DIRECTOR DECISION

Decision: Springfield Close – Emergency Decision

Type of Decision: Director Key

Non-Key

Portfolio Area that decision relates to:

Leader (in Policy & S&P)

Finance & Performance

Deputy Leader & Transport

Culture, Leisure & Comm

Environment & Climate C

Children & Young P & Edui

Economy & Strategic Plan

Health Adult Social Care

Housing & Safety Neigh

Background

A section of carriageway on Springfield Close at its western end adjacent to Tang Hall Beck services numbers 13 to 23 Springfield Close (“the Carriageway”). This section of Springfield Close is collapsing into Tang Hall Beck due to the failure of a retaining wall; the primary purpose of the retaining wall is to hold up the carriageway.

In May 2021, small cracks appeared in the Carriageway. The Council carried out some minor repairs in May 2021 and the Carriageway was monitored to see if the movement slowed down. However, in December cracks started to reappear. Inspections were undertaken by Highways and Flooding Engineers, including a structural survey of the wall. A Consultant Engineer was instructed to inspect and monitor the concrete retaining wall.

The houses are not thought to be structurally in danger even if the Carriageway slips completely, but vehicular access to these properties is now compromised as the Carriageway has been closed.

Daily inspections and reports are being issued to the Structural Engineers. The Engineers carry out weekly monitoring surveys.

The Carriageway continues to slip towards the beck and is increasingly likely to fall into the beck potentially restricting water flow and raising water levels upstream increasing the risk of flooding to a much larger number of residents in the community.

Due to the proximity of the retaining wall to the beck, it is not possible to shore up with a temporary solution.

The list of streets, highway extent map and adoption certificate show that this section of carriageway is not adopted highway. The Carriageway is adopted to Number 7 Springfield Close, ending with a turning head and access to private garages. Between number 7 and number 23 Springfield Close, only the footway is adopted highway, according to adoption records and was adopted in 1970.

A decision needs to be made if the Council should continue to seek a solution to the collapsing Carriageway of what appears to be a private street/unadopted road, which can be accessed by the public. The costs of repairing the retaining wall could be significant of circa £400k.

In essence the Council has three primary options:-

1. To delay action and continue monitoring whilst informing residents of the issues relating to the status of the Carriageway and continue to investigate historic records to answer the following:

a. When was the Carriageway constructed and who undertook the construction?

b. What is the nature and extent of previous works/ maintenance undertaken by CYC on the Carriageway

c. Who is financially liable for the repair/ maintenance works?

2. To take immediate action to execute such repairs as are urgently required to prevent or remove danger to persons or vehicles using the Carriageway and reopen the street for vehicles, at the Council’s cost (under s230(7) of the Highways Act).

3. To serve notice on the frontagers stating that they are required to carry out the repair works within a specified time (under s230(1) of the Highways Act). Should the frontagers fail to carry out the works in the specified period, the Council can carry out works and recover the costs of doing so from the frontagers (under s230(4) of the Highways Act).

Given a temporary shoring up is not possible and with the continued movement and increasing likelihood that the Carriageway will collapse into the beck. This will have impacts on the watercourse and potentially a wider community.

Therefore, the practical Officer advice is to use powers within the Highways Act 1980 to undertake immediate action to execute repairs. Failure to do so may expose the Council to an argument that the Council are not fulfilling the duty under s130 of the Highways Act to ‘assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highway for which they are the highway authority’. This duty applies where there is a public right of way and regardless of whether it is highway maintainable at public expense or not.

The remaining issue relates to the question of who should fund the works. The frontagers could legally be required to pay for the works given the Carriageway is unadopted (Option 3). Alternatively, the Council has the power to carry out the repair works and fund the works (Option 2).

This is a relatively unique set of circumstances where the condition of the private street is likely to have much wider community impacts due to changing water levels in the beck on the complete failure of the Carriageway.

Therefore, it is proposed that the Council funds the works given the potential wider community impacts.

Formal letters will be sent to inform the frontagers of the actions the Council will take and clarify that: (a) the Council has no duty to repair the Carriageway, (b) in these particular circumstances it will fund the repairs, (c) in doing so, the Council is not, in any way indicating an intention to adopt the Carriageway (d) the repair works will be limited to those which are urgently required to prevent or remove danger to persons or vehicles using the Carriageway.

Officer intention is not to set a precedent with regards to repairs to private roads.

The Highway Schemes capital budget totals £8,892k for 2022/23 and £7,377k in 2023/24 although the former year includes schemes carried forward from 2021/22. An additional cost of £400k is significant but manageable across the two years. The Council also receives funding allocations from DfT through the annual LTP settlement. In 2022/23, there was additional funding of £628k compared to budget. This will be incorporated into the next capital monitor report to Executive in June 2022.

Implications: Crime & Disorder

Equalities

Other:

Human Resources

Legal

Highways

Financial

ITT

Property

Decision Date:

6 April 2022

Wards Affected:

All Wards

Fishergate

Holgate

Rural West York

Acomb

Fulford &

Heslington

Hull Road

Strensall

Bishopthorpe

Guildhall

Huntington &

New Earswick

Westfield

Clifton

Haxby & Wigginton

Micklegate

Wheldrake

Copmanthorpe

Heworth

Osbaldwick &

Derwent

Dringhouses & Woodthorpe

Heworth Without

Rawcliffe & Clifton

Comments/Observations:

Decision:

1. To take immediate action to execute such repairs as are urgently required to prevent or remove danger to persons or vehicles in Springfield Close.

Reason: To remove the danger to the public and vehicles

2. That the Council funds the works.

Reason: The immediate danger is to users of the Carriageway, but the likely failure of the Carriageway could have much wider community impacts due to a change in water levels. Given the wider community benefit, the council will fund the works.

Decision Made by: Neil Ferris, Corporate Director of Place in consultation with Executive Member for Transport and Executive Member for Finance and Performance. Contact Details: Directorate of Place, West Offices email: neil.ferris@york.gov.uk
On behalf of: Neil Ferris, Corporate Director of Place
To be implemented by:	Dave Atkinson, Head of Highways and Transport
On Completion – Signed off by: Neil Ferris Corporate Director of Place		Date: 6 April 2022