Technical & Development Services Group

www.t-d-s.com

“Provides engineering related and specialised services to the construction industry”

Paul Fleming – Associate Development Director

Tom Greasley – Development Engineer

www.t-d-s.com

Technical & Development Services works closely with Hertfordshire County Council throughout the Highway Adoption

process.

Our Clients in this area include:

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

www.t-d-s.com

• Metropolitan Station Approach,

Watford for Linden Homes

“A developers focus will be on profits from selling houses, not ensuring roads are adopted…”

www.t-d-s.com

• Increased liability

• Maintenance expenditure

• Increased costs of remedial works

• Bond overrun charges / Bond limits

• Bad public relations

This is not always true. An unadopted road can leave the developer with:

Issues Developers have with Hertfordshire County Council’s (HCC) Highway Adoption Process

www.t-d-s.com

• 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

Quotes from Developers on Herts Adoptions…

www.t-d-s.com

“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.”

“We constantly get

asked to pay fees

without any evidence of

work being carried out .”

“There seems to

be a lack of trust.”

Lack of cohesion between HCC & Mouchel

www.t-d-s.com

• 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.

Technical Approval

www.t-d-s.com

• 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.

Issues with Fees

www.t-d-s.com

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.

Lack of inter-departmental cohesion

www.t-d-s.com

• 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.

Multiple Inspections

www.t-d-s.com

• 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.

Safety Audits

www.t-d-s.com

• 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.

Case Study – Metropolitan Station Approach, Cassiobury, Watford

www.t-d-s.com

• 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.

Case Study – Metropolitan Station Approach, Cassiobury, Watford

www.t-d-s.com

• 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.

How HCC can improve Highway Adoptions…

www.t-d-s.com

• 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.