Agenda item

Considered – Report of the Head of Highways Operations to update on the progress and performance to date of NY Highways (NYH) on gully cleaning and maintenance over the last 12 months.

Nigel Smith introduced the report, with the key points covered as highlighted below:

·       Managing the removal of water from the highway network and its impact on highway deterioration is as important as ever.

·       During the course of the last year, discussion has taken place regarding how to further evolve the use of the Kaarbontech system. A review of data led to an interim programme being introduced in September 2023, which took into account concerns over gullies on main roads, gullies that had not been cleaned for more than 2 years as well as local knowledge relating to known flooding issues.

·       Surveys show that there are 164,171 gullies on the highway network. The risk-based programme approach adopted identifies that some 98,503 gullies need to be attended across North Yorkshire in any given year, with certain higher-risk locations requiring more than one clean in a twelve month period, taking the total number of attendances to circa 106,000 per annum. These targeted locations are constantly reviewed and updated by data that directs where those cleanses are required.

·       Usually there are an average of three named storms per year, but over the last 12 months we have had ten, all of which necessitated NYH resource to be deployed, particularly in December 2023, January and February 2024 to deal with flooding issues as a direct consequence of those storms. As a result, NYH has had to respond to non-programmed gully orders in addition to the cyclic programme. It is currently estimated that in excess of 10,000 additional gullies have been attended to.

·       The programme has been refined, as to what to do and where as part of the risk based, data led approach. This helps to constantly evolve the gully cleansing and maintenance programme.

Following this, key points raised by members included:

·       Does the increase in the number of reactive incidents requiring gully cleansing indicate that the service isn’t working well? Given the ten named storms, the highways drainage systems becomes over capacity following significant flooding events as there is simply too much water coming off not just the highway network, but adjacent land onto the highway network.

·       Part of the data collection is around how much silt is in the pot, so if there is 50/75% then the gully would be put on a more frequent cleaning schedule.

·       It was asked if the number of reactive call outs could be broken down into urban and rural settings, as there was feedback that local knowledge had sometimes not been fed in and taken into account. Gullies are looked at on an individual basis, with no distinction between whether it is in a rural or urban location. For example, work has been done in the Selby area to put in place solutions to work with landowners to improve the drainage and discharge of water from agricultural land.

·       The robustness of the service area in dealing with land flooding adjacent to the highway was asked about. There is a wider project underway as part of our responsibilities as the Lead Local Flood Authority, together with Highways and Planning colleagues to look into large flooding events.

·       A Member spoke about a flooding event in their ward and had concerns whether we were doing enough as a Council to clean gullies regularly enough as a preventative measure and following flooding events and asked whether officers go out and look at affected gullies following events.

·       It was asked whether there are trigger points where the planned gully cleaning schedule is superseded by more reactive schedules to treat gullies affected by heavy rainfall or other unforeseen weather events?

·       A piece of work is ongoing regarding how much further we can pull the data and intelligence from the cyclical programme together with the local knowledge and the officer intelligence gathered from recent flood events.

·       A lot of the intelligence led, local knowledge is absolutely critical. Seven local area teams know the area, but extra information from elected members and town and parish councils is greatly appreciated. Information received will assist in amending the programme to help target where further gulley cleans may be required.

·       This year has been extreme, by January/February time the cyclical programme had to be put to one side to focus on the immediate response required to weather events. We cannot have teams waiting around on standby.

·       A Member commended the response of an officer for a recent site visit following a flooding event in their division and for sending through drainage plans of the village, which has helped to alleviate the current problems.

·       Parish and Town Councils would like to be the conduits for drainage issues to relay information on what is happening in their communities.

·       On known flood risk areas, co-ordination is needed where trees and highways are in situ to deal with the situation in the round.

·       It was asked whether a link exists with the water companies to exchange intelligence and plan potential joint activities on gully cleaning and continued maintenance?

·       Concerns around the combined drainage systems and potential pollution issues, plus the highway flooding impact on adjacent properties and climate change.

It was agreed to share the quarterly cyclical high level programme of gulley cleaning works with members of the committee to provide information on when officers are scheduled to attend in their division, but with the caveat that this can be subject to change.

Resolved –

To note the update received and that the comments and suggestions from elected members be considered to improve the service.