HCC’s approach to road adoption

1. HCC’s approach to road adoption Vetti Vettivelu Highways Development Control Service Manager

2. Summary • The problem • Highways & Transport Panel November 2009 • Recommendations • Scrutiny February 2010 • More scrutiny!

3. 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

4. Highways & Transport Cabinet Panel10 November 2009 REPORT TO PANEL WITH NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Recommendation 5 In order to give greater clarity to residents • Street name plates on unadopted roads should clearly identify them as such

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. Road Adoption Process Scrutiny 24 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

14. 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

15. Questions?