Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report :

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1) Summary of Decision Area:

1.1. This report relates to the renegotiation of the existing Agency Agreements with district councils in Hampshire for the delivery of Highways Development Control and Traffic Management services.

2) Issues Covered in Report:

2.1. The existing concerns regarding the present agency arrangements that prompted this review.

2.2. The main benefits likely to be achieved from the renegotiation of the Agency Agreements.

2.3. Consideration of the alternative options to this renewal of the agency agreements.

3) Recommendations:

3.1. That new agency agreements with District Councils be pursued for Highways Development Control and Traffic Management, subject to a sufficient quantum of take-up.

3.2. That the new agreements strengthen performance provisions and reduce the termination period and that authority be given to the Director of Environment to settle the details of the terms and authorise the entering into of new Highways Development Control and Traffic Management Agency Agreements.

MAIN REPORT

1) Purpose of the Report:

1.1. To seek approval for the renegotiation with district councils of the Highways Development Control and Traffic Management agency agreements.

2) Contextual Information:

2.1. The Highways Development Control and Traffic Management agency arrangements with the district councils have been in operation since between 2003 and 2006. All districts operate the agency arrangements except for New Forest District Council (for the Highways Development Control agency) and East Hampshire District Council (for the Traffic Management agency).

2.2. For the Highways Development Control agencies, concerns have arisen in respect of the quality of the service and poor reporting of contribution information being provided in some districts. In addition, the adoption of the Hampshire County Council Transport Contributions Policy in October 2007 required a more consistent approach by the districts in its implementation.

2.3. Under the current Traffic Management Agency arrangements, district councils do deliver a large number of minor traffic management schemes and Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs), as well as dealing with the temporary TROs for roadworks and local arrangements for planned events. In addition, a significant proportion of the resource employed is used to provide traffic management advice to the public and Members.

2.4. The above arrangement appears to work well in practice since very few complaints are received of inadequate advice or lack of service by District Agents on Traffic Management matters. However, there are no formal procedures within the existing agreements for the development and approval of Traffic Management programmes or for performance monitoring in terms of service delivery and customer satisfaction.

2.5. In addition, where District Councils also have an Agency for Civil Parking Enforcement (all Districts except Gosport) there are advantages in the same authority dealing with parking control orders and enforcing them, with close liaison between the traffic management and parking teams.

2.6. Hence the decision was taken to review the Highways Development Control and Traffic Management agencies during 2008 with a view to either updating them or taking the services back to the County Council. In order to prepare for any possible changes, the required two year notice was given to the district councils in March 2007.

3) Negotiations with the districts

3.1. Negotiations on the Highways Development Control and Traffic Management Agency Agreements have taken place with the districts. The main outcomes are:

(a) the majority of districts are keen to continue with their existing Highways Development Control and Traffic Management agencies subject to agreement on terms and funding; and

(b) only East Hampshire District Council has indicated that it is likely to wish to terminate the Highways Development Control agency. This is likely to involve TUPE transfers of two staff and for the service to be delivered from the Area East office.

3.2. All districts wanted to ensure that funding did not decrease and that for some districts the overlap with the Traffic Management agency funding needed to be considered at the same time.

3.3. New draft legal agreements have been provided by the County Council for both agencies and negotiations are ongoing with the districts.

4) Option Analysis/Comparison:

4.1. One of the main considerations for the Highways Development Control agencies is in the proper application of the County Council's Transport Contributions Policy (TCP, the tariff system) and the securing of the contributions collected from developers under S106 agreements for the County Council's capital programme. The new agency agreements will strengthen the County Council's position and provide greater control over securing the contributions.

4.2. Other issues, such as inconsistencies in threshold levels between strategic and non-strategic developments (ie those dealt with by either the Highways Development Control) and the liaison arrangements between the Highways Development Control, would all be improved under the new agreements.

4.3. The current staffing costs paid by the County Council to the agencies is approximately £1 million per year for Development Control and £800,000 per year for Traffic Management.

4.4. There may be opportunities for economies of scale if the Development Control service were taken back by the County Council and delivered directly. The quality of the service delivered by the County Council would be as good, if not better than that currently provided by the districts.

4.5. For Traffic Management however the situation is different. Nearly all the district councils enhance the staff and support resources funded by the County Council, often to a significant extent. The quality of the service is considered to be satisfactory and fits in well with other district functions.

4.6. A large number of temporary and permanent TROs are processed by legal departments of District Agents and if Traffic Management agencies were terminated additional resource to process TROs would be needed in the Chief Executive's Legal Department.

4.7. Where district councils also have an Agency for Civil Parking Enforcement (all Districts except Gosport) there are advantages in the same authority dealing with parking control orders and enforcing them, with close liaison between the traffic management and parking teams.

4.8. There is also an issue in some districts where the Traffic Management and Highways Development Control agencies are delivered by the same team and there may be an issue of viability if the Highways Development Control agency is terminated but not Traffic Management. Hence it was considered important to carry out a joint review of both agencies at the same time.

5) Conclusions:

5.1. For Highways Development Control, the present agency arrangements with the districts councils are in need of review in order to provide a better quality service by enabling districts to deal with development applications more efficiently and consistently county-wide and to ensure that the County Council can maximise the contributions secured for highways purposes under S106 agreements.

5.2. For Traffic Management there is merit in continuing arrangements for district councils to deliver Traffic Management services on behalf of the County Council, particularly in view of the enhancements provided by many district councils and the link with Civil Parking Enforcement, also undertaken by most district councils. A revised agreement with an increased emphasis on efficiency and performance management will provide increased accountability with a clear process for engaging with Members and Hampshire Action Teams to recommend priorities and programmes.

5.3. Termination of the agency agreements is therefore not presently considered to be in the best interests of Hampshire County Council. The newly negotiated agreements will provide more robust control and a more consistent service with better procedures and accountabilities.

6) Recommendations:

6.1. Please see the Executive Summary for the recommendations.

1838Rpt/398/AG

CORPORATE OR LEGAL INFORMATION:

IMPACT ASSESSMENTS:

Equalities Impact Assessment

Assessment of the Race Relations(Amendment) Act has been considered in the development of this proposal. No adverse impact has been identified in terms of race, creed or gender.

Impact on Crime and Disorder

The provisions of the Act have no impact on this proposal.