See answers to previous information requests

In accordance with the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I write with the below requests for information relating to the resurfacing of Wield Court RG6 3TF last year.

1. Please provide a copy of the specification for the resurfacing works.
Please note that Wield Court was not resurfaced; the treatment carried out was surface dressing.
The team use Design Manual for Roads & Bridges Volume 7 HD 28, Manual of Contract Documents for Highway works CC205 and Road Note 39. All these are available online .

2. What checks were made by officers to ensure that the works were undertaken to the required standard. Please provide dates of inspections and copies of all notes and reports made.
Officers are present on site during the works to supervise delivery and ensure compliance with the specification. This includes checking:
• That the carriageway surface is clean, dry, and properly prepared (including sweeping and weed treatment where required);
• That patching and preparation works are completed in advance;
• That ironwork (e.g. gullies and manholes) is protected to prevent binder adhesion;
• That the surface dressing is applied evenly and the site is left tidy and safe.
• A post-treatment inspection is undertaken approximately 2–4 weeks after completion, once the treatment has settled. Further inspections are carried out at approximately 6 months and again at the end of the defects (warranty) period, which is one year post completion of the works.

3. On what date were the works signed off as being of the required standard?
19 September 2025.

4. What are the qualifications of the officer/s who signed off the works?
NRSWA Supervisor (Streetworks) qualification, SMSTS (Site Management Safety Training Scheme) and 36 years’ experience in highway maintenance and surfacing works. The team also has staff with Civil engineering degrees and Chartered Civils Engineers

5. What was the defect liability period for the works?
1 year

6. What was the retention percentage for the works?
The works were delivered under a framework contract based on NEC principles, which does not provide for retention. Instead, the contract relies on defect correction obligations, whereby the Contractor is required to remedy any defects at their own cost and to meet specified performance criteria.

7. How much of the retention percentage has been released to date, assuming that officers took the view that no remedial work was required? - No retention has been applied or released, as the contract does not include a retention mechanism.
No remedial works have been required to date; however, the works remain within the defects (warranty) period.

8. Were any resurfacing works undertaken at the same time in surrounding roads (Wickham Road, Barholm Close, Edenham Close and Swanmore Close) deemed to be unsatisfactory by officers? If so please provide full details of remedial works required.
No defects have been identified on these roads to date. The final inspection is scheduled for next month