Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Steve Holgate and Kim Snape.

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any pecuniary interest in respect of matters contained in this agenda.

If you have a pecuniary interest you must withdraw from the meeting. Normally you should leave the room before the business starts to be discussed. You do, however, have the same right to speak as a member of the public and may remain in the room to enable you to exercise that right and then leave immediately. In either case you must not seek to improperly influence a decision on the matter.

Councillor Julia Berry – Resident of Kittiwake, Heapey

To confirm the minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Task Group – Adoption of Estates meeting held on 17 October 2012 (enclosed)

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the Overview and Scrutiny Task Group – Adoption of Estates meeting held on 17 October 2012 be confirmed as a correct record for signing by the Chair.

A report of the Adoption of New Roads Scrutiny Review that was undertaken by Northamptonshire County Council prior to the work commissioned by the Parliamentary Policy and Legislation Review Working Party is enclosed for information.

Chris Bond, Development Control and Road Adoptions Manager from Northamptonshire County Council attended the meeting to talk to the Group about a scrutiny review that his authority had undertaken on the adoption of new roads in their county area.

Whilst carrying out this review it had become apparent that this was a national issue that was currently faced by many highways authorities, as had been reflected in debates in the House of Commons led by Phillip Hollobone MP.

There were a range of specific challenges concerning the operation of the road adoption process, one of which related to the issue of drainage services that were located under a new road and could affect the adoption process.

Another important issue that had to be addressed was the part played by district and borough councils in the adoption process and the need for them to be involved from the very start on a partnership basis.

Evidence had been sought on the operation of the roads adoptions process and challenges experienced by the other highways authorities; they also considered the conclusion of previous scrutiny reviews on this topic that had been carried out by other authorities.

They also noted a case that had been dealt with by the Local Government Ombudsman in 2007 concerning the construction of a road on a new housing development in Northamptonshire. The ombudsman found that East Northamptonshire Council and Northamptonshire County Council had failed to ensure that residents were properly protected against having to pay the cost of works required in the event that the developer failed to do so. This further illustrated the involvement of both the County Council and district/borough councils in matters relating to the adoption of new roads and the need for effective communication and co-operation between different authorities.

Finally the Working Group had commissioned a study of the Section 38 ‘caseload’ in the county to provide a full picture of completed and partially completed Section 38 Agreement’s, providing a record in each case of the milestones in the adoption process that had been passed, and any outstanding issues that needed to be addressed for further progress to be made.

It had been considered extremely important to understand the current position in Northamptonshire and information collected formed an important part of the evidence base for the scrutiny review and assisted the Group when considering possible action to address the associated challenges.

Members of the Group were informed that Chorley Council had already done a piece of work that had pulled together all the Section 106 Agreements and County Councillor Mike Devaney reported that Lancashire County Council was looking at its own adoption records. However, it was agreed that the Council should consider a resource provision to commission a piece of work that would pull together a comprehensive database.

The findings of the Northamptonshire County Council Working Group had resulted in specific recommendations under two main headings:

a)    Increasing the future effectiveness of the roads adoptions process

·         Limits on highway authority powers

·         The role of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

A copy of a discussion paper that was prepared as part of the Local Highway Authority Sub Group is enclosed for information.

The paper includes the Sub Groups considerations and proposals that were submitted to the Parliamentary Policy and Legislation Review Working Party for the Adoption of New Roads

Chris Bond also explained that in response to the House of Commons debates, Phillip Hammond MP, Secretary of State for Transport commissioned the Department of Transport (DfT) and the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to meet with Local Highway and Planning Authorities to discuss options and opportunities to improve the existing systems associated with the adoption of new streets in developments and any legislative amendments that would assist.

The resultant Policy and Legislation Review Working Party commissioned a sub group of Local Highways authorities, led by Northamptonshire Council, to consider the matter in greater detail and prepare a paper for discussion.

The sub group investigated many of the concerns that the Northamptonshire County Council review had looked into along with other neighbouring authorities.

They considered that the success of the highway adoption process relied on supporting the programme of a developer as much as possible whilst reducing the potential for abortive works. The aspiration should be a seamless transition from the planning arena to the construction phase. They considered a system that could work without reference to current legislation. This enabled a review of the system that identified current shortcomings with existing practice of legislative constraints to such a system.

In summary such a system could include:

•        Defining the functions of a street to ensure it is ‘Fit for Purpose’. A simple checklist approach may assist to avoid doubts.

•        Pre Planning Application consideration of layout, practicality, drainage and whether the proposal would be ‘Fit for Purpose’. This would require far greater detail at the Pre Planning stage but would ensure that all matters that may affect future adoption are considered and explored before an application is submitted. This would also help Local Planning Authorities to fully appreciate and consider highway related matters and implications.

•        Agreement at the Pre Planning stage regarding the future management and maintenance of public areas and infrastructure such as the streets, drainage systems and public open space and amenity areas.

•        A standard Planning Application validation requirement to clearly identify areas of the public realm that would be offered for public adoption be they streets or areas of open space.

•        A standard Planning Condition requiring the details of the management and maintenance of streets/public realm to be submitted. In order to discharge the condition a signed Section 38 agreement or an agreed Private Management Company agreement would be required. The Local Highways Authority Sub Group suggests the following condition:

Prior to the commencement of development hereby permitted details of the future management and maintenance of the proposed streets shall be submitted to and gain the written approval of the local planning authority. The streets thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details.

•           Publication of advice and guidance for all parties in plain English to explain the system as it should work, determining and spreading best practice and ensuring that all parties within or affected by the system feel engaged and can understand the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.