTAKEN 

RECORD 

DEFECT DETAILS 

ON iPAQ 

DOES NOT 

EXCEED 

INTERVENTION 

LEVEL 

RECORD 

DETAILS ON 

ASSET 

MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEM 

NOTIFICATION 

OF DEFECT BY 

TELEPHONE TO 

CALL CENTRE 

ELECTRONIC 

NOTIFICATION 

OF DEFECT TO 

APPROPRIATE 

INSPECTOR 

NOT HIGHWAYS 

RESPONSIBILITY 

INFORM 

RESPONSIBLE 

BODY 


Page 154


Carriageways Life Cycle Management 

Lifecycle Stage 1. Creation or Acquisition of Carriageways 

Hounslow’s network is a well-developed, mature network, and as such 

there are few instances of new provision; those few new roads are 

mainly new adoptions, as part of housing and business developments, 

and the occasional new road as part of a traffic improvement initiative. 


of Need: 

Selection of 

Option(s): 

Applicable 

Standards: 

How is need identified? 

▪ Adoption for new development 

▪ Traffic improvement initiatives 

▪ Area improvements 

What are the options and how are options 

selected? 

There are relatively few options, considered in the 

decisions to provide new carriageways. 

“Section38” adoptions are required to follow 

Hounslow defined standards, and in the new 

Highways Design Guide. 

The following standards to the provision of new 

carriageways: 

▪ LBH Section 38 standards 

▪ S106 agreements 

▪ Standards for adoption from other Parties 

(check reference) 

▪ Well Maintained Highways 

▪ LBH Design Guide Manual (within LIP) 

▪ CDM and H&S standards 

▪ “Designing for maintenance” – in the 

Highways Design Guide 

Routine and Reactive Maintenance for Carriageways to maintain 

Safety and Serviceability 

At current levels of funding and condition, we rely heavily on 

routine and reactive maintenance of carriageways to keep them in a 

safe and serviceable condition. The main activities are described in 

the process descriptions, above. 

Routine maintenance activities include: 

1. Responsive maintenance 


Page 155


Repairs to defects in response to public and ad-hoc reports. 

2. Safety inspection maintenance 

Repairs of defects identified as part of our rolling programme 

of routine safety inspections. 

3. Maintenance of ironwork 

Carried out on an ad-hoc basis, largely as a result of reports by 

officers and by the public and third parties. As part of our 

proposed asset inventory survey, we are intending to collect 

condition information relating to ironwork, and as such will be 

able to, for the first time, put together a planned programme of 

road markings maintenance; the budgetary implications of this 

have yet to be assessed however, and will need to be considered 

as part of the wider asset investment planning initiatives 

described elsewhere in the HAMP. 

4. Maintenance of Road Markings 

Largely undertaken on a reactive basis in response to public 

reports and reports from officers and parking wardens. As part 

of our proposed asset inventory survey, we are intending to 

collect condition information relating to our road markings, 

and as such will be able to, for the first time, put together a 

planned programme of road markings maintenance; the 

budgetary implications of this have yet to be assessed however, 

and will need to be considered as part of the wider asset 

investment planning initiatives described elsewhere in the 


5. Winter Maintenance 

The Winter Maintenance Service involves treating the highway 

to prevent ice from forming, known as “precautionary salting” 

and to melt ice and snow already formed, “post-salting”. It is 

not practicable to carry our precautionary salting on all roads in 

the Borough because of the difficulties in providing the 

required resources. The precautionary salting of roads is carried 

out on agreed pre-determined routes comprising: 

▪ Principal Roads 

▪ Other strategic main roads 

▪ Major bus routes 

▪ Where known local icing conditions occur 

Footways are only treated once snow has settled or during 

periods of prolonged freezing conditions on a priority basis at 

locations including: 

▪ Town Centres 

▪ Hospitals 

▪ Old Peoples Homes 

▪ Day Centres 

▪ Schools (during term times only) 


Page 156


▪ Footbridges 

▪ Bus Stops 

In addition to these routine maintenance activities, we carry out 

condition assessment surveys on our local road network, with 

surveys being carried out on the principal road network by London 

Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham as part of the Road 2000 

project. 

Condition 

Monitoring of condition and identification of need in 

Monitoring 

relation to routine and reactive maintenance is 

and Need 

primarily based upon our programme of routine safety 


inspections, together with our processes for 

responding to and actioning reports of defects. 

Service 

Levels and 

Standards 

In addition, as part of the condition information to be 

held within our proposed asset inventory survey, we 

are intending to move from a purely reactive approach 

to the maintenance of lining and of iron work to a 

proactive, need-based approach, with a greater 

emphasis on planned programmes of works, and 

consequent efficiency and cost savings from working 

in such ways. 

Our highways method statements and the process 

descriptions above set out the way that we assess 

defects to determine need for action, and the exact 

nature of that action. The factors that are taken into 

account as part of this process include: 

� Standard Defect Intervention Levels 

� Road Hierarchy 

� Safety and risk assessments carried out by 

inspectors. 

Note that as part of proposals to remove the clientcontractor 

split for highway maintenance we are 

intending to delegate budgetary responsibility for 

repairs to potholes, and other small-scale works to 

Environmental Direct Services. 

The following service standards apply to carriageways: 

▪ Public standards set out on the Council’s website 

(see figure 5.5.7 below) 

▪ Internal inspection procedures and manual 

▪ An annual report to the executive committee setsout 

and agrees intervention levels for the coming 


Page 157


Option 

Appraisal 

Applicable 

Standards, 

Codes of 

Practice and 

Procedures 

year. 

Whilst we do carry out an assessment of the balance 

between the level of routine and planned maintenance 

for our highways network funding planning, as shown 

in the figure above, in practice, at the levels of funding 

that we currently operate under, there is little 

opportunity to consider different options for the level 

of routine and reactive maintenance. Such 

maintenance is primarily safety driven and therefore 

there is little opportunity to make reductions in the 

level of activity. 

The intention is that the improvements to processes 

and supporting models that will be introduced as part 

of our HAMP will enable us to make a case for 

increases in levels of funding in planned maintenance 

and a subsequent reduction in levels of routine and 

reactive maintenance, by demonstrating the 

improvements to whole life costs and longer-term 

financial benefits in taking such an approach. 

We have not considered different options for the 

intervention levels currently agreed, which are wellestablished 

and accepted both within the Council and 

by our insurers, but it may be necessary to review 

them and to consider different options in future if 

current levels of funding continue. We would also 

need to assess the possible impact of such options on 

our level of liability claims and our insurance premium. 

Well Maintained Highways 

Intervention Levels as agreed by executive committee 

Winter Maintenance Operational Plan, and the 

associated winter service policy statement. 


Page 158


London Borough of Hounslow Website – Highways Defect Intervention Levels 

Lifecycle Stage 2. Renewal or Replacement of Carriageways and 

Associated Items 

Renewal or replacement activities, to return carriageways and/or 

associated items to “as new” capacity and condition (or to current 

standards, which may be better than the original standards, given 

advancements in technology), encompasses the following: 

▪ Planned carriageway maintenance 

� Resurfacing 

� Surface Dressing 

� Thin surfacing 

� Strengthening 

� Planned patching 

� Reconstruction 

▪ Replacement of lining 

▪ Replacement of ironwork 


Page 159



of Need: 

Selection of 

Option(s): 

The identification of need for replacement or 

renewal of carriageways and associated items 

comes from a number of sources, including; 

� Condition assessment surveys, the analysis of 

which are outlined in the process description 

above 

� Local knowledge by area engineers and 

inspectors, and from other officers 

� Public and member reports 

� Reviews of the long-term programme 

� Opportunities presented to carry out works in 

conjunction with works to other asset 

components, e.g. footway works. 

Every street in the borough forms part of our 

long-term works programme with a priority for 

renewal or replacement allocated based upon 

UKPMS processing of the most recent survey 

data. Those streets with the highest priority form 

one input to the annual works programme, and 

those with the next-higher level of prioritisation 

are programmed for the next 3-5 years. This 

process will be retained and expanded as part or 

the development of our value management 

processes and associated works programming 

processes described elsewhere in the HAMP and 

our improvement plan. 

The identification of options for carriageway 

renewals or replacement schemes includes options 

for the following: 

▪ The division of overall levels of budget 

between the different treatment types 

(resurfacing, surface treatment, strengthening, 

etc..) 

▪ The locations for which treatments will take 

place 

▪ Extent of treatment at those locations 

▪ The type of treatment to carried out 

▪ The detailed design and specification of that 

treatment 

▪ If and how the carriageway works will be 

combined with works to other asset 

components 

▪ The balance between preventative maintenance 

schemes, which may not be in the worst 

condition but which are of better value, and 


Page 160


Applicable 

Standards: 

treatments to carriageways in worst condition. 

We recognise that we have to make significant 

improvements to this process over the coming 

years to establish effective asset management 

processes based upon life-cycle planning 

principles, in particular in developing a value 

management process that takes into account the 

life-cycle cost implications of various possible 

scheme options and in developing models and 

systems to support such an approach. These 

processes will also need to consider different 

options for the balance between funding of 

routine and planned maintenance, and consider 

risks in determining treatments and priorities. 

The value management process will also institute a 

more rigorous assessment of expected and actual 

treatment lives associated with treatment options. 

Our consideration of options for renewals and 

replacement is currently based upon: 

▪ Budget levels 

▪ Member input and priorities 

▪ UKPMS outputs and priorities 

▪ Engineering judgement 

▪ Public reports 

▪ Performance Indicators 

▪ UKPMS 

▪ Contract specifications 

▪ The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) 




Lifecycle Stage 3. Upgrading of Carriageways and Associated 

Items 

The upgrading of carriageway to result in improvements in the service 

provided above that provided for in its original design encompasses the 

following: 

▪ Enhancement schemes 

▪ Provision of anti-skid, special surfaces, etc. 

▪ Widening, realignment, etc. 

▪ Provision of bus lanes, cycle lanes, etc. 

▪ Lining improvements 


Page 161


▪ Safety schemes 

▪ Traffic improvement schemes 

▪ Safe routes to schools 

▪ Improvements to strength of roads to cope with Airport HGV 

traffic 


of Need: 

Selection of 

Option(s): 

Applicable 

Standards: 

The need for upgrading of carriageways is 

identified from a number of sources, including; 

� Safety and accident records 

� Bus priority routes initiatives 

� Safe routes to school initiatives 

� Traffic calming initiatives 

� New developments and “Section 106” 

upgrading 

� Street Scene audits and street enhancements 

� Heritage improvements in conservation 

areas 

� Local knowledge 

� Review of planned maintenance needs 

� Members and resident groups 

� Area initiatives inc Single Regeneration Bids 

The selection of options would largely take place 

as part of the more general initiatives listed above, 

but options to upgrade rather than to renew at the 

same standard would be considered in certain 

circumstances, to provide environmental 

improvements or as part of area-based initiatives. 

The options that are considered in such 

circumstances would include: 

� The use of materials that are of a higher 

specification or expected life, including highamenity 

materials in areas of particular need. 

For example. provision of anti-skid surfaces 

or coloured surfaces to identify bus lanes 

would be included here 

� Designing to increase the capacity of a 

particular carriageway 

The following standards to the provision of new 

carriageways: 

▪ LBH Section 38 standards 

▪ S106 agreements 

▪ Standards for adoption from other Parties 

(check reference) 


Page 162





▪ “Designing for maintenance” – in the 

Highways Design Guide 

Lifecycle Stage 4. Decommissioning and Disposal of 

Carriageways and Associated Items 

We rarely, if ever, have occasion to remove carriageways from the 

network of adopted highways. Decommissioning of carriageways 

would generally only take place in conjunction with disposal of the 

whole street which would only happen in exceptional circumstances. 

Small lengths of carriageway might be removed from the network as 

part of major developments, new developments and traffic 

improvement schemes, but change of use does not, as such, constitute 

decommissioning. 

Non-Asset Options 

Non-asset options are those that allow the performance or capacity of 

the carriageway to be adjusted by other means, including: 

▪ Managing Demand 

▪ Influencing Perception 

▪ Amend Standards & Targets 

The nature of the carriageway network is such that there are relatively 

few non-asset options available to us, but those that we would consider 

include: 

▪ Traffic management to discourage use of a particular part of the 

network – width restrictions, 20mph limits etc. 

▪ Management of expectations from customers, including the 

mechanisms for communicating with and consulting stakeholders 

and customers. 


Page 163


Footways and Cycle Tracks Lifecycle Management Plan 

Scope 

This section covers specific details on the make-up of the footway and 

cycle track network and outlines the levels of service and standards that 

users can expect to be applied to the whole life management of the 

network. As with the road network, the Council aims to maintain all 

footways and cycle tracks, which are the responsibility of the highway 

authority, to a safe and consistent standard dependant on their level of 

usage. 

The footway and cycle track asset group comprises the surface and 

structure of the Footways and Cycletracks within the Borough, both 

those associated with carriageways and those remote from 

carriageways. 


Footway Hierarchy 

Footway and Cycle Track Hierarchy is a key part of the inventory data 

and is used to reflect both pedestrian and cyclist needs, priorities and 

usage of the network by using a structured classification system which 

is detailed in the Well Maintained Highways. Footway Hierarchy will 

not necessarily be determined by the road classification, but the 

functionality of the footway and scale of use. In urban areas the 

contribution the contribution of the footway to the public space and 

street scene is particularly important. 

Category Category Name Description 

1 (a) Prestige Walking Zones Very busy areas of towns 

and cities with high public 

space and streetscene 

contribution. 

1 Primary walking Routes Busy urban shopping and 

business areas and main 

2 Secondary Walking 

Routes 

pedestrian routes. 

Medium usage routes 

through local areas feeding 

into primary routes, local 

shopping centres etc. 

3 Link Footways Linking local access 

footways through urban 

areas and busy rural roads. 

4 Local Access Footways Footways associated with 

low usage, short estate 


Page 164


Footway Hierarchies 

roads the main routes and 

cul-de-sacs. 

In assigning footways to a particular Hierarchy, the following factors 

are taken into account: 

� Pedestrian volume 

� Current usage and proposed usage 

� Accident and other risk assessment 

� Age and type of footway (e.g. old flagged footways may require 

more frequent inspection than newly laid); and 

� Character and traffic use of adjoining carriageway 

The national standard hierarchies for cycle routes, recommended in 

Well Maintained Highways have been adopted by the Council for its 

Cycle Route Hierarchy. 

Category Description 

A Cycle lane forming part of the carriageway, commonly 

1.5 metre strip adjacent to the nearside kerb. Cycle gaps 

at road closure point (no entries allowing cycle access) 

B Cycle track a highway route for cyclists not contiguous 

with the public footway or carriageway. Shared 

cycle/pedestrian paths, either segregated by a white line 

or other physical segregation, or un-segregated. 

C Cycle trails, leisure routes through open spaces. These 

are not necessarily the responsibility of the highway 

authority, but may be maintained by an authority under 

other powers or duties. 

Survey and Inspection Regimes 

Inspection of Footways 

The inspection of footways, as part of the highway network, is 

fundamental to the planning of maintenance works. It is part of a 

highway authority’s statutory duty to demonstrate that the needs of the 

highway user are being addressed in a ‘reasonable’ manner. 

The inspection regimes for footways may be different from those used 

on the carriageway of the roads on which they are situated, because 

their importance to users is different. A central shopping street, with 

pedestrian priority, would be an obvious example. 


Page 165


The inspections must always include adopted footways away from 

carriageways. An inspector on foot should undertake all footway 

inspections. This is normally held to be necessary in litigation. There 

are two types of inspection – safety and detailed inspections 

(sometimes called routine inspections). The purpose of the latter is to 

gather specific information to help evaluate design and plan routine 

maintenance work. There are several systems of inspection. 

In practical terms, not all defects can usefully be recorded in a single 

inspection. The following three inspection types are therefore 

proposed; the first two are already well established in current practice: 

1 Safety inspections - principally to identify individual defects in need 

of urgent or immediate attention. This inspection is normally carried 

out at very short intervals. 

2 Detailed inspections - to record items necessitating maintenance 

works within a short- to medium-term programme. 

3 Provision inspections - to monitor progress on achieving longerterm 

improvements in serviceability, which are achieved through traffic 

management, new works or higher-profile enforcement of relevant 

legislation. This type of inspection, relating largely to the facilities 

provision dealt with above, falls outside the maintenance brief and will 

not be addressed in further detail at this stage. 

Safety Inspections. 

Safety inspections are designed to identify all defects likely to create 

danger or serious inconvenience to users of the network or the wider 

community. Such defects include those that require urgent attention 

(within 24 hours) as well as those where the locations and sizes are 

such that longer periods of response would be acceptable. 

Safety inspection frequencies based upon categories within the network 

hierarchy are set out below. 


Page 166


Description Category Frequency 

Prestige Area 1(a) 1 Month 

Primary 

route 

walking 1 1 Month 

Secondary 

route 

walking 2 3 months 

Link Footway 3 6 months 

Local 

Footway 

Access 4 1 year 

Defect Intervention Levels 

Safety Inspection Frequencies 

All public reports of highways defects are inspected by the following 

day. Safety defects identified both from public reports and during 

routine safety inspections are assessed against intervention levels 

published on the Council’s website. 

To ensure that budgets are contained within their allocation, it is 

necessary to objectively assess the severity, nature and location of 

defects to determine if repairs are necessary. Defects will only be 

repaired if they are regarded as hazardous or serious, and in order that 

consistent standards are adopted throughout the Borough, clearly 

defined categories known as ‘intervention levels’ are set, which are set 

out below. 

Very heavily used (town centres) 15 mm trip / rocker 

Heavily used (shopping areas, 

schools, hospitals etc.) 

20 mm trip / rocker 

Frequently used (principal roads) 25 mm trip / rocker 

Other (residential roads) 25 mm trip / rocker 

Footway Defect Intervention Levels 

If the defect exceeds intervention level an order will be raised. For 

urgent orders this may be on a 1 day or 1 week priority while less 

urgent defects will be issued as four week orders. 

Condition of Footways and Cycletracks 

In England Footway Condition was identified by BVPI 187 up to 

2007/08. We are continuing to collect this as a local indicator. This 

records the percentage of Categories 1,1A and 2 footways (i.e. the most 


Page 167


important footways) each year where maintenance should be 

considered. 

The indicator is based on the collection and analysis of the national 

standard “Detailed Visual Inspection” measurements carried out on 

50% of Category 1, 1A and 2 footways each year so that complete 

network coverage will take place every 2 years. 

There is no national standard survey or Best Value Performance 

Indicator for Cycletracks or for the lesser used (Category 3 and 4) 

footways within the network. Surveys of these features take place at the 

same time as the carriageway surveys. 

There is presently no statutory indicator specifically identifying the 

condition of cycle routes but guidance on investigatory levels for cycle 

routes is provided in TRL 535 and the footway and Cycle Route 

Construction and Maintenance Guide AG26. 

As well as assessing the performance of the network through the 

various condition surveys the Council also monitors other streams of 

readily available information, such as number of defects or potholes 

made safe, customer enquiries and complaints, information collected 

during highway safety inspections. 

Footways and Cycletracks Life Cycle Management 

Lifecycle Stage 1. Creation or Acquisition of Footways and 

Cycletracks 

Hounslow’s network is a well-developed, mature network, and as such 

there are few instances of new provision. Asset creation is usually as a 

result of major works that either creates the asset where one previously 

did not exist or when improvements are made to the asset, which 

surpass it original capacity. 

Acquisitions, particularly with regard to footways, by the authority are 

mostly as a result of adopting new highways from developers. Creation 

of new highway assets by the authority is generally managed through 

the Local Implementation Plan (LIP). 

Routine and Reactive Maintenance for Footways and Cycletracks 

to maintain Safety and Serviceability 


Page 168


At current levels of funding and condition, we rely heavily on routine 

and reactive maintenance of carriageways to keep them in a safe and 

serviceable condition. Routine Maintenance is the day-to-day aspect of 

maintaining the footway and cycle track network in a safe and 

serviceable condition in accordance with the Council’s published 

intervention levels. 

Routine maintenance activities include: 

Responsive maintenance 

Repairs to defects in response to public and ad-hoc reports. 

Safety inspection maintenance 

Repairs of defects identified as part of our rolling programme of 

routine safety inspections. 

Winter Maintenance 

Footways are only treated once snow has settled or during periods of 

prolonged freezing conditions on a priority basis at locations including: 

▪ Town Centres 

▪ Hospitals 

▪ Old Peoples Homes 

▪ Day Centres 

▪ Schools (during term times only) 

▪ Footbridges 

▪ Bus Stops 

In addition to these routine maintenance activities, we carry out 

condition assessment surveys on our local road network, with surveys 

being carried out on the principal road network by London Borough of 

Hammersmith and Fulham as part of the Road 2000 project. 

General day-to-day maintenance on the footways and cycle tracks that 

is necessary to maintain them in a safe condition for users is identified 

and programmed in a timely manner in accordance with the policy on 

Highway Safety and Defect Inspections. The options and typical 

treatments available for both day-to-day maintenance and planned 

maintenance works, are determined in accordance with the following: 

Maintenance Option Typical Treatment 

Do Nothing Footway or cycle track is safe and no 

works are required 

Do Minimum Make safe with minor repairs 

Medium Life Extensive patching works 

Micro Asphalt surfacing 

Relay flags and paving 

Long Life Resurface 


Page 169


Replace flags and paving 

Reconstruction 

Improvement Change dimensions (realignment), type of 

construction, etc. Changes dependant on 

use and demand. 

Footway Maintenance & Treatment Options 

Planned maintenance works typically fall in to the Medium, Long Life 

and Improvement options identified above. These elements of 

planned maintenance are identified and used to create a proposed 

programme of works. 

The identification of need for replacement or renewal of footways and 

cycletracks and associated items comes from a number of sources, 

including; 

� Condition assessment surveys, the analysis of which are outlined 

in the process description above 

� Local knowledge by area engineers and inspectors, and from 

other officers 

� Public and member reports 

� Reviews of long-term programme 

� Opportunities presented to carry out works in conjunction with 

works to other asset components e.g. carriageway works 

Every street in the borough forms part of our long-term works 

programme with a priority for renewal or replacement allocated on the 

basis of UKPMS processing of the most recent survey data. Those 

streets with the highest priority form one input to the annual works 

programme, and those with the next-highest level of prioritisation are 

programmed for the next 3-5 years. This process will be retained and 

expanded as part or the development of our value management 

processes and associated works programming processes described 

elsewhere in the HAMP and our improvement plan. 

Lifecycle Stage 2. Renewal or Replacement of Footways and 

Cycletracks 

Renewal or replacement activities, to return footways and cycletracks to 

“as new” capacity and condition (or to current standards, which may be 

better than the original standards, given advancements in technology), 

encompasses the following: 

� Extensive patching works 

� Micro Asphalt surfacing 

� Relay flags and paving 

� Resurface 

� Replace flags and paving 


Page 170


� Reconstruction 

The identification of options for renewals or replacement schemes 

considers the following: 

� The division of overall levels of budget between the different 

treatment types (resurfacing, surface treatment, strengthening 

etc.) 

� The locations for which treatments will take place 

� Extent of treatment at those locations 

� The type of treatment to carried out 

� The detailed design and specification of that treatment 

� If and how the carriageway works will be combined with works 

to other asset components 

� The balance between preventative maintenance schemes, which 

may not be in the worst condition, but which are of better value, 

and treatments to carriageways in worst condition. 

We recognise that we have to make significant improvements to this 

process over the coming years to establish effective asset management 

processes based upon life-cycle planning principles, in particular in 

developing a value management process that takes into account the 

life-cycle cost implications of various possible scheme options and in 

developing models and systems to support such an approach. These 

processes will also need to consider different options for the balance 

between funding of routine and planned maintenance, and consider 

risks in determining treatments and priorities. 

The value management process will also institute a more rigorous 

assessment of expected and actual treatment lives associated with 

treatment options. 

Our consideration of options for renewals and replacement is currently 

based upon: 

� Budget levels 

� Member input and priorities 

� UKPMS outputs and priorities 

� Engineering judgement 

� Public reports 

� Performance Indicators 

Lifecycle Stage 3. Upgrading of Footways and Cycletracks 

The upgrading of footways and cycletracks, to result in improvements 

in the service above that provided for in its original design 

encompasses the following: 



Page 171


▪ Provision of special surfaces, etc. 

▪ Widening, realignment, etc. 

▪ Safety schemes 

▪ Traffic improvement schemes 

▪ Safe routes to schools 

The need for upgrading of footways and cycletracks is identified from a 

number of sources, including: 

� Safety and accident records 

� Bus priority routes initiatives 

� Safe routes to school initiatives 

� Traffic calming initiatives 

� New developments and “Section 106” upgrading 

� Street Scene audits and street enhancements 

� Heritage improvements in conservation areas 

� Local knowledge 

� Review of planned maintenance needs 

� Members and resident groups 

� Area initiatives inc Single Regeneration Bids 


Page 172


Lifecycle Stage 4. Decommissioning and Disposal of Footways 

and Cycletracks 

We rarely, if ever, have occasion to remove footways and cycletracks 

from the network of adopted highways. Decommissioning would 

generally only take place in conjunction with disposal of the whole 

street which would only happen in exceptional circumstances. Small 

lengths of might be removed from the network as part of major 

developments, new developments and traffic improvement schemes, 

but change of use does not, as such, constitute decommissioning. 

Due to the legal status of the highway network it is not possible to 

dispose of any footway or cycle track without due legal process. As 

with roads the process involves the issuing of a stopping-up order 

under either Section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 

or Section 116 of Highways Act 1980, when a highway is designated as 

no longer being maintainable at the public expense. This is a process 

that requires consultation with those affected and often takes several 

years. 

However there is also provision under the Countryside & Rights of 

Way Act 2000 to allow for the closure or diversion of footways, cycle 

tracks and public rights of way (PROW) for crime prevention reasons. 

Under these provisions, the highway authority must make a submission 

to the Secretary of State requesting that the area surrounding the 

footway be designated as a ‘High Crime Area’. The inclusion of a path 

within a designated area then enables the highway authority to make a 

public path closure order. It will only be possible to close a route on 

the grounds of crime prevention if it lies within a designated area. 

These powers are only applicable to a small number of paths, which are 

generally remote from the highway or road network. Prior to 

embarking on such a closure it must be proved that there is a clear link 

between the existence of the path and persistently high levels of crime. 

It also has to be considered that the closure of a footpath may 

inconvenience many legitimate users and as such the Government has 

stressed that these powers should only be used as a last resort. 

Non-Asset Options 

Non-asset options are those that allow the performance or capacity of 

the carriageway to be adjusted by other means, including: 

▪ Managing Demand 

▪ Influencing Perception 

▪ Amend Standards & Targets 


Page 173


The nature of the carriageway network is such that there are relatively 

few non-asset options available to us, but those that we would consider 

include 

▪ Management of expectations from customers, including the 

mechanisms for communicating with and consulting 

stakeholders and customers. 


Page 174


Street Environment Lifecycle Plan 

Scope 

This section of the Asset Management Plan deals with 

� Street Trees 

� Grass verges and other grassed and shrub areas. 

� Hanging baskets and flower beds 


The street trees, verges and shrub areas play an essential role in 

ensuring that our streets are attractive and pleasant places for the 

people of the borough to use. Not only do they improve the quality of 

the borough’s streets but they are also fundamental living resources, 

needed to counteract environmental problems such as air pollution. 

A key challenge is ensuring that these resources are managed to balance 

the need to invest, particularly in the tree stock, in order to preserve the 

integrity and value of physical assets against the need to provide a high 

quality service to our customers. 

Ensuring that our town centres are vibrant and enjoyable spaces means 

that a high quality environment using attractive plants will ensure that 

the perception of the borough will increase. 

These valuable assets are a living part of the street scene and therefore 

have to be cared for and managed appropriately. 

The borough is encouraging the Cleaner Safer Greener agenda and by 

managing our grounds maintenance and street trees correctly we can 

enhance the street scene and subsequently the environmental quality of 

the borough. 

Trees in particular also play a vital role in urban wild life and therefore 

feed into sustainability and biodiversity issues. 

The street trees and highway ground maintenance area has recently 

been put out to tender. The process reviewed the old specification, 

which historically has been under-funded for many years and this 

resulted in the borough having poor quality shrub areas and a back log 

of tree maintenance of 8 years. 

The re-tendering process meant the specification could be written to 

deal with the historical funding issues and poor shrub maintenance the 

borough has received over the last 8 years. 


Page 175


Inventory 

Street Trees 

The tendering process also revealed that the service was not funded 

adequately to get the quality service the borough needs. 

We have received additional one off funding to assist the service in 

2005 –2006 and 2006 – 2007. 

In 2005 –06 this was used to reduce all of the shrub areas in height, 

remove all litter and rubbish from the sites and regenerate the 

vegetation. It also allowed us to provide works to a considerable 

number of trees using the new regime developed as part of the retendering 

process. 

There are some 10,094 street trees within the borough. Of these 2,666 

are lime trees and plane trees which are worked upon every three years. 

There are also 2,374 trees that are a variety of Prunus (flowering / fruit 

trees), and a considerable amount of Ash (340) and Maples (1,047). 

The rest of the street tree stock is made up of a variety of other species. 

Tree sizes are as follows: 

Very large Large Medium Small 

1,066 1,820 3,719 3,489 

Highway Grounds Maintenance Assets 

Shrub beds 46,663sqm 

Flower beds 47sqm 

Grass 483,432sqm 

Hedges 5841sqm 

Rose beds 470sqm 


The adopted approach for tree management in the borough is based 

around a three year cycle. This commences with a full survey of all 

street trees and follows with prioritised pruning operations. 


Page 176


Urgent 

High risk 

Decayed, dead, dying, 

diseased 

Seriously overgrown 

Year 1 

April 2005 – March 2006 

Non Urgent 

Years 

Medium Risk 

Future Encroachment likely 2-3 April 2006 – March 2008 

Pruning to reduce future risk 

Good Pruning Practice 

Low risk 

No work required - resurvey in three 

years 

Table – Tree Management Cyclical Timetable 

The lime and plane trees have particular issues and therefore are 

subject to a different regime of being crown reduced every three years. 

This break down to a third of the stock of limes and planes is worked 

upon every year. 

Trees are also worked upon if there is an immediate health and safety 

issue or a specific reason and this will be through instruction from the 

Community Environment Team. 

The shrub areas were identified as being in poor condition and have 

received regeneration works in 2005 – 2006. This has entailed cutting 

shrubs back to approximately 800mm in height. 

The tree stock in Hounslow is in predominantly fair to good health, 

with some 9,073 trees falling into the categories of Fair, Good and 

Excellent and only 562 which are classified as poor; the figure below 

illustrates this point. 


Page 177


Overview of current approach 

Verges 

Shrubs 

Grass verges are cut 15 times per year and obstacles strimmed 15 times 

per year. 

Each time the verges are cut the litter is removed first. 

47,205 linear metres are winter edged each year. 

Shrubs are pruned twice a year to a height of no greater than 1m. This 

work takes place in May to September – a light prune of current season 

growth to maintain sight lines; then a winter prune in October to 

March which is a hard prune to reduce height. 

Other Routine works 

This includes weed spraying, removing litter, maintenance of hedges 

and rose beds and also any flowers and summer bedding. 

Town centres 

Tree Survey 

The town centres have a higher specification, the area included is a 

500m radius around the town centres. 

This includes 20 grass cuts and strim to all obstacles. Shrubs will be 

pruned twice per year and weed spraying occurs 7 times per year. 

The street trees will be surveyed every three years; this is good 

arboricultural practice and also assists with mitigation for insurance 

claims. 

Lime and Plane trees 

These trees receive crown reduction every three years. 


Page 178


Other street trees. 

The survey generates work based on the criteria as above 

590 trees have basal growth removed every year. 

Stump removal is usually carried out a couple of days after the tree’s 

removal. 

Data and Systems 

The assets were mapped in 2003/04. The changes are made by CIP 

who keep the systems up to date. CIP use Confirm. An aspiration is 

that the Community Environment Team have read-only immediate 

access to this system. 

Contractual mechanisms 

Grounds Maintenance and street trees went out to tender in the spring 

of 2005 and the contracts were awarded to CIP in August 2005. The 

contract is for 5 years with a 2 year extension. 


The draft tree strategy is written and forms the basis for current 

practice but has not yet been formally adopted as policy. 

The specification is clear and useable; it also states various standards 

that the Contractor must be accredited with or working towards, e.g. 

ISO 9001 and be approved by the Arboricultural Association. 

Arboricultural work is carried out to the British Standards that are 

appropriate for the works. 


When a tree has to be removed we advise the residents that are 

immediately affected and also the Ward Councillors. However, if it is 

an emergency and we cannot inform residents prior to the removal, we 

advise the Ward Councillors in retrospect. 

When the work towards the draft Tree Strategy was initiated a survey 

was placed in the HM magazine to establish the views of residents on 

street trees. 


Page 179



Page 180


Area 

Table - Summary Of Survey Results 

Both CIP and the Community Environment Team are working 

towards getting ISO 9001 accreditation and this will include regular 

Customer Satisfaction surveys. 

National and Local PIs 

There are currently no performance indicators for this area. However 

the Contractor and Community Environment team are working 

towards putting sensible informative Performance Indicators in place. 


Chiswick 

Nos. 

Isleworth & 

Brentford 

Nos. 


Central 

Nos. 

Heston & 

Cranford 

Nos. 

Highway Grounds Maintenance and Street Trees 

The Community Environment Officers monitor the routine works. If 

issues are raised these are discussed with the Team Leaders from CIP 

and resolved. If the matter cannot be resolved at this level it is 

discussed at the monthly Contract meetings. 

West 

Nos. 

Trees are dealt with as shown in the process diagram below 

Total Nos. 

Trees 3163 1914 1890 1893 1361 10221 

Population 31409 41659 42631 44047 52595 212341 

Properties 13990 18422 16148 15711 22633 86904 

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No 

Do you like trees 

in an urban 

environment? 

Do you live in a 

road with trees in 

it? 

If yes would you 

like the trees to 

remain 

Should the larger 

trees be lowered 

more frequently? 

Should the 

Council be guided 

by resident’s 

views? 

Should the 

Council act as 

guardian for the 

future? 

Are you interested 

in being a Tree 

Warden 

162 5 159 3 113 5 68 1 110 4 612 18 

165 2 123 34 73 41 56 12 78 35 495 124 

114 38 110 19 77 39 50 7 64 19 415 122 

96 67 66 86 71 49 30 35 47 52 310 289 

150 12 135 19 99 16 56 9 93 8 533 64 

151 12 148 9 115 3 63 3 104 4 581 31 

80 75 73 77 52 66 35 32 49 53 289 303 


Page 181


Hierarchy 

As mentioned the town centres have a slightly higher specification. 

The areas involved are Hounslow Town Centre, Chiswick High Road, 

Brentford High Street, Hounslow West and Feltham High Street. 

The lime trees and plane trees are worked upon every three years – a 

third of the stock per year. This is a rolling programme of maintenance. 


Page 182


Lifecycle Stage 1. Creation or Acquisition of Street Trees and 

Amenity Areas 

All new street trees and amenity area assets created on the highway are 

funded through Capital investment where need has been identified. 

These assets may be created from 

� adoption of new roads from housing and business developments. 

� local environmental improvement schemes, 

� sponsorship 

� S106, Area Committee capital. 

� highway improvement schemes. 

The street trees, verges and shrub areas play a essential role in ensuring 

that our streets are attractive and pleasant places for the people of the 

borough to use. Not only do they improve the quality of the borough’s 

streets but they are also fundamental living resources, needed to 

counteract environmental problems such as air pollution. 

A key challenge is ensuring that these resources are managed to balance 

the need to invest, particularly in the tree stock, in order to preserve the 

integrity and value of physical assets against the need to provide a high 

quality service to our customers. 

Ensuring that our town centres are vibrant and enjoyable spaces means 

that a high quality environment using attractive plants should be 

achieved so that the perception of the borough will increase. 

This can be achieved by identification of need through the following 

processes. 

▪ Adoption for new development 

▪ Area improvements 

▪ Street Scene Improvement (“Greening the Borough”) 

▪ Resident request 

▪ Member requests 

▪ Enhancement programme (evaluation of planned highway 

maintenance, and traffic schemes for “extra over” improvements) 

Selection of Option (s) 

The criteria for selection are based upon the following: 

▪ Housing or business development adoptions, where the developers 

would have been required to follow Hounslow defined standards 

▪ Street Scene Design Guide (Draft) where, 

▪ Health and Safety 


Page 183


▪ Tree Strategy (currently in draft form), that prescribes the 

maintenance regime that LBH is working towards, together with 

recommending suitability of species for the streets. 

▪ Consultation with members of the public 

▪ Long-term maintainability 

Application of Standards 

Environmental Protection Act 1990 

EPA 1990 Code of Practice for Litter and refuse 

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 

Cleaner Safer Greener 

Routine and Reactive Maintenance 

Routine maintenance to trees will be through two streams - either 

maintenance to limes and planes or work generated through the survey 

as described above. 

There is a drive-by survey every six months to identify any dead, dying 

or dangerous / diseased trees and this is also being recorded on 

Confirm. 

This is intended to pick up any problem. However, emergencies do 

occur and there is an immediate call-out to deal with the problem if 

required. 

Storms can also cause considerable problems and any trees that are 

damaged will take priority over planned works. 

Basal growth and low branches are also removed once a year. The basal 

growth schedule colour codes importance of area so these get done as 

a priority, e.g. sight lines near a hospital entrance. 

Shrub areas are subject to regeneration; in 2005 – 2006 all of the shrub 

areas have been reduced to 800mm as a method to regenerate the 

shrubs. The borough has a considerable amount of old shrub beds and 

the contract specification requires 2% of the shrub area to be replanted 

each year. 

Condition Monitoring and Need Identification 

The Street Tree Strategy explains the approach that we aspire to take 

towards our street tree stock. We have incorporated many of the issues 

raised in the Strategy into the specification and decisions are now made 

based on the species of tree, e.g. lime and plane trees. These species are 

crown reduced which is a viable way of managing a large spreading tree 


Page 184


in today’s urban environment. Only certain species can tolerate the 

large loss of leaf area, usually resulting in vigorous re-growth which will 

require re-pruning in 2-3 years. Currently we have a 3 year programme 

in place - an aspiration based on resources available would be to have a 

2 year programme for limes and planes. 

The survey will then prioritise other works. 

Health and Safety concerns are always inspected by the Contractor and 

appropriate action carried out. 

As part of the inventory gathering exercise grass verges will be 

classified as being poor, fair or good condition. 

The Tree Warden scheme is a tool to train residents to identify issues 

and report them to the contractor. 

Lifecycle Stage 2. Renewal or Replacement 

▪ Planned maintenance 

▪ Replacement, e.g. grass for mulch, shrubs for grass etc.) 

▪ Surface Dressing 

▪ Re-seeding/returfing 

▪ Felled trees – replacement in near location 

Identification of Need 

▪ Environmental improvements (greening of the borough) 

▪ Condition assessment 

▪ Local knowledge 

▪ Public and member reports 

▪ Review of long-term programme 

▪ Opportunity to carry out works in conjunction with e.g. footway 

works 

Selection of Option(s): 

Decisions based on: 

▪ Budget levels 

▪ Member input 

▪ judgement 

▪ Public reports 

▪ Service levels 

▪ Value management 

▪ Inc. Risk assessment 

▪ Tree Survey 


Page 185


Options: 

▪ Different species or material 

▪ Fitness for purpose 

▪ Location (e.g. buried services) 

▪ Site conditions 

▪ Extent of treatment 

Applicable Standards 

▪ BS3998:1989 Recommendations for Tree Work 

▪ Arboricultural Association Approved Contractor 

▪ AAIS Arboriculture Research Note 48 Definition of the best 

pruning position 

▪ Refer to Highway and Arboricultural Maintenance Services 

Contract for specific Health and Safety requirements 

Lifecycle Stage 3 - Upgrading 


▪ Provision of more trees in same location (greening the street) 

▪ Seasonal planting 

▪ Focus on maintainability 

Identification of Need: 

▪ Environmental improvements (greening of the borough) 

▪ Condition assessment 

▪ Local knowledge 

▪ Public and member reports 

▪ Review of long-term programme 

▪ Opportunity to carry out works in conjunction with e.g. footway 

works 

Selection of Option(s) 

▪ Need for maintainability 

▪ Consultation 

▪ Area Committees 

Applicable Standards 

▪ BS3998:1989 Recommendations for Tree Work 

▪ Arboricultural Association Approved Contractor 


Page 186


▪ AAIS Arboriculture Research Note 48 Definition of the best 

pruning position 

▪ Refer to Highway and Arboricultural Maintenance Services 

Contract for specific Health and Safety requirements 

Lifecycle Stage 4 Removal, Decommissioning or disposal. 

Healthy trees are not removed unless there is a specific reason that 

means there is no other option but to remove the tree. This is always 

signed off by the Director of Street Management and Public 

Protection. If the tree is removed because of development, the 

developer has to contribute trees to compensate the borough for the 

removal. Reasons for removing a healthy tree are safety of pedestrians, 

safety of vehicles, thinning out for improvements to street scene, 

insurance issues, to allow for disabled access (a crossover). It is unlikely 

that a street will have all trees removed in one go. However, if the trees 

are diseased it would be necessary. 

If a tree is dead, dying or dangerous the tree will be removed as quickly 

as is required. If urgent the tree will be removed immediately and the 

Community Environment team informed in retrospect. If the tree is 

found to be dying but safe for the immediate future it will stay in situ 

for a planned removal. 

How is the need for disposal identified? 

� The tri annual survey of street trees 

� The DDD twice yearly inspection 

� Residents requests 

� Tree Warden 

� Ad hoc consideration, for example if an area was heavily 

parked we many consider reducing the size of the grass 

verge and hard paving the edges to reduce damage to 

verges. It is unlikely that we would remove the grass verge. 

Consultation/information process. 

Residents and Ward Councillors are advised. Each tree removal is 

approved by the Director of SMPP except in urgent and emergency 

cases. 

Unfortunately we are not able to replace where a tree has been 

removed due to issues surrounding the quality of the soil or disease. 

We are also unable to replant at a rate that is suitable for a growing 

healthy tree stock that will be beneficial to the borough now and in 

future generations. This shortfall needs to be addressed through 


Page 187


additional resources. Additional resources do come from area 

Committees however the sponsorship of trees needs to be driven 

forward. 

Lifecycle Stage 4. Removal, Decommissioning or disposal 

▪ Rarely if ever 

▪ Health, dead or dying 

▪ Safety/risk 

▪ To facilitate pedestrian or vehicle movement 

▪ Thinning out for improvement purposes 

▪ To allow disabled access (crossovers) 

▪ No whole street removal of trees 

▪ Removal of verges for footway parking 

Non-Asset Options: 

▪ Communication and consultation to manage demand 

▪ Area committees 

▪ Tree strategy – looking at dedicated resources 

▪ Monitoring of statutory undertakers 

Identification of Need: 

▪ Management of expectations – feedback from residents panel 

▪ Leaflets 

▪ Articles in HM magazine 


Page 188


Lighting Lifecycle Management Plan 

Introduction to Street Lighting 

Street lighting is a part Highways Services Group of the Street 

Management and Public Protection Department, and is located within 

the Infrastructure Team. 

Street lighting is responsible for the maintenance, repair and 

management of all lamp columns and illuminated signs erected on the 

adopted public highway that is maintained as part of the SMPP 

department. It also has the responsibility for the maintenance of all 

non-illuminated signs and street nameplates. 

Electricity Suppliers 

Scottish and Southern are the DNO for Hounslow; they provide all 

new electricity supplies for lighting columns and feeder pillars from the 

Utilities Low Voltage cable network that exists throughout the 

Borough. The DNO will maintain these cables free of charge. 

99% of the illuminated signs are supplied by Hounslow’s private cable 

network. The Authority is responsible for the maintenance and repair 

of these cables. 

Physical Attributes 

This asset grouping consists of street lights, illuminated street furniture, 

subway lights, feeder pillars and belisha beacons including private 

cables networks which supply these units where they are not directly 

connected to the regional electricity supply. 

Lighting columns - are of various types and height between 4.5 metres 

and 12 metres, the columns are supplied from different manufacturers 

but are predominantly mild steel manufactured by CORUS meeting 

specification type G2a. 

The main light source is High Pressure sodium (SON) that will 

eventually replace the Low Pressure Sodium (SOX) lamps, 99% of 

street lights are switched on and off by the use of an electronic 

photoelectric cell set at 70 lux switch on in the evening and 35 lux 

switch off in the morning 

Illuminated signs – include all signs that require illumination the signs 

are either mounted upon a dedicated freestanding post or attached to a 


Page 189


Inventory 

lamp column, all illuminated signs are externally lit and predominantly 

use a PL compact florescent light source, the majority of illuminated 

signs are switched on and off by the use of an electronic photoelectric 

cell set at 70 lux switch on in the evening and 35 lux switch off in the 

morning 

Non-illuminated signs – includes the reactive and maintenance of all 

non-illuminated signs including street nameplates, the inventory of 

non-illuminated signs is currently out of date, it is anticipated that a full 

inventory of all signs will be completed within the next 12 months 

A complete inventory of the street lighting assets was completed in 

2003, the inventory is GIS based and is located on the CONFIRM data 

base, positions of the street lighting units are displayed on the highways 

register. The inventory was subject to comprehensive validation and 

quality checking to prepare for the PFI contract. 

The figure and tables below show: 

1. Screen shot of Confirm GIS database overlaid on Highways 

register 

2. Asset by area committee 

3. Asset by road hierarchy 

4. light source and column type by area committee 


Page 190


Screen shot of Confirm GIS database overlaid on Highways register 

Centre 

Island 

Street 

Lights 

School 

Crossing 

Flashers 

Illuminate 

d Signs 

Belisha 

Beacons 

Feeder 

Pillars 

Safety 

Bollards 

Columns 

Area 

Chiswick 2111 43 2 441 50 53 213 2913 

Heston & 

Cranford 

3212 67 9 296 24 78 263 3949 

Isleworth & 

Brentford 

3570 75 2 468 42 107 317 4581 

Central 


2951 34 2 480 15 89 211 3782 

West 4485 61 11 518 25 124 364 5588 

No code 

allocated 

99 99 

TOTAL 16428 280 26 2203 156 451 1368 20912 

BPRN 

39.35 Km 

Road Class Columns 

Classified B Roads 

14Km 

Classified C Roads 

30.5Km 

Unclassified Local Roads 

345.9 K 

Back Lanes 

4.6Km 

Street Lighting Assets by Area 

Centre 

Island 

Street 

Lights 

School 

Crossing 

Flashers 

Illuminated 

Signs 

Belisha 

Beacons 

Feeder 

Pillars 

Safety 

Bollards 

1648 168 0 429 87 236 583 3151 

559 9 6 74 5 16 50 719 

1156 19 2 157 11 34 96 1475 

12869 81 18 1521 51 160 624 15324 

196 3 0 22 2 5 15 243 

TOTAL 16428 280 26 2203 156 451 1368 20912 

Totals 

Totals 


Page 191


Column 

Concret 

e 

Column 

Street Lighting Assets by Area 

Other 

Steel 

Location 

Area 

Chiswick 1997 0 114 2111 553 1498 37 23 

Heston & 

Cranford 

3208 0 4 3212 432 2399 194 

211 

Isleworth & 

Brentford 

3512 0 58 3570 449 2862 187 

95 

Central 


2948 0 3 2951 242 2364 272 

225 

West 4485 0 0 4485 464 4003 9 39 

No code 

allocated 

99 0 0 99 

TOTAL 16249 0 179 16428 2140 13126 699 593 

Maintenance Contracts 

Total 

Street Lighting Types by Area 

1. Street Lighting Maintenance contract - Maintaining Lighting and 

Signing 

2. Street Lighting New Works Term Contract 2005 - 2010 

The street lighting in Hounslow is currently maintained by 

Environmental Direct Services Streetlighting. The contract is 

managed as a service level agreement; this allows maximum 

flexibility in response to ever changing demands and political 

agendas. 

The contract is intended to be benchmarked against other street 

lighting maintenance term contractors to guarantee that best value is 

provided by EDS throughout the term of the agreement. 

The contract is performance based with Environmental Direct 

Services Streetlighting being paid in proportion to the service they 

provide as set out in the table below. 

Standard Performance Level (%) Performance Factor to be applied 

percentage of lamp columns to the Contractors monthly 

working 

payment for Maintain in Lighting 

and Signing 

99 1.05 

98 1.00 

97 0.97 

96 0.95 

95 0.90 


SOX 

SON 

Other 

Total 

Page 192


94 0.75 

93 0.50 

A feedback form is used to gain opinions of the service provided by 

the street lighting section. 20 members of the public who have made 

contact with the Council specifically to report a defective streetlight 

are sent a feedback form requesting their opinion of the service 

provided by the Council when initially identifying their original 

request and subsequently when they repair the defect. The results 

show that, on average, 85% of users are very satisfied with the 

service provided 

The contract includes the maintenance and reactive maintenance of 

all illuminated street furniture and non illuminated signs erected on 

adopted public highway (excluding car park ticket machines and 

signing) as listed below 

� Street lighting. 

� Illuminated signs and signposts. 

� Non-Illuminated signs and signposts. 

� Illuminated bollards. 

� Floodlighting for Zebra Crossings 

� Pedestrian Refuge Centre Island Columns and luminaries. 

� Zebra Pedestrian Crossing Flashing Beacon posts and 

luminaries. 

� School Patrol warning luminaries. 

� Private, Employer owned underground supply cables. 

� Feeder Pillars. 

The service level agreement titled “Maintaining Lighting and 

Signing” includes the services listed below. 

� Routine Maintenance. 

� Emergency Works Service. (Call-Outs) 

� Planned Maintenance. 

� Customer Service. 

� Performance and Night-time Inspections (Night Scouting) 

� Planned Electrical Testing & Inspecting. 

� Provision of computer equipment, hardware, software, 

communications and maintenance 

� New complete sign lighting luminaries. 

The Authorities Street Lighting New Works Term Contractor is 

used in the installation of new streetlights and illuminated signs and 

includes 

� Planned painting works. 


Page 193


� The supply and installation of: 

o New lighting schemes. 

o New traffic schemes. 

o New complete street lighting luminaries. 

o New complete luminaries. 

o New complete illuminated bollards. 

� Underground private cabling/re-cabling works (excluding 

those repairs to private cables included within Maintain in 

Lighting and Signing) 

� Park lighting and signs 

� Housing Estate external lighting and signs. 

� Private power supplies to car parking ticket machines. 

Full detailed specification of routine, non-routine and new works 

can be found in the Street Lighting Term New works and 

Maintenance Contract 2005 – 2010 and Part 6 Maintaining Lighting 

in Signing 

Condition of Current Lighting Stock 

Hounslow currently has 16,428 lamp columns; over 23% of the total 

lighting column stock is aged greater than 30 years and a further 

20% has an age between 21 and 30 years. Concerns have been raised 

about the integrity, safety and cost of maintenance of these old 

lighting columns. 

Since about 1990, there has been a general downward pressure on 

revenue budgets, resulting in a continual systematic reduction in the 

amount of resources available to carry out inspections, maintenance 

and renewal programmes at optimal level. 

A non-destructive sample test was carried out in 2003/2004 and 

2004/2005 on 2000 randomly selected samples of tubular steel 

lighting columns predominantly 5 metres in height and over 30 years 

old. Those with potential to have known faults were given a top-totoe 

assessment above and below ground level to determine the risk 

of collapse in accordance; 96 columns were in such a condition that 

it was deemed prudent to remove them from service immediately. 

A further 791 lighting columns are in a state that requires 

replacement within two years, these were replaced from funding 

made available over the financial periods of 2006/07 and 2007/08. 


Page 194


In the financial period of 2008/09 capital funding was secured 

enabling Hounslow to replace another 571 tubular steel lighting 

columns predominantly 5 metres in height and over 30 years old. 

From the analysis of the results and extrapolation it is estimated that 

2,456 columns of 5 metre high and over 30 years old should 

be replaced within two years allowing an uplift of 25% to enhance 

to ISO design standard BS 5489 / BS EN 13201 which will improve 

the level and quality of lighting in the Borough to European lighting 

standards. Of these 2,456 columns a total of 1,458 have now been 

replaced, this leaves 998 columns still requiring replacement. 

There are a further 1,285 lighting columns between 6 and 10 metres 

high that are over 30 years old and 3,261 lighting columns of various 

heights that are over 20 years old. In 2008 Hounslow carried out a 

non-destructive sample test on 804 of these columns situated on 

traffic routes, 16 columns were in such a condition that it was 

deemed prudent to remove them from service immediately, these 

columns were replaced with new with the remainder going into a 3 

year retesting programme. 

The PFI contract will ensure that all of our street lighting columns 

are compliant with current standards for condition and design 

within 5 years. 


Page 195


Street Lighting Lifecycle Management 

Creation and Acquisition (Why do we provide Street Lighting) 

Street Lighting is not a statutory provision. Local Authorities are 

able to install street lighting on the public highway under the 

Highways Act 1966 

Succeeding the Local Government Act 1966, The Highways Act 

1980 reaffirmed our powers, as the highway authority, to install and 

operate street lighting on highways, footpaths, etc. maintained at 

public expense. 

Although there is no statutory duty on a highway authority to 

provide street lighting, we do have a duty of care to maintain our 

existing lighting stock in a safe condition, and to ensure the 

equipment is fit for the purpose. 

Additionally, a highway authority has a duty to ensure the safety of 

the highway. 

This could, arguably, include the provision of street lighting where 

there is a demonstrable night time accident problem. 

Most of the roads and footpaths in Hounslow already have street 

lighting; it is the policy of this Authority to provide street lighting on 

all newly adopted highways. 

If a new road is to be adopted by the Authority the following steps 

are considered during the design and installation of the street 

lighting and illuminated signing: 

Road Category, Pedestrian usage, Location, Environment and 

Surroundings with careful consideration of the street lighting design 

will be maintained over the next 30 years. 

From this a lighting design is developed with the aim of 

encompassing the lighting of all types of highways and public 

thoroughfares, assisting traffic safety and ease of passage for all 

users at night time. It also has a wider social role, helping to reduce 

crime and the fear of crime, and can contribute to commercial and 

social use at night of town centres and tourist locations. 

Road lighting should reveal all the features of the road and traffic 

that are important to the different types of road user, including 

pedestrians and police. 

Routine and Reactive Maintenance 


Page 196


The “Maintaining Lighting and Signing” Service level agreement 

includes the following annual cyclic routine and non-routine 

schedules including: 

� Annual Cleaning and condition assessment of all street lighting 

columns and luminaries 

� Annual Bulk Change of all street lighting lamps in a 2-4 yearly 

cycle depending upon lamp type 

� Electrical testing of all illuminated street furniture in a 6 yearly 

cycle 

� Routine night time inspections of all illuminated street furniture 

� Annual cleaning and condition assessment of all illuminated 

signs and bollards 

� Annual Bulk Change of all illuminated sign lamps on a 12month 

cycle 

� Structural testing of all street lighting and illuminated sign 

columns after 20-25 years 

� Visual condition assessment when carrying out any of above 

annually 

� Update inventory as and when required 

Reactive Maintenance (scope of works) 

The reactive and pro-active day to day maintenance, repair and/or 

replacement of all missing, damaged, defective and faulty equipment 

and component parts, appertaining to all items of illuminated and 

non-illuminated street furniture on the public highway. 

Night Inspections 

The maintenance contractor completes a night time inspection of all 

illuminated furniture; the current frequency is 8 inspections per 

column per year; it is hoped to increase the frequency from 

September 2005 to 13 inspections per annum, cost permitting. 

Information 

All lamp columns in residential roads have an information label 

advising of how to report a faulty lamp column; these labels are 

currently out of date with the incorrect telephone number; it is 

hoped to renew these labels during 2005/06. 

Consideration of Options 

Hounslow’s policy for street lighting maintenance is proactive and 

planned; it is considered that an efficient planned maintenance 

regime will keep the street lighting asset working at maximum 


Page 197


efficiency for the duration of its life; a well managed routine 

maintenance regime will also extend the life of an asset and save 

money in the long term. 

Hounslow currently repairs the majority of all street lighting faults 

within 3 days and illuminated sign faults within 3 days. Our 

Emergency Service call out is within 1 hour during office hours and 

2 hours at all other times. 

These response times and efficient planned maintenance regimes 

enable the service lighting service to have 99.49% of the street lights 

working at any one time (figures taken from LPI 72 2008/09) 


Page 198


EDS lighitng 

emergency call out 

make safe 

Job complete 

Asset checked on site 

for attribute accuracy 

and location 

Aseet accuracy 

correct 

Asset text attributes 

updated by EDS and 

Client 

Finish 

Start 

Defect reported to 

call centre 

Flare raised to street 

lighting to attend 

fault 

Defect requires urgent 

response 

Flare passed to Street 

lighitng to attend 

defect 

Asset identified on 

confirm data base 

and order raised to 

EDS 

EDS attend defect 

with contracted 

response times 

Defect 

completed 

Job signed of by 

EDS 

works inspected by 

Client 

Inspection ok 

Finish 

Defect report raised by 

EDS indentifing further 

works ouside of contract 

scope 

Street Light loss 

of supply 

Works will be completed by eds 

under new works contract ie rep 

lantern, 

Rasie order to New 

works term 

contractor and SEC 

Works completed by 

SEC TC 

Measurement sheets 

completed by TC 

Works inspected 

By engineer 

Works and MS 

satifactory 

Invoices paid 

Street Light Fault Reporting Process 

Order raised to 

Southern Electric to 

restore supply under 

ofgem agreement 

Electric service 

provived by SEB 

Payment requested 

by SEC 

Supply restored under 

terms condiiton of 

maintenance contract 

Works rectifeid by 

Client 


Page 199


Refer to flow chart 

for fault reporting 

Refer to flow chart 

for fault reporting 

Street Lighting Performance Monitoring Process 

Condition Monitoring and Risk Assessment (how do we asses the 

condition of existing lamp columns) 

Start 

Night time 

inspection of 12.5 % 

of street lights 

EDS list all faults 

found during patrol 

Engineer identifies 

all 3 rd party faults 

Loss of supply by 

DNO 

Calculate number of defects as 

percentage minimum of 98 % of 

street lights working for full payment 

Contractor Paid 1/ 

12 of annual 

contract value for the 

month 

The age of the column and areas of possible problems primarily 

determine Hounslow’s Condition monitoring and risk assessment, 

these are identified during the planned routine structural 

inspections. 

During the planned maintenance routines through out the year all 

columns are visually inspected for degradation and corrosion, from 

this information together with the age of the column a dedicated 

structural inspection of the column is undertaken. 

Refer to 

BVPI 215 A 

Refer to LPI 72 


Page 200


The structural inspections measure the metal thickness of the 

column above and below ground level to determine the risk of 

structural collapse in accordance with guidance from BS5649 / 

EN40 and the Institution of Lighting Engineers TR22 (2002) 

lighting columns and sign posts planned inspection regimes. 

From the structural test a matrix is completed to identify the 

likelihood and severity of risk. It is generally considered that a 

column with over 50% loss of thickness is likely to indicate that 

replacement of the column is required in the near future, while a 

loss of 25% of thickness should be carefully and frequently 

monitored if not replaced 

LOR IOSH level of danger 

5 Almost certain 

4 Very likely 

3 Likely 

2 Possible 

1 Unlikely 

0 Zero to very low 

SOR IOSH level of danger 

5 Fatality/Disabling 

4 Major Injury/Illness 

3 ‘3’ Day Injury/Illness 

2 Minor Injury/Illness 

1 Very Unlikely Injury/Illness 

0 None 

Risk assessment – Column degradation 

Risk 

Assessment 

Danger 

probable 

Danger 

possible 

Danger 

unlikely 

Root Section 

Measurement 

Loss of wall 

thickness 

Swaged Joint 

Measurement 

Loss of wall 

thickness 

Visual and Other Assessments 

(Example only; see TR22 for 

full visual criteria) 

>51% >31% Bracket hanging by wires Door 

reinforcing poor Column 

leaning >30 degrees 

11 to 50% 11 to 30% Paint flaking Surface corrosion 

present Column leaning slightly 

0 to 10% 0 to 10% No Significant 

deterioration 

IOSH Level of Risk 

Score 

3, 4 or 5 

1 or 2 

0 


Page 201


Risk Matrix 

Likelihood of 

Risk 

Severity of 

Danger 

Score Action required 

5 5 25 Immediate 

4 5 20 Asses results and action urgent 

3 5 15 Asses results monitor / retest high priority test annually 

2 10 Accelerated structural test programme – 2/3 years 

1 5 Minor repair – painting – visual assessment 

0 0 Continue routine maintenance retest 6 years 

Condition Monitoring (When does a lamp column require 

replacing) 

� If it fails the Structural / Risk assessment 

� If it fails (Destructive) structural testing 

� Failure of Visual Condition Assessment 

� Change in legislation 

� (Non-destructive) Structural Testing 

It is the aim of the street lighting section that all lamp columns and 

lantern have positive residual life both in age and structural 

assessment, and that all roads and footpaths meet all current 

European lighting standards, Electrical Regulations, CDM and 

Health and safety Standards. 


Page 202


Raise order to SEC 

and Term contractor 

to replace 

In from local 

residents of 

proposed works 

Contractor disposes 

of redundant column 

and erect connects 

new column 

Column is inspected 

by Engineer and 

signed for payment 

Confirm asset 

inventory and 

attributes updated 

Invoice to 

contractors paid 

Finish 

Wait for period of 

between 2 and 6 

years prior to next 

test 

yes 

yes 

No 

Start 

Is the lamp column 

over 24 years old or 

failed Visual Inspection 

Complete non 

destructive structural 

test 

Does column pass 

structural test 

Replace column 

Does road 

lighting meet 

Bs5489 

Street Lighting Structural Test Process 

no 

Yes 

No 

Design new road 

lighting and 

specification 

Site visit to access 

new column 

positions 

Produce draft 

drawing 

Produce final 

drawing 

No 

no 

Identify risk from 

matrix table 

Does column 

require replacing 

Consulate with 

residents 

Complaints 

received 

yes 

yes 

Refer to options 

table for material 

lgihting design 

Flow chart assumes 

opption 3 

Review and resolve 

complaints 


Page 203


Replacing Existing Street Lighting 

Street lighting replacement is mainly identified from the condition 

assessment and risk assessment; however a number of other 

influencing factors may be included: 

� If the lighting levels do not meet the current European 

Standards 

� If an has a greater occurrence of night time accidents 

� Change of use or upgrade of road, i.e. from class C to A 

� Request by residents associations 

� Request by police 

� Highway improvement schemes (e.g. widening) 

� Road adopted from previous unknown source 

� Highway improvement schemes (e.g. widening) 

� Replacement of existing lighting scene 

� Decision to light an unlit road 

� Change of use / category Request from public / police 

� Accident information 

� Increase in Crime rate 

Other consideration that influence the design and type of street 

lighting are the impact on the day-time street scene, the 

requirements and procedures for recycling, the impact on energy 

and revenue budgets. The choice of materials and light sources also 

needs to be considered as this will impact on future maintenance 

strategies and durability of materials. 

Upgrading Existing Street Lighting 

Street lighting upgrading is identified in a similar method to 

replacing an existing streetlight, although it may be possible to reuse 

the existing lamp column, depending upon the structural test results. 

When existing columns may be used then it may be cost effective to 

increase the wattage of the existing luminaries or to replace the 

existing luminaries with a type that is more efficient. The current 

European lighting standards permit a lighting design to reduce the 

lighting levels if the lamp colour is greater than 60ra the colour 

rendering index. 


Page 204


Option Modern lighting 

standards 

1. DO 

MINIMUM 

Will fail to meet 

current lighting 

standards and will 

decrease as failures 

increase 

Safe and sustainable 

infrastructure 

Continued deterioration of 


Maintains service 

standards 

Service standards will 

deteriorate over time 

Table 5.5.5 Options for Upgrading Non Financial Evaluation 

Best value compliant Contribution to 

vision for public 

Not compliant as unable 

to produce continuous 

improvement 

lighting 

Failure to deliver 

vision 

Timescale Total 

score 

No 

improvements 

delivered 

SCORE 3 2 2 2 2 13 

2.PARTIAL 

REPLACEME 

NT 

Some infrastructure 

meeting the British 

Standards 

Significant investment to 

upgrade infrastructure but 

continued deterioration of high 

proportion 


of retained 

Service standards will 

deteriorate to retained 

stock 

Partially compliant 

lighting standards with 

higher capital costs. No 

benefit from latent value 

in existing infrastructure 

Partially meets 

modernisation 

objectives 

Depending upon 

level of capital 

investment 

SCORE 5 4 4 6 5 8 32 

3, FAST 

TRACK. 

REPLACE. 

New infrastructure 

meeting all British 

lighting Standards 

Significant investment 

producing a fully upgraded and 

modern infrastructure 

Service standards 

optimised with 

sustainable approach 

towards 

standards 

maintaining 

High standards of service 

but higher costs. Achieves 

best value 

Fully meets 

modernisation 

objectives 

Fast tracked 

5 years 

SCORE 8 8 8 7 8 8 47 

4, FULL 

REPLACEME 

NT. 

All equipment 

replaced to meet 

British Standards 

over assessment 

period 

Total replacement on a like for 

like basis over assessment 

periods. Will produce a safer 

and sustainable infrastructure. 

Not environmentally friendly, 

replacing stock to early 

Service standards at 

least maintained with 

the ability to introduce 

new delivery methods 

High standards of service 

meeting community needs 

and benefits, utilises value 

in existing infrastructure 

very high cost / 

Fully meets 

modernisation 

objectives 

Phased approach 

8 years 

SCORE 8 5 8 6 8 8 43 

max 50 


Page 205


Options/Outcome 

Background - Approximately 75% of lighting complies with 

current standards of safety. Lighting levels from approximately 40% 

of the Council’s stock do not meet EN31201 / BS 5489 the current 

standards for road lighting. 

Do Nothing - Corroding Steel and cast iron columns showing 

corrosion and lacking suitable door compartments, necessitating in 

certain circumstances feeder pillars adjacent to or complete removal 

of the street light. Older lanterns are energy inefficient and 

contribute to Sky Glow. Poorly sited bollards, leading to high 

knockdown rate and high emergency callout costs. Cable joining of 

non-compatible cable construction types, resulting in nonmaintainable 

systems and the continuity of directly opposing 

earthing systems. Increasing Maintenance costs and night time road 

traffic accidents and night time crime incidents. 

Option 1 - Do Minimum - Gradual decay of lighting stock will 

make the streets look ‘poorer’ Continuation of ‘sky glow’; rate of 

night time accidents continues at same level. Rate of crime 

continues at same level. Personal Safety Possibility of injury 

accidents due to installation failure or collapse. Gradual 

deteriorating lighting standards would discourage the night time use 

of streets by pedestrians, cyclists etc. 

Option 2 - Partial Replacement - Reduction in traffic pollution – 

better lighting will encourage night time use of the streets by 

pedestrians and cyclists, and subsequently increased use of public 

transport Improvement in aesthetic appearance of lighting 

installation will improve street scene. Modern luminaries will 

decrease sky-glow, glare and light pollution. Improvement in 

aesthetic appearance of lighting installations across the whole 

borough, including established Conservation Areas. Reduction in 

night time burglary, theft, vandalism, violent crime etc. Reduction of 

risk of injury caused by falling columns or signs. Increased 

pedestrian and cycle usage over the use of private vehicles. 

Reduction in public transport journey time if less private vehicles 

used, however difficult to quantify. Increased pedestrian usage of 

streets and public transport will reduce congestion and there fore 

journey time should fall. Improved safety in the community would 

benefit night time economy and wider employment opportunities. 

Reduction in crime may also encourage investment and thus have a 

positive impact on job creation. Assists by encouraging and 

facilitating the after dark usage of public transport. Assists by 

encouraging and facilitating the use of public transport, walking and 

cycling as alternatives to the private car, and thus contributing to 

social inclusion. Benefits that improved and better-maintained 

lighting and traffic signs would bring are supported by London 


Page 206


borough of Hounslow development plan and in line with both 

national and local transport policies and objectives 

Option 4 Full Replacement - Reduction in traffic pollution – 

better lighting will encourage night time use of the streets by 

pedestrians and cyclists, and subsequently increased use of public 

transport. Improvement in aesthetic appearance of lighting 

installation will improve street scene. Modern luminaries will 

decrease sky-glow, glare and light pollution. Improvement in 

aesthetic appearance of lighting installations across the whole 

borough, including established Conservation Areas. Improved 

lighting of streets and traffic signs will assist towards the reduction 

of night-time traffic accidents. Reduction in night time burglary, 

theft, vandalism, violent crime etc. Reduction of risk of injury 

caused by falling columns or signs. Reduction of risk of injury 

caused by falling columns or signs. Increased pedestrian usage of 

streets and public transport will reduce congestion and there fore 

journey time should fall Improved safety in the community would 

benefit night time economy and wider employment opportunities. 

Reduction in crime may also encourage investment and thus have a 

positive impact on job creation. Better lighting improves the safety 

of the streets for pedestrians and cyclists. Reduction and 

rationalisation of street furniture and more suitable positioning of 

columns will improve accessibility Assists by encouraging and 

facilitating the after dark usage of public transport. Assists by 

encouraging and facilitating the use of public transport, walking and 

cycling as alternatives to the private car, and thus contributing to 

social inclusion. Benefits that improved and better-maintained 

lighting and traffic signs would bring are supported by London 

borough of Hounslow development plan and in line with both 

national and local transport policies and objectives 

Conclusion Hounslow stock is in reasonably good condition and 

below the national average; it is considered that Hounslow should 

be prudent to use options 3 /4 partial or fast track replacement in 

the short term with an initial Capital allocation of £2.5M to replace 

all structurally defective and life expired columns. 

The entire funding of future replacements will then need to be 

considered in 20015-20 when the majority of stock will be coming 

up to 30 years of age 

The future 2005-06 

The street lighting section commissioned Consultants Jacobs Babtie 

to identify a funding review to prepare the service for future needs 

This report proposes increasing the street lighting revenue budget to 

£1.15 Million per annum excluding energy costs. It also proposes an 

initial Capital injection of £2.5 million to achieve the Authority’s 


Page 207


5.5.4.2.6 Disposal 

target of all columns to be less than 30 years old with sustainable 

revenue budgets and a high cost benefit ratio. 

The asset management plan generally considers disposal only in 

conjunction with disposal of the whole street which would only 

happen in exceptional circumstances, disposal of individual assets is 

part of the existing term Maintenance and new works contracts 

In the rare case in change of responsibility / ownership it is 

considered that the existing infrastructure would be transferred 

The process for disposal is detailed as part of the CDM and Health 

and Safety regulations. Where possible lighting column posts will be 

recycled and reused. 

An example of this are keep left bollard shells where the damaged 

usable shell is recycled into a new useable shell. 

We currently identify the need for disposal at the design stage, and 

only use recyclable stock as required by national standards. 

5.5.4.2.7 Documentation and standards referred to 

ILE TR22 

Well-Lit Highways – Roads Liaison Group 

ILE code of practice for safety in Electrical Operations 

Health and Safety Regulations 

CDM 1994 

BS5489 /EN13201 European Lighting Design Standards 

BS7671 Code of Practice for Electrical Installations (IEE regulations) 

Street Lighting funding review 2005 / 2035 completed by Jacobs Babtie on 

behalf of LBH 

Maintain in Lighting and Signing EDS Maintenance service level agreement 

1st August 05 

Street Lighting New Works Term Contract 2005 – 2010 

Street Management Design Guide 2005 


Page 208


Bridges and Structures Lifecycle Management Plan 

Introduction to Bridges and Structures 

Bridges are essential components of the UK transport infrastructure 

and their safety and serviceability is therefore vital in the smooth 

functioning of the transport systems/network. Society expects and 

perceives bridges to be safe and the fact that there have been no 

cases of catastrophic bridge failures in recent years is due largely to 

the skills and ability of professional bridge engineers and managers. 

Bridges and Structures is part of Street Care Services within the 

Street Management and Public Protection Department, and forms 

part of the Infrastructure Team. 

The Structures section is responsible for the inspection, 

maintenance, repair, replacement, assessment and management of 

all highway structures on adopted public highway that is maintained 

as part of the SMPP department. 

The new Code of Practice was launched by the UK Bridges Board 

in September 2005. The objectives of the Code are to encourage 

and assist highway authorities and other owners to implement 

Good Management Practice, harmonise practices, coordinate 

approaches and share their experiences and practices. The Code 

emphasises the need for a holistic approach to highway structures 

management that gives due consideration to the wider highway 

network and local environment in which the structures exist. This 

Code covers all aspects of highway structures management, except 

for the design of new structures or alterations/upgrades to existing 

structures. 

The Code identifies the Development of the Implementation Plan; 

which converts the gap analysis into a formal implementation plan. 

The plan should identify the activities and timeframes together with 

the resources required to achieve it. 

Inventory (Physical Attributes) 

The asset grouping comprises bridges (both vehicular and 

pedestrian), culverts, subways, and retaining walls. Bridges are of 

various types and spans and their construction is mainly 

brickwork/masonry, concrete or steel. There are also subways 

serving the areas. 

Within the borough there are a significant number of structures that 

carry the highway infrastructure which are owned by other statutory 


Page 209


bodies such as Department for Transport, Network Rail, 

Environment Agency, London Underground Limited and British 

Waterways Board. 

We carry out inspections to all LBH structures. Hounslow is also 

responsible for inspection and maintenance of footway/carriageway 

surfacing to bridges owned by other bodies such Network Rail, 

London Underground Limited. Details of the assets are recorded 

under individual structures inspections file, and are electronically 

held in Bridgestation. 

The Infrastructure Manager makes additions and changes to the 

asset inventory following significant maintenance work, completion 

of new schemes or discovery of an existing bridge or retaining wall. 

The extent of the inventory is indicated in the following table by 

area and type of construction. 

Location 

Brick Arch 

Reinforced 

Concrete 

Steel 

Pre-stressed 

Concrete 

Cranford 2 1 2 

Feltham 2 5 2 2 1 1 

North Feltham 2 1 1 

Isleworth 6 3 1 1 

Chiswick 2 5 

Kempton 1 1 1 

Kempton Park 1 

Hounslow 2 3 2 


1 1 1 

West 

Bedfont 2 1 1 3 

Hanworth 2 

Twickenham 1 1 

Brentford 5 2 4 1 

Hatton 1 1 

Osterley 5 

Boston manor 2 1 

Hayes 2 

Heston 1 

Whitton 1 

Totals 29 26 19 10 3 1 2 1 

Steel Jack Arch 

Table 5.5.6 Structures by area and type of construction. 

Masonry Arch 

Timber 

Various 


Page 210


Owner 

London 

Borough of 


Network 

Rail 

London 

Underground 12 

British 

Waterways 

Board 

Bridge 

Footbridge 

Culvert 

Subway 

Retaining 

Wall 

30 18 5 4 5 62 

19 8 27 

1 1 2 

Other 

Total 62 27 5 4 5 103 

Table 5.5.7 Structures Assets by type and ownership 

Many bridges will have elements of brick column steel or concrete 

within their structure therefore the figures contained are based on the 

major component and should be used only for indicative purposes. 

Condition Assessment 

Condition Monitoring Measures 

The condition of a bridge element is recorded in terms of the severity 

of damage/defect and the spatial extent of the damage/defect. 

The conversion from BCS to BCI maps the values to a linear scale 

from 0 to 100. The BCI values can be interpreted broadly as the 

“percentage service potential’’ of a bridge. Thus, a BCI value of 100 

implies that the bridge has retained 100% of its service potential; a 

value of 60 indicates that the bridge has lost 40% of its service 

potential; while a value of zero implies that the bridge is no longer 

serviceable. 

Element Condition Score (ECS) uses a severity scale 1 (best) to 5 

(worst) and an extent scale of A (non significant) to E (>50% area 

affected). The severity and extent values for an element are combined 

to produce ECS. The scoring reflects the view that the extent of 

damage is less critical then severity of damage. 

Element Condition Factor (ECF) reflects the influence of the 

condition of an element has on the overall condition of the bridge. It is 

evaluated using the element importance classification and Element 

Condition Score (ECS). 

Element Condition Index (ECI) indicates the contribution of the 

Other 

12 

Totals 


Page 211


condition of an element makes to the overall health of the bridge. The 

ECI is determined by adjusting ECS to account for ECF as shown 

below: 

ECI = ECS – ECF but always > or = 1 

This shows that except for elements of ‘’very high’’ importance, the 

damage is less critical for the overall bridge than it is for that element. 

Bridge Condition Score (BCS) represents the condition of the bridge as 

a whole and is evaluated as a function of ECI values of elements in a 

bridge weighted by importance 1 representing no significant damage to 

5 implying failure or loss of serviceability. The severity of damage 

increases non-linearly and is used as a reliable tool for intervention. 

The Bridge Condition Index (BCI), on the other hand, has a simple 

linear scale with 100 representing a bridge in very good condition while 

0 implies that a bridge is no more serviceable. The BCI is therefore 

useful for communication outside the operational community. 

The Bridge Stock Condition Index (BSCI) provides an overview of 

change in condition of a bridge stock and can be used as a high level 

strategic tool to compare stocks from different groups as well as 

different authorities to benchmark performance and bidding for funds. 

The table below shows the interpretation of the BCSI Av BCSI Crit values 

in terms of the general condition of the bridge stock. 

BSCI 

Range 

100 → 95 

Very 

Good 

94 → 85 

Good 

84 → 65 

Fair 

BCSRange 

1.0 → 1.3 

1.31 → 1.8 

1.81 → 2.7 

Bridge Stock 

Condition 

based BSCIAv 

Bridge stock is in a very 

good condition. Very 

few bridges may be in a 

moderate to severe 

condition. 

Bridge stock is in a 

good condition. A few 

bridges may be in a 

severe condition. 

Bridge stock is in a fair 

condition. Some 

bridges may be in a 

severe condition. 

Potential for rapid 

decrease in condition if 

sufficient maintenance 

funding is not provided. 

Moderate backlog of 

maintenance work. 

Bridge Stock 

Condition based on 

BSCICrit 

Very few critical load bearing 

elements may be in a moderate to 

severe condition. Represents very 

low risk to public safety. 

A few critical load bearing 

elements may be in a severe 

condition. Represents a low risk 

to public safety. 

Wide variability of conditions for 

critical load bearing elements, 

some may be in a severe 

condition. Some bridges may 

represent a moderate risk to 

public safety unless mitigation 

measures are in place. 


Page 212


64 → 40 

Poor 

39 → 0 

Very Poor 

2.71 → 3.7 

3.71 → 5.0 

Bridge stock is in a poor 

condition. A significant 

number of bridges may 

be in a severe condition. 

Maintenance work 

historically under 

funded and there is a 

significant backlog of 

maintenance work. 

Bridge stock is in a very 

poor condition. Many 

bridges may be 

unserviceable or close to 

it. Maintenance work 

historically under 

funded and there is a 

huge backlog of work. 

Interpretation of BSCIAV and BSCIcrit values 

A significant number of critical 

load bearing elements may be in a 

severe condition. Some bridges 

may represent a significant risk 

to public safety unless mitigation 

measures are in place. 

Many critical load bearing 

elements may be unserviceable or 

close to it and are in a dangerous 

condition. Some bridges may 

represent a high risk to public 

safety unless mitigation measures 

are in place. 


Page 213


Element 

Type 

Element 

Importance 

Factor (EIF) 

Select 

Bridge 

Select 

Element 

Element 

Condition Score 

(ECS) 

Element Importance Classification 

& Element Condition Factor (ECF) 

Element 

Condition Index 

(ECI) 

Next 

Element? 

Bridge Condition 

Score (BCS) 

Bridge Condition 

Index (BCI) 

Next Bridge? 

Bridge Stock 

Condition Index 

(BSCI) 

Element 

Conditio 

n Data 

Deck 

Areas 


Page 214


Flow Chart for the derivation of Bridge Condition Indicators. 

The defect code helps in the identification of Work Required, Priority 

and Cost. This also provides valuable information about defect types, 

their frequency of occurrence and cost of repairs. The defect is not 

used for the evaluation of Bridge Condition Indicators. 

The results of inspections are now recorded in accordance with the 

draft CSS (formerly County Surveyors Society) Bridge Condition Index 

procedures. This system has been in procedure since April 2002. 

Amendments to the procedure were published in May 2004. Prior to 

the adoption of the CSS procedures, modified BE11 forms, as defined 

by the Highways Agency, were used. As the Project Manager receives 

each new completed inspection form the BMS system is updated and 

the overall condition of the asset is recalculated. 

Current conditions - Inspections 

The conditions of all structures are monitored through general and 

principal inspections. Ad-hoc special inspections may be carried out 

following specific events such as vehicle impact or flooding. 

Inspections are carried out by in-house engineers/inspectors and are at 

times tendered out to the consultants. General inspections are carried 

out every two years and principal inspections every six years. 

Inspections are carried out in accordance with Departmental Standards 

BA 63/94 and BD 63/94. General inspections are remote visual 

inspections whereas principal inspections need to be carried out from 

within touching distance. Destructive and/or non-destructive testing 

may also be incorporated with the principal inspections. 

Current Conditions - strength assessments 

A nationally funded bridge assessment programme was introduced to 

check the capability of existing bridges to meet the higher 11.5t axle 

load and 40/44t gross vehicle weights permitted on UK roads from 1 

January 1999. 

The assessment reports comprise special inspections specifically for 

assessments, material testing results where appropriate and a 

mathematical evaluation of the way that a bridge is assumed to carry 

traffic loads. The calculation process starts with a comparatively 

simplistic approach and continues, where justified, by using more 

sophisticated analytical techniques. 

To date the Council has carried out load carrying assessments to all the 

highway bridges excluding bridges owned by other bodies. Those that 

were assessed below 40t capacity were programmed for 

strengthening/replacement. Below is a list of structures that have been 

successfully strengthened/replaced over previous years. 

H/08 Baber Bridge 


Page 215


H/09 Baber Auxiliary Bridge 

H/10 Railshead Bridge 

H/18 Queens Bridge 

H/26 Brentford High Street Bridge 

H/27 White Bridge 

RW1 Church Street Retaining Wall 

RW2 Ealing Road Retaining Wall 

To date the Council has proposed to strengthen/replace the following 

structures depending on the funding available from TfL: 

H/02 Park Lane Bridge 

H/05 Talbot Road Bridge 

H/06 Church Street Bridge 

H/12 Richmond Avenue Bridge 

H/24 St Johns Road Bridge 

H/47 Augustus Close (The Ham) Bridge 

However, the Council submits an annual Borough Spending Plan 

outlining the financial requirement for the bridges. 

Service Standards for Bridge Management 

The Highways Act 1980 requires that roads are maintained to allow the 

passage of all Construction and use vehicles, i.e. those up to 40/44t. 

Therefore, the primary service standard is to maintain bridges to allow 

the passage of such vehicles, including smaller vehicles with 11.5t axles, 

unless a permanent weight restriction has been imposed at a particular 

bridge. 

The purpose of a computerised Bridge Management System (BMS) is 

to assist the bridge manager and others in the management of highway 

structures. A BMS appropriate to the size and characteristics of the 

highway structures stock an needs of the authority should be 

implemented to support the Good Management Practice in accordance 

to the Code of Practice. The BMS should be part of, or align with, the 

overall Asset Management System (ASM) used for the management of 

all highway assets. 

The basic principles of BMS are; the management of highway 

structures involving planning, decision-making, scheduling and 

managing various types of work. A BMS should support these 

processes through good data storage, management and analysis 

capabilities. 

Creation & Acquisition (Why do we provide Bridges) 

Bridges form an essential part of the highway network, and it is a 


Page 216


means of crossing an obstacle such as river, rail, etc. 

It is the statutory duty for the highway authority to provide and 

maintain highway structures in a serviceable condition. 

Construction of a new bridge may arise from various factors such as 

local economy and growth of housing, which will lead to building more 

bridges for the safe passage of traffic and public. Almost every area of 

Hounslow is served with various types of bridges with the exception of 

some areas. 

Two number footbridges are proposed for construction adjacent to 

two railway bridges that does not have footways either side. 

Routine & Reactive Maintenance 

Routine maintenance is the regular ongoing day-to-day work that is 

necessary to keep assets operating. Steady state maintenance can be 

split into Preventative and Essential maintenance. The former covers 

work to deal with defects, replace components and includes repointing, 

repainting, re-waterproofing, minor concrete repairs and 

cathodic protection. The latter heading covers rehabilitation work 

undertaken when part (or whole) of a structure is considered to be (or 

about to become) structurally inadequate, e.g. major concrete repairs, 

scour repairs, masonry repairs, replacing bearings, and steelwork 

repairs. 

Following general and principal inspections the routine maintenance 

works can be programmed and carried out. The routine works such as 

vegetation removal, and graffiti cleaning are done on an annual basis. 

The rehabilitation works are incorporated into the bridge strengthening 

works. 

The maintenance works are necessary in order to upkeep the 

serviceability of any structure and from the safety of the public and 

transport users. Where the routine maintenance works are not carried 

out on time the future costs and extent becomes greater. 

Reactive maintenance, on the other hand, covers the immediate safety 

of the structure. For example if a bridge parapet or beam is hit by a 

vehicle then immediate action is required to keep the structure or part 

of the structure safe (from collapse) and in serviceable condition. This 

may lead to a special inspection to the damaged element which can be 

planned for repair/replacement in the future. 

Performance Monitoring 

The CSS Bridges Group developed the following suggested 


Page 217


performance indicators: 

� Bridges not meeting highway authority's required carrying capacity 

as a percentage of total stock 

� Annual maintenance expenditure on bridges as a percentage of 

stock value 

� Annual maintenance expenditure on retaining walls as a percentage 

of stock value 

� Performance indicator related to Bridge Condition 

Through London Bridges Engineering Group (LoBEG) further 

development work is now taking place with the Highways Agency and 

Atkins to consolidate the existing work and to prepare four further 

indicators: 

� Condition - the physical condition of structural elements compared 

with the as built/new condition (to be based on the CSS BCI 

procedure) 

� Reliability - the reliability of the structure in supporting traffic 

loading 

� Availability - the availability of the structure of its required purpose 

i.e. traffic 

� Outstanding Maintenance - work identified from inspections and 

from other programmes but not planned for execution in the next 

financial year 

Asset Valuation 

The average cost of replacing a typical highway bridge deck in an urban 

area is in the region £400k - £600k. This indicates that a cost of £2.5k 

per square metre, excluding other major costs such as statutory 

diversions, traffic management, etc. 

At the present time individual project appraisal is carried out using the 

whole life costing approach set out in Highways Agency Standard 

BD36. 

Performance Gaps 

The adoption of the CSS Bridge Condition Indicator process is still in 

its early phrases. The early indicators are that the overall average 

condition of the bridge stock is good. However, the initial rating for 

critical elements of structures is of more concern. The large number of 

structures awaiting major revenue funded maintenance is also hidden 

by these general figures. It should also be noted that a preventative 

maintenance painting programme has not been undertaken for many 

years. 

Performance gap analyses is a comparison of the As-Is and To-Be 


Page 218


practices to identify the gaps. The gap analyses should include an 

assessment of costs and resources required to close the gaps, the 

benefits of closing the gap and the resources/training needed to sustain 

the To-Be position once in place. 

The overall key problem areas are as follows: 

� Sub standard strength assessment bridges 

� Sub standard parapets 

� Road over rail mitigation measures 

� Disability Discrimination Act improvements 

� Shift from 'reactive' to 'preventative' maintenance 

� Maintenance backlog 

It should be an objective to eliminate this backlog at a rate that 

minimises whole life costs. 

Risk Assessment and Management 

Under the LoBEG assessment programme the following are 

considered: 

� Initial assessment 

� Detailed assessment 

� Risk assessment 

� Feasibility studies 

Feasibility studies determine the optimal option to mitigate the risk to 

motorist/public, and look into the various options of 

repair/rehabilitation and/or strengthening schemes. 

The risk management of bridges that have failed strength assessments 

is covered by procedures set out in BA79. Current levels of funding are 

likely to result in traffic restrictions having to be imposed to ensure 

public safety. 

Replacing Existing Bridges 

The replacement of bridges and structures are determined from the 

failed load assessment along with the condition assessment and the risk 

assessment. Along with these there are other factors which influence 

the replacement projects are as follows: 

� Increased traffic loading over the years 

� Require widened lane due to increased traffic volumes 

� Major weak elements within the structure 


Page 219


� Age of the structure reaching its end of service life 

Strengthening Existing Bridges 

The upgrading and/or strengthening of bridges are identified through 

similar means to replacing a bridge, but the strengthening programme 

involves different set of assessment, rehabilitation design that opposed 

to the replacement scheme. The strengthening scheme also at times 

includes the do nothing option, however normally it is not considered 

as a viable case. 

The factors that influence the strengthening options are as follows: 

� Replace like for like material 

� Add new material/element 

� Add external pre-stressing 

� Upgrade/change the parapet type 

In 1998 the Government published a White Paper entitled 'Roads 

2000: A new Deal for Roads'. 

The White Paper required local authorities to: 

� arrest deterioration in condition on local roads by 2004 

� remove the maintenance backlog by 2010 

The structures that require strengthening are identified from the stock 

that has been assessed as part of the nationally funded bridge 

assessment programme. 

Disposal Plan 

Disposal is any activity that removes a decommissioned asset, including 

sale, demolition or relocation. 

Disposal of structures assets will generally occur as part of disposal of a 

larger asset grouping like roads and footways. However, other drivers 

may result in development of a disposal programme as shown below 


Page 220


OPTION MODERN BRIDGE 

STANDARDS 

DO MINIMUM Will fail to meet 

current bridge 

standards and will 

decrease as failures 

increase 

SAFE AND 

SUSTAINABLE 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

Continued deterioration 

of infrastructure 

MAINTAINS 

SERVICE 

STANDARDS 


will deteriorate over 

time 

BEST VALUE 

COMPLIANT 

Not compliant as 

unable to produce 

continuous 

improvement 

CONTRIBUTION 

TO VISION FOR 

STRUCTURES 

Failure to deliver 

vision 

TIMESCALE TOTAL SCORE 

Max 50 

No improvements 

delivered 

SCORE 3 2 2 2 2 13 

PARTIAL 

REPLACEMENT 

Some infrastructure 

meeting the British 

Standards 

Significant investment to 

upgrade infrastructure but 

continued deterioration of 

high proportion of 

retained infrastructure 


will deteriorate to 

retained stock 

Partially compliant 

bridge standards with 

higher capital costs. 

No benefit from latent 

value in existing 


Partially meets 

modernisation 

objectives 

Depending upon level 

of capital investment 

SCORE 5 4 4 6 5 8 32 

STRENGTHENING New infrastructure Significant investment Service standards High standards of Fully meets 

Fast tracked 

meeting all British producing a fully 

optimised with service but higher modernisation 

bridge Standards upgraded and modern 


sustainable 

approach towards 

maintaining 

standards 

costs. Achieves best 

value 

objectives 

5 years 

SCORE 8 8 8 7 8 8 47 

FULL 

All equipment replaced Total replacement on a Service standards at High standards of Fully meets 

Phased approach 

REPLACEMENT. to meet British like for like basis over least maintained service meeting modernisation 

Standards over 

assessment period 

assessment periods. Will 

produce a safer and 

with the ability to 

introduce new 

community needs and 

benefits, utilises value 

objectives 

8 years 

sustainable infrastructure. delivery methods in existing 

Not environmentally 

infrastructure very 

friendly, replacing stock 

to early 

high cost / 

SCORE 8 5 8 6 8 8 43 

Options for Upgrading - Non Financial Evaluation 


Page 221


Drainage Lifecycle Management Plan 

Introduction to Highways and Land Drainage 

Highways and Land Drainage are essential components of the UK 

transport infrastructure and their efficient function and 

serviceability is therefore vital in the smooth functioning of the 

transport systems/network during wet and adverse weather 

condition. . 

Drainage is part of Street Care Services of the Street Management 

and Public Protection Department, and forms part of the 

Infrastructure Team. 

Infrastructure section is responsible for the inspection, 

maintenance, repair, replacement, assessment and management of 

all highway drainage on adopted public highway that is maintained 

as part of the SMPP department. 

A very important feature of road construction is drainage. New 

roads include designed drainage systems intended to remove water 

efficiently from the surface of the highway to provide a safe 

passage for all vehicles and pedestrians. 

Older roads may have less sophisticated drainage, but all have 

features designed to take the water away from the road surface. It 

is necessary to clean and maintain these drainage provisions so that 

they can work properly. 

Problems can occur even when drainage provisions are clean and 

well maintained. Flooded and waterlogged roads result when the 

amount of water arriving on the road is greater than the capacity of 

the drainage facilities that take it away. Exceptional rainfall, a road 

being in a low lying area, changes in 'run off' from adjoining 

land and rivers overflowing are some situations that can lead to the 

road flooding or being waterlogged even when drains are in good 

working order. Material carried into the drains by floods can also 

lead to them becoming blocked. Drainage grills and gratings (e.g. 

on gullies) can become blocked very quickly when materials like 

mud are deposited on the road or when there is a heavy fall of 

leaves. If a flooded road is caused by a ruptured water main the 

water company will be responsible for repairing the damage. 

Water is directed to drains by the road profile. Puddles (ponding) 


Page 222


tend to occur if there is a depression in the road. This can be 

rectified where necessary by local patching of the road surface. 

Wherever possible it is encouraged to have sustainable drainage 

systems to for highway drainage. The features of this system are 

swales (form of a ditch sometimes with small embankments either 

sides of it), soakaways (concrete or brick chamber with without 

base and opening in the chamber walls and infiltration trenches 

and filter drains. 

All above features allow rainwater to infiltrate in to the ground 

thereby reducing the amount of water discharging in to the sewers 

and rivers thus avoiding flooding. 

The following notes give guidance on responsibilities for dealing 

with various types of flooding: 

Flooding from Public Sewers 

The water company, Thames Water, own and manage the network 

of public foul and surface water sewers. Therefore, Thames Water 

is the responsible authority to resolve problems with respect to 

overflowing public sewers. 

Flooding from Private Sewers or Drains 

Private sewers or drains are the responsibility of the owners. 

Flooding from the Public Highway 

Streetcare services are responsible for dealing with flooding from 

the public highway or reporting blocked road gullies or gratings. 

Flooding from a Burst Water Main 

Thames Water is responsible for their supply up to and including 

the water stopcock. 

Flooding from a Main River 

The main rivers are the responsibility of the Environment Agency. 

In addition, the Agency provides a "Floodline", which is a 24 hour 

advice and information service for floods and flood warnings. 

Flooding from Watercourses other than Main Rivers 

Watercourses, other than main rivers, are the responsibility of 

riparian owners. A riparian owner is a one who has a property or 

land is on, or very near, a watercourse. Riparian owners have a duty 

to keep the watercourse clear of any obstruction to flow and the 

Council can serve legal notices on riparian owners to deal with 

obstructions. Certain "strategic" watercourses, that are known to 

pose a high risk of property flooding if they become blocked, are 


Page 223


checked and maintained by the Council's contractor on a regular 

basis. 

Provision of Sandbags to Protect against Flooding 

The Council make sandbags available to residents of the borough 

during extreme situations, to enable them to protect their homes 

from flooding. However, residents who are aware that their homes 

are at a high risk of flooding, e.g. as a result of the close proximity 

of a watercourse, are recommended to obtain sandbags from a 

builders' merchant to enable early preparation, as at times of 

flooding the Council's contractor may not be able to reach all 

properties before flooding occurs. 

Inventory (Physical Attributes) 

The drainage asset grouping comprises Gullies and their associated 

connections to the public sewer system, culverts and soakaways. 

Within the borough there are about 25,000 gullies and 75km of 

associated pipe works connections to the public sewers within the 

borough’s road network. As far as the Land drainage 

responsibilities are concerned, the Council is responsible of 

maintaining 16km of riverbanks and 10km of watercourses. 

Infrastructure team carry out inspections and maintenance work of 

riverbanks where London Borough of Hounslow are the riparian 

owner - a person who owns the land adjoining a watercourse. 

The extent of the inventory of open ditches and watercourses 

is indicated in the following table 

Watercourse/River 

Owner/ Responsible 

Party 

Land 

Drainage 

Authority 

Osterly Border Watercourse Riparian LB Hounslow 

Trumpers Wood Ditch Riparian LB Hounslow 

Wyke Green Golf Course Wyke Green Golf Course LB Hounslow 

Osterly Park National Trust National Trust 

Cranford Infants School 

drain 

Riparian LB Hounslow 

Heathrow Ind Trading Este Riparian LB Hounslow 

Bedfont Close/Caines Lane Riparian LB Hounslow 

Hounslow Heath Golf 

Course 


Westmacott Jubilee Way 

W/C 


Crematorium Drain Riparian LB Hounslow 

Catherine Parr Riparian LB Hounslow 

Portlane Brook Environment Agency 

Environment 

Agency 


Page 224


Owner/ Responsible 

Party 

Land 

Drainage 

Watercourse/River 

Upper Feltham Brook Environment Agency 

Authority 

Environment 

Agency 

Church Rd Drain Riparian LB Hounslow 

Moatside Lakes Riparian LB Hounslow 

The Parkway Riparian LB Hounslow 

Jersey Rd Riparian LB Hounslow 

Greenman Lane Riparian LB Hounslow 

Farm Land Faggs Rd Riparian LB Hounslow 

Ashford Rd Riparian LB Hounslow 

Castleway Riparian LB Hounslow 

Brabazon Rd Riparian LB Hounslow 

Harlequin Close Riparian LB Hounslow 

Duke of Northumberland 

River 

Environment Agency 

Environment 

Agency 

Longford River Royal Parks Royal Park 

River Crane Environment Agency 

Environment 

Agency 

River Brent Environment Agency 

Environment 

Agency 

SSSI Syon Park Environment Agency 

Environment 

Agency 

Number of Gullies and the frequency of cleaning of them In 

Area Committees 

Location 

Feltham, Bedfont and 

Hanworth (West Area) 

Number of 

Gullies 

7354 

Chiswick Area 5166 

Isleworth and Brentford 

Area 

3531 

Hounslow central Area 6814 

Cranford and Heston 4025 

Condition Assessment 

Maintenance Provision 

Clean every gully once a year 

and gullies in stains road are 

cleaned twice a year 


and gullies in Chiswick high 

street are cleaned in twice a 

year 


and the gullies in the 

London Road and 

Twickenham are cleaned 

twice a year 


and gullies in town centre 

and High Street are cleaned 

twice a year. 


and gullies in the Cranford 

high street twice a year. 

Condition Assessment of gullies is made during gully cleaning 


Page 225


operation and the maintenance programme is made for various 

remedial works required for gullies following the assessment. 

However, reactive maintenance will be carried out as result of 

requests made by the members of public. 

Similarly, the condition assessment of river banks and watercourses 

are made in accordance with the assessment criteria of the 

Environment Agency. 

Current conditions - Inspections 

During a cleaning operation Drainage Technicians assess the 

condition of the gully grating and the frame with regard to its 

structural condition. Further assessment of the gully pot and its 

connection to the public sewer is carried out by water testing the 

system following cleaning operation. 

During the last two years the Drainage Crew has followed the 

procedure outline above. It was revealed that approximately 80% 

of the highway drainage system is in good serviceable condition. 

Although 80% of gullies and their connection to sewers and water 

courses are in serviceable condition most of them are over 50 years 

old and require continuous close monitoring of their condition in 

order to avoid sudden collapse causing flooding and risking road 

accidents. 

Any relaxation of the cleaning and inspection regime of the 

drainage system will result in more of its features falling into the 

defective category and requiring a major replacement programme. 

Therefore it is envisaged that the frequency of cleaning and 

inspection of the system will have to be increased. This will keep 

the highway and land drainage system fully operable thereby 

minimising the major funding requirement. 

Performance Indicators 

Currently there are no national indicators for drainage related 

activities. However, it is intended to form a benchmarking club to 

assess how best to formulate indicators with respect to the number 

of highway flooding incidents, cost of repair of highway drainage 

infrastructure and flooding events from watercourses and the cost 

of maintenance of water courses. 

Life Cycle Plan 


Page 226


In accordance with the Local Government Act 1966 and the 

Highways Act 1980 the Council as the Highways authority has a 

statutory requirement to provide an adequate drainage system for 

the purpose of draining and preventing surface water flooding of 

the highway. 

5.5.6.5.1 Routine and Reactive Maintenance 

The annual cyclic routine cleaning and inspection of highways and 

land drainage system is carried out by the in-house drainage team 

whilst the structural maintenance involving replacement gullies and 

associates pipe work is normally carried out by an external 

contractor, selected through a competitive tendering procedure set 

out by the Council. The annual cyclic maintenance includes the 

following activities: 

� Annual cleaning gully pots and associated pipe work 

connection to the public sewers and watercourses. 

� Clean gully gratings and frame including apply necessary 

lubricant to facilitate maintenance. 

� Clean Council owned drainage and inspection chambers. 

� Clean chamber covers including application of lubricants 

� Clean soakaways pits/chambers 

� Inspection of highways and land drainage system 

� Produce defects schedule – general defects are cracked gully 

gratings and frame, defective fitting of grating into the frame 

and defective/collapsed pipe work 

� Produce works orders for external contractors to carry out 

works identified in the schedule 

� Payments to the contractors following completion of works 

� Update the inventory of drainage asset 

Reactive Maintenance 

The reactive and pro-active daily maintenance involve repair 

and/or replacement of all missing, damaged and defective gullies 

and associated pipe works. Reactive maintenance will normally be 

carried out upon receipt of complaints from members of the public 

and officers (Highway Inspectors) of the Council when they found 

defective asset during their site visits. 

Enhancement of the system 

This will be carried in conjunction with implementation of major 

enhancement/refurbishment work of highway works or to 

reduce/illuminate of frequent flooding. 


Page 227


Monitoring 

the 

performance 

Condition 

deterioration 

Partially 

passed 

Start 

Cleaning gullies 

and connections in 

line with annual 

programme 

Water testing and 

inspection of gullies and 

connections 

Test pass 

No further action 

required 

Update the 

Inventory 

Further 

work 

Satisfactory 

Inspection 

Figure - Drainage Fault Reporting Process 

Not satisfied 

with work 

Test Failed 

Defects reported 

by members of 

public 

Inspection of 

work 

Pay to the 

contractor 

Report to 

Drainage 

Engineer 

Request 

Drainage 

Crew to 

resolve 

Crew failed to 

resolve 

Instruct the 

contractor to 

carry out work 

Satisfied 

with work 


Page 228


Non-Illuminated Street Furniture Lifecycle Plan 

Scope of Life Cycle Plan 

This section of the asset management plan relates to the items of 

street furniture that are placed on the highway to carry out a variety 

of functions for all users. 

Introduction 

It is recognised that these assets may not always be the 

responsibility of the Local Authority, or may be covered by 

statutory regulations and therefore the Council has limited control 

for the management of these. 

Within the Street Management & Public Protection Department 

the Environmental Projects Team carries out the Management of 

these assets. 

The management and maintenance of street furniture not only 

ensures that its function is maintained to its optimum but also that 

its decline in condition or proliferation of unnecessary items or 

duplication does not impact upon the quality of the street scene. 

Where the borough is the owner or has responsibility for the asset 

these may be provided as a statutory requirement of the authority 

in carrying out its responsibility in managing the highway. 

The main functions of street furniture on the public highway fall 

into the following categories: 

� Safety 

� Communication 

� Information 

� Traffic 

� Environment 

The various types of non-illuminated street furniture considered in 

this section are shown in the following tables together with its 

functionality. 


Page 229


Council Asset 

Type 

Function 

Safety Communication Information Traffic Environment 

Seats and Benches * 

Bollards * * 

Traffic Signs * * * * 

Information Signs * * * 

Street Name Plates * * 

Parking Meters * 

Cycle Stands * * * 

CCTV Equipment * * * 

(cameras 

poles) 

and 

Pedestrian guardrails 

* * * 

Knee-rail fencing * * 

Fencing on walls * * 

Walls * * 

Hand-rails * * 

Litter bins * 

Gates * * 

Table – London Borough of Hounslow Street Furniture Assets and Functions 

3 rd Party Asset 

Type 

Asset Function 

Safety Communication Information Traffic Environment 

Public 

Conveniences 

* 

Advertising panels * 

Bus-stops and 

shelters 

* * 

Telephone kiosks * 

Cabinets * 

Speed Cameras * * 

Table – 3 rd Party Street Furniture Assets and Functions 


The Borough through partnership contracts has an interest in some 

assets listed in the second table above, but has a clear responsibility 

for the maintenance of all assets in the first table above, and it is 

these assets that that are referred to in the following sections. 

There is no current planned maintenance regime in place for the 

management of the Council street furniture, and repairs or 

replacement have usually been carried out on a reactive / ad hoc 

basis. 

However recent capital funding initiatives for street scene 

improvements have allowed comprehensive assessments of various 

assets to be made and improvements carried out to either repair, 

replace, or reduce assets, e.g.: 

� Local Area Enhancement schemes 2004 - 2006 

� Sign condition survey in 2004 (Principal Roads ) 


Page 230


These funding initiatives are generally one-off and restrict 

management of assets to certain areas of the borough. With the 

adoption of the HAMP the Council is intending to carry out a full 

inventory of all assets in the Borough; this will include a general 

condition assessment allowing the development of a future 

planned maintenance programme for these assets, and 

identification of associated costs. 


Standards covering the assets in this section are covered by various 

documents for manufacture, installation and maintenance where 

applicable. Examples of these are: 

� British Standards 

� The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, 

� New Road and Street Works Act 

� Highways Act 

� Planning legislation 

This department of the Council is currently in the process of 

producing a Street Scene Design Guide that aims to set out the key 

objectives in the choice and management of items of street 

furniture to be used in the Borough. 


Where items of furniture are to be installed as a statutory function 

of the Council formal notification will be publicised in accordance 

with legislation and guidance. 

There is no specific consultation process for individual items of 

street furniture; in general terms consultation is carried out where 

new items of furniture are to be installed as part of minor & major 

projects, e.g. local road safety schemes, local environmental 

improvement schemes, highway improvement schemes. These 

consultations take place with local residents, elected members and 

representative groups. 

Post project surveys are being introduced as part of the 

Environmental Projects Team’s move to achieve Chartermark for 

its service. 



Page 231


Maintenance / Replacement 

With a very limited budget to carry out routine maintenance of 

these assets the main process for dealing with their management 

has been on a reactive basis rather than planned. 

Officers from the Environmental Projects Team receive all 

enquiries from members of the public, and through routine 

inspections carried out by officers within other areas of Street Care 

Services. Instructions for remedial works are issued where funding 

from current budgets is still available. Although there is no priority 

criteria set down for dealing with this regime Health & Safety 

issues will always be addressed as a priority. 

Where assets are identified as being 3 rd party notice of damage etc 

will be forwarded to the owners. 

Asset Creation / Acquisition 

All new assets erected on the highway are funded through Capital 

investment where need has been identified as part of a local road 

safety schemes, local environmental improvement schemes, or 

highway improvement schemes. 

The adoption of new roads from housing and business 

developments may include the acquisition of new assets; these will 

have been designed in accordance with the Councils standards and 

statutory requirement. 

Asset Upgrading / Enhancement 

Upgrades of existing assets erected on the highway are funded 

through Capital investment. 

Asset Disposal 

Hierarchy: 

The asset management plan generally considers disposal only in 

conjunction with disposal of the whole street. However disposal of 

individual assets may occur where assets are no longer required 

through changes in statutory requirements or may be removed to 

reduce street clutter. 


Page 232


There is no hierarchy in the maintenance of items of nonilluminated 

street furniture other than prioritising H & S issues. 

However with the hierarchy for highway inspection the number of 

defect reports will generally lead to a higher standard of 

maintenance / repair in high profile areas such as Town centres 

and on Principal Roads. 


Page 233


Appendix 8 – Interim Asset Valuation Report 


Page 234

Highway Asset Valuation 1 st Year Interim Report & Comparison 

Highway Asset Valuation 

1 st Year Interim Valuation Report and Comparison 

Job ref : 103/431 

103 431 Hounslow Asset Valuation Report v1.4 Page 1 of 31 

© Chris Britton Consultancy 2007 12 October 2007


Version History 

Prepared By 

Name Signature Date 

1.1 Gareth Ellis August 2007 

1.2 Andy Pickett September 2007 

1.3 Andy Pickett October 2007 

1.4 Andy Pickett 12 October 2007 

Checked & Reviewed by Steve Fitzmaurice October 2007 

Approved By Chris Britton October 2007 

Issue Status Final 

Purpose of Issue Incorporating additional client feedback 

Project Code 103/431 

File Reference Hounslow Asset Valuation Report 

Chris Britton Consultancy 

#4 Howard Buildings 

69 - 71 Burpham Lane 

Guildford 

Surrey 

GU4 7NB 

email: info@chrisbritton.co.uk 

Phone: +44 (0)1483 304364 

Fax: +44 (0)1483 452264 




Contents 

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 4 

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5 

Background....................................................................................................................... 5 

Approach taken for the Interim Valuation........................................................................... 6 

Assumptions Made............................................................................................................ 9 

The Valuation.................................................................................................................. 14 

Appendix 1. Detail of the Calculation............................................................................... 15 

Appendix 2. Cost Rates................................................................................................... 19 

Appendix 3. Comparison with other Authorities ............................................................... 21 

Appendix 4 Comments on CIPFA Consultation Draft Report........................................... 28 




Executive Summary 

This report presents the results of the first year, interim highway asset valuation for the 

London Borough of Hounslow, carried out in accordance with current national guidelines. 

The valuation will form part of the Highways Asset Management (HAMP) Plan Version 2. A 

full, depreciated, benchmark valuation will be produced for publication in the HAMP version 

3. 

The results need to be viewed in the light of current availability of asset information, i.e. 

inventory and condition, which is in the process of being significantly improved. 

Comparisons with results from other authorities indicate that the valuation is of the correct 

order of magnitude, with differences being generally explainable. 

The headline figures from the valuation are as follows: 

Assets Valuation £ 

Roads including Drainage 472,643,518 

Segregated Footpaths 2,009,085 

Structures 30,321,000 

Lighting 20,738,600 

Total 525,712,203 

Value per km 1,211,318 

That is the “value” of Hounslow’s road network, when depreciation (condition) is not taken 

into account, i.e. the cost of replacing the whole network with one of modern standard, is 

£526 million pounds, that is an average of £1.2 million pounds for each km of road network. 

The Chartered Institute for Public Finance and Accounting (CIPFA) have, at the request of 

the Government, produced a report reviewing accounting, management and financial 

mechanisms associated with the valuation of transport infrastructure assets, including 

highways. This report recommends a change to the SORP (Local Authority Statement of 

Practice) to allow Asset Management Planning to be used by authorities in valuing their 

infrastructure assets and to include those valuations in the whole of government accounts. 

CIPFA is considering comments on the draft report; whilst the draft report is broadly 

compatible with the approach taken by Hounslow, it is likely that the end result of this 

process will be changes to the current guidance for local authorities on highways asset 

valuation, which may necessitate some detailed changes to future calculations. 




Introduction 

This report has been prepared on behalf of the London Borough of Hounslow (Streetcare 

Services) by Chris Britton Consultancy, to report the Gross Replacement Cost (GRC) for 

Hounslow’s highway network for the first year, interim valuation as set out in the 

guidance given by the County Surveyors’ Society (CSS). 1 The report also details the 

calculations, identifies assumptions, and benchmarks the valuation against those 

available for other authorities, and against alternative methods of calculation. 

The GRC has been calculated from the best information currently available; Hounslow is 

in the process of collecting a full asset inventory and condition data for highway assets; 

this will allow a more accurate assessment in future years, as will work going on 

regionally and nationally to introduce consistency in the derivation of cost rates and for 

standard approaches to valuation for particular assets, such as structures. Depreciated 

Replacement Cost will be calculated in the second year benchmark valuation as set out 

in the CSS guidance. 

Rates for the calculation have been taken from the current contract schedule of rates 

(SoR) and are current for the 2007/8 financial year. It is intended that this use of current 

rates from the SoR, where available, will result in a more locally representative, and 

accurate calculation and valuation. National or regional rates have not been used except 

for the calculation of replacement costs for bridges or where sufficient local data on costs 

is not available. For comparative purposes, a valuation using a model and rates derived 

on behalf of the South Eastern Counties Service Improvement Group (SECSIG) has also 

been calculated 2 , and also a version of the calculation using assumptions on standard 

design widths. 

The Appendices included provide details of the quantity, value and calculations for each 

asset type for the GRC. 

Background 

The key drivers for highway infrastructure asset valuation are: 

1. To emphasise the need to preserve the highway infrastructure by placing a monetary 

value on highway infrastructure assets, albeit that the valuation represents the monetary 

(capital) value of the assets and not the service provided by the assets, i.e. what the 

assets are ‘worth’ to society. 

2. To demonstrate asset stewardship by monitoring the asset value over time. It is worth 

noting however, that the asset value should not be used in isolation as a single measure 

of performance and serviceability, but should be used in combination with other 

recognised Performance Measures such as Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) 

and other Performance Indicators (PIs). 

1 

Guidance Document for Highway Infrastructure Asset Valuation, County Surveyors’ Society/TAG Asset Management Working 

Group, July 2005 

2 

The Standard Spreadsheet for Computing Transport Asset Valuations: A Study for the South East Centre of Excellence. 

Michael Rolfe for SECSIG Asset Management Theme Group, April 2007 




3. To support Whole of Government Accounts and promote greater accountability, 

transparency and improved stewardship of public finances. 

4. To support Highway Asset Management – Asset Valuation provides one facet of the 

robust financial framework that Asset Management should operate within. 

In the general sense, Asset valuation is defined as the calculation of the current 

monetary value of an authority’s assets. The current monetary value is expressed as the 

Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) of an authority’s highway infrastructure assets, 

where: 

DRC = Gross Replacement Cost – Accumulated Consumption 

Gross Replacement Cost 

The Gross Replacement Cost (GRC) for the highway infrastructure is determined from a 

bottom up calculation using a standardised procedure involving representative Unit 

Rates and using a GRC model which derives the cost of replacing an existing asset with 

a Modern Equivalent Asset. This cost is reported as the 1 st year interim valuation which 

is the subject of this Report. 

The GRC is based on modern equivalent construction and has been valued using 

current prices, from the current SoR through the current contractor. The valuation is 

based on replacement cost for the standard installation; the Council have not included an 

allowance for heritage asset items. 

Accumulated Consumption 

Assets are consumed during their service life due to ageing, usage, deterioration, 

damage, a fall in the Level of Service (assessed through appropriate performance 

Measures) and obsolescence, i.e. the wear and tear and deterioration of the highway 

infrastructure. Consumption = Depreciation + Impairment which will be calculated for the 

2nd year benchmark valuation. 

Approach taken for the Interim Valuation 

London Borough of Hounslow has followed, as far as possible, the CSS guidance on the 

valuation of individual asset types and on their contribution to the overall GRC of the 

highway asset. The following asset items have been included: 

• Roads (carriageway, footway) 

• Segregated Footpaths and Cycleways 

• Structures 

• Lighting 

• Drainage 

• Kerbs 

• Trees 

• Signs (illuminated and non-illuminated) 

• Lines 

• Markings and studs 




• Guardrails 

• Roundabouts 

The following items have been excluded from this year’s valuation: 

• TfL network (TRLN) 

• Land (no land exists besides for land covered by the roads; the replacement 

cost of this land is unknown) 

• Traffic Systems (all traffic systems in the Borough are owned and operated by 

TfL) 

• Street Furniture (apart from street furniture listed above; included in next 

years benchmark valuation) 

Unit rates were calculated for the different elements of the carriageway; this included the 

following asset items : 

• reconstruction of the carriageway 

• reconstruction of the footway attached to the carriageway 

• replacement of road markings and lines 

• replacement and installation of kerbs 

• reconstruction and installation of standard gullies 

Table 1 sets out the rates used in the calculation for these elements; that all rates relate 

to Urban classes of roads, since Hounslow has virtually no rural network. 

Asset Item 

Reconstruction of the 

carriageway 

Reconstruction of the 

footway attached to 

the carriageway 

Replacement of road 

markings and lines 

(centre lines) 

Replacement of road 

markings and lines 

(edge lines) 

Replacement and 

installation of kerbs 

Reconstruction and 

installation of standard 

gullies 

Road Class (Urban) 

Principal Classified “B” Classified C”` Unclassified 

£120 per £110 per £110 per £100 per 

square m square m square m square m 

£55 per square £55 per square £55 per square £45 per square 

m 

m 

m 

m 

£0.54 per 

linear m 

£0.675 per 

linear m 

£50 per linear 

m 

£1200 per unit 

£0.54 per 

linear m 

£0.675 per 

linear m 


m 


£0.54 per 

linear m 

£0.675 per 

linear m 


m 


Table 1: Unit Rate for Elements of the Road 

£0.54 per 

linear m 

£0.675 per 

linear m 


m 


The derivation of these rates is described in more detail in Appendix 2 and in the 

calculation spreadsheet that accompanies this report. 

The assumptions that were made as to the quantities and construction of the main asset 

types are set out below; the Council are in the process of collecting a full asset inventory 

and condition data, that will allow future valuations to be based on a more precise 

assessment of the extent of the asset. 




The model used to produce the GRC was developed in Excel, as described in the 

Appendices. A bespoke programme was not used as it would not allow the same degree 

of flexibility required for the interim valuation. Excel allows the Council to fine tune the 

calculation and helps in providing a more transparent and accurate result. 

The Council will be able to quickly assess the effect of reviewing their assumptions and 

various asset quantities by making changes to the base information thus establishing 

items whose change would have a significant effect on the GRC. This helps identify 

items where closer attention to detail should be given. 

Figures from the model are given in the Appendices of this report and have also been 

provided electronically. 

Valuation of Roads 

For the purposes of the valuation, Hounslow’s road network has been grouped into the 

following categories: 

PUS : Principal Urban Single 

NUS : Non-principal Urban Single 

UUS : Unclassified Urban Single 

Non-principal urban single roads have been further broken down into B and C class 

roads to provide a more accurate breakdown by making different assumptions as to their 

typical widths. 

The design widths used for the valuation of Hounslow’s roads were agreed with the 

client, based upon local knowledge of the network are specific to the Borough and differ 

from the assumptions on standard widths given in the model developed by SECSIG for 

the modern equivalent, as follows: 

Road Class Hounslow Carriageway SECSIG Carriageway 

Width (metres) 

Width (metres) 

Principal Roads 9.5 7.5 

Classified “B” Roads 9.0 5.8 

Classified “C” Roads 7.3 5.8 

Unclassified Roads 6.5 5.0 

The valuation includes calculations made using both methods, for comparative purposes, 

and also includes calculations made with each method, using the assumptions on 

carriageway widths from the alternate model. 

The calculation is based upon urban single roads of bituminous construction; Hounslow 

has relatively few dual carriageways and no significant length of rural network. It has 

been assumed that any existing concrete road would be replaced with the standard 

flexible construction. 




Assumptions Made 

Carriageway 

Kerbs 

Footways 

Construction of the carriageway has been broken down into Principal, Classified and 

Unclassified roads and reconstruction according to the standard breakdown as 

indicated in Appendix 2 where the costs are also included. 

Relaying of carriageway and footway surfaces does not include recesses for 

manholes or statutory boxes. 

As an urban authority, it has been assumed that all carriageways in the Borough 

have kerbs; the length of kerbs was assumed to be the same as twice the length of 

the carriageway length plus an additional 10% for centre islands and reserves. This 

assumption was also made in the calculation of investment need for the Highways 

PFI Expression of Interest (EOI). For the calculation of rates, it is assumed that 

concrete kerbs are used on unclassified roads, and that both concrete and granite 

kerbs are used on other classes of roads. 

A similar approach has been taken for footways; as the overwhelming majority of 

carriageways in the Borough will have footways the length of footway was assumed 

to be slightly less than twice the full carriageway length although the assumed widths 

will vary by road class. The length of footway has therefore been assumed to be 

180% of the carriageway length. This assumption was also made in the calculation of 

investment need for the Highways PFI Expression of Interest (EOI). For the 

calculation of areas the assumed footway average footway width for principle roads 

is 3 metres while for all other roads it is 2 metres. Detailed information exists with 

regards to footway areas in the Appendices. 

The majority of footways within the Borough are either of modular or bituminous 

construction. For the purposes of this assessment, average rates to reflect a mix of 

modular and bituminous footways have been used. 

Relaying of carriageway and footway surfaces does not include recesses for 

manholes or statutory boxes. This has not been added to the calculation. For 

footways this is a considerable cost, but difficult to assess without accurate inventory 

data; the availability of the full asset inventory and condition data should allow a more 

accurate assessment to be made for the benchmark valuation. 




Lines 

The length of carriageway lines was assessed with the following assumptions, since 

an accurate account of lines and markings does not exist. 

• The length of centre lines is taken to be the full length of the carriageway, on 

principal and classified roads, and 20% of the carriageway length on 

unclassified roads. 

• The length for ‘edge’ lines have been broken down into single yellow and 

double yellow each making up 50% of the network on both sides of the road, 

for principal and classified roads, and 15% on unclassified roads. 

• Parking lines are the same cost as single yellow lines 

It has therefore been assumed that for the length of ‘edge’ marking of and of ‘centre’ 

lines respectively is 200% and 100% on principal and classified roads, with 60% and 

20% on unclassified roads. 

Other Markings and Studs 

Gullies 

Cycleway 

As Hounslow does not yet have accurate inventory information for other (non-linear) 

road markings and studs the SECSIG model was used to calculate this rate and the 

total has been included in the final value for roads. 

The number of gullies in the Borough has been assessed, for the purposes of the 

highways PFI Expression of Interest (EOI), at 26,890. This figure is the basis of this 

years calculation, until a more accurate figure is available from the asset inventory 

survey. 

The cost of replacement has been detailed and calculated as per the SoR, based on 

a standard gully replacement assumed with a 1.8m gully connection and 2 courses of 

engineering brick work, 1 new grating and 2 metres of pipework. 

No other highways drainage has been included in this valuation due to lack of 

detailed information. 

The replacement cost of cycleways that form part of the carriageway has been 

included as a notional cost in the carriageway rates and has therefore not been 

included as a separate entity in the valuation. The length of carriageways remote 

from the carriageway is unknown, but is a relatively short length and has therefore 

not been included in calculation. 




Signs 

Trees 

The inclusion of signs has been based on an average figure for replacement cost 

based on the total number of signs replaced in the last year; as the total number of 

signs is currently unknown an estimate was made to provide this figure. The actual 

total number will be supplied in the second year valuation after the inventory survey 

has been completed. The replacement cost is the single average rate for all signs, 

measured per sign. The quantity of signs used in the calculation is consistent with the 

figures quoted in the PFI submission at 8,435 nos. 

Illuminated signs have been included under lighting. 

The replacement cost for trees takes into account that the bulk of the tree stock in the 

Borough is comprised of large trees, with a significant proportion being very being 

large trees. A weighted average was taken for the replacement of trees; as mature 

trees could not be replaced like-for-like replacement is assumed to be with semimature 

saplings. 

The weighted average was taken for the removal and stump treatment cost and this 

was added to the total replacement cost. The tree officer at CIP states that the 

figures provided are not a true indication as they based on an average calculation. 

The true value of the tree which should include atheistic appeal, pollution reduction 

and various other factors have not been taken into consideration; there would be 

benefit in discussions at regional and national level to agree a common approach to 

the valuation of very mature trees that could be replaced like-for-like. 

Roundabouts 

As Hounslow does not yet have accurate inventory information for roundabouts the 

SECSIG model was used to calculate this rate and the total has been included in the 

final value for roads, as an average value per km of roads, varying between one 

roundabout every 0.5km on principal roads, through to one every 0.01km on 

unclassified roads. 

Traffic Management 

The more onerous traffic management requirements for main roads met when 

carrying out highway maintenance work are not applicable to the valuation of large 

quantities as ‘new construction’, i.e. the modern equivalent. Therefore traffic 

management and out of hours working arrangement costs have not been included. 

Segregated Footpaths and Pedestrianised areas 

Rates for reconstruction of segregated footpaths including hard paved public rights of 

way have been separately included in the calculation. 




Structures 

London Borough of Hounslow has 30 bridges, 19 footbridges, 4 subways, 5 retaining 

walls and 3 culverts. Due to the specialist nature of bridges and structures within the 

Borough and the fact that calculating the different unit rates is somewhat complicated 

as limited historical data exists regarding their construction, we are in the process of 

developing estimated unit rates for subways, retaining walls, embankments and 

culverts. 

At the time of writing LoBEG have yet to provide unit rate figures for the calculation of 

the GRC, but we have used the agreed unit rate figure supplied by SEABIG (South 

East Bridge Information Group) for the cost of replacement for bridges, £4,800 per 

m2 of deck area, but not for other structures. 

Traffic Signals / Systems 

Lighting 

Unit Rates 

London Borough of Hounslow do not own or maintain any of the traffic signals or 

traffic management systems within the Borough. These are owned and maintained 

by TfL and have therefore been excluded from the valuation and the calculation of 

the GRC. 

The Council have recently completed a survey of their lighting stock and this data 

has been used in the calculations as shown in Appendix 1 and includes illuminated 

street furniture. 

In the case of all lamp columns the cost includes the lantern, installation and 

connection of the supply. 

Rates for lighting works from the Council’s current lighting contractor have been used 

to calculate the lighting GRC. The calculation was based on lamp columns, 

illuminated signs and bollards. The replacement for bollards is based on the 

installation of two at a time and the replacement of illuminated signs is based on the 

average cost of a sign and includes erection. 

The calculation includes lamp columns, illuminated signs, bollards, belisha beacons 

and central island columns all of which have been included in the Summary GRC. 

London Borough of Hounslow’s unit rates as mentioned before have been calculated 

based on the rates as specified in SoR for the current service contract. The unit rates 

were calculated for the various asset items based on recent replacement costs for 

the standard modern equivalent replacement for that particular item. This is set out in 

more detail in the Appendices. The council is confident that that the rates calculated 




indicate a fair and accurate representation of the true replacement for modern 

equivalent. 

As large areas would be replaced, with full replacement with modern equivalents, the 

highest band with the lowest price from the schedule of rates has been used to 

reflect economies of scale. For the carriageway this is 1000 units and for footways 

this is 100 units. 

Inventory Data 

This valuation has been performed using the best available information on current 

assets. However until accurate asset inventory and condition data is available the full 

extent of the asset is unknown, and this initial valuation should be interpreted with 

caution. 

Currently a full asset inventory and condition data survey is being carried out that will 

allow a complete and accurate assessment of the extent, scope and condition of the 

Hounslow’s highways assets. This will allow any updates to be added to the valuation 

to provide a more accurate GRC calculation and will help provide a good platform for 

use in the second year benchmark valuation, where the DRC will be calculated 

based on condition, depreciation and impairment. With the Council’s good knowledge 

of contractor rates they have been easy to incorporate into the various spreadsheets, 

thus allowing fine tuning of the GRC. Similar methods will be used with regards to 

calculating the DRC for year 2 bench mark valuation 2 programmed for April 2008. 




The Valuation 

Table 2, below, summarises Hounslow’s Interim Asset Valuation and shows, respectively, 

in columns 3 to 6; 

1. Hounslow’s Interim Asset Valuation, based upon rates and assumptions described in 

this report. 

2. The Valuation calculated using the model provided by SECSIG, with the attendant 

assumptions about design standards and its unit rates. 

3. An alternative version of Hounslow’s Interim Asset Valuation, but replacing the 

Hounslow-specific assumptions on carriageway widths with those used in the 

SECSIG calculation. Note that, since these are all lesser widths than those in the 

Hounslow model, the overall valuation is significantly lower. Once information from 

the asset inventory and condition data becomes available, it will be possible to make 

an accurate assessment of carriageway widths and areas. 

4. An alternative version of the SECSIG calculation, using Hounslow’s assumptions as 

to carriageway widths. 

Detailed calculations have been provided in the Appendices and in spreadsheets supplied 

separately to this report. 

What is striking from the figures below is the predominance of carriageways and 

associated footways in the total valuation, and the sensitivity of the overall GRC to 

differences in unit rates and to assumptions as to widths and areas. Once accurate 

inventory data is available, it will be possible to derive a valuation with considerably more 

confidence. 

Group Assets 

1) Roads 

2) 

Segregated 

Footpaths 

3) 

Structures 

4) Lighting 

Carriageway, 

Footway, 

Kerb, 

Drainage and 

related items. 

Interim 


Valuation 

£ 

SECSIG 

Calculation 

£ 

Interim 

Valuation 

using 

SECSIG 

Widths £ 

SECSIG 

Calculation 

using LBH 

Widths £ 

472,643,518 273,000,000 400,775,018 349,900,000 

Footpaths 2,009,085 1,200,000 2,009,085 1,200,000 

Bridges 

Retaining 

23,088,000 23,088,000 

Walls 

Culverts 

976,000 

590,000 

64,800,000 

976,000 

590,000 

Subways 900,000 900,000 

Footbridges 

Lamp 

4,767,000 

4,767,000 

Columns 

Illuminated 

16,972,600 

20,300,000 

16,972,600 

Furniture 3,766,000 

3,766,000 

64,800,000 

20,300,000 

Total 525,712,203 359,300,000 453,843,703 436,300,000 

Value per km 1,211,318 827,912 1,045,723 1,005,194 

Table 2. Interim Asset Valuation Gross Replacement Cost (GRC) 




Appendix 1. Detail of the Calculation 

Three spreadsheets have been supplied separately from this report, which set out: 

1. The Valuation 

(HounslowValuation1.4.xls) 

2. The SECSIG approach to valuation, for Hounslow’s network 

(Hounslow Valuation1.4_SECSIG calc.xls) 

3. The Valuation using the assumptions on carriageway widths from the SECSIG model 

(HounslowValuation1.4_SECSIG Widths.xls) 

4. The SECSIG approach to valuation, but using the width assumptions from the 

Hounslow valuation 

(Hounslow Valuation1.4_SECSIG calc_LBH Widths) 

The tables below provide detail extracted from 1. and 3. (above). 

Elements of the Composite Rates and Costs for Roads 

a1. Carriageways 

Asset Subgroup length(m) width(m) area(m2) rate(£/m2) cost(£) 

Principal Urban ( A) 38,700 9.5 367,650 120 44,118,000 

Non Principal Urban (B) 14,000 9 126,000 110 13,860,000 

Non Principal Urban (C) 30,500 7.3 222,650 110 24,491,500 

Unclassified Urban 350,800 6.5 2,280,200 100 228,020,000 

Totals 434,000 2996500 310,489,500.00 

a2. Carriageways (Alternative based upon SECSIG carriageway widths) 

Asset Subgroup length(m) width(m) area(m2) rate(£/m2) cost(£) 

Principal Urban ( A) 38,700 7.5 290,250 120 34,830,000 

Non Principal Urban (B) 14,000 5.8 81,200 110 8,932,000 

Non Principal Urban (C) 30,500 5.8 176,900 110 19,459,000 

Unclassified Urban 350,800 5 1,754,000 100 175,400,000 

Totals 434,000 2,302,350 238,621,000.00 

b. Footways associated with Carriageways 

Asset Subgroup % width area(m2) rate(£/m2) cost(£) 

Principal Urban ( A) 180 3 116,100 55 11,493,900 

Non Principal Urban (B) 180 2 28,000 55 2,772,000 

Non Principal Urban (C) 180 2 61,000 55 6,039,000 

Unclassified Urban 180 2 701,600 45 56,829,600 

Totals 906,700 77,134,500 




c. Lines 

Asset Subgroup Centre line rate(£/m) % Edge Line rate(£/m) % cost(£) 

Principal Urban ( A) 0.54 100 0.675 200 73,143 

Non Principal Urban (B) 0.54 100 0.675 200 26,460 

Non Principal Urban (C) 0.54 100 0.675 200 57,645 

Unclassified Urban 0.54 20 0.675 60 179,960 

Totals 337,208 

d. Markings and Studs 

Asset Subgroup % rate(£/m) Cost (£) 

Principal Urban ( A) 100 6 232,200 

Non Principal Urban (B) 100 6 84,000 

Non Principal Urban (C) 100 6 183,000 

Unclassified Urban 100 6 2,104,800 

Totals 2,604,000 

e. Kerbs 

Asset Subgroup % rate(£/m) Cost (£) 

Principal Urban ( A) 210 50 4,063,500 

Non Principal Urban (B) 210 50 1,470,000 

Non Principal Urban (C) 210 50 3,202,500 

Unclassified Urban 210 35 25,783,800 

Totals 34,519,800 

f. Gullies 

Asset Subgroup number 

Rate 

(£ per unit) Cost (£) 

All 26890 1,200 32,268,000 

g. Trees 


Rate 


All 10212 1,050 10,722,600 

h. Signs 


Rate 


All 8435 298 2,513,630 




i. Roundabouts 

Asset Subgroup rate(£) no/km Cost (£) 

Principal Urban ( A) 85000 0.5 1,644,750 

Non Principal Urban (B) 85000 0.05 59,500 

Non Principal Urban (C) 85000 0.02 51,850 

Unclassified Urban 85000 0.01 298,180 

Totals 2,054,280 

Total Costs for Roads 

Asset Subgroup Valuation (£) 

Alternative Valuation using 

SECSIG Widths (£) 

Principal Urban ( A) 107,129,723 97,841,723 

Non Principal Urban (B) 18,271,960 13,343,960 

Non Principal Urban (C) 34,025,495 28,992,995 

Unclassified Urban 313,216,340 260,596,340 

Totals 472,643,518 472,643,518 

Remote Footpaths/Public Rights of Way 

length(m) width(m) area(m2) rate(£/m2) cost(£) 

20,606 1.5 30,909 65 2,009,085 

Structures 

number length(m) width(m) measure Unit 

unit 

cost 

(£/m2) GRC (£) 

Bridges 30 501 269 4,810 m2 4800 23,088,000 

Footbridges 19 1761 61.5 4,767 m2 1000 4,767,000 

Subways 

Retaining Walls 

3 65 45 900 m2 1000 900,000 

(Concrete) 5 160 23 2440 m2 400 976,000 

Culverts 3 65 24 590 m2 1000 590,000 

TOTALS 30,321,000 




Lighting 

a. Lamp Columns 

Length (m) Number Cost (£) Total (£) 

< = 5m 5,888 1000 5,888,000.00 

6m 6,218 1000 6,218,000.00 

8m 1,906 1200 2,287,200.00 

10m 2,142 1200 2,570,400.00 

12m 6 1500 9,000.00 

16160 16,972,600.00 

b. Illuminated Signs and Bollards 

Item Number Cost (£) Total (£) 

Illuminated Bollards 1346 700 942200 

Illuminated Signs 2179 1000 2179000 

Belisha Beacons 3m 184 1200 220800 

Feeder Pillar 424 1000 424000 

4133 3,766,000.00 




Appendix 2. Cost Rates 

Item Description 

Unclassified 

Roads 

400mm Full 

Depth 

Construction 

Classified 

B and C 

Roads 

Full Depth 

Construction 

600mm 

Principal A 

Roads 

Full Depth 

Construction 

890mm 

Footways 

(modular) 

Footways 

(bituminous) 

Average 

Footway Rates 

Break out & cart existing construction 

Excavate to formation level 

200 type 1 construction 

150 road base 

70 base course 

30 wearing course 




250 road base 





250 capping course 


250 road base 





Provide and lay paving 



150 mm type 1 

50 mm base 

Wearing Course 

Principal Roads 


Cost/m2 

£100.00 

£110.00 

£120.00 

£55.00 

£40.00 

£55.00 

Classified Roads £55.00 

Unclassified Roads £45.00 

SECSIG Cost/m2 

£73.37 

+23.3% footway 

enhancement factor 

£76.89 

+16.5%(B)/19.4%(C) 

footway enhancement 

factor 

£85.08 

+11.6% footway 


Included in footway 






Gullies reconstruction £1,200.00 £350.00 

Kerbs (Principal 

and Classified) 

Kerbs 

(Unclassified) 

Lines and 

Markings 

Signs 

Break out existing kerb, bed and backing and cart to tip 

Lay new bed and backing 

Provide and lay new granite kerbs 

Break out existing kerb, bed and backing and cart to tip 

Lay new bed and backing 

Provide and lay new concrete kerbs 

£50.00 £25.00 

£35.00 £25.00 

yellow £0.54 n/a 

white – broken/centre £0.54 n/a 

double yellow £0.81 n/a 

markings and studs £1.00 £1.00 

Take down and cart sign 

Take down and cart post 

Provide and erect post 

Provide and fix sign face 

£298.00 n/a 




Item Description 

Constructed Roundabouts / 

Central Reserve 


Cost/m2 

SECSIG Cost/m2 

Reconstruction, excavation and replant 

cost £85,000.00 £85,000.00 

Trees Replanting £1,050.00 n/a 

Structures 

Bridges £4,800.00 £4,800.00 

Footbridges £1,000.00 n/a 

Subways £1,000.00 n/a 

Retaining Walls (Concrete) £400.00 n/a 

Culverts £1,000.00 n/a 




Appendix 3. Comparison with other Authorities 

Introduction 

A comparison has been made between Hounslow’s Valuation and other figures that we have 

access to, including those supplied by the South East Authorities Group (including Dorset 

County Council, East Sussex County Council, Hampshire County Council, the Isle of Wight, 

Kent County Council, Surrey County Council, West Sussex County Council, and Portsmouth 

City Council), as well as some London Boroughs for whom valuations have been carried out 

by CBC including Harrow, Tower Hamlets and Kensington and Chelsea. Whilst we have 

made the references to data anonymous in this report, the client is asked to respect 

confidentiality and to only use this report for internal purposes. 

Overall 

The County Surveyors Society’s guidance on valuation breaks down the highways assets 

into the following 4 Asset Groups which can be seen in the table below. The percentage 

break down by value (Gross Replacement Cost) of these 4 asset groups is shown in Table 1 

below. 

Hounslow % Other Authorities % 

Roads 84 83 

Structures 6 7 

Drainage 6 6 

Lighting 4 4 

Table 1 Percentage GRC by Asset Group 

6% 6% 4% 

Hounslow's Breakdown 


© Chris Britton Consultancy 2007 12 October 2007 

84% 

Figure 1 Percentage GRC by Asset Group 

Roads 

Structures 

Drainage 

Lighting 

This provides positive correlation that Hounslow’s valuation is consistent with those for other 

Boroughs.


As some authorities have significantly different lengths and hence different total values, the 

total asset value or gross replacement cost for the entire asset group is the divided by the 

full network length to give a unit rate per kilometre, this then gives a fair representation of the 

asset value across the entire network. 

Hounslow’s Gross Replacement Cost (GRC) of £525,712,203 divided by the full network 

length of 434kms gives an average figure of £1,211,318/km. This compared to other 

authorities (see table 2) was the lowest figure compared to other London Boroughs, but is of 

a sufficiently similar order of magnitude to indicate that it a fair representation. 

Authority Total (GRC) £ Total km £/km 

LB1 546,424,797 194.5 2,809,382 

LB2 770,001,950 457.4 1,683,513 

LB3 411,277,166 259.5 1,584,883 

Hounslow 525,712,203 434.0 1,211,318 

Unitary 588,300,000 500.0 1,176,600 

Unitary 758,000,000 800.0 947,500 

County 4,621,143,440 5202 888,339 

County 3,338,000,000 4800.0 695,416 

County 2,361,800,000 4000.0 590,450 

County 1,698,800,000 2900.0 585,793 

County 4,697,000,000 8400.0 559,166 

County 1,444,823,754 4390.0 320,117 

County 1,967,200,000 8000.0 245,900 

GRC (millions) 

£900 

£800 

£700 

£600 

£500 

£400 

£300 

£200 

£100 

£0 

Table 2 GRC in order of £ per km 

Total (GRC) 

LB1 

Total (GRC) 

LB2 



LB3 

Figure 2. Total GRC for London Boroughs 

The four authorities in Table 2 marked LB are London Boroughs which have some of the 

highest rates per kilometre. This may be explained by the high density make up of the 

highways asset in London and the expensive composition of the rates indicating London 

Prices, and a preference to use high-quality materials and in some cases fragmented and 

poor procurement policy. 

Hounslow


Roads 

The roads asset group forms the bulk of the value and is the main contributor to the total 

asset value or Gross Replacement Cost (GRC). The CSS guidelines for the calculation of 

the roads GRC include replacement costs for carriageway, cycleway, footways, street 

furniture and drainage. As seen in the table above Hounslow’s roads replacement cost 

equates to 84% of the total GRC value compared to 83% for the rest of the valuations CBC 

have completed. 

£'s millions 

£500.0 

£400.0 

£300.0 

£200.0 

£100.0 

£0.0 

Authority Value £ 

LB1 382.0 

LB2 436.0 

LB3 349.0 

Hounslow 442.3 

Table 3 Roads GRC (London Boroughs) 

LB1 

Roads 



LB2 

LB3 


Figure 3. Total Roads GRC for London Boroughs 

The reason why Hounslow’s comparable rates are higher could be due to a number of 

factors. The main reason is likely to be that the unit rates used to calculate the 

reconstruction of roads are higher for Hounslow than for the other authorities out side of 

London. This can be seen in Table 4 below:


Authority 

main A roads main B roads C roads unclassified 

roads 

urban rural urban rural urban rural urban rural 

Hounslow 120 110 110 100 

LB1 150 99 99 87 

LB2 82 82 82 82 

LB3 159 159 159 94 

A 80 78 75 73 73 72 72 70 

B 109 104 84 93 69 75 75 64 

C 58 56.8 48.6 47.3 48.6 47.3 43.4 43.4 

D 100.8 100.8 100.8 100.8 100.8 100.8 100.8 100.8 

E 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 

F 119.9 86.4 114.2 73.6 123.7 69.6 123.7 69.6 

G 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

H 139.2 140.1 140 140 

Table 4: Carriageway Unit Rates (£/m2) 

It should be noted that when calculating the unit rate for carriageways the rate needs to 

include full reconstruction from the road base to the surface layer, and needs to take into 

account excavation and removal of the existing carriageway. For comparability of unit rates, 

all authorities should have used the same item coverage but this may not have been the 

case. 




Structures 

£'s (millions) 

50.0 

45.0 

40.0 

35.0 

30.0 

25.0 

20.0 

15.0 

10.0 

5.0 

0.0 

LB1 

Structures 

LB2 



LB3 


Figure 4. Total Structures GRC for London Boroughs 

The value of structures forms a significant part of the GRC; in the comparison Hounslow’s 

replacement cost for structures is £30,809,000 which is the lower than two of the London 

Boroughs and five other authorities that have supplied structures data. Of these the highest 

was around £750,000,000 (figures quoted are approximate figures). This figure relates to a 

county and would obviously depend on the number of bridges within that county. The unit 

rate of £4,800/m2 (supplied by SEABIG – South East Bridge Information Group) of bridge 

deck area was used for the calculation of bridges, which makes up the bulk of the structures 

asset groups GRC. The overall comparison can be seen in Table 5 below. 


Hounslow 30,321,000 

LB1 40,030,000 

LB2 46, 800,000 

LB3 20,090,000 

A 100,000,000 

B 500,000,000 

C 500,000,000 

D 550,000,000 

E 750,000,000 

Table 5 Total Structures GRC 

(figures quoted are approximate)


Drainage 


£40.0 

£35.0 

£30.0 

£25.0 

£20.0 

£15.0 

£10.0 

£5.0 

£0.0 

LB1 

Drainage 



LB2 

LB3 


Figure 5. Total Drainage GRC for London Boroughs 

The drainage asset group, makes up a lesser part of the total GRC in relation to the other 

asset groups and also measures low compared to three other authorities that have supplied 

drainage data. (see Table 6). Note that the data for drainage has been based upon sample 

data for compiled for the PFI Expression of Interest (EOI), and that a more accurate 

assessment of drainage will be possible once the asset inventory has been completed next 

year. 



LB1 9,500,000 

LB2 23,100,000 

LB3 37,900,000 

A 175,000,000 

B 350,000,000 

C 525,000,000 

D Not available 

E Not available 

Table 6 Total Drainage GRC 

(figures quoted are approximate)


Lighting 


£35.0 

£30.0 

£25.0 

£20.0 

£15.0 

£10.0 

£5.0 

£0.0 

LB1 

Lighting 



LB2 

LB3 


Figure 6. Total Lighting GRC for London Boroughs 

Lighting makes up a lesser part of the total GRC in relation to the other asset groups, 

and also measures as the second highest compared to three other London Boroughs 

that have supplied lighting data (see Table 7). 

Conclusion 



LB1 15,200,000 

LB2 29,800,000 

LB3 16,100,000 

A 25,000,000 

B 40,000,000 

C 115,000,000 

D 115,000,000 

E 200,000,000 

Table 7 Total Drainage GRC 

(figures quoted are approximate) 

The figures provided by Hounslow for their valuation have been compared with other similar 

authorities, including London Boroughs with similar characteristics, and our findings suggest 

that Hounslow’s valuation of their asset is consistent with results from other authorities.


Appendix 4 Comments on CIPFA Consultation Draft Report 

Local Authority Transport Infrastructure Assets - Review of Accounting, 

Management and Finance Mechanisms 

The following are the comments made in September 2007, jointly by Chris Britton 

Consultancy and the London Borough of Hounslow on the version of the above report issued 

for consultation. 

1. Comments in response to consultation questions; 

(i) Yes, we agree that the AMP approach has significant advantages, including; 

� Transparency and auditability of objectives and performance 

� More objective assessment of condition and of need (as long as all authorities subscribe 

to the same basic methodologies), and the ability to make funding allocations at regional 

and national level on a better informed, more equitable basis 

� Longer-term planning horizon 

� Ability to treat assets that have traditionally been managed and funded separately on a 

common basis, and to therefore direct funds to where the benefit, in terms of the service 

provided and the need to preserve the asset, is the greatest. 

(ii) We would agree that a change to a SORP would be beneficial in promoting and AMPbased 

approach, but would also make the point that many of the reasons for this change 

detailed in section 5.15 would be desirable and should be pursued in any case, in particular 

greater professional finance liaison and input and initiatives to improve data quality and 

consistency. 

(iii) All these actions would be worthwhile. It should be noted under action (iv) that 

centralised training and support is underway or will shortly commence in Wales and 

Scotland, but nothing similar has been set up in England. Since English authorities are more 

diverse, this may not be feasible to implement, but grants that could be used for 

commercially-run courses and consultancy support might help to pump prime this? Other 

possible additional actions that might be considered are: 

� More joined-up working between transport and finance staff within local authorities on 

valuations and asset management plans 

� A mechanism for independent audits of the calculations within the valuation to ensure 

consistency of inputs and approach, and the production of standard audit 

guidance/process. 

� National standard reporting formats including the elements of the calculation (inventory, 

cost rates, assumptions etc.) to provide an simple audit trail and to provide some 

evidence of consistency of approach 




� A national highways asset valuation database, containing both headline figures and 

components of the calculation would be useful both for benchmarking and for reporting 

and trending at regional and national level. 

You may be aware that CBC is the support contractor for the national UK Pavement 

Management Systems (UKPMS) which is the standard system for assessing condition and 

need for maintenance on local authority roads. UKPMS provides a means by which highquality 

nationally consistent data on road condition could be used for nationally consistent 

calculations of condition and depreciation of roads and footways, and could provide 

nationally consistent software to carry out those calculations. A new combined support 

contract for UKPMS and SCANNER (the national standard road surface condition survey) 

will be let over the coming months and one of the first tasks for the support contractor will be 

to implement the recommendations of the UKPMS Strategic Review, carried out by Halcrow 

in 2006. (http://www.ukroadsliaisongroup.org/pdfs/060811%20- 

%20UKPMS%20strategic%20review.pdf) A key theme of this review is the need to update 

UKPMS to support AMP, and we would anticipate that the introduction of consistent software 

for asset valuation and depreciation would form part of this. 

We would also strongly endorse the proposed additional support in sections 5.26 and 5.27, 

and would be happy to share our experiences in carrying out Hounslows valuation in this 

respect. 

We would strongly support the recommended approach in section 7.12 and 7.13, but would 

also suggest that there would be a valuable ongoing role for the national assumptions and 

data for benchmarking and quality audit purposes once authorities have their own data and 

models available. 

(iv) (7.6) The revision of the CSS/TAG guidance is necessary to make it more practical, and 

to reflect latest developments. Given the lead time, procurement of this project should be 

commenced straight away. 

We would suggest that strong dialogue/cross referencing between the asset types is built 

into all future AMP developments (to ensure consistency of approach) through the UKRLG s 

various groups such as Roads, Street Lighting, Structures, etc. The shared topics would 

include for example; data management, valuation, whole life cost modelling, and levels of 

service. 

(v) and (vi) Our experience, within Hounslow, and elsewhere, has been limited to highway 

networks and assets covered by SORP, so it is not possible for us to give an informed view 

on how other transport assets, such as airports, or other property assets should be treated. It 

is clearly desirable that the benefits that AMP can bring for highways networks be pursued 

elsewhere. 

2. Other comments; 

We could not find any reference in the document to the definition of Capital and Revenue 

expenditures. We believe that the somewhat artificial current distinction between these 

heads can lead to distortion in the way Council s allocate their limited funds, and make 

certain asset-maintenance activities less attractive . The key point here is that many hitherto 

revenue activities such as maintenance of drainage do have a beneficial effect on extending 

the life of an asset and hence reduce depreciation. But if only capital activities are included 

in the AMP calculations and accounting process, this benefit may be overlooked? Asset 

Management is a long term, planned process, and encouragement needs to be given to 




Authorities to ring-fence these investment budgets. Revenue budgets for road maintenance 

have been notorious targets for short term funding cuts when times are hard, with no 

consideration given to the long-term impact this has on the life of the assets or risk/safety 

issues. 

Perhaps there is scope for a national minimum set of maintenance/levels of service 

standards that reflects best practice both in risk management and preservation of asset life 

terms? 

Longer term, there is probably a need for a debate as to whether the "value" of the service 

provided by an asset is also reflected in the valuation. (So that, for example, two roads that 

are physically identical in terms of their specification and condition, one of which serves a 

community of 10 people, the other a community of 10000, would have their "value" to the 

community reflected in the calculation). 




Acknowledgements 

This report and the valuation were carried by CBC with the assistance of London Borough of 

Hounslow. Further information on the general principles adopted in the initial asset valuation 

can be obtained from Krishnan Radhakrishnan (London Borough of Hounslow) 

krishnan.radhakrishnan@hounslow.gov.uk Further details with regards to the calculation 

and methodology can be obtained from Andy Pickett (andy.pickett@chrisbritton.co.uk) 

The SECSIG valuation report and model was produced by Michael Rolfe. 



Michael Jordan, Director 

Environment Department 

London Borough of Hounslow 

Civic Centre, Lampton Road 

Hounslow TW3 4DN. 

www.hounslow.gov.uk Communications August 2009

Highways Asset Management Plan: HAMP ... - Hounslow Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?