MINUTES of the meeting of the RESIDENTIAL CROSSOVERS TOPIC GROUP held on Friday 12 May 2006 at 2.00pm

ATTENDANCE

Members of the Topic Group

S E Jones, R Prowse, P A Ruffles

Other Members Present

S J Pile

Officers

Steve Minton, Contracts Manager

Kali Yau, Solicitor

David Moses, Head of Scrutiny

Emma Lund, Democratic Services Officer

1 /

minutes

The minutes of the meeting held on 21 April 2006 were confirmed as a correct record.
2 / INFORMATION REQUESTED AT THE LAST MEETING
The Topic Group considered the information which had been requested at the last meeting.
Members noted that 75% of works orders fall within the £400 - £1200 range. The topic group agreed that it could not conclude from the work order information what (if any) savings a householder could make by using a contractor already on site, since contractors will use different charging structures.
In response to a Member question as to why trial pits have been charged for on some of the work orders, Steve Minton confirmed that utility companies are required to provide information on the services which are present, and that this information must be passed to the contractor for health and safety reasons. In cases where information on services is needed urgently, or the information is not received, a trial pit will be dug. Kali Yau confirmed that there is a legal requirement for whoever is working on the highway to notify the utility authorities of works.
3 / BACKGROUND TO THE LEGAL REASONS FOR THE SOLE CONTRACTOR APPROACH AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF A CHANGE TO THIS APPROACH
Kali Yau advised that Section 184 of the Highways Act applies to the procurement and construction of residential highways crossovers and that there are two scenarios which may arise:
(a)  situations where the County Council requires a crossover to be constructed - for example during the course of a development. In these circumstances the developer may select their own contractor;
(b)  situations where a householder requests a crossover. Members were advised that in this situation the Act stipulates that the Highways Authority should arrange the work. HCC currently manages this through the Highways Works Contract, and depending on its terms, may be in breach of contract with ALF should it appoint a different contractor. Kali Yau undertook to check the Works Contract to find out if HCC would be in breach by using other contractors, and to find out when it is due for renewal.
Kali Yau advised that the Highways Act would not preclude HCC from allowing a householder to choose from a list of approved contractors (provided HCC arranged the works) although as described above it may result in a breach of the works contract.
Steve Minton undertook to speak with ALF to ascertain its views should HCC wish to move towards an approved-contractor list approach.
Kali Yau advised that once a crossover is constructed, responsibility for its maintenance passes to the County Council as the Highways Authority. Should a third party have an accident due to poor construction of a crossover, under the approved-contractor system the County Council would be sued initially and would in turn have to sue the householder who had procured the work. In terms of the statutory obligation for notifying utility companies, the responsibility for this under the approved-contractor system would rest with the householder.
In terms of inspections, moving to an approved-contractor list would require additional inspections (under the current contract HCC only inspects once, when the work has been completed) and these would form an additional cost which would probably have to be passed on to the householder. In light of this, and the additional legal requirements associated the approved-contractor list approach, Members were advised that whilst offering more choice, the approved-contractor approach may not necessarily result in a cheaper price for the applicant.
In terms of the different approaches of Cambridgeshire and Essex, Members were advised that although Cambridgeshire has so far experienced no problems, its system has only been in place for three years, and it is too early to tell whether problems will arise. The Essex model uses a less risky interpretation of the Act.
Members queried whether there was any legal difference between situations where an applicant requests permission for a crossover to situations where planning permission is required – i.e. can the latter case be considered a ‘development’ and the householder allowed to choose a contractor? Kali Yau advised that there is no provision under the Act for householders to arrange work themselves, and an interpretation which permits this is more risky than HCC’s current approach.
/ Kali Yau
Steve Minton
4 / RISK MANAGEMENT
This item was deferred to the next meeting.
5 / DATES FOR FUTURE MEETINGS
The next meeting will take place on Wednesday 24 May 2006 at 10.00am in Committee Room A.

Emma Lund

Topic Group Administrator

May 2006

1

060512 Minutes