Contact: Chris Lait, tel 01329 824485 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 This report brings Members up to date on the progress regarding the changing arrangements with respect to:

(i) Development Control Services;

(ii) Traffic Management Services;

(iii) Grass and Shrub Maintenance; and

(iv) Design and Implementation Agreement.

2. Development Control Services

2.1 In April 2004, the revised arrangements for the delivery of development control services were implemented. As previously reported the changes involved:

(i) the District Council continuing to provide highway consultations on planning applications with slightly increased responsibilities; and

(ii) Hampshire Highways undertaking the Section 38 and Section 278 (under £100,000) functions.

2.2 Within Hampshire Highways South a team of four has been established to carryout the Section 38 and Section 278 design check and supervision functions. The team is still to be fully manned and recruiting is currently under way to fill the one Assistant Highway Engineer vacancy.

2.3 Fareham Borough Council has indicated it is prepared to enter into the Development Control Agency Agreement when negotiations on the other agency agreements have been concluded.

3. Traffic Management Services

3.1 Draft Traffic Management agreements have been circulated to all district councils except East Hampshire, which indicated it did not wish to carry out this function. Agreements have been concluded with Winchester City, New Forest District and Test Valley Borough Councils.

3.2 Negotiations are continuing with other District Councils. A particular concern has been the level of Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) and following a risk assessment it has been agreed to reduce the level required in respect of this agreement from £5 million to £2 million. It is hoped that this will enable new agreements with the remaining districts to be concluded shortly.

4. Grass and Shrub Maintenance

4.1 The documentation for Agency Agreements relating to urban grass and shrub maintenance (and tree maintenance in some cases) has now been sent out to all districts. The County Council has informed districts that PII is not necessary for this type of work. The County Council has also confirmed that it would take over responsibility for any long term contracts that were still in place in the event of early termination of the Agency arrangements.

4.2 Responses have been received from a number of districts and the Agency Agreement has been completed with Fareham Borough Council.

4.3 The payment formula included in the agreement will provide a much fairer allocation of funding for the works done by the districts on behalf of the County Council and enable both parties to more accurately predict future budget allocations.

5. Design and Implementation Agreement

5.1 The draft Agency Agreement was sent to all district councils for consultation and comment at the end of January 2004. Feedback from the districts has been disappointing but the following concerns have been expressed:

(i) Recovering the costs of £5 million PII which is a requirement of the Agency Agreement.

(ii) A mechanism for undertaking their own works on the highway which is not covered by the draft Agency Agreement.

These issues are currently being addressed and proposals will be presented shortly.

5.2 Eastleigh Borough Council has indicated that it is ready to conclude the Agreement, and Test Valley Borough Council indicated that the Agreement is acceptable in principle. No formal responses have been received from East Hampshire, Hart, Havant, Gosport or Winchester.

5.3 All districts were contacted again between 21 July 2004 and 5 August 2004 in an effort to establish whether the agreement is acceptable and requesting their comments. Transport Implementation will continue to consult with the district councils in an effort to complete these agreements by 30 September 2004 when all existing agreements expire.

Recommendation

That this report be noted.

8918/CL