1. The Future of Section 74 Peter Goode Nottingham City Council

2. Apology

3. Section 74 Why Section 74? 2001 Scheme Interpretation and Challenge Review of the Scheme New Emphasis Revised Scheme

4. Section 74 Providing incentives to: –Complete works without delay –Minimise disruption –Maximise productivity –Meet public expectation

5. Trying to avoid this …

6. .. caused by this..

7. .. and this.

8. 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

9. The cost of delay …

10. .. caused by this.

11. 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

12. Avoidable delay Whatever the reason avoidable delay must be addressed as a matter of priority

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. Emphasis of New Scheme Ease of operation Synergy with permits and TMA generally DfT remit Narrowed scope Higher charges Inspection of works

20. 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?

24. Charges (Per Day) Reinstatement Category and Street Type Works TypeCat 0 + 1Cat 2Cat 3 + 4 TS Programmed and Major £5000£3000£1000 Standard £3000£1000£500 Immediate £1000 £250 Minor £0

25. 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

26. 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

27. Invoicing More stringent process Defined time periods for action by each party Minimises prolonged dispute Encourages early settlement Improves budget control

28. 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

29. Works Clear or Signs left on site?