Agenda item

To consider the following transport and infrastructure related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 18 March 2020:

·                     BCP Council Parking Charges Harmonisation – NOTE: This item will now be dealt with by way of an officer decision, however the Chairman has agreed that there should still be an opportunity for the O&S Board to ask questions on this item. A verbal update will be provided at the meeting.

·                     Street Works Permitting Scheme

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Andy Hadley, Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure.

The Cabinet report will be published on Tuesday 10 March and available to view at the following link: https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=285&MId=3727&Ver=4

Car Parking Charges Harmonisation

Board Members and members of the public and press were reminded that this report would not be considered at this meeting and would be scheduled for a future meeting.

Streetworks Permitting Scheme

The Portfolio Holder for Transport and Infrastructure presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'B' to these Minutes in the Minute Book.

The Portfolio Holder explained that the proposals were put forward to ensure that the council complied with statutory requirements to have a mechanism for controlling streetworks on the highway in order to reduce congestion and disruption to residents when works were undertaken on the traffic network and would involve the council issuing permits and levying a charge to ensure that the administrative costs were covered. It was anticipated that a minimum of six staff would be needed to administer the scheme, although there was provision for a further three staff members, if required.

The Portfolio Holder explained that all companies that were involved with statutory undertakings had been consulted with and the scheme had been adjusted based on comments received.

The Portfolio Holder and Corporate Director for Regeneration and Economy responded to questions and comments from Board Members.

The Portfolio Holder was asked about the maximum charge being applicable to all roads, which did not seem necessary when taking small residential roads or cul-de-sacs into account. It was explained that there was a historic road layout problem across the conurbation, caused in part by Poole and Bournemouth having been in different counties until the mid- 1970’s, meaning that the road network did not “join up”. There was a recognition that the conurbations network was at capacity and therefore any closure or disruption on one part of the network would have an affect on other routes. The scheme was designed to be inclusive and the Council was required to adopt such a scheme.

The Portfolio Holder was asked about how the scheme would provide an opportunity to improve the current situation, which often found a section of highway being dug up multiple times to undertake different works. It was explained that this scheme would be giving a discount to utility companies that undertook works together, a lead company would take responsibility but would receive a 30% discount as an encouragement to work together with the aim of causing less disruption, although it was acknowledged that this may, on occasion, complicate matters. The flip-side to any complication that it would cause contractors is that the Council would have more control over works, have a greater knowledge of who was responsible and therefore it would be easier to enforce any further remedial works that need to take place in the event that initial remedial works were not up to standard.

The Portfolio Holder was asked about the inspection of roads once works had been undertaken, details of fines that would be issued if works were not completed to standard and discounts for contractors working outside of peak times. It was explained that the report did discuss sensitive routes and highlighted that depending on the nature of the work to be undertaken, it would often not be possible for work to be undertaken outside of peak hours, particularly if located within a residential area. The costs had not been provided as part of this report and therefore the Portfolio Holder would ensure that this information was made available to Board Members after the meeting. The Streetscene team regularly undertook inspections of roads to note and action any defects. It was important that Ward Councillors worked with the streetscene team to allow them to pick up on any defects.

The Portfolio Holder was asked about any provision in the permit scheme that allowed any recourse for the Council to approach a contractor after a certain period of time, should the initial remedial works deteriorate in an unsatisfactory manner. It was explained that this was something that would need to be investigated depending on the nature of the problem.

The Portfolio Holder was asked about the scale of fees that would be applicable and if there was a copy of this available. It was explained that this was not to hand, but could be provided to Board Members after the meeting. It was also explained that the chargeable fee would be dependent on the scale and nature of the works to be carried out.

Cllr G Farquar proposed a motion to add a recommendation (c) to Cabinet which would require works to be inspected immediately after completion and then inspected again, twelve weeks later.

Cllr M Anderson stated that he was broadly supportive of the addition of this recommendation, but that it should be less prescriptive to enable greater flexibility.

The Portfolio Holder was asked whether there would be a need to reconsult with utility companies if the recommendation was accepted by both the Board and Cabinet. It was explained that it would depend on whether or not there were any significant cost implications as a result of the addition of the recommendation – an answer would be provided at the Cabinet Meeting due to be held on 18 March.

The Portfolio Holder was asked about the scale of fees again and he therefore reiterated his earlier promise that these would be provided to Board Members and that it would be reviewed on an annual basis.

The Chairman thanked Members for their contributions to the discussion and having noted that there was appetite for an additional recommendation for cabinet, asked Board Members if they were content to support this.

Cllr M Anderson stated that he would support Cllr G Farquhar’s recommendation on the condition that it was less prescriptive in terms of the originally proposed timescale.

In light of this, The Chairman requested that the Overview and Scrutiny Specialist formed a wording that Members were content to support and it was therefore moved and seconded that the following wording be added to the Cabinet recommendation as recommendation (c):

“the street works permitting scheme be modified to include a clause that requires that any works undertaken are subject to follow up inspection and a requirement to make good the road surface or footway to a sufficient standard, in order to ensure that this standard remains in place for an agreed period of time.”

As Members were supportive of the additional recommendation, the chairman moved to the vote on the substantive item, having inserted Recommendation (c) and it was:

RECOMMENDED that

  (a)          Cabinet approve the conditions to be applied to the BCP Council Street Works Permit Scheme, as described in the attached document, Appendix 2. 

  (b)          Cabinet delegate authority to the Director of Legal and Democratic Services to make the necessary Legal Order to bring the permit scheme into operation.

  (c)          the street works permitting scheme be modified to include a clause that requires that any works undertaken are subject to follow up inspection and a requirement to make good the road surface or footway to a sufficient standard, in order to ensure that this standard remains in place for an agreed period of time.

Voting: Unanimous