26-Mar-10 - Hertfordshire County Council

Road Adoption Process
To consider how well the
County Council is conforming to
its road adoption procedures and
how well they are working.
February 2010
Report of the Topic Group
Tom Hawkyard
Head of Scrutiny
01992 555589
1

Contents
1.0 Purpose of Report 3
2.0 Recommendations 3
3.0 Background 4
4.0 Conclusions 5
5.0 Members and Witnesses 9
Appendix 1 Scoping Document
2

ROAD ADOPTION PROCESS TOPIC GROUP REPORT
1.0 Purpose of Report
1.1 This is the report of the Road Adoption Process Topic Group which
eamines how well the County council is conforming to its road adoption
procedures and assesses how well they are working.
1.2 The scoping document can be seen at Appendix 1. The papers issued
to Members prior to the meeting can be found at: RAPTGAgendapapers
1.3 It should be noted that the report does not seek to address specific road
adoption schemes, though some case studies were presented as evidence
in order to illustrate a number of the problems members heard about.
2.0 Recommendations
2.1 To ask the Chairman of OSC to write to all Hertfordshire MP’s and the Local
Government Association (LGA) expressing concerns at the inability of local
authorities to oblige developers to enter S38 Agreement in order that
highways can be adopted and asking that a way of altering legislation be
explored. (4.1)
2.2 To ensure, where possible, there is:
• one named contact in the Environment Department for districts and
developers to contact when dealing with large developments,
• a close working relationship between district and county officers
throughout the planning process that takes advantage of local
knowledge,
• continuity of officers dealing with large applications,
• improved communication between staff within Environment and between
Environment and Mouchel,
• early intervention in the adoption process,
• clarity on the fees to be charged from the outset of agreements,
• only one request to deal with remedial works,
• a speedy highway and/or street lighting inspection at the end of the
adoption process. (4.6, 4.7 and 4.8)
2.3 To ask the Environment Department to make the utility companies aware of
the difficulties their organisations can cause in the process of adoption. (4.7)
2.4 To investigate whether the County Council should suggest that that
developers use S37 of the Highways Act to offer roads for adoption. (4.10)
2.5 To ask the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) to undertake a scrutiny
in 18 months time that focuses on measuring the effectiveness of the
implementation of the recommendations on highways adoption agreed by
the Highways and Transport Panel at their meeting on 10 th November 2009.
(4.11)
3

3.0 Background
3.1 The scrutiny has arisen following concern from members of the County
Council and District Councils at the perceived time it can take for a road to
be adopted and the failure of some developers to ensure that new roads are
of a standard to be able to be adopted.
3.2 The County Council is the Highway Authority and has a responsibility to
keep all adopted public roads and pavements safe for everyone to use,
however not all roads are adopted.
3.3 For the Highway Authority to adopt a road it must be designed and built
to adoptable standards, be on land in the ownership of the developer and
connected to the public highway network. All street furniture such as street
lights, etc should be approved. The foul water and surface sewers must
have been adopted by the Water Authority. Section 38 of the Highways Act
1980 sets out the power of Highway Authorities to adopt by agreement.
3.4 The current approach to highway adoption is that all roads serving five
houses or more (with the exception of short cul-de-sac), footways and
verges, footpaths and cycle tracks which are necessary for public access or
passage and are connected to another part of the highway maintained at
the public expense will be considered for adoption. Commercial and
industrial roads are considered for adoption where there is a clear benefit to
the general public or in the interest of creating an improved highway
network or better management of traffic
3.5 Private roads and streets are not maintained by the County Council and
could be in a condition that does not meet the standard of adopted roads.
They are also not covered by the Environmental Protection Act. The
responsibility for private roads and streets lies with the road owners. The
County Council as Highways Authority can only maintain adopted highways
where it has taken on the legal responsibility for maintenance.
3.6 The adoption process is managed for the County Council by the
Hertfordshire Highways Service Management Team (HCC), with technical
support from the Hertfordshire Highways Design Team (Mouchel).
The exceptions to this situation are in Broxbourne and Stevenage where the
boroughs still have Agency Agreements with the County Council, under
which they are responsible for the adoption process in relation to residential
roads.
3.7 The scrutiny focussed on four areas:
• How does the current process work?
• What factors can delay the adoption process?
• Do we ensure that all roads are maintained?
• Can the adoption process be improved?
The minutes of the scrutiny can be seen at: RAPTGAgendapapers
4

4 Conclusions
4.1 Members heard that when Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) grant
planning permission for a development that includes new roads, they
cannot impose planning conditions regarding the extent of highway
adoption or the timing of the adoption process nor do they have any
power to force a developer to put a road up for adoption. They were
also concerned to hear that there are no incentives for developers to
enter into Section 38 Agreements. As a result developers currently
initiate the process by dictating when they enter into a Section 38
adoption agreement. This agreement sets out the design and adoption
time limits. New agreements include a bond for the entire cost of
constructing the road which may be used by the Highway Authority to
bring the road up to an adoptable standard should the developer
default. Members also noted that in the current economic climate
there is a risk that fewer Section 38 adoption agreements may be
entered into because developers do not have resources to fund the
bond. Members were also made aware that the Highway Authority
may choose not to adopt a road where there are no highway benefits.
(Recommendation 2.1)
4.2 The Advance Payments Code (APC) within the Highways Act 1980
secures payment of the expenses of completing the roadworks in unadopted
roads next to new buildings. This makes sure that the street
works authority can complete the road works if the developer fails to
complete them. If work is started on a building before the appropriate
sum has been paid or secured, the owner may have to pay a fine of up
to £1000 per building. The Code was introduced to guard against the
post-war problem of small speculative developers and offers no
protection for the Highway Authority on today’s large developments
where access roads may not have houses on the road and therefore
not be covered by the Code or where there are many properties each
of which has to be dealt with separately and strict time constraints
which preclude this action.
4.3 Members were advised that the APC is not implemented by Hertfordshire
County Council and has not been for at least 30 years. Some of the districts
followed it when they had highway agency agreements as the necessary
communication between planners, building control and highways was much
easier in one organisation. Officers have recently sought legal advice on the
position regarding the Code. The County’s Legal Services teams share
highways officers’ view that this would be highly resource-intensive and give
little protection against the problems currently besetting Hertfordshire. Benchmarking
against other Highway Authorities show that those following the
Code are in the minority and are mostly single-tier authorities where the
necessary communication between planners and highway engineers is more
easily achieved. Members also noted that building control is not always
managed by local authorities, possibly resulting in HCC not being notified of
outcomes.
5

4.4 Members were advised that there are a range of reasons why a road
does not progress to adoption namely:
• The whole adoption process can be delayed by the timing of the
developer entering into a Section 38 agreement. Delays may occur due
to developers putting road works for adoption late in the process or
developers failing to enter into a legal agreement to cover design checks
and supervision fees.
• The developer never enters a Section 38 agreement.
• In order for a road to be adopted every element of it has to be
constructed to the standards set in the Hertfordshire Design Guide,
‘Roads in Hertfordshire – A Guide for New Developments’ (RiH) unless a
departure from standard has been agreed by HCC.
• Street furniture, such as streetlights must be approved and foul water
and surface water sewers must be adopted by the Water Authority.
• On larger developments the completed road may be used as site access
for other phases of the development and therefore adoption may be
undertaken on completion of the whole development. This may raise
further complications if the site is divided by different developers and on
completion of construction of works some developers leave the site
without the roads being adopted.
4.5 Members were concerned to hear that when searches are undertaken
on behalf of those moving house the information coming back may not be
explicit as to whether a road is going to be adopted i.e. it may indicate a
Section 38 agreement is being progressed even when there is no likelihood
of a road actually being adopted.
4.6 Members heard from HTCOA (Hertfordshire Technical Chief Officers
Association) of the importance of continuity of contacts particularly when
managing the process around large developments where it is easiest to
have one person at HCC acting as the main contact. HTCOA emphasised
the importance of good communications between the county and district
over planning issues noting that where there are a number of people who
have to be contacted in order to reach a decision that the process
immediately slows up and decision making may not be as effective.
(Recommendation 2.2)
4.7 Members took verbal and written evidence from District Councillors and
officers. Key points made were:
• Residents on unadopted roads continue paying the full Council Tax but
could be precluded from receiving a full range of environmental services
and are not covered by the Environmental Protection Act.
• Delays in the adoption of sewers has the knock on effect of delaying the
adoption of a road. (Recommendation 2.3)
• The County policy of seeking to adopt roads with more than five
houses on them may be unsustainable in the longer term given the
pressure on highways maintenance budgets.
6

• Developers should be encouraged to set up management
companies to take responsibility for unadopted roads and the
associated services.
• The importance of regular checks on sites.
• Close working between the planning and highway authorities.
(Recommendation 2.2)
4.8 Members took evidence from TDS (Technical and Design Services
who work on behalf of house builders to assist with adoption of roads.
They specialise in sewerage and highway developments. Their
representatives fed back to the Topic Group their experiences and
those of developers in Hertfordshire when dealing with the adoption
process. Their main concerns were:
• Poor communications.
• Lack of cohesion within parts of Environment and between HCC
and Mouchel.
• The length of time it takes to get the various approvals.
• A lack of understanding of the fee structure allied to a perception
there is overcharging with fees sometimes as high as the remedial
work undertaken.
• Multiple inspections.
• Safety Audits at odds with the technically approved drawings.
• Slowness of street lighting inspections.
(Recommendation 2.2)
4.9 TDS emphasised that generally developers were keen to enter S38
agreements not least because they did not want the liabilities associated
with an unadopted infrastructure. They also acknowledged that the service
they and developers get from HCC is improving.
4.10 Members took evidence from the Highways Development Control Manager
at Cambridgeshire County Council where many of the concerns raised in
Hertfordshire are also being experienced. Cambridgeshire did not apply the
APC and agreed with the limitations of the approach expressed in other
evidence. Members were particularly interested to hear how in certain very
particular circumstances the County were using S37 of the Highways Act
1980 to adopt roads. S37 allows a developer who has built a road to offer it
for adoption. The local authority can only refuse to adopt it if it offers no
public utility or has not been constructed properly. Members asked that
Environment look at whether this is an approach Hertfordshire could use to
clear some of the backlog. (Recommendation 2.4)
7

4.11 Members were advised that a report on Highway Adoption for New Roads
had been to the 10 th November Highways & Transport Panel. The key
recommendations of the report, which are now being introduced, are:
a) In order to give greater clarity:
on developments with no through route, only the main access road will
be considered for adoption. Residential access roads serving
underground car parks, supported by structures or taking the form of
short cul-de-sac with no wider highway benefit will not be considered for
adoption.
b) In order to give earlier certainty:
the extent of adoption should be agreed in principle by the developer
and Highway Authority (planning and implementation teams) at the
planning stage. This should be recorded in the planning consultation
response.
c) In order to achieve a signed Section 38 Agreement as quickly as
possible:
pressure should be brought to bear on developers to enter into S 38
Agreements by the use of highway informative notes in the planning
consultation response.
d) In order to ensure long-term maintenance of un-adopted roads for the
benefit of residents:
if the developer states that they do not want to offer roads for adoption,
the long term maintenance of private (un-adopted) roads in residential
developments should be secured as a standard requirement through a
S106 obligation.
e) In order to give greater clarity to residents:
street name plates on un-adopted roads should clearly identify them as
such (this will require co-operations with the developer / LPA)
f) In order to improve joint working for collective benefit:
it is recommended that the aspects requiring cooperation of the Local
Planning Authorities are discussed with them and protocols established
under the Pathfinder banner.
g) In order to reduce the numbers of roads waiting to be adopted:
the backlogs of historical adoptions should continue to be actively
managed down by Hertfordshire County Council officers as quickly as
resources permit.
Members of the Topic Group endorsed these changes, though some
members were concerned that the decision not to adopt cul-de-sacs may
prove problematic. They asked that OSC consider adding to their work
programme a further one day scrutiny of Road Adoptions, to take place
in the autumn of 2011, that focussed on the implementation of the
recommendations detailed above. (Recommendation 2.5)
8

5 Members and Witnesses
Members
Eddie Roach (Chairman)
Geoff Churchard (Vice - Chairman)
Rose Cheswright
Fiona Hill
Chris Mitchell
Other Members in attendance
Terry Heritage Deputy Executive Member for Highways and Transport
(day 2)
Stuart Pile Executive Member for Highways and Transport (day 1)
Alan Searing Chairman Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC)
Witnesses
Chris Conway Planning Director (Strategy and Development)
Welwyn/Hatfield Borough Council
Paul Fleming Associate Development Director Technical and Development
Services (Midlands) on behalf of house builders
Nick Gough Western Area Highways Development Control Manager HCC
Tom Greasley Development Engineer Technical and Development
Services (Midlands) on behalf of house builders
David Humby Head of Transportation Planning and Policy HCC
Steve Johnson Head of Network Management Hertfordshire Highways
Paul Mason Councillor and Chair of Environmental Services Committee
Broxbourne Borough Council
Walter Osedeme Senior Engineer (Transport and Development) Stevenage
Borough Council
Brian Peers City and District Engineer St Albans City and District
Council
Sue Reynolds Highways DC Manager Cambridgeshire CC
Tony Swendell Councillor St Albans City and District Council
Vetti Vettivelu. Highways Development Control Manager HCC
Officers
Tom Hawkyard
Adrian Service
Head of Scrutiny
Democratic Services Officer
9

SCRUTINY REMIT: Hertfordshire County Council’s Appendix 1
Road Adoption Process
TITLE: of Topic Group :
Road Adoption Process Topic Group
OBJECTIVE:
To assess how well the County Council is conforming to its road adoption
procedures and how well they are working.
QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED :
1. How does the current process work?
2. What factors can delay the adoption process?
3. Do we ensure that all roads are maintained?
4. Can the adoption process be improved?
OUTCOME :
To establish whether anything could be done to improve the road adoption process.
CONSTRAINTS :
Case studies may be presented as evidence, but individual schemes will not be
discussed.
EVIDENCE & WITNESSES:
Road adoption Policy and Process Witness
Policy and process on adoption
David Humby – Head of Transportation
(including report to Highway and Planning and Policy.
Transport Panel meeting 10/11/09)
Highway design standards- Response to Nick Gough – Area Highways
planning application consultation. Development Control Manager for
Roads in Herts and Manual for Streets. SW Hertfordshire
Benchmarking
Role and responsibility of the planning District Council Witness.
authority on internal design and extent of Chris Conway– WHDC
adoption
Brian Peers- St Albans City& DC
Implementation Process - S38
Steve Johnson – Head of Network
Design/supervision/ legal agreements, Management
contacts with utility bodies, bonds and
completion certificate
Alternative approach – Advance Payment Vetti Vettivelu. - Highways Development
Code – benefits and dis benefits and why Control services Manager.
it is not a suitable route for HCC
Way forward on road adoption to ensure David Humby - Head of Transportation
adequate processes are in place for Planning and Policy.
speedy adoption or long term maintenance
Concerns Over Adoption District Council Members –
Cllrs Paul Mason and Tony Swendell
10

Road adoption issues from the house
builders point of view
Policy and process on adoption
(including report to Highway and
Transport Panel meeting 10/11/09)
Highway design standards- Response to
planning application consultation.
Roads in Herts and Manual for Streets.
Benchmarking
Tom Greasley & Paul Fleming – Home
Builders Federation
David Humby – Head of Transportation
Planning and Policy.
Nick Gough – Area Highways
Development Control Manager for
SW Hertfordshire
METHOD: One off scrutiny over 2 days DATES: 24 & 25 February 2010
MEMBERSHIP :
Rose Cheswright, Geoff Churchard, Fiona Hill, Chris Mitchell & Eddie Roach
SUPPORT :
Scrutiny Officer: : Tom Hawkyard
Lead Officers: David Humby
Democratic Services Officer: Adrian Service
HCC Priorities for Action : - how this item helps deliver the Priorities
The following statement demonstrate how appropriate adoption of roads aids
in the delivery of the below list HCC Priorities.
When highways are not adopted it can lead to issues in relation to maintenance
of road, street cleaning, lack of pedestrian facilities, poor standards of street
lighting, drainage, highway enforcement on parking/obstruction , poor
appearance of residential area and local amenity.
Properly designed and built roads to adoptable standard and maintained either
by the local highway authority or other private arrangements would improve
and enhance the delivery of priorities listed below:
1. Support economic well being
2. Maximise independent living
3. Reduce carbon emissions
4. Promote safe neighbourhoods
5. Be a leading council
CfP’S OBJECTIVES :
1. Provides a critical friend challenge to executive policy makers and decision makers
2. Enables the voice and concerns of the public to be heard
3. Is carried out by independent governors who lead and own the scrutiny role
4. Drives improvement in public services
11

For further information about this report please contact:
Tom Hawkyard
Head of Scrutiny
Room 322,
County Hall,
Hertford,
SG13 8DQ
Tel: 01992 555589
www.hertsdirect.org
12