Contact: Colin Taylor, tel 01730 266411 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 Agreement; 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 City 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 East a team of four has been established to carry out the Section 38 and Section 278 design check and supervision functions. Currently the team is one member of staff short.

2.3 Winchester City Council has indicated that it is prepared to enter into the Development Control Agency Agreement but at the time of writing, the agreement has not been signed.

3. Traffic Management Services

3.1 Draft Traffic Management agreements have been circulated to all district councils except East Hampshire, who 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 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 Agreement

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 district councils. The County Council has informed districts that Professional Indemnity Insurance is not necessary for this type of work and 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 others are being urged to complete the Agency Agreement documentation as soon as possible. Winchester City Council's officers are seeking signature from their legal section to conclude the agreement.

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 Professional Indemnity Insurance 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 or Gosport. Winchester City Council is content with the Agreement `in principle'. Currently, the Agreement is with its legal department finalising the wording prior to signature.

5.3 The County Council's Transport Implementation Team continue to consult with the district councils in an effort to complete these agreements as soon as possible. At his meeting on 14 September the Executive Member for Environment agreed a further three month extension from 1 October, but district councils were requested to notify the County Council by 1 December 2004 if they did not intend to complete a new agreement so that alternative arrangements could be made.

Recommendation

That this report be noted.

8972/CT