The online problem reporting system allows residents (and parish councils) to report problems relating to Highways (potholes, dirty road signs, unemptied pavement bins and non-working street lights) and Countryside (unemptied bins in parks and footpaths). You can access the system HERE from a PC or mobile device. Just select the category from a list and find/click the incident location on a map.
You can (and ideally should) upload photos for pothole cases but should only try to measure them if is safe (guidance HERE).
You’ll receive an email acknowledgement, giving an indicative response time. The incident is then reviewed and assigned a priority. A non-working pelican crossing, or a serious pothole
for example, should be dealt with within a few hours of reporting, whilst a less serious pothole may take 28 days. There’s more on how these are prioritised HERE.
You’ll receive email updates as the incident progresses. If it is deemed a duplicate of a problem reported by others or dealt with already, you will be informed.
You can nominate other people to receive notifications of the incident’s progress. The council doesn’t currently support the use of third-party apps. to raise problems, nor phoned-in incidents, other than for out of hours emergencies.
If you experience problems with the service – for example a “case closed” for no obvious reason – or an unusually poor response time, please let me know, forwarding the relevant incident email(s) to me HERE.
When the council receives a “report-a-problem” enquiry (per the process shown separately) it starts an (up to) three step process:
1: It writes to the landowner asking for the vegetation (or other nuisance/obstruction) to be removed within 14 days. It also informs the initial enquiry of its action and closes the incident. The council aims to check the issue at the end of the grace period.
2: If no action was taken, the council writes again, citing the Highways Act, asking for action to be
taken within 14 days.
3: If action is still not taken the Council will take action to remove the nuisance and look to recover costs from the landowner.
Note: The council receives a lot of customer enquiries on various “highway” issues, and there are a number of vacancies within the team at present, so it must prioritise its workload. This can mean that follow up time of these nuisance and obstruction incidents is behind the target intervals shown above. I’m exploring possible ways to speed up this process, including the possibility of making use of parish councils’ local knowledge and service providers.
Q1) what assessment is done of the suitability of Mortimer’s routes, taking account pedestrian safety and narrow footways, when approving the diversion(s)? Do we consider peak school times or vulnerable users?
A) The original diversion for this work (from 17thNovember – 4thDecember) was via Mortimer . This route was chosen because the road classification mirrored that of the closed road and was a relatively short diversion. Following concerns about speeding vehicles and the level of HGVs in an area of multiple schools, at the beginning of December we changed the diversion route to use Burghfield. There are a several lower classed routes within this new route but we deemed it more suitable than continuing to send traffic through Mortimer.
The peak school times were considered along with vulnerable users and as such an entire route change was undertaken. The company managing this closure and its associated diversions/signs etc confirms there are no signs diverting traffic through Mortimer.
Q2) At what point would increased traffic volumes or safety concerns on a diversion route trigger a review or mitigation from the Council? Assuming we are measuring it or perhaps if we look at collision data?
A) As mentioned to Q1, we received several complaints during the initial closure period which is why we changed it after the Christmas break so that Mortimer was no longer the official diversion route for this closure.
Q3) Are there any measures that could be considered during the closure period, such as temporary signage, speed management, priority working, or advisory routing for HGVs? Is there scope to strengthen messaging or routing for larger vehicles in particular?
A) ‘Special’ signs have been created and are installed at the closure points of Goring Lane that state ‘‘MORTIMER NOT SUITABLE FOR HGVS – DIVERT THROUGH BURGHFIELD’
Q4) What monitoring is undertaken during long-duration utility works to ensure traffic impacts remain acceptable? Under what circumstances would the Council formally challenge or require changes to traffic management arrangements? Grateful for any advice on what, if anything, could realistically be progressed in this case.
A) These works are inspected regularly, and the inspections support the requirement of a road closure. All other options were considered at the time that this work was proposed to the council. Many excavations are in the middle of the road due to the location of existing assets meaning once the road is excavated, there is not enough width remaining for the road to remain open. Even where the excavations are not directly in the middle of the road, there is not enough width to maintain the required safety zone for a live shuttle lane. Large machinery is also required on site for this work. Once these machines are in the road, there is no width available for cars to pass. I attach some site photos for reference. Any forceful changes would leave the council liable to any accidents that occur as a result of the traffic management being changed by request of the council. We agree that the current traffic management is required and most suitable for this work to be undertaken. For the safety of all involved, we would not challenge or change the agreed traffic management.