Minsjun/hpjmc160605
MINUTES OF MEETING NO. 1 OF THE HIGHWAYS PARTNERSHIP JOINT PANEL
held in the Council Chamber, District Council Offices, Civic Centre, St Peter's Street,
St Albans on Thursday 16 June 2005 at 7.00pm.
Present:
Councillors T Heritage (Chairman), J Chambers, G Churchard, R Clarkson, R Cooper,
U Dunleavy, M Ellis, M Frearson, D Hills, I Tarry, M Waddilove, C White and A Witherick (substituting for Councillor R Prowse).
Apologies for Absence:
Councillors N Clements and R Prowse.
Members in Attendance:
Councillor S Burton, C Ellis, Eleanor Harris, B Lloyd, M Morris, Sinfield and Teare.
Officers in Attendance:
Mr A Armson – Strategic Client Manager, Hertfordshire Highways;
Mr G Cooper - Hertfordshire Highways Mouchel/Parkman;
Mr K Hopper - Hertfordshire Highways Mouchel/Parkman;
Mr R Jepson - Strategy Development Manager, Hertfordshire Highways;
Ms G Kellett – Principal Engineer, St AlbansCity and District Council;
Mr P Shanmugalingham – Assistant District Manager, Hertfordshire Highways;
Mr R Smith – Assistant Manager, (Transport Management), Hertfordshire Highways;
Mr S Walmsley – St Albans District Manager, Hertfordshire Highways;
Mr S Welch - Strategic Director, Community Services, St AlbansCity and District Council;
Mr D Welton – Head of Enterprise and Development, St AlbansCity and District Council.
Corporate Administrator:
Mr P Warne.
- REPLACEMENT MEMBERSHIP
It was noted that Councillor A Witherick had replaced Councillor R Prowse for this meeting only.
- MINUTES
These Minutes of the previous meeting of the Panel held on 22 March 2005 were confirmed.
3.MATTER ARISING FROM MINUTES OF MEETING ON 22 MARCH 2005
Bus Shelters Working Party
In response to a question, the Panel was advised that an officer group would be meeting on 21 June 2005 to discuss bus shelters but that nominations to a Member Working Party were still awaited from the political groups.
ACTION
The Engineer and Technical Services Manager to progress Bus Shelters Working Party membership.
4.ST ALBANSCITY CENTRE SAFETY/ENHANCEMENT SCHEME
Mr Walmsley confirmed that this was the earliest possible date that could have been chosen for this special meeting of the Panel, given that the Annual Meetings of both Councils had been held on 18 and 24 May 2005, when Member representation on various bodies had been agreed.
The Panel considered a report which, in Part 1, set out the background to the City Centre safety/enhancement scheme, its changing scope, the financial implications and a review of the demonstration project. Part 2 of the report outlined a review of scheme funding and the available options on ways to progress the scheme. It invited the Panel to give its view on how the City Centre safety/enhancement scheme and other integrated transport schemes around St Albans might be progressed.
Part 1
On behalf of Hertfordshire Highways, Mr Smith apologised to Members for having tried to accommodate as many requests from the public for additions and alterations to the scheme as possible without advising the Panel of all of the implications of those changes, and particularly those of a financial nature. In recognition of the weaknesses identified by officers during an initial review of the scheme, a number of improvement actions had been introduced. These included an immediate revised monitoring/management structure and improved procedures for scheme estimating. Internal Auditors of Hertfordshire County Council would undertake a review of the financial management of the project and it was expected that they would recommend improved procedures.
Mr Jepson explained in detail how the costs of the scheme had increased by an estimated £3,262,000 over the last two years as changes had been made to the scope of the scheme. It was now estimated that the scheme development and works costs of all seven phases of the scheme would total £5,131,000 by 2008/09. The currently predicted cost of the scheme and the finance available to fund it from various sources was also reported. Mr Jepson stressed that the City Centre Safety Scheme was considered a priority through Hertfordshire’s Local Transport Plan and St Albans Transport Forum. The County Council was one of only five local authorities leading the way in developing this type of project and lessons were being learned from the process.
In response to questions from Councillor White, it was confirmed that the initial bid to the Department for Transport for funding for the scheme had been “broad brush” and that, in the early estimates for the scheme, no allowance had been made for inflation. The addition of further phases to the entire scheme had resulted from public consultation and officers considered that they would bring about great benefits to St Peter’s Street. However, the Church Green element of the scheme was only a possible option and the reconstruction of Chequer Street could now be included within the A road programme. All available finance in 2005/06 was being devoted to the City Centre safety/enhancement scheme. There would be a shortfall in funding in future years but the County Council would need to investigate other budget opportunities which might be available. Officers agreed that the County Council might be well placed to recover monies from its external consultants for having underestimated the total costs of the scheme at the outset, and would pursue a claim vigorously.
Councillor M Ellis expressed concern that the Panel could have been advised of the escalation in costs of the scheme at the time of its previous meeting on 22 March 2005 because all consultation with the public had ended well before then. He queried when the County Council’s Portfolio Holder had been informed of the increased costs of the scheme. Councillor M Ellis also asked whether Members could be confident that the costs of the scheme now reported were robust. In reply, the Panel was informed that the total cost of the scheme as reported at the previous meeting was for the financial year 2005/06 only. Reports on the current financial position, including the estimate of £5.1m for the total scheme, were probably given to the Portfolio Holder in March 2005. Officers were quite confident of the veracity of their current figures.
In response to questions from Councillor Tarry, officers confirmed that if the works on the west service road, St Peter’s Street, went ahead it would not be essential for works at Victoria Street, Marlborough Road and London Road to be undertaken also. However, works in those roads would reduce traffic congestion and benefit bus users and pedestrians. The inclusion of Chequer Street in the City Centre safety/enhancement scheme would result in real improvements to that road rather than its simple reconstruction. The possible funding available for the entire scheme after 2005/06 had to be an estimate at this stage because officers recognised that local authorities had not set budgets for subsequent years and that indicative figures from the Department for Transport could vary by about 25%. Officers were able to identify which elements of the various changes to the scope of the overall project, as set out in Table 5.1 of the report, had been budgeted for in 2005/06, including an allowance for inflation.
The Chairman asked whether installing new bus shelters in St Peter’s Street was integral to the overall scheme. She also enquired if funding from the Department for Transport would be lost if all further work on the scheme was ended. Officers replied that the cost of the replacement bus shelters could have been funded from elsewhere. They also considered that street lighting works for St Peter’s Street had properly been included in the overall project. It was likely that if part of the scheme was not pursued, some funding would be reduced by the Department.
Part 2
Mr Smith invited the Panel to consider whether, in its view, the City Centre safety/enhancement scheme should be scaled down to match the available funding or whether the County Council’s Integrated Works Programme (IWP) should be re-scheduled to enable the safety/enhancement scheme to be completed by April 2006. There was insufficient funding to complete both the overall scheme and the IWP at the same time. Work on the overall scheme was programmed to be suspended during November 2005 for a Christmas break, but by deferring any resumption of works until perhaps mid-February 2006, some £94,000 could be used during the rest of the current financial year on the IWP.
(Note: The meeting was adjourned at 8.40 pm and resumed at 8.55 pm.)
The Chairman referred to the 7 phases of the City Centre safety/enhancement scheme and reminded members of the Panel that phases 1-3 had already been completed. Phase 5 (Chequer Street) could be completed under the A roads maintenance budget, while phase 7 (Church Green) was an addition to the overall scheme where interim measures could be taken in order to improve safety. Phase 6 (Victoria Street/Marlborough Road/London Road) was also an addition to the overall scheme, so only phase 4 (St Peter’s Street, including the West Service Road) needed to be considered for completion in the current financial year or otherwise.
Councillor M Ellis considered that the weaknesses in the overall management of the scheme, as now reported, were the fault of the County Council and that they should be asked to provide additional funding from their resources in order to ensure that all phases of the project were completed.
Councillor C White considered that the St Peter’s Street phase of the overall scheme would not necessarily deliver the improvements in safety or amenity that the Panel had been seeking. In current circumstances he was not convinced of the robustness of the financial information now before the Panel. He advocated an immediate halt to all works except for the resurfacing of Victoria Street, the reconstruction of Chequer Street, the installation of new bus shelters and the making good of those works carried out to date. He also advocated that the Panel should ask for detailed reports on the individual strands of planned work in order to determine which truly belonged to the overall scheme and which were correctly costed. Nevertheless he also considered that the Panel should agree the interim measures in Church Green on the grounds that these had been promised to residents.
Councillor Tarry urged the Panel to agree that the St Peter’s Street scheme should proceed. She considered that the Cabinet of the County Council should be asked to investigate the financial aspects of the scheme. Councillor Tarry argued that the Panel should not reach decisions at this meeting which would commit funds, given the present financial uncertainty surrounding the scheme. She undertook to ask the County Council to provide additional funding for the scheme.
Mr Smith warned that any deferral of the scheme to the next meeting of the Cabinet of the County Council would mean missing the opportunity to undertake a lot of works which had been planned for the school summer holidays until after Christmas 2005 or even until 2006/07. However, if the planned works for St Peter’s Street were continued up until the Christmas 2005 break, he estimated that about 60% of the safety benefits would be achieved. He undertook that officers would continue to look for savings in the overall scheme.
The PANEL agreed:
(i)That the Highways Joint Member Panel concludes that only the programme of works for 2005/06 forthe City Centre Safety/Enhancement Scheme should proceed at this stage.
(ii)That no firm decisions on any future works in the following years can be reached until there has been a thorough investigation by Internal Audit and the Cabinet of Hertfordshire County Council.
(iii)That the Cabinet of the County Council be asked to provide additional funding for the scheme and officers be asked to achieve savings without compromising the quality of the scheme.
(iv)That a progress report on the City Centre Safety/Enhancement Scheme and the 2005/06 Integrated Works Programme be submitted to every future meeting of the Panel.
(v)That a full review of the City Centre Safety/Enhancement Scheme and the 2005/06 Integrated Works Programme be undertaken by the Panel at its meeting to be arranged for October 2005.
ACTION
Officers to achieve savings on the City Centre Safety/Enhancement Scheme, submit monitoring reports to every meeting of the Panel and submit a detailed report to the meeting of the Panel in October 2005.
5.DATES OF NEXT ORDINARY MEETINGS
The PANEL agreed:
That the next programmed meeting of the Panel be held on 27 July 2005 at the District Council Offices, starting at 7.00 pm.
The meeting ended at 9.58 pm.
(SIGNED)
CHAIRMAN
1