Technical & Development Services Group

1. Technical & Development Services Group Paul Fleming – Associate Development Director Tom Greasley – Development Engineer “Provides engineering related and specialised services to the construction industry” www.t-d-s.com

2. Technical & Development Services works closely with Hertfordshire County Council throughout the Highway Adoption process. Our Clients in this area include: www.t-d-s.com

3. We are responsible for Highway Adoptions on a number of sites in Hertfordshire, including: • Napsbury Hospital, London Colney for Crest Nicholson • Hatfield Garden Village, Hatfield for Taylor Wimpey & Rialto Homes • Metropolitan Station Approach, Watford for Linden Homes www.t-d-s.com

4. “A developers focus will be on profits from selling houses, not ensuring roads are adopted…” This is not always true. An unadopted road can leave the developer with: • Increased liability • Maintenance expenditure • Increased costs of remedial works • Bond overrun charges / Bond limits • Bad public relations www.t-d-s.com

5. Issues Developers have with Hertfordshire County Council’s (HCC) Highway Adoption Process • Lack of cohesion between HCC & Mouchel • Lack of inter-departmental cohesion • Difficulty to achieve Technical Approval • Response times • Multiple inspections & work requests • Amount of fees charged • Safety Audits • Poor reputation amongst developers www.t-d-s.com

6. Quotes from Developers on Herts Adoptions… “It takes far too long to get technical comments, approvals and for the legal process associated with the S38 Agreements to take place. This, I believe, is the remit of Mouchel. Because this process takes far too long the developments are often complete prior to the agreements being completed and we end up with abortive works and protracted adoption periods.” “I am not the only one with gripes, especially the multiple visits and their consequences.” “There seems to be a lack of trust.” “We constantly get asked to pay fees without any evidence of work being carried out.” www.t-d-s.com

7. Lack of cohesion between HCC & Mouchel • When a developer submits drawings for Technical Approval, they have already spent a long time in working with the relevant HCC Guide for Highway Design. • The drawings should be checked by HCC, returned to the developer who will make changes and re-submit for Technical Approval. • Sometimes the drawings have to be submitted for approval over 5 times, when more and more changes are found. This often delays the signature of the Section 38 Agreement. • Some of these changes contradict what was originally asked by HCC. • A developer cannot wait for these changes and then constructs the road without the Section 38 Agreement in place. www.t-d-s.com

8. Technical Approval • When a Developer has Technical Approval, there is an agreed scheme for both parties to work to. • Once the road is constructed, there should be inspections by Herts Highways to check whether the road is correct. • One of the main frustrations of Developers is when Herts Highways try to differ from the approval drawings and request additional works. • A Developer will rarely wish to pay for additional works, even less so if the Council is going back on an Agreement which the Developer worked so hard to get. www.t-d-s.com

9. Issues with Fees • Most Developers have the view that HCC unfairly asks for increases in fees as an income generator. A detailed breakdown of the fess is rarely provided when requested by the developer. • The following items charged to developers are not uncommon: • Inspecting site when no remedial works have been carried out and when the developer has not asked for an inspection. • Fees for completing works the developer has already done, e.g. lining works. • Inspection fees for Section 38 Agreements on completed roads being the same as if the road was not yet constructed. www.t-d-s.com

10. Lack of inter-departmental cohesion • A prime example of this issue is in street lighting. • Whenever new street lighting is installed on a development, it is inspected by the Street Lighting Department at HCC. • This is the last item before adoption. • Despite the urgency required, inspections can often take over 4 months to be carried out. • This time delay means additional remedial works appear, which Herts Highways expect the developer to pay for. • The developer is not happy to pay for these works, as they are through no fault of it’s own. www.t-d-s.com

11. Multiple Inspections • It is often the case in Hertfordshire that multiple inspections of highway works for adoptions are carried out. • This is usually due to personnel changes or a change in responsibility for the scheme. • A developer will complete remedial works under the premise that the site will be adopted by Hertfordshire County Council. • Additional works are then required which leaves the Developer feeling like the “goalposts are always moving”. • This can, and often does, leave Hertfordshire with a poor reputation. www.t-d-s.com

12. Safety Audits • Once a site is constructed to the standard of HCC, in accordance with the Technically Approved drawings and has served it’s maintenance period, it should be adopted by HCC. • Often, especially on S.278 Agreements, HCC carries out a Stage 3 Safety Audit on the highways. • This creates another delay which slows the momentum of the adoption. • The Safety Audit usually requests more remedial works to be carried out by the developer, even though the site has been constructed correctly. www.t-d-s.com

13. Case Study – Metropolitan Station Approach, Cassiobury, Watford • Initial meeting held with Herts Highways to review the adoption on 9th October 2008. • Inspection held same day. Remedial list of outstanding works agreed. • Remedial works completed February 2009 and adoption requested. • TDS informed in April 2009 there is no S.38 Agreement in place. • Additional street lighting and highway remedial works required. • Street Lighting Certificates sent to Herts Highways in May 2009. • TDS constantly chased for Street Lighting Inspection, finally carried out in November 2009. www.t-d-s.com

14. Case Study – Metropolitan Station Approach, Cassiobury, Watford • Additional remedial works requested in November 2009. • Herts Highways then requested a cheque for £3,000 to cover fees to cover additional inspections, checking as-built drawings and preparing the adoption certificates. • Linden doesn’t wish to pay additional fees as this was not detailed when the site was first inspected with Herts Highways back in October 2008. • Despite this, Linden requested invoice to pay fees in December 2009, which has still not been received from Herts Highways. • Currently, the site has not been progressed through no fault of the developer. www.t-d-s.com

15. How HCC can improve Highway Adoptions… • Ensure that the Technical Approval stage is quick and efficient to allow the developer to start on site with approved drawings. • Be clear on fees to be charged from the outset of the Agreement. • Claim all fees at the start of the project – do not allow them to be seen as a way of income generation. • Do not try to claim additional fees for minor works. • Request remedial works only once. • Ensure a highway or street lighting inspection is carried out 30 days from the date of the request. • Take a common sense approach to progress adoptions. www.t-d-s.com