The Future of Section 74

1. The Future of Section 74 Peter Goode Nottingham City Council

2. Apology

3. Section 74 • Why Section 74? • 2001 Scheme • Interpretation and Challenge • Review of the Scheme • New Emphasis • Revised Scheme

4. Section 74 • Providing incentives to: • Complete works without delay • Minimise disruption • Maximise productivity • Meet public expectation

5. Trying to avoid this …

6. .. caused by this ..

7. .. and this.

8. ICE Report • “…. road works by utility companies are the principle cause for AVOIDABLE delay.” • Total cost per day of delayed traffic flow is £3160 per excavation – based on • 500 vehicles each way per day • 15 minutes delay • Average earnings £20,000 = £0.20 / min

9. The cost of delay …

10. .. caused by this.

11. The cost of delay • Peak period flow assumed 1veh / sec • Peak period assumed for 1 hour • Peak period vehicles = 3600 • Cost of delay = £0.20 x 3600 = £720 / min • If typical delay is half hour, cost = £21,600

12. Avoidable delay • Whatever the reason avoidable delay must be addressed as a matter of priority

13. Section 74 Schemes • Allow charges for occupation when unreasonably prolonged • Promote proactive management of works • Encourage planning, estimating and control of works to avoid charges • Allow updating and revised plans to complete within time and avoid charges

14. 2001 Scheme • Emphasis on longer duration works – 5 day prescribed period • Ministers decided 3 day prescribed period • Weekends available at no charge • Reinstatement category is proxy to traffic flow • Remedial works have independent duration

15. 2001 Scheme • Simple scheme • 2 x 2 matrix of charges • Charges proportional to works • Used existing notice systems • Avoided need for additional inspections • Minimised cost of operation

16. Interpretation and Challenge • Regulations contained error(s) • Regulations are ‘gibberish’ written by a ‘demented computer’ • Use of notices are undermined by the right to rebut • Remedial works included in original period

17. Scheme Review • Identify successes and failures • Identify loopholes • Catch me if you can v Income stream • Charge Evasion v Charge Avoidance • Keep Notices Live v Complete Works

18. Review Issues • Scheme undermined by regulation errors • Ambiguities in noticing requirements • Interpretation by developers and users • Lack of early intervention • Too much time spent collecting charges

19. Emphasis of New Scheme • Ease of operation • Synergy with permits and TMA generally • DfT remit • Narrowed scope • Higher charges • Inspection of works

20. Narrowed Scope • Emphasis towards higher vehicular flows • Exempt lower category streets • Different views held – Compromise for consultation • Occupation v Congestion • Variance from TMA • Vehicle congestion v Pedestrian disruption • Which streets included? • Which works included?

24. Charges (Per Day)

25. Inspection of Works • Notice submission dates do not apply – inspections required • 10% inspection allowance for S74 to be implemented by Inspections group • Monitor progress • Check incursion • Check site clearance

26. New Features • 2 day prescribed period • Incursive works only • Exempt non-traffic sensitive Cat 3 and 4 • Exempt pedestrian streets • Parallel use of FPN powers

27. Invoicing • More stringent process • Defined time periods for action by each party • Minimises prolonged dispute • Encourages early settlement • Improves budget control

28. Summary • New scheme to take account of • Experience • Legal judgement • Traffic Management Act • Not all issues agreed • Consultation to influence final scheme • Application across work by all parties

29. Works Clear or Signs left on site?