permit scheme formal consultation report€¦ · mk approved driving instructors assc freight...

of 36

PERMIT SCHEME FORMAL CONSULTATION REPORT

Title: MK Revised Road Works Permit Scheme formal consultation responses and report

Date: June 2014

Authors: Jason Setford-Smith, Consultant, 07944 298 029

1 Introduction The formal consultation regarding the proposed Milton Keynes Permit Scheme (‘MKPS’) ran for a period of eight (8) weeks beginning on the 4th April 2014. The deadline for receipt of responses was no later than 5pm on 30th May 2014.

It was stated in the consultation covering letter that ‘all responses received by the 30th May 2014 will be taken into consideration and, if Milton Keynes Council consider it to be appropriate, amendments will be made to the draft Permit Scheme.

The scheme was extended to the 21st June 2014 due to difficulties arranging and joint Utilities meeting to discuss the proposal. A meeting was held on the 11th June 2014.

The draft Scheme Document and accompanying covering letter was issued to 66 key stakeholder organisations, including local neighbouring Highway Authorities, Utilities, road user representative groups, current IT suppliers and non-government organisations. The list is provided within this document.

Some organisations had a number of consultees within them and if known those individuals were contacted directly. The total number of email addresses / individual contacts made was 69.

A total of 271 individual comments on the proposed Permit Scheme were received by the deadline.

Additional comments from EToN developers and legal representatives have been added to the comment list so there is transparency regarding all changes to the scheme document.

A list of comments received and potential response or amendments are provided in this document.

1.1 List of Consultees who responded by the deadline

1. Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service (BF&RS)

2. Balfour Beatty (BB)

3. Anglian Water Services Ltd (AW)

4. Virgin Media (VM)

5. Anglian Joint Utilities Group (AJUG)

6. The National Joint Utilities Group Ltd (NJUG)

1.2 Consultees who responded after the deadline

Western Power Distribution (WPD). The response was accepted and approval was sought to submit late due to unforeseen circumstances.

of 36

2 Consultation Distribution List Consultees Category Organisation Contact / email address

Internal Contacts - 3

Head of Legal (Highways) Head of Environmental Health Head of Planning

Stephen Gerrard Karen Ford Nick.Fenwick

Bus Operators - 10

Arriva Milton Keynes Centrebus Grant Palmer MKCT1 Stagecoach Group Red Rose Redline Z&S Souls Vale travel

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Central Government - 3

Department for Transport Highways Agency Environment Agency

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Emergency Services - 3 Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Thames Valley Police South Central Ambulance Service

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

IT and Systems - 1 Symology [email protected]

Passenger Transport - 2 Network Rail Passenger Focus

[email protected] [email protected]

Representative and Interest Groups - 16

Automobile Association British Motorcyclists Federation South British Cycling MK Approved Driving Instructors Assc Freight Transport Association Guide Dogs Association for the Blind Joint Authorities Group Milton Keynes Road Safety Partnership Chamber of Commerce Milton Keynes Wheelchair User Group Road Haulage Association Royal Automobile Club Royal Association for Deaf People Royal Blind Society Taxi/Black Cab/Mini Cab Owners Milton Keynes Parks Trust

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Surrounding Local Authorities - 7

Buckinghamshire County Council Northamptonshire County Council Borough Council of Wellingborough Bedford Borough Council South Northamptonshire District Council Aylesbury Vale District Council Central Bedfordshire Council

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Utility Companies - 15 Anglian Water Services British Telecom PLC Balfour Beatty Utility Solutions Ltd British Waterways BskyB Telecom Services Cable and Wireless Western Power Distribution Colt Communications Gamma Telecom KCOM Group PLC Ericsson National Grid

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

of 36

Verizon Business Virgin Media National Joint Utilities Group

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

S50 Contacts - 5 Note: The Section 50 applicants over the last 12 month period have been listed.

F J Morris Smith Construction GEW2 Ltd Agetur Fulcrum

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Totals 66 69

of 36

3 General Comments Org Suggested amendment / clarification / comment / question Response / action / recommendation

BF&RS Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service have approximately 6000 fire hydrants in the MK area. These are typically under small manhole covers in pavements and are hose connections to the towns water mains. We service all hydrants periodically and we already enjoy a period of grace if we need to stop a vehicle on the road to carry out a service, thank you.

When a hydrant is completely defective we have to order a replacement through Anglian Water. Their contractors will need to excavate in the footpath or occasionally the road. Typically this happens about 25 times per year. The water company then re-charge the cost of the work to the fire service.

As the Permit Scheme is to be extended to all roads, it raises the propsect of the Council partly funding the Fire Service, who then spend some of the money paying permit scheme costs via Anglian Water.

It would therefore seem sensible to ask if work being carried out by Anglian Water on behalf of Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service be exempt from permit costs.

If an assurance is required then the water company could provide the Council with the fire service order number.

Please see section 6.2.1.3.Fire service vehicles

Fire service vehicles occasionally need to be parked adjacent to fire hydrants when these are being tested. These operations are exempt from the requirement to obtain a Permit, provided the work is done outside traffic-sensitive periods.

Please see section 17.2.2 Fees will not be payable in the following circumstances:

ii. Any work undertaken on a fire hydrant.

AW The document says revised draft scheme document. It is understood that the original consultation document was withdrawn and therefore this is a new scheme and not a revised scheme.

It is disappointing that there has been no stakeholder engagement prior to this consultation document being distributed, and therefore Dft protocol has not been followed.

The revised / new scheme is based on an all streets scheme, whereas the original scheme was for traffic sensitive / strategic routes only. We don’t see any benefits for permits on non traffic sensitive type 3 & 4 roads. Neighbouring Authorities in Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire have successfully introduced schemes on traffic sensitive / strategic routes only. There is no evidence or information contained within the consultation on further analysis carried out to support moving to an all streets scheme.

The scheme proposal has been revised.

The scheme was extended to the 21st June 2014 due to difficulties arranging and joint Utilities meeting to discuss the proposal. A meeting was held on the 11th June 2014.

Milton Keynes Council will adopt solely the nationally agreed conditions text developed and approved by HAUC (England) as our standard conditions, including

of 36

There were no conditions provided as part of the consultation document or available on Milton Keynes web site, there are an important part of any scheme and should therefore form part of the consultation process.

referencing.

NJUG NJUG strongly believes that the Scheme should be focused only on the busiest streets (strategically significant streets) as this will enable both the Council and works promoters to focus on working together to plan those works which are likely to cause the most disruption, rather than a blanket approach covering all works and all roads.

However if the council still chooses to apply permits to 100% of streets, NJUG urges the Council to grant permits for category 3 and 4 roads by default (unless the Permit Authority is aware of special circumstances) and for those permits to be at zero fee levels.

This is encouraged in the Traffic Management Act 2004 (Part 3 - permit schemes) – Additional Advice Note - for developing and operating future Permit Schemes, issued in January 2013. NJUG is very concerned that, as currently drafted, the scheme applies full permit fees to Category 3 & 4 streets, when DfT’s Guidance encourages authorities to focus fees on only the busier streets. We urge Milton Keynes to reconsider this specific approach as it will not incentivise reduced disruption on busier streets.

Additionally, after the 2015 permit regulations are implemented, any changes to a permit scheme will require full compliance with the most recent legislation. NJUG therefore recommends Milton Keynes align their Scheme with the recommendations set out in the letter from the Department of Transport to Highways Authorities (dated 17th March 2014 - attached).

The fees for Permits for category 3 and 4 roads reflect the additional cost of increased coordination and has been identified when completing the DfT fees matrix.

NJUG The recent traffic-sensitive streets consultation has increased the number of streets designated as traffic-sensitive. Whilst NJUG recognises that it is an authority’s prerogative to change its list of traffic-sensitive streets, NJUG is concerned that there is trend amongst authorities to review their designations before consulting on a permit scheme, and that in doing so, increase the number of traffic-sensitive streets, with a consequent increase in permit fees and other administrative and operation requirements.

The traffic-sensitive streets consultation was a separate project and not related to the Permit scheme proposals.

WPD This is the second draft scheme that we have had opportunity to consult on. We are disappointed that the targeting of strategic routes only has been altered to the permit scheme now covering all works on all streets. We would also like to highlight the review of Traffic Sensitivity on the Milton Keynes road network and note that there has been an increase of streets with a Traffic Sensitive designation, that on close scrutiny include

The traffic-sensitive streets consultation was a separate project and not related to the Permit scheme proposals.

of 36

some streets that do not seem to warrant the designation.

4 Scheme Document comments

Org Document Section

Suggested amendment / clarification / comment / question Response / reply / recommendation

Section 1 & 2: Foreword and Introduction

BB Balfour Beatty is disappointed that the Milton Keynes Council Permit Scheme will apply to all of the roads under its control. Whilst we acknowledge that the DfT’s January 2013 Traffic Management Act 2004 (Part 3 - permit schemes) – Additional Advice Note - for developing and operating future Permit Schemes allows Councils to apply permits to all roads, but we would like to emphasise that the same document also explicitly encourages local authorities to focus on only the busiest (strategically significant) streets of its network. Other Authorities such as Northamptonshire have decided to follow this more cost effective approach to implementing a permit scheme. In our experience it is schemes such as Northampton which have proven the more successful in achieving their objectives while also driving better co-ordination and reducing disruption.

In our experience the administering of a permit scheme for 100% of the network creates an administrative burden for both the Permit Authority and all works promoters and we argue that this will not be sufficiently balanced by improvements (directly attributable to the existence of a permit scheme) in reducing disruption or more effective network management.

We continue to believe that the provisions within the current Noticing regime, combined with self regulatory measures as outlined in our executive summary can deliver the same results as a permit scheme, but at a much reduced cost to the local authority and utilities.

We are currently involved in a number of projects under the Highway Maintenance Efficiency Programme which are building platforms for better co-ordination and co-operation with improved communication.

Comments noted

of 36

Indeed in North East Lincolnshire a Charter has been drawn up by all utility companies the Highway Authority and contractors which will cement this strategy without the need to move to a permit scheme.

Local authorities also have a range of measures with which to manage utility street works, including S74 overstay charges, which even before the last increase were resulting in 99% of all works being completed within the agreed timescales; fixed penalties; S58 - restricting works after major road resurfacing works; and under Noticing an authority can still dictate when works take place. Our strong preference is therefore for authorities and utilities to work together to more effectively co-ordinate and share best practice to encourage improvements in other aspects such as notice quality and on site compliance and quality. Balfour Beatty is focusing its efforts on front end planning of works and ensuring where appropriate all stakeholders including the customer, client and Highway Authority are engaged as early as possible even at design stage so when it comes to undertaking the physical works everyone understands what is happening and why and for how long. This has required a step change in parts of our business but we would prefer to change within than have change forced upon us in the guise of these permit schemes. Bristol City Council’s new Code of Conduct is an excellent example on how to reduce congestion within the current NRSWA framework without introducing a financially burdensome permit scheme for both the authority and the utilities. The above said Balfour Beatty would, if the council still chooses to apply permits to 100% of streets, like to see Milton Keynes to grant permits for category 3 and 4 roads by default (unless the Permit Authority is aware of special circumstances), and for those permits to be at zero fee levels.

VM 2.5.3 Virgin Media would like to make reference to the DfT advice (letter date 17th March 2014) indicating that only the sector agreed condition matrix (HAUC Advice Note) will be acceptable.

Milton Keynes Council will adopt solely the nationally agreed conditions text developed and approved by HAUC (England) as our standard conditions, including referencing.

Section 3: Objectives of the Permit Scheme

VM 3.1.2 Virgin Media agrees with the key factors highlighted. On the point Comments noted

of 36

about better planning, scheduling and management of activities to minimise disruption to any road user. Virgin Media agrees in an overall drive to further improve the timing and duration of works to minimise disruption, where safe and practical to do so. But Virgin Media already promotes improvements to timing and duration of works and there are many examples of innovation in working practices that have resulted in reduced occupation of the highway – advanced planning; use of minimum-dig technology; shared or sequential occupation of the carriageway etc. However, in seeking to reduce durations, utilities are best placed to estimate how long works will take, but should agree those times and be willing to justify them to Milton Keynes Council when requested.

AW 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 This can still be achieved via noticing and co-ordination meetings. This requires additional resources to improve management and enable better co-ordination of activities.

BB 3.1.4 + 3.1.5 We welcome the principles behind the performance improvements to be derived from the implementation of the scheme however there are three questions we would pose in regard to these measures:-

1. What historical statistical data is available on each of these measures in order to present a base line to demonstrate improvement once the scheme has been implemented?

2. If no historical data is available to base line current and past performance how will Milton Keynes be able to demonstrate that the scheme is successful in achieving these improvements?

3. How will each of these improvements be measured and what will be the source of the data?

The objectives will be achieved by improving management and enabling better co-ordination of future activities that will be monitored with industry agreed KPIs.

AJUG 3.1.4 + 3.1.5 How are these going to be measured and what are the baseline figures for these categories under


WPD 3.1.4 + 3.1.5 Please provide detail on the baseline figures for these objectives and how they will be measured to demonstrate the success on the scheme. As highlighted above, there is no cost data provided with the

The objectives will be achieved by improving management and enabling better co-ordination of future activities that will be monitored with industry agreed

of 36

scheme consultation documentation in order to compare these against the expected benefits. All costs need to encompass all costs, not just the Highway Authority’s but also the costs to all works promoter and any additional direct costs to customers (e.g. for new connections) especially as there are charges for any works in the highway.

KPIs.

VM 3.1.4 Virgin Media disagrees that a Permit Scheme will ultimately reduce congestion on the road network. How will a safer environment be promoted (as a Permit Scheme does not relate to Section 65 NRSWA)?

Noted and other legislation details health and safety requirements.

AW 3.1.4 + 3.1.5 How are these going to be measured and what are the baseline figures for these categories under noticing. If baseline data is not known how are you going to demonstrate improvement?


AW 3.2 There is no evidence that a permit scheme will benefit any of these objectives, these are not measurable against the scheme


Section 4: Scope of the Permit Scheme

AW 4.3.1 Why is scheme an all streets scheme, the document says revised draft scheme document, and that comments from the original scheme had been considered. The original scheme was for traffic sensitive / strategic routes only, therefore evidence should be given that the original consultation recommended an all streets scheme, or what further analysis has been carried out to now support an all streets scheme.

A fees matrix and Cost Benefit Analysis have been prepared and demonstrate the benefits of this approach.

VM 4.3.1 Virgin Media are disappointed that Milton Keynes Council’s Permit Scheme and associated fee’s will apply to all classification of roads. If the council chooses to apply permits to 100% of streets, contrary to advice from Ministers, Virgin Media requests that Milton Keynes Council grant permits for category 3 and 4 roads by default and for those permits to be at zero fee levels.

The Permit fees reflect the additional costs incurred by Milton Keynes Council in increased administration and coordination of Utilities’ Permits including on category 3 and 4 roads.

of 36

Section 5: Activities Covered by the Scheme

BB 5.1.2 To meet the definition of a registerable activity under NRSWA, we suggest this should be termed streets at traffic-sensitive times as streets can only become traffic-sensitive at certain times as defined by regulation. Omission of this renders the proposed scheme outside of the scope of the Permits Code of Practice. We would also suggest that this section is renumbered to reflect the layout of from 7.3.4 of the Co-ordination of Street Works Code of Practice.

The statement is ‘(b) Involve opening the carriageway or cycleway of traffic-sensitive streets at traffic-sensitive times.’

Section 6: Exempt Activities

AJUG 6.2 Registerable and non registerable activities are clearly defined in the Code of Practice for Permits – the document should make reference to those sections only – so that future amendments can be clearly followed

The text is consistent with the COP.

VM 6.2.2 Virgin Media would like to add lifting chamber lids at non traffic sensitive streets, where we do not encroach on the carriageway, to enable cable pulling as this does not involve breaking up the street.

Rejected as this can involve traffic management or other working arrangements.

AJUG 6.3.1 This needs amending to include or by 10am the next working day if it is out of hours. – why complicate things make reference to Code of Practice for Permits – 9.2.4

This statement is included ‘If the work commences out of working hours, then a Permit must be applied for by 10am the next working day’

BB 6.3.1 This paragraph contradicts the requirements set out in Para 6.3.3 , 9.5.4 and 9.5.5 and does not make provision for the sending of permit applications outside of normal working hours nor does it set out how Milton Keynes will provide response to such applications other than the [promoter leaving messages. The Permit Code of Practice states “Where immediate activities are identified and undertaken outside the normal working day the application should be made within two hours of the start of the next working day, i.e. by 10:00, except where the authority has indicated that it can receive and respond to such communications outside normal working hours.” This needs to be reflected in this paragraph either by inclusion or reference 6.3.3.

The text is correct and complies with the requirements.


of 36

AW 6.3.1 This needs amending to include or by 10am the next working day is out of hours.


WPD 6.3.1 Clarification that the Immediate Permit must be applied for within 2 working hours.


BB 6.3.2 This paragraph uses terminology which is not common or defined within the scheme namely “Mandatory” or “Immediate” conditions. This required either clarification or reference to established terminology.

Immediate activity Permit applications must comply with any specified conditions, whether Mandatory, Immediate or Standard for such activities or particular to that activity. Section DELETED

AW 6.3.2 This uses terminology which is not common to permit schemes or defined within the scheme, namely “Mandatory” or “Immediate” conditions. This requires either changing or reference to established terminology.

Immediate activity Permit applications must comply with any specified conditions, whether Mandatory, Immediate or Standard for such activities or particular to that activity. Section DELETED

Section 7: Permits - General

EToN 7.3.1 Only one application per street, the wording seems to imply only one application is only allowed on one street, not an application must only be for one street.

Agreed, text changed

Legal 7.3.4 For consistency with NRSWA, a street will correspond to a USRN

This is not needed

For consistency with NRSWA, a street will correspond to a USRN. Section DELETED

BB 7.4 We suggest ‘Multiple Stage Activities’ be renamed ‘Multiple Phase Activities’ for consistency with the EToN Technical Specification & Co-ordination of Street works Code of Practice. Practitioners are familiar with the term ‘phase’, not ‘stage’.

Section reworded

of 36

AW 7.4 This should read “Multiple Phase Activities” and not “Multiple Stage Activities “ so it is consistent with EToN terminology & Co-ordination of Street works Code of Practice

Section reworded

VM 7.4 Virgin Media suggest ‘Multiple Stage Activities’ be renamed ‘Multiple Phase Activities’ for consistency with the EToN Technical specification & Co-ordination of Street works Code of Practice. Practitioners are familiar with the term ‘phase’, not ‘stage’.

Section reworded

AJUG 7.4 This should read “Multiple Phase Activities” and not “Multiple Stage Activities “so it is consistent with EToN terminology & Code of Practice

Section reworded

WPD 7.4 Please change this to ‘Multiple Phase Activities’ from ‘Multiple Stage Activities’.

Section reworded

Legal 7.5.2 This paragraph needs rewriting. Agreed, reworded.

EToN 7.5.2 + 7.5.4 These appear to contradict each other as unconnected activities are treated differently

Single street added for clarification.

BB 7.5.3 We disagree with this principle as it actually conflicts with all of the key objectives of the scheme as outlined in 3.1.5. It makes absolute sense for a utility to undertake as much work as possible within the scope of a single permit application even if that work is not directly associated with the original application details. For example under a major works permit with a TTRO it would be absolutely counter productive if additional works not connected with the original works schedule were not carried out these could include apparatus repairs, service connections, meter installations etc. Surely the objective of a permit scheme is to minimise disruption not to generate revenue from additional permit fees.

DfT advice received so text remains.

AW 7.5.3 We disagree with this principle, it conflicts with all of the key objectives of the scheme. It makes absolute sense for a utility to undertake as much work as possible within the scope of a single permit application even if that work is not directly connected with the original application details. For example under a major works permit with a TTRO it would be inefficient and cause more disruption if


of 36

additional works not connected with the original works schedule were not carried out. This would also discourage collaborative working as the activities would not be connected. The key objective of a permit scheme is to minimise disruption not to generate revenue from additional permit fees.

VM 7.5.3 Please confirm what Milton Keynes Council consider to be unconnected activities?


WPD 7.5.3 This approach offers no incentive for a works promoter to self-coordinate their internal works, e.g. taking the opportunity to carry out maintenance works whilst working in the same street doing a new connection. Will this apply if the ‘unconnected activities’ are in the same geographical location and within the same traffic management?


AJUG 7.5.3 + 7.5.4

Activities are defined in Phases – a phase may contain multiple works – the phase as defined in the Code of Practice for Permits 2.11 supplies the clarity

7.5.3 deleted

VM 7.5.4 A permit isn’t always required at the customer connection stage of a job; Virgin Media suggests revising the paragraph to read ’If the installation of customer connections is undertaken at a later date then the Promoter shall apply for a separate Permit if required i.e. if registerable activity’

Reworded

BB 7.6.3 This is an Authority-imposed variation and therefore should not have either a permit variation fee or a fee for any subsequent permit that may be required to complete the original works.

‘Will’ DELETED. A Permit fee may be charged for the new Permit depending on circumstances.

AW 7.6.3 This would be an Authority-imposed variation and therefore should not have either a permit variation fee or a fee for any subsequent permit that may be required to complete the works.

Will’ DELETED. A Permit fee may be charged for the new Permit depending on circumstances.

VM 7.6.3 Virgin Media does not agree that a Permit fee should be charged in this case. This is an Authority imposed variation and therefore at no charge.


AJUG 7.6.3

As defined in the Code of Practice for Permits - 2.11 Interrupted Activities


of 36

WPD 7.6.3 If the works are severed at the Permit Authority request, then this is an imposed variation. Please can there be assurance that this would only be used in justifiable exceptionable circumstances, with no additional permit fee payable. There will be additional costs incurred by unnecessary reinstatement and re-excavation to the works promoter, as will as the additional disruption this will cause to the travelling public.


VM 7.8 Virgin Media agrees in an overall drive to further improve the timing and duration of works to minimise disruption, where safe and practical to do so.

Virgin Media already promotes improvements to timing and duration of works and there are many examples of innovation in working practices that have resulted in reduced occupation of the highway – advanced planning; use of minimum-dig technology; shared or sequential occupation of the carriageway etc. However, in seeking to reduce durations, utilities are best placed to estimate how long works will take.

Comment noted.

AW 7.8.5 The document doesn’t state how much charges will be discounted for collaborative working.

A 30% discount is applied for collaborative working.

AJUG 7.8.5

What are the financial benefits for collaborative working – where have they been published – not indicated in Appendix E

A 30% discount is applied for collaborative working.

BB 7.8.6 This section intimates that collaborative working solely involves the sharing of the same excavation, this should not be restricted in this manner as effective collaborative working should actually be the collaboration between promoters to conduct the maximum amount of works within a geographical area in this case a street at the same time thus reducing disruption this may not necessarily mean occupying the same trench just the same or extended works area. In these situation a individual permit would be required to register the separate activities but discounts on fees should be given to both/all parties as a incentive.

Section 7.8.6 DELETED

AW 7.8.6 This implies that collaborative working only involves the sharing of the Deleted

of 36

same excavation, this should not be

restricted in this manner as effective collaborative working should actually be the collaboration between promoters to

conduct the maximum amount of works within a street at the same time thus reducing disruption, this may be by means of sharing Traffic Management but not excavations.. In this situation an individual permit would be required to register the separate activities but discounts on fees should be given to all parties .

AJUG 7.8.6 As defined in the Code of Practice for Permits 2.10 Deleted

WPD 7.8.6 The incentives for collaborative working are not clear, and the specific scenario does not reflect the wide range of collaborative working situations that need to be encouraged.

Deleted

EToN 7.9.1 EToN reference number is a Works Reference Number Agreed, text changed

EToN 7.10.1 This does not make sense. What are you trying to achieve. 7.10 DELETED

EToN 7.10.2 This does not make sense. What are you trying to achieve. 7.10 DELETED

VM 7.11.1 If works continue beyond the end date of a permit, Virgin Media believe this would be classed as breach of permit condition, not working without a valid permit.

Permits code of practice text added.

BB 7.11.2 Balfour Beatty would suggest a minor change to the first sentence of this paragraph to If the activity cannot commence on the proposed start date, the Promoter should where possible inform the Permit Authority by telephone no later than the preceding day.” This minor change allows for those unforeseen circumstances which sometimes arise where it is found that works cannot commence on the day the permit is due to start (e.g. parked car over area of proposed works, staff sickness or major emergency requiring a significant diversion of resources such as the recent floods etc.)


VM 7.11.4 Virgin Media states that his contradicts 7.11.1 – is it an offence or an s74 overrun for the promoter to work once the permit has ceased to be valid?


of 36

BB 7.11.4 This paragraph seems to conflict with 7.11.1 and we would therefore ask for additional clarification as to whether in such circumstances it is considered an offence warranting a fixed penalty or a S74 overrun for the promoter to work once the permit has ceased to be valid. There has been some precedent (London Borough of Enfield .v. Virgin Media) recently set for such matters where it was deemed that a FPN for working without a permit could not be applied if a permit was in place at the time works started and lapsed.


WPD 7.12 Clarification on this section is required. To have this as a blanket approach for all planned works is not practical and will unnecessarily extend occupation of the highway by all works promoters. Clarification will be needed as to how Milton Keynes Council expects this to be managed in practice. The allowable maximum working hours are 6.5 hours a day in the week and weekends. It is not clear what is expected by not working during traffic sensitive times – does this mean no-one on site or that all works are to be reinstated and traffic management removed on a daily basis. If so the actual working window per day will be less than 5 hours which is unreasonable.

7.12 DELETED

AW 7.12.1 This is very badly worded and implies that you define non-peak times as between 0700hrs to 0930hrs, and 1600hrs to 1830hrs, which means you can’t work between 0930hrs and 1600hrs which is not at all practical, and it will not be possible to work within such tight timescales. in the case of planned or major works where it is not possible to complete and close any excavations with such as small time period. The scope of these works will not always allow us to stop start in order to comply with this permit requirement. In effect this restriction would mean there would only be a 6.5hr working window during the normal working day before works would have to close down. The setting up and the closing down of a site could take an hour or more at each end of the working period thus reducing the working day to less than 4 hours before works would have to be conducted in unsocial hours, which can create other issues especially in residential areas due to noise.

7.12 DELETED

AJUG 7.12.1 The start and finish times should be defined in the permit application and any conditions applied in relation to timing and duration – as

7.12 DELETED

of 36

defined in the Designations for the USRN or applicable in relation to the activity proposed taking into account other legislative factors as defined in the Code of Practice for Permits – Section 13

AW 7.13.1 Are early starts to be requested by telephone or by EToN EToN

AW 7.13.4 10.15 of the Permit Code of Practice states that such permission should not be unreasonable refused.

This is in the text.

EToN 7.14.1 2.5.1 states that you will refer to activities but this section refers to “Specified works in a specified street”

Agreed, activities used.

‘specified works in a specified street’ DELETED

Section 8: Permits - Types

EToN 8.2.4 This is not EToN compliant, a permit application must always be proceeded by a PAA.

8.2.4 DELETED

EToN 8.2.7 I can find no mention of when you pay for a PAA, on application of the PAA or on permit application.

Granting a PAA text added

BB 8.2.9 We suggest that this paragraph be clarified as to what eventuality could result in any potential permit refusal. We would also like clarification of what happens to any fee paid for a PAA which is later refused as we would expect a full refund of any fees if a permit was refused by the permit authority after a legitimate and correct PAA was served.

The fee for the PAA reflects the time spent agreeing the PAA.

WPD 8.2.9 Clarification needed as to the circumstances that this would apply. These are specific to the circumstances at the times and can vary.

BB 8.3.1 Balfour Beatty are puzzled by the inclusion of the word “final” in this paragraph as final details are not submitted until the registration stage of the works and are not part of a permit application.

The word final has been changed to complete.

AW 8.3.1 What does “final” mean as final details are part of the registration and not the permit application


AJUG 8.3.1 Not sure of meaning – registerable activities as part of the permit application – Section 70 of the NRSWA defines the registration


of 36

requirements

WPD 8.3.1 Clarification needed as to what is meant by this section or its purpose. The word final has been changed to complete.

AJUG 8.3.3 The requirement to have a physical copy is outdated – the focus should be on the activities being undertaken in a safe manner in line with the Safety Code and the participants in that activity being able to demonstrate knowledge of requirements.

This can be electronic if appropriate.

Section 9: Permits - Classes

BB 9.2.2 This paragraph is incorrect and unnecessary 9.2.1 defines major works (except where the duration of 10 or more days has been omitted). Additionally, ‘major activities’ that do not require a TTRO fall outside of a strategic programme and take between 4 to 10 days are not major activities – they are standard activities.

The text reflects the desire to have a charging structure that allows for charges to be based on duration.

Text updated

See - Traffic Management Act 2004 (part 3 - permit schemes)

ADDITIONAL ADVICE NOTE - for developing and operating future Permit Schemes, January 2013. Section 23

AW 9.2.2 Why has major works been split into three categories, this should not be part of the scheme, and is not required, the definition of Major works is clearly defined in legislation


Text updated


ADDITIONAL ADVICE NOTE - for developing and operating future Permit Schemes, January 2013. Section 23

AJUG 9.2 to 9.4 Why has major works been split into three categories?

The requirements for activities are clearly defined in the Code of Practice for Permits – amendments to any such wording can only create confusion


Text updated


ADDITIONAL ADVICE NOTE - for developing and

of 36

operating future Permit Schemes, January 2013. Section 23

EToN 9.3.1 Standard Activities are those activities, other than immediate, minor or major activities. There is no need for minor you can’t have a minor with a duration of > 3 days

‘other than immediate, minor or major activities’, DELETED

EToN 9.4.1 Minor Activities are those activities, other than immediate, standard or major activities, Standard can’t be 3 days or less

‘other than immediate, standard or major activities’ DELETED

BB 9.5.2 This requirement is impractical if applied to every street in Milton Keynes Network. This should not be the case for all immediate activities with excavation in the Highway as there is a mechanism already in place on the National Streets Gazetteer (NSG) where only supersensitive streets are flagged up for this purposes. Therefore we strongly suggest this requirement should be linked only to Milton Keynes supersensitive streets that are particularly susceptible to disruption. If this requirement is to remain we would insist on speaking to an actual person rather than a machine to confirm that our activity has been properly recorded therefore provision would have to be made for 24hour coverage.

Text added ‘immediately if identified on the NSG’.

AW 9.5.2 Is this telephone contact 24hrs, 7 days a week, and is it for traffic sensitive / strategic streets only or all streets. Will a PIN be issued as proof of authorisation ? If for all streets this is totally impractical, and should not be needed on all streets. The NSG should indicate which streets require this which should be only the most sensitive.


VM 9.5.2 Virgin Media believe that this is covered under 9.5.4, permit application to be submitted within 2 hours of activity starting.


AJUG 9.5.2 As per the Code of Practice 4.3 (i) Additional Street Data – only those streets designated will be subject to early notification and 5.7 – manned control centres able to amend traffic signals!!


WPD 9.5.2 Justification as to why a telephone call is needed for each Immediate Works. In the past 12 months we carried out approximately 300 Immediate Works in Milton Keynes. If the volumes for all works


of 36

promoters, including Milton Keynes’ own works, are combined how will this be resourced and what will be done with the information. 9.5.4 refers to a message being left for out of hours works – therefore this implies that the calls will not be managed out of hours.

Consult 9.5.3 This is not required 9.5.3 DELETED

Consult 9.5.4 Nest day requirement clarified ‘9.5.4 If work starts outside of working hours, an application for a Permit must be submitted by 10am the next working day’. ADDED

AW 9.5.5 What are the timescales for raising the permit the next working day is it still 10am ?

9.5.5 DELETED

VM 9.5.5 Virgin Media do not believe this is a requirement under the Permits Code of Practice, please clarify?

9.5.5 DELETED

AJUG 9.5.5 This is as defined in the Code of Practice – Definition of Immediate Works

9.5.5 DELETED

WPD 9.5.6 Clarification is needed as to what evidence would be needed, and that this is on an exceptional basis. Generally the works description and notice type should suffice. The regulations allow that as a Statutory Undertaker it is our view whether the works are classed as Immediate or not – each utility’s network is different.

‘Failure to do so may constitute an offence and result in the Permit Authority taking action against the Promoter’ DELETED

Section 10: Permit Applications

BB 10.1.6 We strongly suggest this should paragraph should encompass the new ETON 6 Permit rules which will be in place on 1st April 2014, and allow for a Permit modification request, thereby negating the need to refuse a Permit application. We would also suggest an additional comment stating that the permit would not be unreasonably refused be added.

AW 10.1.6 This paragraph should include the new ETON 6 Permit rules which will allow for a Permit modification request, thereby negating the need to refuse a Permit application.

of 36

Legal 10.1.7 Delete, not needed DELETED

BB 10.3 If the Highway Authority system fails, then it is the Highway Authority’s responsibility to put faxed information on EToN not the promoter.

The Promoter must input this information.

Legal 10.3.1 Final bullet point needs to be rewritten (eg)

Also add that proof of posting is not proof of receipt, consider recorded delivery

‘First class’ deleted

‘A delivery mechanism that includes a delivery receipt is recommended ‘ added

WPD 10.3.2 There is reference to a contact number provided in Appendix F. Appendix F simply refers to http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk and does not specify any contact numbers.

This information will be provided prior to implementation of the scheme and after DfT approval.

‘to the contact number provided Appendix F’. DELETED

Legal 10.3.3 The officer

Who is this? Are they in the definitions

Officer changed to ‘Permit Authority’

WPD 10.4 The scheme will need revising to accommodate the changes that EToN 6 will include, especially around permit modifications which are not covered in the scheme but we will expect to be used in practice as appropriate.

This has been included.

Legal 10.5 USE OF PLAIN ENGLISH

Delete – see 12.2

DELETED

Legal 10.6 + 10.7 Delete these as information is covered elsewhere Agreed, DELETED

AJUG 10.8.1 In any submission the USRN holds info in relation to the interested parties for notification – in that submission it is not the promoters’ responsibility to check each and every application

‘Promoters are required to check whether any parties have registered such an interest prior to submitting an application for a Permit or PAA’. Text added

EToN 10.12.1 This should read that a section 58 or 58A is in force. Agreed. Text edited

AJUG 10.12.1 The requirements are quite clearly defined under Section 8.5 this condensed statement serves no purpose

Text edited.

of 36

Section 11: Information Required in a Permit Application

AW 11.1.1 The technique can only be estimated until works commence.

The reinstatement type is irrelevant as utilities may effect interim or permanent under section 70 of NRSWA. Interim works will merely attract an additional visit and permit in order to carry out permanent reinstatement.

Promoters may be required to supply the following information.

WPD 11.2 Clarification is needed as to whether this refers to the existing EToN fields, or whether this is an additional requirement. If this is an additional requirement, then clarification is needed as to how this information is expected to be communicated.

All Permit applications must include the contact details, if different from the normal contact number.

Via additional text.

Section 12: USRN

Legal 12.1.1 Delete these as information is covered elsewhere Agreed. Deleted

WPD 12.2 There appears to be several addition requirements for information that is expected to be included in the ‘Works Description’ field. There is a finite space for this field and this may be an area that further discussion is required on to ascertain the purpose of providing such information, the tolerance of accuracy required, and the consequences of incorrect data or changing the data once the permit is in force.

Noted

AJUG 12.3.2 + 12.3.3

Where it may be preferred – it should not be enforced - as defined in the technical spec that a start and end point is compliant

It states ‘will be preferred’

BB 12.3.4 The Works Activity Footprint (WAF) is not a requirement under regulation or the Code of Practice. This underwent consultation in early 2011 and was not agreed by HAUC(UK) to be a requirement. BB does not therefore agree it is a requirement to supply this information and suggests this paragraph is removed

Wording was changed so requirement is ‘if required’

AW 12.3.4 The Works Activity Footprint (WAF) is not a requirement under regulation or the Code of Practice. This underwent consultation in early 2011 and was not agreed by AUC(UK) to be a requirement


of 36

VM 12.3.4 The Works Activity Footprint (WAF) is not required. This underwent consultation in early 2011 and was not agreed by HAUC(UK) to be a requirement. Virgin Media does not agree therefore to supply this information.


AJUG 12.3.4 The impact of works is assessed and the area in terms of occupancy is denoted in the selection of the co-ordinates and the selection of the TM. The wording could be misconstrued as requiring a WAF which is not a requirement. Works of significant impact would be subject to site meetings which would be updated in the PAA


WPD 12.3.4 Clarification is needed as to how the dimensions for occupation, over and above the excavation, will be communicated as part of the permit application.


WPD 12.4.1 Further explanation required as to how the start and end times for each day worked on permit streets should be provided, and the tolerance for accuracy and meaning of what constitutes activity in this context – see also comment for 7.12

7.12 DELETED

Start and end times for each day worked on permit streets will be a condition attached to the granted permit.

WPD 12.5. The inclusion of the legal term ‘must’ is not appropriate. The text is correct and remains

AJUG 12.5.1 PAA – ‘must’ should be removed – the PAA as defined in the COP 2.9.2 – the PAA can be recorded at the earliest opportunity when all factors may not be known and that then develops following engagement with other interested parties

It is particularly important that an illustration is provided where the activity is significant in terms of potential disruption due to its duration, position and size as with Provisional Advance Authorisation applications and Major Activity Permit applications.

It is understood that illustrations will be based on the best information available at the time of application.

Section 12.5.1 added ‘It is particularly important that an illustration is provided for Provisional Advance Authorisation applications and Major Activity Permit applications.’

BB 12.5.1 + 12.5.2

The provision of documents with an application was unavailable through ETON until Eton 6 came on line in April 2014. It may also be impractical to provide illustrations on some work types where the full

It is understood that illustrations required for PAA and Major activities will be based on the best information available at the time of application.

of 36

scope is unknown until work commences. Therefore all drawing illustrations should be accepted on face value and validated when works commence, permits should not be unreasonably refused for absence of illustrations where the works description adequately outlines the works or where there is lack of clarity from the permit authority on the technical nature of any illustration.

WPD 12.5.2 The inclusion of the legal term ‘must’ is not appropriate. There is also room for interpretation on both sides as to when this would be required.

Section 12.5.1 added ‘It is particularly important that an illustration is provided for Provisional Advance Authorisation applications and Major Activity Permit applications.’

AW 12.6.1 The technique can only be estimated until works commence, as tis may change due to ground conditions, position of other utilities etc.

It is understood that technique will be based on the best information available at the time of application.

VM 12.6.1 Virgin Media believe ‘Must’ should be removed. Technique may not be known in every instance up front. Virgin Media would like to suggest ‘where known’ also be added.

It is understood that technique will be based on the best information available at the time of application.

BB 12.7.1 This provision does make sense however it has not been made clear if any payment for a TTRO application made at the time of the PAA would be refunded if the permit application is later refused as per the provision set out in 8.2.8 of the draft scheme.

There is no refund of costs incurred as this is undertaken by separate Council departments using their processes.

AW 12.7.1 Are traffic light applications to be made using the EToN6 functionality If the functionality is available.

AJUG 12.7.1 Approvals for traffic signals are contained within the permit application via a TTSA since the introduction of EToN 6 and do not require separate approvals

Noted

WPD 12.7.1 EToN 6 allows for Temporary Traffic Signals to be submitted via EToN. This is not covered in the scheme.

Noted

WPD 12.7.3 Provision of detailed information for TTROs and parking applications should be provided by Milton Keynes Council as an appendix to the scheme.

This can be discussed separately and subsequently provided if agreed.

VM 12.8.1 This field already exists within EToN. ‘This information should be provided in the ‘Works Description’ section until there is an appropriate field

of 36

within EToN’. DELETED

WPD 12.9 Clarification is needed as to how the information regarding reinstatement types should be communicated. Also clarity is needed where the reinstatement is permanent, but road markings are classed as interim. This is registered as an interim reinstatement, but then the interim to permanent phase is only to permanently replace the lines, as allowed in the SROH & Co-ordination COP. This scenario is not covered.

12.9.1 DELETED

AW 12.9.1 The reinstatement type is irrelevant as utilities may effect interim or permanent under section 70 of NRSWA. Interim works will merely attract an additional visit and permit in order to carry out permanent reinstatement.

12.9.1 and 12.9.2 DELETED

Section 13: Permit Conditions

NJUG Given that DfT has also indicated that it expects all future schemes to use the HAUC England permit conditions that are current being drafted, we welcome confirmation that Milton Keynes intends to use these conditions, which will be required by the future regulations. This will minimise any future changes being required. However, NJUG requests that a list of the specific HAUC England conditions that Milton Keynes permit scheme will be adopting is made available to all stakeholders when available.

Milton Keynes Council will adopt solely the nationally agreed conditions text developed and approved by HAUC (England) as our standard conditions, including referencing. We recognise that these conditions may be subject to change and may develop over time. Any future changes to the conditions text ratified through HAUC (England) formal approval process will automatically be incorporated into this scheme. Any changes will have been consulted on and agreed by the sector and we will not undertake further consultation on those agreed changes, but will inform stakeholders of their implementation date for use within our permit scheme.

Legal 13.1 to 13.2.5 Delete these and replace with simple reference to standard permit conditions

Agreed

BB 13.1.4 This paragraph uses terminology which is not common or defined within the scheme namely “Mandatory” or “Immediate” conditions. This required either clarification or reference to established terminology.

These conditions must be included in the consultation process and

DELETED

Milton Keynes Council will adopt solely the nationally agreed conditions text developed and approved by HAUC (England) as our standard conditions, including

of 36

must follow the guidance issued by HUAC (UK) and the recent official letter Robert Goodwill MP which states “no condition should include matters already covered in legislation and cannot exceed legislation.”

referencing.

AW 13.1.4 These conditions must be included in the consultation process and must follow the guidance issued by HUAC (UK) and the recent official letter Robert Goodwill MP which states “no condition should include matters already covered in legislation and cannot exceed legislation.”

DELETED


VM 13.1.4 Virgin Media would like to make reference to the DfT advice (letter date 17th March 2014) indicating that only the sector agreed condition matrix (HAUC Advice Note) will be acceptable.

DELETED


AJUG 13.1.4 These conditions must be included in the consultation process and must follow the guidance issued by HAUC (UK) and the recent official letter Robert Goodwill MP which states “no condition should include matters already covered in legislation and cannot exceed legislation.”

DELETED


WPD 13.1.4 Clarification is needed as to what is meant by this section. The conditions for the scheme should be those that are agreed by HAUC, and no further mandatory conditions should be part of the scheme, or imposed on an ad-hoc basis once the scheme is running.

DELETED


AW 13.2.1 Will number to be displayed require the prefixes or just the main body of the number (unique job number) which is what most other schemes require.

Just the main body of the number (unique job number)

WPD 13.2.1 Clarification needed as to the format of the permit number that will be permissible. The numbers are by nature fairly long, and the correct

Just the main body of the number (unique job number)

of 36

suffix, our number would look like DY###X###########.#.# expecting operatives to correctly write these on information boards on site will unfortunately result in some human error.

AJUG 13.2.2 As in 8.3.3 DELETED

WPD 13.2.2 Whereas it is good practice to have a copy of the permit on site, making this a mandatory condition seems excessive. It is not clear whether the copy must be on site at all times, or when operatives are present on site.

Section reworded.

The Promoter should endeavour to have a copy, either electronic or hard copy, of the current Permit on site for inspection.

WPD 13.2.4 Clarification is needed as to how this information will be communicated. The EToN protocol, and HAUC guidance, is that the most disruptive traffic management is specified on the permit application (or notice) and it is unnecessary and unreasonable to amend the permit/notice each time the traffic management changes.

DELETED

BB 13.2.5 This requirement is both impractical and unnecessary. A works promoter will not know for any certainty what the impact of their works is likely to be at any given point during those works duration. A works promoter therefore would only be able to indicate absolutes such as “Pedestrian crossing to be suspended”, “working within 100m of school in term time” what they cannot do is foresee the impact of those works.

DELETED

AW 13.2.5 A works promoter will not know for any certainty what the impact of their works is likely to be at any given point during those works duration. A works promoter therefore would only be able to indicate absolutes such as “Pedestrian crossing to be suspended”, “working within 100m of school in term time” what they cannot do is foresee the impact of those works.

DELETED

VM 13.2.5 Virgin Media are concerned regarding supplying this additional information. It is not within scope of the EToN Technical Specification, and text field of the Permit application is limited by EToN to 500 characters only. In addition, this should not apply to every works, and should be works specific.

DELETED

of 36

AJUG 13.2.5 In the submission of any activity the promoter should submit their application on the basis of those known factors that may impact on completion of the activity within the designations applied. It is the role of the permit authority approving or adding conditions where other factors which are known to them should be included in any response.

DELETED

WPD 13.2.5 We would be providing the location of the works, and would expect Milton Keynes Council to fulfil their Network Management Duty by assessing the impact of the works and use that assessment to request appropriate conditions. If we are expected to carry out this function on their behalf, without have the necessary information or expertise then this brings into question the requirement for a permit scheme at all. If this is not removed from the scheme then please explain how you expect the anticipated impact on the surrounding area to be described and communicated on the permit application. Be reminded of the limited space in EToN on permit applications, and give clarification as to what information is required, the format to communicate it in order to ascertain the purpose of providing such information, the tolerance of accuracy required, and the consequences of incorrect data or changing the data once the permit is in force.

DELETED

BB 13.3.1 These conditions must be included in the consultation process and must follow the guidance issued by HUAC (UK) and the recent official letter Robert Goodwill MP which states “no condition should include matters already covered in legislation and cannot exceed legislation.” There is no such document available on the website or as part of this consultation.

The wording of Conditions have been consulted on via the HAUC National Permit Forum

AW 13.3.1 The wording of the conditions should be part of the consultation process, and they are not available on your web site as indicated in the document.


AJUG 13.3.1 The wording of the conditions should be part of the consultation process, and they are not available on your web site as indicated in the document.


WPD 13.3.1 The have been no details of permit conditions made available as an appendix, and they are not on the website as stated in the document.

The wording of Conditions have been consulted on via

of 36

This means that we are consulting on a scheme where the full impact is impossible to assess.

the HAUC National Permit Forum

WPD 13.3.2 Refers to HAUK meetings. Should be HAUC meetings, and clarify whether this is Milton Keynes HAUC or Anglian HAUC. We do not think that it is possible for the permit conditions to be changed without a formal re-consultation and would request that this reference is removed.

DELETED

AJUG 13.3.4 Local Conditions – any such known conditions which are particularly applicable to the Milton Keynes area should be included in the submission for approval. Conditions in this category can not be added subsequent to scheme approval

DELETED

WPD 13.3.4 Reference to ‘Local’ conditions without any further information to explain what these may be make it impossible to provide a response to the impact of the scheme. For clarity, we will not recognise any additional ‘Local’ conditions imposed on permits following approval of this scheme – this consultation process does not constitute agreement with this section.

DELETED

AJUG 13.4.1 Accepted - but this conflicts with the statement in 9.5.2 ‘If identified in the NSG’ text added

WPD 13.4.1 The contact telephone number should also be on the ASD, and there is a conflict with the statement in 9.5.2.

‘If identified in the NSG’ text added

WPD 13.4.3 Should this refer to ‘granting’ of a permit rather than ‘issuing’? Agreed, text changed to granted.

WPD 13.4.5 Regulation sets out what constitutes Immediate Works, based on the opinion of the person responsible for the works. Detailed justification should only be provided on an exceptional basis.

A full description of works being carried out must justify why the activity has been categorised as immediate works.

WPD 13.6 Confirmation is needed from Milton Keynes that they are aware of, and have considered the legislation that all utilities work under being preparing this scheme. If there are issues with Milton Keynes imposing conditions that cause safety issues for either the public, our staff or our contractors then we would question the ability and reasonableness of Milton Keynes staff. The Authority need to be careful not to overstep their remit, especially when looking at the design and methodology elements of works – including the dangers of

Section reworded for clarity.

of 36

working during darkness.

AW 13.6.1 Conditions are invalid or by agreement if they conflict with other legislation and cannot attract FPNs.

Noted

AJUG 13.6.1 Conflicts with other legislation are identified in the submission of this scheme for approval - the primary legislation is the Safety Code – a permit scheme should be for co-ordination and timing of activities to achieve the main objectives as defined in the Code of Practice for Permits

Noted

AJUG 13.6.2 – As above – conditions should not be imposed that would affect safety if complying with the Safety Code

Noted, the intention is to avoid this situation.

Section 14: Granting of Permits

AJUG 14.3.1 There may be instances where the two parties disagree (12.3.2) – they have the right to invoke the dispute resolution process

Section Deleted

Legal 14.3 to 5 INCLUSION OF CONDITIONS

PERMIT UNIQUE REFERENCE NUMBER AMENDMENT TO ORIGINAL APPLICATION

These are not required - delete

Agreed, sections DELETED

Section 15: Review, Variation and Revocation of Permits and Permit Conditions

VM 15.4.2 Virgin Media believes that the following should be stated in the paragraph - Permit Authority imposed variations are free of charge.

This is not for this section.

See Appendix B

BB 15.8.2 Can Milton Keynes please declare where the legal foundation for the use of the word “shall” in the context of this requirement derives from. There is no such requirement in the Code of Practice or Eton Technical specification. The previous version of this scheme read “ 15.7.2 If a variation is to be made, it is highly recommended the Promoter telephones the Permit Authority to discuss prior to submitting a variation. Which is a sensible and permitted inclusion As this revised paragraph cannot be enforced we suggest it is reverted to the previous statement.

Text changed to ‘is encouraged to’

WPD 15.9.1 There is a potential conflict with 15.8, it states to make a telephone Deleted

of 36

call, and 15.9.1 states to use EToN. Furthermore the use of the legal term ‘shall’ is not appropriate in 15.8.2 or 15.9.2.

BB 15.9.2 Can Milton Keynes please declare where the legal foundation for the use of the word “shall” in the context of this requirement derives from. There is no such requirement in the Code of Practice or Eton Technical specification. The previous version of this scheme read “ 15.7.2 If a variation is to be made, it is highly recommended the Promoter telephones the Permit Authority to discuss prior to submitting a variation. Which is a sensible and permitted inclusion As this revised paragraph cannot be enforced we suggest it is reverted to the previous statement.

Deleted

WPD 15.10 This can be a confusing requirement for operatives. The text is correct.

Legal 15.14 WAIVING OF FEES

Delete this as not necessary

Agreed, DELETED

Section 16: Cancellation of a Permit

Legal 16.2 CONTINUING TO WORK FOLLOWING THE CANCELLATION OF A PERMIT

Delete as not necessary

Agreed, DELETED

Section 17: Fees

AW 17.1 Was the scale of fees calculated on the original traffic sensitivity of the network or on the revised sensitivity of the Network which has been implemented in May 2014 even though it doesn’t meet the Dft guidance. On an all streets scheme I would expect to see lower fees than proposed or even zero fees for 3 & 4 roads.

The Fees Matrix and Cost Benefit Analysis have been calculated on the pre May 2014 traffic sensitive and non-traffic sensitive network.

AJUG 17.1 – As outlined in the general comments justification for the application of fees on Non TS, 3 and 4 has not been demonstrated

A fees matrix and Cost Benefit Analysis have been prepared.

WPD 17.1 There has been no justification, financial or otherwise, regarding the decision to move to chargeable permits for all works on all streets.

A fees matrix and Cost Benefit Analysis have been prepared.

WPD 17.2 Consideration is needed of where Western Power Distribution carries Correct. Consideration will be given.

of 36

out works for road purposes on behalf of Milton Keynes Council.

AW 17.2.2 Other permit schemes exclude charges for work on Fire Hydrants, due to the Fire Authority being an internal department of the by local authorities. Work carried out on Fire Hydrants by Water Companies is rechargeable to the Fire Authority and therefore permit fees would have to be included in this cost.

Other schemes also waive fees for S81 work carried out within defined timescales.

Agreed. Section 17.2.2 (ii) has been added confirming that no fee will be charged for work on a Fire Hydrant.

AJUG 17.2.2 As defined in the Code of Practice for Permits – consistency with the Code should be maintained

However, other permit schemes exclude charges for work on Fire Hydrants, due to the Fire Authority being an internal department of the local authorities which water utilities would look to recover. Other schemes also waive fees for S81 work carried out within defined timescales.

Agreed. Section 17.2.2 (ii) has been added confirming that no fee will be charged for work on a Fire Hydrant.

AW 17.2.3 (ii) The discount for working outside of traffic sensitive hours on traffic sensitive times doesn’t offer any real benefit when you weigh up the extra cost/lost time for working at unsocial hours plus the environmental impact of night-time noise, dust etc. The discount should be 50%

A 30% discount is considered appropriate and is a larger discount than offered by some other Authorities.

WPD 17.3 A blanket 30% reduction does not offer sufficient incentive to offset the additional costs associated with working wholly outside of traffic sensitive times, or collaborative working.


BB 17.3.1 BB welcomes this initiative but would encourage a greater scale of discount for working outside of TS times possibly up to 50% as this really incentivises the avoidance of those peak times for works. Other wise the cost of conducting the works outweighs the benefit of any small reduction thus leading to no change in working practices.


AW 17.4.1 Requiring Cabinet approval to waive or reduce fees; this is quite a bureaucratic process to get Cabinet approval therefore it would be very unlikely to be obtained. In other schemes including the neighbouring Buckinghamshire scheme, the permit authority can

‘in other circumstances only with Milton Keynes Council Cabinet approval.’ DELETED

of 36

approve this.

VM 17.5.1 What happens to revenue generated from permit fees if they exceed the allowable cost of the scheme?

New section added stating ‘As far as possible the fees and costs should be matched over a financial year. However, it is recognised that estimating the fee levels will involve incorporating the effect of various factors that will inevitably have a degree of uncertainty around them. In the event that fees and costs do not match the actual outturn for the year in question, adjustments may be made to fee levels for the subsequent years so that across a number of years fees do not exceed the allowable costs.’

AW 17.7.2 Need to replace “may” with “will”, there needs to be a reconciliation process prior to the official invoice being submitted.

Rejected, this may not always be required.

AJUG 17.7.2 The accepted practice is for a draft submission to the promoter to agree in advance of any formal invoice – 28 days to agree

Rejected, this may not always be required.

Section 18: Sanctions

Legal 18.3.1 + 18.3.2

Move to 13.6.2 Agreed, moved

Section 19: Dispute Resolution (No comments received)

Section 20: Registers (No comments received)

Section 21: Transitional Arrangements (No comments received)

Section 22: Permit Scheme Monitoring (No comments received)

Section 23: APPENDIX A: Glossary of terms used in the Permit Scheme (No comments received)

Section 24: APPENDIX B - Policy Statement - Circumstances In Which the Permit Authority Will Review, Vary Or Revoke (No comments received)

Legal Delete this, not required

The document can be beefed up instead

This text has been incorporated in to section 15

Section 25: APPENDIX C - Policy Statement - Employment of Sanctions (No comments received)

of 36

Legal Delete this, not required

The document can be beefed up instead

Appendix C DELETED

Section 26: APPENDIX D - Fixed Penalty Notices (No comments received)

Legal Not needed. Information is in FPNs DELETED

Section 27: APPENDIX E - Permit Fees Table

NJUG NJUG notes that the permit fees are structured at the maximum possible level allowed in the 2013 DfT Additional Advice note on Permits. When the Traffic Management Act 2004 was progressing through Parliament, the Government gave a commitment in the Lords that permit fees should be set at a level which reflects only the additional costs incurred by a local authority in administering utilities’ permits i.e. the fees should be based on the reasonable and efficient costs of Milton Keynes Council managing, reviewing and granting utilities’ permits, and not cover any of the costs incurred from administering the council’s own works.

NJUG is therefore surprised that Milton Keynes’ proposed permit fees are all at the maximum levels, and asks for sight of the associated business case analysis, detailing a breakdown of the anticipated costs which make up these fees, particularly as surrounding authorities’ permit fees are not at these levels.

Additionally, NJUG would wish to draw attention to the stated fees for a Permit Variation. The fees outlined in the Milton Keynes Permit Scheme – Revised Consultation Draft indicate that the cost for all permit variations will be £45. This is above the maximum allowed fee of £35 for permit variations on category 3 and 4 roads, as outlined in the Code of Practice.

As far as possible the fees and costs should be matched over a financial year. However, it is recognised that estimating the fee levels will involve incorporating the effect of various factors that will inevitably have a degree of uncertainty around them. In the event that fees and costs do not match the actual outturn for the year in question, adjustments may be made to fee levels for the subsequent years so that across a number of years fees do not exceed the allowable costs.

Variation cost for works on category 3 & 4 non traffic-sensitive roads text has been added.

AW This does not reflect Government requirements to discount works on all roads at non traffic-sensitive times. There is no discount fee for 0, 1 and 2 roads

Milton Keynes Council will offer lower fees, or a discount to scheme standard fees, applied to all works taking place on traffic-sensitive streets where those works take place wholly outside of traffic sensitive times. See section 17.2 & 17.3

of 36

BB It is noted that Milton Keynes have substantially altered the table of fees from the 1st consultation. In the previous version there were N/A fees in all cat 3-4 roads when the works were conducted outside of TS periods or the roads were non TS this has now been replaced with fees on all permits for all roads could Milton Keynes supply a copy of their Cost Benefit Analysis which justifies this change in policy.?

The Cost Benefit Analysis will be made available

AW The permit charge for a 3 & 4 roads are lower than a 0 to 2 road so why are the variation fees the same, the variation fee for 3 & 4 roads should be lower.


AW It is noted that the charges have substantially altered from the 1st consultation. In the previous version there were N/A fees in all cat 3-4 roads when the works were conducted outside of traffic sensitive periods or the roads were non traffic sensitive, this has now been replaced with fees on all permits for all roads could you make available a copy of the Cost Benefit Analysis which justifies this change in policy.?, and also taking into consideration you have significantly increased the traffic sensitive network

The Cost Benefit Analysis will be made available

VM Virgin Media are disappointed that Milton Keynes Council Permit Scheme and associated fees will apply to all classification of roads. If the council chooses to apply permits to 100% of streets, contrary to advice from Ministers, Virgin Media requests that Milton Keynes Council grant permits for category 3 and 4 roads by default and for those permits to be at zero fee levels.

There is no incentive in this scheme for Virgin Media to work outside of traffic sensitive times.

Milton Keynes Council will offer lower fees, or a discount to scheme standard fees, applied to all works taking place on traffic-sensitive streets where those works take place wholly outside of traffic sensitive times.

VM 27.2 The scheme doesn’t refer to variation cost for works on category 3 & 4 non traffic-sensitive roads, can Milton Keynes Council please confirm?


AJUG The charges presented do not follow DFT guidance – discounts, for working wholly outside TS times

Variation Fees for 3 & 4 roads


of 36

Section 28: APPENDIX F – Information and Contact Details

AW Cant find any links to Permit Scheme on web site This will be developed when approval has been given for the scheme.

Section DELETED

END OF DOCUMENT

permit scheme formal consultation report€¦ · mk approved driving instructors assc freight...

Documents