The Transport Committee published the Department for Transport’s (DFT) response to its recent report on street works, rejecting the majority of its recommendations, which sought to reduce the disruption caused by lengthy and often repeated street works by utility companies.
Around 2.2 million street and road works were carried out in England between April 2023 and March 2024 and over 200 organisations have the right to dig up roads.
Transport Committee Chair Ruth Cadbury MP, said: “The Government’s rejection of all the major recommendations in our report risks making itself simply look unwilling to stand up to utility companies, on behalf of frustrated road users who have to endure unreasonable and often repeated street works delays.
“It is all well and good for DfT to say it wants to explore ways to replicate best practice on a voluntary basis, but if the incentives are not changed, we carry on without carrots or sticks, then why should the Government expect anything to change?
“There is also a contradiction in the way Ministers oppose the wider adoption of lane rental schemes because it fears local authorities could misuse those powers.
“At the same time, they say they are fully behind devolution and empowering local decision makers on a host of other important issues.
“Road users in constituencies across the country trying to get around, access shops and service, deserve better. Our recommendations, if adopted, would help to grip this never-ending nuisance.”
The Department for Transport (DfT) responded to the main recommendations in the cross-party Committee’s report, including the recommendation of using lane rental schemes to incentivise quicker completion.
The recommendation was rejected, despite the Department agreeing that the schemes have been effective where used.
DfT also responded to extending the reinstatement period, where utility companies are responsible for the quality of the road surfaces they have reinstated for just two years after completion.
The Committee recommended that the two-year guarantee period for reinstatements should be extended to five years, similar to the six years operating in Scotland.
Ministers said they want to see how a similar change to the reinstatement period will play out in Scotland.
They also argue that the 2023 performance-based inspections regime already incentivises better standards and states that the effectiveness of that regime will be evaluated in 2026 before considering further changes.
MPs recommended deadlines for fixing defects, they said DfT should introduce timescales for companies to repair faulty reinstatements, and fines should increase each time a deadline is not met.
They also believe the company responsible should also pay the Department a sum equivalent to the cost of compliance after the first exceeded deadline.
The report raised how the two-cycle cap on inspections of reinstatements means that there is no financial incentive for utility companies to fix a defect once they have already been inspected twice.
It said the cap should be lifted so that companies are not able to leave defects for councils to sort out.
The Government said it wants to work “collaboratively” with the industry, but said it will discuss these recommendations with the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee (HAUC(UK)).
MPs also recommended tightening the use of immediate permits, which would mean companies that misuse the permit, by still using an immediate permit when they already knew the work needed to take place.
The Government said that it investigated the issue of companies misusing immediate permits and found no evidence of misuse so far.
It did acknowledge that the use of emergency and urgent permits is increasing, with 18.4% more urgent permits used in 2023/24 than in 2021/22.
The Government said it commits to updating the Co-ordination Code of Practice to clarify when immediate permits should be used, while continuing to monitor usage trends, but it has not committed to reviewing what types of work immediate permits can be used for.
Another recommendation was longer-term planning. DfT has guidance in place that encourages utility companies to share ‘forward planning information’ on the Street Manager system, and encourages local authorities and utility companies to identify opportunities to coordinate work.
The Committee urged DfT to make this mandatory, which should further help to avoid multiple companies digging up the same area of road in short succession by instead going in at the same time.
MPs also recommend that this requirement to inform the local authorities further in advance should apply to developers of new estates that will require utility infrastructure to be installed under roads to service their new sites.
DfT agreed in principle that early notification should happen, but disagrees that forward planning notices should be made mandatory.
It pointed to effective voluntary arrangements, such as between Bristol City Council and Wessex Water, and said it wants to explore what barriers there may be to following this best practice elsewhere.
DfT said it had committed to working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to explore options for earlier sharing of utility connection plans between property developers and councils, but does not say it will require developers to do so and does not suggest any way of incentivising positive behaviour.
MPs also recommended setting up a street works commissioner. The Committee said DfT should consider setting up a street works commissioner in England, similar to the Road Works Commissioner in Scotland, to help ensure the consistent application and interpretation of legislation, provide an option for independent dispute resolution between councils and companies, and monitor performance across the sector.
The DfT said setting up a new arms-length body would not be consistent with the Government’s ongoing review of such bodies, with the aim of reducing their number.
It also said an English Street Works Commissioner would need far greater resources than its Scottish counterpart because it would receive far higher caseloads.
DfT does not suggest an alternative to this proposal, only that it will explore ways to enhance existing dispute resolution processes with the existing body HAUC(UK).
The final recommendation from the committee was to improve accessibility. The Committee wanted to know what feedback the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) had provided to DfT regarding accessibility in its updated Safety Code of Practice for street works.
It also wanted to know what changes had been made to the Safety Code based on that feedback.
In response to this recommendation, the Government said it will launch a consultation on proposed changes to the Code and will outline the specific changes made to improve accessibility while “incorporating advice received from DPTAC”.
