REVISED SCC RESPONSE: A second email from Surrey County Councillor Ian Lake

Sent: 7 December 2009 15:03

Surrey County Council officers have continued to negotiate strongly with Southern Gas Networks (SGN) for a less disruptive schedule for the installation of the new gas supply pipe along Seven Hills Road.

SGN’s original schedule would have seen Seven Hills Road closed from the end of December for about seven months, but knowing the inconvenience this would cause for local residents and other road users, the council has worked with SGN to rearrange its timetable so that as far as possible the road is only closed during the school holidays, when there is less traffic.

The new pipe is required to run from the A3 adjacent to the Seven Hills Hotel along Seven Hills Road to the junction with Queens Road to reinforce the gas supply to the areas of Hersham, Walton on Thames and Weybridge for the autumn of 2010.

The new programme for the works will be to carry out the crossing of the Byfleet Road over the new year holiday period and extend the new pipe into both sides of the Seven Hills Road. This work will require the closure of Seven Hills Road, starting on 28 December but this will be removed allowing full use of the roads again by  4 January.

The associated traffic management for the closure is complex and the signed diversion route will be as advertised.

Access for pedestrians, equestrians and residents will be maintained as will access for emergency service vehicles in an emergency situation only.

In order to meet the completion date of 1 October 2010, SGN will need to close the road for a further 2 weeks from 15 March until 29 March and then again for an extended period beginning on 20 June and continuing until 29 August 2010.

There will also be a need to carry out other associated service connections and replacement of other pipework, some of which will require local traffic control, but will not close the road. All movement of plant, machinery and materials is planned to take place early evenings so as not to add to the traffic movements during peak times.

SGN has identified the number of teams needed to meet this programme and  agreed to monitor progress. SGN has committed to maximise its work output during the scheme and intends to extend the hours of work as much as possible but is not contemplating working between the hours of midnight and 6am at any time. At the moment there is no 24 hour work planned but SGN has agreed to consider this should circumstances indicate that it would reduce the overall time of the scheme.

Surrey County Council’s Cabinet Member for Transport, Ian Lake, said: “We have had robust discussions with SGN to ensure that this work is really essential and that it will cause our residents as little disruption as possible. The original schedule was unacceptable but we have worked closely with SGN to ensure that as much as possible of the work requiring a road closure is done during the school holidays, and that every effort is made to minimise disruption at all other times.  We will continue to monitor the work closely throughout the project to make sure it goes as smoothly as possible".

SGN has agreed to investigate further the impact on local schools, businesses and residents of these works and will be contacting all those involved.

Regards
Ian Lake
Cabinet Member for Transport
County Councillor for Weybridge

INITIAL SCC RESPONSE: An earlier email from Surrey County Councillor Ian Lake

Sent: 25 November 2009 15:03

Thank you for your recent email, and I apologise that I cannot reply on an individual basis, owing to the sheer volume of correspondence on this subject.  Please find below the body of my email addressed to Philip Hammond MP.

As you know, the authority’s duty under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (NRSWA) is to coordinate all proposed activities on the highway network, and our officers have been and are continuing to exercise the powers that are available to us under the legislation framework.

I am confident that the appropriate procedures to implement the road closure (as set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) have been followed by officers. The Traffic Regulation Order itself enables the road to be legally closed between the valid advertised dates, provided that the required signing and approved diversion route is in place.  However, it does not relieve the duty of undertakers to coordinate their works with the authority or to submit the required notification periods under NRSWA, and this was made explicit to SGN as part of the planning process.

The Order was prepared to commence from November to enable SGN to carry out trial hole investigations, which will be essential in confirming the positioning of all apparatus within the road and thereby the possible options for the overall scheme. Rather than go through this process twice, with two sets of advertisements in the press with different timescales, the period for the Order (not the actual closure itself) was extended to 12 months.

There is no formal objection procedure for the making of such an Order. However, any representations received are always duly considered by the authority, and addressed through the appropriate planning or coordination process.

When SGN first disclosed the scheme in 2008, there were to be two projects. One to improve the current network, replacing the old iron pipework with new plastic and making the necessary connections to customers along the road. The other project identified the Intermediate Pressure 355mm diameter pipe along the whole length of the road between a new pressure reducing station on land requiring an easement just to the north east of the Queens Road roundabout and an existing pipe running along the A3 at the very southern end of Seven Hills Road. I believe the land adjacent to the A3 and the Seven Hills Hotel may also require an easement. SGN has never shared the progress of their legal actions to permit the placing of their pipe on the non-highway land.

You will not be surprised that the original response by the county council was that the second project could not use this route and that another should be found. SGN did not raise the project again until April this year. This time, SGN started to consider running the two projects together and the county council requested meetings to discuss the pre-planning of the one scheme. Officers have subsequently repeatedly challenged the proposals, including requesting 24 hour working, and have insisted upon a full and detailed programme for the works, following some formal public consultation and information gathering. It is the county council who has had to press SGN for consultation to take place with the residents association and others and as you know, a public event is now to be held later this week organised by SGN as part of their responsibility. Should you wish to contact them directly, their Customer Service telephone number is 08450 701431.

On the matter of 24 hour working specifically, it seems clear that different information is being supplied at different times. I am assured by officers that safety concerns regarding moving and positioning of the large sections of pipework were raised by SGN representatives as one of the reasons not to adopt 24 hour working, as well as simple resourcing difficulties. However, officers have continued to query this, and it seems that, as you suggest, there may now be scope for achieving this.

With regard to the demonstrable need for the upgrades to the existing mains, we are reliant upon the information provided by the SGN as industry experts. I cannot report a full catalogue of regular leakage incidents, and it should be noted that SGN has acknowledged that this element of the works has been brought forward in order to minimise further future disruption to the area. However, there have been three instances of emergency works to deal with leaks in the last two months, and where temporary signals have been used, even for a relatively short duration, significant traffic delays have resulted. I think that this validates the views of both SGN and our officers that undertaking the whole scheme in this way would not necessarily be a preferable solution.

SGN has already submitted their formal three month advance notification of the works, as required under NRSWA. The county council is able to submit a challenge to the proposals within one month of receipt of that notice, and although this has not yet been submitted, it has been made clear to SGN that this is likely unless a clear proposal is finalised within that timescale. As we have still not received the level of detail repeatedly requested by officers, I understand that it is the intention to submit that challenge this week, whilst continuing to work with SGN on agreeing a suitable method of working.

Furthermore, that three month notice will currently only enable works to commence at the start of February 2010. An ‘Early Start’ agreement would be needed from the authority to enable the proposed start dates in December/January to be implemented, and again, officers have made clear to SGN that this would not be provided until such time as the method of working is agreed. We are still therefore very much in the process of using those opportunities that are available to us to coordinate and manage the impact of these proposed works.

Further meetings are being held this week to enable officers to review the very latest proposals that you have already been informed of by SGN. This will hopefully lead to a clear and comprehensive solution being presented to the public at the exhibition this Friday.

The sensitivity of this project has always been known and the disclosure of details should have been an SGN priority, which I know they now understand. The county council does actively carry out its duties responsibly and seeks the co-operation from all utilities. We are not always in a position to challenge the validity of information supplied by a utility as to the essential aspects of works. New supplies, (gas, water, electricity and telecommunication) do allow more freedom in the directions that may be given to a work promoter but often there is little choice but to accept the first proposal in principle, as a starting point and work with the promoter to find better solutions to minimise the impact.

I hope that this addressed some of your concerns, and assures you that Surrey’s officers are acting in the best interest of our residents and users of our highway network.

Kind regards
Ian Lake
Cabinet Member for Transport
County Councillor for Weybridge
Surrey County Council