SCOPING REPORT

SERVICE SPECIFICATION

Service Review Title: TRANSPORT NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS

Review Team Leader: Stuart Reynolds, ext. 6048

Review Project Manager: Peter Brown, ext. 6256

Date: 26 April 2001 Ref: 6496

Departmental Lead Officer for Best Value: T Greenwood

1. Aims of the Service

1.1 This service seeks to provide an improved transport network creating a better and safer environment, aiding economic prosperity and promoting less reliance on the car.

2. Objectives of the Service

2.1 The objectives are to deliver schemes which meet corporate objectives and national and local policies by:

3. Links to Corporate Aims

3.1 The corporate strategy sets out the County Council's overarching aims and objectives. Aim 2 of the strategy (Stewardship of the Environment) contains a major corporate focus "Develop sustainable strategic policies for land use management and transportation". Other aims such as Aim 1 "Developing the quality of life in Hampshire", Aim 3 "Achieving economic prosperity" and Aim 5 "Providing high quality, accessible services" are also supported through the development and implementation of transport network improvements. Transport is key to most activities and its efficient use and improvement, having due regard to the environment, is a major linkage in achieving the corporate aims. An effective and efficient transport network will be achieved through:

3.2 This service also has direct relevance to the Corporate Sustainable Development Strategy (specifically travel and transport, but with many other links to other themes) and links with the corporate policies for Community Health, Crime and Disorder, and Equalities.

4. Other Links

4.1 Internally, this service is linked with the provisions of the County Council's Planning and Transportation Committee Service Plan and the business plan for the Transportation Branch of the County Surveyor's Department. The service is also linked with those departments where a service level agreement exists, eg Estates Practice and Legal Services.

4.2 Links exist through regional, County and departmental policies and other outside organisations, such as:

4.3 There is a considerable list of stakeholders and partners relating to the above list. Additionally, there are those persons and organisations that are the customers for our service outcomes and have a range of policy and scheme specific interests (this list will be developed).

5. Service Policies

5.1 The policies that shape and guide the day-to-day provision of the service include those within:

5.2 Through the Committee Service Plan and quality procedures there is a consistent overall policy to guide service delivery and compare procedures and techniques applied to individual jobs. There is flexibility in the application of this policy for the delivery of tasks of different scale and complexity. This results in the use of different techniques, consultation regimes or contractors.

6. Summary of Existing Services and Delivery Methods

6.1 The review area covers a key function of the County Council as local highway authority to modify and improve the transport network, including other non-highway based improvements that assist in developing the transport network. It should be noted that although the County Council has a number of powers to assist in the delivery of transport improvements, it is not, unlike highway maintenance, obliged to undertake this service.

6.2 The process to devise, design and deliver improvement schemes involves a common sequence of tasks. Scheme concepts are usually devised within the Transport Policy, Traffic Management or Safety Engineering teams and are developed through the design process, via the Implementation Team, by the Engineering Branch or external consulting engineers. Following programming in the LTP, the design process involves community involvement and public consultations, liaison with the Planning Department and approval by the Planning and Transportation Committee. Finally, after contract preparation and letting, the external contractors, under supervision, construct the schemes (see attached Figure 1).

6.3 Additionally, the service also implements infrastructure related to new development and, in partnership with the local planning authorities (in line with the Joint Negotiating Protocol developed by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Planning Officers' Group [HIPOG]), seeks to establish funding through legal agreements. It should be noted that this part of the process is also linked with development control that will be subject to a separate best value review in 2002/03.

6.4 In all, the service typically involves contributions from over 120 staff in the Environment Grouping and oversees a capital budget that is currently in the order of over £12 million per annum.

7. Recent Consultation

7.1 Consultation is a vital element within the delivery of this service. Consultation involves the engagement of stakeholders and is no longer a simple issue. Through consultation it is aimed to engage the community and seek their ownership of appropriate solutions. The increasing demand for the public to have their say in conjunction with the changing nature of the capital programme (with an increasing number of small to medium sized schemes) is putting additional pressure on staff resources. Consultation methods have undergone a considerable upheaval in recent years and the types of methodology in use have broadened considerably. Below is a listing of recent consultations on capital schemes. The key to this process is to find the appropriate level of consultation that enables informed decisions to be made in a cost-effective manner.

ACTIVITY

CONSULTEES

METHOD

RESULT/OUTCOMES

LTP 5 year programme, together with Road Traffic Reduction Act (RTRA) targets.

Consulted and agreed with district councils, unitary authorities and other stakeholders.

Seminars, exhibitions, mail-drop, Focus groups.

Input to agree the content and priorities for the 5 year capital programme.

LTP and RTRA through Hampshire Economic Partnership.

Individual businesses and area based associations.

Ad-hoc meetings,

consultations on draft documents.

Changes made to the LTP and RTRA targets.

Transport Investment Programmes.

Over 5,000 members of the business community were surveyed on their transport needs.

Questionnaires, seminars, presentations.

Over 1,000 responses have helped the County Council develop its own transport investment programmes and also to respond to wider consultations from SEEDA, SERPLAN and DETR.

Project-specific consultations in Lyndhurst High Street, Brockenhurst, Hiltingbury, Whiteley.

Residents, businesses, amenity associations.

Exhibitions, questionnaires, workshops, meetings.

Help design the final schemes.

The HEADSTART community involvement programme has been used in Petersfield.

Local interest groups and key stakeholders.

Workshops.

To help identify new initiatives and schemes. These are then fed into the overarching transportation strategy for the area.

Commuter plan initiatives in their respective areas.

Four business fora have been consulted.

Workshops, regular meetings.

These are being pursued with County Council assistance and guidance as appropriate.

Rural Traffic Calming.

Parish councils, local County Council Members.

Letter, site meetings.

Partnership approach with parish councils to fund/ implement agreed traffic calming schemes.

Promotion of the use of natural materials within the highway.

District councils, environmental groups.

Circulation of draft document.

Significant support received.

7.2 Recent consideration has also revealed that there is little post-scheme monitoring (including consultation) to gather feedback and to assess customer/client satisfaction on scheme outcomes, although general comments on network and infrastructure conditions are received through the TRANSPOL questionnaires. This review will need to consider these issues.

7.3 It is clear that there is a broad range of people and groups involved in the service's consultations that need to be involved in this Best Value review. These may be categorised as:

7.4 Early identification of representatives of these groups will be important in order to gain their full participation in the review process by the most appropriate means.

8. Performance Data

8.1 Performance in transport network improvements is best measured by:

8.2 Potential performance data and comparators will be collected with reference to a variety of sources, including the relevant Best Value and corporate strategy Performance Indicators (PIs) and the South East Counties Service Improvement Group (SECSIG).

8.3 Local service performance data to monitor our own performance over time will include a range of inputs, outputs and outcomes, such as:

9. Competition and Other Providers

9.1 Practice in the rest of the country, such as the Berkshire/Babtie contracts, confirms that much of this service can be provided by alternative suppliers and through differing contractual arrangements. To assess potential competition the service should be viewed both as individual components (eg traffic surveys, design, modelling, contract and tender preparation, etc) and as a comprehensive service. This review will therefore need to actively review cost v quality v flexibility issues and consider:

9.2 Historically, the in-house service has been supplemented through the use of consultants and with the recent appointment of a Term Consultant for professional services there will be greater competition available to draw comparisons.

10. Challenges Facing the Service (some initial issues)

10.1 Public engagement is now an integral element of almost all improvement schemes but it can impede delivery times and involves a disproportionately high cost burden on small schemes. What is the right balance between effective engagement and delivering the scheme on time?

10.2 External service provision - How could the service be improved by externalising part or all of this service? What are the benefits and disbenefits from a customer/staff/Member perspective?

10.3 Product procurement - Do we always need to provide a complete design specification for works or should greater emphasis be placed on setting quality targets and seeking design and build contracts?

10.4 Whole life costings - An increasing number of improvement schemes in recent years have included layout and material specifications with high aesthetic standards. These can result in difficulties in sourcing replacement materials in later life and raise other maintenance issues. How can whole life costings be better accounted for?

10.5 Democratic process and minimising bureaucracy - Does accountability within the democratic process create uncompetitive issues? Do public sector rules and procedures impede efficient delivery? How do the quality management procedures (ISO 9000) in the County Surveyor's Department assist delivery?

10.6 Managing and developing skills for the task - The delivery of the capital programme with increased financial resources is under pressure due to the shortage of skilled professionals. How can the service better recruit, train and retain staff with the requisite skills?

10.7 Further challenges will be identified through stakeholder group meetings.

PROJECT BRIEF

Service Review Title: TRANSPORT NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS

Review Team Leader: Stuart Reynolds, ext. 6048

Review Project Manager: Peter Brown, ext. 6256

Date: 26 April 2001 Ref: 6496

Departmental Lead Officer for Best Value: T Greenwood

1. Goal

1.1 To carry out a fundamental review of the service to deliver improvements to the transport network by January 2002.

2. Objectives

3. Approach

3.1 A Best Value Review Team has been established. This team, consisting mostly of directly affected staff, will coordinate the review and ensure it follows the approach outlined in this document. Additional members will be co-opted to the team for specific meetings to ensure the review considers the views of key stakeholders and to maintain the external challenge necessary to achieve objectivity, credibility and creativity.

3.2 The review team will set up a brainstorming meeting to identify the ways in which the following stakeholders would prefer to be consulted:

3.3 A group of eight non-managerial staff has also been established to contribute issues of staff interest in this service and to complement the actions related to the corporate staff survey.

3.4 Surveys will be commissioned to seek views from external stakeholders, including representative bodies, pressure groups, the general public and hard-to-reach groups. It is expected this will focus on people directly affected by past and ongoing improvement schemes. This information will supplement that to be obtained through stakeholder involvement in a discussion workshop and direct involvement in forthcoming `challenge' workshops. Funding for Best Value consultations during 2001/02 has been identified and will be coordinated by the Review's Project Manager.

3.5 Information to compare Hampshire's performance with that of other local authorities and private sector organisations is currently being identified and collated. The review team will coordinate information from the County Council's Term Consultant and the South East Counties Service Improvement Group (SECSIG) benchmarking club. This will cover the collation of indicators to measure the effectiveness of our processes and service outcomes.

3.6 There is currently a mix of in-house provision with that from a very robust private sector for most activities. There is some information on comparative performance but this needs to be examined further. Subject to commercial sensitivities, other data will also be sought. Options for contracting levels will be explored and the costs and benefits identified to establish options for a future procurement strategy. The results will be fed into the Challenge Group.

3.7 An internal exercise will be carried out to test the service's current strengths and areas for improvement. The European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) model for business excellence will be used. The resulting areas for improvement will be fed into the challenge process.

3.8 The model will be used to establish perceptions and views from the key stakeholders and staff representatives. To achieve an external focus, invitations will be sent to:

3.9 The information will be fed into `challenge' workshops, including an appropriate cross-section of our stakeholders with the review team and Members. These workshops will also cover the relevance and applicability of corporate guidance on sustainable development, equalities, e-government, and crime and disorder.

4. Scope

4.1 This review covers a key function of the County Council as local highway authority to modify and improve the transport network. The process can be summarised as the devising, designing and delivering of improvement schemes. It covers devising work undertaken by Transport Policy, Traffic Management or Safety Engineering teams, design work by the Implementation Team, the Engineering Branch or external consulting engineers and the delivery by contractors. The processes being reviewed are possibly mirrored in other departments and the opportunity for developing cross-cutting issues will be identified.

4.2 In all, the service typically involves contributions from over 120 staff in the Environment Grouping and oversees a capital budget that is currently in the order of over £12 million per annum.

4.3 The review will exclude issues relating to policy development and maintenance, which are subject to other reviews.

5. Constraints

5.1 Approval to proceed with the review must be obtained at the Best Value Review Panel meeting in April 2001. Staff responsibilities have been allocated and a programme has been devised. It is hoped that this can be maintained although it should be noted that demands on parts of this service are exceptionally high due to a successful capital bid. Unfortunately, recruitment difficulties mean that the necessary staff resources are not all in place.

6. Dependencies

6.1 The value of this review will in part be dependent on the cooperation of private sector parties and the release of commercially sensitive information.

7. Resource Requirements

7.1 Estimates are dependent on confirming the approach to the review. However, they will include:

7.2 A budget of £20,000 has been nominally identified to cover external costs.

8. Timetable

8.1 A project plan for this review is attached. To date the review is on target but will require firm management to ensure deadlines are met as these involve many people with competing priorities.