Archived decisions

Contact: Alun Trott, ext 6899

1. Summary

1.1 As a result of the termination of the formal highway agency arrangements with the District Councils on 31 March 2002, it was decided that a management review should be carried out to consider the current procedures involving both the County and District Councils in delivery of the highway aspects of major and minor development proposals, the design check and inspections of Section 38 and 278 Highway Agreements, and in response to the highway elements of land charge searches.

1.2 The conclusions were that changes could be made to the benefit of stakeholders, in providing a more efficient cost-effective service, the details of which are outlined in this report.

2. Introduction

2.1 An internal management review of the County Council's Highways Development Control service has been ongoing since October 2001 and has been undertaken applying the Best Value principles of challenge, compare, compete and consult. With the termination of the formal highway agency arrangements with the District Councils on 31 March 2002 (for considering the transport aspects of planning applications as defined in Procedure Note 12 Appendix 1, preparing legal agreements and undertaking land charge searches) the scope of the report has covered strategic planning applications, minor planning applications, Section 106/278 Agreements, Section 38 Agreements, Advance Payments Code (APC), engineering design checks and Land Charge Searches.

3. Current Arrangements

Strategic Planning Applications

3.1 The Highway Authority is a statutory consultee to the Local Planning Authority in undertaking its responsibility to determine planning applications. Under the former agency agreement, development applications which fall within certain categories are forwarded by the District Planning Officer or Engineer to Development Control, Highways at the County Council. The categories under which the applications are forwarded are as follows:

(i) any development which, in the opinion of the District Planning Officer or Engineer, may significantly alter the type, increase the volume or alter the pattern of traffic in an area, having regard to the existing road network and any firm proposals for its improvement; and

(ii) any applications where preliminary discussions have identified a need for developers' contribution and associated alteration to the highway infrastructure. As traffic generation from development on the scale specified below would be likely to result in the need for junction/access improvements, the following applications should normally be referred:

(a) any development which may result in a significant departure from the standards adopted by the Highway Authority in respect of parking, access or visibility;

(b) residential proposals involving 50 houses or more; or

(c) other development where gross floor area exceeds 1,250m² for retail, 1,000m² for offices or 2,250m² for industrial use.

3.2 These categories are not all-embracing and consultation can take place on other applications.

3.3 The total number of strategic planning applications received are in the region of 600 per annum.

Minor Planning Applications

3.4 The Highway Authority is a statutory consultee on all planning applications received by the District Councils. In order to limit the number of consultations, minor applications that in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority do not have significant highway implication will not be forwarded to the Highway Authority. All applications that are within the former Highway Agency areas are forwarded by the District Planning Officer to the District Engineer, who acts as an agent for the Highway Authority, for processing. This is unless it falls within the criteria set out for strategic planning applications, although there are a significant number that will not require a highway comment and therefore will not be referred. The total number of minor planning applications referred to the Hampshire District Engineers amounts to some 9,000 per annum.

Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980

3.5 Section 106 and 278 Agreements are used as the legal mechanism to secure highway works, or financial contributions to transport schemes, necessitated by development proposals from developers. Under the present system, if highway works are required to facilitate a development or if a financial contribution is taken towards measures to help to mitigate the effect of the development on the surrounding network, a Section 106 Agreement must be entered into with Hampshire County Council, with a clause to enter into a Section 278 Agreement if there are highway works. At present, if the cost of highway works and/or the financial contribution amounts to more than £100,000 Executive Member approval must be sought.

Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 and Advance Payments Code

3.6 A Section 38 Agreement is the agreement entered into by a developer to enable new estate roads to be adopted and maintained by the Highway Authority. Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 does not compel developers to enter into a formal agreement to construct a road to the Highway Authority's specification in order that it can be adopted. At present, to safeguard the financial interests of both the Highway Authority and home owners, the Local Authority serves an Advance Payment Code notice to the developer. The Advance Payment Code requires the developer to pay a lump sum or provide a financial bond surety to the satisfaction of the Local Authority before any work can commence on-site. The provisions of an Advance Payment Code are nullified once the developer has signed a Section 38 Agreement. These works are currently undertaken by the District Council on the basis of a fee that is set and agreed by Hampshire County Council. The fee is currently set at 7.5% of the estimated cost of works (9% of the estimated cost of the works for bridges) and this covers all activities of staff from the design checking process to on-site supervision. There are currently in the order of 13 people in the Districts responsible for Section 38 Agreements.

Design Checks

3.7 When highway works are required, in order to mitigate the impact of a development, the developer must enter into a Section 278 Agreement to allow them to work on the highway. By way of making sure that any works on the highway are build to an appropriate standard and to County Council specification, the developer must submit drawings of the proposed scheme to the County Council for a design check. At present the designs for all Section 278 works are checked by the Engineering Consultancy Business Unit within the Environment Department at Hampshire County Council.

Land Charge Searches

3.8 Under the former Agency Agreement, those District Councils that have delegated highway powers carry out the highway element of land charge searches. Therefore, the full agencies are responsible for highway searches for the whole of the District and the island agencies for their part of the District. The highway searches within non-agency areas and the remainder of the island agencies are carried out by the Highway Land Searches Section within the Development Control Highways section at Hampshire County Council.

4. Background

4.1 A review group was formed under the chairmanship of the Environment Department incorporating both planning and engineering officers representing five of the eleven Hampshire Districts, which developed scoping papers to highlight and identify the main aspects of the service. The scoping papers were used as a basis for a challenge workshop held on 7 February 2002 involving stakeholders (ie developers, consultants, officers and Members - Councillor Jonathan Glen, Councillor Mike Roberts and Councillor Roger Price) in order to receive their feedback on the service provided. During this process, regular reports were taken to the Hampshire Chief Engineers' Group to keep them updated on the progress of the review.

4.2 The preliminary conclusions from the review were reported to Hampshire Chief Engineers' Group and the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Chief Planning Officers' Group during November 2002, and their initial views were considered by the Environment Departmental Management Board on 9 December 2002. The Board supported the proposals, and following this a further formal consultation was undertaken with the Districts by way of a letter sent to each Chief Executive on 9 January 2003, along with a copy of the report.

4.3 The Districts were informed that a report would be taken to the Environment Policy Review Committee for consideration and scrutiny. The aim of the formal consultation was to allow the Districts to undertake appropriate internal consultations and form an official view. Whilst there is a general acceptance of these changes, Districts are concerned because they feel it could affect the viability of their engineering units, particularly in some of the smaller Districts. Whilst this point is acknowledged, it must be seen against the background of the completed Traffic Management and Highway Management reviews which have also produced changes and improvements to the previous systems. At the stakeholder meeting held on the 7 February 2002, there was a general view that the processes concerning legal agreements should be improved to the benefit of all stakeholders. This point has been addressed by proposing significant changes to the way that Section 38 and 106/278 Agreements are dealt with in the future, to provide a more consistent, efficient and transparent service.

4.4 In parallel with this, a series of meetings have taken place with each individual District to discuss areas of concern and build upon areas of agreement.

4.5 One concern which was shared by all full agency areas was the taking back of the highway element of Land Charge Searches. The full agencies currently do all aspects of the Land Charges 'in house' and had concerns about cost and time implications of transferring the work to the county. It was felt that with the e-government initiatives and the implementation of National Land Information Service by 2005, the full agencies would retain the highway element until this time when the situation will be reviewed. These meetings have been constructive and there is now a greater understanding of how the proposals give the Planning Authority greater input in determining how resources are utilised. It is understood that each District is keen to maintain an appropriate level of funding to undertake the highway comments on planning applications.

5. Financial Implications

5.1 The implementation of the review is expected to be beneficial to the County Council's overall financial position, in that the fees for Section 38 and searches work that would transfer from the Districts under the proposed arrangements are forecast to more than cover the cost of the additional staff that the County Council would need to transfer and employ to undertake this work directly. However, the anticipated saving would be partially offset by an additional support to the Districts in relation to their proposed under role in connection with advice on planning applications. In the short term the one-off cost of implementing the proposed new searches system would also need to be met from any savings generated by the review.

5.2 The financial arrangements, with regard to highway advice on planning applications dealt with at a local level, seek to ensure that the funding for each District accurately reflects the service that the Local Planning Authority and local Members require, to provide an appropriate efficient and cost-effective service based on the number of applications received by the Districts over the last three to four years. All fees received for planning applications are retained by the District Council.

5.3 Currently, Hampshire County Council funds between 1 and 3.3 full-time equivalents (ftes) in each District Council to provide the highway advice on minor planning applications. The level of funding is dependent upon the number of consultations that have historically been received for highway advice, which varies between 259 and 1,771. This generally represents 49% of all planning applications received by the Districts. It is anticipated that future funding be based on the level of consultations to the Highways Engineer over the last three to four years.

5.4 It is proposed that a Protocol be prepared to increase the threshold above which planning applications are referred to the County Council. This change is aimed to give the Districts greater control over planning applications and so the fees paid to them will need to reflect this increased level of service.

5.5 Historically, for Section 38 Agreements design check and inspection fees were based on 5% of the estimated cost of the works. Since June 2000 the design check and inspection fees have been increased to 7.5% and the income received amounts to approximately £780,000 per annum, which the Districts retain.

5.6 The current design checking and inspection fees received for Section 278 schemes under £100,000 amounts to some £112,000 per annum. These are also calculated at 7.5% of the estimated total cost of the works. The fee incomes vary, depending upon the level of development activity.

5.7 The total income for Sections 38 and 278 design check and inspection fees amounts to some £892,000.

5.8 To better provide for peaks and troughs in the workload, and to enable a more flexible localised service plus provide a synergy with other engineering works, it is proposed that the design check and inspection work for all Section 38 Agreements and Section 278 schemes under £100,000 be undertaken in the Hampshire Highway Units.

5.9 From the income it will be possible to self-finance four staff from existing resources and new appointments be allocated to each of the four Highway Units to undertake this work at a cost of £560,000 (this accounts for one member of staff at PO2 level, two at SO1/2 level and one at Scale 6 level in each unit and all appropriate overheads). This would have the added benefit of providing for peaks and troughs of workloads, together with better opportunities for consistency in training and staff development.

5.10 Appropriate legal fees for Section 38 Agreements will be determined by the Chief Executive's Department, which will undertake preparation of the agreements, formerly undertaken by the District Councils' legal departments, to deliver a self-financing service.

5.11 At present a team of 3.25 ftes at the County Council deal with 22,000 searches per year, including those for Winchester and Basingstoke, at a cost of £72,000 per annum, including all appropriate overheads. The remaining 21,000 searches are dealt with by some eight members of staff in the Districts, excluding Basingstoke and Winchester. It is proposed that in future the land charge searches for all former island agencies be fully undertaken by the County Council. Winchester handed its searches back on 1 May 2002 and Basingstoke will hand its back during summer 2003. The County Council will then complete 24,000 searches per annum at a fee of £10 per search, resulting in an income of some £240,000. As a result of consultation and discussion, the former full agencies will continue to undertake the highway element of searches until such time as the E-Government Strategy is implemented in 2005, when the position can be further reviewed, with the option of handing them back earlier if required.

5.12 To provide a consistent service for the stakeholders, it would be beneficial for the highway element of all searches received by the island agencies to be undertaken by the County Council. The mechanisms are already in place to do this as a proportion of the searches are already sent to the County Council. There are, however, obstacles to the County Council undertaking the searches for the full agencies, as the mechanism for sending through information would have to be set up, which would lead to additional costs being incurred by both the County and District Councils. There is already a level of consistency in the full agencies as the Districts deal with all the searches internally.

5.13 Currently, searches are received via the District Councils by post. A service level agreement requires the searches to be turned round within 48 hours; in practice they are turned around `by return of post'. However, delays in the postal system can extend the time taken for the search to be returned to the Districts. The Development Control Group has addressed this issue by exploring dealing with searches electronically. In the short term searches can be received and delivered via e-mail but it is intended to purchase dedicated searches software which will include this function.

5.14 As part of this, and also to improve the delivery of searches, the Development Control Group is to purchase the Total Land Charges software from ESRI. Negotiations with the software provider are well advanced and it is intended to have it operational by late 2003. The set-up costs for this system are anticipated to be in the region of £40,000.

6. Outcomes

6.1 The following outcomes will be required, to:

(i) agree a timetable with the Districts for the changes to occur;

(ii) set up a new team in each of the Highway Units to undertake Section 38 and Section 278 design checks and inspections, in order to provide transparency, clarity, efficiency, economies of scale and consistency;

(iii) provide information leaflets to inform the public of the changes to the system and how the system will work;

(iv) update the website with the changes to the system to inform the public;

(v) develop a revised protocol to increase the threshold above which planning applications are referred to the County Council for highway comments; and

(vi) agree a timescale with the island agencies for the transfer of the remaining searches to be sent to the County Council to be answered.

7. Reporting Timetable

7.1 The review group will shortly meet to discuss progress. It is anticipated that a report will be taken to the Executive Member for Environment and then to Cabinet for approval.

8. Conclusion

8.1 The proposals within the report have met the stakeholder and service objectives as they can be achieved with transparency, efficiency and with a cost saving. There will also be a greater flexibility of staff to deal with the peaks and troughs of work. In addition to this there will be greater opportunities to provide training and increase personal development.

Recommendations

1. That the Executive Member for Environment and Cabinet be advised that discussions be undertaken with the Hampshire Districts to implement the following service delivery changes:

(i) Strategic Planning Applications - amendments to Procedure Note 12 with a new protocol to enable the threshold levels above which the County Council is consulted to be increased;

(ii) Minor Planning Applications - amendments to Procedure Note 12 with a new protocol to enable the threshold levels above which the County Council is consulted to be increased, thereby giving the District Councils greater control over larger applications;

(iii) Section 106/278 Agreements - enable District Councils to take financial contributions of up to £50,000 under a Section 106 Agreement and amend the threshold above which Executive Member authority is sought to £250,000;

(iv) Section 38 Agreements and Advance Payments Code - amend the model Section 38 Agreement. Undertake all Section 38 design checking and inspection through the Hampshire Highways Units;

(v) Design Checks - as a general guide, schemes over £100,000 to be checked by the Engineering Consultancy as at present. Schemes under £100,000 to be checked by Hampshire Highways Units; and

(vi) Land Charge Searches - the highway element of all land charge searches for the former island agency areas to be completed centrally by the County Council, with a move towards modernising the system in line with e-government initiatives.

7981/AGT