Agenda item

To consider the enclosed schedule of actions and suggested recommendations to date.

The Group were provided with a list of all the recommendations so far that had been proposed throughout the review and each one was discussed in turn.

The Group also looked through the recommendations that had been suggested in the Northamptonshire scrutiny review as the Members acknowledged that many of the issues raised were the same as the authority were experiencing now.

It was AGREED that the following recommendations be included in the Final Report of this review for the reasons stated:

Recommendation:

That the Executive Cabinet agrees to make representations to the National House-Building Council (NHBC) urging it to encourage developers to recognise the potential benefits to them of the introduction of a mandatory requirement relating to Section 38 agreements.

Reason:

It is recognised that the NHBC represents a powerful voice in the industry as they act as a bondsman for many developers entering Section 38 agreements. The NHBC, rather than the developer, is therefore directly affected if the County Council is required to call in a bond because work required to complete a road to adoptable standard has not been carried out.

Recommendation:

That the Executive Cabinet request Lancashire County Council to consider adopting a more flexible approach to the setting of bonds with developers, that are required before a Section 38 agreement is made to enable the level of bond to be set on a site-by-site basis that reflects the actual cost of completing the road concerned to the standard required of adoption.

Reason:

At present the usual practice for County Councils is to set a bond on a nominal cross section on a per linear metre basis representing 100 per cent of the theoretical cost of constructing the road(s) in question to an adoptable standard. When Chris Bond, Northamptonshire County Council had visited the Group he explained that he had been given delegated authority to set the bonds to reflect more closely the likely cost for construction in the actual case concerned, based on the constructional details that had been approved. This was an approach already being used by other highways authorities and was proving a success. It would also address cases where higher quality materials are used, such as in public realm areas, which would cost the Council more to complete if the developer defaults and the bond had to be called in. The value of the bonds could be reduced when key milestones were reached, such as when roads are put on maintenance. It is important that the level of bonds are not reduced too far, or too soon, to a level where completing Section 38 agreements in order to clear bonds seems unimportant. This step is seen as an incentive to developers and would also support the County Council to be more active in calling-in bonds when a developer has defaulted.

Recommendation:

That the Executive Cabinet agrees to build on existing work with local planning authorities to put in place arrangements to ensure that consideration of road adoption issues commences at the planning application stage of the planning process, including:

·         Designing developments to provide separate access routes for residential and construction traffic

·         A phasing implementation of larger developments

·         Laying out and constructing roads to adoptable standards

That the Executive Cabinet approves the draft set of planning conditions drafted by the National Scrutiny Review.

Reason:

It became clear at the very start of the review that the relationship between the planning process and the adoption of new roads was a key factor in the process. It is extremely important that the local authority should be allowed significant opportunity to exert leverage over developers at the point when they are looking to secure planning permission.

Recommendation:

That the Executive Cabinet be requested to commission a study of the Section 38 ‘caseload’ in the Borough, to provide a full picture of completed and partially completed Section 38 Agreements.

That the Executive Cabinet agree to pursue the development of a map-based system on the Council website to show information about the status of the roads in the county for use by the community. For example a Section that specifically relates too “would you like to live in Chorley”. Potentially this could also be linked to the County Council website.

Evidence taken during the review led the Group to consider whether the difficulties and frustrations that could be experienced by members of the public were a question of how well the road adoptions process was understood, rather than an indication that it was not operating effectively.

Members recognised that the requirements of the road adoptions process and respective responsibilities of the Councils and developers would not be readily apparent to members of the public. Just because a Section 38 agreement was in place did not mean that a road had been adopted or inevitably would be. Residents would not necessarily seek redress from the developer for maintenance and other amenities such as street lighting and litter picking when the road remained unadopted. Also, even if the first owners of a new property were aware of any local road adoption issues, subsequent purchasers did not often have the same knowledge and the Group have sought to identify ways of supporting a greater understanding of the roads adoptions process and its implications for residents.

Members thought that an information portal could be developed on the Councils website that would enable members of the public to access information about the status of particular roads, potentially using the information that would be gathered from the requested commissioned study and may be linked into areas within the Lancashire County Council’s website.

Recommendation:

That the Executive Cabinet agrees to make representations to the Law Society and the Council for Licensed Conveyancers urging them to consider whether conveyancers provide clients with sufficient information about the road adoptions process and how they may be affected by the status of roads serving a property.

Reason:

Even with the proposed measures to include more information for members of the public on the Councils website, the Group recognised that it was not realistic to expect prospective home buyers to be experts in highways and planning law and its implications for them.  Speaking with various residents it became apparent that there were inconsistencies in the provision of information provided by legal professionals involved in the conveyancing process.

Recommendation:

That the Executive Cabinet be requested to commission a study of the Section 38 ‘caseload’ in the Borough, to provide a full status of adoption across the borough.

Reason:

At an early stage in the review, the Group identified the need for a clear picture of the size of the existing ‘caseload’ and the factors preventing the adoptions process from being progressed in each case. Upon its completion, a prioritisation programme should be devised that would address the particular barriers to progressing the adoption processes more effectively.

Recommendation:

That the Executive Cabinet agrees to seek regular dialogue with individual developers concerning their portfolio of roads in the borough to assist in progressing new and existing agreements.

Reason:

Any prioritisation programme would need to be supported by dialogue with the developers concerned. Members noted in the consultation with developers that they had identified the need to appoint one person with the specific task of driving the process of adoption through and thought that both the County and Borough Council needed to mirror this commitment.