Inspection reports for road repairs in Kirklees

C. Andrew made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Kirklees Borough Council

Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

Mae'r cais yn aros am eglurhad. Os C. Andrew ydych chi, os gwelwch yn dda, mewngofnodi i anfon neges ddilynol.

Dear Kirklees Borough Council,

I’m wanting to request some information regarding the repairs and maintenance of roads governed by Kirklees council.

The information I require:

1. What is the current system used to inspect the entire road network governed by Kirklees?
2. When was the last full inspection made?
3. When was the last time Haigh House Hill (Blackley, HD3) was inspected?
4. When was the last time Kew Hill (Blackley, HD3) was inspected?
5. The dates and times of the last three inspections for the above locations.
6. Have any defects been reported as a result of the inspections on the above locations?
7. Have any members of the public reported any defects on the above locations?
8. If yes to 6/7, How were these dealt with?
9. Have any repairs been made to Haigh House Hill and Kew Hill in the last three years? If so when?

Yours faithfully,
C. Andrew

Freedom Info, Kirklees Borough Council

Dear C. Andrew

I confirm receipt of your information request. We are dealing with this and will respond to you in due course.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 allow up to 20 working days for responding to information requests.

During the Coronavirus pandemic, our response to information rights requests may be longer. Please be assured that we will endeavour to reply to your request as soon as possible

If you are not content with the handling of your request you have the right to ask for an internal review. Requests for internal reviews should be addressed to the Monitoring Officer, 1st Floor, Civic Centre 3, Market Street, Huddersfield HD1 2EY. Alternatively, you can send an email to:- [email address].

Please remember to quote the above reference number in any future communications.

If you are not content with the outcome of any review you have the right under section 50 of the 2000 Act to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision as to whether your request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act. The Information Commissioner’s website is at www.ico.org.uk and gives more information about the role and duties of the Commissioner. The Information Commissioner’s offices will be closed for the foreseeable future and they are therefore unable to receive correspondence via post. The ICO can be contacted via their contact page, or by ringing 0303 123 1113.

Regards

Information Governance Team
Governance Service
Telephone: 01484 221000 (voice activated switchboard – please ask for Freedom of Information)

This email and any attachments are confidential. If you have received it in error - notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system, and do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way. Kirklees Council monitors all emails sent or received.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Freedom Info, Kirklees Borough Council

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Andrew,

 

I am writing in response to your request dated 24/08/2021. This has been
dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

The Council’s response to your specific questions is set out below:

 

1. What is the current system used to inspect the entire road network
governed by Kirklees?

It is presumed the applicant is referring to scheduled highway safety
inspections undertaken across the highway network. Please see attached
document titled “Safety Inspections Manual 2018”

 

2. When was the last full inspection made?

Scheduled highway safety inspections of the network are undertaken on
different frequencies in accordance with the network hierarchy detailed on
page 10 of the document titled “Safety Inspections Manual 2018”

 

3. When was the last time Haigh House Hill (Blackley, HD3) was inspected?

18 June 2021

 

4. When was the last time Kew Hill (Blackley, HD3) was inspected?

18 June 2021

 

5. The dates and times of the last three inspections for the above
locations.

9 June 2020, 16 December 2020 and 18 June 2021 – The authority does not
record the time of scheduled highway safety inspections as there is no
obligation for it to do so.

 

6. Have any defects been reported as a result of the inspections on the
above locations?

Yes – All defects reported are listed on the attached documents.

 

7. Have any members of the public reported any defects on the above
locations?

Yes.

 

8. If yes to 6/7, How were these dealt with?

Details of all defects identified on scheduled highway safety inspections
and repairs undertaken are listed on the attached documents.

 

9. Have any repairs been made to Haigh House Hill and Kew Hill in the last
three years? If so when?

Yes – Please see details of repairs undertaken in the last three years on
the documents attached.

 

If you are not content with the handling of your request, you have the
right to ask for an internal review.  Requests for internal reviews should
be submitted within 2 months of the date of receipt of the response to
your original request and should be addressed to the Monitoring Officer,
1^st Floor, Civic Centre 3, Market Street, Huddersfield HD1 2EY. 
Alternatively, you can send an email to:
[1][email address]. 

 

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of any review you have the right
under section 50 of the 2000 Act to apply to the Information Commissioner
for a decision as to whether your request for information has been dealt
with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.  The Information
Commissioner’s website is at [2]www.ico.org.uk and gives more information
about the role and duties of the Commissioner.  The ICO telephone helpline
on 0303 123 1113 or 01625 545745 is available between 9am and 5pm, Monday
to Friday.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Information Governance Team

Kirklees Council, Governance Service

Telephone: 01484 221000 (voice activated switchboard – please ask for
Freedom of Information)

 

For more information about how we deal with your personal data, please see
the [3]Kirklees Council privacy notice

 

 

[4][IMG]

[5]Website | [6]News | [7]Email Updates | [8]Facebook | [9]Twitter

This email and any attachments are confidential. If you have received this
email in error – please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your
system, and do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way.
Kirklees Council monitors all emails sent or received.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.ico.org.uk/
3. https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/beta/informa...
4. http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/
5. https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/
6. http://www.kirkleestogether.co.uk/
7. http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/stayconnected
8. https://www.facebook.com/liveinkirklees
9. https://twitter.com/KirkleesCouncil

Dear Kirklees Borough Council,

Thank you for your response.

I have a few more questions pertaining to information in the document you have sent (25838 Merged Docs Redacted.pdf). Please let me know if it is acceptable to request them here (as they reference the document) or if I need to submit a new request.

The queries are as follows:

1) In ‘History of safety inspections for HAIGH HOUSE HILL’ under frequency changes on the 15-04-19 the inspection frequency has changed from 12 months to 6 months. The reason given is “reassessment of street”. Could you please provide me with the details and conclusion that lead to this change.

1a. Under inspection type (on the same document) the inspections are referenced as ‘LRFWCW’ could you please explain this acronym/reference?

1b. In the frequency of inspections table 5.1 (Safety inspections manual 2018, page 10) a low traffic local network is inspected every 6 months. Using table 4.1 (page 6) ‘Hierarchy of carriage ways’ category 6, a low traffic local network is described to have “low trafficked local roads which have one or more low volume traffic generators”.

Please could you explain what/which traffic generators are used in the assessment of Haigh House Hill and Kew Hill, at what time these traffic generators were used to assess the roads for traffic and the method/frequency of revising these roads?

2) Under 8.2 Risk evaluation (Safety inspections manual 2018, page 19) specifically 8.2.2 it states that the "parameters taken into consideration when assessing the risk of a defect include: “depth, surface area or other degree of deficiency of the defect".

What method/tools do inspectors use to measure surface area and depth of each defect?

Is a written record and photographic evidence kept of these parameters when inspectors document a defect?

2a. If yes, Please provide details of each of the identified defects including dimensions, depth, surface area etc including photo’s of the following:
Defects reported on the 18-06-21 inspection; 8013537, 8013536, 8013534, 8013539 (A History of safety inspections for HAIGH HOUSE HILL').

2b. Potholes 8013537, 8013536, 8013534 are listed as category 2 defects. Can you confirm that all three were listed under this category?

2b(a) Using the risk factor 8.3 (Safety inspections manual, page 19) a category 2 has a risk rating of between 9-12. Do the defects listed in the 2a have a specific number between 9-12 associated with each of them documented by the inspector?

2c. Pothole 8013537 and 8013536 shown as reported 18-06-21 have yet to be cleared and marked completed. Are they yet to be repaired?

3) Please provide details of each of the identified defects including dimensions, depth, surface area etc including photo’s of the following:
Defects reported on the 18-06-21 inspection specifically 8013538 and 8013535 (A History of safety inspections for KEW HILL').

3a. Potholes 8013538, 8013535 are listed as category 2 defects. Can you confirm that both were listed under this category?

3a(a). Using the risk factor 8.3 (Safety inspections manual, page 19) a category 2 has a risk rating of 9-12. Do the defects listed in the 3a have a specific number associated with each of them documented by the inspector?

4) Can you confirm, when a defect is repaired, by either a third party company or an in-house council department, do the works get evidenced eg, photos to show completion?

4a) How do the council evaluate the completed repairs to maintain standards?

5) Service request INS014003 received 12-11-20 states a third party accident claim. Can you give details of the nature of the claim; what happened and the outcome. If no, are you able to give details where I can make a separate request for those details?

6) Service request RCT585094 received 14-10-20 shows the reporting of pot holes. I couldn’t find in the documents you sent references for the inspection report and subsequent works completed report (dated 22/10/20). Please could you provide those detailed reports, including any photographic evidence highlighting the defect and its repair?

7) Service request RCT 588548 received 19-11-20 shows the reporting of pot holes. I couldn’t find in the documents you sent references for the inspection report and subsequent works completed report (dated 20/11/20). Please could you provide those detailed reports, including any photographic evidence highlighting the defect and its repair?

8) Service report RCT600032 received 24-02-21 shows the reporting of pot holes. This report shows no evidence of any action taken due to error 7028 ‘unable to process request automatically…’ could you provide a detail report of the follow up including any works that took place, including any photographic evidence highlighting the defect and its repair?

9) Service request RCT603839 received 19-03-21 shows the reporting of pot holes. I couldn’t find in the documents you sent references for the inspection report and subsequent works completed report (dated 29/05/21). Please could you provide those detailed reports, including any photographic evidence highlighting the defect and its repair?

10) Service request RCT605690 received 02-04-21 shows the reporting of pot holes. I couldn’t find in the documents you sent references for the inspection report and subsequent works completed report (dated 16/04/21). Please could you provide those detailed reports, including any photographic evidence highlighting the defect and its repair?

Yours sincerely,

C. Andrew

Freedom Info, Kirklees Borough Council

Dear Mr Andrew

RE: 25838 - Inspection reports for road repairs in Kirklees

I confirm receipt of your subsequent questions in regards to the above request. They have been passed onto the relevant Service and we will respond to you in due course.

During the Coronavirus pandemic, our response to information rights requests may be longer. Please be assured that we will endeavour to reply to your request as soon as possible.

If you are not content with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Requests for internal reviews should be addressed to the Monitoring Officer, 1st Floor, Civic Centre 3, Market Street, Huddersfield HD1 2EY. Alternatively, you can send an email to: [email address].

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

If you are not content with the outcome of any review you have the right under section 50 of the 2000 Act to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision as to whether your request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act. The Information Commissioner’s website is at www.ico.org.uk and gives more information about the role and duties of the Commissioner. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Regards

Information Governance Team
Governance Service
Telephone: 01484 221000 (voice activated switchboard – please ask for Freedom of Information)

For more information about how we deal with your personal data, please see the Kirklees Council privacy notice

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Freedom Info, Kirklees Borough Council

5 Atodiad

Dear Mr Andrew,

 

I am writing in response to your request dated 24/08/2021. This has been
dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

The Council’s response to your specific questions is set out below:

 

 1. In ‘History of safety inspections for HAIGH HOUSE HILL’ under
frequency changes on the 15-04-19 the inspection frequency has changed
from 12 months to 6 months. The reason given is “reassessment of
street”. Could you please provide me with the details and conclusion
that lead to this change.

 

Following release of the Well Managed Highways Infrastructure Code of
Practice in October 2016, local authorities were given two years to
develop and implement a new system of inspection and maintenance working
to a risk based approach. As such The Safety Inspection Manual 2018
(already disclosed) was implemented, this included a new network hierarchy
as detailed on page 6 of the document and a full review of our entire
network therefore took place throughout 2019.

 

1a. Under inspection type (on the same document) the inspections are
referenced as ‘LRFWCW’ could you please explain this acronym/reference?

 

This relates to an inspection of the left, right, footway and carriageway.

 

1b. In the frequency of inspections table 5.1 (Safety inspections manual
2018, page 10) a low traffic local network is inspected every 6 months.
Using table 4.1 (page 6) ‘Hierarchy of carriage ways’ category 6, a low
traffic local network is described to have “low trafficked local roads
which have one or more low volume traffic generators”.

 

Please could you explain what/which traffic generators are used in the
assessment of Haigh House Hill and Kew Hill, at what time these traffic
generators were used to assess the roads for traffic and the
method/frequency of revising these roads?

 

These would relate to Brosters Farm Shop and the working farm buildings in
the vicinity.

 

2) Under 8.2 Risk evaluation (Safety inspections manual 2018, page 19)
specifically 8.2.2 it states that the "parameters taken into consideration
when assessing the risk of a defect include: “depth, surface area or other
degree of deficiency of the defect".

 

What method/tools do inspectors use to measure surface area and depth of
each defect?

 

A visual risk assessment is undertaken of all relevant factors including
dimensions.

 

Is a written record and photographic evidence kept of these parameters
when inspectors document a defect?

 

Any defects that are concluded to be actionable defects in need of repair
following a visual risk assessment are noted on a PDA device and are
shown/listed on the “document titled scheduled highway safety
inspections”. No photographs are taken as there is no obligation on the
authority to do so

 

2a. If yes, Please provide details of each of the identified defects
including dimensions, depth, surface area etc including photo’s of the
following:

 

Defects reported on the 18-06-21 inspection; 8013537, 8013536, 8013534,
8013539 (A History of safety inspections for HAIGH HOUSE HILL').

 

N/A – No documents to disclose

 

2b. Potholes 8013537, 8013536, 8013534 are listed as category 2 defects.
Can you confirm that all three were listed under this category?

 

YES

 

2b(a) Using the risk factor 8.3 (Safety inspections manual, page 19) a
category 2 has a risk rating of between 9-12. Do the defects listed in the
2a  have a specific number between 9-12 associated with each of them
documented by the inspector?

 

No – All three defects were subject to a visual risk assessment by a
trained and accredited engineer who is listed on the National Register of
Highway Inspectors held by the Institute of Highway Engineers.

 

2c. Pothole 8013537 and 8013536 shown as reported 18-06-21 have yet to be
cleared and marked completed. Are they yet to be repaired?

 

Repairs were undertaken on 12 August 2021.                            

 

3) Please provide details of each of the identified defects including
dimensions, depth, surface area etc including photo’s of the following:

 

Defects reported on the 18-06-21 inspection specifically 8013538 and
8013535 (A History of safety inspections for KEW HILL'). 

 

N/A – No documents to disclose

 

3a. Potholes 8013538, 8013535 are listed as category 2 defects. Can you
confirm that both were listed under this category?

 

YES

 

3a(a). Using the risk factor 8.3 (Safety inspections manual, page 19) a
category 2 has a risk rating of 9-12. Do the defects listed in the 3a have
a specific number associated with each of them documented by the
inspector?

 

No – All three defects were subject to a visual risk assessment by a
trained and accredited engineer who is listed on the National Register of
Highway Inspectors held by the Institute of Highway Engineers.

 

4) Can you confirm, when a defect is repaired, by either a third party
company or an in-house council department, do the works get evidenced eg,
photos to show completion?

 

No as there is no obligation on the authority to do so, Section 58 of the
Highways Act 1980 specifically states “for the purposes of such a defence
it is not relevant to prove that the highway authority had arranged for a
competent person to carry out or supervise the maintenance of the part of
the highway to which the action relates unless it is also proved that the
authority had given him proper instructions with regard to the maintenance
of the highway and that he had carried out the instructions.

 

4a) How do the council evaluate the completed repairs to maintain
standards?

 

Our engineers monitor the quality and performance of repairs undertaken
across the highway network visually and raise any issues with quality or
performance with our works provider as required.

 

5) Service request INS014003 received 12-11-20 states a third party
accident claim. Can you give details of the nature of the claim; what
happened and the outcome. If no, are you able to give details where I can
make a separate request for those details?

 

This relates to a claim brought against the authority by a member of the
public who suffered damage to their vehicle as a result of striking a
pothole on Kew Hill, Lindley on 2 November 2020 at 15.00pm. The claim was
repudiated on 19 January 2021 by way of letter due to Section 58 of the
Highways Act 1980.

 

6) Service request RCT585094 received 14-10-20 shows the reporting of pot
holes. I couldn’t find in the documents you sent references for the
inspection report and subsequent works completed report (dated 22/10/20).
Please could you provide those detailed reports, including any
photographic evidence highlighting the defect and its repair?

 

Repair order attached as requested, there are no further documents to
disclose.

 

7) Service request RCT 588548 received 19-11-20 shows the reporting of pot
holes. I couldn’t find in the documents you sent references for the
inspection report and subsequent works completed report (dated 20/11/20).
Please could you provide those detailed reports, including any
photographic evidence highlighting the defect and its repair?

 

Repair order attached as requested, there are no further documents to
disclose.

 

8) Service report RCT600032 received 24-02-21 shows the reporting of pot
holes. This report shows no evidence of any action taken due to error 7028
‘unable to process request automatically…’ could you provide a detail
report of the follow up including any works that took place, including any
photographic evidence highlighting the defect and its repair?

 

Repair order attached as requested, there are no further documents to
disclose.

 

9) Service request RCT603839 received 19-03-21 shows the reporting of pot
holes. I couldn’t find in the documents you sent references for the
inspection report and subsequent works completed report (dated 29/05/21).
Please could you provide those detailed reports, including any
photographic evidence highlighting the defect and its repair?

 

Repair order attached as requested, there are no further documents to
disclose.

 

10) Service request RCT605690 received 02-04-21 shows the reporting of pot
holes. I couldn’t find in the documents you sent references for the
inspection report and subsequent works completed report (dated 16/04/21).
Please could you provide those detailed reports, including any
photographic evidence highlighting the defect and its repair?

                    

Repair order attached as requested, there are no further documents to
disclose.

 

If you are not content with the handling of your request, you have the
right to ask for an internal review.  Requests for internal reviews should
be submitted within 2 months of the date of receipt of the response to
your original request and should be addressed to the Monitoring Officer,
1^st Floor, Civic Centre 3, Market Street, Huddersfield HD1 2EY. 
Alternatively, you can send an email to:
[1][email address]. 

 

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of any review you have the right
under section 50 of the 2000 Act to apply to the Information Commissioner
for a decision as to whether your request for information has been dealt
with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.  The Information
Commissioner’s website is at [2]www.ico.org.uk and gives more information
about the role and duties of the Commissioner.  The ICO telephone helpline
on 0303 123 1113 or 01625 545745 is available between 9am and 5pm, Monday
to Friday.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Information Governance Team

Kirklees Council, Governance Service

Telephone: 01484 221000 (voice activated switchboard – please ask for
Freedom of Information)

 

For more information about how we deal with your personal data, please see
the [3]Kirklees Council privacy notice

 

 

[4][IMG]

[5]Website | [6]News | [7]Email Updates | [8]Facebook | [9]Twitter

This email and any attachments are confidential. If you have received this
email in error – please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your
system, and do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way.
Kirklees Council monitors all emails sent or received.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.ico.org.uk/
3. https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/beta/informa...
4. http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/
5. https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/
6. http://www.kirkleestogether.co.uk/
7. http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/stayconnected
8. https://www.facebook.com/liveinkirklees
9. https://twitter.com/KirkleesCouncil

Dear Kirklees Borough Council.

I write in response to your email dated 13th September 2021.

I find that certain responses are either vague, I haven’t perhaps been specific in my question, or it has been misunderstood and therefore I don’t feel any more informed than when I submitted the request.

Perhaps I can rephrase certain questions so that they can be better explained to me.

1. I had asked for the details/notes specific to Haigh House Hill that lead to its inspection frequency changing from 12 months to 6 months.

Your response: “Following release of the Well Managed Highways Infrastructure Code of Practice in October 2016, local authorities were given two years to develop and implement a new system of inspection and maintenance working to a risk based approach. As such The Safety Inspection Manual 2018 (already disclosed) was implemented, this included a new network hierarchy as detailed on page 6 of the document and a full review of our entire network therefore took place throughout 2019”

For clarity:
a. Is it suggested here that the only reason the inspection frequency changed to six months is because the safety inspection manual outlined a new frequency table?
b. It had nothing to do with any changes bespoke to the location?
c. If there are factors bespoke to the location that facilitated it’s the frequency changing from 12 months to 6 months, please give details.

2. I had asked could you explain what/which traffic generators are used in the assessment of Haigh House Hill and Kew Hill, at what time these traffic generators were used to assess the roads for traffic and the method/frequency of revising these roads?

Your response: “Brosters Farm Shop and the working farm buildings in the vicinity”.

For the avoidance of doubt:
a. Could you elaborate on how these two factors are a consideration?
b. Does Brosters Farm shop increase the amount of traffic using the road?
c. If yes, is this quantified and are records kept?
d. Do the working farms operate heavy machinery?
e. If yes do you expect this machinery to have an impact on the condition/deterioration of the road?
f. If so, how?
g. Is the time of day taken into consideration when using traffic generators?
h. For example early morning traffic vs evening traffic?
i. Are Kirklees aware that this route is used by vehicles travelling to and from the motorways including larger commercial vehicles such as lorry’s?
j. Do Kirklees have any data relating to the amount of traffic that use these roads; daily, weekly and yearly?
k. What is the frequency of revising the traffic generators for these roads?

3. I asked; What method/tools do inspectors use to measure surface area and depth of each defect?

Your response: “A visual risk assessment is undertaken of all relevant factors including
dimensions”

For clarity:
a. A trained engineer measures the defects depth and surface area with ONLY their eyes?
b. They do not carry with them equipment that could accurately detail a defects dimensions if for example they were unsure on how to categorise it?
c. Are they travelling in a vehicle or are they walking?
d. If driving, are they required to stop the vehicle when logging a defect?
e. What is the speed they travel when inspecting roads.
f. Is this ‘visual risk assessment’ a standard applied to the entire network across highways England or is it specific to Kirklees borough council?

4. I asked; Is a written record and photographic evidence kept of these parameters
when inspectors document a defect?

Your response “Any defects that are concluded to be actionable defects in need of repair following a visual risk assessment are noted on a PDA device and are shown/listed on the document titled “scheduled highway safety
inspections”. No photographs are taken as there is no obligation on the authority to do so.

a. Did you mean the document titled ‘A history of safety inspections’ that you had sent me previously or is there a separate document titled “scheduled highway safety inspections” that I have not seen? If there is a separate document, please could I have a full and detailed copy of the reports for these sites.
b. Forgive me for labouring this point but how are the potholes exact identity and location, once identified by the inspector, communicated to the repairs team?
ii. Often on a surface there are several defects, how do the exact defects actioned for repair get identified by a completely different team of workers that potentially have never been to the site before?
iii. Is a substance used for example to help highlight/identify a defect?
iv. If yes; what is the substance?
v. How long would you expect it stay on the road?
vi. Or once on site, do the repairs team simply repair everything in sight that they deem appropriate?
c. Does the PDA mark the exact geographical coordinates of the pothole when the inspector enters it on to the system?
d. If yes, does the inspector have to be stood over the defect at the time of entering it?

5. I asked for the specific individual defect log/reports that were identified on the 18-06-21 inspection; 8013537, 8013536, 8013534, 8013539 (A History of safety inspections for HAIGH HOUSE HILL').

Your response: N/A- No documents to disclose.

Here the potholes have been given seven digit reference numbers. You suggest there are no further documents. My questions therefore are as follows:
a. Why is the defect given a seven digit reference?
b. Would this seven digit reference appear elsewhere on other reports/logs to document the defect? If yes, which documents?
c. For clarification; Do the individual defects that have been given a seven digit reference have a separate log specifically created to communicate or make notes about, including it’s repair?
d. Please could you send me the ‘works order’ report (similar to document ‘25838’) specific to the defects listed above, in a format suggested in 10(c) of this request.

6. I asked; Using the risk factor 8.3 (Safety inspections manual, page 19) a category 2 has a risk rating of between 9-12. Do the defects listed in the in the inspection reports have specific number between 9-12 associated with each of them documented by the inspector?

Your response: No

a. Has the matrix been developed following the release of the Well Managed Highways Infrastructure Code of Practice in October 2016?
b. Again, forgive my ignorance but why would the matrix exist to quantify a defects potential risk using a numerical system if it would not then be used by inspectors when identifying and cataloguing defects?
c. If it is not to be used by inspectors, who would use the matrix and what are it’s advantages?

7. I asked Potholes 8013537, 8013536, 8013534 are listed as category 2 defects.
Can you confirm that all three were listed under this category?

Your response: YES

a. Section 8.3 Risk Factor (Safety Inspection Manual, page 19) specifically 8.3.3 states that a category 2 defect should be repaired within 7 working days. This is reinforced on page 21, section 8.7 ‘Category’ in which it states a category 2 defect warrants a repair earlier than 28 working days but should be issued for repair within 7 working days.
i. Are there any situations when the council fails to repair a defect within the timeframe laid out in section 8.3 and 8.7?
ii. If yes, can you tell me factors that would lead to the council missing the deadlines outlined in 8.3 and 8.7?
iii. What are the consequences to the council when they do not repair a defect within the time frame laid out in section 8.3 and 8.7?
iv. In situations where the council know that they are not able to repair the defect in the recommended time frame laid out in section 8.3 and 8.7, do they implement measures to warn road users of the defects and the risk/danger they present (for example, signage, barriers, cones, paint)?

8. I asked, Pothole 8013537 and 8013536 shown as reported 18-06-21 have yet to be
cleared and marked completed. Are they yet to be repaired?

Your response: Repairs were undertaken on 12 August 2021.

a. I may have over looked this but could you point me to the document/section in the inspectors report where it shows these defects were repaired (I can see the others are marked as repaired).
b. Was this information on a separate document that has not been sent?
c. Or was it not updated on the system/report prior to sending the original document to me?
d. Please could you send me the ‘works order’ report (similar to document ‘25838’) specific to the defects listed above, in a format suggested in 10(c) of this request.

9. I asked for the specific individual defect log/reports that were identified on the 18-06-21 inspection; specifically 8013538 and 8013535 (A History of safety inspections for KEW HILL').

Your response: N/A – No documents to disclose

a. I refer back to my earlier questions (see point 5). In light of the new questions if these potholes that have a unique seven digit references have a log or separate report I would like this full and detailed report.
b. Please could you also send me the ‘works order’ report (similar to document ‘25838’) specific to the defects listed above, in a format suggested in 10(c) of this request.

10. Can you confirm, when a defect is repaired, by either a third party company or an in-house council department, do the works get evidenced eg, photos to show completion?

Your response: No as there is no obligation on the authority to do so, Section 58 of the Highways Act 1980 specifically states “for the purposes of such a defence it is not relevant to prove that the highway authority had arranged for a competent person to carry out or supervise the maintenance of the part of the highway to which the action relates unless it is also proved that the authority had given him proper instructions with regard to the maintenance of the highway and that he had carried out the instructions.

a. Here the act specifically states “UNLESS it can be proved that the authority had given him proper instructions with regard to the maintenance of the highway and that he had carried out the instructions”
I would have thought that organising and actioning a repair would constitute proper instruction and therefore my original question still stands:

How do the council know that the EXACT defect (given a seven digit reference in the inspectors report), that has been actioned for repair, has been repaired?

11. I asked; Service request RCT605690 received 02-04-21 shows the reporting of pot holes. I couldn’t find in the documents you sent references for the inspection report and subsequent works completed report (dated 16/04/21). Please could you provide those detailed reports, including any photographic evidence highlighting the defect and its repair?

Your response: Repair order attached as requested, there are no further documents to disclose.

a. For my records, What is the name of this software?
b. From the screen shot you have sent (Job no. 00214421) I can see a number of tabs including ‘description, notes, dates, details’, etc. I can also see buttons titled ‘documents, locations, goto map’ etc.
Do these tabs contain information specific to the log?
c. If yes, would I have to specify and request the notes/details within each of these sections to be included from the log or could it be reasonably expected to be included in a FOI when a ‘detailed’ report has been requested?
d. In the box marked ‘priority’ it is marked as 4* and in the additional dialogue box adjacent it is written ‘reactive 28 days’.
i. What is the scale/range of the numbers here? Eg,1-10/ 1-5?
ii. What is the lowest priority and what it the highest priority?
iii. What does the star represent?
iv. What is meant by the term ‘reactive 28 days’?
e. I can see from software that there are also scroll tabs for additional information. It looks as though there is more information detailed in the ‘location’ box. I would like this information……..
f. Therefore, I would like a better format that includes ALL the information from the report. Is it possible to change the format from a screen grab to a more professional standard; perhaps to print and scan the pages into a pdf document?

12. Additional points for clarification:

a. A defect is either reported by a member of the public (this is logged as a service request) or an inspector (this is logged on an inspection report)?
i. There are no other ways in which defects are reported and logged?
b. If the defect is reported by a member of the public, is an inspection required to observe and confirm the defect?
ii. or is a repair order created on a service request alone? Without having to visually see the defect?
c. Following the reporting of a defect, a repair order is then created similar to example 25838 (submitted document).
i. Are repairs orders the same for all defects regardless of whether they are submitted by a member of the public or an inspector?
d. A ‘repair order’ is the only log used from that point on to make notes about the defect and it’s repair?

Kind regards,
C. Andrew

Freedom Info, Kirklees Borough Council

Dear Mr Andrew

I confirm receipt of your subsequent questions. We are dealing with this and will respond to you in due course.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Environmental Information Regulations 2004 allow up to 20 working days for responding to information requests.

During the Coronavirus pandemic, our response to information rights requests may be longer. Please be assured that we will endeavour to reply to your request as soon as possible.

If you are not content with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Requests for internal reviews should be addressed to the Monitoring Officer, 1st Floor, Civic Centre 3, Market Street, Huddersfield HD1 2EY. Alternatively, you can send an email to: [email address].

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

If you are not content with the outcome of any review you have the right under section 50 of the 2000 Act to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision as to whether your request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act. The Information Commissioner’s website is at www.ico.org.uk and gives more information about the role and duties of the Commissioner. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Regards

Information Governance Team
Governance Service
Telephone: 01484 221000 (voice activated switchboard – please ask for Freedom of Information)

For more information about how we deal with your personal data, please see the Kirklees Council privacy notice

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Freedom Info, Kirklees Borough Council

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Andrew,

 

I am writing in response to your subsequent question dated
17/09/2021. This has been dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act
2000.

 

The Council’s response to your specific questions is set out below:

 

1.           I had asked for the details/notes specific to Haigh House
Hill that lead to its inspection frequency changing from 12 months to 6
months.

 

Your response: “Following release of the Well Managed Highways
Infrastructure Code of Practice in October 2016, local authorities were
given two years to develop and implement a new system of inspection and
maintenance working to a risk based approach. As such The Safety
Inspection Manual 2018 (already disclosed) was implemented, this included
a new network hierarchy as detailed on page 6 of the document and a full
review of our entire network therefore took place throughout 2019”

 

For clarity:

 

a.                  Is it suggested here that the only reason the
inspection frequency changed to six months is because the safety
inspection manual outlined a new frequency table?

Yes – The authority undertook a full review of its entire highway network
once establishing a new network hierarchy following release of the Well
Managed Highways Infrastructure 2016.

 

b.                  It had nothing to do with any changes bespoke to the
location?

Refer to answer provided at 1a.

 

c.           If there are factors bespoke to the location that facilitated
it’s the frequency changing from 12 months to 6 months, please give
details.

                    Refer to 1a.

 

2.           I had asked could you explain what/which traffic generators
are used in the assessment of Haigh House Hill and Kew Hill, at what time
these traffic generators were used to assess the roads for traffic and the
method/frequency of revising these roads?

 

Your response: “Brosters Farm Shop and the working farm buildings in the
vicinity”.

 

For the avoidance of doubt:

 

a.                  Could you elaborate on how these two factors are a
consideration?

They are considered traffic (pedestrian or vehicular) generators and
therefore considered in accordance with the table at 4.4 of the Safety
Inspection Manual 2018.

 

b.                  Does Brosters Farm shop increase the amount of traffic
using the road?

Yes – It is considered a traffic (pedestrian or vehicular) generator and
therefore considered in accordance with the table at 4.4 of the Safety
Inspection Manual 2018.

 

c.                  If yes, is this quantified and are records kept?

It is categorised in accordance with the network hierarchy stated with the
Safety Inspection Manual 2018.

 

d.                  Do the working farms operate heavy machinery?

The authority would presume the farms operate some plant/machinery.

 

e.                  If yes do you expect this machinery to have an impact
on the condition/deterioration of the road?

Any vehicular traffic using Haigh House Hill/Kew Hill could have any
impact on the condition/deterioration of the road.

 

f.                   If so, how?

Defects can develop for a number of reasons depending on a number of
different factors such as traffic and weather conditions.

 

g.                  Is the time of day taken into consideration when using
traffic generators?

The nature and volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic is considered in
accordance with the table published at 4.4 of the Safety Inspection Manual
2018.

 

h.                  For example early morning traffic vs evening traffic?

The nature and volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic is considered in
accordance with the table published at 4.4 of the Safety Inspection Manual
2018.

 

i.                    Are Kirklees aware that this route is used by
vehicles travelling to and from the motorways including larger commercial
vehicles such as lorry’s?

Yes - It is accepted by the Council that some lorry’s will use this
location, this is typical of many roads across the highway network.

 

j.                    Do Kirklees have any data relating to the amount of
traffic that use these roads; daily, weekly and yearly?

Colleagues within Planning/Transportation are likely to hold some data
relating to traffic counts.

 

k.           What is the frequency of revising the traffic generators for
these roads?

              As stated on page 2 of the Safety Inspection Manual 2018,
the manual will be reviewed on or before November 2023.

 

3.           I asked; What method/tools do inspectors use to measure
surface area and depth of each defect?

 

Your response: “A visual risk assessment is undertaken of all relevant
factors including dimensions”

 

For clarity:

 

a.                  A trained engineer measures the defects depth and
surface area with ONLY their eyes?

Most defects will be subject to a visual risk assessment by trained and
experienced highway engineers without the need to measure a defect, there
will be occasions where engineers will exit the safety inspection vehicle
and examine some defects more closely on foot which may include measuring
the defect with a tape measure or similar device. This is in accordance
with the Well Managed Highways Infrastructure Code of Practice 2016.

 

b.                  They do not carry with them equipment that could
accurately detail a defects dimensions if for example they were unsure on
how to categorise it?

Refer to 3a.

 

c.                  Are they travelling in a vehicle or are they walking?

The inspections of Haigh House Hill/Kew Hill are undertaken from a slow
moving vehicle containing both a driver and an experienced and accredited
highway engineer. This is in accordance with the Well Managed Highways
Infrastructure Code of Practice 2016

 

d.                  If driving, are they required to stop the vehicle when
logging a defect?

Yes the driver will stop the vehicle to allow the engineer to record a
defect on a handheld device.

 

e.                  What is the speed they travel when inspecting roads.

A speed of less that 20mph as detailed at 5.2 of the Safety Inspection
Manual 2018 –This is in full accordance with the Well Managed Highways
Infrastructure Code of Practice 2016

 

f.            Is this ‘visual risk assessment’ a standard applied to the
entire network across highways England or is it specific to Kirklees
borough council?

               No this is national guidance contained with the Well
Managed Highways Infrastructure Code of Practice 2016.

 

4.           I asked; Is a written record and photographic evidence kept
of these parameters when inspectors document a defect?

 

Your response “Any defects that are concluded to be actionable defects in
need of repair following a visual risk assessment are noted on a PDA
device and are shown/listed on the document titled “scheduled highway
safety inspections”. No photographs are taken as there is no obligation on
the authority to do so.

 

a.                  Did you mean the document titled ‘A history of safety
inspections’ that you had sent me previously or is there a separate
document titled “scheduled highway safety inspections” that I have not
seen? If there is a separate document, please could I have a full and
detailed copy of the reports for these sites.

No additional document, the document titled “A history of safety
inspections” details all actionable defects identified on a scheduled
highway safety inspection.

 

b.                  Forgive me for labouring this point but how are the
potholes exact identity and location, once identified by the inspector,
communicated to the repairs team?

The repair team carry a PDA device which holds details of the job
including the location of the defect as identified by the engineer.

 

ii.           Often on a surface there are several defects, how do the
exact defects actioned for repair get identified by a completely different
team of workers that potentially have never been to the site before?

The engineer will provide a location that will enable a repair team to
undertake a repair, if the repair team have any difficulties they will
speak to the    relevant engineer.

 

iii.          Is a substance used for example to help highlight/identify a
defect?

We do use road marking paint on occasion where there is no valid landmarks
to assist.

 

iv.          If yes; what is the substance?

Refer to iii

 

v.           How long would you expect it stay on the road?

This would vary depending on weather conditions.

 

vi.          Or once on site, do the repairs team simply repair everything
in sight that they deem appropriate?

The repair teams undertake a repair in accordance with their works
instruction on their PDA device.

 

c.                  Does the PDA mark the exact geographical coordinates
of the pothole when the inspector enters it on to the system?

No.

 

d.           If yes, does the inspector have to be stood over the defect
at the time of entering it?

N/a –Refer to c.

 

5.           I asked for the specific individual defect log/reports that
were identified on the 18-06-21 inspection; 8013537, 8013536, 8013534,
8013539 (A History of safety inspections for HAIGH HOUSE HILL').

 

Your response: N/A- No documents to disclose.

 

Here the potholes have been given seven digit reference numbers. You
suggest there are no further documents. My questions therefore are as
follows:

 

a.                  Why is the defect given a seven digit reference?

The seven digit reference is the Defect ID within the safety inspection
application. This generates a works order for a repair team to attend the
location. The repair order for the relevant defects have been disclosed as
request and start with 00 in the top left hand corner of the works ticket.

 

b.                  Would this seven digit reference appear elsewhere on
other reports/logs to document the defect? If yes, which documents?

No it is listed simply within the safety inspection application – This
then generates a works order for a repair team to attend the location.

 

c.                  For clarification; Do the individual defects that have
been given a seven digit reference have a separate log specifically
created to communicate or make notes about, including it’s repair?

The seven digit reference is the defects reference within the safety
inspection application only –This then generates a works order for a
repair team to attend the location.  The repair order for the relevant
defects have been disclosed as request and start with 00 in the top left
hand corner of the works ticket

 

d.           Please could you send me the ‘works order’ report (similar to
document ‘25838’) specific to the defects listed above, in a format
suggested in 10(c) of this request.

The authority requires further clarification of what you are requesting.
The defects listed above are detailed on “A history of safety inspections”
– The repair orders for each individual defects can be provided but they
are not available in any alternative format.

 

6.           I asked; Using the risk factor 8.3 (Safety inspections
manual, page 19) a category 2 has a risk rating of between 9-12. Do the
defects listed in the in the inspection reports have specific number
between 9-12 associated with each of them documented by the inspector?

 

Your response: No

 

a.                  Has the matrix been developed following the release of
the Well Managed Highways Infrastructure Code of Practice in October 2016?

YES.

 

b.                  Again, forgive my ignorance but why would the matrix
exist to quantify a defects potential risk using a numerical system if it
would not then be used by inspectors when identifying and cataloguing
defects?

As detailed at 8.6.2 - The category of repair is identified by its risk
factor (table 8.6) and allocated a timescale for repair based upon this
risk factor. For example a defect scored six or eight would still require
a repair within 28 days.

 

c.           If it is not to be used by inspectors, who would use the
matrix and what are it’s advantages?

The risk matrix table is used by our engineers undertaking scheduled
highway safety inspections upon completition of a visual risk assessment
however each defect is not allocated an individual score.

 

7.           I asked Potholes 8013537, 8013536, 8013534 are listed as
category 2 defects.

 

Can you confirm that all three were listed under this category?

 

Your response: YES

 

a.           Section 8.3 Risk Factor (Safety Inspection Manual, page 19)
specifically 8.3.3 states that a category 2 defect should be repaired
within 7 working days.  This is reinforced on page 21, section 8.7
‘Category’ in which it states a category 2 defect warrants a repair
earlier than 28 working days but should be issued for repair within 7
working days.

 

i.                     Are there any situations when the council fails to
repair a defect within the timeframe laid out in section 8.3 and 8.7?

Yes.

 

ii.                   If yes, can you tell me factors that would lead to
the council missing the deadlines outlined in 8.3 and 8.7?

A number of things may lead to a target date for repair not being met,
such as weather conditions, whether traffic management or a formal road
closure was required in accordance with the New Roads and Streetworks Act
1991 in which we have to give notice of our intended works. Additionally
the Coronavirus pandemic has affected our repair function over the last 18
months in terms of emergency legislation, isolation periods and
restrictions of sharing vehicles.

 

iii.                 What are the consequences to the council when they do
not repair a defect within the time frame laid out in section 8.3 and 8.7?

The authority would have to consider whether the delay was reasonable in
the circumstances.

 

iv.                 In situations where the council know that they are not
able to repair the defect in the recommended time frame laid out in
section 8.3 and 8.7, do they implement measures to warn road users of the
defects and the risk/danger they present (for example, signage, barriers,
cones, paint)?

Yes these factors would be considered.

 

8.           I asked, Pothole 8013537 and 8013536 shown as reported
18-06-21 have yet to be cleared and marked completed. Are they yet to be
repaired?

 

Your response: Repairs were undertaken on 12 August 2021.    

 

a.           I may have over looked this but could you point me to the
document/section in the inspectors report where it shows these defects
were repaired (I can see the others are marked as repaired).

 

c.                  Was this information on a separate document that has
not been sent? 

No.

 

d.                  Or was it not updated on the system/report prior to
sending the original document to me?   

Correct. 

 

d.           Please could you send me the ‘works order’ report (similar to
document ‘25838’) specific to the defects listed above, in a format
suggested in 10(c) of this request.

                  Repair Orders attached as requested –Job Numbers
00218831 and 00218837

 

9.           I asked for the specific individual defect log/reports that
were identified on the 18-06-21 inspection; specifically 8013538 and
8013535 (A History of safety inspections for KEW HILL').

 

Your response: N/A – No documents to disclose

 

a.                  I refer back to my earlier questions (see point 5). In
light of the new questions if these potholes that have a unique seven
digit references have a log or separate report I would like this full and
detailed report.

The seven digit reference is the Defect ID within the safety inspection
application. This generates a works order for a repair team to attend the
location. The repair order for the relevant defects have been disclosed as
request and start with 00 in the top left hand corner of the works ticket.

 

b.           Please could you also send me the ‘works order’ report
(similar to document ‘25838’) specific to the defects listed above, in a
format suggested in 10(c) of this request.

               Repair Orders attached as requested –Job Numbers 00218831
and 00218837

 

10.         Can you confirm, when a defect is repaired, by either a third
party company or an in-house council department, do the works get
evidenced eg, photos to show completion?

  

Your response: No as there is no obligation on the authority to do so,
Section 58 of the Highways Act 1980 specifically states “for the purposes
of such a defence it is not relevant to prove that the highway authority
had arranged for a competent person to carry out or supervise the
maintenance of the part of the highway to which the action relates unless
it is also proved that the authority had given him proper instructions
with regard to the maintenance of the highway and that he had carried out
the instructions.

 

a.           Here the act specifically states “UNLESS it can be proved
that the authority had given him proper instructions with regard to the
maintenance of the highway and that he had carried out the instructions”

 

I would have thought that organising and actioning a repair would
constitute proper instruction and therefore my original question still
stands:

No photos of completed repairs are taken as there is no obligation upon
the authority to do so. The authority provides a clear work instruction to
the repair teams in the form of a works order and the repair teams
complete the repair as requested and record the date of the repair, the
authority is satisfied that this meets the legal test required with regard
to Section 58 of the Highways Act 1980. The policies and procedures
adopted by the authority are routinely considered by the Courts and have
not been found wanting as they are consistent and in accordance with the
Well Maintained Highway Infrastructure Code of Practice 2016.

 

How do the council know that the EXACT defect (given a seven digit
reference in the inspectors report), that has been actioned for repair,
has been repaired?

A clear works instruction and location is given to the repair team, the
location will then continue to be monitored by our engineers on any
scheduled highway safety inspection undertaken.

 

11.         I asked; Service request RCT605690 received 02-04-21 shows the
reporting of pot holes. I couldn’t find in the documents you sent
references for the inspection report and subsequent works completed report
(dated 16/04/21). Please could you provide those detailed reports,
including any photographic evidence highlighting the defect and its
repair?

 

Your response: Repair order attached as requested, there are no further
documents to disclose.

 

a.                  For my records, What is the name of this software?

Our works ordering software is MAYRISE.

 

b.           From the screen shot you have sent (Job no. 00214421) I can
see a number of tabs including ‘description, notes, dates, details’, etc.
I can also see buttons titled ‘documents, locations, goto map’ etc.

 

Do these tabs contain information specific to the log?

I have attached the screen shots showing the information contained within
these tabs are null. The caller and caller notes tab simply record the
details of the customer, due to GDPR regulations we are unable to provide
this information however for clarity the repair teams do not see this
information.

 

b.                  If yes, would I have to specify and request the
notes/details within each of these sections to be included from the log or
could it be reasonably expected to be included in a FOI when a ‘detailed’
report has been requested?

The information contained within these tabs would be null for each job,
bar the caller and caller notes tab which would hold information of the
customer, these details could not be provided due to GDPR regulations.

 

d.           In the box marked ‘priority’ it is marked as 4* and in the
additional dialogue box adjacent it is written ‘reactive 28 days’.

 

i.                     What is the scale/range of the numbers here?
Eg,1-10/ 1-5?

There are thirteen options as demonstrated on the document titled “Repair
Timescales – 13 Options”. Some of these repair timescales are historic and
no longer used and some options are blank.

 

ii.                   What is the lowest priority and what it the highest
priority?

In terms of highway maintenance, as per page of 21 of the safety
inspection manual 2018 already disclosed the repair timescales operation
are

 

o Within 24 hours
o Within 7 Days
o Within 28 days

 

iii.                 What does the star represent?

There was already a previous repair timescale marked 4, therefore our
colleagues within IT simply placed a * when creating a new repair
timescale.

 

iv.                 What is meant by the term ‘reactive 28 days’?

A repair within 28 days.

 

e.                  I can see from software that there are also scroll
tabs for additional information. It looks as though there is more
information detailed in the ‘location’ box. I would like this
information……..

As per our response at 11b the information contained within this field is
null for all jobs.

 

f.                   Therefore, I would like a better format that includes
ALL the information from the report. Is it possible to change the format
from a screen grab to a more professional standard; perhaps to print and
scan the pages into a pdf document?

There is no other format the information can be provided in, however as
per our response at 11b I have provided a screen shot showing each field
is null other than the Caller and Caller notes fields which cannot be
disclosed due to GDPR regulations.

 

12.         Additional points for clarification:

 

a.                  A defect is either reported by a member of the public
(this is logged as a service request) or an inspector (this is logged on
an inspection report)?

Yes

 

i.                     There are no other ways in which defects are
reported and logged?

No

 

b.                  If the defect is reported by a member of the public,
is an inspection required to observe and confirm the defect?

Yes – Depending on the nature of the defect reported, i.e the authority
receives reports of drainage defects, street lighting faults, traffic
lights not working etc

 

ii.                   or is a repair order created on a service request
alone? Without having to visually see the defect?

Yes – This occurs also depending on the nature of the defect being
reported.

 

c.           Following the reporting of a defect, a repair order is then
created similar to example 25838 (submitted document).

 

i.                     Are repairs orders the same for all defects
regardless of whether they are submitted by a member of the public or an
inspector?

The repair orders are all issued through Mayrise so yes will all be the
same format whether reported by a member of the public or engineer.

 

c.                  A ‘repair order’ is the only log used from that point
on to make notes about the defect and it’s repair?

Yes

 

If you are not content with the handling of your request, you have the
right to ask for an internal review.  Requests for internal reviews should
be submitted within 2 months of the date of receipt of the response to
your original request and should be addressed to the Monitoring Officer,
1^st Floor, Civic Centre 3, Market Street, Huddersfield HD1 2EY. 
Alternatively, you can send an email to:
[1][email address]. 

 

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of any review you have the right
under section 50 of the 2000 Act to apply to the Information Commissioner
for a decision as to whether your request for information has been dealt
with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.  The Information
Commissioner’s website is at [2]www.ico.org.uk and gives more information
about the role and duties of the Commissioner.  The ICO telephone helpline
on 0303 123 1113 or 01625 545745 is available between 9am and 5pm, Monday
to Friday.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Information Governance Team

Kirklees Council, Governance Service

Telephone: 01484 221000 (voice activated switchboard – please ask for
Freedom of Information)

 

For more information about how we deal with your personal data, please see
the [3]Kirklees Council privacy notice

 

 

[4][IMG]

[5]Website | [6]News | [7]Email Updates | [8]Facebook | [9]Twitter

This email and any attachments are confidential. If you have received this
email in error – please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your
system, and do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way.
Kirklees Council monitors all emails sent or received.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.ico.org.uk/
3. https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/beta/informa...
4. http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/
5. https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/
6. http://www.kirkleestogether.co.uk/
7. http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/stayconnected
8. https://www.facebook.com/liveinkirklees
9. https://twitter.com/KirkleesCouncil

Dear Kirklees Borough Council,

Thank you for your email dated 28th September 2021.

You have asked me to clarify which works order I require. I would like a detailed works order of the following defects:
8013534
8013535
8013536
8013538
8013537

And the works order for any other defects that were repaired on the 12th August 2021 on Kew Hill or Haigh House Hill.

Lastly can you confirm the following location references in the inspector report.
"s/l 11 and s/l 12 x5" (Pothole 8013534)
"Near SL No. 14" (Pothole 8013535)
"s/l 17 and s/l 18" (Pothole 8013536)

Yours sincerely,

C. Andrew

Freedom Info, Kirklees Borough Council

Dear Mr Andrew,

I acknowledge receipt of your clarification, I will pass this to the service and ask them to promptly deal with this.

Kind regards

Information Governance Team
Kirklees Council, Governance Service
Red Doles Lane, Huddersfield, HD2 1YF
Telephone: 01484 221000 (voice activated switchboard – please ask for Data Protection)

For more information about how we deal with your personal data, please see the Kirklees Council privacy notice

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Freedom Info, Kirklees Borough Council

2 Atodiad

Dear Mr Andrew,

 

This is a response to your subsequent question that we received on
21/10/2021.

 

You asked for the following:

 

You have asked me to clarify which works order I require. I would like a
detailed works order of the following defects:

 

8013534

 

8013535

 

8013536

 

8013538

 

8013537

 

And the works order for any other defects that were repaired on the 12th
August 2021 on Kew Hill or Haigh House Hill.

 

Lastly can you confirm the following location references in the inspector
report.

 

"s/l 11 and s/l 12 x5" (Pothole 8013534)

 

"Near SL No. 14" (Pothole 8013535)

 

"s/l 17 and s/l 18" (Pothole 8013536)

 

The councils response is:

 

Please see attached document and s40(2) refusal notice.

 

Kind regards

 

Information Governance Team

Kirklees Council, Governance Service

Red Doles Lane, Huddersfield, HD2 1YF

Telephone: 01484 221000 (voice activated switchboard – please ask for Data
Protection)

 

For more information about how we deal with your personal data, please see
the [1]Kirklees Council privacy notice

 

 

 

[2][IMG]

[3]Website | [4]News | [5]Email Updates | [6]Facebook | [7]Twitter

This email and any attachments are confidential. If you have received this
email in error – please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your
system, and do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way.
Kirklees Council monitors all emails sent or received.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/beta/informa...
2. http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/
3. https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/
4. http://www.kirkleestogether.co.uk/
5. http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/stayconnected
6. https://www.facebook.com/liveinkirklees
7. https://twitter.com/KirkleesCouncil

Dear Kirklees Borough Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Kirklees Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Inspection reports for road repairs in Kirklees'.

In my email dated 21st October 2021 I asked for further details/clarification about location markers that had been used in the inspectors report (Dated 18-06-21).

In particular the following abbreviations:
"s/l 11 and s/l 12 x5" (Pothole 8013534)
"Near SL No. 14" (Pothole 8013535)
"s/l 17 and s/l 18" (Pothole 8013536)

I asked for clarification on what S/L or SL is short for/means and if the council could provide me with the exact location of these defects.

These location markers can also be found in the works order reports (00218841, 00218837, 00218835) in the location box.

My request has been refused on the grounds that to provide this detail would be a breach of GDPR for a junior council member. At no point have I asked for details pertaining to council staff and so I am perplexed as to why this LOCATION marker would be refused on the grounds that it identifies a council staff member. I would accept a detailed map with the areas clearly marked using the same identifiers if this would help how you delivered the information to me.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/i...

Yours faithfully,

C. Andrew

Helen Coldwell, Kirklees Borough Council

Dear Mr Andrew

 

I refer to your email dated 2 November 2021, addressed to the Freedom of
Information team.

 

The Council aims to process requests for any review of the handling of
Freedom of Information and we will endeavour to provide this within 20
working days and certainly before the 40 working day deadline.  Ms
Muscroft will write to you when the review has been completed.  If you
wish to provide any further information to assist Ms Muscroft with her
conduct of the review you are welcome to do so. 

 

The Information Commissioner's website at [1]www.ico.org.uk sets out
detailed information about his role, the operation of the Freedom of
Information Act and includes the Commissioner's detailed guidance.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Monitoring Officer

Legal, Governance & Commissioning (Monitoring Officer)

1^st Floor

Civic Centre III

Huddersfield  HD1 2EY

 

 

 

 

 

[2][IMG]

[3]Website | [4]News | [5]Email Updates | [6]Facebook | [7]Twitter

This email and any attachments are confidential. If you have received this
email in error – please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your
system, and do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way.
Kirklees Council monitors all emails sent or received.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.org.uk/
2. http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/
3. https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/
4. http://www.kirkleestogether.co.uk/
5. http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/stayconnected
6. https://www.facebook.com/liveinkirklees
7. https://twitter.com/KirkleesCouncil

Freedom Info, Kirklees Borough Council

1 Atodiad

Good Afternoon Mr Andrew

 

Please see attached the decision letter further to your request for an
Internal Review of the response to your information request

 

Regards

 

 

John Shannon

Kirklees Council, Governance Service

Red Doles Lane, Huddersfield, HD2 1YF

Telephone: 01484 221000 (voice activated switchboard – please ask for Data
Protection)

 

For more information about how we deal with your personal data, please see
the [1]Kirklees Council privacy notice

 

 

 

[2][IMG]

[3]Website | [4]News | [5]Email Updates | [6]Facebook | [7]Twitter

This email and any attachments are confidential. If you have received this
email in error – please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your
system, and do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way.
Kirklees Council monitors all emails sent or received.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/beta/informa...
2. http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/
3. https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/
4. http://www.kirkleestogether.co.uk/
5. http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/stayconnected
6. https://www.facebook.com/liveinkirklees
7. https://twitter.com/KirkleesCouncil