Is there a compelling case for more investment, not less?

The fabled sunny uplands are still some way off. So it was a surprise to read today that Plymouth City Council is giving consideration to putting more money, not less, into footways.

The fact that a scrutiny committee is still seriously thinking that there is a strong case for additional capital funding for footways is not because its members are mad. It's because there's a compelling economic case, given the amount of money that is leaked in insurance payouts due to inadequate maintenance for footways. And that is a short-term economic case that does not even take into account the economic argument of a 'stitch in time, saves nine'.

Nonetheless, these councillors recognise that there is only so much money to go round, and so, quite rightly, make recommendations on overhauling the service levels for maintenance so that what money is available goes that bit further. 

Giving thought to why so much money is spent on reactive repairs, and why defects are repaired in the timescales that they have been, has got to be the way forward if we are indeed to do 'more for less'.

So this is how big a challenge it will be

Shortly before Christmas, the news that all local authority chiefs had been bracing themselves for: the provisional funding settlement.

Shire counties face an average reduction in formula grant from this coming April of 13%, shire unitaries 12%. Metropolitan councils 10% and London boroughs 9%. While council officers now know exactly what they have to contend with, they have been expecting large cuts for over a year now, whoever was in Government.

As the Local Government Association chair Baroness Margaret Eaton commented: "Councils knew the cuts were coming and did all they could to prepare". She went on to pledge that councils would "now pull out all the stops to minimise the impact of these cuts and build on our record of delivering new and better ways of doing things".

This is rightly where the focus must be. Councils should not simply be saying, 'what services do we have to deliver, and what can we stop doing?' They should be interrogating why things are done as they are now, and this should go beyond looking at what their statutory responsibilities are. 

As the Highways Term Maintenance Association has highlighted, there is a cost associated with every key performance indicator. Why do street lighting faults necessarily have to be fixed within five days, for example. Often, the answer is that this has always been the deadline.

However, the greater the frequency of reactive repairs, that means far more travel, fuel used, manpower taken up. Ideally, less and less money should be spent on reactive maintenance, and more and more on longer-lasting planned work that gives you more bang for your buck.

Similarly, if a council is subsidising an hourly bus service to 95% of residents, do they know whether that is what is actually needed to meet accessibility needs? Are these services relied upon, or is there a demand for something different?

Reviewing how things are done is the urgent need right now. Better that, than suddenly having to cut things in a less planned and less intelligent way.