The Group Manager Highways reported on the current policy for the adoption of back lanes and private streets.  He stated that the issue of streets/ back lanes which were not adopted was a historical matter with developers not entering into agreements with local authorities over the future maintenance of streets and access ways, which in some circumstances were to a substandard construction.  If a back lane or street was not adopted it was the responsibility of the residents / owners to fund the upkeep. 

The Group Manager Highways informed the Forum that the Council’s policy on private streets and back lanes was approved by the Highways, Planning and Transportation Committee on 18 September 1996.  The Policy related to 22 private streets and 37 back lanes, this number was far below the potential extent of private streets that exist within the County Borough.  He outlined to the Forum that the funding contributions of the rolling programme of making-up private streets and back lanes under the Private Street Works Code which would be implemented, subject to available funding to cover the Council’s contribution to such schemes.  He also outlined the criteria for selecting / prioritising private streets. 

He reported that the rolling programme of “making-up” private streets and back lanes under the Private Street Works Code was dependent on available budget resources.  He stated that in subsequent financial years it had not been possible to allocate funding and further work to prioritise schemes in accordance with the Council’s adopted criteria had not yet been embarked upon by the Council.  Given the current financial pressures this situation was unlikely to change in the medium term.  Consequently, the private streets would remain the responsibility of the frontagers, until a Private Street Works scheme is completed in accordance with current rules whereupon the street will be adopted as a highway maintainable at the public expense.

A member of the Forum questioned the process for checking roads following their construction by developers.  The Group Manager Highways informed the Forum that the developers would need to enter into a Section 278 Agreement with the Council which would require the payment of a Bond.  In order that the street is adopted the developer would be required to have agreements with statutory undertakers. He stated that roads which were not adopted remained the responsibility of the developer.           

In response to a question from the Forum, theGroup Manager Highways would provide Town and Community Councils with salting routes and winter preparation information. 

A member of the Forum questioned whether the Authority was responsible for maintaining rear lanes.  The Group Manager Highways informed the Forum that a number of rear lanes are adopted and also inspected, however not all rear lanes were adopted. 

A member of the Forum questioned the timescale for pressurising developers to adopt roads following the completion of a development in order that residents receive the same services as residents who live on adopted roads.  The Group Manager Highways informed the Forum that developers would need to agree sewers with the Drainage Agency before roads were adopted.  There was a need to ensure due diligence so that the maintenance responsibility did not fall on the Council.  He stated that it was in the developer’s interest to comply with the requirements of highways agreements in order that they can pass on maintenance responsibility to the Council.  Officers do try and resolve maintenance issues with developers but their progress on some developments were stymied.  He also stated that he would inform the Forum of the enforcement powers available to the Council and confirm whether the Council had used enforcement powers against developers. 

RESOLVED:       That the Forum noted the content of the report.