Contact: Alan Giles, ext 7712

1. Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

That the progress and the way forward on the Highways Network Management structures, consultation procedures and timetable be approved.

2. Reason

2.1 In order to proceed with the setting up of the new Highways Network Management structure.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected

3.1 None.

4. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Decision Maker or a Member of Officer Consulted - Not applicable.

5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee - Not applicable.

6. Reason(s) for the Matter being dealt with if Urgent - Not applicable.

Approved by: Date:

Councillor K B Estlin

7. Introduction

7.1 On 17 July 2001 the former Policy and Resources Committee resolved to give authority to progress the detailed planning and discussions with the district agents in broad accordance with the Blueprint proposals.

7.2 This report addresses those aspects of the Blueprint concerning client based activity relating to the delivery of Highway Maintenance and Traffic Management. It does not deal with works contracts, such as the proposal for a county-wide Term Maintenance contract. This issue is progressing and is an item elsewhere on the agenda.

8. Progress

8.1 Senior resources have been seconded from the County Surveyor's Department and the district councils to support the planning and implementation of the Blueprint.

8.2 Additionally a Blueprint Working Group has been set up with representatives from Hampshire County Council and district councils (Basingstoke and Deane, Rushmoor, Eastleigh and Fareham). The group has been looking at some of the finer details of the issues arising and making recommendations to the County Surveyor. Issues considered so far include:

(i) the configuration of four groups of districts which will form the new Highway Units;

(ii) the best level at which various functions can be carried out (eg county-wide, unit-wide or district based); and

(iii) formulation of job descriptions.

8.3 Since the former Policy and Resource Committee meeting in July meetings have been held with senior representatives of the district councils concerned to clarify the County Council's intentions and to discuss further with them any issues of details they wish to discuss on implementation. Meetings have also been held with each of the District Engineers to brief them on the progress. Human Resources Section, IT Client and Estates Practice are now involved in the work. Meetings will be set up in January with the district representatives, unions and staff. Meetings with district members and Councillor Estlin are also programmed.

9. Proposals

Highway Maintenance

9.1 It is proposed that the county is divided into four Highway Units, each consisting of a number of sub-units based on district council areas. These are set out below:

Highway Unit Area Sub-units

North Rushmoor, Hart, Basingstoke and Deane

East East Hampshire, Winchester, Eastleigh

West Test Valley, New Forest

South Havant, Fareham, Gosport.

These groupings are estimated to represent a reasonably equal balance in work load.

9.2 The emerging staffing proposals to operate this new arrangement, including the Headquarters-based activities, are founded on the premise that future staff numbers should be broadly similar to those presently engaged in both the County and the districts in delivering the service. It is envisaged that each Highway Unit would be headed by a Chief Engineer with a sub-unit based on each district area. A number of the more strategic functions will be carried out on a highway-unit basis, such as:

(i) special maintenance design:

(ii) planning, highway and other inspections; and

(iii) administration, coordination and planning winter maintenance.

9.3 The majority of network management services will be locally-based, including:

(i) local safety inspections and New Roads and Street Works Act inspections;

(ii) the identification of local maintenance needs, raising minor works orders and supervision;

(iii) local regulatory matters, eg hedge cutting notices, local licences and vehicular crossings; and

(iv) issues raised by the public locally and elected Members of parish councils, district councils and the County Council.

9.4 The local management at sub-unit level will be an Assistant Chief Engineer with a team of Highway Supervisors and one or two technical and administrative support staff. The Assistant Chief Engineer will have local responsibility for all the works carried out within the district and for all local member liaison.

9.5 It is proposed that all the Highway Units should operate under a common banner of `Hampshire Highways' including the traffic management function, but may also include a local affinity, eg `Hampshire Highways Fareham'.

Traffic Management

9.6 Proposals are for the existing Traffic Management agency arrangements that exist in the full agency district to be offered to all districts. Present indications are that all districts will take up this offer (possibly subject to sufficient funding being made available). Proposed staff numbers for Traffic Management agencies in the districts are presently being calculated.

Member Involvement

9.7 Proposals are for a Joint Members' Panel per district, meeting twice per year and comprising all of the local County Council members and an equal number of district members.

9.8 The Panels will be chaired by the local representative of the Executive Member for Environment. Hence each local representative will chair two or three Panels.

9.9 The Panels will serve to inform and influence the local highway activities but will not be decision making bodies.

Costs

9.10 It has been estimated that the cost of providing the service will in the short term increase as a consequence of implementing the Blueprint. This is because the district councils employ more staff than the County Council funds and remunerates them at a higher level than the County Council, together with a higher proportion of administrative support. In addition there may be costs arising from the need to provide accommodation, additional IT equipment and so on and these cannot at present be finalised.

9.11 This exercise of course provides essential building blocks for future efficiency savings to be achieved in line with the original proposals in the Blueprint. The estimated cost in 2002/03 is in the order of £600,000 which should fall in subsequent years as the benefits of the new structure are realised.

10. Staff Issues

10.1 Meetings will be set up with County Council staff and unions to discuss the impact of the changes. This is likely to be greatest on Area Surveyors' staff and less on Headquarters' staff. It is important that staff understand the reasons behind the proposed changes and the importance of their roles in continuing to deliver the service.

10.2 Joint Working Groups of Hampshire County Council and District Personnel and Engineers staff and union representatives will be set up for each district to coordinate the personnel and staff transfer issues. It is anticipated that meetings with staff will start during February 2002.

10.3 Meetings between Estates Practice and the property service sections of the district councils will be set up in January 2002 in order to start negotiations for leasing premises.

10.4 IT Services staff will make contact with their opposite numbers in the districts to discuss the IT implications of the new arrangements.

11. Implementation Programme

11.1 The proposed implementation programme is:

(i) Fareham, Gosport, Havant (Highway Unit South) - 1 May 2002;

(ii) Winchester and Test Valley - 1 May 2002;

(iii) Hart and East Hampshire - summer 2002;

(iv) Eastleigh and Basingstoke and Deane - autumn/winter 2002; and

(v) Rushmoor and New Forest - April 2003.

6930A/AG