Meeting documents

Members will receive an update on the outcome of a recent review into how S278 works (developer works on the highway) are undertaken and improvements that the service can take forward as a result.

Contributors:

Mr Mark Shaw, Cabinet Member for Transportation

Mr Stephen Walford, Growth and Strategy Director, TEE

Mr Martin Dickman, Environment Services Director, TEE

Miss Christine Urry, Highways Development Management Team Leader, TEE

The Chairman welcomed Mr Mark Shaw, Cabinet Member for Transportation, Mr Stephen Walford, Growth and Strategy Director, TEE, Mr Martin Dickman, Environment Services Director, TEE and Miss Christine Urry, Highways Development Management Team Leader to the meeting.

Mr Walford advised Members that over the past 12 months the public and elected members had raised concerns over works taking place on the highway which were linked to development.  As a result, Mr Walford commissioned an independent improvement report on the work of the Highways Development Management team, which includes S278 and S106.  The report, included in the agenda papers, will provide Mr Martin Dickman, who now has responsibility for this area following the launch of the Transport, Environment and Economy (TEE) Business Unit, with a template of how to take improvements forward.

Miss Christine Urry took members through the report and the following points were discussed:

·         The report highlighted four key areas for improvement – Documentation, Resources, Engagement and Transport for Buckinghamshire (TfB).  The team had responded to the report’s recommendations very positively but it would be impossible to deliver all 32 recommendations immediately, due to the current staffing pressures.

·         Martin Dickman emphasised that making these improvements was a high priority for his service.  The report recognised that the team was small and over-stretched and recommended adding an additional five posts.  This would have to be discussed with the Cabinet Member and considered as part of the Medium Term Planning budget process. 

·         Income generation opportunities via new funding streams such as Planning Performance Agreements were being investigated. Also pre-application advice could still be charged for.

·         Christine Urry explained that S278 and S38 charges are a percentage of the total cost of the works and therefore BCC charges are similar to others local authorities. 

·         Members were concerned to hear that there were no Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or service level agreements in place with TfB to ensure that their contribution to the work of the HDM team was completed in a timely manner.  The HDM team have been working informally to ensure that the relevant TfB teams have an understanding of the timescales which need to be met, but in the longer term it might be helpful to introduce a more formal KPI arrangement.  The Cabinet Member reminded the Committee that the overall revised KPIs for the TfB contract had been recently agreed and it was agreed that the new contract would be shared with the Committee.

Action: Cabinet Member for Transportation

·         Discussions took place on the following issues: whether it was possible for BCC to fund infrastructure within developments and then be refunded by the developer at a later stage, developers contributing funding for future parking issues on developments and adoption of highways.

·         It was suggested that TfB had been overcharging developers in connection with S106 works. Stephen Walford explained that this was not just a TfB issue, but a commissioning one – alternative providers can be used but over the past few years, where S106 work had been quite a reactive process then TfB had been the main provider.  TfB should be aiming to make a profit as a commercial entity but equally market testing should be part of the S106 approach.  John Rippon would be able to give members more detail when he updated the Committee on its S106 Inquiry report progress in November.

·         One area where the HDM team had been commended was its liaison with local members and the public, although this was seen as very resource intensive.  The officers were reminded that major developments in Bucks would lead to major reactions from the people affected and it was important that officers should deal with this sensitively.  It was hoped that by improving processes around the HDM work, experienced officers would then have more time to provide good quality advice to the public and developers alike.

It was agreed that Martin Dickman and Christine Urry would return to the Committee with an update on the progress of implementing the recommended improvements in six months’ time.

Action: Committee Adviser