What is your local authority’s assessment of the Gross Replacement Cost / Asset Value of your total highway assets (including bridges, cycleways, footways, drainage, trees etc but excluding land), using the HAMFIG/CIPFA methodology and the last available rates?

See table below

What percentage of your current asset value has been spent on maintenance in each of the last 5 years? 

See table below

Table 1 Gross Replacement Cost / Asset Value North Yorkshire Council (all figures £000’s)

	2021/22	2022/23	2023/24	2024/25	2025/26
Carriageway	£8,554,122	£9,221,344	£10,457,004	£10,969,397	£11,364,295
Footway & Cycleways	£434,622	£468,522	£531,304	£557,338	£577,402
Structures	£1,293,312	£1,394,190	£1,581,012	£1,658,481	£1,718,187
Street Lighting	£114,092	£116,897	£126,787	£146,405	£153,949
Traffic Management	£70,338	£72,068	£78,165	£90,259	£94,910
Street Furniture	£76,414	£78,293	£84,916	£98,056	£103,108
Total GRC Value	£10,542,900	£11,351,315	£12,859,188	£13,519,937	£14,011,851
Maintenance Spend**	£74,764	£74,373	£81,613	£82,596	£95,743
% of Asset Value spent on maintenance	0.71%	0.66%	0.63%	0.61%	0.68%

As per maintenance spend outline in Transparency report published June 2025 https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/roads-parking-and-travel/information-about-our-highway-maintenance

Does your local authority use a Customer Service / Satisfaction Survey such as the NHT network? If so, who do you use and how does this get factored into maintenance operations?

Customer Service and satisfaction is considered primarily through the NHT Customer Satisfaction Survey supplemented by less regular surveys of Parish Councils and elected members.  Information from the stakeholder satisfaction surveys is used to guide the strategic priorities for the Highways Service.

NYC has been subscribed to the NHT surveys since 2008.  We use this data to track long term trends, as a benchmarking tool against other authorities and also to identify service priorities and budget allocations alongside other asset management data. 

Coordination of the surveys and data reporting is coordinated by our corporate strategy and performance team.  An annual summary of key trends and performance is considered by the highways and transportation senior management team, which helps to shape future priorities for our service.  This includes identifying trends in customer satisfaction scores and where we sit in comparison to other authorities. The overall satisfaction score is reported as part the Council’s overall corporate performance management framework, which is reviewed by the Council’s Executive.  Performance is considered across the whole management structure, from the Executive through to individual service and team plans.

A key example of how we use the data to factor into our wider service planning is how we have improved customer information on winter maintenance.  We received a low score for this as part of the NHT survey.  This low score triggered an internal review of how we provide winter maintenance information to the public, which identified a range of improvements which have since been implemented, including live gritter tracking, improved mapping information and increasing the number of weather station cameras across our network, which feed directly to our website. 

Another example is using the NHT data   alongside data collated from customer service requests etc, to adapt our approach to dealing with potholes and surface defects.  This identified a deteriorating trend in customer satisfaction.    Often customer service requests and complaints are focussed on short sections of carriageway and footway that are defective.  These are typically sites where a full resurfacing or surface treatment may not be economical, due to defect size not meeting thresholds for a traditional capital scheme and as such the sites would ordinarily have been repaired through a reactive revenue funded programme.  We have adapted our approach and have now allocated capital funding for small scale right first-time patching repairs, that are longer lasting.

Does your authority carry out benchmarking of its performance with other authorities, and can you provide evidence of that? 

As part of the NHT survey we review our performance against other authorities.  This includes a review of scores to understand our results in comparison to other authorities with similar networks both in terms of extent but also characteristics.  We compare our results against 28 other local authorities across England.  This provides a level of context with which to understand our own results.  Additionally, it allows us to identify what other higher scoring authorities are doing to understand what examples of best practice we could potentially use to improve our own levels of performance and satisfaction.

We complete a full internal review of the NHT data which is presented to our highways senior leadership team.  Performance against 35 questions within the NHT survey is reviewed.  These are grouped into seven overall categories which are outlined below

· Overall Satisfaction

· Accessibility

· Communication

· Maintenance

· Road Safety

· Tackling Congestion

· Active Travel

We compare our score to the mean score comparator group of 28 similar authorities, and identify what performance quartile we rank in.  This can help to quickly identify key areas of improvement.  A key focus from our 2024/25 benchmarking exercise was communication to members of the public, where we scored in the lower quartile on multiple metrics.  We are looking at how we can improve highway information provided on our website and through other customer service channels to address this issue.  An example of the comparator data is shown below.

Highways survey results 2024-25

Third                Top third of the group

Second            Middle of the group

First                 Bottom third of the group

Quartiles

Quartiles mark each 25% of a set of data:

The first quartile Q1 is the 25th percentile

The second quartile Q2 is the 50th percentile

The third quartile Q3 is the 75th percentile

Table 2 – Benchmarking Data from NHT Surveys

Category of Question	Description	NYH 2024 Score	Median	Quartile Position	2023	2022	2021	2020
Overall Satisfaction	KBI 00 - Overall Satisfaction	39	37	Second	43	47	47	53
Overall Satisfaction	KBI 01 - Importance vs Satisfaction (local)	46	47	First	49	51	51	54
Overall Satisfaction	KBI 02 - Importance vs Satisfaction (national)	46	47	First	49	51	51	54
Accessibility	- Ease of Access (all)	71	71	Second	70	73	73	77
Accessibility	- Ease of Access (disabilities)	70	71	Second	58	63	60	67
Communications	CMQI05 - Informed about highways and transport	35	39	First	37	40	39	42
Communications	CMQI06 - Informed about action to repair local roads	23	25	First	26	28	29	30
Communications	CMQI31 - How easy to get in touch to report a problem	54	52	Second	51	55	Data not collected
Maintenance	KBI 23 - Condition of highways	21	19	Second	29	34	32	36
Maintenance	KBI 24 - Highway maintenance	40	40	Second	45	46	42	50
Maintenance	KBI 25 - Street lighting	58	59	Second	63	62	62	63
Maintenance	HMBI 05 - Provision of street Lighting	54	56	Second	57	60	60	61
Maintenance	HMBI 06 - Speed of repair to street lights	49	51	First	54	56	56	57
Maintenance	HMBI 13 - Deals with Potholes and damaged roads	19	18	Second	25	30	30	35
Maintenance	HMBI 18 - Provides information on gritting	39	44	First	41	45	40	43
Maintenance	HMBI28 - Undertakes Cold Weather Gritting	53	56	First	53	58	52	57
Maintenance	HMBI29 Public Satisfaction with undertakes snow clearance	51	52	First	53	56	50	54
Maintenance	HMBI 30 - Speed of repair to damaged roads	18	14	Third	22	27	27	29
Maintenance	HMBI 31 - Quality of repair to damaged roads	21	21	Second	27	31	30	34
Road Safety	KBI 20 - Road safety locally	51	49	Third	55	55	56	59
Road Safety	RSBI 01 - Speed limits	59	60	Second	57	61	59	61
Road Safety	KBI 20 - Road safety locally	51	49	Third	55	55	56	59
Road Safety	RSBI 01 - Speed limits	59	60	Second	57	61	59	61
Road Safety	RSBI 02 - Speed control measures (e.g. road humps)	52	52	Second	53	52	52	51
Road Safety	RSBI 03 - Location of speed control measures	52	52	Second	52	53	52	53
Road Safety	RSBI 04 - Safety of walking	55	55	Second	56	56	59	59
Road Safety	RSBI 05 - Safety of cycling	42	46	First	43	43	43	44
Road Safety	RSBI 06 - Safety of children walking to school	49	48	Second	49	47	53	52
Road Safety	RSBI 07 - Safety of children cycling to school	38	40	First	39	36	40	39
Congestion	TCBI 03 - Time taken to complete roadworks	36	33	Second	39	40	42	45
Congestion	TCBI 07 - The management of roadworks overall	37	37	Second	43	43	44	49
Congestion	TCBI 11 - Tackling illegal on-street parking	31	33	First	38	37	34	39
Congestion	TCBI 12 - Restrictions of parking on busy roads	37	39	First	42	40	39	44
Active Travel	KBI 15 - Rights of way (overall)	53	52	Third	55	55	55	59
Active Travel	KBI 16 - Rights of way (aspects)	48	47	Third	48	47	49	50
Active Travel	WCBI 19 - Signposting of rights of way	54	53	Third	52	52	54	54
Active Travel	WCBI 20 - Condition of rights of way	50	50	Second	51	51	51	54

We also carry out ad hoc benchmarking exercises in response to specific issues or queries.  This can be related to asset condition information and reviews of policies and processes.  Additionally, we are working to improve local liaison with neighbouring authorities.  Since the establishment of the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority we have strengthened links with City of York Council and have had information sharing meetings on asset management approaches and the management of traffic signals in the past twelve months.

Our highway maintenance contractor NY Highways are a TECKAL company.  They have strong links with other TECKAL maintenance contractors across the Country and are able to benchmark their performance against each other to help drive efficiency improvements.

Given the size and scale of our network, internal benchmarking is an important process for us to understand performance across our seven local area teams who deliver the highway service in North Yorkshire.  This is carried out in partnership with our Maintenance Contractor NYH Highways (NYH) who are a NYC owned TECKAL company.  Performance is regularly reviewed between area teams, and review sessions are carried out to ensure that processes such as highway safety inspections are being carried out correctly.  This allows us to monitor internal performance and identify any issues with service delivery, allowing for resources levels to be adjusted between areas if needed.  Another key benefit of this approach is the ability to share best practice between areas, helping to reduce costs and improve efficiency.

Do you have a highways asset management performance management framework against which you are regularly tracking performance?

Highways data is collated within the overall Council Performance management framework. This is reviewed by the Senior management team within the Council and the Council Executive.  This is produced on a quarterly basis.  The latest version is available here  (pages 23-27).  These performance indicators are included within our Council Plan, which demonstrates their significance to the Council and the County as whole.

In addition to this we have a wider range of data that is collected to support strategic and operational decisions.  We work closely with NYH to produce a range of highway operations performance indictors which are collated and reviewed on a monthly basis.  This allows both NYC and NYH to manage resource more effectively and also understand performance trends.

A joint NYH & NYC annual report is compiled to review performance.  This includes information on a range of performance measures for both revenue and capital funded activities and provides an overview of improvements made, alongside challenges faced throughout the previous financial year.  This report takes a more strategic look at performance including review performance against internal targets such as the timeliness of design information being made available.  The report is presented to the Council’s Transport, Economy, Environment and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Following the completion of each year’s capital works programme, an internal annual review is undertaken.  This looks at a range of internal performance measures, such as

· the number and value of scheme cost variations (by scheme type and delivery team),

· actual scheme delivery programme vs original programmes,

· Comparison of tender costs vs scheme budgets

An improvement plan has been developed as part of this internal end of year review, which is regularly reviewed by NYC and NYH. 

What are your KPIs for maintenance?

Key Indicators that we measure and report on are outlined below

Table 3 Performance Indictors that are collected each year

Performance Indicator	Frequency of update	Target
Performance of Gully Cleansing operations vs programme	Monthly	On or ahead of programme
Winter maintenance route competition	Monthly (October to April only)	No route failures
Level of Past Priority work orders still to be completed	Monthly	90% of orders completed on time
Works orders in forward work bank	Monthly	750 to 1000 works orders at any given time
Highways Customer Service requests responded to within timescale (10 days or less)	Quarterly	90%
Highways inspections carried out within required timescale	Quarterly	98%
Highways dangerous defects made safe within 2 hours	Quarterly	99%
Average length of road works on-site occupancy	Quarterly
Street light defects repaired within 7 days	Quarterly	92%
Highways successful insurance repudiation rate on closed cases	Quarterly	80%
National Highways Transportation Survey = Satisfaction with the condition of highways	Annual	Monitoring Only
% of principal A roads where maintenance should be considered	Annual	Monitoring Only
% of Non- principal B and C roads where maintenance should be considered	Annual	Monitoring Only
% of lesser used roads where maintenance should be considered	Annual	Monitoring Only
Skid resistance data for principal roads	Annual	Monitoring Only
Skid Resistance data for non-principal roads	Annual	Monitoring Only

Does your authority have, and can you provide a weblink to:

Highways Asset Management Plan (HAMP); and 

Resilient Network plan.

Our Highway Asset Management Plan and Resilient Network Plan can be found using the following weblink https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/your-council/council-plan-constitution-and-strategies/strategies-plans-and-policies/local-transport-plan

Can you confirm that your Local Authority has provided, or will provide, DfT with all of the data required under the annual Single Data List requirements in 2025, namely:

• 130-01: Principal roads where maintenance should be considered.

• 130-02: Non-principal classified roads where maintenance should be considered.

• 130-03: Skidding resistance data

• 130-04: Carriageway work done from April 2024 to March 2025

• 251-01: Winter salt stock holdings for winter 2025.

Yes all data for the single data list has been supplied to DfT as per the requirements.

In addition to the data required for the Single Data List what other data does your authority collect on the condition of its highway assets, including footways, cycleways, structures, and lighting columns? To what standard do you collect this data and with what frequency?

We carry out a range of asset inspections and condition surveys on assets across our network.  This data is collated to help us understand the condition of our network and to allow us to prioritise maintenance activity.

Bridges and Structures.

Inspections are carried out a five-year cycle.  We have over   2000 bridges and structures. A bridge condition score is produced for every bridge and structure, and we are able to produce an overall BCI score for all bridges and structures and scores for assets based on a range of attributes, such as location and type of structure (bridge, retaining wall, culvert etc).

Footway and Cycleways

We are currently working with Vaisala to automate data processing using collected video footage. This will allow us to collect more footway and cycleway asset condition data.  The aim is to collect Category 1A, 1 and 2 footway data on a biennial basis, with category 3,4, and 5 footway condition data collect over a five-year window.  This process has started in 2025, with final surveys being carried out through the remainder of Q3, which will allow us to publish the relevant data. Condition surveys are carried out in addition to safety inspections that are outlined with our highway safety inspection manual.

Vehicle Restraint Systems. 

Biennial condition assessments are completed to inspect and assess condition of higher risk sites.  Lower risk sites have a condition survey carried out every five years.  Condition data is available for all assets to allow us to generate an overall condition score.  

Traffic Signals. 

Annual inspections of each site are carried out.  A condition assessment is carried out as part of this inspection.  This data is used alongside the number of reported faults at the site in the last 365 days, plus asset age, carriageway hierarchy and power consumption to generate a condition score.  This can be used to produce an overall condition score and scores based on a range of attributes such as location and type of asset (pedestrian crossing, VMS, signalised junction etc)