Archived decisions

Contact: David Richardson, ext 7964 email: [email protected]

1. Summary

1.1 The purpose of this report is to explain the new agency agreements for highway verge maintenance made between the County Council and the district councils. This work includes grass-cutting, shrub-bed maintenance, hedge-trimming and, in some cases, tree maintenance. The funding allocated by the County Council to the district councils represents the County Council's fair share of the verge maintenance work that is done. The allocations are designed so that neither the County Council nor the district councils are subsidising each others' responsibilities. The level of enhancement, if any, to the County Council's basic verge maintenance standards is a local decision of the district council.

2. Background

2.1 Following the changes in 2002/03 to the highway maintenance agency arrangements, where general highway works were taken back from the district agents by Hampshire County Council, it was agreed that there were considerable benefits in still retaining the verge maintenance agency arrangements. However, not all districts had the same agency agreement and there had been concerns for some years about lack of clarity over the County Council's funding for these works. It was decided to review both the agency arrangements and the method of allocating funding for the County Council's work. This review has now been completed, the new funding mechanism was introduced in 2004/05 and new agency agreements have been signed. The method of funding allocation is now fairer and more transparent.

2.2 Generally in urban areas and where 30 mph and 40 mph speed limits exist, highway verges are maintained by the local district council on behalf of the County Council. The County Council pays the district council a contribution towards the cost of the work, proportional to the number of cuts done for highway purposes compared to the overall number of cuts. This is a well-established practice both in Hampshire and in other authorities. It makes sense for this kind of work to be done by a single contractor under the control of a single client, particularly where highway verges adjoin other public open spaces. For example, for urban highway verge grass cutting, the national Best Value Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance recommends a minimum of five cuts per year and Hampshire County Council presently funds six cuts. Most district councils enhance the work by carrying out additional cuts at their own expense (see below).

3. The Different Functions of County and District Councils in Grounds Maintenance

3.1 There is a difference in approach of Hampshire County Council as Highway Authority and that of the district councils with regard to the purposes of verge maintenance. The County Council's standards are to ensure that verges are maintained to an adequate standard to maintain road safety, eg to prevent obstruction of access for pedestrians, to keep sight-lines clear of long grass or protruding hedges, to prevent dead branches falling onto the highway and to ensure traffic signs and street-lights are not obscured. Generally the standard of maintenance required for highway purposes is lower than that required for civic amenity. For example, the County Council does not require an area of grass to be kept neatly mown as long as it does not grow high enough to obstruct drivers' vision. District councils will generally maintain public open spaces as civic amenities; that is to say, to an aesthetic standard. It will cost more to maintain an area of verge to an aesthetic standard than to the highway standard.

4. Enhancement of Verge Maintenance works by District Councils

4.1 Where district councils wish to enhance the basic highway verge maintenance standards by providing for additional cuts of verges or additional maintenance visits to shrubbery areas to provide their chosen aesthetic standard, these are local district council decisions. Therefore enhancement to the highway standards is done at the district councils' cost. In practice the degree of enhancement from district-to-district within the county varies considerably. These decisions depend upon local expectations and the funding available to the district councils; they are separate from the basic levels of verge maintenance funded by the County Council for highway safety purposes.

5. Principles of the Calculation of the Funding Allocations

5.1 The funding allocated by the County Council to the district councils represents the County Council's fair share of the work that the district council carries-out on its behalf. The County Council's fair share is calculated with agreed formulae, using the district councils' own forecasts of their actual costs. The formulae apportion the cost between the County Council and the district councils according to the frequencies and type of work needed to meet the relative standards of each party. They account for the economies of scale involved when considering relative unit-costs of maintenance at different frequencies to ensure, as far as practicable while still being simple and transparent, that neither party subsidises the other's work. With eleven district councils involved, each effecting a different degree of enhancement and most with competitively-tendered contracts, it has been accepted that this is the fairest method of funding allocation under the circumstances; more so than, for example, a single rate imposed by the County Council.

6. Adjustments to Allocations Resulting from the New Method

6.1 The introduction in 2004/05 of the current method of deriving the funding allocations meant that some district councils' allocations became higher than previously and some became lower. A minority of district councils - Hart District Council, Fareham Borough Council and Test Valley Borough Council - now receive less funding than previously. However, this should not be seen as a cut in funding by the County Council but instead an adjustment to a fairer system of allocation, calculated on a logical basis where previous allocations had been historically based and were often difficult to justify, with degrees of over funding and under funding from district to district. The calculation of the allocations on a logical basis also meant that district councils - perhaps for the first time - had a clear idea of the cost of their contribution to enhance verge maintenance works.

Recommendation

That this report be noted.

9173/DR