In October 2016, a revised Code of Practice - Well Managed Highway Infrastructure was published by the DfT, with a requirement for Authorities to be working to this document by October 2018. Along with a risk based approach it also promotes collaboration and consistency with adjoining authorities, the adoption of network resilience thinking and defining a critical network.
In simple terms, the Well Managed Highways Code provides Local Authorities with a framework to review its current highways service and put it in a more formalised and consistent way aligned to the principles of good asset management.
From engaging with several Local Authorities, it has been interesting to see how each has approached reviews to their service and also how they then develop an evidential response to the Code. Ideally an Authority would like to combine both review and drafting of their new Maintenance Manual in an integrated, planned programme lasting a few months. But when you factor in the key areas currently impacting Highway Authorities such as; funding constraints, skills shortages, the need for organisational transformation and Election cycles, this can quickly become a longer term reactive process. Which is why having 2 years to implement the Code was welcome 2 years ago but seems to have gone by very quickly!
What is now certain from industry feedback is that each Authority is developing some kind of localised response with an eye on its neighbours, as advocated by the Code. This will inevitably lead to multiple permutations of what ‘risk-based’ inspections and defect response regimes are. And it will only be in several years’ time that we will be able to evidence whether these assumptions were correct, firstly through asset performance, efficiencies generated and then through the evidence provided for Section 58 defence in the courts.
To a degree many Highway Authorities have been operating a risk based approach for some time, for example with gully cleansing regimes based on silt level evidence collected during cleansing cycles. While the experience has been largely positive and offers efficiencies, many Authorities have been concerned about the potential legal challenge of having a variable or differential approach and the perceived additional cost of collecting and analysing the supporting evidence. 
Examples of where a risk-based approach is likely to be utilised with the introduction of the new Code of Practice include; Amendments to an Authority’s network hierarchy, inspection routes and frequencies, defect response categories and prioritisation. These changes will require an evidence base as well as retraining of Highway Inspectors, monitoring and assessment of performance and a well thought out and flexible approach to risk categories. The changes will also need well communicated and embedded maintenance standards, as well as acceptance and support throughout the organisation to work to this approach.
In addition to this, the impact of a risk based approach is likely to consider other aspects of best practice, such as a right first-time repair. For some Authorities the preference to undertake a right first-time repair, which reflects nationally recognised best practice as well as the desires of the Department for Transport, has led to a patching regime that prolongs the longevity of the network, rather than with temporary repairs. This approach has benefitted some Authorities with consistently high repudiation rates for insurance claims. A risk based approach coupled with advances in defect repair materials and techniques allows flexibility in terms of funding sources, for example, moving repair programmes to a Capital funding source, which is important in times of reduced revenue funding.
Of course, having a formalised asset management system in place should mean continuous evidence is collected to support a regular review of the ‘risk-based’ approach. This will show if the approach is working and allow the changes to be justified. But depending on what level of delegated authority each Council has put in place for Officers, frequent change may not be possible if it requires Executive approval. This could possibly dilute the flexible approach described in the Code.
Authorities that have already adopted a risk managed approach have recognised the importance of training and auditing, particularly for inspectors who will, from time to time, have a requirement to defend the risk assessments that they make in Court. There are recognised courses for Inspectors, but for some an audit regime shows that inconsistencies between Inspectors is not uncommon, so additional ‘refresher’ training is required to ensure that they can demonstrate an adequate process for a defence.
A notable area where the Code has made a positive contribution is in bringing together internal stakeholders with a common interest in highway safety and efficiency, including representatives from; legal, insurance, planning and emergency planning, engineering, environment and communications. Having facilitated workshops between these interested parties, it is pleasing to see that all now have a better awareness of asset management principles and practice and how each party can contribute now and in the future.
The Code states that consultation will be necessary with other Local, Combined and Strategic Highway Authorities, especially where adjoining, as part of their duty to manage the network and ensure that users’ reasonable requirements for consistency of service and integrated programming of works are considered and taken into account. Consultation and coordination will also be required with Utility Companies, Public Transport Operators and other key stakeholders. Whilst many will already have programme co-ordination dealt with as a duty of their ‘streetworks’ function, it will often be more difficult to deal with consistency with standards across Authority boundaries and even more so when considering interfaces with the Strategic and Major Roads Network. This becomes even more complex when budgetary constraints and Elected Members define the standards that they require for each individual Authority.
Some HTMA Members have been working closely with their Clients, assisting with the development of their response to the new Code. For example, the Ringway Asset Management Forum, open to all Ringway and Ringway Jacobs Clients, has held targeted workshops to allow Clients to work collaboratively, to share and discuss how they are each  approaching the Codes Recommendations, bringing a further level of consultation and coordination.
Another positive outcome of the Code is incorporating more robust project management and programming techniques such as Agile and Collaborative Planning to aid investment planning and works programming, as part of a documented lifecycle process. This should help Authorities build investment based on needs and with evidence to support how their network would deteriorate without it.
Adoption of the new Code will give Authorities more flexibility which means that the HTMA’s Members will need to be more flexible in their maintenance approaches to accommodate the specific needs of each Authority. This also brings opportunity for HTMA members to explore alternative strategies and rationales for maintenance.
But the main benefit of the Code for The Association is that it has got people to think about their highway assets and the specific requirements to serve an Authority’s future transport vision and objectives; and making sure that there is visibility and evidence of a line of sight between an Authority’s corporate objectives, asset management planning and delivery. This thought process is vital if we are to develop, maintain and operate highway networks that are fit for future infrastructure, environment, social and technological needs.

This article was published in Highways magazine, April 2018