HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
TUESDAY 4 MARCH 2008 AT 10.00 AM
Agenda Item
No.
4
HIGHWAYS DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REVIEW
Report of the Director of Environment
Authors: David Humby, Head of Transportation Planning & Policy Unit (TPPU)
Vetti Vettivelu, Highways Development Control Service Manager, (TPPU)
Philip Andrews, Acting Development Control Manager, Herts Highways
Executive Member:
Stuart Pile
1.
Purpose of Report
1.1
To provide information for the Environment Scrutiny Committee to consider the
following:
I.
Is the Highways Development Control service providing timely,
appropriate and quality advice on planning applications to District
Councils?
II.
How Members (County and District) are involved in:
(a)
(b)
(c)
III.
the planning application process;
the Section 106 process;
the implementation stage of development.
Has the reorganisation of Highways Development Control been effective?
2.
Summary
2.1
The report outlines the role and remit and of the Highway Development Control
Service and identifies certain issues for consideration and review by the
Committee.
3.
Conclusion
3.1
The Committee is invited to consider the information contained in this report and
advise the executive member of the result of their scrutiny.
81909264 Review
1
4.
Background
4.1 Highways Development Control relates to the role of the County Council, as
Highway Authority in :a) responding to consultations from Local Planning Authority on planning
applications, assessing the transportation implications and negotiating any
planning obligations;
b) approving detailed design and highway works to be carried out by developers
in implementing planning permissions.
4.2
A more detailed background report outlining the development control process in
relation to legislation, current roles and responsibilities, performance, quality, resources,
future trends and pressures is included as Appendix 1 to this report.
5.
Issues for scrutiny
5.1
Is the Highways DC service providing timely, appropriate and quality
advice on planning applications to District Councils?
The County Council, as the local Highway Authority (LHA), is a statutory consultee for
developments where the District / Borough Councils are the local Planning Authority
(LPA) who make the decision on the suitability or otherwise of developments.
The County Council has 21 days to respond to the LPA except for large developments
where the consultation period is extended. The speed of response is monitored and
shown in the following table.
Year
2005
2006
2007
Planning
applications
received
5085
5860
5192
Responded in
time
Notes
4085 (80.3%)
5118 (87.3%)
4164 (86.0%)
The target response figure for
the unit is 85% within 21 days
The response rate has improved significantly since 2005 and on average meets the
target set by the Local Planning Authority.
District Councils have previously raised concerns about the timing and quality of
responses submitted and the negotiation and processing of legal agreements. There
was inconsistency in the approach taken to securing contributions or works on the
highway and issues identified around the management and use of s106 funding.
The centralisation of the service within the TPPU has improved the consistency of the
responses submitted. The centrally managed function enables officers greater
opportunity to ensure increased quality and consistency of responses to planning
applications. The wording of responses has been reviewed and standardised in revised
documents and procedures.
A survey to determine the views of LPAs on the service has recently been carried out.
LPAs were requested to feedback on their experience of Highways Development
81909264 Review
2
Control selecting their satisfaction rating from either excellent, good, satisfactory, or
poor. Comments received so far are summarised below :-
1
2
3
What is good about the
service
What is not so good about
the service
Service greatly improved in
both accuracy and
timeliness.
Service good in terms of
accuracy, clarity and
consistency. Excellent in
meeting timescales, regular
meetings useful.
Service good in terms of
consistency and meeting
timescales. Fortnightly
meetings with HCC officer
are an improvement.
Advice is clear and officers
willing to solve problems
Need to consider comments
regarding conditions affecting
3rd party land.
Do not give advice on roads
not to be adopted. Changes
in personnel losing
experience.
*For s106 requests require
clear updated information on
schemes finance is used for.
Time taken for legal to
complete agreements is slow
and not flexible.
Service
meets
needs of
the LPA
Good
Satisfaction
with service
overall
Good
Level of
service
since reorganisation
Good
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Poor
Satisfactory
Good
(See *
adjacent)
To date 3 LPAs have responded to the consultation and any further feedback received
will be reported at the meeting.
5.2
How Members (County and District) are involved the planning application
process
As a general rule when a development is above the thresholds for a Transport
Assessment (TA) (see Appendix 1,section 3.2) , or is anticipated to be controversial,
County Members are consulted at the earliest possible stage and asked for any
comments they may wish to make. If a large application is at the border of a county
division the adjoining Member will also be informed.
Under the current scheme of delegations approved by the county council, officers have
delegated powers to submit the response to the LPA. An exception to this has been
Key Sites such as Park Plaza and Watford Health Campus where the Development
Control Committee is consulted to inform the Director of Environment of their views for
him to regard in his response to the planning application.
Officers from the TPPU will take a decision on when to consult with Members based on
the process mentioned above. This working practice has been developed considering
the number of consultations received, around 6000 per year, the size and implications
of the majority of these which are generally small, and the need to respond within 21
days. When responding to the LPA the LHA must ensure its comments are objective
and defendable at appeal. If comments are deemed unreasonable the LHA may be
liable for costs. Where County and District Members request information on
applications in their area relevant information is provided from the database.
In responding to planning applications the County Council is responding as LHA and
District Members are not directly consulted. It is for the LPA to consult their own
Members, however they will need to consider their position if they are specifically
involved in the Development Control Committee process.
81909264 Review
3
Members may wish to consider the current working practice of the TPPU and explore
whether a specific protocol should be developed for consultation.
5.3
How Members (County and District) are involved in the Section 106
process
5.3.1 Negotiating Planning Obligations
The County Council recently approved specific guidance for officers and developers
regarding the s106 process (Cabinet 21/01/08). The toolkit document sets out a
standard charge for highways and sustainable transport based on the number of
dwellings or vehicle trips associated with a proposed development.
The development of this guidance is in line with best practice to speed up the planning
process and give more certainty to developers of what may be required from them. It
extends the range of developments from which S106 contributions are received and
provides a general guide on how to deal with larger developments which are still
negotiated on an individual basis.
The majority of s106 negotiations across the County are for small developments and
the approved document is used. When a development is above the TA threshold
County Members are consulted as mentioned in 5.2 above. Representatives from
Hertfordshire Highways, Passenger Transport Unit, and Rights of Way are also
consulted on larger development proposals and invited to list measures that they may
wish for the developer to provide. Officers from these units are at the front line of the
service and will be aware of local issues, needs, and priorities, they also have regular
contact with Members and the community.
The development control case officer will consider all representations before taking a
balanced view and determining what will be requested from the developer recognising
relevant Government guidance. As mentioned above, for key sites the final responses
is guided by Members.
A key issue in relation to s106 obligations is that the process is a negotiation with the
developer and will be dependant on their willingness to provide the obligation, it also
requires the support of the LPA, all of which are outside the control of the county
council.
5.3.2 Expenditure of s106 Finance
In order to identify schemes to be funded from s106 money, officers consider
requirements of the legal agreement, appropriate schemes and priorities, and consult
Members for guidance.
Possible schemes are reported to Members through the Highways Joint Member
Panels and final approval of expenditure is determined through the process agreed by
Cabinet in November 2006 which requires consultation with the County Secretary, the
Finance Director and the Executive Member for Performance & Resources.
The expenditure of s106 finance has been previously scrutinised and is regularly
audited.
81909264 Review
4
5.4
How Members (County and District) are involved in the implementation
stage
Upon being granted Planning Permission developers make a decision as to the date
they wish to commence work and approach the Development Control Implementation
Team of the Hertfordshire Highways Area Office to progress both the legal agreements
and to resolve technical aspects of the detailed highways design.
The Implementation Team will be advised of any previous Member involvement when
the proposal is handed over from the TPPU. This process identifies where Members
have made input during the planning stage and will be continued by the Implementation
Team. As a general rule, where Members have not previously been involved with a
scheme, they would only be contacted on schemes of a significant size, where it is
anticipated that the scheme will be controversial, or where there are a number of
complex issues that could occur over several years.
The Highways Joint Member Panels can also request information relating to
development control works and, for example, reports have been submitted detailing
progress on road adoption within a specific district. Contentious Traffic Regulation
Orders associated with development schemes are taken to the local Highways Joint
Member Panel where Members have the opportunity to consider the proposals and
offer guidance to the District Manager who has executive power to determine Orders.
Objections to Orders of a more strategic or cross-border nature can be considered by
the Development Control Committee as appropriate.
It has to be recognised that once planning permission has been granted the design of
the scheme is agreed in principle and the opportunity to make substantial changes to
the design are limited. Any requirements put on the developer must be defendable and
inline with the County Council’s published design guide together with any other relevant
design standards.
5.5
Has the reorganisation of Highways DC been effective?
5.5.1 Why it was done
Prior to the centralisation of the Development Control function responses to planning
applications were made by either the TPPU or the respective Hertfordshire Highways
Area Office depending on the size of the application. Larger applications which are
often more complex and time consuming were dealt with by TPPU, whilst the smaller
applications were dealt with by the local highways office.
At the time it was perceived that there was a benefit to be derived from a local input to
the consultation process for smaller applications, however since that time a number of
other factors came in to effect with resulting impacts on the quality and performance of
the development control function. Issues that arose include:
a) local Planning Authorities expressed concerns regarding timing and quality of
responses;
b) during the time it was not possible to fully recruit all the posts which resulted in
difficulties in meeting response turn around times. Subsequently Mouchel staff
support was required to reduce the concerns raised by the planning authorities,
81909264 Review
5
although the cost of the service was not viable and further concerns were raised
regarding the quality of responses.
c) it proved difficult to maintain cover for absences, leave, etc.
d) a number of concerns were raised regarding the negotiation and processing of
legal agreements There was inconsistency in the approach taken to securing
contributions or works on the highway and issues identified around the
management and use of s106 funding.
e) a key benefit seen in retaining a local presence in respect of the function was not
possible in areas where staff were not present, in those offices where
development control staff were based the benefit was not significantly realised
due in part to a change in the role of the local highways teams.
The continuation of the old model was considered, however the misalignment of the
planning response function within the local highways offices and the ongoing resource
difficulties suggested that it was not viable. The inability of the local highways office to
respond to peaks and troughs in planning demands caused ongoing frustration with
developers and planning authorities alike. The continuing issues were believed to
outweigh the benefits of local input to the process.
5.5.2 Has it worked
The reorganisation has already provided benefits in many areas which can be seen
from the monitoring of response rates and feedback from the LPAs outlined above,
specific benefits include:
a) an improvement to response times and consistency of responses to the local
planning authorities;
b) a centrally managed function which enables management to oversee
increased quality and consistency of advice / responses to planning
applications;
c) a centralised function which allows resources to be shared more readily
depending on each teams workloads and greater flexibility would allow
specific large resource intensive projects to be dealt with;
d) a centralised function enabling closer working on all applications with local
members, rights of way, passenger transport unit, highway boundary team;
e) work on ensuring s106 contributions held and used is more transparent and
more effectively managed;
f) no reliance on external consultants enabling more control of budgets and
reduced costs.
By centralising the structure of development control there has been a benefit to the
monitoring of the performance of the development control function. All planning
applications referred by districts are received and logged centrally, and the responses
recorded and sent to the districts through the use of a centralised computer system.
This allows the statistical monitoring of the development control function. In addition,
monthly monitoring reports are prepared to provide an ongoing appreciation of
performance and a means to take preventative steps if concerns become apparent.
Recruitment and retention continues to be an issue. Prior to the reorganisation there
was a reliance on consultant and agency staff which affected consistency of
performance and was costly. Despite initially filling the posts in the new organisation
there has been a loss of experienced staff throughout 2006 - 2008 and there is
81909264 Review
6
generally a constant need to recruit new staff. The centralised function does, however,
enable greater flexibility to provide additional resources to areas affected by the
vacancies.
6.
Financial Implications
6.1
There are no financial implications relating to this report
81909264 Review
7