ASOR 2026 Draft V1.9
Argyll and Bute Council · 18 December 2025
Back to Environment, Development and Infrastructure Committee — 18 December 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … . ANNUAL STATUS AND OPTIONS REPORT December 2025
Page 2
2 Contents Carriageways ............................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Road Length ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Condition ............................................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Asset Valuation ................................................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Investment .......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.5 Maintenance Backlog .......................................................................................................................... 6 1.6 Winter Maintenance ............................................................................................................................ 7 1.7 Revenue Funded Preventative Maintenance Investment Options ....................................................... 8 1.8 Capital Resurfacing Investment Options ............................................................................................. 9 2.0 Footways ................................................................................................................................................ 9 2.1 Length ................................................................................................................................................. 9 2.2 Condition ............................................................................................................................................. 9 2.3 Asset Valuation ................................................................................................................................. 10 2.6 Investment Options ........................................................................................................................... 11 3.0 Street lighting ........................................................................................................................................ 12 3.1 Inventory ........................................................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Condition ........................................................................................................................................... 12 3.3 Valuation ........................................................................................................................................... 13 3.4 Investment ........................................................................................................................................ 13 3.5 Energy Consumption ......................................................................................................................... 14 3.6 Investment Options ........................................................................................................................... 15 4.0 Structures ......................................................................................................................................... 16 4.1 Assets ............................................................................................................................................... 16 4.2 Condition ........................................................................................................................................... 16 4.3 Asset Valuation ................................................................................................................................. 17 4.4 Investment ........................................................................................................................................ 19 4.5 Maintenance backlog ........................................................................................................................ 19 4.6 Flood Risk Management ................................................................................................................... 20 4.7 Match Funding Opportunities ............................................................................................................ 20 4.8 Investment Options ........................................................................................................................... 20 5.0 Traffic Signals ....................................................................................................................................... 22 5.1 Inventory ........................................................................................................................................... 22 5.2 Valuation ........................................................................................................................................... 22 5.3 Investment ........................................................................................................................................ 22 5.4 Investment Options ........................................................................................................................... 23 6.0 Street Furniture ..................................................................................................................................... 24 6.1 Assets ............................................................................................................................................... 24 6.2 Condition ........................................................................................................................................... 24
Page 3
3 6.3 Valuation ........................................................................................................................................... 25 6.4 Investment ........................................................................................................................................ 25 6.5 Investment Options ........................................................................................................................... 26 7. Road Operations Projects ................................................................................................................... 26
Page 4
4 Carriageways 1.1 Road Length ALL ROUTES (Kms) MAINLAND ISLAND Road Class Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total A 82.54 422.75 505.29 58.765 206.345 265.11 61.671 178.509 240.18 B 43.73 569.78 613.51 34.322 350.047 384.369 104.63 124.509 229.139 C 41.72 392.55 434.27 35.934 251.103 287.037 33.133 114.095 147.228 Unclassified 280.42 455.21 735.36 240.162 243.628 483.788 120.74 130.832 251.572 Totals (Km) 446.1 1840.29 2288.43 366.869 1051.123 1420.304 320.174 547.945 868.119 1.2 Condition Road condition is measured by the Scottish Road Maintenance Condition Survey (SRMCS) which assesses parameters such as surface texture and cracking, smoothness and rutting. This provides an indication of the residual life of the road structure. The table below shows the current condition based on a two-year average 2023-25. 2023-25 Overall, Road Condition % by Class Road Condition Index (Red% + Amber%) Road Class % RED % AMBER % GREEN A 7.85 30.94 61.21 38.79 B 17.02 40.99 41.99 58.01 C 12.55 40.37 47.07 52.92 U 16.81 34.82 48.36 51.63 Urban 3.44 27.09 69.47 30.53 Rural 16.66 39.00 44.34 55.66 All 14.09 36.68 49.25 50.77 The current 2023-2025 RCI value shows a slight deterioration in the network overall, with a value of 50.77%. This is based on the revised 2-year average value for the completed survey works. Due to delays and disruption to the survey programme 2022 and 2023, through a combination of weather conditions affecting carriageway surfaces and logistical difficulties regards ferry and accommodation bookings, the survey provider was not able to complete a substantial section of the island network survey.
Page 5
5 1.3 Asset Valuation Carriageways Valuation (These values include the regional and inflation factors for the current year) Road Classification Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Annualised Depreciation Cost Principal (A) Roads (Urban) £243,477,338 £214,194,416 £2,656,047 Principal (A) Roads (Rural) £528,709,818 £469,270,109 £5,072,513 Classified (B) Roads (Urban) £231,543,236 £204,135,316 £2,529,339 Classified (B) Roads (Rural) £382,314,340 £330,259,111 £4,083,724 Classified (C) Roads (Urban) £91,122,828 £78,231,724 £1,122,234 Classified (C) Roads (Rural) £245,600,490 £202,896,000 £3,238,132 Unclassified Roads (Urban) £421,683,747 £347,832,111 £6,464,604 Unclassified Roads (Rural) £200,882,470 £160,211,326 £2,912,363 Total £2,345,334,267 £2,007,030,113 £28,078,956 1.4 Investment The capital reconstruction budget for 2024- 25 was £8M. The table details the surfacing quantities and value within each activity. The percentage split across activities shows the bulk of investment (73.91%) is attributed to Surface Dressing (SD) and thin surfacing works to maximise network coverage. The aim being to seal and extend surface life with a SD treatment and tackle as much deteriorated surface as possible with thin surfacing works to help reduce demand for reactive treatment works. Argyll and Bute Council, applies annually for STTS funding from the Scottish Government. We received £387,344 for 2023-24 in STTS funding. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful in 2024-25 funding bid but were successful in the 2025-26 financial year in securing a further £151k for STTS funding contribution towards the A819 Electric Cottage Phase 5. Surface Treatment Length (m) Cost (£) Network Percentage Surface Dressing 47,465 £1,446,601.29 2.07% Thin/Micro Surfacing (up to 25mm) 0 £0 0% Thin Overlay (>25mm to 60mm) 21,209 £2,567,210.41 0.93% Moderate Overlay (>60mm to 100mm) 2,722 £382,466.29 0.12% Structural Overlay (>100mm) 681 £314,075.19 0.03% Thin Inlay (>25mm to 60mm) 7,643 £1,406,466.02 0.33% Moderate Inlay (>60mm to 100mm) 2,981 £828,745.63 0.13% Structural Inlay (>100mm) 0 0 0% Planned Patching 0 0 0% Reconstruction (250mm+) 1,045 £388,497.55 0.05% Total 83,656 £7,334,062.38 3.66%
Page 6
6 We are currently working in year 2025/26 with a £10M Capital Budget, of which £2M funding has been allocated to cover the Storm Eowyn Works. Going forward officers expect weather events to increase and as such place a requirement for funding to cover damage caused by these events. The current years contingency funding of ~£1M is still largely intact as Storm Amy in October was less destructive. HISTORICAL INVESTMENT 2020-25 – With projected Capital block Allocation 2026-28. 1.5 Maintenance Backlog The SCOTS Headline Maintenance Backlog figure is calculated every two years using road condition data collected via the Scottish Road Maintenance Condition Survey (SRMCS). The calculation uses surveyed condition data with a surfacing treatment matrix and national average unit rates to determine the extent of surfacing maintenance required to bring whole network surface to an ‘A1’ condition with no defects. As can be seen in the above table, SCOTS modelling, which is used across all 32 Scottish Councils calculates that to restore our road surfaces to A1 condition, we will require £122,548,000 investment. The steady state value to keep road surfaces in current condition is between £11M to £14M annually. This increase in costs was associated to material, vehicles and staff cost increases; also, petrochemical costs have seen a dramatic increase in the last 4 years. The steady state was previously £8M which shows a potential increase of over 27%. We manage our roads and improve them with various methods; however, we do not seek to manage our road surfaces to A1 condition as this would use large amounts of our budget for only a few schemes. Instead, officers manage the works to provide best value such as surface dressing preparation and works to treat the road surface condition to maximise the lifespan of the road. SCOTS Headline Maintenance Backlog 2024 SCOTS Report Headline Backlog Figure Steady State Figure £122,548,000 Between £11M to £14M
Page 7
7 1.6 Winter Maintenance Table below identifies the last 10 years of road and winter maintenance revenue budget. The 2nd and 3rd Columns identify the budget allocated for Roads and Winter and the last column identifies the percentage of that budget year on year. Therefore, we are effectively allocating more on winter each year with a reduction in Road Maintenance Activities Budget. Table below shows outturn actual revenue spend on Roads and winter maintenance for the last 10 years. The proportion of spend on winter within the total revenue outturn shows a fluctuation due to unplanned weather events. This demonstrates that generally the trend is for outturns to be above the budget allocation for winter maintenance. Spend Roads Winter Total Winter % 2015-16 £4,173,702 £1,832,248 £6,005,950 30.51% 2016-17 £4,243,332 £1,885,851 £6,129,183 30.77% 2017-18 £3,926,258 £2,669,341 £6,595,599 40.47% 2018-19 £3,765,604 £1,791,150 £5,556,754 32.23% 2019-20 £3,485,315 £2,165,845 £5,651,160 38.33% 2020-21 £3,360,100 £2,251,432 £5,611,532 40.12% 2021-22 £3,516,984 £2,355,154 £5,872,138 40.10% 2022-23 £3,746,846 £2,661,350 £6,408,196 41.54% 2023-24 £3,784,751 £2,663,324 £6,448,075 41.30% 2024-25 £3,537,086 £2,889,542 £6,426,628 44.96% Budgets Roads Winter Total Winter % 2015-16 £3,957,298 £1,644,490 £5,601,788 29.36% 2016-17 £3,972,055 £1,836,286 £5,808,341 31.61% 2017-18 £3,832,056 £1,636,828 £5,468,884 29.93% 2018-19 £3,832,056 £1,621,674 £5,453,730 29.74% 2019-20 £3,411,055 £2,122,154 £5,533,209 38.35% 2020-21 £3,506,058 £2,122,618 £5,628,676 37.71% 2021-22 £3,422,540 £2,119,974 £5,542,514 38.25% 2022-23 £3,542,940 £2,108,942 £5,651,882 37.31% 2023-24 £3,670,665 £2,304,942 £5,975,607 38.57% 2024-25 £3,702,435 £2,669,718 £6,372,153 41.90% Winter Treatment Information Winter 2024-25 Average Stats since 2009-10 Total number of planned treatment runs (equal Full Fleet) 81 78 Runs Total aggregate annual treatment mileage travelled by all gritting vehicles on all planned routes 132,037 93,440 Miles Total tonnage of salt used on carriageways 11,755 14,309 Tonnes Total Winter actual spend carriageways £2,889,542 £2,362,485 Spend
Page 8
8 1.7 Revenue Funded Preventative Maintenance Investment Options The value of undertaking adequate preventative maintenance works cannot be overstated. It is the most vital and fundamental function required to extend infrastructure service life, strengthen network resilience, and minimise demand for capital investment. Below are several initial revenue budget investment options for consideration. These will all require further investigation, research, and development to progress more detailed information on which option is best suited to support council objectives within the confines of available resources. Option 1 Reduced investment level, increased pressure on council budgets and the need to realise savings may reduce current investment levels for preventative maintenance activities. This needs careful consideration and will impact the quantity of works afforded necessary to provide adequate protection to vital road assets. It will increase demand for more expensive reactive works which is the vicious cycle essential maintenance activities are currently experiencing. It will increase future demand for capital investment far greater than initial savings realised. BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Delivers short term budget savings Less Maintenance works afforded Doesn`t support corporate objectives Increased asset deterioration Difficult to demonstrate value Greater demand for expensive reactive maintenance works Future demand for capital investment far greater than initial savings realised. Highly likely to compromise internal service delivery Option 2 Maintain existing investment levels and consider prioritising activity funding using a risk-based approach. Prioritised activities should be delivered through a planned programme of works to maximise value for money through appropriate service standards. Combined with improved recording of maintenance works, asset information can be enhanced to assist driving an improved asset management approach that can break the current vicious cycle of reactive maintenance demands. BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Maintains existing budget No Council budget saving Supports some corporate goals Retains internal service delivery Requires change in approach Training to focus efforts on prioritised business needs Increased focus on planned works Needs commitment to deliver Some investment in better mobile technology Better data capture and analysis Development of appropriate service standards Better value works can be afforded Additional resources needed to implement any changes Option 3 Maintain or increase investment levels through a zero-based budget approach. This would essentially allocate a percentage budget for reactive maintenance with the balance of funding allocated through planned schedules and programmes of works to effectively justify and approve funding allocation against a measured works quantity to meet appropriate service standards. This would refocus effort on delivering measured work packages whilst improving capture of asset information to assist delivery of the benefits of implementing recognised asset management practices. BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Better control of costs No Council budget savings Supports Council objectives Delivers better value maintenance services Potential increased budget required Implementing SCOTS Asset Management recommended practices Requires significant changes Investment in better mobile technology More informed decision making Needs commitment to deliver Staff training & additional resources to implement Option 4 Consider funding some maintenance activities using capital funding allocation. Preventative maintenance is a critical activity some of which can be easily quantified (Ditching, Gully cleaning, Patching Etc.) Delivering planned measurable works would greatly enhance ability to demonstrate value and prudent stewardship of assets. BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Vital maintenance activities delivered May impact capital investment on other assets Supports council objectives Ability to demonstrate value Implementing SCOTS Asset Management recommended practices Improved asset management Investment in better mobile technology Staff training & Additional resources to implement
Page 9
9 1.8 Capital Resurfacing Investment Options The SCOTS cost projection modelling tool enables an indicative illustration of predicted road surface condition in terms of RCI to be developed for a range of investment options over a 20yr term. This allows comparisons between various levels of investment. Options 1- 4 are illustrated in the table and chart below for £2m, £3.5m, £5m and £8m respectively. Option 1 - £2m annual investment shows Significant deterioration of network RCI Option 2 - £3.5m annual investment shows Considerable Deterioration of network RCI Option 3 - £5m annual investment shows Deterioration of network RCI Option 4 - £8m annual investment shows Slight Deterioration of network RCI 2.0 Footways 2.1 Length Footways/Footpaths Cycleways Quantities by Hierarchy Footway Hierarchy Length (m) Area (sqm) Higher Amenity Footways 41,977 117,536 Other Footways 470,174 1,001,471 Total 512,151 1,119,006 All Footpaths 9,349 11,219 Total 9,349 11,219 Cycle Lanes * 0 0 *Cycle Lanes are not listed if contiguous with the road, therefore we have zero independent cycle lanes in ABC. 2.2 Condition Asset condition surveys are not currently undertaken due to limited resources and cost implications. All Roads RCI Year £2M £3.5M £5M £8M 2023/25 50.77% 50.77% 50.77% 50.77% 2024/26 52.67% 52.42% 51.70% 50.91% 2025/27 54.48% 54.01% 52.63% 51.11% 2026/28 56.21% 55.54% 53.56% 51.39% 2027/29 57.87% 57.01% 54.48% 51.72% 2028/30 59.45% 58.42% 55.40% 52.10% 2029/31 60.96% 59.78% 56.31% 52.53% 2030/32 62.41% 61.09% 57.21% 53.01%
Page 10
10 0 5 10 15 20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Number of Settled Claims Carriageway Footway £0.00 £2,000.00 £4,000.00 £6,000.00 £8,000.00 £10,000.00 2020-212021-222022-232023-242024-25 Total Cost Settled Claims Carriageway Footway 2.3 Asset Valuation Table 2.3 Footway Valuation by Hierarchy Footway Hierarchy Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Annualised Depreciation Cost Higher Amenity Footways £11,399,861 £9,677,319 £73,519 Other Footways £97,735,436 £75,877,622 £963,961 Total £109,135,297 £85,554,941 £1,037,480 2.4 Investment Footways investment of £500k for 2022/23 was Active Travel Funding and £750k for 2023/24 from Capital investment part of which has been carried over into 2024/25 has improved certain areas, however this requires sustained investment and there was no specific Capital investment for 2024/25, and no footway allocation planned for 2025/26 or beyond. 2.5 Public Liability Claims The cost and number of liability claims is linked to the condition of our road and footway network. Budget reductions will impact the level of maintenance that can be afforded allowing road and footway condition to deteriorate. A deteriorating network condition increases the risk of potential damage or injury to road users from the greater occurrence of defects across the network.
Page 11
11 2.6 Investment Options Below are a few initial revenue budget investment options for consideration. These will all require further investigation, research, and development to progress more detailed information on which option is best suited to support council objectives within the confines of available resources. Investment options should be inked to the long-term maintenance strategy for the asset. Option 1 Undertake maintenance only on a reactive basis to repair defects within revenue budget allocation BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Continues service delivery for defects Continued long term asset deterioration Adopting risk-based approach to managing the asset Growing demands for capital investment Resource condition survey of asset to gain information on asset needs Rising number of public liability claims Development of long-term maintenance strategy for asset group Reactive is expensive and poor value Resource development of a prioritised list of planned works Option 2 Increased investment in revenue planned maintenance activities BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Investment tackles asset deterioration Limited asset information and condition data Implementing SCOTS asset management recommended practices Planned works deliver better value Resources required to identify, quantify, undertake works Resource development of a prioritised list of planned works Reduced demand for reactive works Level of works limited within available revenue budget allocation Development of long-term maintenance strategy for asset group Less complaints Option 3 Develop business case for investment through capital budget for resurfacing/reconstruction of sub-standard footways and footpaths. Develop 3-5 year rolling programme of works that can be prioritised in line with available resources BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Investment tackles deterioration and gradually improves whole asset Limited asset information and condition data Development of long-term maintenance strategy for asset group Demonstrates prudent stewardship of assets Resources required to identify scope of works Investment in mobile technology to capture asset data Supports corporate objectives Requires increased levels of investment Implementing SCOTS asset management recommended practices Option 4 Capital investment for improvement in kerbing in conjunction with carriageway surfacing and street lighting projects. Requires a holistic planned approach across all asset groups to collaborate works programmes that support overall council goals and objectives. A Street scene approach to delivering improvements. BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS All asset approach to maintenance Requires substantial capital investment Use of SCOTS asset management tools Investment in mobile technology Development of appropriate maintenance strategies
Page 12
12 3.0 Street lighting 3.1 Inventory The condition of street lighting assets is normally determined based on the age of assets. Unfortunately, there is no available historic data on the installation dates for most street lighting assets. Street Lighting Quantities (*Estimated as Asset Inventory is not complete) Other Street Lighting Assets Column Material Quantity Other Street Lighting Assets Quantity Non-Galvanised Steel 2,209* Wall Bracket 1,196 Galvanised Steel 9,196* Wooden Pole 110 Concrete 29 High Mast Column 0 Aluminium (pre-2000) 1,119 Control Cabinet 751 Aluminium (post 2000) 0 Other 0 Stainless Steel 8 Total 2,057 Cast Iron 0 Cable Assets (Estimated) Quantity (m) Total 12,561* Cable under Carriageway (10%) 43,050 Luminaires Quantity Cable under Footway (50%) 215,250 All 13,896* Cable under Verge (40%) 172,200 Total 13,896 Total 430,500 Illuminated Sign Assets Illuminated Signs Quantity Signs 433 Bollards 46 Total 479 3.2 Condition Following previous investment in replacement of luminaires with new low energy LED Lanterns, data has been collected on the condition of columns and apparatus across the network. Initial LED replacement works highlighted an estimated number of columns in very poor condition and unsuitable for installing new LED lanterns as per the below table. % Total Asset 1- V. Good 33.95% 2 - Good 63.96% 3 - Fair 1.25% 4 - Poor 0.84%
Page 13
13 3.3 Valuation Street Lighting Valuation Column Assets (*Estimated as Asset Inventory is not complete) Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Annualised Depreciation Cost Non-Galvanised Steel* £4,102,436 £396,174 £164,097 Galvanised Steel* £17,113,977 £6,365,232 £570,466 Concrete £29,639 £988 £988 Aluminium (pre-2000) £1,182,740 £49,737 £29,569 Aluminium (post 2000) £0 £0 £0 Stainless Steel £8,164 £7,348 £117 Cast Iron £0 £0 £0 Cable Assets Cable under Carriageway £3,809,405 £2,001,951 £63,490 Cable under Footway £17,026,645 £8,949,015 £283,777 Cable under Verge £11,544,419 £6,066,921 £192,407 Other Street Lighting Assets Wall Bracket £641,402 £519,731 £16,035 Wooden Pole £112,257 £22,451 £2,245 High Mast Column £0 £0 £0 Control Cabinet £225,245 £99,216 £4,505 Total* £55,796,330 £24,478,763 £1,327,696 Luminaires Assets Total* £2,950,781 £2,040,139 £147,539 Illuminated Signs Assets Signs £257,626 £126,326 £10,305 Bollards £18,463 £9,167 £738 Total £276,089 £135,493 £11,043 All Assets Total £59,023,200 £26,654,395 £1,486,278 3.4 Investment Funding Current Year Anticipated Investment (£m) Funding source 2024-25(£m) 2025-28(£m) Block Allocation Scottish Government 0.150 0.000 Block Allocation Carried Forward Scottish Government 0.175 0.369 Additional Council Allocation Council 0.300 0.321 The replacement of deteriorated assets that have reached the end or beyond their expected service life is currently not part of a longer-term maintenance strategy or plan. For many years the need to deliver investment savings has overridden the need for asset renewals. This reduced funding has delayed asset renewal projects creating an even older and more fragile asset base leading to a growing backlog of outages and reactive maintenance demands on very limited resources. The LED project highlighted the condition of assets and the growing need for action to develop a longer- term maintenance strategy for investment in asset renewals. Table 3.4 provides, and indicative treatment cycle based on current average expected asset renewal and clearly illustrates the present investment strategy is unsustainable.
Page 14
14 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Annual Street Lighting Carbon Emissions (Tonnes) Table 3.4 Street lighting Column and Cable Treatment Cycle Treatment (*Estimated as Asset Inventory is not complete) Expected Service Life (Yrs) Annual Quantity (Ave) Inventory (No.) Treatment Cycle (Years) Column Replacement 30 25 No. 12561* 522 Cable replacement 60 750 Lin m. 430,500 (Linear m) 574 Luminaire (LED) 20 N/A 13896* All new assets 3.5 Energy Consumption 0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 7000000 Annual Street Lighting Energy Consumption (Kwh) Table 3.5 Annual Energy Consumption Year Total Unit 2016/17 6,119,183.7 kWh 2017/18 4,288,415.2 kWh 2018/19 3,267,835.1 kWh 2019/20 3,232,557.7 kWh 2020/21 3,228,999 kWh 2021/22 3,224,175 kWh 2022/23 3,224,175 kWh 2023/24 3,232,362 kWh 2024/25 3,228,823 kWh Year Carbon Total Units 2016/17 2733 Tonnes CO2 2017/18 1636 Tonnes CO2 2018/19 996 Tonnes CO2 2019/20 889 Tonnes CO2 2020/21 810 Tonnes CO2 2021/22 738 Tonnes Co2 2022/23 673 Tonnes Co2 2023/24 720 Tonnes Co2 2024/25 717 Tonnes Co2
Page 15
15 3.6 Investment Options Below are a few initial revenue budget investment options for consideration. These will all require further investigation, research, and development to progress more detailed information on which option is best suited to support council objectives within the confines of available resources. Investment options should be linked to development of a long-term maintenance strategy for the asset. Option 1 Undertake maintenance only on a reactive basis to repair defects within existing revenue budget allocation BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Continues service delivery for defects Continued long-term asset deterioration Adopting risk-based approach to managing the asset Growing demands for capital investment Resource condition survey of asset to gain information on asset inventory, condition Etc. Rising number of public liability claims Development of long-term maintenance strategy for the asset group Reactive maintenance is expensive and poor value Resource development of a prioritised list of planned works Option 2 Increased investment in planned revenue maintenance activities BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Investment tackles worst asset deterioration Limited asset information and condition data Implementing SCOTS asset management recommended practices Planned works deliver better value Resources required to identify and quantify works Current use, Is it needed? Can it be removed? Reduced demand for reactive works Level of works limited within available revenue budget allocation Resource development of a prioritised list of planned works Less complaints Development of long-term maintenance strategy for the asset group Option 3 Develop a business case for investment through capital budget for replacement of obsolete, damaged and deteriorated assets particularly vehicle safety barriers. Align the business case to a suitable long-term maintenance strategy for the asset group. BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Investment tackles deterioration and gradually improves whole asset. Limited asset information and condition data Development of a long-term maintenance strategy for the asset group Demonstrates prudent stewardship of assets Resources required to identify scope of works Investment in mobile technology to capture asset data Supports corporate objectives Requires increased levels investment Implementing SCOTS asset management recommended practices Option 4 Business case development for capital investment in conjunction with other asset groups that aligns with the Road Asset Management Plan BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Whole asset approach to maintenance Requires substantial capital investment Use of SCOTS asset management tools Requires significant improvement in asset data Investment in mobile technology Development of appropriate maintenance strategy
Page 16
16 4.0 Structures 4.1 Assets Table 4.1: Structures Inventory Quantity Road Bridges 890 Footbridges 11 Unusual Structures (cast Iron Bridges) 2 Retaining Walls 961 Coastal Protection 923 Height, Sign and Signal Gantry 0 Culverts 294 Subways Bridge stock condition is 0 Total 3081 Previously our Asset Management system was only able to record Coastal Protection assets under the Retaining wall category. This aligns with how SCOTS asset Management Returns are produced. Previous ASOR Report9ng was consequently a single retraining wall line combining Retaining Wall and Coastal Protection asset stock. Coastal protection asset type has now been implemented in our asset management system and retaining walls and coastal protection are recorded and reported separately. Coastal protection assets typically comprise of coastal/tidal retaining sea walls, rock armour protection and other systems such as embankments, reinforced soil solutions, gabion baskets. 4.2 Condition Our bridges and structures are inspected and assessed to comply with the “Well-managed highway infrastructure” Code of Practice. Data gathered from bridge inspections is used to calculate a Bridge Stock Condition Indicator value which can enable analysis and trending of condition information. The condition results since 2012/13 are illustrated in the chart below which shows a steady decline in overall bridge stock condition from a reduction in capital investment with revenue investment being prioritised towards reactive repairs. The long-term trend line in blue shows a continued deterioration of assets with condition of less critical structures expected to decline further without increased levels of investment. There are currently 49 structures subject to special monitoring precautions and 28 bridges that have failed the European standard assessment (prior to restrictions). 15 bridges are currently subject to acceptable weight restrictions. Bridges are subject to principal inspections every 6 years and general inspections every 2 years.
Page 17
17 4.3 Asset Valuation Table 5.5 Structures Valuation Summary Structure Type Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Annualised Depreciation Cost Road Bridges £115,437,382 £108,633,390 £1,267,044 Footbridges £2,934,648 £2,925,146 £2,117 Unusual Structures £2,286,856 £1,876,450 £18,390 Retaining Walls £166,492,505 £166,442,331 £20,470 Height, Sign and Signal Gantries £0 £0 £0 Culverts £3,533,754 £3,542,437 £294 Subways £0 £0 £0 TOTALS £290,685,145 £283,419,754 £1,308,315 4.4 Coastal Change Adaptation The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2008 places duties on Argyll and Bute Council for climate adaptation (measures to increase resilience to the impacts of climate change). The Act requires the development of a national adaptation programme to address the risks identified by the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (UKCCRA) for Scotland. In the most recent National Summary for Scotland coastal erosion and flooding feature amongst the highest priority risks. Coastal Change Adaptation Plans are produced by Argyll and Bute Council to report on how the Council helps to deliver the Scottish Climate Change Adaptation Programme 4.4.1 Assets Table 4.2.1: Flood Risk Management Inventory Quantity Coastal Change Adaptation 0 Total 0 4.4.2 Investment PLANNED INVESTMENT 2025-26 £m 2026-27 £m Comments CAPITAL Coastal Change Adaptation - Case Study - Inverlussa, Jura 0.050 0 2025-26 Coastal Change Adaptation (Year 4) - Case Study - £50k - Capital Grant Allocation Coastal Change Adaptation - Case Study - Laggan Bay, Islay 0.050 0 2025-26 Coastal Change Adaptation (Year 4) - Case Study - £50k - Capital Grant Allocation Coastal Change Adaptation - Case Study - Tiree 0.060 0 2025-26 Coastal Change Adaptation (Year 4) - Case Study - £60k - Capital Grant Allocation Cycle 2 & 3 Schemes 0.246 0.250 • Coastal Change Adaptation Plans • £65k Case Study added with 2024-25 Allocation. This is scheduled to be paid out in 2023-24 to Luing Community so funding shown in this line. • £65k contributed directly to fund Luing Community Coastal Change Adaptation Works, • Inverlussa coastal works.
Page 18
18 4.5 Reservoirs In accordance with the Reservoirs (Scotland) Act 2011, Argyll and Bute Council are Reservoir Manager for 3 reservoirs. • Bishops Glen Reservoir, Dunoon, • Kirk Dam Reservoir, Rothesay, • Millknowe Flood Storage Area, Campbeltown. The assets came under the remit of Infrastructure Design in 2025 along with a number of required improvement actions. 4.5.1 Assets Table 4.2.1: Flood Risk Management Inventory Quantity Reservoirs 3 Total 3 4.5.2 Investment PLANNED INVESTMENT 2025-26 £m 2026-27 £m Comments CAPITAL Bishops Glen Reservoir, Dunoon, TBC TBC Annual Reservoir Management funding Kirk Dam Reservoir, Rothesay, TBC TBC Annual Reservoir Management funding Millknowe Flood Storage Area, Campbeltown. TBC TBC Annual Reservoir Management funding REVENUE Bishops Glen Reservoir, Dunoon, TBC TBC One-off costs identified during handover period 2025-26 Kirk Dam Reservoir, Rothesay, TBC TBC One-off costs identified during handover period 2025-26 Millknowe Flood Storage Area, Campbeltown. TBC TBC One-off costs identified during handover period 2025-26
Page 19
19 4.6 Investment PLANNED INVESTMENT 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Comments CAPITAL Bridge Strengthening /Replacement Programme £141k £293k £400k £400k £400k Bridge & Retaining Wall: • Strengthening • Replacement Local Bridge Maintenance Fund – Grant Funding Secured £213k £1,777k £1,000k £1,000k £1,000k Coastal Protection £96k £150k £150k £150k £150k Coastal Protection Strengthening repairs Ardbeg Seawall / Bute Sea Wall Repairs £274k £359k TBC TBC TBC Repairs of asset following December 2021 storm damage Coastal Change Adaptation £55k £250k £250k TBC TBC Secured funding for Coastal Change Adaptation REVENUE Structural Maintenance £231k TBC TBC TBC TBC Bridges & Retaining Walls: • Maintenance & Repair, • Inspection, • Asset Management • Abnormal Load Monitoring, • Technical Approval Budget confirmed Annually Structural Assessment £64k TBC TBC TBC TBC Assessment of Bridges & Retaining Walls. Budget confirmed Annually Coastal Protection £180k TBC TBC TBC TBC Inspections, Maintenance & Repairs, Asset Management Budget confirmed Annually Coastal Change Adaptation £55k £250k £250k TBC TBC Secured funding for Coastal Change Adaptation 4.7 Maintenance backlog Headline Backlog Figure Steady State Figure Source £32.4m N/A Argyll and Bute Council Asset Management Reporting
Page 20
20 4.8 Flood Risk Management Argyll and Bute Council has a statutory duty under the Flood Risk Management Act (Scotland) 2009 to reduce the overall flood risk through Local Flood Risk Management Plans subject to funding availability. This includes Flood Incident Investigation, Waterbody Assessments, Provision of Flood Consultancy (General Flood Advice), Clearance and Repair Works, Mapping, Flood Risk Assessments, Flood Studies, Flood Monitoring Network, Production and Update of Local Flood Risk Management Plans. These works are undertaken in conjunction with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and other responsible authorities as defined under the Act. The current budget allocation for flood risk management are shown in table below. PLANNED INVESTMENT 2024-25 £m 2025-26 £m Comments CAPITAL Flood Protection 1.213 0.500 • Tigh Dearg • Rothesay FPS Performance Helensburgh Flood Mitigation 0.000 0.427 Campbeltown Flood Protection Scheme 1.780 0.010 Design & Construction of Flood Protection Scheme. 80% of costs at contract award funded by Scottish Government. All other costs funded by ABC. REVENUE Flood Management 0.222 0.222 • Flood Incident Investigation • Waterbody Assessments • Provision Of Flood Consultancy (General Flood Advice) • Clearance and Repair Works • Mapping • Flood Risk Assessments • Flood Studies • Flood Monitoring Network • Production and Update of Local Flood Risk Management Plans Budget confirmed Annually Flooding Direct Costs 0.101 0.101 Works by ABC Operational Services Budget confirmed Annually 4.9 Match Funding Opportunities Under Cycle 1 the Council has been successful in securing funding for flood studies and physical works such as those underway in Campbeltown. These studies and physical works have been 80% funded by Scottish Government and 20% by the Council. At the time of writing, the next round of flood funds has not been released, and it is currently unknown as to what, if any, funding will be available and over what period. 4.10 Investment Options Below are a few initial revenue budget investment options for consideration. These will all require further investigation, research and development to progress more detailed information on which option is best suited to support council objectives within the confines of available resources. Investment options be linked to development of a long-term maintenance strategy for the asset.
Page 21
21 Option 1 Undertake maintenance only on a reactive basis to repair defects within existing revenue budget allocation BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Continues service delivery for defects Continued asset deterioration Development of a long-term maintenance strategy Increased risk of more weight restrictions or road closures Strengthen the business case for investment Impacts economy and vital transport links Explore funding opportunities Etc. (Flood prevention Etc) Reactive maintenance is expensive and poor value Option 2 Increased investment in revenue planned maintenance activities BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Continues service delivery for defects Asset deterioration remains greater than investment Development of long-term maintenance strategy Tackles some preventative maintenance backlog Impacts economy and vital transport links Strengthen the business case for investment Contributes to lowering risk of more weight restrictions or road closures Reactive maintenance is expensive and poor value Explore funding opportunities Etc. (Flood prevention Etc) Option 3 Develop business case for investment through capital budget for strengthening and refurbishment of structures. Development and implementation of an appropriate long-term maintenance strategy for the group. Continued improvement in asset management. BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Contributes to development of more sustainable asset management regime Requires investment Development of a long-term maintenance strategy Planned preventative maintenance programme of works Requires resource to develop business case Strengthen the business case for investment More sustainable asset condition Explore funding opportunities Etc. (Flood prevention Etc) Supports corporate objectives Resources to undertake increased workload Option 4 Development of a successful business case for investment to tackle deterioration and improve overall asset conditions as part of a developed asset management process. BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Sustainable asset management regime Requires substantial level of investment Development of a long-term maintenance strategy Improves asset condition Requires resource to develop successful business case Resources to undertake / manage increased workload and project design and development Reduced weight restrictions May require additional data capture to support business case development Explore funding opportunities Etc. (Flood prevention Etc.) Supports corporate objectives
Page 22
22 5.0 Traffic Signals 5.1 Inventory Traffic Signal Types Quantity Other Traffic Management System Types Quantity Traffic Signal (Junction) Information Systems 2 Minor Junction 0 Safety Cameras 0 Medium Junction 11 Variable Message Signs 2 Major Junction 0 Vehicle Activated Signs 18 Complex Junction 0 Real Time Passenger Information 0 Traffic Signal (Pedestrian Crossing) Single Carriageway 14 Double Carriageway 0 Total 25 Total 22 5.2 Valuation Traffic Signal Types Quantity Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Annualised Depreciation Cost Junctions 11 £589,652.61 £328,329.30 £24,568.86 Pedestrian Crossings 14 £333,540.87 £135,500.98 £14,592.41 Total 25 £923,193.48 £463,830.28 £39,161.27 5.3 Investment Traffic management systems require specialist contractors to undertake regular inspection and necessary maintenance. Increasing reactive maintenance costs are being incurred as some assets are functioning beyond their expected service lives and when problems arise replacement of obsolete parts is difficult to procure. Many traffic management assets have had essential works postponed over time due to budget restrictions. Although it is the smallest asset group delays in asset renewal particularly electronic hardware can lead to parts becoming obsolete as advances in technology become available. A recent survey has highlighted the need for some urgent repairs to bring systems up to date. Historically junctions and pedestrian crossing have been replaced ad hoc in response to system failures or inability to obtain replacement components. Generally, this equates to approx. one junction or crossing per year. The table below provides an indicative illustration of the asset renewal cycle. Planned Investment Budgets 2024-25 2025-26 Capital £-Nil £-Nil Revenue £45k £45k Total Budget £45k £45k
Page 23
23 5.4 Investment Options Below are a few initial revenue budget investment options for consideration. These will all require further investigation, research and development to progress more detailed information on which option is best suited to support council objectives within the confines of available resources. Investment options should be linked to development of a long-term maintenance strategy for the asset. Option 1 Continue to fund Traffic Signals within existing annual allocation of £45k revenue budget BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Maintains existing service Specialised works undertaken by external contractors Revised tender for routine inspection and maintenance Deteriorated asset base drives increasing reactive maintenance costs Require additional resource to develop appropriate business case Requires occasional capital investment to replace obsolete / defective equipment Option 2 Utilise latest condition survey data to develop an appropriate business case for investment in renewal of apparatus BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Improved asset reliability Requires investment Resource and staff training to improve asset knowledge Reduced maintenance costs Requires resource to develop suitable business case for investment using capital budget Development of a suitable maintenance strategy for the asset Requires resource to procure tenders and administer / supervise potential contract works Option 3 Produce a business case based on latest survey data to upgrade all apparatus to meet compliance with current standards over a three to five year period. BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Modernises asset to meet current standards Requires investment Resource to manage and supervise works Improves reliability Require resource to develop suitable business case for investment using capital budget Resource required to procure tender documentation and administration of same Reduces reactive maintenance Use SCOTS Asset management tools Improves user experience Option 4 Utilise latest condition survey data to identify asset needs. Address any priority repairs and progress a maintenance strategy as part of the RAMP to develop a long-term investment plan over three-five years to bring asset condition to meet compliance with current standards. BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Modernises asset to meet standards Require investment Resources to manage and supervise works Improves reliability Requires resources to develop suitable business case for investment using capital budget. Resources required to procure tender documentation and administration of same reduces reactive maintenance costs Use SCOTS asset management tools Improves user experience Assess need for individual assets. Can they be removed? Are alternative control measures available?
Page 24
24 6.0 Street Furniture 6.1 Assets Table 6.1 Street Furniture Quantities Street Furniture Assets Quantity of Assets Unit Traffic Signs (non-illuminated) 5,152 Number Safety Fences 610 Length (m) Pedestrian Barriers 4 Length (m) Street Name Plates Currently No Data in the system Number Bins Currently No Data in the system Number Bollards 318 Number Bus Shelters 119 Number Grit Bins 581 Number Cattle Grids 161 Number Gates Currently No Data in the system Number Trees Currently No Data in the system Number Seating Currently No Data in the system Number Verge Marker Posts 2,318 Number On-Street Parking Meter 92 Number Electric Car Charging Points 35 Number Milestones Currently No Data in the system Number Information Boards Currently No Data in the system Number Bike Parking Lockers Currently No Data in the system Number Bike Parking Stands Currently No Data in the system Number Automatic Trash Screens Currently No Data in the system Number Watercourse Telemetry Currently No Data in the system Number Weather Stations 14 Number 6.2 Condition Asset visual condition surveys are not currently undertaken due to limited resources and cost implications. Asset condition is normally determined using asset installation data and a default service life in years. Argyll and Bute Council have very limited data available regarding installation dates of historical assets which limits the ability to provide detailed analysis of current asset condition.
Page 25
25 6.3 Valuation Street Furniture Valuation Street Furniture Assets Gross Replacement Cost Depreciated Replacement Cost Annualised Depreciation Cost Traffic Signs (non-illuminated) £167,697.60 £83,852.06 £8,384.88 Safety Fences £47,641.00 £23,820.50 £2,382.05 Pedestrian Barriers £312.40 £168.70 £12.50 Street Name Plates Currently No Data in the system Bins Currently No Data in the system Bollards £20,698.62 £10,168.36 £827.94 Bus Shelters £1,503,877.59 £757,625.73 £75,193.88 Grit Bins £75,625.14 £39,079.50 £5,041.68 Cattle Grids £838,279.45 £411,017.27 £33,531.18 Gates Currently No Data in the system Trees Currently No Data in the system Seating Currently No Data in the system Verge Marker Posts £60,343.91 £31,188.10 £4,022.93 On-Street Parking Meter £394,531.20 £197,694.44 £19,726.56 Electric Car Charging Points £804,083.50 £447,989.38 £80,408.35 Milestones Currently No Data in the system Information Boards Currently No Data in the system Bike Parking Lockers Currently No Data in the system Bike Parking Stands Currently No Data in the system Automatic Trash Screens Currently No Data in the system Watercourse Telemetry Currently No Data in the system Weather Stations £257,660.32 £132,511.02 £12,883.02 Total £4,170,750.74 £2,135,115.04 £242,414.96 6.4 Investment The street furniture asset consists of many different individual assets all of which deteriorate at different rates. Generally, assets deteriorate to the point where they stop performing their intended function and are replaced with new items in line with available funding. Table 6.4 below provides an indication of the renewal cycle for some street furniture assets based on previous year budget allocation and estimated asset renewal rates to calculate an indicative renewal cycle based on current funding allocation. Table 6.4 Indicative Treatment Cycle for Asset Renewals Item Budget Allocation 2024-25 Current Inventory Data Annual Replacement Quantity Indicative Renewal cycle (Years) Cattle Grid £54,000 162 1.6 101 Traffic Signs £30,000 5010 173 29 Vehicle Safety Fence £100,000 616289 653 94
Page 26
26 6.5 Investment Options Below are a few initial revenue budget investment options for consideration. These will all require further investigation, research, and development to progress more detailed information on which option is best suited to support council objectives within the confines of available resources. Investment options should be linked to development of a long-term maintenance strategy for the asset. Option 1 Undertake maintenance on a reactive basis to repair defects within existing revenue budget BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Continues service delivery for defects Continued long-term asset deterioration Adopting risk-based approach to managing the asset Growing demands for capital investment Resource condition survey of assets to gain information on inventory, condition Etc, Rising number of public liability claims Development of a long-term maintenance strategy for the asset group Reactive maintenance is expensive and poor value Resource development of a prioritised list of planned works Option 2 Increased investment in planned revenue maintenance activities BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Investment tackles worst asset deterioration Limited asset information and condition data Implementing SCOTS asset management recommended practices Planned works deliver better value Resources required to identify and quantify works Current use, is it needed? Can it be removed? Planned works deliver better value Level of works limited to available revenue budget allocation Resource development of a prioritised list of planned works Less complaints Development of a long-term maintenance strategy for the asset group Option 3 Develop a business case for investment through capital budget for replacement of obsolete, damaged and deteriorated assets particularly vehicle safety barriers. Align the business case to a suitable long-term maintenance strategy for the asset group. BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Investment tackles deterioration and gradually improves whole asset Limited asset information and condition data Development of a long-term maintenance strategy for the asset group Demonstrates prudent stewardship of assets Resources required to identify and quantify scope of works Investment in mobile technology to capture asset data Supports corporate objectives Requires increased levels of investment Implementing SCOTS asset management recommended practices Option 4 Business case development for capital investment in conjunction with other asset groups that aligns with the Road Asset Management Plan (RAMP) and council priorities. BENEFITS DRAWBACKS CONSIDERATIONS Whole asset approach to maintenance Requires substantial capital investment Use of SCOTS asset management tools Requires significant improvement in asset data Investment in mobile technology Development of appropriate maintenance strategy 7. Road Operations Projects Photographs of recent projects can be viewed at Appendix Two.