Archived decisions

Contact: Alan Giles, ext 7712

1. Summary

1.1 The following decision is sought:

That approval be given to implement the new Highways Network Management structure in accordance with the proposals contained in this report, and to enter into agreements, in such form as the Chief Executive may determine, for the delivery of the Traffic Management function, as set out in the report, with those district councils who wish to take up the option.

2. Reason

2.1 To initiate the recommendation arising from the Network Management Pathfinder Best Value Review, relating to achieving improved efficiency and greater accountability with regard to the Highways Network Management services.

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 As part of the County Council's approach to Best Value a review of Network Management was undertaken in 1999. From the review emerged a clear view that the service, based on long standing directly controlled areas and agency arrangements, was outdated. Consequently, the Highway `Blueprint' has been developed to enable greater flexibility in service at the local level and to facilitate closer integration of management and delivery of works through the Term Maintenance Contract in the future.

7.2 This report follows that submitted to the Executive Member for Environment on 15 January 2002 which approved the progress, the way forward, consultation procedures and timetable on the Highways Network Management review.

7.3 A considerable amount of work needs to be done over the next few weeks in order to meet the deadline of 1 May 2002 for the setting up of Highway Teams in five district offices, dealing with the staff transfer arrangements of district staff from four of those districts and the slotting-in of district council and County Council staff into positions in the new structure.

7.4 This report therefore seeks the approval of the Executive Member for Environment to implement the new Highways Network Management Structure, and to enter into agreements regarding the delivery of the Traffic Management function.

8. Highways Units

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

Highways Unit Area Sub-Units

North Rushmoor, Hart, Basingstoke and Deane

East East Hampshire, Winchester, Eastleigh

South Havant, Fareham, Gosport

West Test Valley, New Forest

8.2 Given the large differences between districts in terms of road mileage, population and numbers of elected Members, these groupings are estimated to give the best balance of workload for the Highways Teams.

9. Functions

9.1 The recommended level at which the various functions in Network Management are most appropriately carried out are shown in Appendix 1.

9.2 In general, functions that need to be dealt with strategically across the whole county are allocated to Headquarters (eg policy and standards, term maintenance contract preparation and coordination, winter maintenance coordination, etc).

9.3 Functions that are best dealt with strategically across a group of districts are allocated to the Highways Units (eg special maintenance works, grass cutting management, walked highway condition and utility inspections, recovery of costs, etc).

9.4 Functions that need to be dealt with locally are done by the local Highways Teams in the district Sub-Units (eg local ordinary maintenance works, safety inspections, licences, etc).

10. Management Structures for Highways Units, Sub-Units and Headquarters

10.1 The proposed staffing structures are summarised in Appendix 2. Proposed staffing numbers in the new structure total 180 FTEs. This shows a saving of approximately 17 FTEs compared with those presently delivering the service across the whole county (197 FTEs). TUPE information is still awaited from Basingstoke and Deane and Rushmoor. Until that information has been provided, there is still a degree of uncertainty with regard to the total number of staff transferring from the districts and hence the number of vacancies likely to occur (presently estimated at 26 FTEs).

10.2 New and changed posts will be reported in the Workforce Plan 2002/03.

10.3 Each Highways Unit would be headed by a Chief Engineer who will be the main focus for Member liaison. He will be supported by up to three Assistant Chief Engineers and this would form the Management Team for the Highways Unit.

10.4 Each Assistant Chief Engineer would have Unit-wide responsibilities (eg special maintenance works, inspections, ordinary maintenance coordination, etc) and would also manage a Highways Team associated with a particular district Sub-Unit and be responsible for operational delivery within that Sub-Unit.

10.5 The opportunity has been taken to streamline the Headquarters staffing structure by combining the Policy and Regulation team with the Budgeting and Contracts team. This will reduce the number of senior managers by one.

11. Traffic Management

11.1 It is proposed that Traffic Management partnership arrangements be offered to all districts, similar to the existing Traffic Management agency arrangements presently operating in the full agency districts.

11.2 The guidelines will be reissued to emphasise the correct procedures, particularly:

(i) consultation and approval of local County Member;

(ii) County interest roads - where the County Council is to be consulted on all traffic management proposals as set out in the flow chart included in the guidelines; and

(iii) Reserved matters - items to be referred to County Council, eg speed limits, lorry controls, road humps.

11.3 Details of the Traffic Management proposals are contained in Appendix 3. Appropriate resources for each district council have been calculated and these proposals are cost neutral if existing levels of overhead reimbursement are maintained. A new legal agreement will be required with each district council which takes up this offer.

12. Member Involvement

12.1 It is proposed that a Joint Members' Panel be established for each district, meeting twice per year and comprising all of the local County Council Members and an equal number of district members.

12.2 A lead Member to chair meetings will be nominated for each district by the Executive Member for Environment from among the County Councillors. Hence each representative will chair two or three separate Panels.

12.3 The Panels will serve to inform and influence the local highway activities but will not be decision making bodies. Proposed Terms of Reference were submitted to full Council on 28 March 2002.

12.4 The principal officer at these Panels will be the Chief Engineer supported by the appropriate Assistant Chief Engineer. The Assistant County Surveyor will also attend the Panel meetings where possible. Other specialist officers will attend as appropriate.

13. Customer Interface

13.1 A new Customer Service System will be used throughout the Network Management Highways Units. This will replace many of the out-of-date paperwork systems presently in use, with a modern electronic database and help provide a more uniform and streamlined service to the public. In the longer term it is intended to provide links to existing district customer service systems to enable an easy exchange of information between authorities.

13.2 It is proposed to use a single county-wide telephone number for Hampshire Highways, which will automatically route calls to the nearest Highways Unit office (as presently occurs with the Street Lighting number). This will also make it easier for central call centre facilities to be provided at a later date if required.

13.3 It is proposed that all the Highways 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'.

14. Staff Issues

14.1 Network Management and the Personnel Unit for the Environment Grouping have been holding meetings with Human Resources officers from the district councils, union representatives and with County Council and district council staff in order to keep them informed on progress.

14.2 A staged programme of consultation with both County Council and district council staff has been established. For County Council staff this consists of:

(i) initial meeting with Unison representative to explain the new proposals;

(ii) group staff meetings with each Headquarters and Area Office team; and

(iii) individual meetings with staff to discuss particular issues.

14.3 For district staff the process will be:

(i) initial meetings between County Council and district council Human Resources staff to explain the new proposals (including union representatives where possible);

(ii) group staff meetings with each district team (including union representatives) who are transferring to the County Council; and

(iii) individual meetings with staff to discuss particular issues.

14.4 For the districts, priority will be given to meetings with those district staff who will be transferring on 1 May 2002.

14.5 A protocol for handling appointments to the new structure has been agreed with Hampshire Unison. The protocol will apply equally to existing and transferring staff and will be a three stage process:

(i) matching substantially similar jobs and slotting in staff on the basis of a reasonable match;

(ii) any posts remaining unfilled following the `slotting in' process will be subject to `ring-fencing' and open only to staff left unplaced from the first stage; and

(iii) any posts remaining after the second stage will then be opened to wider competition. If there are any employees still left unplaced (which appears to be unlikely at this point), then potential redeployment issues will be considered.

14.6 Present calculations show an anticipated shortfall of about 26 staff for the new structure (see Appendix 2).

15. Location and Premises

15.1 One of the basic principles of the `Blueprint' is that Network Management services would continue to be delivered locally. In order to achieve this it is proposed that the new Network Management teams be located with district civic offices, where appropriate. In many cases this simply means that district staff transferring to County Council employment will continue to operate from their present place of work.

15.2 Estates Practice has appointed a Project Manager to oversee the securing of premises in the districts. Priority has been given to those districts giving up their agencies on 1 May 2002. Inspection and agreement of the office space being made available by the districts has taken place and negotiations are proceeding.

15.3 It is likely that `Service Agreements' rather than formal leases will be the best form of contract. This will have the advantage of being relatively flexible in case changes in floor space etc are required later. It would also enable additional support services to be included if necessary, without the need for negotiating a completely new agreement.

16. Information Technology Issues

16.1 Information Technology (IT) Services are presently investigating the required IT and telephone requirements of the new Highways Teams and the best method of providing them to the new offices.

16.2 Most districts have signed up to join the Hampshire Public Service Network (HPSN), which will provide the necessary links to the County Council's systems. However not all links are currently in place to the district offices, or are not yet set up to provide the required capacity. Alternative temporary arrangements are therefore being investigated in case of the full IT service provision not being available on 1 May 2002.

17. Additional Support

17.1 In the event of it not being possible to find sufficient administrative or support staff for some of the new Highways Teams based in district offices, it may be possible to buy in those support services from the districts. This may be an economic way of providing services and suit both Hampshire County Council and the districts, particularly in the short term. The arrangements will be made on an individual basis by the local Highways Teams as required, in agreement with the districts.

18. Consultation with District Members

18.1 Meetings with Members from all 11 district councils in Hampshire have now been completed. A number of issues remain to be resolved. In general these fall into two categories:

(i) Suggestions for minor changes, requests for further information or clarification of proposals. In many cases the suggestions have already been agreed to or the requested information has been supplied. In other cases the information will be provided and discussed with the districts by 1 May 2002. Examples of the issues raised:

(a) Fareham: request for protocol for County Council Members with regard to use of veto on district sponsored traffic management schemes;

(b) Fareham: wish to include local name, eg `Hampshire Highways, Fareham'; and

(c) Test Valley: awaiting details of traffic management funding.

(ii) More fundamental objections to the ``Blueprint'' principles, with proposals for alternative ways of working. Examples are:

(a) Rushmoor and New Forest: unhappy with separation of County Council and district functions. Wish to use district staff to carry out both district functions and County Council highway functions; and

(b) Rushmoor: unhappy with `Hampshire Highways' and a wish to retain local identity.

18.2 A separate report will be prepared for the Executive Member for Environment, listing all of the issues arising from the meetings with the districts and the proposed alternative solutions.

19. Implementation Programme

19.1 Agreement has been reached in principle with the following Districts who wish to implement the new arrangements from 1 May 2002:

(i) Fareham, Gosport and Havant; and

(ii) Test Valley and Winchester.

19.2 Further discussions are required with the remaining districts to firm up on the following possible dates:

(i) Hart and East Hampshire summer 2002

(ii) Eastleigh autumn 2002

(iii) Basingstoke, Rushmoor and April 2003

New Forest

20. Other Issues

20.1 Public Relations (PR) exercise: In conjunction with the Corporate Communications team and the district councils, a PR programme will be developed, particularly with regard to contact names, telephone numbers and addresses, in order to inform the public about the changes.

20.2 With regard to Traffic Management, new agency agreements between the County Council and district councils will need to be in place by 1 May 2002 (or other agreed date) in order that the districts can legally deal with Traffic Regulation Orders.

20.3 By April 2003 some other Agency agreements will also need to be renewed, eg district managed grass cutting.

20.4 The impact of the informal review of Development Control which is following Best Value type principles will also need to be considered. District councils have expressed concern regarding responsibility for Searches and the impact of staff transfers, etc on this function.

20.5 A new county-wide highway maintenance Term Maintenance Contract (TMC) has recently been awarded to Raynesway Construction Southern Limited (RCS). The main issues arising from the `Blueprint' are:

(i) the TMC will start in Rushmoor on 22 April 2002 due to the Borough Council's own highway maintenance contract expiring on that date;

(ii) Winchester City Council's existing highway maintenance contract with SERCO will continue until 1 April 2003. Hence highway maintenance works in the old island agency area (Winchester City) will continue to be ordered through SERCO for another year and then done by RCS thereafter; and

(iii) a meeting at senior level is being set up to reinvigorate the partnering process with RCS, to discuss the issues surrounding the implementation of the new contract and to emphasise the importance to the County Council of the new venture.

21. Costs

21.1 Cost comparisons between the existing Network Management establishment and the new structure show a full year additional cost in the order of £714,000. These figures only compare the existing and proposed structures and do not include any one-off costs arising from the setting up of the Highways Teams in district offices (eg for securing premises, additional furniture or IT Services works). In addition any transitional costs arising from detriment payments as a result of the TUPE transfers of district staff are not yet fully known.

21.2 The full structure will not be in place until April 2003. Interim costs for the `partial' structure during 2002/03 are estimated to be in the order of £427,000. However, Basingstoke and Deane will probably not now be giving up its agency until April 2003 (instead of September as originally anticipated) and it is likely that some posts in the new structure may remain unfilled due to the present difficulties experienced in recruiting staff. These factors will help offset some of the anticipated one-off costs in setting up the new structure.

21.3 This implementation of the new Network Management structure provides essential building blocks for future efficiency savings to be achieved in line with the original proposals in the ``Blueprint''. The estimated costs should fall in subsequent years as the benefits of the new structure are realised and further opportunities for savings arise from improved partnership working with the Term Maintenance contractor.

21.4 The Traffic Management arrangements in the new structure are intended to be cost neutral, assuming that the same level of overheads are paid to the districts.

22. Conclusion

22.1 Although some fundamental differences of principle with regard to the ``Blueprint'' implementation still exist between the County Council and two of the district councils, there is now sufficient clarity with regard to the new structures, the methods of operation and the estimated costs to enable a decision to be made to proceed with the implementation starting on 1 May 2002.

7082/AG