Agenda item

Question Time

Meeting of Cabinet, Tuesday, 15th February, 2022 10.00 am (Item 5.)

Question from Councillor Stuart Wilson to Councillor Steve Broadbent, Cabinet Member for Transport

“Excessive Traffic Congestion, Delays and Carbon Emissions for Residents and Businesses: An Overhaul Required for the Buckinghamshire Permit Scheme

In line with the Buckinghamshire Permit Scheme (BuPS) Objective to manage and maintain the local highway network “to maximise the safe and efficient use of road space and provide reliable journey times” and with Paragraph 1.8.2 Improving Performance, what efforts are being made on non-emergency works to put residents and local businesses first by:

Enhancing coordination and cooperation.
Encourage partnership and collaborative working between all stakeholder groups.
Provide more timely information including members of the public.
Improve timing and duration of activities, particularly the busiest streets.
Promote dialogue on how activities will be carried out.
Enhance programming of activities and better forward planning by all promoters

and, in line with Paragraph 18.4, which provides for an evaluation of the Permit Scheme following the first, second, and third anniversaries of its inception and every third year thereafter, will the Cabinet Member for Transport commit to a thorough overhaul of the BuPS to put the interests of residents, local business and the environment firstrather than the current sole focus of Key Performance Indicators on parity for the activity promoters?”

Question from Councillor Robin Stuchbury to Councillor Nick Naylor, (Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Regulatory Services)

“At the Council meeting on 9 December 2020, a Notice of Motion was considered on ‘Buckinghamshire Council becoming a Social Housing Provider’. It was resolved to call on Cabinet to instruct Officers to commission a report detailing both current and future possible affordable housing delivery models, including local authority owned social housing, which would maximise the provision of the best range of good quality affordable housing appropriate to the needs of residents.

In light of the fact that the Council will be setting a budget next weekend and that it should reflect previous commitments and agreements, could the Cabinet Member please update me on the progress that has been made with this important issue?”

Question from Councillor Karen Bates to Councillor Martin Tett, Leader of the Council and Councillor Peter Strachan, Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change

“Greatmoor Energy from Waste Facility

Buckinghamshire Council has a 30 year contract with FCC for the management of residual waste at the Greatmoor Waste Incinerator near Buckingham. This contract was drawn up between BCC and FCC in 2013.

Yet in 2021 there was a dispute resulting in a High Court case. Buckinghamshire Council won on all counts except one. However, this one dispute resulted in Buckinghamshire Council being ordered to pay FCC £504 000 which including interest came to £812 000.?

It is good that there is now legal clarification on all aspects of the income share element but please could Members be informed of?

the full cost including legal fees to BC and residents?
how this will be accounted for in the current financial year, the Budget and the MTFP?
whether this has contributed to the forced cuts elsewhere, such as Community Board funding.”?

Minutes:

Question from Councillor Stuart Wilson to Councillor Steve Broadbent, Cabinet Member for Transport

“Excessive Traffic Congestion, Delays and Carbon Emissions for Residents and Businesses: An Overhaul Required for the Buckinghamshire Permit Scheme

· Enhancing coordination and cooperation.

· Encourage partnership and collaborative working between all stakeholder groups.

· Provide more timely information including members of the public.

· Improve timing and duration of activities, particularly the busiest streets.

· Promote dialogue on how activities will be carried out.

· Enhance programming of activities and better forward planning by all promoters

and, in line with Paragraph 18.4, which provides for an evaluation of the Permit Scheme following the first, second, and third anniversaries of its inception and every third year thereafter, will the Cabinet Member for Transport commit to a thorough overhaul of the BuPS to put the interests of residents, local business and the environment first rather than the current sole focus of Key Performance Indicators on parity for the activity promoters?”

RESPONSE from Councillor Broadbent

“In response to the various elements of the question, please see the following:

Background

Buckinghamshire County Council went live with a Permit scheme on its strategic roads in November 2013. This proved effective in improving the management and coordination of streetworks on those roads. Subsequently, in April 2020, to widen its ability to manage such works, a new, extended scheme, covering all roads was introduced.

Enhancing coordination and cooperation.

Utility companies and others working on the highway have statutory rights and obligations to do so.

National and local targets for housing and development mean there is a much greater need for further infrastructure to provide more housing, schools and commercial areas. Alongside this, there has been a huge increase in telecommunication works to install the superfast broadband network. All of this, together with utility replacement programmes for ageing infrastructure, such as gas and water mains, has led to a massive increase in the number of permits to work that we issue. This was 20000 permits in 2018/19and is now already over 63000 in the current financial year. Superimposed on this work, are emergency works which we have no control over, and this can sometimes occur close to other works taking place, leading to disruption and congestion that is difficult to manage. In such case, we will always try to ask works promoters to pause and remove traffic management, but this is not always practical depending on the progress of their work. So far this financial year (2021/22) we have issued 1756 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN’S) to Utilities for their breaches of legislation along with 124 occasions of overruns. Furthermore, we have issued a total of 1547 refusals, duration challenges modification requests and revoked Permits to Utility Companies Instructing them to do things on the Network differently. We have also issued 2511 defects against their poor quality of workmanship on the Network which instructs them to carry out the works again in accordance with legislation.

Every Permit to work is coordinated by a team of Permit Coordinators. This team has recently been increased by four to accommodate the increase in Permit numbers over the past two years. We are currently recruiting for these posts.

Encourage partnership and collaborative working between all stakeholder groups

We always encourage collaborative working with works promoters, but we have no powers to force them to do so. Very often, such coordination is impractical, given competing needs for space within the highway and working practices. For example, works combining water and electricity are usually not possible, neither are electricity and gas. Broadband and telecoms companies are also very reluctant to collaborate as they are all in competition with each other.

Provide more timely information including members of the public

All works that happen on the Network are visible on one.network. Residents and stakeholders can set up alerts so that they are notified of any works on the Network in their area or on routes they use. This is a live system and it also displays congestion levels, and contact details for each item of work. For High Impact works, Advance Warning Signs will be put out advising road users. These can be in the form of Electronic Boards, or VMS as well as traditional A boards. We also encourage letter drops and the use of Social Media to engage with residents and road users. For our own planned works, we will issues notices to residents and send out a weekly Roadworks press release to the media and stakeholders. In addition, we also use social-media channels to alert the public to disruptive works wherever possible.

Improve timing and duration of activities, particularly the busiest streets

We currently attach conditions to Permits which restrict when works can take place and to carry out manual control of temporary traffic lights during peak times. We will encourage working at nights when not in residential areas, though this is dependent on the works and traffic management being able to be taken down during the day. Our Streetworks Technicians have the authority to impose financial penalties to any works promotor in breach of their permit conditions.

Promote dialogue on how activities will be carried out

Utilities have a legal, statutory right to maintain and install their apparatus in the Highway. Where larger works take place site meetings are arranged with them to discuss works and timings, including consideration of working longer hours and in school holidays.

We also regularly challenge works promoters on the appropriate use of traffic management, to try and ensure the least disruptive method is used where appropriate, whether that be using lights instead of a road closure, or working entirely within the verge instead of lights. Ultimately though, the type of traffic management used is a decision for the works promoter based on their own risk assessments, which need to take into account safety of both their workforce and the travelling public.

· Enhance programming of activities and better forward planning by all promoters and, in line with Paragraph 18.4, which provides for an evaluation of the Permit Scheme following the first, second, and third anniversaries of its inception and every third year thereafter, will the Cabinet Member for Transport commit to a thorough overhaul of the BuPS to put the interests of residents, local business and the environment first rather than the current sole focus of Key Performance Indicators on parity for the activity promoters

For larger works, we always encourage works promoters to hold information meetings with local Councillors and stakeholders to explain why the works are taking place and what they will entail. Our street works team will have planning meetings with the works promoters to discuss the potential impact of the works on businesses, residents and the local environment, using their experience and local knowledge.

Overhaul of the Permit Scheme

Our permit scheme is reviewed in line with the DfT requirements to ensure we are compliant with the latest legislation and that we are carrying out our enforcement duties correctly. The first review report for the first year of the current Permit scheme is due in the next few weeks and will be available on the Buckinghamshire Council website.

Alongside the Buckinghamshire Permit scheme we have to work to five other pieces of legislation relating to Streetworks which sets out the powers we have over works promoters, balancing this with their statutory right to work on the Highway.

The performance indicators referred to are specified by the DfT to measure parity of our own works with utility companies to ensure we are treating them fairly. These are not optional. We do, however, have a range of other management and performance indicators to track our own performance in carrying out our Network Management Duty, as well as a system of fines and improvement notices for poor performance by the utility companies. These include the number of works where coordination of different promoters has been achieved, the number of inspections carried out to review safety and congestion during works and the quality of reinstatements at various periods after the work is complete.”

Question from Councillor Robin Stuchbury to Councillor Nick Naylor, Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Regulatory Services

“Social Housing Provision

At the Council meeting on 9 December 2020, a Notice of Motion was considered on ‘Buckinghamshire Council becoming a Social Housing Provider’.? It was resolved to call on Cabinet to instruct Officers to commission a report detailing both current and future possible affordable housing delivery models, including local authority owned social housing, which would maximise the provision of the best range of good quality affordable housing appropriate to the needs of residents.

In light of the fact that the Council will be setting a budget next week and that it should reflect previous commitments and agreements, could the Cabinet Member please update me on the progress that has been made with this important issue?”

RESPONSE from Councillor Naylor

“The Housing Service is working with other teams in the authority to prepare an overarching Housing Strategy in 2022/23.

This overarching strategy will sit above the Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy which is currently in draft form and being considered by Cabinet, before a public consultation commences. The overarching Housing Strategy will cover targets for the provision of affordable, key worker, socially rented and specialist housing, amongst other issues.

An interim ‘position statement’ on affordable housing will be reported to Cabinet in March 2022. This position statement has been developed following work done by a member led Task and Finish Group, chaired by myself.

A review of possible schemes for development on Council owned land is also being worked on, currently. This review will highlight the various options that will be open to members when giving consideration to the use of Council owned land.

Uncommitted capital funding of £4.0m is available to support the delivery of affordable housing projects once they are agreed.

I am working with the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member Planning and Regeneration, the Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources, Property and Assets, and Cabinet as a whole, to move this important issue forward.”

Question from Councillor Karen Bates to Councillor Martin Tett, Leader of the Council and Councillor Peter Strachan, Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change

“Greatmoor Energy from Waste Facility

It is good that there is now legal clarification on all aspects of the income share element but please could Members be informed of?

· the full cost including legal fees to BC and residents?

· how this will be accounted for in the current financial year, the Budget and the MTFP?

· whether this has contributed to the forced cuts elsewhere, such as Community Board funding.”?

RESPONSE from Councillor Strachan

As noted the Council won all counts with the exception of one issue following the dispute with the current contractor for the Energy for Waste facility. Following this ruling the Council has engaged the contractor to review the detailed financial assumptions in order to determine the payments owed to the Council. These are complex contractual and financial issues and the parties are not yet in a position to agree the payments but it is anticipated that this will result in a net financial payment to the Council which will include the payment made by the Council to the Contractor in respect of the one claim which the court found in the contractor’s favour.

The payment made by the Council to the Contractor was made in this financial year (21/22), in accordance with the instruction from the Court and was budgeted from a dedicated financial reserve for the waste service which ensured there was no wider impact on the Council’s General Fund. This also ensures that there is no impact on the Council’s revenue budget or the future Medium Term Financial plan.

Given that the overall position is anticipated to result in a net income to the Council, this situation has not resulted in any determinantal impact on the Council’s revenue position and has certainly not contributed to the need for any reduction in financial expenditure elsewhere for any other Council services.