Upload
naomi-barnett
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
www.hertsdirect.org
HCC’s approach to road adoption
Vetti Vettivelu
Highways Development Control Service Manager
www.hertsdirect.org
Summary
• The problem
• Highways & Transport Panel November 2009
• Recommendations
• Scrutiny February 2010
• More scrutiny!
www.hertsdirect.org
The problem
• BAe Hatfield - ( mixed use major development)
• Backlogs - Transfer from Districts
• Bond overrun charges/ bond limits
• Bad public relations
• Increased costs of remedial works
• Increased liability
• Maintenance expenditure
www.hertsdirect.org
Highways & Transport Cabinet Panel10 November 2009
REPORT TO PANEL WITH NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS
www.hertsdirect.org
Recommendation 1
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 culs-de-sac with no wider highway benefit will not be considered for adoption
www.hertsdirect.org
Recommendation 2
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
www.hertsdirect.org
Recommendation 3
In order to achieve a signed S 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
www.hertsdirect.org
Recommendation 4
In order to ensure long-term maintenance of unadopted 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 (unadopted) roads in residential developments should be secured as a standard requirement through a S106 obligation
www.hertsdirect.org
Recommendation 5
In order to give greater clarity to residents
• Street name plates on unadopted roads should clearly identify them as such
www.hertsdirect.org
Recommendation 6
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
www.hertsdirect.org
Recommendation 7
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
www.hertsdirect.org
Road Adoption Process Scrutiny
24 and 25 February 2010
• County Councillors
• i.e. Panel Members & Chair
OTHERS
• Chairman Overview and Scrutiny Committee
• Exec Member for Highways & Transport - day 1
• Dep Exec Member for Highways & Transport - day 2
www.hertsdirect.org
Road Adoption Process Scrutiny24 and 25 February 2010 – 8 External witnesses
• Planning Director (Strategy and Development) WHBC
• Technical and Development Services (Midlands) on behalf of house builders
• District Councillor and Chair of Environmental Services Committee Broxbourne Borough Council
• Senior Engineer (Transport and Development) Stevenage BC
• City and District Engineer, St Albans City and District Council
• Highways DC Manager Cambridgeshire CC
• District Councillor St Albans City and District Council
www.hertsdirect.org
Other Presentations
Nick Gough – Area Highway DC Manager
• Steps taken to improve Road Adoption
Alison Young – DC Manager EHDC
• Road adoption from a LPA Perspective
Ian Dix – Director Savell Bird and Axon
• Developer’s Perspective
Steve Johnson – Head of Network Management
• Active and historic unadopted roads
www.hertsdirect.org
Questions?