The Future of Section 74 Peter Goode Nottingham City Council.

The Future of Section 74

Peter Goode

Nottingham City Council

Apology

Section 74

• Why Section 74?

• 2001 Scheme

• Interpretation and Challenge

• Review of the Scheme

• New Emphasis

• Revised Scheme

Section 74

• Providing incentives to:– Complete works without delay– Minimise disruption– Maximise productivity– Meet public expectation

Trying to avoid this …

.. caused by this ..

.. and this.

ICE Report

• “…. road works by utility companies are the principle cause for AVOIDABLE delay.”

• Total cost per day of delayed traffic flow is £3160 per excavation – based on– 500 vehicles each way per day– 15 minutes delay– Average earnings £20,000 = £0.20 / min

The cost of delay …

.. caused by this.

The cost of delay

• Peak period flow assumed 1veh / sec

• Peak period assumed for 1 hour

• Peak period vehicles = 3600

• Cost of delay = £0.20 x 3600 = £720 / min

• If typical delay is half hour, cost = £21,600

Avoidable delay

• Whatever the reason avoidable delay must be addressed as a matter of priority

Section 74 Schemes

• Allow charges for occupation when unreasonably prolonged

• Promote proactive management of works

• Encourage planning, estimating and control of works to avoid charges

• Allow updating and revised plans to complete within time and avoid charges

2001 Scheme

• Emphasis on longer duration works – 5 day prescribed period

• Ministers decided 3 day prescribed period

• Weekends available at no charge

• Reinstatement category is proxy to traffic flow

• Remedial works have independent duration

2001 Scheme

• Simple scheme

• 2 x 2 matrix of charges

• Charges proportional to works

• Used existing notice systems

• Avoided need for additional inspections

• Minimised cost of operation

Interpretation and Challenge

• Regulations contained error(s)

• Regulations are ‘gibberish’ written by a ‘demented computer’

• Use of notices are undermined by the right to rebut

• Remedial works included in original period

Scheme Review

• Identify successes and failures

• Identify loopholes

• Catch me if you can v Income stream

• Charge Evasion v Charge Avoidance

• Keep Notices Live v Complete Works

Review Issues

• Scheme undermined by regulation errors

• Ambiguities in noticing requirements

• Interpretation by developers and users

• Lack of early intervention

• Too much time spent collecting charges

Emphasis of New Scheme

• Ease of operation

• Synergy with permits and TMA generally

• DfT remit

• Narrowed scope

• Higher charges

• Inspection of works

Narrowed Scope

• Emphasis towards higher vehicular flows• Exempt lower category streets• Different views held – Compromise for

consultation– Occupation v Congestion– Variance from TMA– Vehicle congestion v Pedestrian disruption– Which streets included?– Which works included?

Charges (Per Day)

Reinstatement Category and Street Type

Works Type Cat 0 + 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 + 4 TS

Programmed and Major

£5000 £3000 £1000

Standard £3000 £1000 £500

Immediate £1000 £1000 £250

Minor £0

Inspection of Works

• Notice submission dates do not apply – inspections required

• 10% inspection allowance for S74 to be implemented by Inspections group– Monitor progress– Check incursion– Check site clearance

New Features

• 2 day prescribed period

• Incursive works only

• Exempt non-traffic sensitive Cat 3 and 4

• Exempt pedestrian streets

• Parallel use of FPN powers

Invoicing

• More stringent process

• Defined time periods for action by each party

• Minimises prolonged dispute

• Encourages early settlement

• Improves budget control

Summary

• New scheme to take account of– Experience– Legal judgement– Traffic Management Act

• Not all issues agreed– Consultation to influence final scheme

• Application across work by all parties

Works Clear or Signs left on site?