Transparency Report Part B – Technical Annex

Highways maintenance funding and spending figures

B1.1.2 – Other government capital funding figure in 2024-25 was from the Green Light Fund for Traffic Signals. 2025-26 and 2026-27 other capital funding was provided by Integrated Transport Block Funding.

B1.2 - Spending

B1.2.1 – Total spending

The questions in this section (B1.2.1) relate to the spending condition set out in the 2026–27 local highways maintenance incentive funding requirements. Completion of this section forms part of the evidence required to meet this incentive funding condition.

B1.2.2 – Total spending figures for 2024-25 were calculated last year and taken from the 2025/2026 Transparency Report.

B1.2.3 Spending on carriageways by type of spend in financial year 2025-26 and 2026-27 (projected).

B1.2.4 - Additional information on spending on carriageways by type of spend

As this is paid as a single cyclical payment, it should be considered that 75% of the money committed to drainage is for the protection of the carriageway and the rest is for flood alleviation as per the guidance.

B2 – Highway Maintenance Activity (Surface Treatments and Repairs)

B2.1 – Road resurfacing and surface treatments

B2.1.1 – additional information on surface treatments and repairs How we calculated these figures based on definitions and priorities.

Our current surface treatment programme comprises a combination of pothole repairs, involving the addition of hot asphalt material, and cut patch repairs.

Any repair undertaken under a 1-hour or 1-working-day response category is considered a ‘reactive temporary repair’.

Repairs delivered through our 5, 20, 60 or 90 working day response categories are undertaken using permanent repair methods and are therefore considered ‘reactive permanent repairs’. These repairs provide a higher-quality, longer-lasting solution, and we would not normally expect to revisit them within a 12-month period.

Does table B2.1 reflect all your carriageway-related road surface treatments & repair activities (for example, including pothole repairs)? If no, please add further information on any other types of treatments (planned to be) delivered and their extent in the table below. Yes

B2.1.2 – No further action, as above answer.

B3 – Pothole repairs

This section sets out how authorities identify and repair potholes and other defects in carriageways, and how this activity fits within their wider maintenance approach. The Department is clear that prevention is better than cure: planned, preventative maintenance should be the foundation of a well-managed network, reducing the need for repeated reactive interventions

B3.1 – Pothole/Defect intervention criteria

Building on section A3.1, please set out in the table below how your local authority defines potholes and other carriageway defects, and the intervention criteria that apply.

Torbay Council and SWISCo Highways do not use a predefined depth/width/length to identify carriageway defects and instead uses a full risk-based approach to its highway inspections and does not rely on predetermined thresholds like depth to assess whether a defect should be investigated or recorded. These below defect categories are part of our Highways Inspector Guidance handbook.

Pothole

Minimum investigatory or definitional threshold (e.g. depth, area, width): Where the pothole is located across the carriageway. Presence of advance stop lines at junctions and other cycleway markings. Surrounding carriageway, footway or cycleway damage.

Additional risk or contextual factors considered (e.g. road hierarchy, traffic levels, location in carriageway): The scale of the defect may have an influence on the overall risk; however, it is important to remember that a small defect can still present a risk to some highway users. For example, a pothole located in the areas used by cyclists may result in a different response.

Target response time, make safe: Between 2 Hours and 20 Working Days.

Target response time, permanent repair: Between 20 Days to 90 Days.

Surface Delamination

Minimum investigatory or definitional threshold (e.g. depth, area, width): The location of the defect across the highway. The nature of the material being shed.

Additional risk or contextual factors considered (e.g. road hierarchy, traffic levels, location in carriageway): The speed of the highway network at the site in question has a bearing on the impact of the risk identified. The depth of the delaminated area may significantly increase the impact of the risk. Additionally key materials such as high friction surfacing on the approaches to pedestrian crossings may also have an elevated impact.

Target response time, make safe: Between 2 Hours and 20 Working days.

Target response time, permanent repair: Up to recorded for information only to inform planned maintenance.

Iron Works

Minimum investigatory or definitional threshold (e.g. depth, area, width): The location of the defect across the highway. Polishing or Wear of a Cover. Loose Cover or Frame. Surrounding Surface Failure.

Additional risk or contextual factors considered (e.g. road hierarchy, traffic levels, location in carriageway): There are some parts of the highway network where defects such as a polished cover may present specific risks, particularly to those using two wheeled vehicles. Covers located in areas where turning occurs are an example of this.

Target response time, make safe: Between 2 Hours and 20 Working Days.

Target response time, permanent repair: Up to 60-90 days, including recorded for information or the submission of a S81 to a statutory undertaker for minor issues.

Surface Joint Failure

Minimum investigatory or definitional threshold (e.g. depth, area, width): In some cases, the failure may relate to a section of road where overtaking is permitted and likely due to forward visibility.

Additional risk or contextual factors considered (e.g. road hierarchy, traffic levels, location in carriageway): As the defect worsens, its impact is increased. The ability of powered two wheelers to safely negotiate the defect is a particular consideration in areas where overtaking is likely.

Target response time, make safe: Between 2 Hours and 20 Working Days.

Target response time, permanent repair: Up to recorded for information only to inform planned maintenance.

Gaps and Cracking

Minimum investigatory or definitional threshold (e.g. depth, area, width): Amount of Profile Variance.

Additional risk or contextual factors considered (e.g. road hierarchy, traffic levels, location in carriageway): Some cracking, particularly crazing can result in depressions in the surface. In carriageways this can lead to poor running quality and in turn contribute to loss of control type issues.

Target response time, make safe: Between 2 Hours and 20 Working Days.

Target response time, permanent repair: Up to recorded for information only to inform planned maintenance.

Edge Damage

Minimum investigatory or definitional threshold (e.g. depth, area, width): Nature of the Route. How far the Defect Extends into the Adjacent Surface.

Additional risk or contextual factors considered (e.g. road hierarchy, traffic levels, location in carriageway): Edge damage presents differing level of risk depending on the likely path of traffic. Some narrow routes may have greater levels of risk if the defect is located on the inner radius of a bend. In some cases, the defect may not encroach into the carriageway, and these are generally less hazardous than areas where the damage is encroaching.

Target response time, make safe: Between 2 Hours and 20 Working Days.

Target response time, permanent repair: Up to recorded for information only to inform planned maintenance.

B3.2 – Number of potholes filled

B3.2.1 - Number of potholes filled in 2025-26 (estimate): 4244

B3.2.2 - Of these how many do you estimate were resolved using each of the following approaches?

Planned repair / patching programmes: 0

Planned structural maintenance programmes: 0

Reactive repair using temporary repair methods: 98

Reactive repair using permanent repair methods: 4146

B3.2.3 - Additional information on numbers of potholes resolved, by treatment type

Torbay Council does not consider structural maintenance or carriageway resurfacing to be measures undertaken specifically for the removal of potholes from the highway network, however investment in larger scale resurfacing or reconstruction is vital in preventing potholes and other defects from forming.

CAUTION FOR READERS – Authorities have different criteria for identifying potholes and different methodologies for counting how many they have filled or resolved. Summing the figures in the above table across authorities will therefore not provide a reliable estimate of the total number of potholes filled across England.

B3.3 - Prices of pothole interventions

Unit/average cost of a permanent pothole repair on your network (reactive): £81.55

Unit/average cost of a temporary pothole repair on your network (reactive): £45.56

B3.3.1 - Additional information on pothole prices (optional)

Our pricing methodology reflects the varying nature and size of pothole repairs. We recognise that there is no single fixed cost for repairing defects, whether temporary or permanent. Accordingly, the rates have been calculated by dividing the total cost of undertaking these works by the total number of potholes repaired.

B3.4 - Defect repair quality

3.4.1. Do you set requirements to those delivering repairs about the longevity of both a) planned repairs/patching and b) reactive repairs using permanent methods? No

3.4.2. If yes, do you base your material and process specifications on these longevity requirements? NA

3.4.3. Do you regularly monitor the appropriateness of the carriageway interventions chosen by your workforce or contractor and the quality of work delivered? Yes

3.4.4. If yes, do you systematically record information about expected and delivered longevity of repairs? No

B3.4.5 - Evidence Summary

We monitor repair performance; however, we do not prescribe specific repair methods. Under SWISCo’s operating model as a Teckal company, responsibility for determining appropriate repair techniques and ensuring the durability and longevity of repairs rests with the relevant management and operational teams. Evidence of this would be demonstrated by our works orders being amended to a more appropriate repair, where the inspector has chosen a repair method which was inconsistent with the defect found and the surrounding carriageway or footway surface.

B3.4.6 - Additional information

A permanent repair is generally considered to be one that does not require further intervention by the Authority for at least 6 to 12 months, unless affected by external factors such as utility works, ground movement, or other geological conditions.

B3.5 - Public reporting system for defects and other issues

3.5.1 Are defect reports from the public routinely used as an input into maintenance planning and inspection regimes? Yes

3.5.2 Do you inform users about the outcomes from their feedback, including when no action is to be taken? No

B3.5.3 - Evidence Summary

Defects are reported through the Abavus CRM system and are subsequently recorded and managed within Mayrise. Reporters are not routinely provided with updates on actions taken or outcomes achieved unless specifically requested, as current resource levels do not allow responses to be issued for every report received.

B3.5.4 - Tools used for reporting

Torbay Council does not currently use a third-party reporting platform such as FixMyStreet. Reports received through these channels can be processed but require manual entry into Council systems. SWISCo’s ‘Report It’ service is the preferred reporting platform, providing a more efficient process for identifying, tracking and managing highway defects.

B4 – Maintenance of highway structures

Please set out information about other highway structures and assets.

B4.1 Highway Structures

4.1.1 Number of highway structures on your highway network: 41 Bridges, 700 Retaining Walls

4.1.2 Number of highway structures with interim measures in accordance with CS470 applied? None

4.1.3 Number of structures due a General Inspection in 2025-26 in accordance with CS450: 24 Bridges; 700 Retaining Walls

4.1.4 Number of General Inspections carried out in 2025-26: 23

4.1.5 Number of structures due a Principal Inspection in 2025-26 in accordance with CS450: 6

4.1.6 Number of Principal Inspections carried out in 2025-26: 6

B5 – Asset Management

This section focuses on asset management practices that underpin how the authority plans, prioritises and delivers highways maintenance. It is intended to provide confidence that decisions are evidence led, risk based and aligned to whole life value, in line with the Code of Practice for Well Managed Highways Infrastructure.

B5.1 - Asset Management Strategy and Policy

The questions in this section (B5.1) relate to the asset management condition set out in the 2026–27 local highways maintenance incentive funding requirements. Completion of this section forms part of the evidence required to meet this incentive funding condition.

5.1.1 Please confirm that you understand the answers provided in this section (B5.1) relate to your compliance under the 2026-27 local highways maintenance incentive funding requirements, as set out to your authority via letter to your chief executive in April and as published online. Yes

5.1.2 Please provide a link to your authority’s published highways asset management policy and strategy.

• Infrastructure Asset Management Policy
• Highway Infrastructure Asset Management Strategy
• Transport Asset Management Plan

5.1.3 Please provide the date it was last reviewed or updated: Date 05/10/2021 

5.1.4 Please provide proof of the review or update.

All 3 documents are signed and dated by appropriate lead or cabinet member. Linked is the public decision - Decision - Torbay Council Strategic Asset Management Plan 2021 - 2026

5.1.5 If your asset management policy or strategy has not been reviewed or updated since 1 August 2024, please confirm that it will be reviewed or updated by 30 September 2027 and provide a brief timetable for doing so.

We intend to undertake a high-level review in 2026, followed by a further review following publication of the new Highways Asset Management Code of Practice. Our policies will then be reviewed and updated as necessary to align with the requirements and recommendations of the new Code of Practice.

Key aspects of highways asset management approach

To get a sense of how each local highway authority is implementing best practice for asset management, we ask that you provide the following information across a sample of key areas.

B5.2 - Asset data

This section seeks to establish whether asset management decisions are supported by appropriate and up‑to‑date condition data.

Please complete the table below for your key highway assets.

5.2.1 - Further context

Torbay Council maintains a comprehensive highway asset inventory and network hierarchy covering carriageways, footways, and cycleways. Drainage assets are recorded and managed within the Council’s GIS platform, while street lighting assets are managed and recorded within the Mayrise system.

B5.3 – Asset data integration and management

This section seeks to understand the maturity of how asset data is managed and integrated to support planning and investment decisions.

B5.3.1 – Asset data integration

How is asset inventory and condition data for your key highway assets primarily managed? (please indicate one option with an X).

Discrete spreadsheets or documents held by individual teams. x

Multiple digital platforms with limited integration. x

A single digital platform or a set of connected platforms used across the highways service. x

Other (please set out in further context). x

B5.3.2 - Further context

Torbay Council maintains asset information using a range of systems and datasets, including PDF documents, spreadsheets, and the MapInfo GIS-based Adopted Highway Mastermap. Highway and street lighting inventory data, together with works ordering and management activities, are recorded and managed through Causeway Mayrise.

Carriageway condition data for both the classified and unclassified highway network is collected and managed using WDM LTD UKPMS surveys and RoadMetrics AI assessment technology.

B5.4 – Lifecycle planning and investment decision‑making

This section focuses on whether the authority uses lifecycle planning to inform maintenance investment decisions, rather than relying solely on reactive demand or short‑term pressures.

5.4.1 Do you use lifecycle plans for carriageways to support maintenance investment decisions? Yes

5.4.2 Do you use lifecycle plans for footways to support maintenance investment decisions? No

5.4.3 Do you use lifecycle plans for structures to support investment decisions? Yes

B5.4.4 - Evidence Summary

Torbay Council uses its Highway Infrastructure Asset Management Plan (HIAMP) and lifecycle planning processes to target investment where it will deliver the greatest benefit and long-term value. Surface dressing programmes are informed by SCRIM and condition data, enabling a proactive approach to preventative maintenance. For footways, investment is focused on replacing ageing slab surfaces with more durable bitumen-based materials, while retaining high-quality modular paving in appropriate high-profile and heritage locations. Carriageway resurfacing and reconstruction schemes are prioritised using condition survey data, including SCANNER surveys and, from 2026/27, PAS 2161-compliant surveys, ensuring funding is directed towards those assets where intervention will provide the greatest improvement in network condition, resilience, and whole-life value.

B5.5 – Performance monitoring and continuous improvement

This section focuses on whether the authority monitors the effectiveness of its asset management approach and uses performance information to inform ongoing investment and prioritisation decisions.

5.5.1 Do you have a defined set of key performance indicators (KPIs) to monitor the outcomes of your highways asset management approach? No

5.5.2 Are these KPIs reviewed on a regular basis (at least annually)? No

5.5.3 Are KPI trends used to inform maintenance planning, prioritisation or changes to forward programmes or investment decisions? No

5.5.4 Have you conducted a value for money review or peer review of your service in the last 3 years. No

B5.5.5 - Evidence Summary

Our current performance monitoring arrangements are relatively limited. Quarterly reports are produced and con be provided as evidence detailing the volume of highway works delivered, with performance updates provided to senior leadership and the SWISCo Board. However, the volume of work completed is not, in isolation, regarded as a meaningful measure of overall service performance.

Performance relating to reactive maintenance activities is monitored and reported on a monthly basis through the Highways Team Meetings and can be provided as evidence, including measures such as defect response times and work completion rates. The Authority considers the timely assessment, response to reported defects, and completion of remedial works to be key indicators of service performance.

B6 - Maintaining footways and cycleways

6.1.1 Do you have a defined footway hierarchy (e.g. based on footway function and usage levels) that underpins a risk‑based approach to inspection frequencies and maintenance programmes? Yes

6.1.2 For 2026-27, please provide the length of footways that you have earmarked for structural maintenance/reconstruction/renewal: 0.4 km

6.1.3 For 2026-27, please provide the length of footways that you have earmarked for preventative maintenance treatments: 0 km

6.1.4 Are priority footways and cycleways included in your winter service (e.g. gritting or snow clearance), and in a routine programme for keeping them clear of overgrown vegetation and debris (e.g. sweeping, cutting back)? Yes

6.1.5 For 2026-27, are you planning to deliver structural or preventative maintenance to cycleways which is not yet covered as part of your carriageway maintenance programmes or footway maintenance programmes (e.g. segregated cycleways that are not shared with pedestrians or motorists). If yes, please set out the length of such cycleways that you have earmarked for: Yes

a. Structural maintenance / reconstruction (in km): 0 km

b. Preventative maintenance treatments (in km): 0 km

B6.1.6 - Please provide any brief additional information you consider helpful in explaining your approach to maintaining footways and cycleways

Torbay Council maintains a network hierarchy for carriageways, footways, and active travel routes, which informs inspection and maintenance priorities across the highway network. At present, funding allocated to footway renewal is limited, and investment is therefore primarily directed towards reactive maintenance activities to manage risk and ensure the network remains safe for users.

B6.1.7 - Evidence Summary

Our hierarchy was renewed in 2024 in preparation for our move to a fully risk-based approach. We record this hierarchy in GIS and it is reflected in our inspection system managed by Mayrise Highways.

B7 – Drainage

7.1.1 Please provide an estimate of your drainage maintenance expenditure split (in percentages) between:

a) Reactive (incident- or failure-driven) maintenance: 40% for A

b) Planned maintenance (routine/cyclical and/or risk-based): 60% for B

7.1.2 Does your authority utilise a digital drainage management platform, covering asset inventory, inspection history, sensor data, and risk scoring? No

7.1.3 Do you maintain a record of locations where drainage issues are known to cause or contribute to carriageway deterioration or surface water ponding? Yes

7.1.4 Do you utilise smart sensors or other remote monitoring technologies to monitor performance of your drainage assets. If yes please provide some high level information in bullet points below: No

Guidance – This is space for additional information on sensors/technologies for remote monitoring – please list technologies used in bullet form, including approximate number of installations.

B7.1.5 - Evidence Summary

With reference to Section 7.1.2, the Authority maintains a comprehensive inventory of highway drainage assets across the network. At present, these records are held and managed within the Council’s GIS platform, rather than through a dedicated asset management system.

B7.1.6 – Further context on approach to drainage asset management

We are currently procuring Causeway One, which will deliver enhanced functionality for asset management, inspections, and performance reporting. As part of its implementation, the existing drainage asset inventory will be migrated to the new platform, providing improved asset visibility, more efficient inspection and maintenance planning, and stronger reporting and performance management capabilities.

B8 – Skills and training

8.1.1 Do you have an up-to-date training and development plan for those responsible for highways asset management in your authority? Yes

8.1.2 Do you or your main highways contractors support professional development through a recognised professional training scheme (e.g. Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) or Institution of Highway Engineers (IHE))? Yes

8.1.3 Does your authority contribute towards the cost of professional membership or professional development required for relevant highways roles? Yes

8.1.4 Do you employ a professionally qualified engineer (e.g. Chartered Engineer (CEng) or equivalent competence) with responsibility for the management of highway structures (either in house or through a contracted arrangement)? Yes

8.1.5 Does your authority define competence requirements for key highways asset management roles and take steps to address any identified gaps (either directly or through contractual arrangements)? Yes

8.1.6 Do you or your main contractors support early career development in your local area, for example through apprentice schemes, traineeships or pre-apprenticeship programmes, sponsored qualifications (e.g. HNC/HND, degree, MSc), graduate schemes etc. Yes

B8.1.7 - Evidence Summary

Torbay Council and SWISCo both employ apprentices through the Apprentice Levy Fund, with this support evidenced through HR records. Staff are actively encouraged to undertake Continuing Professional Development (CPD), maintain CPD records, and attend events and training delivered by professional bodies such as the Institution of Highway Engineers (IHE) and the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE).

Torbay Council employs a Chartered Structural Engineer who works closely with both SWISCo and the Highway Service, providing specialist expertise across a range of highway and infrastructure projects. Professional development is actively supported through funded training opportunities, and assistance is provided to staff wishing to attain professional qualifications, accreditation, or chartered status.

The Council also works in partnership with WSP and the South West Highways Alliance (SWHA) to deliver CPD applicable activities, share best practice, and support ongoing skills development. Staff are encouraged to make use of professional CPD tracking tools provided by organisations such as the IHE and ICE to support their career progression and professional competency.

B9 – Adapting roads to withstand climate pressures

Climate and environmental factors, such as heavy rainfall, prolonged heat, and freeze-thaw cycles, are integral to effective highways asset management, as they influence asset performance, deterioration rates and long-term resilience. Understanding both the impacts of a changing climate and the carbon implications of maintenance activities supports better decision-making, helping authorities to optimise durability, manage risk and deliver best whole life value from their assets.

9.1.1 Have you updated your asset management policy and strategy to reflect the increased probability of extreme-weather and/or geohazards now and in the future? No

B9.1.8 - Evidence Summary

An ADEPT Carbon Leadership Assessment was completed in late 2025, resulting in both Torbay Council and SWISCo achieving Carbon Leadership accreditation. Furthermore, the Head of Highways and two Service Leads represent the Authority within the Live Labs 2 programme, contributing to the development, trialling, and implementation of innovative low-carbon approaches to highway maintenance and asset management.

The Authority is also exploring the use of more resilient surfacing materials to improve the highway network's ability to withstand the impacts of climate change and changing weather patterns.

Initial work will focus on evaluating the long-term effectiveness of the current surface dressing programme and considering whether existing material specifications and treatment options remain appropriate in the context of increasingly frequent and severe temperature fluctuations.

B9.1.9 - Further context on your adaptation / resilience activities

Torbay Council has declared a Climate Emergency and participates in a dedicated Climate Change Working Group, which includes representation from Highways officers to ensure climate considerations are integrated into highway asset management and maintenance activities.

In recognition of its commitment to carbon reduction and sustainability, the Authority successfully completed the ADEPT Carbon Leadership Assessment and was awarded Carbon Leadership accreditation.

The Authority is also an active participant in the Live Labs 2 programme, regularly attending knowledge-sharing and innovation sessions that support the development and implementation of low-carbon and climate-resilient approaches to highway maintenance.

In addition, a number of developments within Torbay incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and water attenuation features, helping to manage surface water runoff, reduce flood risk, and improve the resilience of the highway network to the effects of climate change.

B10 – Innovation

10.1.1 Do your procurement and contracting approaches encourage and reward innovative practice? Yes

B11 – Working with utility companies to reduce disruption to road users

11.1.1 Do you routinely monitor and enforce utility works quality as part of your streetworks management? Yes

B12 – Managing highways maintenance contracts effectively

Only answer this sections if you utilise a contractor to deliver any of your carriageway maintenance operations, including: structural maintenance, planned repairs/patching, or reactive repairs/patching.