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 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 East a team of four has been established to carry out the Section 38 and Section 278 design check and supervision functions. There is currently 1 vacancy within the team.

2.3 East Hampshire District Council has indicated it is prepared to enter into the Development Control Agency Agreement but little work has been done at the time of writing with respect to getting the agreement 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, and negotiations are continuing with other district councils. East Hampshire District Council has not taken up the option of traffic management delivery to date.

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 districts. The County Council has informed districts that Professional Indemnity Insurance 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 others are being urged to complete the Agency Agreement documentation as soon as possible. At the time of writing East Hampshire's legal services were agreeing final wording with the County Council, with a view to signing the Agency Agreement in the near future.

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; and

(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. The County Council's Transport Implementation Team continued to consult with the district councils in an effort to complete these agreements by 30 September 2004 when all existing agreements originally expired. 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.

8975/CT