Agenda item

(Item 8 –Report by Director, Kent Highway Services)

(1)       The report provided an update on the progress of the Traffic Management Act (TMA) which gained Royal Assent in 2004 and the accompanying Intervention Criteria which might be used by the Secretary of State and the Department for Transport should a local authority be seen to be failing in its duties under the TMA.

(2)       The following list was a summary of the main report highlighting the key areas to be aware of:-

·                    The TMA required that the whole local authority, not just the highways department, to be aware of and take account of the implications of the duty.

·                    The Network Management Plan would be reviewed and reported upon every year in line with the reporting process for the LTP.

·                    If an authority failed to perform its network management duty, then the Act provided for the Secretary of State and the DfT to intervene and appoint a “Traffic Director”.

·                    Permit Schemes were designed to give LA’s further control over works on the highway.

·                    Permit Schemes would be designed to run as ‘cost neutral’. Estimated figures indicated that income from a Permit Scheme might run to £2 million per annum.

·                    Non-refundable cost of managing KHS works through a Permit Scheme would be in the region of £850k per annum.

·                    The DfT would give LA’s a six-month period to establish the permit process.

·                    KCC did have an option of concentrating on EtoN noticing to improve works co-ordination rather than adopting a Permit Scheme.

·                    The introduction of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) would bring financial penalties to works promoters for incorrect information that adversely affected roadworks co-ordination.

·                    The FPN’s would also be applied to local authority roadworks. The penalties would be recorded against performance indicators and would not be a financial restraint.

·                    DfT had completed its consultations for the FPN scheme and had indicated that the regulations were expected to come into force during mid - late 2007.

·                    The Act required local authorities to commence the noticing of their own roadworks. This would increase notices by 40% to over 70,000 per annum.

·                    Estimated that KHS would require 12 roadwork co-ordinators to manage the notices to ensure the scheme operated to its full potential.

·                    It might be possible to improve the processing of notices by investing in technology such as hand held equipment for the Highway Inspectors.

·                    DfT had indicated that guidelines for a FPN offence would not be issued and had indicated that legal procedures could be through Magistrates Courts.

(3)       It was estimated that 5% of notices might attract an FPN.  With effective management, an annual income of £640,000 could be achieved.

(4)       The cost of a Permit Scheme for Kent, estimated at £2.83m, would be self-funding.  It might be necessary, however, to “pump prime” start-up costs which would be recoverable once the scheme was operational.

(5)       Until the Regulations pertaining to Permit Schemes and Fixed Penalty Notices had been placed before Parliament, it was not possible to provide exact budget figures. However, from consultation documents released by the DfT and examination of current procedures, it would be necessary to provide both budget and staff resources if KCC wished to run a Permit Scheme.

(6)       The introduction of FPN’s which were likely to come into force in Mid-late 2007 would also require investment in staff resources. Without this investment, KCC would fail in their Network Management Duties and might face the prospect of Intervention procedures by the Secretary of State and the DfT. Although an income stream would become available to balance out the requirements it was likely that both the workload and the income would be higher within the first year of operation.

(7)       Monitoring systems and procedures along with close communication and liaison links must be established with the local District/Borough Authorities in order that close supervision could be carried out with regard to their Civil Enforcement operations. This would be essential to prevent KCC being affected with regard to the TMA 2004 and the associated Network Management Duties.

(8)       Members were asked to consider the preliminary conclusions and offer their views in order to prepare for the release of the regulations relating to the TMA and the associated Network Management Duties.

(9)       The Board noted the report.