Information for A268 at Megrims HIll, Sandhurst, Kent

Dear Mr Carnier

Thank you for your email below.

I acknowledge your request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. Assuming we hold this information, I will endeavour
to supply the data to you as soon as possible but no later than 25th
March 2010 (20 working days from date of receipt).

I will advise you as soon as possible if we do not hold this information
or if there are exemptions to be considered and/or any costs for providing
the information. Please quote our reference - FOI/10/0205 in any
communication regarding this particular request.

Best regards

Corporate Access to Information Team, Chief Executive's Department
Kent County Council, Legal & Democratic Services, Room B.48, Sessions
House, County Hall, Maidstone. ME14 1XQ.
Tel: 01622 696265 or 01622 694261 - Fax: 01622 694383
[1]http://www.kent.gov.uk/your_council/have...

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Carnier,

Further to your request for information relating to the A268 at Megrims
Hill, because the information you have requested falls under the scope of
the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) and is information held within the
Environment, Highways & Waste Directorate (the directorate), your request
has been forwarded to me so that I can co-ordinate the response on behalf
of the directorate. This is to comply with procedures that the County
Council has for dealing with all FoIA requests.

You asked the Council to provide responses to the series of questions
printed below. Our responses to your questions are in blue below each
question.

Please be advised that although the response has been sent from me, I have
liaised with Kent Highway Services who have provided the following in
answer to your request:

You asked us for:

o Dates of all safety inspections undertaken on the carriageway in the
two years preceding 18 February 2010.

Response:

Please see the attached Inspection Records/Street history reports.

Details of all carriageway defects identified during safety inspections in
the two years preceding 18 February 2010.

Response:

Details of defects can be found on the Inspection Records/Street
history records.

o Details of how carriageway safety inspections are undertaken,
including whether walked or driven, the speed of the inspection
vehicle and the number of persons in the vehicle.

Response:

The carriageway is driven at approximate speed 20-30 miles per hour. There
is a driver and the local inspector in the vehicle.

o The intended frequency of carriageway safety inspections.

Response:

Monthly.

o The hierarchy classification.

Response:

The hierarchy is Other Strategic.

o The road/section number.

Response:

The road number is A268.

o The defect intervention criteria adopted in relation to the
identification of all categories of carriageway potholes.

Response:

There is a defect intervention level of 50mm depth for carriageway
potholes - please also see section from the Kent Highway Asset Maintenance
Plan 2004 - response times vary depending on the severity of the defect
/location etc.

The test of whether or not a defect is dangerous is not simply a question
of mechanical measurement; it is also a question of RISK. Therefore, the
intervention levels referred to above are NOT to be considered conclusive
as a direct measure of danger; they are INVESTIGATORY STANDARDS used as a
trigger point for maintenance. Although some guidance can be given on the
likely risk associated with particular defects, it is essential that
highway inspectors always take account of local circumstances and so MUST
risk assess each defect individually.

When a defect has been identified as a potential risk it needs to be
evaluated. In essence this means assessing the likely impact if the risk
should occur and the probability of it actually happening. Information
regarding this can be found below:

3.1 KHS Risk Matrix

Risk Impact

The impact of a risk should be quantified by assessing the likely EXTENT
of injury or damage should a risk (i.e., defect) cause an incident to
occur. Increasing speed will probably influence the level of impact, and
so the volume of traffic and classification of road are important
considerations in the assessment. Highway inspectors should also take
account of vulnerable highway users.

Highway inspectors should calculate the likely impact of a risk on a scale
of 1 to 4:

1 Little or negligible impact (e.g., minor damage to
third party property)

2 Minor or low impact (e.g., `medium' damage to third
party property)

3 Noticeable impact (e.g., injuries or a substantial
amount of damage to third party property)

4 Major, high or serious impact (e.g., fatal or life
threatening injuries)

Risk Probability

The probability of a risk (i.e., incident) occurring should be quantified
by assessing the LIKELIHOOD of highway users passing by or over the
defect, thus encountering the risk. The volumes of vehicular and
pedestrian flow will influence the issue of probability and so the usage
of the route, the location of the defect relative to highway features such
as junctions and bends, the location of the defect relative to the
positioning of users (such as in traffic lanes or wheel tracks), and the
nature of interaction with other defects are all important issues for
highway inspectors to consider.

As with the assessment of risk impact, highway inspectors should calculate
the probability of a risk (incident) on a scale of 1 to 4:

1 Very low probability

2 Low probability

3 Medium probability

4 High probability

Risk Factor

The risk factor for a particular defect is a combination of the risk
impact and risk probability, and is therefore in the range of 1 to 16. It
is the risk factor that identifies the overall seriousness of the risk,
and consequently allows highway inspectors to decide on an appropriate
response time for the defect to be rectified, as the following matrix
shows:

Figure 2:

IMPACT: how bad PROBABILITY: how likely is it to happen?
is the outcome?

Very Low (1) Low (2) Medium (3) High (4)
Negligible (1) 1 2 3 4
Low (2) 2 4 6 8
Noticeable (3) 3 6 9 12
High (4) 4 8 12 16

Response 16 = Emergency 8-12 = <8 = Programmed
Category: (2hr) Urgent
(3WD)

o The time period(s) adopted between identification and repair
(temporary and permanent) of all categories of carriageway defects.

Response:

Time periods adopted are 2 hour for emergency works/life threatening, 3
days for urgent works and programmed for all other works.

o Whether or not the authority has formally adopted all or part of the
standards contained within the national code of practice for highways
maintenance management.

Response:

The Kent County Council policy adopted is laid down in the Kent Highway
Asset Maintenance Plan 2004.

I trust this response is helpful to you but if you have any query with the
information provided please contact me. However, if you are unhappy with
this response, and believe KCC has not complied with legislation, please
ask for a review by following our complaints process; details can be found
at this
link [1]http://www.kent.gov.uk/your_council/have... on
our website. Please quote reference FOI/10/0205.

If you still remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you can
appeal to the Information Commissioner, who oversees compliance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. Details of what you need to do, should
you wish to pursue this course of action, are available from the
Information Commissioner's website
[2]http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

Yours sincerely

Pauline Banks

Kent County Council
Environment, Highways & Waste Directorate
Information Governance Officer
Invicta House
County Hall
Maidstone
Kent. ME14 1XX

Tel. 01622 696915
Fax. 01622 694782
Email. [3][email address]

Please help save paper by NOT printing this email unless absolutely
necessary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information - EHW would like to recall the message,
"FOI/10/0205 DRAFT RESPONSE FOR APPROVAL completion due 25.03.10".

Dear Mr Carnier,

Further to your request for information relating to the A268 at Megrims
Hill, because the information you have requested falls under the scope of
the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) and is information held within the
Environment, Highways & Waste Directorate (the directorate), your request
has been forwarded to me so that I can co-ordinate the response on behalf
of the directorate. This is to comply with procedures that the County
Council has for dealing with all FoIA requests.

You asked the Council to provide responses to the series of questions
printed below. Our responses to your questions are in blue below each
question.

Please be advised that although the response has been sent from me, I have
liaised with Kent Highway Services who have provided the following in
answer to your request:

You asked us for:

o Dates of all safety inspections undertaken on the carriageway in the
two years preceding 18 February 2010.

Response:

Please see the attached Inspection Records/Street history reports.

Details of all carriageway defects identified during safety inspections in
the two years preceding 18 February 2010.

Response:

Details of defects can be found on the Inspection Records/Street
history records.

o Details of how carriageway safety inspections are undertaken,
including whether walked or driven, the speed of the inspection
vehicle and the number of persons in the vehicle.

Response:

The carriageway is driven at approximate speed 20-30 miles per hour. There
is a driver and the local inspector in the vehicle.

o The intended frequency of carriageway safety inspections.

Response:

Monthly.

o The hierarchy classification.

Response:

The hierarchy is Other Strategic.

o The road/section number.

Response:

The road number is A268.

o The defect intervention criteria adopted in relation to the
identification of all categories of carriageway potholes.

Response:

There is a defect intervention level of 50mm depth for carriageway
potholes - please also see section from the Kent Highway Asset Maintenance
Plan 2004 - response times vary depending on the severity of the defect
/location etc.

The test of whether or not a defect is dangerous is not simply a question
of mechanical measurement; it is also a question of RISK. Therefore, the
intervention levels referred to above are NOT to be considered conclusive
as a direct measure of danger; they are INVESTIGATORY STANDARDS used as a
trigger point for maintenance. Although some guidance can be given on the
likely risk associated with particular defects, it is essential that
highway inspectors always take account of local circumstances and so MUST
risk assess each defect individually.

When a defect has been identified as a potential risk it needs to be
evaluated. In essence this means assessing the likely impact if the risk
should occur and the probability of it actually happening. Information
regarding this can be found below:

3.1 KHS Risk Matrix

Risk Impact

The impact of a risk should be quantified by assessing the likely EXTENT
of injury or damage should a risk (i.e., defect) cause an incident to
occur. Increasing speed will probably influence the level of impact, and
so the volume of traffic and classification of road are important
considerations in the assessment. Highway inspectors should also take
account of vulnerable highway users.

Highway inspectors should calculate the likely impact of a risk on a scale
of 1 to 4:

1 Little or negligible impact (e.g., minor damage to
third party property)

2 Minor or low impact (e.g., `medium' damage to third
party property)

3 Noticeable impact (e.g., injuries or a substantial
amount of damage to third party property)

4 Major, high or serious impact (e.g., fatal or life
threatening injuries)

Risk Probability

The probability of a risk (i.e., incident) occurring should be quantified
by assessing the LIKELIHOOD of highway users passing by or over the
defect, thus encountering the risk. The volumes of vehicular and
pedestrian flow will influence the issue of probability and so the usage
of the route, the location of the defect relative to highway features such
as junctions and bends, the location of the defect relative to the
positioning of users (such as in traffic lanes or wheel tracks), and the
nature of interaction with other defects are all important issues for
highway inspectors to consider.

As with the assessment of risk impact, highway inspectors should calculate
the probability of a risk (incident) on a scale of 1 to 4:

1 Very low probability

2 Low probability

3 Medium probability

4 High probability

Risk Factor

The risk factor for a particular defect is a combination of the risk
impact and risk probability, and is therefore in the range of 1 to 16. It
is the risk factor that identifies the overall seriousness of the risk,
and consequently allows highway inspectors to decide on an appropriate
response time for the defect to be rectified, as the following matrix
shows:

Figure 2:

IMPACT: how bad PROBABILITY: how likely is it to happen?
is the outcome?

Very Low (1) Low (2) Medium (3) High (4)
Negligible (1) 1 2 3 4
Low (2) 2 4 6 8
Noticeable (3) 3 6 9 12
High (4) 4 8 12 16

Response 16 = Emergency 8-12 = <8 = Programmed
Category: (2hr) Urgent
(3WD)

o The time period(s) adopted between identification and repair
(temporary and permanent) of all categories of carriageway defects.

Response:

Time periods adopted are 2 hour for emergency works/life threatening, 3
days for urgent works and programmed for all other works.

o Whether or not the authority has formally adopted all or part of the
standards contained within the national code of practice for highways
maintenance management.

Response:

The Kent County Council policy adopted is laid down in the Kent Highway
Asset Maintenance Plan 2004.

I trust this response is helpful to you but if you have any query with the
information provided please contact me. However, if you are unhappy with
this response, and believe KCC has not complied with legislation, please
ask for a review by following our complaints process; details can be found
at this
link [1]http://www.kent.gov.uk/your_council/have... on
our website. Please quote reference FOI/10/0205.

If you still remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you can
appeal to the Information Commissioner, who oversees compliance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. Details of what you need to do, should
you wish to pursue this course of action, are available from the
Information Commissioner's website
[2]http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

Yours sincerely

Pauline Banks

Kent County Council
Environment, Highways & Waste Directorate
Information Governance Officer
Invicta House
County Hall
Maidstone
Kent. ME14 1XX

Tel. 01622 696915
Fax. 01622 694782
Email. [3][email address]

Please help save paper by NOT printing this email unless absolutely
necessary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

show quoted sections