An independent report has found ‘major failings’ in the Government’s justification for permit schemes for the control of street and road works.

The report, by think-tank the Regulatory Policy Institute, claimed the Department for Transport had failed to identify either the benefits of the existing regulatory regime, or the additional benefits and costs of introducing permits.

The National Joint Utilities Group, which commissioned the report, said the research backed its claims that the Government needed to ‘think again’ before approving any permit schemes.

The broadside came as DfT civil servants pored over proposals by the London boroughs and Transport for London for a permit scheme initially covering all roads in 15 boroughs.

The think-tank claimed the DfT’s regulatory impact assessment had major failings, including a ‘failure to establish any baseline’ – the impact of the current regulatory environment – which would frustrate its ability to assess the additional benefits offered by permits.

It had made it ‘easy to justify significant expenditure’ with its £4.3bn estimate for the cost of congestion caused by utility works, but without quantifying the impact of there being, as claimed, inadequate information on street works. It had also failed to take account of the impact of road works on congestion, or considered alternatives to permits, as regulatory impact assessments require.

Richard Wakelen, NJUG chief executive, said: ‘This report challenges the whole basis for implementing permits. We urge the Government to ensure that before each scheme is approved, all relevant cost and benefit information is made available.’

But Dave Pownall, Durham County Council’s traffic manager, said: ‘NJUG’s a day late and a dollar short. It had an opportunity to comment on the regulations, and the impact assessment.’ It had also been able to comment, during the statutory consultations on the schemes in London and Kent, he stressed. ‘I don’t understand why they’re going back to first principles.’