Dear East Sussex County Council,

I wish to have some information released to me under the FoI Act 2000.

MOAT LANE
It is regarding the inspection of a particular country road called, "Moat Lane" (which runs in a SSW direction) abeam the village of WALDRON - "Warren Lane" lies to the NNE of the cross-roads. The Post Code is ? TN21 ???
The little road called "Moat Lane" leads to the small village of East Hoathly.

The Freedom of Information data I am after is:

1. The dates of ALL safety inspections undertaken on the carriageway in the TWO YEARS preceding the 1st February 2013.

2. Details of ALL carriageway defects identified during those preceding TWO YEARS as above.

3. Details of HOW the carriageway was inspected, eg "walked" or "driven" - if driven, how fast was the vehicle driven, and apart for the driver who else was 'on board' ?

4. What had been the intended FREQUENCY of these carriageway safety inspections and have they been changed during the two years preceding 1Feb13 ?

5. I request, under the same terms of 'release' the total number of complaints/enquires relating to the full length of "MOATS LANE" - with perhaps a summary of the general nature of the complaints registered in the TWO Years prior 1Feb13.

6. May I have the complaints listed by number, and geographical position of the pot-holes/dangers, and by their hierarchy classification please ?

7. Can you please tell me the road/section classification - as I cannot see it defined on my OS map. eg the B2203 ?

8. May I have the defect intervention criteria in relation to all categories of carriageway pot-holes/defects ?

9. Having defined the intervention criteria in para 8 above, can you tell me please the time(s) period between a member of the public report and repair (temporary or otherwise) ?

10. Has the ESCC formally adopted ALL or PART of the Standards contained in the NATIONAL Code of Practise for Highways Maintenance Management ?

Thank you, in advance, for your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Captain Bryn Wayt

Dear Janice,

Thank you for providing some information about my FoI Act 2000 questions.

As an opening, I am not happy with the response and will tell you why further on in this reply: in the meantime I acknowledge your answers as:

1. Attached.
2. Attached.
3. 6 Monthly, driven where no footpath otherwise walked. 1 person.
4. See page 30 of attached TAAMPD document.
5. I have attached a pem enquiries which shows the amount of people
calling in regarding Moat lane.
6. See page 8 of attached TAAMPD document. And same as above attached.
7. Moat Lane, C13 Section 120.
8. See page 44 of attached TAAMPD document.
9. See page 42 of attached TAAMPD document.
10. Yes.
===========

I am not happy with the response as 98% of the paperwork (PDF's) have precious little, if anything, to do with "MOAT LANE" !

You define MOAT LANE under question 7 as - "Moat Lane, C13 Section 120."

I have two (possibly 3) pieces of paper which quote MOAT LANE.
(a) PEM ID 119589 with Works ref: 1440/1887
(b) Enquiry ID 119589 dated 6 Apr 2011
© Possible 3rd; Enquiry 206656 dated 11 Jun 2012

The other 13 pages are nothing to do with MOAT LANE/C13 Section 120 which is rather annoying.

For instance I have pages 1-9 which starts off with Road No. C690 mentioning Michelham Priory Road.
Arlington on page 2 (which has nothing filled in the top section at all by the "Inspector").
C207/U7044 "Langtye Lane"
page 7 - C13 mentioning Mark Cross Lane & Ripe Lane - which are not contiguous to MOAT LANE C13 Section 120/
U7081 mentioning Church Lane then Ripe Nursery School
C207 mentioning Langtye Lane & Ripe road.

Then I have 6 pages all filled in by "Inspector "SJW" who never fills in any of the top section/header with the required salient data (weather/walked or driven road surface condition) for the Inspection Route/Road/Area
number 71C - which mentions Roads C207/A22/U7082/U7061 covering "Box Cottage to Airfield" (which has nothing at all to do with MOAT LANE.

"**W" report dates are for the six-monthly period 28 Feb 2011 and 9 Aug 2011 with ALL of the top sections devoid of data, which is a great shame as it devalues the legal exercise.

Then I have another 3 pages recorded by "Inspector *L" which again covers the route/road/area 71C which is nothing to do with MOAT LANE.
The dates are from 3 Aug 2012 and 6 Aug 2012.

The last piece of paper has a date stamp "footer" bottom left of the page as: 02/01/2004 which again is not what I asked for, and show roads/lanes that have nothing to do with MOAT LANE, as it starts with the Bowship Roundabout and ends at Arlington Cross Roads (St Pancras' Church.

Conclusion
Answers 1 & 2 do NOT cover the road MOAT LANE I am focusing on.
Answer 3 purports to cover MOAT LANE but there is NO supporting paperwork which proves, "6 monthly, driven where no footpath otherwise walked. 1 person". There is insufficient proof on your paper-trail that shows this road has been properly inspected.
Answer 5 shows one enquiry (PEM ID 119589) which makes the evidence a bit thin on the ground considering there's no road inspections for MOAT LANE.

The rest of the questions have been answered by you quoting other widespread references within TAAMPD - which is fine, but they are covering the bigger picture and not MOAT LANE.

In short, I am NOT satisfied with the answers or the proper scrutiny I was after and thus, regretfully, I am asking for an "Internal Review".

Should the IR not come up to my expectations I am offering either "mediation" or possibly Court action.

Yours sincerely,

Captain Bryn Wayt

Dear Mr Coleman,

It was furthest from my mind asking for an IR - but as you will have noted, there are in my opinion too many gaps and not enough substance for me to be satisfied with the answers to my questions.

I am sorry more of your precious time will be taken up with that IR.

Yours sincerely,

Captain Bryn Wayt

Dear Freedom of Information,

Ref:
EIR Request ref: 3910 / Safety Inspections - Moat Lane Waldron

Dear Mr Coleman,

It will not escaped your notice that this FoI Act 2000 has so far taken a huge amount of time and effort - I'm obliged you are seeking further clarification about the actual road I've been asking about since the beginning.

I require BOTH sections to be covered by the original questions, i.e. 120 & 130.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Captain Bryn Wayt

Dear Caroline Hodge,

FAO: Mr Philip Baker - Asst C.E. Governance Services
Dear Mr Baker,

Thank you for eventually getting the IR sorted out on the 14th August and sent to me on the 15th August 2014 by email.

Whilst I appreciate your response, I must disclose my bitter disappointment that despite 110 days going by (3 months and 19 days) there is not a hint of an apology for this staggering delay since I first put pen to paper.
That this inefficient work was caused by, “an administrative error” and the “wrong log” being sent, in my book, that makes an apology the very first thing I would have offered to the client.

Secondly, I do not take kindly to your self-righteous lean telling me a couple of times, “You did not request a review of this response” - when the original response (19 May 2014) to my questions was a complete dog’s dinner and begged for a wholehearted complete restart, without any nit-picking points scoring coming in the reply.
So whilst nit-picking is on the menu, may I point out your IR response in para 6 falls short of being correct in that you state, “….the road classification for Moat Lane is C13 section 120, the response should have also confirmed, as set out above, that the road classification for Moat Lane is also C13, section 120”.
The attempt to give me an answer was twisted into a shortened version of the correct road classification for Moat Lane, which should read something like, “…is a part of the C13 and Moat Lane includes section 120 AND 130”.

Now to the IR and Chronology
Your para 1.
I find it unacceptable that the very important “Inspection Recording Sheets” for the October 2012 inspections, “have not been located”.
This means you have no written proof any such inspection of Moat Lane sections 120 and 130 took place between April 2012 and April 2013, and thus your obligations to keep that particular section of road safe and useable are open to question.

Further, I do not find it comforting that you note, “By way of clarification, however, although Moat Lane was inspected on these dates the Inspection Recording Sheets do not necessarily refer to the inspection of Moat Lane because they are only used to record defects that are found during the inspection and not the routes that have been inspected”.
I have to say, I find it almost impossible to understand that collection of thoughts and logic.

Moat Lane section 120 and 130 was either inspected or was NOT inspected; there should be no open question of a Health Safety Inspection Recording Sheet (Form V2009-1.5) not being completed if no defects are found - a car MOT requires clarification if defects are found or not found, ALL the boxes are ticked either pass or fail.

If one inspects the Recording Sheets more closely one will see, in small print, on every Inspection Recording Sheet, “The following shall also be recorded where no defects have been found: all other sections of road inspected and no defects found OR All other roads in the inspection area inspected and no defects found”.
That advice is openly available to any reader of HMG’s, “Well Maintained Highways - Code of Practise” Section 9, para 9.2.6
To keep on the safe side of the Law “Authorities” like yours are, “strongly advised to undertake safety inspections in accordance with the principles of this Code in order that, where necessary, they are able to support a defence under Section 58 of the Highways Act 1980”.
Missing records make you in default and NOT using the said Code of Practise where a Category 4a road should be inspected every 3 months (not 6 months as you have quoted from the TAMP document - which is not keeping pace with developments) makes the omission even more severe.

Whilst you say, “only used to record defects found during the inspection” that does not gel with the facts, as there are plenty of examples in your IR Appendix 2 which record “NONE” (meaning NO defects found) eg “sheet 10 road U7602 28/10/11 11.00 NONE”.
Again, on the 16/4/12 at 13.40 Road Number 7586 Sheepwash Lane - NONE.
Once more, 28/10/11 Road Number U7602 at 11.00 NONE.
Once more I find, on the B2102 a “walked” inspection by “RV” in “fine” conditions on the 25/10/11 between the times 11.00 and 11.55 no defects were found and he noted that fact as “NONE”.
Likewise, there are 10 examples of “Seek and Fix” notations, somewhat contradicting the assertion, “a repair gang would not be sent out to search for that defect” ?

I refer you to an excerpt of the Foreword in Code of Practise “Well Maintained Highways” 18 Sep 2013:

In recent years the growth in traffic and its attendant problems throughout the UK has brought increasingly widespread recognition of the importance of highway maintenance, and the high value placed on it both by users and the wider community. There is also an increasing understanding of the serious consequences of failure to invest adequately and effectively in maintaining the local highway network, in particular the progressive deterioration of safety, reliability, and quality, eventually requiring even greater levels of investment in the future.
There are however even wider consequences. The highway network is a key and highly visible community asset, supporting the national and local economy and contributing to the character, and environment of the areas that it serves. The adoption of a Highway Asset Management Plan will enable authorities to manage these broader transport objectives, as well as the more detailed financial and technical aspects of highway maintenance planning. This edition of the Code gives much greater prominence to asset management and risk management than earlier editions. It also provides advice on the implications of the new Traffic Management Act 2004.

Also: 1.3.2 Authorities also have certain legal obligations with which they need to comply, and which will, on occasion, be the subject of claims or legal action by those seeking to establish non-compliance by authorities. It has been recognised that in such cases, the contents of this Code may be considered to be a relevant consideration. In these circumstances, where authorities elect, in the light of local circumstances to adopt policies, procedures or standards differing from those suggested by the Code, it is essential for these to be identified, together with the reasoning for such differences.

Also: 2.2.4 The theme of asset management was strengthened by Government guidance (www.dft.gov.uk) encouraging authorities in England to draw up Transport Asset Management Plans (TAMPs), as part of their preparation for the second round on Local Transport Plans (LTP). These asset management plans should be consistent with the advice contained in the CSS (now ADEPT) Framework document. In July 2009 the guidance for the third round of LTP was published, encouraging authorities to integrate TAMPs with LTP and stating that the TAMP should cover service levels, investment, risk assessment and monitoring process. The guidance may be downloaded from the following website……..

Also: 2.2.5 The term TAMP has been used in the guidance to take account of wider assets related to the transport system (such as depots and bus facilities) owned by transport authorities, in addition to the highway network. For the purpose of this Code, since it exclusively concerns the highway asset, the term Highway Asset Management Plan (HAMP) will be used throughout. A HAMP will of course also include highway lighting, bridges and structures, which will have their own individual asset management plans, but will combine with highways to form the overall authority HAMP. A key aspect of the HAMP is asset valuation and CSS has commissioned the Guidance Document for Highway Infrastructure Asset Valuation which has been published concurrently with this Code.
==============
All of the above is important, for I feel that ESCC has distanced itself from the marriage of these documents, such that you rely on TAMP to suggest a 6 monthly inspection schedule for a 4a local road, whilst the updated and strongly suggested regime dictates a 3 monthly inspection cycle - that was surely the case for the bad winter of 2012.
Thus I can hardly comprehend that your Para 7 response still believes, “the intended frequency of these carriage way inspections has not been changed at least since 2007”.

Ref your Para 8 (asking for times between report and repair).
You say, “No information is held which sets out any required time period between a member of [sic] public reporting a defect and that defect being repaired”. I find that answer astonishing and misleading !
“Where Category 1 defects are identified through a public complaint a record should be kept, as for inspection records…… All repairs shall be recorded and details retained for a minimum of 6 years…….. Where a defect is found to be a Category 1 defect and permanent repairs can not [sic] be completed within 24hours then temporary measures must be instigated”.
Is not the answer to my question then, “24 hours if the defect is found to be a Category 1 defect” ?

9.4.19 Category 1 defects should be corrected or made safe at the time of the inspection, if reasonably practicable. In this context, making safe may constitute displaying warning notices, coning off or fencing off to protect the public from the defect. If it is not possible to correct or make safe the defect at the time of inspection, which will generally be the case, repairs of a permanent or temporary nature should be carried out as soon as possible, and in any case within a period of 24 hours. Permanent repair should be carried out within 28 days. Some authorities have formally adopted a higher level response time of 2 hours for those Category 1 defects considered to pose a particularly high risk. Others, whilst not formally defining such a high risk category, have Section 9 - Inspection Assessment and Recording a arrangements in place to deal with situations requiring a particularly urgent response as they arise.

9.4.20 Category 2 defects are those which, following a risk assessment, are deemed not to represent an immediate or imminent hazard or risk of short term structural deterioration. Such defects may have safety implications, although of a far lesser significance than Category 1 defects, but are more likely to have serviceability or sustainability implications. These defects are not required to be urgently rectified, and those for which repairs are required shall be undertaken within a planned programme of works, with the priority as determined by risk assessment. These priorities together with access requirements, other works on the road network, traffic levels, and the need to minimise traffic management, should be considered as part of the overall asset management strategy. The programmes of work for their rectification should be part of the HAMP.

9.4.21 Category 2 defects may be categorised according to priority, high (H) medium (M) and low (L). Authorities should adopt a range of local target response times for Category 2 defects and apply them in responding to various categories of defect, based on the risk probability and its likely impact. This should also take into account the likelihood of further deterioration before the next scheduled inspection, and where this is a high probability, the defect should either be dealt with as Category 1 or an intermediate special inspection programmed.

Your Para 9 response.
You stated that ESCC has adopted all the Standards - as the first original response suggested.
There seems to be a disparity in that answer when it comes to the inspection interval for a category 4a road.
Your Appendix 1 quotes “C13/4 Moat Lane 6 monthly……. C13/5 Moat Lane 6 monthly”.
Whereas the National Code of Practise says category 4a roads are to be inspected every 3 months !
I suggest therefore that ESCC has NOT adopted the National Code of Practise for Highways Maintenance Management, as a clear disparity exists.
Whilst the amendment page at the front of the TAMP shows NO CHANGES or AMENDMENTS whatsoever, the National Code of Practise has been evolving post 2007 as shown here:
http://www.ukroadsliaisongroup.org/en/ut...

The latest file version appears to be number 13 dated the 17 January 2014.
Well-maintained Highways - Code of Practice
(1.33MB)
Created Date: 2014-01-17 15:21:31.0
File Version Number: 13

Conclusion
Like the Curates egg, your response is good in parts, but fails to instil my full confidence of what ESCC does with looking after the state of our roads, and in particular what outcomes arise from the constant nuisance of pot-holes.

Yours sincerely,
Captain Bryn Wayt

Dear Caroline Hodge,

Thank you for your kind and rapid reply today (19Aug14).

I shall look forward with intense interest to what the next response shall be to the, "issues raised".

Yours sincerely,

Captain Bryn Wayt

Dear Caroline Hodge,

The response I was hoping for is now, "long overdue" - it is not as if it's a new set of FoI Act 2000 questions I'm asking, is it?

The fundamentals have been addressed, and what you promised is now outside the lawful customary 20 days.
I am very disappointed that your department cannot accommodate the moderate added incursions, and wish to make known my annoyance.

Yours sincerely,

Captain Bryn Wayt

Dear Ms Doran,

Thank you for your reply on behalf of Mr Baker.

My satisfaction will not be complete with this specific set of FoI Act 2000 questions until the matter I had hoped for an answer on (as outlined in my email of the 19 Aug 2014) has still not been answered. Another MONTH has passed.
I raised "issues” as ESCC classed them, and I still look forward to a substansive reply to those “issues” as promised by Caroline Hodge on the 19th August 201 who said, "I can confirm the issues raised will be looked into a further response will follow in due course."

From: Captain Bryn Wayt

19 August 2014

Dear Caroline Hodge,
Thank you for your kind and rapid reply today (19Aug14).
I shall look forward with intense interest to what the next response shall be to the, "issues raised".

Yours sincerely,

Captain Bryn Wayt
===============

Complaint?
You say:
By way of clarification, I confirm that the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 require a local authority to provide (unless the information is exempt) information that the authority actually holds rather than information it should hold. For example then, the point you raise that an inspection recording sheet for October 2012 has not been located, that no written proof of an inspection therefore exists and that it ‘should’ exist is likely to be a complaint about the service, rather than you saying that the ESCC does hold this information but has not provided you with this information in response to your request.
==================================
My response to that is:
I never for a second said you have that record but you [ESCC] will not divulge it to me - that would indeed be a complaint.
That is not the issue Ms Doran. It looks as if ESCC may have had a record/s, but they declare the items, “have not been located”. That is a bit like Watergate?

Record keeping is VITAL and if ESCC has lost those October 2012 Inspection Recording Sheets, then I still insist that no written proof exists that any inspections took place in the period in question. That’s a hard fact - or have you any other proof to the contrary?
It is also a fact such records “should” exist, albeit on this occassion they have been lost/shredded/missplaced.
You cannot put words into my mouth, that I never said, or suggested subliminally - my letter is very clear what I actually said.

I want to repeat what I said about those Inspection Recording Sheets:
Quote
Now to the IR and Chronology
Your para 1.
I find it unacceptable that the very important “Inspection Recording Sheets” for the October 2012 inspections, “have not been located”.
This means you have no written proof any such inspection of Moat Lane sections 120 and 130 took place between April 2012 and April 2013, and thus your obligations to keep that particular section of road safe and useable are open to question.
Unquote
===========================

Conclusion
I am not pleased that this matter has still not been settled since the first inane reply to my FoI Act 2000 inquiry.
The questions were presented to ESCC on the 29th April 2014 some 152 days ago.

Thank you Ms Doran for kindly offering an apology for the frustration, and the time delay, caused by the “wrong information” being sent to me in the first instance. Better late than never, as they say.

Can you please take it upon yourself Ms Doran to ask whoever is compiling a response to the "issues” that surfaced due to my letters and previous FoI Act 2000 inquiries delivers a final response, despite this loathsome wait.

Yours sincerely,

Captain Bryn Wayt

Dear Rachel Doran,

I quote from your response dated the 19 August 2014:
------
From: Caroline Hodge
East Sussex County Council

19 August 2014

Dear Captain Wayt

Thank you for your response - I can confirm the issues raised will be looked into a further response will follow in due course.
Yours sincerely,
==========================

August came and went, so did September and October, and we see November is upon us - and STILL I have not had your promised, "further response". Can you please send that "response" ? ? ?

Yours sincerely,
Captain Bryn Wayt