Appendix 2, Lead Member for Transport and Environment

Noted · Received for information; no decision followed.

This appendix reports the findings of a benchmarking exercise carried out to inform a review of East Sussex County Council's asset management approach, comparing its current strategic highway policies and asset management framework with those of West Sussex County Council and Kent County Council. p1

The comparison covers document structure, use of the ISO 55000 asset management standard, resilience and climate adaptation, performance indicators, risk-based asset management, public engagement, and technology. p3p7p10p13p17p20p23

It states that East Sussex's current documents are fragmented, make limited reference to ISO 55000, lack an explicit focus on resilience, and have underdeveloped performance indicators, while risk-based approaches, public engagement and use of digital tools are described as limited or informal. p6p9p12p16p19p22p25

By contrast, West Sussex and Kent are described as having integrated asset management frameworks, embedded ISO 55000 principles, resilience built into planning, well-developed performance indicators, risk matrices to prioritise maintenance, regular public consultation, and digital inspection and monitoring tools. p4p5p7p8p10p11p14p15p17p18p20p21p23p24

The appendix concludes that an updated suite of strategic documents would align East Sussex more closely with ISO 55000 and national standards and support a systematic, risk-based approach to highway asset management. p26

Show the 25 passages this is based on

• p1Appendix 2 Benchmarking Findings To inform the review of County Council’s asset management approach and strengthen alignment with best practices, a benchmarking exercise was conducted comparing the County Council’s current strategic highway policies and asset management framework against two neighbouring authorities: West Sussex County Council and Kent County Council.
• p3East Sussex (current vs. updated) Document Structure & Integration
• p4Comprehensive, integrated asset management framework combining highways, bridges, and other assets in a single suite. Documents are regularly reviewed and clearly linked to strategic outcomes.
• p5Similar integrated approach, with a strong emphasis on risk-based maintenance and long-term investment strategies. Strategic documents include detailed service standards and performance targets.
• p6Current documents are fragmented; updated suite aims to adopt a unified and clearly structured framework aligned with ISO 55000.
• p7Use of ISO 55000 Principles Explicit adoption of ISO 55000 framework to guide lifecycle planning, risk management, and continuous improvement.
• p8Embedded ISO 55000 concepts in policy updates and operational practices, with regular maturity assessments.
• p9Limited current reference: updated plans will incorporate ISO 55000 principles to enhance asset management maturity.
• p10Resilience and Climate Adaptation Includes specific strategies to enhance network resilience against climate impacts, including flood risk management and extreme weather planning. Climate change is embedded in lifecycle planning.
• p11Proactively integrates resilience into asset management, with risk assessments focused on critical infrastructure vulnerabilities and adaptation measures to maintain service continuity.
• p12Current documents lack explicit resilience focus; updated plans introduce resilience as a core principle.
• p13Performance Management & Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
• p14Well-developed KPIs linked to strategic goals, including asset condition, safety, and customer satisfaction. Data-driven decision-making supported by digital tools.
• p15KPIs aligned with national reporting requirements and local priorities; extensive use of benchmarking data.
• p16Current KPIs are underdeveloped; new framework includes refined KPIs on resilience, sustainability, and service levels.
• p17Risk-Based Asset Management Uses risk matrices to prioritise maintenance and renewal, balancing likelihood and consequence of asset failure. Decisions supported by quantitative data and stakeholder input.
• p18Employs a risk-based framework consistent with Well Managed Highway Infrastructure Code and ISO 55000, focusing resources on high-risk assets and critical network sections to optimise safety and service.
• p19Risk-based approaches are limited or informal; updated policies embed structured risk assessment processes to support evidence-based decision making.
• p20Stakeholder & Public Engagement Proactive engagement with stakeholders and public via consultations, clear communication protocols, and transparent reporting.
• p21Regularly conducts public consultations, integrates feedback into policy revisions, and maintains accessible information portals.
• p22Engagement limited; updated communication protocols and need for transparency in revised documents.
• p23Technology & Innovation Use of GIS, real-time asset monitoring, and digital inspection tools to improve data accuracy and operational efficiency.
• p24Deployment of mobile inspection apps, asset management software, and route optimisation technologies.
• p25Current technology adoption limited; updated plans promote increased digital integration for inspection and reporting.
• p26In summary, East Sussex builds on an established foundation of sound asset management by aligning more closely with ISO 55000 and national standards, drawing on the mature practices demonstrated by West Sussex and Kent. The updated suite of strategic documents represents a forward-looking evolution. Closing identified gaps, modernising existing processes, and strengthening the county’s commitment to a systematic, risk-based and value-focused approach to highway asset management.