Public Document Pack Agenda

Meeting: Cabinet

Time: 10.00 am

Date: 6 December 2017

Venue: Committee Room 1, County Hall, Colliton Park, Dorchester, Dorset, DT1 1XJ

Rebecca Knox (Chairman) Steve Butler Deborah Croney Tony Ferrari Jill Haynes Daryl Turner Peter Wharf

Notes:

 The reports with this agenda are available at www.dorsetforyou.com/countycommittees then click on the link "minutes, agendas and reports". Reports are normally available on this website within two working days of the agenda being sent out.

 We can provide this agenda and the reports as audio tape, CD, large print, Braille, or alternative languages on request.

 Public Participation

Guidance on public participation at County Council meetings is available on request or at http://www.dorsetforyou.com/374629.

Public Speaking

Members of the public can ask questions and make statements at the meeting. The closing date for us to receive questions is 10.00am on 1 December 2017, and statements by midday the day before the meeting.

Debbie Ward Contact: Lee Gallagher Chief Executive County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ [email protected] - 01305 224191 Date of Publication: Tuesday, 28 November 2017

1. Apologies for Absence To receive any apologies for absence.

2. Code of Conduct Councillors are required to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 regarding disclosable pecuniary interests.

. Check if there is an item of business on this agenda in which the member or other relevant person has a disclosable pecuniary interest. . Check that the interest has been notified to the Monitoring Officer (in writing) and entered in the Register (if not this must be done on the form available from the clerk within 28 days). . Disclose the interest at the meeting (in accordance with the County Council’s Code of Conduct) and in the absence of a dispensation to speak and/or vote, withdraw from any consideration of the item.

The Register of Interests is available on Dorsetforyou.com and the list of disclosable pecuniary interests is set out on the reverse of the form.

3. Minutes 5 - 12 To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 18 October 2017.

4. Public Participation

5. Cabinet Forward Plan 13 - 22 To receive the Cabinet Forward Plan.

6. Panels and Boards To receive the minutes of the following meetings:

a) Tricuro Executive Shareholder Group - 3 October 2017 23 - 28 b) Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Committee - 6 November 2017 29 - 42 Recommendation 61 - Draft Revenue Estimates 2018-19

c) Dorset Health and Wellbeing Board - 8 November 2017 43 – 46

7. Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) update 47 - 66 To consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Community and Resources.

8. Options for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) routing between Blandford 67 - 102 Forum and Shaftesbury on the A350 & C13 and decide on the option to be taken forward by Dorset Highways To consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Natural and Built Environment.

9. Quarterly Asset Management Report 103 - 120 To consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Community and Resources.

10. Highway Infrastructure Assets - 2018/19 Investment Strategy 121 - 138 To consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Natural and Built Environment.

11. Dorset Highways Revised Skid Policy 139 - 150 To consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Natural and Built Environment.

12. Purbeck Health, Housing and Social Care Master Plan Memorandum of 151 - 154 Understanding To consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Health and Care.

13. DCC's response to South Western Railway's consultation on proposed 155 - 164 changes from December 2018 To consider a report by the Cabinet Member for Natural and Built Environment.

14. Recommendations from Committees To consider the following recommendations:

a) Proposed Speed Limit Reduction C12, Charminster 165 - 174 To consider a recommendation from the Regulatory Committee meeting held on 19 October 2017.

b) Proposed Speed Limit Reduction A353 White Horse Hill, Osmington 175 - 186 To consider a recommendation from the Regulatory Committee meeting held on 19 October 2017.

15. Questions from County Councillors To answer any questions received in writing by the Chief Executive by not later than 10.00am on 1 December 2017.

16. Exempt Business To consider passing the following resolution:

To agree that in accordance with Section 100 A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to exclude the public from the meeting in relation to the business specified below it is likely that if members of the public were present, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in the paragraphs detailed below of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information to the public.

17. Residential Care - Children's Services (Paragraph 3) 187 - 194

To consider an exempt report by the Cabinet Member for Safeguarding.

18. Bridport Social Care Development (Paragraph 3, 4) 195 - 246

To consider an exempt report by the Cabinet Member for Health and Care.

19. Dorset County Council Block Purchase Agreement with East Borough 247 - 252 Housing Trust (EBHT) and membership of the local government pensions scheme (Paragraph 3)

To consider an exempt report by the Cabinet Member for Health and Care.

20. Approve the participation of Dorset County Council in a Cross- 253 - 290 regional framework tender by the 19 Local Authorities in Southern England for Residential Placements for Looked After Children (Paragraph 3)

To consider an exempt report by the Cabinet Member for Safeguarding.

21. Approval for Participation in a Sub-Regional Framework Tender for 291 - 330 Supported Housing Placements for Care Leavers and Other Vulnerable Young People (Paragraph 3)

To consider an exempt report by the Cabinet Member for Safeguarding.

Agenda Item 3

Cabinet

Minutes of a meeting held at County Hall, Colliton Park, Dorchester, Dorset, DT1 1XJ on Wednesday, 18 October 2017.

Present: Rebecca Knox Leader of the Council Jill Haynes Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Health and Care Steve Butler Cabinet Member for Safeguarding Deborah Croney Cabinet Member for Economy, Education, Learning and Skills Toni Ferrari Cabinet Member for Community and Resources Daryl Turner Cabinet Member for Natural and Built Environment Peter Wharf Cabinet Member for Workforce

Members Attending: Hilary Cox, as Chairman of the County Council Ros Kayes, County Councillor for Bridport David Shortell, County Councillor for Moors

Officers Attending: Debbie Ward (Chief Executive), Richard Bates (Chief Financial Officer), Mike Harries (Corporate Director for Environment and Economy), Nicholas Jarman (Interim Director - Children's Services), Jonathan Mair (Head of Organisational Development - Monitoring Officer), Michael Carhart- Harris (Senior Communications Officer) and Lee Gallagher (Democratic Services Manager).

For certain items, as appropriate: Trevor Badley (Principal Planning Officer - DCC), Ed Denham (School Admissions Manager) and Patrick Myers (Assistant Director - Design and Development).

(Notes:(1) In accordance with Rule 16(b) of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules the decisions set out in these minutes will come into force and may then be implemented on the expiry of five working days after the publication date. Publication Date: Tuesday, 24 October 2017.

(2) These minutes have been prepared by officers as a record of the meeting and of any decisions reached. They are to be considered and confirmed at the next meeting of the Cabinet to be held on Wednesday, 15 November 2017.)

Apologies for Absence 124 No apologies for absence were received.

Code of Conduct 125 There were no declarations by members of disclosable pecuniary interests under the Code of Conduct.

Minutes 126 The minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2017 were confirmed and signed.

Public Participation 127 Public Speaking There were no public questions received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(1).

There were no public statements received at the meeting in accordance with Standing

Page 5 2 Order 21(2).

Petitions There were no petitions received at the meeting in accordance with the County Council’s Petition Scheme.

Cabinet Forward Plan 128 The Cabinet considered the draft Forward Plan, which identified key decisions to be taken by the Cabinet on or after the next meeting. The following items were added or amended:

 Local Government Reorganisation - 15 November 2017  Bridport Hub – to be renamed to ‘Provision in Bridport’ and be moved from 15 November to 6 December 2017  A350 and C13 Report – 6 December 2017

Nick Jarman, Interim Director for Children’s Services, was welcomed to his first Cabinet meeting. It was noted that items in relation to Children’s Services would be added to the Plan over next couple of weeks.

Noted

Panels and Boards 129 The Cabinet received the following minutes and recommendations from Panels and Boards:

Executive Advisory Panel on Forward Together for Children's Services - 5 September 2017 129a The Cabinet considered recommendations from the Executive Advisory Panel and the following areas were discussed.

Recommendation 14 - Transforming Youth Services in Dorset The good news story of the youth service transformation was welcomed by the Cabinet. A summary about the finances detailed within the minute was provided, which clarified that the ‘start up’ contribution for youth centres of £1000 would be provided to 20 clubs from the available transformation fund of £200k which was formed following budget savings of £2.2m. Reference to ‘£200k savings’ in the minute actually referred to the transformation fund and would be amended accordingly outside of the meeting.

Recommendation 15 - Home to School Transport Policy Attention was drawn to the suggested formation of a group to consider the home to school transport policy. That group would be the Executive Advisory Panel on Forward Together for Children's Services and not a separate group. A correction to the minutes would be made outside of the meeting.

Resolved That the minutes of the meetings held on 5 September and 2 October 2017 be received, and the recommendations below be approved.

Recommendation 14 - Transforming Youth Services in Dorset That a sum of £1000 should be made available to each youth service provider applicant to be used to start up their particular project and access low token items, with it being left to officers to commission and scope how this would be done.

Recommendation 15 - Home to School Transport Policy That the Executive Advisory Panel on Forward Together for Children’s Services give further consideration to how the Home to School Transport Provision Policy might be Page 6 3 best applied, so as to understand the issues at hand and assist in consolidating the strategic direction being taken.

Executive Advisory Panel on Forward Together for Children's Services - 2 October 2017 129b Noted

Dorset Health and Wellbeing Board - 13 September 2017 129c The operating model for the Health and Wellbeing Board was highlighted as a best practice model across the South West. It included an informal interactive element to its meetings which allowed for a wide range of people and partners to attend and participate in the work of the Board. The meetings enabled the ‘on the ground’ working to move at pace. A request was made for more detail to be reported in the minutes regarding the informal sessions and it was confirmed that this issue had been raised with officers. The Monitoring Officer advised that consideration would be given to the information that could be included in the future without altering the informal nature of that part of the meeting.

The Board’s very good Better Care Fund Submission was welcomed as well as recent development of mini Health and Wellbeing Boards being cited as best practice.

Noted

Outcomes Focused Monitoring Report, October 2017 130 Resolved That consideration of the report be postponed and considered at a future meeting.

Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) update 131 The Cabinet considered a report by the Cabinet Member for Community and Resources on the national and local issues impacting on the County Council’s finances, the development of the three-year Medium Term Financial plan (MTFP) from 2018/19 to 2020/21, and financial performance of the Council.

A summary of the financial position was provided by Cllr Ferrari, which included the current forecasted year end overspend of £6.061m, and a description of the pressures facing the services which were likely to come back within budget by the end of the financial year. However, the ongoing pressures within Children’s Services regarding Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) transport, high cost placements, and contracted foster care placements were discussed. Efforts to reduce the overspends in each area were examined. The use of reserves and other techniques would be used to address the overspend and to balance the overall budget.

The impact of increased inflation on care providers, and increasing pressure on demand in relation to adult care, specifically about ‘sleeping nights’, were identified as increasing risks to the council’s budget. Clarification was provided about the additional funding received in the Government’s social care precept which was designed to contribute towards additional care costs and the national living wage. However, there was a risk in 2019/20 following the front loading of the precept of 3% in 2017/18 and 3% 2018/19 which would mean there would be no increase in 2019/20.

The impact of inflation over time was explained in terms of increases following the EU Referendum, and the national position by the Bank of England. Although the value of currency had been affected and inflation had increased it was likely that inflation would decrease in the coming months. Page 7 4

Clarification was sought on the recent closure of a small number of care homes and whether this related to inflation changes. The closures were due to a complex mixture of circumstances which included recruitment and buildings. The national picture showed that there were not enough people in the industry and not enough care homes, but it was confirmed that Dorset was doing everything possible to offer the right provision.

The role of the Forward Together Board was highlighted and that continued efforts to address savings would be reviewed by the Board. Additional ideas for further savings would also be welcomed from members.

Resolved 1. That the Directors’ latest estimates included in the forecast of outturn for the current year and the operational reasons causing us to diverge from the balanced budget agreed by Council in February 2017 be noted. 2. That the latest projections for the current MTFP and budget round including the level and adequacy of reserves and balances on the general fund be noted. 3. That the latest, savings expectations from the Forward Together programme be noted. 4. That all councillors be encouraged to put forward any other issues to be taken into account in the development of the MTFP and budget. 4. That the risks associated with and impacting upon the financial performance for the current and future financial years be acknowledged.

Reason for Decisions To enable work to continue on refining and managing the County Council’s budget plan for 2018/19 and the overall three-year MTFP period.

Contingency Application for Special Educational Needs and Disability Improvement Plan 132 The Cabinet considered a report by the Cabinet Member for Economy, Education, Learning and Skills regarding a request for contingency funding for a three year improvement drive in order to address the significant resource issues currently within the Special Education Needs and Disability (SEND) Services for children and young people.

A detailed summary of the work to bring about improvements in the transfer of SEND statements to Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and future provision of the service was provided by Cllr Deborah Croney. Rapid and significant improvements were anticipated within 12 months with the appropriate resources. Governance arrangements including representation from the Council, the Clinical Commissioning Group, partners, parents and other professionals were shared together with a summary of the work and intense focus of the SEND Delivery Group in monitoring performance and outcomes to meet targets. The Group would continue to robustly scrutinise performance in accordance with improvements detailed within the Council’s Written Statement of Action following a recent Ofsted Inspection.

Cllr Ros Kayes, in her role as a member of the SEND Improvement Board, asked questions about the transfer assessment and independent advocacy. She also explored why the current monitoring of the service had not foreseen the issues that were being experienced. In relation to advocacy, this would be the responsibility of the Participation Development Manager to provide advocacy services and ensure responses to feedback from parents about the system.

Work would be undertaken to understand how performance had suffered as a result of policy changes to transfer from statements to EHCPs, but it was broadly due to an unprecedented increase in demand by 134% at the same time as the policy changes Page 8 5 came into force. The sustainability of future service delivery was seen as a priority to ensure that the complexities of the service were considered in order to secure a high quality service in future, rebuild confidence and improve communication and engagement. The Interim Director for Children’s Services clarified the measures being taken to scientifically monitor and assess performance as a priority to achieve results with the completion of 13 transfers per week until the end of March 2018.

Cabinet were advised that The SEND Delivery Group will be meeting monthly to review and ensure the progress of improvement. A update report was sought to ensure that targets were being met and to track performance. The report would be submitted to the Cabinet on 17 January 2018. However, this would be brought forward if there were any performance concerns before January 2018.

The improvement in performance following the publication of the report was outlined including the reduction of statements transferred to EHCP from 528 to 487. The number of completed transfers had therefore increased from 483 to 524 which indicated that performance was due to meet the target completion rate of 700 by the end of October, and the overall target by the end of March 2018.

Resolved 1. That the Cabinet Member’s report be noted, 2. That the additional staff capacity required to address the complex issues outlined in the report be agreed. 3. That the necessary contingency funds detailed within the report to turn the situation around be agreed.

Reason for Decisions The issues raised in the Ofsted/CQC SEND Local Area inspection report could not be resolved without significant additional funding. The consequences of not meeting demand effectively would impact upon significant numbers of young Dorset residents and would damage the reputation of the Council significantly.

Special Educational Needs Transport Clause 133 The Cabinet considered a report by the Cabinet Member for Economy, Education, Learning and Skills in relation to Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) transport to be included in the periodic consultation document on Home to School Transport.

A detailed explanation of the policy development through the Executive Advisory Panel on Forward Together for Children’s Services was provided which sought to modify the arrangements for users to clarify the Council’s travel assistance policy eligibility and distance criteria. A preference for a phased change in the distance criteria for post 16 free transport from 5 miles to 4 in 2018/19 and then further consideration to 3 miles from 2019/20 was highlighted as an area for consideration by the EAP. The change to reduce to 3 miles was estimated to cost an additional £40- 70k, although attention was drawn to the budget pressure on SEN transport by the Chief Financial Officer which was already forecasted to overspend.

The clauses within the report were explained as being part of the wider home to school transport policy consultation for 2018/19 which would be brought to the Cabinet for consideration in January 2018.

Assurance was sought about the wider school admissions consultation, as context of how the SEND element formed part of the wider policies including travel assistance and about the financial impact of the changes over time.

The clauses were constructively challenged, which resulted in a request for further consideration of the link with the wider consultation, and a need for a phase approach Page 9 6 to the changes to be financially evidenced. A decision was required before the next meeting and as such it was necessary to consider delegated authority to enable the decision to be made. A suggestion was also made that the wider consultation should be considered by the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee prior to Cabinet consideration if possible.

Resolved That delegated authority be granted to the Director for Children’s Services, after consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economy, Education, Learning and Skills, to agree changes to SEND transport clauses to form part of the Council’s Home to School Transport Policy consultation.

Reason for Decision The clauses clarified the council’s position on SEND transport and would enable progress to be made in providing an efficient and economically sustainable model.

Change of Chairmanship

At this point the Chairman left the meeting and Cllr Haynes took the Chair as Vice Chairman.

Publication, consultation and submission to the Secretary of State of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Mineral Sites Plan and Waste Plan with associated amendment of the Minerals and Waste Development Scheme Milestones 134 On considering a report by the Cabinet Member for Natural and Built Environment the Cabinet was informed of the consideration of the report by the Economic Growth Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 16 October 2017 and recommendations from the meeting, which were circulated prior to the meeting.

The cost of the Secretary of State’s public examination by an independent inspector was raised. Members were advised that the cost and remit of the inspection could vary widely depending on what was chosen to be considered in the examination and was unknown at this point.

Progress of the plans was welcomed, given the many years to arrive at the submission stage. The steps for site inclusion in the plans was discussed, and although all of the proposed sites were accepted for inclusion, the Cabinet acknowledged that some sites raised concerns with the public. Moving forward to the consultation, the importance of councillors being impartial was highlighted to not predetermine any outcomes. The Cabinet welcomed the positive consultation.

Resolved 1. That the publication of the Waste Plan and Mineral Sites Plan be agreed, subject to any amendments arising from the three Authorities, as the most up-to-date expressions of policy on behalf of the Minerals and Waste Planning Authorities, to be followed by an eight week consultation, anticipated to begin in early December 2017. 2. That the comments made to the additional consultation on waste site options in Blandford and Purbeck (2017) and officer responses/recommendations (refer to Appendix A of the report) be noted and acknowledged. 3. That the published version of the plans be submitted to the Secretary of State, alongside any representations that are received on the plans, following the consultation, to begin the examination process; 4. That officers be authorised to make minor amendments, factual updates and editorial changes to both plans prior to submission and during the examination. 5. That delegated authority be granted to the Service Director for Economy, after consultation with the lead Cabinet Member for the Natural and Built Environment, to agree any main (non-minor) modifications arising during the plan’s examination and to consult upon these in accordance with the Local Plan Regulations. 6. That delegated authority be granted to the Strategy Director for Economy, after Page 10 7 consultation with the lead Cabinet Member for the Natural and Built Environment, to confirm the Local Development Scheme milestones to take account of any changes needed to reflect programming arrangements. 7. That the SWTAB’s ‘Residual Waste Management in the South West’ as a useful evidence base that supports the duty to co-operate.

Reasons for Decisions 1. To progress the preparation of local plans in the Minerals and Waste Development Scheme; and, 2. To support the Corporate Plan focus of enabling economic growth, in particular: a. Work together with our partners to plan for business growth and maximise funding and investment. b. Work in partnership to ensure the good management of our natural and historic environment. c. Promote waste reduction, increase recycling rates and manage residual waste effectively.

Questions from County Councillors 135 No questions from County Councillors were received.

Meeting Duration: 10.00 am - 11.15 am

Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank

Cabinet Forward Plan (Cabinet Meeting Date – 6 December 2017)

Explanatory note: This work plan contains future items to be considered by the Cabinet. It will be published 28 days before the next meeting of the Cabinet.

This plan includes matters which the Leader has reason to believe will be the subject of a key decision to be taken by the Cabinet and items that are planned to be considered in a private part of the meeting. The plan shows the following details for key decisions:-

(1) date on which decision will be made (2) matter for decision, whether in public or private (if private see the extract from the Local Government Act on the last page of this plan) (3) decision maker (4) consultees (5) means of consultation carried out (6) documents relied upon in making the decision

Page 13 Page Any additional items added to the Forward Plan following publication of the Plan in accordance with section 5 of Part 2, 10 of Part 3, and Section 11 of Part 3 of The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to information) (England) Regulations 2012 are detailed at the end of this document.

Definition of Key Decisions Key decisions are defined in the County Council's Constitution as decisions of the Cabinet which are likely to - "(a) result in the County Council incurring expenditure which is, or the making of savings which are, significant having regard to the County Council's budget for the service or function to which the decision relates namely where the sum involved would exceed £500,000; or (b) to be significant in terms of its effects on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more electoral divisions in Dorset."

Agenda Item 5 Membership of the Cabinet Rebecca Knox Leader of the Council Jill Haynes Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Health and Care Steve Butler Cabinet Member for Safeguarding Deborah Croney Cabinet Member for Economy, Education, Learning and Skills Tony Ferrari Cabinet Member for Community and Resources Daryl Turner Cabinet Member for Natural and Built Environment Peter Wharf Cabinet Member for Workforce

1

How to request access to details of documents, or make representations regarding a particular item If you would like to request access to details of documents or to make representations about any matter in respect of which a decision is to be made, please contact the Democratic Services Manager, Corporate Resources Directorate, County Hall, Colliton Park, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ (Tel: (01305) 224191 or email: [email protected]).

Date of Matter for Decision/ Decision Consultees Means of Documents Lead Officer meeting Consideration Maker (4) Consultation (6) (1) (2) (3) (5)

6/12/17 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Trade Unions Meetings with staff Vanessa Glenn, Open Staff Meetings with Union Assistant Director for Residential Care - Children's Cabinet Member for Wider Community Care and Protection Services Safeguarding Children’s Services (Steve Butler) Directorate

Page 14 Page 6/12/17 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet None Helen Coombes, Part exempt Transformation To Approve a Memorandum of Deputy Leader and Programme Lead for Understanding between DCC, Cabinet Member for the Adult and Purbeck District Council, Dorset Health and Care Community Forward Clinical Commissioning Group (Jill Haynes) Together Programme and Dorset Healthcare NHS Trust that sets out how the different organisations will work together to utilise public assets

6/12/17 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet None Chris Watson, Part exempt 3 Commissioning Dorset County Council Block Deputy Leader and Manager Purchase Agreement with East Cabinet Member for Borough Housing Trust (EBHT) Health and Care and membership of the local (Jill Haynes) government pensions scheme

2

6/12/17 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Previous large scale Workshops None Helen Coombes, Open public consultation Project group Transformation Approval to proceed with work Deputy Leader and meetings Programme Lead for to develop a 'Care Village' on Cabinet Member for Recent consultation the Adult and Dorset County Council owned Health and Care with key stakeholders Community Forward land north of Flood Lane, (Jill Haynes) including:- Together Programme Bridport DCC Adult Social Care operational staff and Property & Assets team NHS Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group Tricuro 6/12/17 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Members and Seminars and None Richard Bates, Chief Open officers, briefings for Financial Officer The County Council's Budget Leader of the representatives, members and

Page 15 Page and precept for 2018/19; Council (Rebecca Citizens’ Panel and officers, Audit and Medium Term Financial Knox) general public. Governance Strategy 2018/19 to 2020/21; Committee meetings, and Capital Programme information on 2018/19 to 2020/21 dorsetforyou.com and questionnaires for business community and the public.

3

6/12/17 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet The Children’s Circulation of draft Children in Care and Patrick Myers, Open Services Sufficiency Sufficiency Plan for Care Leavers Assistant Director - Approve the participation of Deputy Leader and Strategy Group Placements for Sufficiency Plan Design and Dorset County Council in a Sub- Cabinet Member for Care Leavers in Children in Care and Development regional framework tender by Health and Care Dorset Care Leavers and the 6 Local Authorities in (Jill Haynes) Supported Housing discussion at the Southern England for Supported Service Providers Children’s Services Housing Placements for Care Sufficiency Strategy Leavers and Other Vulnerable Group on 22nd Young People August 2017.

Meeting with Care leavers in Dorset over October half term. Market engagement event with Supported Page 16 Page Providers on 16th October 2017.

6/12/17 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet The Children’s Circulation of draft Children in Care and Patrick Myers, Open Services Sufficiency Sufficiency Plan for Care Leavers Assistant Director - Approve the participation of Deputy Leader and Strategy Group Placements for Sufficiency Plan Design and Dorset County Council in a Cabinet Member for Residential Care Children in Care and Development cross-regional framework tender Health and Care Providers Care Leavers and by the 19 Local Authorities in (Jill Haynes) discussion at the Southern England for Children’s Services Residential Placements for Sufficiency Strategy Looked After Children Group on 22nd

August 2017. Market engagement event with Residential Care Providers on 17th July 2017.

4

6/12/17 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet ISG, DMT, Service Formal meetings and Budget forecast and James Ailward, Open Management, ICT input into reports. options paper Service Manager - Libraries Self Service - Project Cabinet Member for Management. ICT and Customer Budget Community and Services Resources (Tony Ferrari)

6/12/17 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Environment All consultees submit ‘Quarterly Asset Peter Scarlett, Estate Open Directorate / contributions to the Management Report’ and Assets Manager Quarterly Asset Management Cabinet Member for Children’s Services / report Plan Community and Adult & Community Various decisions regarding Resources (Tony Services / Corporate property performance, property Ferrari) Resources transactions, project variations and project commit to invest

6/12/17 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet County Councillors / Consultation Consultation Results Andrew Martin, Page 17 Page Open District Councillors Exhibitions in June Traffic Flows Service Director - Options for the Routing of HGVs Cabinet Member for and Parish Councils 2017 Accident Statistics Highways and on the A350 and C13 between Natural and Built along both routes. Letter & Email Options Appraisals Emergency Planning Shaftesbury and Blandford Environment (Daryl All emergency Stakeholder Group Turner) services Meetings. HGV industry Parish Council representatives Meetings

6/12/17 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet None Michael Hansford, Open Asset and Highways Asset Maintenance / Cabinet Member for Performance Team Investment Strategy 2018-19 Natural and Built Leader, Highways Environment (Daryl Turner)

5

6/12/17 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Michael Hansford, Open Asset and Revised Skid Policy in line with Cabinet Member for Performance Team new guidance HD28/15 Design Natural and Built Leader, Highways Manual for Roads and Bridges Environment (Daryl Turner)

6/12/17 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet  The Cabinet DCC have been South Western Mike Harries, Open  Other DCC contacted by South Railway proposed Corporate Director DCC's response to South Cabinet Member for Members (views Western Railways as timetables and for Environment and Western Railway's consultation Natural and Built fed back through a key stakeholder to consultation Economy on proposed changes to the Environment (Daryl the Portfolio provide a response to documents: December 2018 timetable Turner) Holder.) their consultation. www.southwesternrai  Bournemouth Officers have asked lway.com/timetableco Borough Council for members’ views nsultation and Borough of via email and

Page 18 Page Poole officers meetings are being Dorset LTP3: along with Dorset held with SWR, https://www.dorsetfor LEP as part of members and you.gov.uk/media/16 Dorset Rail officers. 2819/BournemouthP Partnership. The Cabinet will be ooleDorsetLTP3-  West of England consulted through a Strategy- Line Strategy report submitted for Document_Final_Ch Group (officers this Cabinet meeting. apters- working group 6to13/pdf/Bournemou with thPooleDorsetLTP3_ representatives Strategy_Document_ from Devon CC, Final_Chapters_6to1 Somerset CC, 3.pdf Wilts CC, Heart Dorset LEP Strategic of SW LEP, Economic Plan: Dorset LEP and Wilts LEP  Heart of Wessex Community Rail Partnership

6

17/01/18 Key Decision - No Cabinet None Debbie Ward, Chief Open Executive Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Leader of the Rescue Authority - Annual Council (Rebecca Report Knox)

17/01/18 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet Dorset Schools Consultation None David Alderson, Open Academies meetings and E-mail Senior Adviser, Approval of the Alternative Cabinet Member for Free Schools responses Learning and Provision Strategy for Dorset Economy, Learning Centres Inclusion County Council area Education, Learning and Skills (Deborah Croney)

17/01/18 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet All Schools, Consultation Tracker, Ed Denham, School Open neighbouring local email to all district, Admissions Manager Dorset County Council School Cabinet Member for authorities, all town town and parishes, Page 19 Page Admissions Arrangements and Economy, and parish councils, emails to Members, 2019-2020 and School Education, Learning all Members, and emails to all schools Transport 2018-2019 and Skills (Deborah parents and carers. (requesting they Croney) highlight in newsletters and on their school website), DCC Admissions Website

7/03/18 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet  Families Parents’ Newsletter 0-5 Sufficiency Stuart Riddle, Senior Open  Partners Formal Consultation Review Report Manager - Change 0-5 Community Offer Cabinet Member for  Local Members in line with Statutory for Children Economy,  Internal Officers Guidance Education, Learning and Skills (Deborah Croney)

7

7/03/18 Key Decision - Yes Cabinet A variety of A variety of methods None Richard Bates, Chief Open consultees will be of consultation will be Financial Officer Procurement Activity in Excess Cabinet Member for included in undertaken across of £500k Community and consultation the variety of Resources (Tony depending on each of procurements Ferrari) the procurements throughout the throughout the financial year. financial year. Key Decision - Yes Cabinet - - None David Phillips, Open Director of Public Health and Wellbeing Board Leader of the Health, Dorset, Update Council (Rebecca Bournemouth and Knox) Poole

Page 20 Page

8

Private Meetings The following paragraphs define the reasons why the public may be excluded from meetings whenever it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings that exempt information would be disclosed and the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information to the public. Each item in the plan above marked as ‘private’ will refer to one of the following paragraphs.

1. Information relating to any individual. 2. Information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual. 3. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information). 4. Information relating to any consultations or negotiations, or contemplated consultations or negotiations, in connection with any labour relations matter arising between the authority or a Minister of the Crown and employees of, or office holders under, the authority. 5. Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings. 6. Information which reveals that the authority proposes:- (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment. 7. Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime. Page 21 Page

9

Dorset County Council

Business not included in the Cabinet Forward Plan

Agreement to Is this item Date of meeting of Matter for Exception, Reason(s) why the item was not included a Key the Cabinet Decision/Consideration Urgency or Decision Private Item

NONE

The above notice provides information required by The Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to information) (England) Regulations 2012 in respect of matters considered by the Cabinet which were not included in the published Forward Plan.

Page 22 Page

10

Agenda Item 6a

Tricuro Executive Shareholder Group held at Beech House, Poole on 3 October 2017

PRESENT - Karen Rampton (Chairman), Ray Bryan, Steve Butler, Tony Ferrari, Mike Greene, Nicola Greene, May Haines, Jill Haynes, Ros Kayes and Jane Kelly.

OFFICERS PRESENT: Helen Coombes (Adults and Community Services Director, Dorset County Council) Phil Hornsby (Service Unit Head – Borough of Poole) Alison Waller (Managing Director – Tricuro) Phil Rook (Finance Director – Tricuro) Sue Ladbrook (HR Director – Tricuro) Jane Pike (Non-Executive Director – Tricuro)

The meeting started at 1.30 pm and finished at 2.40 pm

1. APOLOGIES AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE GROUP

The Group was advised that apologies were received from Blair Crawford (Bournemouth Borough Council), David Walsh (Dorset County Council) and Mohan Iyengar (Borough of Poole). The Group was advised that Jane Kelly (Bournemouth Borough Council) attended as a reserve Member for Blair Crawford, Ray Bryan (Dorset County Council) attended as reserve Member for David Walsh and May Haines (Borough of Poole) attended as reserve Member for Mohan Iyengar.

2. CODE OF CONDUCT

There were no declarations of interest made at this meeting.

3. MINUTES

The Managing Director in response to questions explained the current position in respect of staffing levels and the occupancy levels at Coastal Lodge. She confirmed that the company was only employing staff that were required for the existing residents.

Page 23

DECISION MADE:

That the minutes of the Executive Shareholder Group meeting held on 27 June 2017 were confirmed subject to the following amendment:

Page 5 second paragraph ‘fees and changes’ to read ‘fees and charges’

4. MANAGING DIRECTOR UPDATE

The Managing Director reported on the continuing financial challenges and the activity across the Company to ensure the services were as efficient as they can be and continue to provide high quality care. The Group was informed that the improvement plans included refining and refocussing reablement services. The Managing Director reported on the improvements in occupancy rates across the care homes which had improved considerably and was now averaging 96-97%. The Group was informed that significant work continued to transform the day service offer to include the community and the voluntary sector to address the growing issue of isolation and help people to improve their independence and well-being whilst reducing dependency on services.

The HR Director advised the Group of the Tribunal hearing held on 20 September 2017 and confirmed that the dates for the Tribunal in December remain. She reported on the development of the documents and the written submissions explaining that a judgement was expected in January. The Group was informed that full details on individual cases had not yet been received. The HR Director reported on the different claims and that the starting point was in respect of the set-up of Tricuro, the business case and claims of indirect discrimination. A discussion then took place regarding the case, members of the Tricuro responded to questions from members. The Chairman referred to paragraph 2.1 of the report which referred to access to staff and Councillors. The Managing Director advised that the Company has requested, through the Local Authorities’ Legal Teams, access to relevant documents, emails, staff and Councillors to assist the Company in its case preparation. The Group was advised that when all documents had been prepared it may be necessary to arrange an adhoc meeting of the Group.

The Managing Director reported on contract funding and the financial position with Dorset County Council and commissioners in Bournemouth and Poole. She explained that discussions had only commenced recently. In acknowledging the financial position of the shareholders, she highlighted the need to consider the Company’s long-term sustainability.

The Managing Director reported on the You Matter Survey which the Company had committed to in its first year. She explained that overall the response rates were less than they had hoped however they were slightly better than last years and the Company had improved its position overall.

Page 24

The Managing Director reported on the outcome of the tendering process for Figbury Lodge she explained the resource implications, how the Company would bid for such services and arrangements for the future. She highlighted the need to be realistic about the resources available to the Company to undertake such work acknowledging that there were lessons to be learnt. A Member indicating that the Company needed to be competitive asked about the financial benefit of the contract. The Group was advised that the bids had been evaluated on the basis of quality and cost. The Group discussed the Company’s position in the market, its commerciality and the role of the Board.

The Managing Director reported on the potential for significant transformation plans, the need for discussion on how in next year and future years to mitigate costs, the impact of terms and conditions and the need to modernise, transform and respond to the needs of the shareholders. The Group commented on external income and growth opportunities. The Finance Director reported that the forecast income had exceeded target levels in the budget.

The Managing Director outlined the networking opportunities and the sharing of experiences. She reported on the Annual General Meeting which had been a positive event and the communication with every staff team on the progress the Company has made.

The Group was advised of the outcome of an inspection by the CQC on Sidney Gale House which had been rated as inadequate. She explained that the Company was looking at the quality assurance process and its application across all services. A Member, the local Councillor for the area, indicated that she would liaise with the Managing Director on this issue. In response to a question the Managing Director reported that safeguarding issues had been reported but there had been a failure to follow up on internal investigations when no further actions were issued by the local Safeguarding Team. The Director, Dorset County Council explained that most care homes were struggling with reporting arrangements. The Director, Dorset County Council indicated that the facility was a good offer but there was a bigger piece of work on registered managers’ responsibilities. A Member asked for assurances on how the Company was responding. The Non-Executive Director commented on the proposal for an external resource to go through the process, documents and report back to the Board and the Group. The Managing Director reported that the current manager was due to retire at the end of October and a new Manager had been in post for four weeks during time which improvements had already been made. She also confirmed that there was no issue in recruiting as new staff were currently being recruited.

DECISION MADE:

That as requested the Group commented on the progress made and key issues currently faced by Tricuro as detailed above.

Page 25

5. FINANCE AND PERFORMANCE UPDATE

The Group considered a report from the Finance Director which set out the forecast outturn and performance for the Company for 2017/18 based on August data.

The Group was advised that Tricuro’s current forecast predicts a small underspend of £266k. The Finance Director reported that despite the current financial situation and challenges, Tricuro was maintaining the high quality of the services which the Company provides. The Finance Director reported that the forecast had slightly reduced due to some initial planning on the take up of staff in the Pension Scheme, due to Tricuro’s staging date for auto enrolment of 1 October 2017. The Group was advised of the arrangements for managing vacancies and the use of agency staff which was reducing.

The Finance Director reported on the CQC inspection on Shared Lives which achieved a strong Good with an outstanding KLOE (Key line of Enquiry) in “is this service caring. The Group was advised that this was Tricuro’s first outstanding KLOE and highlights emphasise placed on quality within the Company’s services.

The Group was informed that there were a number of issues to be worked through as part of developing the MTFP and budget strategy for 2018/19. There was a need to discuss the issues with each of the three Councils, in view of the financial challenges they face and the impact on the nature of the services provided by Tricuro. The Finance Director explained that one of the significant emerging issues and risk for the 2018/19 Budget was the relaxation of the 1% pay cap. A Member referred to the minimum wage which the Finance Director indicated had been factored into the budget.

A Member also asked about income generation and what was being built into next year’s budget. The Finance Director reported that the Company was doing better on income targets which would be built into the base budget to mitigate some of the pressures the company face in 2018/19.

A Member referred to reablement outcomes and further work that was needed on calculations. The Director, Dorset County Council emphasised the need to apply the criteria in determining clients that require the reablement service as this can affect the Better Care Fund targets. She explained that the services should not see anyone who was not a reablement client after 6 weeks. The Managing Director reported on the need to ensure that clients were on the right care pathway. She highlighted the work being undertaken with Dorset on this issue.

The Managing Director commented on a couple of issues relating to inspections and ensuring that services and facilities were inspection ready. She also referred to the occupancy rates at Sydney Gale House which were due to some rooms being outside of fire doors.

Page 26

DECISION MADE:

1. That the 2017/18 forecast position as at the end of August be noted

2. That the current performance be noted taking account of the above comments.

6. DATES FOR NEXT MEETING OF THE GROUP

DECISION MADE:

1. That the following dates for 2018 be agreed:

13 March 26 June 2 October

2. That Members be consulted on dates for further meetings of the Group prior to the end of 2017.

Page 27 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6b Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Committee

Minutes of the meeting held at on Monday, 6 November 2017.

Present: Anthony Alford (West Dorset District Council) (Chairman) (Vice-Chairman)

Members Attending Tony Ferrari (Dorset County Council), Daryl Turner (Dorset County Council), Margaret Phipps (Christchurch Borough Council), Patricia Jamieson (Christchurch Borough Council), Barbara Manuel (East Dorset District Council), David Budd (Purbeck District Council), Peter Webb (Purbeck District Council), Alan Thacker (West Dorset District Council), Ray Nowak (Weymouth & Portland Borough Council), Kevin Brookes (Weymouth & Portland Borough Council) and David Walsh (North Dorset District Council).

Other Members in attendance Mike Dyer, East Dorset District Council (Reserve) Graham Carr-Jones, North Dorset District Council (Reserve) Timothy Yarker, West Dorset District Council, attended the meeting as an observer.

Dorset Waste Partnership Officers Attending: Paul Ackrill (Commercial and Finance Manager), Gemma Clinton (Head of Service (Strategy)), Grace Evans (Clerk), Michael Moon (Head of Service (Operations)), James Potten (Senior Communications Officer), Andy Smith (Treasurer) and Denise Hunt (Senior Democratic Services Officer).

(Notes:(1) Publication In accordance with paragraph 8.4 of Schedule 1 of the Joint Committee’s Constitution the decisions set out in these minutes will come into force and may then be implemented on the expiry of five working days after the publication date. Publication Date:Monday, 13 November 2017

(2) These minutes have been prepared by officers as a record of the meeting and of any decisions reached. They are to be considered and confirmed at the next meeting of the Joint Committee to be held on Monday, 15 January 2018.)

Apologies for Absence 54 Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Ray Bryan, Cllr Michael Roake and Karyn Punchard (Director).

Code of Conduct 55 There were no declarations by members of any disclosable pecuniary interests under the Code of Conduct.

Minutes 56 The minutes of the meeting held on 12 September 2017 were confirmed and signed.

Public Participation 57 Public Speaking There were no public questions received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(1).

There were no public statements received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(2).

Page 29 Petitions There were no petitions received in accordance with the County Council’s petition scheme at this meeting.

Dorset Waste Partnership Forward Plan 58 Members were informed that there would be a presentation on the Waste Disposal Contract Strategy immediately prior to the Joint Committee meeting on 15 January 2018 when a report on this item was due to be considered.

Noted

Minutes of Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Scrutiny Group 59 The Joint Committee received the minutes of the DWP Joint Scrutiny Group held on 30 October 2017. These had been circulated following publication of the Joint Committee agenda.

Noted

Finance and Performance Report - November 2017 60 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Director of the Dorset Waste Partnership (DWP) that presented the key financial performance trends and reasons for a predicated underspend on the revenue budget for 2017/18.

The report was introduced by the Treasurer who provided an updated forecast based on the October 2017 figures of a £1.543m underspend on a budget of £33.1m. The reasons for the forecast underspend of £1.347m, based on the September 2017 figures, had been set out in the report.

Members questioned whether there were problems experienced with the quality of containers, particularly in light of the decision to extend their lifespan.

The Head of Service (Strategy) advised that extending the life of the containers was sustainable going forward and that it was important to distinguish between a manufacturing fault or damage arising from misuse. A number of lower quality containers had been due to a failure in the production process that had been compensated by the manufacturer. It was therefore important to report any sub- standard containers, identifiable through serial numbers, in order to continue to apply for rebates in future. It was confirmed that an allowance for breakages was included in the budget as it was not assumed that every container would reach the extended life period.

The Chairman commented that a breakdown of expenditure of replacement or additional container stock would be useful in evidencing whether extending the life of the container was valid.

Noted

Draft Revenue Estimates 2018-19 61 The Joint Committee considered a report that presented the draft revenue estimates for 2018-19 upon which to consult with partner councils prior to formal agreement by Joint Committee in January 2018.

The Treasurer outlined the estimated net cost of the DWP in 2018/19 of £33.8m on the basis of prudent assumptions. However, at the recent budget workshops, members had favoured retaining a budget of £33.1m due to issues of affordability by the partner councils. A standstill budget would result in a funding gap of approximately £700k and an illustration of some suggested areas of savings to close this gap had been outlined in the report. Page 30

The Treasurer informed members that the Joint Committee would decide in June 2018 whether the expected underspend from 2017/18 should be returned to partner councils or be added to the Budget Equalisation Reserve (BER).

The Joint Committee was supportive of a budget of £33.1m given the predicted underspend in 2017/18 and the ability to access the BER if needed. However, members were not supportive of the savings suggestion to close 8 of 11 Household Recycling Centres (HRCs) for 2 days each week. The reasons for this included reputational risk, inconsistency with the DWP’s promotion of reuse and recycling to reduce waste that did not justify the anticipated saving, the potential for increases in fly tipping and being hard to justify in the context of the underspend in 2017/18. It was felt that the proposal would not easily be understood by the public who valued the HRC service.

The Chairman highlighted that a standstill budget would not take account of the growth in the number of households. However, the areas of savings in order to close the funding gap would be considered further at the meeting in January 2018.

In response to a question regarding the correlation between an increase in fly tipping and the introduction of charges at HRCs, members were informed that a previous analysis had shown no correlation between items subject to a charge at HRCs and those that had been fly tipped. However, this could be revisited in the context of any future report concerning HRC closures.

RECOMMENDED That the draft revenue estimates for 2018/19 be presented to partner councils for consultation and that the results are presented to the next Joint Committee on 15 January 2018.

Resolved 1. That the level of savings proposed, totalling around £700k within the revenue estimates for 2018/19 be noted; 2. That the cost shares for each partner council be noted.

Reason for Recommendation The Inter-Authority Agreement required the Joint Committee to recommend a draft estimate for the following year to partner councils. This is to enable partners to give their views on the draft estimates and to reflect them in their own budgets.

Capital Programme to 2022/23 62 The Joint Committee considered a report containing an update on the proposed Capital Programme for the period of the Medium Term Financial Plan up to and including 2022/23. It was noted that the spending profile in relation to the new waste facility at Blandford would be subject to change as more detailed information came forward.

In response to a question it was confirmed that vehicle replacement was achieved through the host authority’s procurement process and that the vehicle replacement programme that had been approved by the Joint Committee in September 2017 had been taken account of in the draft revenue estimates.

Resolved That the Treasurer be instructed to take the latest capital estimates through the County Council’s capital programme approval arrangements.

Reason for Decision 1. The Capital Programme did not require the formal approval of partner councils, but Page 31 they were invited to comment on the programme. 2. The County Council, as host authority, must incur capital expenditure on the Partnership’s behalf by including the expenditure in the County Council’s capital programme.

Medium Term Financial Plan 2018/19 - 2022/23 63 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Treasurer to the Dorset Waste Partnership.

The report was introduced by the Finance and Commercial Manager who highlighted the cost of the revenue budget to 2022/23 and associated cost pressures. He advised members that if no changes were made to the service going forward, there would be an increase in cost of the service above £1m each year, subject to factors such as pay award, inflation, household growth and repayment of borrowing for capital. A lack of growth in the budget would require significant changes to the service and a greater amount of time to address in future.

Councillor Tony Ferrari, as the Dorset County Council (DCC) Cabinet Member for Community and Resources, stated that this rate of increase would be unaffordable to the host authority over the medium term. It was therefore important that members started a debate on the future of the service.

In response to a question relating to levels of pay and the national shortage of HGV drivers, it was confirmed that difficulties in recruitment of Class 1 drivers had been experienced in North Dorset and Shaftesbury, but not in other areas served by the DWP.

Resolved That the Medium Term Financial Plan 2018/19 to 2022/23 be adopted.

Reason for Decision The Joint Committee along with the Management Board monitored the Partnership’s performance against budget and scrutinised actions taken to manage within budget on behalf of partner Councils.

Dorset Waste Partnership Business Plan 2018-19 64 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Director of the Dorset Waste Partnership presenting the Business Plan for the financial year 2018-19.

Members emphasised the need to communicate to the public the link between increasing costs and growth in residual waste and continuing with education on using the right bin in order to continue to limit this cost. Officers confirmed that there remained significant savings of up to £1m that could be made if all food and recycling was removed from black bag waste.

It was noted that improving the Dorchester Household Recycling Centre (HRC) had not been included in the action plan and it was confirmed that, although work was ongoing, no funding had yet been allocated to progress this project.

The Chairman commented that it was not clear whether all of the actions within the action plan would be concluded in 2018/19. The continuation of some actions would be dependent on decisions made at the meeting in January 2018 and the level of member support for proposals such as closure of HRCs on some days.

Resolved That the Dorset Waste Partnership Business Plan 2018-19 be adopted.

Page 32 Reason for Decision To achieve the vision and strategic aims of the DWP.

Review of Enforcement Policy and Procedures and Guidelines 65 The Joint Committee considered a report by the Head of Service (Strategy) that provided an update to the Enforcement Policy, procedures and guidelines that took account of the decriminalisation of waste offences.

Members were informed that 2 enforcement assistants had been recruited to commence work on 20 November 2017 subject to satisfactory references. Their work would include abandoned vehicles and other day to day operations, allowing the enforcement officers to focus on proactive prevention work.

Members asked about the timescale and use of covert cameras and were informed that the DWP had strong links with the Police and Keep Britain Tidy and that there would be opportunities to share intelligence and resources around CCTV as a priority area of work.

Officers had been analysing data relating to fly tipping captured on e-forms and were investigating a system similar to that used by the highways team to deal with potholes that allowed feedback to residents on any actions taken.

The Joint Committee discussed the prevention of littering along highways verges which became most apparent at times when the verges were cut.

The Head of Service (Strategy) stated that from April 2018 littering fines would increase and Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) could be issued to the owner of a vehicle for litter thrown from a car. The DWP anticipated publicity on this issue to coincide with the national campaign in 2018.

Regarding the removal of rubbish from highways verges, officers explained that it was difficult to co-ordinate verge cutting and litter picking at the same time due to the practicalities involved, the latter requiring traffic calming measures to be in place on faster roads. It was confirmed that litter picking would take place along the West Stafford bypass in the next fortnight and that operational staff had been trained at various levels in traffic management.

Resolved 1. That the revised Enforcement Policy and Procedures and Guidelines documents be approved; 2. That the more robust approach to waste crimes and waste collection offences i.e. issuing of warnings, FPN’s, prosecutions and waste collection charges where applicable, be supported; and 3. That the staged approach to dealing with repeat waste collection offences be agreed.

Reasons for Decisions To enable officers to deal with waste crimes appropriately and proportionally. To enable officers to deal with repeat waste collection offences with education and advice followed by formal enforcement where required.

Questions from Councillors 66 No questions were asked by members under Standing Order 20.

Meeting Duration: 10.00 am - 11.05 am

Page 33 This page is intentionally left blank Draft Revenue Estimates 2018-19

Background Report

Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Committee

Date of Meeting 6 November 2017

Treasurer to the Dorset Waste Partnership and Finance and Officers Commercial Manager of the DWP

Subject of Report Draft Revenue Estimates 2018-19

Executive Summary This report contains draft revenue estimates for 2018-19. An updated Medium Term Financial Plan and Capital Programme are presented elsewhere on the agenda.

The draft revenue estimates are presented to Joint Committee in November 2017 to facilitate comment from partner councils, before formal agreement at the January 2018 Joint Committee meeting.

Sections of the report explain a number of the main aspects, assumptions and drivers of the budget and some of the sensitivities and risks. These issues were explored in some depth at informal budget workshops with elected members of all partner councils as well as finance colleagues from partner councils. The resulting budget proposal is a standstill budget of £33.1mill, which satisfies the affordability questions for partners, which leaves some parts of the budget exposed to greater risk than has previously been the case. This risk is to some extent balanced by the sum of £1m held in the Budget Equalisation Reserve (BER), funds put aside specifically to deal with budget risk going forward but on a ‘one off’ basis. The level of funds held in the BER are anticipated to be sufficient to deal with all but the most extreme and unforeseen circumstances in 2018/19.

Details of the main budget elements, and associated risks, are given in the body of the report.

Page 35 Draft Revenue Estimates 2018-19

Cost shares for each partner authority are also illustrated based on current tax base figures for each partner. These will be updated when autumn 2017 figures are known, in accordance with the cost sharing agreement.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment: The services covered by this report have been subject to an Equalities Impact Assessment where appropriate.

Use of Evidence: The figures for the draft revenue estimates for 2018/19 have been drawn up taking account of information about service requirements and costs provided by a range of managers of the Dorset Waste Partnership.

Budget:

The budget contributions expected from each partner to fund the draft revenue budget for 2018/19 are set out in Appendix 2 based on current tax base figures which will be updated in accordance with the cost sharing agreement.

Risk Assessment:

Having considered the risks associated with these decisions using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as:

Current Risk: HIGH Residual Risk: HIGH

High risk areas are financial, reputational and critical service delivery.

Financial: The operating environment for the Dorset Waste Partnership has potential for overspending arising from uncontrollable external factors (e.g. market prices for recyclates), local factors (e.g. changes in the level of waste generated by Dorset households) and is heavily dependent upon key external contractual relationships for our disposal arrangements.

Reputational: The Dorset Waste Partnership is considered to be a good example of partnership working, with some initial historical reputational difficulties having now been countered by good financial and operational performance for several years. However, the underlying risk remains and is reflected in the Dorset Waste Partnership risk register.

Critical Service Delivery: Waste collection is a vital service for Dorset households and the waste must be disposed of safely and efficiently.

Page 36 Draft Revenue Estimates 2018-19

Other Implications: Sustainability

A key objective of the Dorset Waste Partnership is to provide a harmonised service that maximises levels of recycling across the county. The current strategy sets out to achieve a level of 65% by 2025.

Recommendations The DWP Joint Committee is asked to consider the information in this report and:

i) Recommend the draft revenue estimates for 2018/19 to partner councils, for consideration at the next Joint Committee on 15 January 2018. ii) Note the level of savings proposed, totalling around £700k within the revenue estimates for 2018/19. iii) Note the cost shares for each partner council.

Reason for The Inter Authority Agreement requires the Joint Committee to Recommendations recommend a draft estimate for the following year to partner councils. This is to enable partners to give their views on the draft estimates and to reflect them in their own budgets.

Appendices Appendices –

1. Draft revenue estimates 2018/19. 2. Cost shares for each partner – based on current tax base. 3. Analysis of budget changes from 2017/18 to 2018/19 and an illustration of savings for 2018/19.

Background Papers None

Report Originator and Contact Name: Andy Smith, Treasurer to the Dorset Waste Partnership, Tel: 01305 224031 Email: [email protected]

Name: Paul Ackrill, Finance and Commercial Manager, Dorset Waste Partnership, Tel: 01305 224121 Email: [email protected]

1. Background

1.1 The Dorset Waste Partnership was formed in April 2011, and has been a partnership of all seven Dorset councils since 1 April 2013. One of the primary objectives of the partnership was to replace the disparate waste collection systems with a single ‘recycle for Dorset’ scheme, which has been in place since October 2015. All properties in Dorset now receive the service, which is expected to be around 205,000 properties in 2018/19.

Page 37 Draft Revenue Estimates 2018-19

1.2 The Inter Authority Agreement (IAA) for the Dorset Waste Partnership requires the Joint Committee to approve a draft budget for the following year. Partner councils must consider the draft budget and respond to the Joint Committee by 15 January 2018 with any comments or proposed amendments to it.

1.3 Elsewhere on the agenda is an updated Medium Term Financial Plan which shows how the service is estimated to develop over the next few years. The updated Medium Term Financial Plan will also inform the financial planning of the partner councils.

2. Overview

2.1 The draft estimates for 2018/19 are contained in Appendix 1 together with a breakdown of costs, based on current tax base figures, for each partner council at Appendix 2, and a high level analysis of budget changes is shown at Appendix 3.

2.2 The proposed cost of the service that Joint Committee are asked to approve for 2018/19 is £33.1m.

2.3 Informal budget workshops have been held in October 2017 with elected members, senior managers, and finance representatives of all partner councils, to consider the affordability of the 2018/19 budget, and consider options where there might be a greater appetite for risk, and/or desire to reduce the service in order to achieve further financial savings. The informal workshops considered the proposal for an “as is” budget requirement of £33.8m, and although various views were expressed, the majority view was that in order to meet the criteria of the budget being affordable for all partners it needed to reduce to £33.1m.

2.4 The following issues were considered at the informal budget workshops:

 Recyclate price volatility, and whether additional risk could be taken with regard to the assumptions made in budget setting for 2018/19.  Predictions of the volume of waste arising, and whether further risk could be taken with regard to the assumptions made in budget setting for 2018/19.  Whether changes to the Household Recycling Centre service should be actively considered, in order to achieve further financial savings.  To what extent the current year forecast of underspend, and the existing £1m Budget Equalisation Reserve, can be considered as a mitigating factor in setting a lower 2018/19 budget.

A range of other, longer term, issues were considered for further investigation, such as:

 change of working patterns  double-shifting  setting up an arm’s length trading company for commercial activity  review the policy regarding collection points  investigate monthly glass collection

2.5 Whilst the outcomes of the budget workshops were neither formal nor definitive, the resultant discussion has satisfied the Treasurer and Director that a budget of £33.1m, if approved by the Joint Committee, whilst recognising an increased appetite for risk in some areas, is thought to have good practical prospects of being achieved, ensuring that the budget has been set on a reasonable basis.

Page 38 Draft Revenue Estimates 2018-19

3. Issues and Assumptions affecting the draft estimates for 2018/19

3.1 The starting point for the draft revenues estimates is the current 2017/18 position. Figures have been updated to take account of latest information and further knowledge of service delivery since previous medium term financial plans and budgets were presented.

3.2 The estimates represent the best level of knowledge that is available at the time of writing. The figures presented in this paper have been considered by the various DWP budget holders and the Senior Management Team, and are considered appropriate for the purpose of informing partner councils of the estimated cost of the service, including reasonable expectations around securing future savings and thus being able to indicate 2018/19 costs to partner councils.

3.3 Some significant assumptions have been made in forming the draft estimates for 2018/19 which brings a degree of risk around the robustness of the estimates, should the practical experience of running the service prove to be different from the assumptions made. Some assurance can be taken from the existence of the Budget Equalisation Reserve (BER) with funds currently at £1m, to be able to absorb any arising overspend. Depending on the assumptions made on risk, the level of funds within the BER should prove sufficient for all but the most extreme and unforeseen circumstances. It should also be noted that, at the time of writing, the financial forecast for 2017/18 is favourable, which, if still the case at year end, will allow the Joint Committee to consider whether the BER could be further ‘topped up’ at that point, following the close of the 2017/18 financial year, particularly if circumstances have changed at that stage.

3.4 Significant issues and assumptions are listed below.

3.5 Inflation. A significant proportion of the revenue budget (approximately half) is contracted out, with the major contracts being for the Household Recycling Centres (HRCs), transfer stations, and various waste disposal arrangements. These contracts are subject to an annual uplift based on nationally recognised inflation indices (CPI and RPI). For the purposes of this budget, an inflation rate of 2.5% has been applied. Together with “catch-up” of inflation in respect of 2017/18 (for which inflation was budgeted at 1%, but has recently been as high at 2.9%) this adds almost £650k to the budget.

3.6 Annual pay award. The DWP has almost 400 FTE employees, of which around 310 are front line service delivery operatives (drivers, loaders, and street cleansing staff). As County Council employees, DWP staff receive an annual pay award as agreed nationally. For 2018/19, this has already been estimated at a 1% increase. The total pay budget increase required is almost £170k. There is speculation that the national pay award could rise above 1%, though there is nothing firm in terms of amounts or timing.

3.7 Additional collection resource. Pressure arising from new housing development is absorbed within existing capacity wherever possible. However, for 2018/19 existing collection is stretched and additional frontline resource of £166k is required.

3.8 Volumes of household waste arising. Pressure on the disposal contracts arising from further household growth will add £250k to the 2018/19 budget, based on a growth factor of 2.5%. This figure is speculative, and could be reduced if there is a greater appetite for risk.

Page 39 Draft Revenue Estimates 2018-19

3.9 Recyclate price. The price paid for disposal of recyclate is dependent upon the market price, which is subject to international economic factors. Periodically, income has been received from the sale of high quality recyclate. For 2017/18 a cost of £17.32 per tonne had been assumed in the budget. The draft 2018/19 budget currently assumes a price per tonne paid of £9.47/tonne, being based on the trend pattern of the recyclate price in recent history and noting an expected worsening in the international market particularly due to the ‘National Sword’ operation in China, which is expected to have global repercussions. Whilst recent monthly prices have been more favourable for the DWP, this budget line will no doubt remain volatile, with current or past prices not necessarily being a guide to future prices. This budget line will continue to be monitored closely going forward. Once again, this budget line could be reduced if there is a greater appetite for risk.

3.10 Garden Waste trading account. The draft revenue budget contains assumptions on that the Garden Waste customer base continues to expand, and increases the contribution to overheads accordingly. As agreed at last Joint Committee, the price for the service has been determined by the Chairman and Director and is set at £49.00 for 2018/19.

3.11 Commercial Waste trading account. The Joint Committee will be aware of the steady growth in the DWP Commercial Waste service. The 2018/19 budget aims for ambitious growth in income from £2.144m budgeted for 2017/18 to £2.347m as a target for 2018/19. However, due to the costs of needing to replace the ageing vehicle fleet, the bottom line contribution remains unchanged.

3.12 The capital charges budget effectively represents the repayment costs of capital borrowing on assets plus associated interest on borrowing of funding. The capital charges budget for 2018/19 is based on the latest expectations of the capital programme. A report elsewhere on this agenda sets out the latest expectations of capital spend going forward. This adds almost £350k to the budget for 2018/19

4. Savings for 2018/19

4.1 The budget already includes savings and cost reductions in a number of areas as follows:

 End of inherited leasing arrangements for the Crookhill area. (Approximately £160k)  Changing waste disposal arrangements to more favourable prices / contracts (Approximately £160k)  Agreed reductions in support service costs (Approximately £45k)  Transport staffing changes (Approximately £30k)

4.2 On the assumption that the current DWP service, after a reassessment of budget assumptions, is estimated to cost £33.8m and that partner funding, in total, may be limited to £33.1m, additional savings of £0.7m need to be found to balance the budget. The major mitigations for dealing with this are discussed in outline at paragraph 2.4 above. Some of these suggestions require further investigation, consultation and specific Joint Committee approval before they can be implemented.

4.3 In order to deal with the requirement to consult partners on a draft 2018/19 budget, it is proposed that the savings to be found are established as a ‘budget savings target’ in the figures presented at this stage. An illustration of how this may be achieved is shown in the bottom half of Appendix 3.

Page 40 Draft Revenue Estimates 2018-19

4.4 When the 2018/19 proposed budget is considered by the Joint Committee in January 2018 for formal approval, it will include greater detail on where the budget savings target will actually be found; potentially a combination of revised budget assumptions that introduce greater risk and actual changes in service delivery.

5. Cost Sharing

5.1 The Inter Authority Agreement requires notification of residential properties by partner council every year as a driver for the agreed cost sharing formula. Data has not yet been received to reflect these numbers as at October 2017 in accordance with the agreement; latest figures are shown in Appendix 2. It should be noted that the County Council percentage will be unaffected by any changes in residential property numbers.

5.2 Following consideration of these budget proposals by partner councils, the budget will be presented again for final approval at the Joint Committee meeting of 15 January 2018.

6. Budget Equalisation Reserve

6.1 The Joint Committee are reminded that the following funds are currently held in the reserve:

Amount held in Budget Local Authority Equalisation Reserve (£) Dorset County 645,591 Council

Christchurch BC 39,485

East Dorset DC 59,400

North Dorset DC 53,324

Purbeck DC 40,388

West Dorset DC 81,123

Weymouth & 80,690 Portland BC

Total 1,000,000

6.2 The Joint Committee are reminded that should the forecast underspend for 2017/18 be realised that there will be options to consider around making a further contribution

Page 41 Draft Revenue Estimates 2018-19

to the Budget Equalisation Reserve and / or returning underspends to partners in accordance with the cost sharing agreement.

7. Risks and sensitivities

7.1 The section of the report is intended to give Joint Committee members a quantification of the major financial risks and sensitivities associated with the proposed 2018/19 budget.

7.2 Recyclate price. Using prices from the last two years as a basis, price swings of up to £0.5m in either direction are conceivable.

7.3 Vehicle fuel price. An upwards movement of 25p per litre, if in place for the whole year, would cost the DWP around £0.5m.

7.4 Residual waste. The highest price for residual waste disposal in 2018/19 almost £119 per tonne (before haulage), with around 62,000 tonnes expected during the year. A 1% variation in tonnages arising will have an effect of around £74k.

7.5 HRC charging arrangements. There is a threat that legislation may reverse the charging arrangements implemented at HRCs, which would cost the DWP at least £250k.

7.6 Closed landfill liabilities. The DWP has responsibility for numerous closed landfill sites. Unforeseen closed landfill failures will have a significant but unquantifiable cost.

8. Next Steps

8.1 The budget timetable as set out in the Inter Authority Agreement requires the Joint Committee to approve a draft budget at this Joint Committee for consideration and comment by partner councils. Final approval will be sought by the Joint Committee in January 2018, to allow partner councils to set their own budgets and council tax levels during February 2018.

8.2 Further work will continue in ensuring that the savings requirement (£700k), as set out, can be achieved in practice and in a timely fashion taking account of comments received from partners during the period of consultation, leading up to the January 2018 Joint Committee.

Andy Smith, Treasurer to the Dorset Waste Partnership Paul Ackrill, Finance and Commercial Manager, Dorset Waste Partnership October 2017

Page 42 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 6c

Dorset Health and Wellbeing Board

Minutes of the meeting held at Weymouth Fire Station, Radipole Lane, Weymouth on Wednesday, 8 November 2017

Present: Jill Haynes (Chairman)

Members Attending Ben Ansell (Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service), Steve Butler (Elected Borough/District Councillor (East Dorset District Council)), Julie Fielding (Assistant Chief Constable), Margaret Guy (Healthwatch), Mike Harries (Corporate Director for Environment and Economy, Dorset County Council), Helen Horsley (Voluntary Sector), Nick Jarman (Interim Director for Children's Services), David Phillips (Director of Public Health, Dorset, Bournemouth and Poole), Matti Raudsepp (Strategic Director (Christchurch and East Dorset Councils) and Simone Yule (Locality Executive Teams).

Other Members Attending Andrew Kerby, Elected Borough/District Councillor (North Dorset) (Reserve) Rachel Partridge, Assistant Director of Public Health (Reserve) Ron Shields, Local NHS Provider Trust (Reserve) Timothy Yarker, Elected District/Borough Councillor (West Dorset) (Reserve)

Officers Attending: Graham Duggan (Head of Community Protection), Kaye Elston (Dorset Safeguarding Children Board Business Manager), Jane Horne (Portfolio Director for Prevention at Scale), Kirsty Hillier (Senior Communications Officer (internal)), Sarah How (Dorset Housing Officer, Dorset Councils Partnership), Stuart Hunter (Chief Finance Officer, Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group) and Helen Whitby (Senior Democratic Services Officer).

(Notes: (1) These minutes have been prepared by officers as a record of the meeting and of any decisions reached. They are to be considered and confirmed at the next meeting of the Dorset Health and Wellbeing Board to be held on Wednesday, 28 March 2018.

(2) Board agendas and reports are available via https://www.dorsetforyou.com/countycommittees)

Apologies for Absence 32 Apologies for absence were received from Ben Chennell, Helen Coombes, Tim Goodson, David Haines, Rebecca Kirk, Rebecca Knox, Patricia Miller, Debbie Simpson and Forbes Watson.

Code of Conduct 33 There were no declarations by members of disclosable pecuniary interests under the Code of Conduct.

Minutes 34 The minutes of the meeting held on 13 September 2017 were confirmed and signed subject to Helen Horsley’s name being added to the apologies.

Public Participation 35 Public Speaking There were no public questions received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(1).

Page 43 2

There were no public statements received at the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 21(2).

Petitions There were no petitions received at the meeting in accordance with the County Council’s Petition Scheme.

Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and the Duty to Refer by Public Bodies 36 The Board considered a report on the Homeless Reduction Act 2017 which would be implemented in April 2018.

The Board received an explanation of implications of the Act for Duty to Refer agencies (public bodies) and how it aimed to ensure that effective advice and support was provided to all eligible households at an early stage in order to avoid homelessness crisis. Under the new legislation public bodies (not yet specified) had the duty to refer anyone threatened with homelessness or who were homeless and Local Authorities needed to put protocols in place to enable them to work with other agencies to help these people. Funding had been provided and consideration was being given to future staffing levels and working arrangements.

In response to questions it was explained that funding was not ring-fenced and had been obtained until 2020; and that action for councils to approve any necessary changes were proceeding for the Act’s implementation in April 2018. It was noted that a big advertising campaign was planned by the Government to inform the public of the changes.

Resolved That the update on the Homeless Reduction Act 2017 be noted and the ongoing work on its implementation be supported within the Board back in their respective organisations and communities.

Update on Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP), with a Focus on Prevention at Scale (PAS) 37 The Board considered a report by the Portfolio Director for Prevention at Scale which provided an update on headline progress across the Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) as a whole, progress following discussion at the September 2017 Board meeting and a brief overview of the Ageing Well work stream as a background to the thematic discussion on 8 November 2017.

Members were reminded that Dorset had been selected as one of the areas for the introduction of the Accountable Care System from April 2018. They also noted that the Chairman had attended a recent conference where considerable interest had been shown by other authorities in the Board’s work and its involvement with communities.

In discussion the following items were raised:-

 the need for better liaison between members’ organisations communications teams in order to reduce duplication and provide greater consistency  the need for organisations to identify key staff and for them to communicate with each other  the need for work in localities to be reviewed and best practice shared  the need for better links to be made with voluntary agencies to avoid duplication of work being undertaken and to share data held  the potential for better IT connectivity across organisations

Members were interested to hear further about the working of the locality health and Page 44 3 wellbeing boards which were being set up across the eleven localities in Dorset. These would liaise with community partners and GP practices and report back to the main Health and Wellbeing Boards.

Members also noted progress with regard to the setting up of a Mid Dorset Locality Group.

Resolved That the update on STP highlights and progress on prevention at scale be noted and the ongoing work within the Board and back in their respective organisations and communities be supported.

Dorset Safeguarding Children Board Business Plan 2017/20 and Annual Report 2016/17 38 The Board considered a report by the Independent Chair of the Dorset Safeguarding Children Board on its Business Plan for 2017/20 and its Annual Report for 2016/17.

Members noted the Board’s structure and how it linked to other organisations and boards, and that lessons learned from serious case reviews were shared with other organisations. As information in the report was historic, they were given a more up-to- date picture of what was happening in Dorset.

Discussion included how the Board worked with the Dorset Adult Safeguarding Board in relation to parents with mental health problems, the difference the introduction of Family Partnership Zones was beginning to make, available training for the voluntary sector and the potential for on line training in future, the need for information regarding child deaths and serious injuries to be shared with other agencies so that activities and preventative work could be co-ordinated, and the need for a concerted effort to reduce the numbers of looked after children and children subject to child protection plans as these were higher than neighbouring authorities.

The newly appointed Interim Director for Children’s Services, Dorset County Council, whilst recognising the importance of keeping children safe, stated that the number of looked after children and children subject to child protection plans was too high in Dorset. He explained that social worker caseloads needed to be reduced so that they could work with families where children were on the edge of care or were subject to a child protection plan otherwise there would be financial consequences for the authority. Dorset’s Family Partnership Zones had been in place for approximately a year and, in his experience. it would take approximately 15 months for the impact of their intervention work to be seen

Noted.

Forward Work Plan 39 The Board considered a report by the Director of Public Health, Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole, that updated members on the current Forward Plan for Board meetings and events.

Members asked that meeting dates for 2018 along with venues be provided and that the Forward Plan projected items further ahead than the next meeting.

Resolved That items on Family Partnership Zones and the Melcombe Regis Regeneration Board be added to the agenda for a future meeting.

Meeting Duration: 2.00 pm - 3.00 pm The formal part of the meeting was followed by a thematic session on the Prevention at Scale workstream - Ageing Well. Page 45 4 Objectives of the session were to:

 Increase Health & Wellbeing Board Members’ awareness of the developing Prevention at Scale programme and implications for Dorset.  Focus on the Ageing Well workstream. It gave the opportunity to showcase challenges, evidence and case studies where delivering approaches at scale could most make an impact.  To allow Board Members and system leaders to identify where they could most usefully add value to the proposals, particularly joint working with partners.

There were breakout discussions around four stations highlighting examples of approaches already being deployed locally, and the potential for prevention at scale with time for questions and answers. The four stations were:

Diabetes Jane Horne, Public Health Dorset [email protected] Gary Alessio, NHS Dorset CCG [email protected] Paul Lewis, Dorset County Hospital [email protected] Collaborative Practice Susan McAdie, Public Health Dorset [email protected] Alyson McGregor, Altogether Better [email protected] Active Ageing Martin Kimberley, Active Dorset [email protected] Layne Hamerston, Living Well Active [email protected] Going Digital in Older Age Amy-Jane White, Dorset County Council [email protected] Morag Tyler, Dorset County Council [email protected]

Following the breakout discussions, Board Members and system leaders reconvened to review the breakout discussions and consider the role of the Board and how it can support local delivery and scale impact across the system. They key points from the discussions were:

 All four stations were examples of doing things differently. Members agreed that to increase prevention at scale further innovative working was required.  Praise for the work of champions and volunteers. It was noted that there were a number of people willing to volunteer in Dorset and thought was required on what would interest people to volunteer, training requirements and support network.  To try and engage with as many age groups as possible through services.  Organisations needed to have Health and Wellbeing within their service plans. Members suggested that each organisation highlight these areas within their plans and share with others at a future meeting so that cross-working could be identified. The Chief Fire Officer offered to present the fire services service plan.  Members reflected on the good work taking place regarding assistive technology and thought that it would be useful to share this information with housing officers and primary care staff.

A full report of the session and actions arising will be presented in the report to the next Dorset Health and Wellbeing Board on 28 March 2018. Page 46 Agenda Item 7 Page 1 – Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) update

Cabinet

Date of Meeting 6 December 2017

Cabinet Member Tony Ferrari – Cabinet Member for community and resources Lead Officer Richard Bates – Chief Financial Officer Subject of Report Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) update

Executive Summary This report provides the third update of the year, on the national and local issues impacting on the County Council’s finances. It mentions matters that will need to be taken into account when developing the three-year MTFP from 2018-19 to 2020-21 and highlights work that is already in progress to finalise the budget strategy and deal with remaining budget gaps for 2018-19. The report revisits financial performance and forecasts for the current year so that Members can form a clear picture of how the overspend has been tackled through a range of one-off and base budget measures and how these will impact on the 2018-19 budget strategy.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment: This high level update does not involve a change in strategy. As the strategy for managing within the available budget is developed, the impact of specific proposals on equality groups will be considered.

Use of Evidence: This report draws on proposals and funding information published by the Government, briefings issued by such bodies as the Society of County Treasurers and the content of Dorset County Council reports and financial monitoring data.

Budget: The report provides an update on the County Council’s budget position for 2018-19 and the following two years. Major risks that influence the development of the financial strategy include:  views taken – and published information - on changes in grant funding, inflation rates, demographic and other

Page 47 Page 2 – Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) update

pressures and income from the council tax and non-domestic rates;  success in delivering the savings anticipated from the Forward Together programme and containing other cost pressures arising;  judgement of the appropriate levels for reserves, balances and contingency, to minimise the risk of an unmanageable overspend without tying-up funds unnecessarily  pressures arising so far in 2017-18 that had not been factored into the budget; an early indication of the level of concern over these matters is provided.

Risk Assessment: Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: HIGH Residual Risk HIGH

Other Implications:

Recommendation The Cabinet is asked to consider the contents of this report and: (i) note the Directors’ latest estimates of outturn for the current year, including the savings from the Forward Together programme and the proposals for managing the residual overspend in the current year; (ii) note the update from the Chancellor’s budget statement from 22 November; (iii) note the latest projections for the current MTFP, including the level and adequacy of balances on the general fund; (iv) understand the causes of the remaining budget gaps at this stage and the work still being done to support it; (v) understand the risks inherent in the assumptions being made in each Directorate underpinning a balanced budget position, including the schedule of Forward Together savings set out in Appendix 2; (vi) approve the invest to save bid of £1m put forward by Children’s Services, to enable the immediate recruitment of additional social workers to support the delivery of the Directorates savings programmes. This will be funded from the Councils transformation fund; and (vii) put forward any other issues it wishes to be taken into account in the development of the MTFP and budget.

Page 48 Page 3 – Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) update

Reason for To enable work to continue on refining and managing the County Recommendation Council’s budget plan for 2018-19 and the remaining MTFP period.

Appendices 1. CPMI for October (period 7) 2. Forward Together programme savings schedule for 2018-19 3. Summary forward together position for 2017-18

Background Papers Society of County Treasurers’ briefing papers MFTP reports for budget 2016-17 and 2017-18 Spending review 2016 Final local government finance settlement

Officer Contact Name: Jim McManus, Chief Accountant Tel: 01305 221235 Email: [email protected]

Page 49 Page 4 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

1. Background

1.1 This paper provides an update on the development of the MTFP and budget strategy and analyses Government policy changes or announcements made in the Chancellor’s Budget. A further update will be brought if there are any significant announcements in the local government finance settlement. A final paper will come on 31 January 2018 with a budget strategy and council tax to be recommended to the County Council on 22 February 2018.

2. Forecast of outturn for 2017-18

2.1 The latest forecast of outturn for the Authority, (October, period 7), indicates an overspend of just over £4.1. This is a £1.9m improvement on the preceding month and a reduction of over £5.4m since the peak expectation in May. A breakdown is shown in the table below.

Of which Forecast Forecast Forward Net Budget (Overspend)/ Base budget Directorate Outturn Together Underspend

£k £k £k £k £k Adult & Community Services 132,943 134,106 (1,163) (2,308) 1,145 Children’s Services 62,493 68,632 (6,139) (700) (5,439) Environment & Economy 35,575 35,403 172 (321) 494 Partnerships 20,002 19,010 992 0 992 Chief Executive’s Dept 10,585 10,617 (32) (164) 132 Total Service Budgets 261,598 267,768 (6,170) (3,493) (2,676) Central/Corporate Budgets (260,274) (262,317) 2,043 0 2,043 Whole Authority 1,324 5,451 (4,127) (3,493) (634)

2.2 Earlier iterations of the forecast highlighted concerns around the budget which prompted significant work across the Authority to review budgets closely and develop turnaround strategies – not only to deal with the overspend in the current year but also to ensure the base position was affordable as a basis on which to roll out the MTFP process from 2018-19 onwards.

2.3 It is therefore pleasing to see the predicted overspend reducing further in key parts of the business. The changes in the forecast are analysed in the table, below. Although risks remain, we remain confident that the financial performance for most parts of the organisation will be very close to budget this year.

AP0 April May June July August September October £k £k £k £k £k £k £k £k Children's Services (4,000) (5,750) (7,080) (7,356) (7,850) (6,393) (6,407) (6,139) Adult & Community (2,100) (2,100) (2,500) (2,187) (1,722) (1,694) (1,813) (1,163) Environment & Economy (1,570) (720) (486) (134) (112) (200) (368) 172 Dorset Waste partnership 23 170 165 435 616 729 866 992 Public Health 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chief Executive's 0 0 0 (185) (150) (89) (67) (32) Other/corporate 0 0 400 247 1,400 1,400 1,728 2,043 (7,647) (8,400) (9,501) (9,179) (7,817) (6,247) (6,061) (4,127)

2.4 Work continues throughout the organisation to implement further, one-off and recurring savings measures and turnaround strategies. The Chief Financial Officer visited Directorate Leadership Team meetings in October and November with a view to understanding what further savings might be achieved beyond those currently

Page 50 Page 5 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

being predicted, before the end of the year. Feedback was positive in that Adult & Community Services and Chief Executive’s Department should both be close to budget, Environment & Economy Directorate should underspend by around £200k and Dorset Waste partnership should underspend (DCC share) by around £1m.

2.5 This should reduce the overspend in the year to a level which can be dealt with through release of reserves already identified as no longer required, flexible use of capital receipts, savings in the Repairs and Maintenance budget, and other corporate budget underspends and one-off funding.

2.6 An analysis of the current year’s financial performance and prospects is set out in the following paragraphs.

Children’s Services

2.7 The Children’s Services budget is now projecting an overspend of £6.1m, a small reduction from the £6.4m reported in October. Pressure continues around the number of children in care and the mix of placements.

2.8 The overall numbers of children in care rose slightly this month to 445 from 441 in September (both months include 12 unaccompanied asylum seekers). Whilst this is a reduction from the peak of 506, they will not reach the “best case” anticipated number of 400 by the end of the year. 2.9 Analysis of the make-up of children in care is showing that lower cost placements have been replaced by higher cost placements with Independent Sector Fostering Agencies and Independent Sector Residential Care Providers, and it is estimated that the cost of this cohort of children will overspend the budget by £7.3M in 2017-18. 2.10 The early stages of the implementation of the modernising fostering strategy have begun with the aim of recruiting, retaining and training foster carers to increase capacity of the in-house service and reduce the need to purchase high cost placements from the Independent Sector. The positive impact of this will not start to show until the end of 2017-18. 2.11 Pressure continues around agency and legal costs within the Care & Protection area of the budget. 2.12 The SEN Transport budget has seen a reduction in the forecast overspend from £1.03m to £0.74m. The results of the major retendering exercise look positive, however this is still a very fluid time (the start of a new academic year), where route changes are more likely to occur. With demand still growing the challenge remains to maintain spending at current levels whilst transporting more children. 2.13 Actions continue to be taken within the Directorate to offset the continued increase in spending within the placement budgets, and reduce spending in other areas. Vacancies have been held or extended when able, and one off funds or grants have been released wherever possible. 2.14 As reported in previous reports a total of £2.4m of one-off funding has been identified and allocated against the Children’s Services budget. Dedicated Schools Grant  The pressures on the DSG budget continue with a current projected overspend of £3.7m. The HNB overspent by £5.8m overspend in 2016-17. The main pressure points continue to be around the number of children with an EHCP/statement continuing to grow (April 2016 = 1,594 April 2017 = 1,846; July 2017 = 1,986) and the

Page 51 Page 6 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

post-16 area where all post-16s in FE colleges now require EHCPs to be funded for the first time via HNB, and the LA maintains responsibility through to the age of 25. 2.15 New funding mechanisms are currently being calculated to balance various budgets within the HNB and placement reviews are also happening, but it is difficult to move children once a placement has been arranged. New process arrangements should control the number of independent, non-maintained school placements. Plans are being developed, with schools, to find new ways of operating within available funding in addition to clawing back the deficit incurred. Adult & Community Services

2.16 The Adult & Community Services budget (£132.9m) is projected to overspend by £1.2m (0.88%). Although a reduction from the £1.8m reported to Cabinet in October, a number of pressures remain.

2.17 The Adult Social Care Service User budget (£69.2m) is currently forecast to be overspent by £2.3m (3.3%). £2.2m of this is due to a current shortfall in the Directorate’s Forward Together savings. Pressure continues to build in this budget area particularly in the demand for residential and domiciliary care and the cost of residential care for service users with a Learning Disability. Also, the forecast now recognises the potential costs of the sleep-in shift pay compliance scheme for social care providers that may have incorrectly paid workers below legal minimum wage hourly rates for sleep-in shifts. This could cost the Council up to £500k in 2017-18. The pressures have been mitigated by the use of funds due to slippage in iBCF funded schemes.

2.18 Other areas of the Directorate have increased forecast underspends. These underspends are generally due to difficulties in recruiting social workers and other, specialist posts. However, a further detailed examination of budgets in Commissioning released £300k in one-off reductions due to budgets no longer required in this year and contracts coming to an end.

2.19 The overall FT savings target for the Directorate for 2017-18 is £7.1m. Of this, £3.5m has been achieved and plans are in place for a further £1.4m, leaving the £2.2m mentioned above. Turnaround plans are being worked through and include various options ranging from the use of one-off reserves, stretching the existing savings targets where possible, working with the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) to clarify and expedite Continuing Health Care (CHC) decisions and using underspent resources within the improved Better Care Fund (iBCF).

2.20 The achievement of savings within Adult Care Social Care does come with a degree of uncertainty and risk due to the nature of how savings might be achieved. The complexity of cases means that delays are likely and savings may not be achieved as predicted. The Directorate is though committed to coming in on budget.

Environment & Economy

2.21 The Directorate is now forecasting an under spend of £172k. This is a £540k improvement on the position reported to Cabinet in October, after allowing for the transfer of the Estates and Assets function and ‘Way we Work’ property savings targets to Financial Services. There is a commitment to maintain around this level of underspend at the end of the financial year if at all possible, subject to weather related demands.

Page 52 Page 7 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

2.22 Economy, Planning and Transport continue to forecast an underspend of £93k due to savings now coming to fruition as part of a two year plan and also posts being held vacant pending future restructures.

2.23 Dorset Travel are now forecasting an underspend of £110k. There are still outstanding risks associated with contracts recently retendered, which are being closely monitored, and the part year effects of September changes.

2.24 The Business Support Unit phase one review has proceeded as quickly as practically possible but there is an overspend of £58k due to timing and part year effects.

2.25 The Coast and Countryside Service is forecasting an overspend of £59k and progress with planned service initiatives continues to be made, which will reduce this figure still further.

2.26 There are a number of predicted and planned underspends in Building and Construction and in Highways Services, the most significant being £127k on Network Management, due to tight budgetary control resulting in less expenditure being incurred than anticipated.

2.27 The ICT service is now forecasting an overspend of £115k due to income from capital projects being less than first forecast. There are partial mitigations in other parts of the service. Income from capital projects is an increasing issue especially for ICT, but also for other services in Environment and Economy, that is likely to have a larger impact in 2018-19.

Chief Executive’s Department

2.28 An overspend of £32k is currently being forecast for the department with minor variances being forecast for the majority of services.

2.29 More significantly, the Way we Work property programme is still forecasting £164k of whole-authority, property savings that are not achievable due to changing service needs and Cabinet decisions to retain property that was previously considered surplus to requirements.

2.30 The most significant forecast underspend is in the HR service (£104k), where posts are being held vacant where possible.

Partnerships

2.31 Dorset Waste Partnership is forecasting an underspend of £1.543m of which the County Council’s share (64.32%) would be £992k. The main variances are i) Inflation in excess of budget (£39k) is likely to have an adverse impact on Waste Disposal Contracts. ii) Favourable waste disposal tonnages, including the beneficial effects of additional tonnages to NES, result in an overall saving (£616k). iii) Recyclate costs – an updated calculation based on average prices over a period of time has again shown a favourable forecast of expenditure per tonne, whereas the budget was set at a higher figure. This results in a potential saving of £664k including glass and non DMR materials. However, this is linked to the commodities market and therefore carries a high degree of risk and cannot be called 'certain' saving at this stage. iv) Additional temporary resources, varying from budget by £22k, are required to support enforcement cases including fly tipping and abandoned vehicles. v) Performance of both the Commercial waste service and the Garden Waste service is favourable against the budgeted position. vi) There are some concerns that container income

Page 53 Page 8 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

may not achieve the budgeted amount, giving an adverse variance of £50k and vii) minor underspends are forecast on management and administration costs (£15k) and the operations budget (£30k).

2.32 The Public Health budget is predicted to be on target and will deliver £1.2m worth of savings in 2017-18. This will be distributed between the three partners using the agreed formula. The County Council will receive approximately £700k.

Central/corporate budgets

2.33 Central budgets are currently forecast to be underspent by just over £2m due to lower than budgeted net interest costs and release of some contingency budget due to flexible use of capital receipts (see below). An underspend on corporate R&M is also emerging as the year progresses, which will reduce the net overspend further still and will help offset the overall overspend.

Review of reserves and balances

2.34 The Finance Team has reviewed the County Council’s reserves and has worked with managers to release £1.7m of funding to support the overall overspend. A further review of reserves is carried out during closedown so if there is any further release of funds, members will be advised.

Capital receipts flexibility

2.35 Members are reminded of the arrangements in place for the three financial years 2016-17 to 2018-19 in which flexibility around capital receipts has been granted. This means that any receipts generated in this period can be used to fund revenue costs of transformation. Cabinet has approved a ceiling of £5m to be used this way. £1.4m was applied in 2016-17 and further receipts will be applied this way in the current year subject to costs qualifying to be funded this way.

Turnaround strategies

2.36 Although the table in section 2.1 sets out the latest expected outturn position, managers having been continuing to implement turnaround strategies and tactical savings measures during the year. These actions should see further downward movement in the forecast in coming months such that Directors are confident that the overall overspend can be managed from within one-off funding, underspends on corporate budgets and reserves released after the review mentioned in section 2.34.

3 Chancellor’s budget for 2018-19

3.1 There were no real expectations around improvements for Local Government in the budget and this appears to be the case. The current four-year funding deal remains in place and there was no obvious mention of any material changes to anything in the County Council’s funding position at this stage.

3.2 Areas to mention briefly include:  downward revisions to the UK growth forecasts  forecast reductions in inflation from current levels in the next two years  borrowing to peak in 2017-18 but now expected to reduce more slowly than previously anticipated in the years to 2021-22

Page 54 Page 9 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

 movement away from the 1% public sector pay cap to a position of decisions by individual Secretaries of State supported by independent pay review bodies  plans for changes to legislation for council tax relief on empty properties  changes to the business rates uplift from RPI to CPI have been brought forward  additional funding for potholes (County Council share as yet unconfirmed)

3.3 We await the local government finance settlement for confirmation of the funding position after which a further update will be provided to Members.

4 Progress with the budget gap

4.1 The October update to Cabinet presented budget gaps for the first two years of the MTFP as £11.5m in 2018-19 and £16m in 2019-20. At that stage the third year was not included in our planning work – though we knew we would need additional savings. We were anticipating savings of £9.5m from the Forward Together programme in 18-19 but no savings were assumed beyond that.

4.2 Having moved our financial modelling forward, we are now predicting headline budget gaps across the three years of the MTFP of £12.4m, £15.3m and £7.7m - £35.4m in total. The current budget strategy assumes we will fund £1m of this through flexible use of capital receipts and £0.5m from collection fund surpluses leaving a savings requirement of £10.9m.

4.3 Members will note that in pursuit of this savings requirement, appendix 2 totals nearly £18.4m at this stage. However, as well as breaching the budget gap, the programme must also deliver additional savings towards the base budget overspend experienced in 2017-18 or this will simply be carried into 2018-19 as base budget pressure. As the current year progresses the overspend is expected to reduce further as mentioned earlier, but at this stage it is essential to generate a list of savings which exceeds the budget gap alone.

5 Issues, risks and other matters affecting development of the MTFP

Pay inflation

5.1 Our current model assumes pay inflation of 1% in each of the first two years of the new MTFP, then 2% in 2020-21. There has been significant speculation around the possibility of an easing of the cap on public sector pay in recent months and we therefore need to be alert to anything that increases these costs.

5.2 The County Council’s staff costs budget in 2017-18 is just over £116m, so each 1% will cost us nearly £1.2m in 2018-19. As time moves on and we are better informed, we may also need to revisit the 1% assumption in 2019-20.

5.3 Whilst considering pay inflation, it is also pertinent to mention the potential costs of increments payable to staff during the course of the year. In 2017-18 the budget strategy was based on Directorates covering the cost of their own increments and this is our working assumption again in 2018-19 and beyond. Consideration will also need to be given to any further savings that can be achieved through a general (or specific) vacancy factor which is generally built into base budgets across the Authority.

General price inflation

Page 55 Page 10 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

5.4 General (non-pay) inflation is provided for at 1.5% in 2018-19 and at 2.25% in each of the following years. CPI currently stands at 3.0% and interest rates have increased for the first time since 5th July 2007 in an attempt to take inflation pressure out of the economy. However, we cannot yet assume that inflation has peaked and we will therefore need to give further consideration to building higher inflation assumptions into our financial model.

Coroner’s Service

5.5 There are currently discussions taking place between the newly appointed Coroner, Bournemouth Borough Council (the host authority for the county’s Coroner and Mortuary Service) and Dorset County Council. The purpose of the discussions is to gain a shared understanding of any difference between shorter term budgets, to enable the senior coroner to deal with the number of inquests needing to be done which she has inherited and future more steady state budgets.

5.6 The Coroner’s current view is that, to date, the area has carried out a lower number of inquests on average, than number of deaths when compared with other areas. The implication is that the cost of the service and therefore, Dorset County Council’s contribution, may need to increase. Indicative estimates of the increase could be in the region of £100k.

Dorset Waste Partnership

5.7 The DWP had increased budget provision built into the next two years of the County Council’s MTFP, in line with DWPs five year budget plan. Given the underspend in 2016-17 and the likelihood of an underspend in 2017-18, the DWP is likely to be taking a less prudent view of its likely performance in 2018-19, for example assuming improving recyclate prices, and lower tonnages in its planning assumptions. The DWP also has a £1m budget equalisation reserve which would help shield against significant adverse movements during 2018-19.

5.8 Given the constraints on partner funding and taking account of the informal views expressed at the recent DWP budget workshops a general view was expressed that the DWP budget would need to be constrained in future years. The DWP MTFP presented to the November Joint Committee forecasts that to continue to deliver services in their present form, costs would rise from £33.1m, as proposed for 2018- 19, to £37.5m in 2022-23 taking into account inflationary cost effects, household and waste tonnage growth. Therefore the DWP Joint Committee is likely to have to consider cutting waste and cleansing services in order to find the level of savings required to match the funding constraints likely to be required by partners.

Children’s Services

5.9 The modernising fostering strategy previously considered by the Cabinet highlighted that there would be a one-off budget pressure in 2018-19 of £2m, this reflects the time lag in increasing the number of in house foster carers and subsequently reducing the need for as many Independent Fostering Agency placements. Assuming that there is sufficient funding, the plan is that this would be met from Council Tax Surpluses declared by the district and borough Council’s during their budget setting process.

5.10 The Medium term financial plan report (MTFP) in October agreed an additional £3.2m increase in base budget for Children’s Services. This reflects the cost of rebasing placement numbers from 400 to 440.

Page 56 Page 11 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

5.11 In order to achieve the savings programmes that will bring Children’s Services to a balanced budget position an investment of £1m is sought to enable the recruitment of twenty additional Social Workers. This additional resource would enable the reduction of caseloads to 1:15. All the programmes (Family Partnership zones, recruitment of foster carers working with children on the edge of care, reduction of re- referral rate) will be made to work consistent with one another to bear down on a reducing number of LAC and achieving the consequential budget savings

The £1m investment would be in the form of an invest to save bid with an initial anticipation of £1.5m savings in 2018-19 based on a further reduction of looked after Children (LAC) from 440 to 390. In due course we would anticipate a further reduction in LAC of 44 down to 346 generating further savings of £1.32k in 2019-20. We would expect the investment to be repaid from these further savings made in 2019-20.

The long term aim to significantly reduce the number of LAC would bring Dorset closer to comparative numbers in similar counties such as West Sussex.

The proposal is this will be funded from the Councils transformation fund.

100% Business Rates Retention

5.12 In 2015, the Government made the commitment to local government retaining 100% of its business rates by the end of the Parliament (which at that stage was 2020- 21). However, despite assurance that work is continuing on this area, there is concern that the failure to include a Local Government Finance Bill in the Queen’s Speech means that these changes may be problematic. We are unclear at present, what the impact of this work either proceeding or being cancelled will be. Whilst guidance is being sought and business rates work stream activity continues, there is doubt whether this work will now be delivered.

5.13 Our assumptions about business rates growth across the MTFP are in line with Government assessments via our formula spending share and then 3% in 2020-21.

Academies

5.14 The number of schools requesting to convert to academy has slowed. Five schools converted during 2016-17, bringing the total number to 59. Ten further schools have notified of their intention to convert during 2017-18.

5.15 There are 116 maintained schools under County Council control. The overall surpluses of these schools is £5.567m, made up of 20 schools who have deficits of £1.626m and 96 schools with surpluses of £7.193m. Overall, net surpluses have reduced from £7.9m at the start of the year, of which the deficit amount was £1.466m. There are risks associated with schools with deficits, which have poor Ofsted inspections and which are required to convert to academy under sponsorship. In this situation, any school with a deficit that converts to a sponsored academy leaves their deficit with the County Council. There is a provision that has been set aside for this that has been risk-adjusted. There are currently two schools - with combined deficits of £126k - that are in the process of converting under sponsorship. These schools are unlikely to have reduced their deficits between now and their expected conversion dates and both have been issued with notices of financial concern. Officers continue to work proactively with them to reduce the deficit by as much as possible prior to conversion.

Page 57 Page 12 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

5.16 There are clear funding pressures within schools and this, coupled with the current OFSTED inspection regime increases the risk of more sponsored academy conversions of schools with deficits. We must therefore give careful consideration to the size of the provision and whether it is adequate to protect the organisation from the risks of sponsored conversions.

Better Care Fund and Improved BCF 5.17 Previous iterations of the MTFP only included small amount of BCF monies as the rules and conditions were unclear at that stage. It is now appropriate to release the additional funding for the County Council across the MTFP. This means £2.3m in 2018-19 and a further £2.0m in 2019-20.

Improved Better Care Fund Allocations 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 £m £m £m Old 4.289 9.022 New 7.432 5.479 2.728 Total 7.432 9.768 11.75 Increase 2.336 1.982

5.18 However, this isn’t new money and will be required to support the key aims of the Better Care Fund including:  meeting adult social care needs  reducing pressures on the NHS, including supporting people to be discharged from hospital when they are ready  ensuring the local care market is well supported. 5.19 The Delayed Transfers of Care (DToC) targets associated with the new funding have been agreed with the CCG and submitted to NHS England. They are stretching targets. Added to this, the iBCF Planning Guidance states that the Government will consider a review, in November, of 2018-19 allocations of the social care funding provided at Spring Budget 2017 for areas that are poorly performing. This funding will all remain with local government, to be used for adult social care. This should be noted as a risk when considering the funding available for 2018-19.

Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS)

5.20 Previous MTFP iterations have incorporated additional funding for rising costs of the LGPS. Given the actuary’s most recent report and the rates advised up to the end of 2021-22, it is likely that we will need to provide further funding to cover these pressures. The employer’s combined, current and past service deficit recovery rate for 2017-18 is 21.5% but over the next four years this will increase to 25%. As part of staff costs budgeting (which was advanced into September this year to give earlier assurance around affordability) additional budget allocations were made to fund the increase to 22.5% in 2018-19.

Flexible use of capital receipts

5.21 For a three-year period from 1 April 2016, authorities are able to spend receipts from selling fixed assets to fund the revenue costs of improvements to services. Cabinet has approved up to £5m to be used this way, £1.4m of which has already been applied and a similar sum will be applied in 2017-18.

Page 58 Page 13 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

5.22 The present assumption in the MTFP is for a further £1m to be used in 2018-19 and there is still some headroom within the £5m total and the £3.4 spent/projected in our current assumptions.

RSG/general funding

5.23 Our assumptions around the general level of funding around RSG in recent years have been well documented. Whilst transitional funding has been given in 2018-19 to offset £2m or negative grant, no such provision has been made for the negative £10.2m currently scheduled for 2019-20. This is what gives us the majority of the budget gap in that year.

5.24 As noted elsewhere, we are concerned that the formula review and/or business rates retention agenda will not be sufficiently well-formed to allow us to plan with any real certainty other than to assume a further, significant level of savings must be delivered. We are also unable to make assumptions which are more informed about the likely levels of funding for 2020-21; we have therefore assumed a further £8m reduction is required, taking our total negative RSG to over £18m.

Underlying budget assumptions review

5.25 We have reviewed budget assumptions since the last report and in many cases, although we continue to recognise and report cost pressures, services are taking action to ensure pressures are minimised where possible and dealt with wherever feasible. Examples include managers absorbing the costs of their own increments without extra budget being provided. Other assumptions reviewed include:  our capital financing requirements and their impact on the revenue budget  review of the use of the social care precept and other adult social care funding alongside provision through existing Resource Allocation Model (RAM) factors  inclusion and use of improved better care fund monies and the extent to which it might provide for pressures already factored into the MTFP  pay, prices, inflation and demographic factors  availability and application of flexible capital receipts  likely rate of growth in the council tax base and surpluses on collection funds  the requirement to address legitimate volume pressures in LAC numbers highlighted earlier in this paper. Interest rates 5.26 The recent increase was the first in over a decade. It was, however, widely expected by the market and was effectively priced into financial instruments. Our expectation is at least two, further rate rises in 2018-19 which are modelled into the budget. Further sensitivity testing of our liquidity and financing position continues to ensure we are prepared for rate movements across the MTFP period. 6 Forward Together 6.1 As noted above, the programme currently set out at Appendix 2 amounts to more than £18.3m. The following narrative sets out a little more context. Directors will also be giving further details of the proposed programme at the budget briefing on the afternoon of 6th December.

6.2 Children’s Services – A £6.1m savings programme has been drafted and agreed by the Directorate Management Team. Delivery of this programme is reliant on the invest to save bid detailed earlier in this report. Assuming the detailed budget build

Page 59 Page 14 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

work does not identify any further pressures this will leave Children Services with a £2m budget gap as described in paragraph 5.9.

6.3 Adult & Community Services – a savings programme of £9.3m is being developed through discussion with the Directorate Management Team and Directorate Programme Management Office. The underlying principles of the programme are to protect the adult social care user budget; to safeguard frontline service delivery capacity where required and to support wider transformation ambitions and activity running in parallel and beyond. Some investment funding may be required to generate these savings so £0.5m of the existing MTFP reserve is being earmarked for this purpose. Formal Cabinet approval for this will be sought if needed, in due course.

6.4 Environment and Economy – A £1.5m savings programme has been drafted after discussions with the Directorate Leadership team which, assuming that no other budget pressures are identified during the 2018-19 detailed budget build, would balance the budget for the Directorate when compared with the reduced funding available. This savings programme has been updated in the light of further information from that presented to Cabinet in June 2017 and was recently presented to the Economic Growth Overview Scrutiny Committee for their information and comment.

6.5 Chief Executive’s Department – The initial savings programme was drafted and presented to Cabinet in June 2017. The programme now includes the whole authority ‘Way we Work’ property savings proposals and items related to the Estates and Assets service on their transfer to Financial Services. The programme now totals just under £1m and has been confirmed as achievable with Service Managers. Any further budget pressures identified during the detailed budget build for 2018-19 will need to be addressed separately.

6.6 Dorset Waste Partnership – As reported to the November 2017 Dorset Waste Partnership Joint Committee, the estimated cost of the current service for 2018-19 would be £33.8m across the whole partnership. In the light of funding restrictions on partner councils, including the County Council, a budget of £33.1m is currently proposed and is out to consultation with partners. The implied ‘gap’ of £700k is likely to be bridged by a combination of less prudent budget assumptions and, possibly, minor changes to the levels of service provided. Dorset County Council’s share (£455k) of the above ‘gap’ is around 65%.

6.7 Public Health – As reported to the Joint Public Health Board on 20th November, preliminary forecasts for 2018-19 and 2019-20 have been developed that take account of further anticipated savings and likely impacts of work to date in restructuring public health activity and spend. Indicative projections at this stage indicate potential underspends of £454k & £154k for 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively. The County Council would receive approximately 55% of any underspend achieved.

Summary 6.8 Whilst the ambition of the Forward Together savings target is welcome – and much needed. However, there is considerable risk around the delivery of a programme of this scale and the FT Board will need to examine carefully the measures proposed and accepted to close the budget and other spending gap. Monitoring of achievement of the savings will be essential to deliver a balance budget in 2018-19 and beyond.

Page 60 Page 15 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

6.9 Much work has been done to develop the budget strategy itself since the Cabinet reviewed the last paper and there is still more information to come. For example, we are still unsighted on the local government finance settlement and the status of local collection funds (which can help us with short-term solutions to certain budget pressures) will not be confirmed until mid-December – so we are not yet able to confirm a final budget strategy.

6.10 A further update will come in January and in the meantime Members will be alerted to any significant developments that impact on our assumptions or budget strategy development as they happen.

Richard Bates Chief Financial Officer November 2017

Page 61 Page 16 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

Appendix 1

October Forward Year 2017-18 August September October Other Together

Cost Centre Management Responsible 'Above Line' Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Budget Monitoring Summary Officer Net Budget Under/(Over) Under/(Over) Under/(Over) Under/(Over) Under/(Over) Only Forecast Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's Children's Services Directorate Childrens Service Budget Care & Protection Vanessa Glenn 33,179 41,167 (7,829) (7,995) (7,988) 0 (7,988) Design & Development Patrick Myers 11,646 11,387 196 266 259 (400) 659 Director's Services Nick Jarman 2,202 2,305 (140) (99) (102) (150) 48 Prevention & Partnerships (DCC) Jay Mercer 13,066 13,773 (1,019) (977) (706) (150) (556) Application of Contingency/Control Node Richard Bates 2,399 0 2,399 2,399 2,399 0 2,399 Total Children's Services Budgets (DCC) 62,493 68,632 (6,393) (6,407) (6,139) (700) (5,439) Prevention & Partnerships (DSG) Jay Mercer 44,854 48,627 (3,368) (3,221) (3,773) 0 (3,773) P&P DSG Funding Jay Mercer (44,867) (44,867) 0 0 0 0 0 Directors Services (DSG) Nick Jarman 400 400 2 0 0 0 0 Page 62 Page Directors Services DSG Services Nick Jarman (400) (400) 0 0 0 0 0 DSG Services Jay Mercer (1,311) (1,311) (26) 0 0 0 0 Total Children's Services Budgets (DSG) (1,324) 2,449 (3,392) (3,221) (3,773) 0 (3,773) DSG Adjustment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Children's Services (DCC + DSG) Total 61,169 71,081 (9,784) (9,628) (9,912) (700) (9,212) Adult & Community Services Directorate Adult Care Service User Related Harry Capron 69,254 71,538 (2,088) (2,412) (2,284) (2,208) (76) Adult Care Harry Capron 14,876 14,421 242 366 455 0 455 Commissioning and Safeguarding Diana Balsom/Sally Wernick 32,431 31,935 84 149 496 0 496 Early Help & Communities Paul Leivers 9,120 9,084 (62) (49) 37 (100) 137 Director's Office Helen Coombes 7,262 7,129 129 133 134 0 134 Adult & Community Services total 132,943 134,106 (1,694) (1,813) (1,163) (2,308) 1,145 Environment and the Economy Directorate Economy, Planning & Transport Maxine Bodell 2,312 2,218 59 93 93 0 93 Dorset Travel Chris Hook 14,329 14,219 (233) (233) 110 (190) 300 Business support Unit Mike Harries 359 417 (79) (80) (58) (58) 0 Coast & Countryside Phil Sterling 2,266 2,325 (123) (97) (59) (36) (23) Estates & Assets Peter Scarlett 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buildings & Construction David Roe 138 115 3 6 23 0 23 Pooled R&M David Roe 137 137 0 0 0 0 0 Network Management Simon Gledhill 1,128 1,000 111 69 127 0 127 Network Development Tim Norman 1,040 1,035 9 (1) 5 0 5 Network Operations Martin Hill 4,055 4,050 (0) 5 5 0 5 Fleet Services Sean Adams (143) (169) 5 25 27 0 27 Emergency Planning Simon Parker 214 207 6 7 7 0 7 Director's Office Mike Harries 828 822 (7) 7 6 0 6 Streetlighting PFI Tim Norman 3,862 3,862 0 0 0 0 0 ICT Richard Pascoe 5,051 5,166 49 (169) (115) (38) (77) Environment and the Economy Directorate Total 35,575 35,403 (200) (368) 172 (321) 494 Page 17 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

October Forward Year 2017-18 August September October Other Together

Cost Centre Management Responsible 'Above Line' Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Budget Monitoring Summary Officer Net Budget Under/(Over) Under/(Over) Under/(Over) Under/(Over) Under/(Over) Only Forecast Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's Chief Executives Chief Executives Office Debbie Ward 275 278 (5) (4) (4) 0 (4) Partnerships Karen Andrews 189 163 23 26 27 0 27 Communications Karen Andrews 247 247 0 0 (0) 0 (0) Policy and Research Karen Andrews 440 440 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial Services Karen Andrews 431 432 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) Governance and Assurance Mark Taylor 657 660 (3) (1) (2) 0 (2) Legal & Democratic Services Jonathan Mair 2,876 2,868 (10) (7) 8 0 8 Financial Services Richard Bates 1,459 1,489 25 47 (30) 0 (30) WWW Property Savings Richard Bates (442) (278) (164) (164) (164) (164) (0) Human Resources Sheralyn Huntingford 1,335 1,231 0 0 104 0 104 Cabinet Richard Bates 3,118 3,088 45 36 30 0 30 Chief Executives Total 10,585 10,617 (89) (67) (32) (164) 132 Partnerships Page 63 Page Dorset Waste Partnership Karyn Punchard 19,702 18,710 729 866 992 0 992 Public Health David Phillips 300 300 0 0 0 0 0 Partnerships Total 20,002 19,010 729 866 992 0 992 Central Finance General Funding Richard Bates (23,542) (23,542) 0 0 0 0 0 Capital Financing Richard Bates 24,597 23,804 400 478 793 0 793 R&M Richard Bates 1,287 1,287 0 0 0 0 0 Contingency Richard Bates 839 (411) 1,000 1,250 1,250 0 1,250 Precepts/Levy Richard Bates 677 677 0 0 0 0 0 Central Finance Richard Bates (264,132) (264,132) 0 0 0 0 0 Central Finance Total (260,274) (262,317) 1,400 1,728 2,043 0 2,043

Total Above Line Budgets 0 7,900 (9,639) (9,282) (7,900) (3,493) (4,407) Excluding DSG Budgets 1,324 5,451 (6,247) (6,061) (4,127) (3,493) (634)

Page 18 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

Appendix 2

Forward Together RAG rating Green - Achieved Yellow - On course Savings Measure 18/19 Amber - More work required Red - Currently unlikely to be achieved Adult & Community Services Managing our Income 1,200,000 Yellow Increased income & efficiencies in Early Help & Community Services 200,000 Yellow Maturing our LATC 1,600,000 Amber Pathway Modernisation and Demand Management 400,000 Yellow Adult Social Care Ops Delivery 4,000,000 Amber Contract changes 250,000 Yellow Maximising efficiency in housing related support 832,000 Yellow Community Services target operating model 900,000 Amber 9,382,000

Forward Together RAG rating Green - Achieved Yellow - On course Savings Measure 18/19 Amber - More work required Red - Currently unlikely to be achieved Chief Executives Department Early Retirement costs 50,000 Yellow Review of South West Audit Partnership (SWAP) days 15,000 Amber Human Resources 65,000 Amber Review of Communications 50,000 Amber Financial Services 55,000 Amber Review of Programme Office 60,000 Amber Other intra departmental Services efficiencies 5,000 Amber Cross Department Efficiencies 50,000 Green Estate & Assets - additional income and property service changes 110,000 Amber 'Way we work' property programme - rationalisation of property 504,000 Amber 964,000

Page 64 Page 19 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

Forward Together RAG rating Green - Achieved Yellow - On course Savings Measure 18/19 Amber - More work required Red - Currently unlikely to be achieved Children's Services £ Modernising Fostering - new strategy 2,000,000 Yellow Reduce numbers of Looked after children 1,500,000 Amber Commissioning Review 500,000 Amber Adoption costs and third party payments 300,000 Amber Safeguarding 100,000 Amber SEN Transport - Personal Travel Budgets 483,000 Amber Review of residential care placements 1,200,000 Amber 6,083,000

Forward Together RAG rating Green - Achieved Yellow - On course Savings Measure 18/19 Amber - More work required Red - Currently unlikely to be achieved Environment and Economy £ Environment - additional income, non-pay efficiencies and grant 220,000 Amber reductions 392,000 Highways - additional income, operational efficiencies and innovations Amber Economy - Planning and Transport - additional income and staffing 202,000 efficiencies Amber Dorset Travel - additional income, fleet efficiencies and innovations 170,000 Amber ICT – Full year effect of 2017/18 service efficiencies on 2018/19 313,000 Green ICT – System licencing, maintenance and support options 40,000 Amber/Red Directors Office - operations efficiencies (staffing) including BSU 135,000 Amber Total savings required 1,472,000

Total Transformation Savings 17,901,000

Not part of main DCC Transformation Programme -

Forward Together RAG rating Green - Achieved Yellow - On course Savings Measure 18/19 Amber - More work required Red - Currently unlikely to be achieved £ Dorset Waste Partnership - changes in budget assumptions - more 455,000 Yellow risk DCC share Public Health Page 65 0

Total Transformation Savings 18,356,000 Page 20 – Medium Term Financial Plan update

Appendix 3

Summary - All FT Savings and 2017/18 BAU pressures Assessment of Savings achievement 2017/18 More On Work Not Savings measure Achieved course Needed achievable £000's £000's £000's £000's £000's Adults 7,110 #### 3,358 1,444 2,308 - Childrens 4,179 #### 3,018 461 700 - Env & Economy 3,858 #### 1,156 2,381 321 - 1,747 Page 66 Page Chief Exec's 897 686 - 164 Public Health 700 700 - - - Dorset Waste Partnership 700 #### 700 - - - Summary - All Savings 2017/18 18,294 9,829 4,972 3,329 164

Agenda Item 8 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

Cabinet

Date of Meeting 6 December 2017

Cabinet Member(s) Cllr D Turner – Cabinet Member for Natural and Built Environment

Local Member(s) Cllr G Carr-Jones – County Councillor for Stalbridge and The Beacon Cllr D Croney – County Councillor for Hambledon

Lead Director(s) Mike Harries – Corporate Director for Environment and Economy Options for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) routing between Subject of Report Blandford Forum and Shaftesbury on the A350 & C13 and decide on the option to be taken forward by Dorset Highways

Executive Summary Communities along the A350 and C13 have for many years raised concerns regarding traffic using these routes and more specifically Heavy Goods Vehicles passing through the village communities.

Funding of £2.42m has been provided by the Department for Transport (DfT) through the National Productivity Investment Fund to be used on community issues which has enabled Dorset County Council to take forward a route management strategy to deal with a number of highways issues along this route corridor including:  HGV Routing  Structural Maintenance and surfacing  Drainage  Traffic Management  Speed Limits  Junction Improvements  Village Gateway Signing

This report deals specifically with the management of Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) traffic issues along both routes and seeks the Cabinet’s decision on the option to be taken forward:  Option 1 - One Way Advisory HGV Routing (Current) Northbound on A350 – Southbound on C13/B3081

Page 67 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

 Option 2 – One Way Advisory HGV Routing Northbound on C13/B3081 – Southbound on A350

 Option 3 – One Way Enforceable HGV routing Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) Northbound on A350 – Southbound on C13/B3081

 Option 4 – One Way Enforceable HGV routing Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) Northbound on C13/B3081 – Southbound on A350

 Option 5 - C13 Melbury Abbas - Advisory ‘Unsuitable for HGV’ signs to discourage HGV drivers from the village

 Option 6 - C13 Melbury Abbas – 7.5 Tonnes (except for Access) HGV Ban which would be enforceable to ensure HGV’s do not travel through the village

Other matters on the route strategy are being managed through public consultation and Traffic Regulation Orders as appropriate.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment:

An Equalities Impact Assessment screening exercise was carried out. At this stage the recommendation is not considered to have any negative impact on groups with protected characteristics.

Use of Evidence:

Extensive work has been carried out by the County’s highway engineers, Risk Management team and partner consultant design engineers WSP.

Traffic Flow Data has been collected by the Dorset County Council Transport Planning Team for several years to assess flows on both routes.

Personal Injury Collision data is collected by Dorset Police and has been provided by the Dorset County Council Casualty Reduction Team.

Budget:

£ 2.42m from the National Productivity Investment Fund (NPIF) has been allocated by the Department for Transport (DfT) to Dorset County Council for the route management strategy. An element of this will be used towards the HGV routing option.

Risk Assessment:

Page 68 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: MEDIUM Residual Risk: MEDIUM

Other Implications:

Implications on the local communities will vary depending on the option to be taken forward. These are considered in the report and risk analysis.

Recommendation That Cabinet decides on which HGV routing option should be taken forward by Dorset County Council based on the evidence presented.

Reason for To confirm the preferred way forward to address the concerns of Recommendation communities and road users and to provide certainty for residents on HGV routing on the A350 and C13 between Blandford Forum and Shaftesbury and to ensure a scheme can be delivered within the current financial year.

Appendices Appendix 1: Plan of A350/C13 and surrounding Area Appendix 2: A350/C13 Advisory HGV Routing Information Sheet (Existing Situation) Appendix 3: Traffic Flow Data Analysis Appendix 4: Rural A routes – Collision rate ranking Appendix 5: A350 – Collisions (July 12 to Jun 17) Appendix 6: A350 – HGV Collisions (July 12 to Jun 17) Appendix 7: C13/B3081 – Collisions (July 12 to Jun 17) Appendix 8: C13/B3081 – HGV Collisions (July 12 to Jun 17) Appendix 9: A350/C13 – Collision & Casualty Data Tables (July 12 to Jun 17) Appendix 10: Options 1 & 3 direction of travel Appendix 11: Options 2 & 4 direction of travel Appendix 12: Community Consultation Results Appendix 13: Risk Analysis of Options Appendix 14: Overall Route Management Strategy Project Programme

Background Papers 13/05/15 – Cabinet Report C13 Road Closure Risk Comparison Analysis

Officer Contact Name: Andrew Martin, Service Director, Highways and Emergency Planning Tel: 01305 228182 Email: [email protected]

1. Background

Page 69 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

1.1 The A350 and C13 (B3081 at the northern end) are north-south routes in the North Dorset District Council area between Blandford Forum and Shaftesbury as shown in Appendix 1. The A350 runs through the villages of Stourpaine, Iwerne Minster, Sutton Waldron, Fontmell Magna, Compton Abbas and Cann. The C13 is primarily rural but passes through the village of Melbury Abbas before joining the B3081 where it passes through Cann Common.

1.2 Traffic flows recorded at intervals between 2013 and 2017 at various of locations on both routes show that approximately 4600 vehicles per day travel on the A350 to the south of Shaftesbury and 3000 per day to the south of Iwerne Minster, whereas the C13 carries approximately 7000 vehicles per day at Stourpaine Down and 5750 vehicles per day in Melbury Abbas. Further detail is shown in Section 2 below and Appendix 3.

1.3 In the early 1990’s designs were being progressed to provide a Melbury Abbas by- pass to avoid the village and re-route the A350 away from the A350 villages, such as Stourpaine and Compton Abbas, along the current C13. However, this proposal did not proceed to construction due to land issues and planning matters.

1.4 Traffic volumes and road safety has been an ongoing concern for the communities along both routes for many years with specific concerns over HGV’s numbers. Over several years various traffic management measures have been taken forward to address community issues but these have generally been on an individual case by case basis utilising signing and lining improvements and addressing localised safety concerns.

1.5 In April 2014 a risk of land slip was identified following the commission of a consultants report on a section of the C13 called Dinahs Hollow located in Melbury Abbas. This instigated a road closure which remained in place until July 2015 when the road re-opened with mitigation measures in place including concrete barriers and traffic signals to allow the safe movement of vehicles. The closure further exacerbated concerns along the A350 due to the increase in traffic which diverted away from the C13. This matter was discussed by the Cabinet on 13 May 2015.

1.6 In summer 2015, an advisory HGV one way system of northbound on the A350 and southbound along the C13 was introduced. This operated through the goodwill of the HGV industry and local haulage companies. The system was enhanced in Autumn 2016 by the provision of black and white advisory HGV route signing at key locations including A350 Blandford By-pass and A30/A350 in Shaftesbury. In addition, Portable Variable Message Signs were introduced to strengthen the message to HGV drivers. An information sheet showing the routing and how this works was published and is shown in Appendix 2. This was also publicised on HGV industry websites and forums to encourage drivers to utilise the advised routes.

1.7 In January 2017 the first community engagement meetings to tackle community concerns and seek solutions for an overall route strategy were held with local County and District members and Parish Councils, to enable Dorset County Council to begin the process in making a Challenge Fund Bid in Autumn 2017. This bid is no longer being pursued and the DfT has deferred this funding process.

1.8 However, in March 2017 a National Productivity Investment Fund grant of £2.42m was awarded to Dorset County Council by the Department for Transport (DfT) and then allocated to the A350/C13 Route Strategy to improve local highways and address community concerns.

Page 70 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

1.9 The funding is being used to tackle a number of highways matters along the route corridor which Dorset County Council are currently taking forward, including:

 HGV Routing  Structural Maintenance and surfacing  Drainage Improvements  Traffic Management  Speed Limits  Junction Improvements  Village Gateway Signing

The current works programme is shown in Appendix 14.

1.10 In addition to the route management strategy currently being progressed, the Dorset County Council Transport Planning Team are working in partnership with Wiltshire County Council, Bath & North East Somerset Council and Borough of Poole to progress a long term strategic route from South-East Dorset to the M4 motorway. It must be noted that any tangible improvements would be many years away due to the process required within the Road Investment Strategy parameters.

2. Traffic Flow Data

2.1 Traffic Counts at several locations along both the A350 and C13 along with the B3081 in Cann Common at the northern end have been carried out at frequent intervals since 2013. Traffic data at the 4 primary sites is shown in Appendix 3.

2.2 Weekday average traffic flow data for the 5 primary sites – latest data.

Site W/B Total Traffic OGV 1 &2 Flow average per day Site 1 – A350 South of 06/03/17 4552 481 Shaftesbury (212 northbound) (239 southbound) Site 2 – A350 South of Iwerne 18/09/17 2991 394 Minster (154 northbound) (240 southbound) Site 3 – B3081, South of 18/09/17 8854 468 Shaftesbury (north of Melbury (208 northbound) Abbas) (261 southbound) Site 4 – C13 Stourpaine Down 18/09/17 7281 483 (219 northbound) (264 southbound) C13 Melbury Abbas 18/09/2017 5748 323 (127 northbound) (196 southbound)

 OGV refers to Other Goods Vehicles. OGV 1 is primarily vehicles above 7.5 tonnes such as 2 axle and 3 axle rigids but the data is recorded on wheel base length therefore some included in this figure will be below 7.5 tonnes such as long wheel base box vans.

 OGV 2 vehicles are the larger HGV’s such as 4 axle rigids and articulated HGV’s.

Page 71 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

2.3 To give us a possible understanding of HGV flows on the A350 and C13 if HGV flows were reduced in Melbury Abbas we can look at traffic flow figures when the C13 at Dinah’s Hollow was closed between April 2014 and July 2015 and compare with HGV traffic flows under normal conditions along the route as outlined in Appendix 3. A summary of the traffic flows during the closure is outlined in 2.6 below.

2.4 On the A350 there were more OGV 1 & 2 vehicles during the Dinahs Hollow closure south of Shaftesbury of approximately 180 vehicles and approximately 200 vehicles south of Iwerne Minster

2.5 Compared with current data, during the C13 Dinahs Hollow closure there were fewer OGV 1 & 2 vehicles on the B3081 south of Shaftesbury of approximately 230 vehicles and approximately 220 vehicles at C13, Stourpaine Down.

2.6 Weekday average traffic flow data for 4 primary sites - June 2015 during Dinahs Hollow Closure:

Site W/B Total Traffic OGV 1 &2 Flow average per day Site 1 – A350 South of 29/06/2015 8101 666 (164 OGV 2) Shaftesbury DURING DINAHS HOLLOW CLOSURE Site 2 – A350 South of Iwerne 29/06/2015 4929 600 (158 OGV 2) Minster DURING DINAHS HOLLOW CLOSURE Site 3 – B3081, South of 29/06/2015 5140 230 (6 OGV 2) Shaftesbury (north of Melbury Abbas) DURING DINAHS HOLLOW CLOSURE Site 4 – C13 Stourpaine Down 01/06/2015 4955 269 (37 OGV 2) DURING DINAHS HOLLOW CLOSURE

2.9 It must be noted that this can be used only as a guide. To fully understand potential changes in drivers’ route patterns we would have to carry out an area wide HGV study to understand start point and destination of journeys which will enable a traffic model to be carried out.

2.10 Traffic flows will be monitored after any changes have been made to analyse the impacts of any decision.

3. Casualty Data

3.1 Collision data available to the County Council is provided and validated by Dorset Police. It includes collisions that occurred on the public highway and reported to the police that resulted in personal injury to any person(s) involved.

Page 72 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

3.2 It is accepted that this data is not the complete picture of collisions that have occurred as non-injury damage collisions are not recorded, however, it is the most robust and reliable data available to the County Council for identifying and considering highway safety related schemes.

3.3 Collision rates are based on the number of collision over a 5 year period, traffic flow data and route length and expressed as the number of Personal Injury Collisions per million vehicle kilometres. This is done to enable an objective comparison of different roads. The A350 between Blandford Forum and Shaftesbury has a collision rate of 73 per 1 million vehicle kilometres. This is the highest of rural ‘A’ class roads in the Dorset County Council area (excluding the trunk road network – A31, A35). Appendix 4 shows how this compares with other rural ‘A’ class roads in the county. The location of collisions on the A350 route between Blandford Forum and Shaftesbury is shown in Appendix 5.

3.4 By contrast, the C13 does not rank on the rural route collision rate list. However, collisions are concentrated north of Compton Abbas airfield and at side road junctions along the route. Appendix 7 shows the location of all collisions on the C13/B3081 route.

3.5 The latest available five-year period of road traffic collision data (July 2012 to June 2017) shows that 11% (5 out of 44) of all collisions (involving an injury) occurring on the A350 between Blandford Forum and Shaftesbury involved an HGV. During the same period (July 2012 to June 2017) HGVs were involved in 2% (113 out of 4533) of all collisions within the Dorset County Council area. Appendix 6 shows the location of collisions that involved a HGV on the A350 route.

3.6 HGVs were involved in 7% (2 of 29) of all road traffic collisions on the C13/B3081 route between Blandford Forum and Shaftesbury. Appendix 7 shows the location of collisions that involved a HGV on the C13/B3081 route.

4. Options for HGV Routing

Options have been put forward to address HGV routing along the A350/C13 route corridor as outlined below. Whatever option is taken forward there will be continual review post implementation, firstly after 6 months and then reviewed on an annual basis.

4.1 Option 1 - One Way Advisory HGV Routing (Current Situation)

 Northbound Advisory one-way HGV route along the A350.  Southbound Advisory one-way HGV route along the C13/B3081.

4.1.1 This option would enhance the current signed advisory routing, with extra signing and Vehicle Message Signs, whereby HGV’s travelling northbound use the A350 and those travelling southbound use B3081/C13. Option direction of travel is shown in Appendix 10.

4.1.2 Mitigation measures of Permanent Vehicle Message Signs (PVMS) in Melbury Abbas combined with an HGV pull in lay-by, would be required to reduce potential conflict between larger vehicles passing in the village. This would be in addition to and link up with the existing signs on Spreadeagle Hill and the traffic signal control in the narrow shuttle working section of Dinah’s Hollow.

4.1.3 Anti-skid surfacing would be required on the uphill section of Spreadeagle Hill for HGV’s heading south out of Melbury Abbas, to improve traction. Page 73 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

4.1.4 Advantages:  The routing is advisory so HGV drivers can route accordingly if delivering to villages along route.  No Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) required.  Signage already in place although would need reviewing and with likely increase in numbers to improve conspicuity.  Allows larger ‘abnormal load’ HGV’s to use most appropriate route.  Familiar to road users as is the current working situation which has been in place for some time.  Reduces southbound HGV traffic on the A350 hence reducing the risk of conflict on that route.  Reduces the risk of HGV collisions on the A350.

Risks and Issues:  Not all HGV’s would follow the routing due to size and load. Therefore, conflict would still occur in narrower locations such as C13 Melbury Abbas and A350 Fontmell Magna.  Larger HGV’s have difficulty ascending Spreadeagle Hill in the southbound direction so would continue to use the A350.  Not mandatory as there is no TRO so cannot be enforced by Dorset Police.  Advisory routing is not picked up by Satnav.  Increase in advisory signing required.  Residual issues with smaller vehicles passing HGV’s (vans, caravans, ambulances) in Melbury Abbas still at risk of conflict.

4.2 Option 2 - One Way Advisory HGV Routing (Reverse current situation)

 Northbound Advisory one-way HGV route along the C13/B3081.  Southbound Advisory one-way HGV route along the A350.

4.2.1 This option would reverse the current signed advisory routing such that HGV’s would travel northbound on the C13/B3081 and travel southbound on the A350. Option direction of travel is shown in Appendix 11.

4.2.2 Mitigation measures of Permanent Vehicle Message Signs (PVMS) in Melbury Abbas combined with an HGV pull in lay-by, would be required to reduce potential conflict between larger vehicles passing in the village. This would be in addition to and link up with the existing signs on Spreadeagle Hill and the traffic signal control in the narrow shuttle working section of Dinah’s Hollow.

4.2.3 HGV’s travelling down Spreadeagle Hill are a major concern with this option due to property locations at the bottom of the hill and no available space for a gravel trap or run off area.

4.2.4 Advantages:  The routing is advisory so HGV drivers can route accordingly if delivering to villages along route.  No Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) required.  Allows larger ‘abnormal load’ HGV’s to use most appropriate route.  Reduces northbound HGV traffic on the A350 hence reducing the risk of conflict on that route.  Reduces the risk of HGV collisions on the A350.

Page 74 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

Risks and Issues:  Not all HGV’s would follow the routing due to their size and load. Therefore, conflict could still occur in narrower locations such as C13 Melbury Abbas and A350 Fontmell Magna.  Existing signing would have to be changed to reflect the new direction of travel.  HGV drivers are used to the current direction of travel.  Larger HGV’s travelling down Spreadeagle Hill is a major concern due to property locations at the bottom of the hill and the lack of space for a run off area.  Not mandatory as there is no TRO so cannot be enforced by Dorset Police.  Advisory routing is not picked up by Satnav.  Increase in advisory signing required.  Residual issues with smaller vehicles passing HGV’s (vans, caravans, ambulances) in Melbury Abbas.  Police do not support.

4.3 Option 3 – One Way Enforceable HGV routing Traffic Regulation Order (TRO)

 Northbound TRO one way HGV route along the A350.  Southbound TRO one way HGV route along the C13/B3081.

4.3.1 This option would enhance the current advisory HGV routing of northbound on the A350 and southbound on the C13 by enforcing the routing by the implementation of a TRO. Option direction of travel is shown in Appendix 10.

4.3.2 Mitigation measures of Permanent Vehicle Message Signs (PVMS) in Melbury Abbas combined with an HGV pull in lay-by, would be required to reduce conflict of larger vehicles passing in the village. These would be in addition to and link up with the existing signs on Spreadeagle Hill and the traffic signals in the narrow section of Dinahs Hollow.

4.3.3 Anti-skid surfacing would be required on the uphill section of Spreadeagle Hill for HGV’s heading south out of Melbury Abbas to improve traction.

4.3.4 Advantages:  The routing would be based on a TRO and therefore could be enforced by Dorset Police.  HGV Satnav systems would pick up the routing so HGV’s should comply.  Reduce the likelihood of conflict in narrow sections such as C13 Melbury Abbas and A350 Fontmell Magna.  Reduces southbound HGV traffic on the A350 hence reducing the risk of conflict on that route.  Reduces the risk of HGV collisions on the A350.

Risks and Issues:  Not all HGV’s want to follow the routing due to size, load and destination. Ascending C13 Spreadeagle Hill is considered a main concern for HGV drivers.  Access only rights will still be permitted, therefore several HGV’s will still be likely take the route.  Regulatory signage will be required on all adjoining side roads – sign clutter and difficulty in siting signs will be issues.  The TRO would be complex to put in place. Where does it start and finish? Does a larger area need covering? Page 75 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

 The TRO process would be lengthy and time consuming and may have objections to be taken to the Regulatory Committee.  How are vehicles who are starting or finishing along the routes dealt with. Extra unnecessary miles might be added to journeys.  Other unsuitable roads in the area may see an increase in HGV traffic. Will bans be required on adjoining rural lanes?  Residual issues with smaller vehicles passing HGV’s (vans, caravans, ambulances) in Melbury Abbas.  Potential concerns raised by Wiltshire Council if greater numbers of HGV’s route through to their road network.  Will HGV traffic be increased along the route as HGV’s follow the north/south route to access villages on route?  Police resources will mean that enforcement would not be high priority and unlikely to be resourced. To enforce the TRO, HGV’s would have to be followed going the ‘wrong way’ from one end to the other, which can be time consuming.  Costs are high for this option.  Dorset County Council reputational damage could be high due to the complexity of implementing this option.  Engineers and consultants are not aware of this type of one way HGV routing being implemented in the UK.  In conflict with DCC Rural Roads Protocol due to sign clutter. This has also been a concern for the AONB.

4.4 Option 4 – One Way Enforceable HGV routing Traffic Regulation Order (TRO)

 Northbound TRO one-way HGV route along the C13/B3081.  Southbound TRO one-way HGV route along the A350.

4.4.1 This option would reverse the current advisory direction of HGV travel which will be further enhanced by the implementation of a TRO so that it can be enforced. Option direction of travel is shown in Appendix 11.

4.4.2 Mitigation measures of Permanent Vehicle Message Signs (PVMS) in Melbury Abbas combined with an HGV pull in lay-by, would be required to reduce conflict of larger vehicles passing in the village. These would be in addition to and link up with the existing signs on Spreadeagle Hill and the traffic signals in the narrow section of Dinahs Hollow.

4.4.3 HGV’’s being directed to travel down Spreadeagle Hill is a major concern due to property locations and no area for a gravel trap.

4.4.4 Advantages:  The routing would be based on a TRO and therefore could be enforced by Dorset Police.  HGV Satnav systems would pick up the routing so HGV’s should comply.  Reduce the likelihood of conflict in narrow sections such as C13 Melbury Abbas and A350 Fontmell Magna.  Reduces northbound HGV traffic on the A350 hence reducing the risk of conflict on that route.  Reduces the risk of HGV collisions on the A350.

Page 76 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

Risks and Issues:  Not all HGV’s want to follow the routing due to size, load and destination. Descending C13 Spreadeagle Hill is considered a major concern.  Access only rights will still be permitted, therefore several HGV’s will still likely take the route.  Regulatory signage (likely non-prescribed) will be required on all adjoining side roads – sign clutter and difficulty in siting signs.  TRO would be complex to put in place. Where does it start and finish? Does a larger area need covering?  Larger HGV’s travelling down Spreadeagle Hill is a major concern due to property locations at the bottom of the hill and the lack of space for a run off area.  TRO process would be lengthy and time consuming.  How are vehicles who are starting or finishing along the routes dealt with. Extra unnecessary miles might be added to journeys.  Other unsuitable roads in the area may see an increase in HGV traffic. Will bans be required on adjoining rural lanes?  Residual issues with smaller vehicles passing HGV’s (vans, caravans, ambulances) in Melbury Abbas.  Potential concerns raised by Wiltshire Council if greater numbers of HGV’s route through to their road network.  Will HGV traffic be increased along the route as HGV’s follow the north/south route to access villages on route?  Police resources will mean that enforcement would not be high priority and unlikely to be resourced. To enforce the TRO, HGV’s would have to be followed going the ‘wrong way’ from one end to the other, which can be consuming.  Costs are high for this option.  Dorset County Council reputational damage could be high due to the complexity of implementing this option.  Engineers and consultants are not aware of this type of one way HGV routing being implemented in the UK.  In conflict with Dorset County Council Rural Roads Protocol due to sign clutter. This has also been a concern for the AONB.

4.5 Option 5 - C13 Melbury Abbas - Advisory ‘Unsuitable for HGV’ signs

4.5.1 This option would provide for advisory ‘Unsuitable for HGV’s’ blue and white signs to cover the area of C13 in Melbury Abbas and Dinahs Hollow. Further signing would be located on the A350 Blandford By-pass and A350 in Shaftesbury to provide advanced warning to HGV drivers and at all side roads which meet the C13.

4.5.2 As reported to Cabinet in May 2015 landslips had occurred in Dinahs Hollow to the north of Melbury Abbas which required closure of the road for a period of time. Further to this edge erosion of the banks by large vehicles at St Thomas Church in the village and the cemetery bank has been an ongoing concern for the local community.

4.5.3 Mitigation measures will be required on the A350 to reduce conflict in key locations. This could include proposals for footway and signal improvements in Fontmell Magna, but any measures taken forward will require further consultation with the local community.

Page 77 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

4.5.4 It must be noted that TRO proposals are currently being advertised in relation to reducing speed limits to 50mph between villages on the A350 and extending 30mph speed limits in Stourpaine, Fontmell Magna and Compton Abbas and providing for a new 30mph speed limit in Sutton Waldron. This will be considered by the Regulatory Committee if there are objections to the speed limit proposals.

4.5.5 Advantages:  Reduces HGV numbers in Melbury Abbas & Dinahs Hollow.  HGV drivers would not be forced in any direction but could make their own decisions based on size, load and destination etc.  Reduced risk of vehicle conflict in narrow sections in Melbury Abbas.  No TRO required – signage only.  Potentially reduce erosion in Dinahs Hollow & at the Melbury Abbas church cemetery bank.  Noise, safety and air quality improvements in Melbury Abbas.  Support from Dorset Police and South Western Ambulance Service.  Would release project funds to invest in additional A350 mitigation measures.

Risks and Issues:  Potential increase of HGV traffic on the A350.  Potential increase in collisions on the A350.  Potential for increased HGV traffic on alternative routes such as B3081 and Boundary Road. Concerns may be raised by Wiltshire Council if higher levels of HGV route through to their road network.  Signage required well in advance to inform drivers which will lead to increased sign clutter.  Advisory signing not picked up by HGV Satnav.  Not Enforceable as it would be advisory. Drivers may ignore the signs.

4.5.6 Example of the type of signing that would be used:

4.6 Option 6 - C13 Melbury Abbas – Enforceable 7.5 Tonnes (except for Access) HGV Ban

4.6.1 This option would provide for an enforceable 7.5 tonnes (except for access) ban in Melbury Abbas by implementation of a TRO. Further signing would be located on the A350 Blandford By-pass and A350 in Shaftesbury to provide advanced warning to HGV drivers and where side roads meet the C13.

4.6.2 As reported to Cabinet in May 2015 landslips had occurred in Dinahs Hollow to the north of Melbury Abbas which required closure of the road for a period time. Further to this edge erosion of the banks by large vehicles at St Thomas Church in the village and the cemetery opposite has been an ongoing concern for the local community.

4.6.3 Mitigation measures would be required on the A350 to reduce conflict in key locations. This could include proposals for footway and signal improvements in Fontmell Magna, but any measures taken forward will require further consultation with the local community.

Page 78 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

4.6.4 It must be noted that TRO proposals are currently being advertised in relation to reducing speed limits to 50mph between villages on the A350 and extending 30mph speed limits in Stourpaine, Fontmell Magna and Compton Abbas and providing for a new 30mph speed limit in Sutton Waldron. This will be considered by the Regulatory Committee in due course.

4.6.5 Advantages:  Reduces HGV numbers in Melbury Abbas & Dinahs Hollow.  Reduced risk of vehicle conflict in narrow sections in Melbury Abbas.  Enforceable by Dorset Police due to legal TRO in place.  Likely to reduce erosion in Dinahs Hollow and at the Melbury Abbas Church Cemetery bank.  HGV ban will be registered by Satnav.  Noise, safety and air quality improvements in Melbury Abbas.  Support from Dorset Police and South Western Ambulance Service.  Would release project funds to invest in additional A350 mitigation measures.

Risks and Issues:  Increase HGV traffic on the A350.  Potential increase in collisions on the A350.  Potential for increased HGV traffic on alternative routes such as B3081 Zig-Zag Hill and Boundary Road.  Potential for concerns to be raised by Wiltshire Council if higher levels of HGV traffic route through to their road network.  Access only rights will still be permitted, therefore several HGV’s will still likely take the route.  Regulatory signage required on all joining side roads – increased sign clutter and difficulty in siting signage.  Signage required well in advance to inform drivers. Increase in sign clutter?  Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) will be required. This process can be time consuming due to potential objections and associated committee process.  A weight restriction TRO of this type can be difficult to enforce.

4.6.6 Example of the type of signing that would be used:

5. Consultation

5.1 Community Consultation was held in June 2017 in Stourpaine Village Hall, Melbury Abbas Village Hall and online for the entire Route Management Strategy Project. 109 Feedback forms were returned, results of which are shown in Appendix 12 and summarised below:

Page 79 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

5.2 Summary of Route Management Strategy Consultation Results:

No. Question Yes No 1 Do you travel the A350 regularly? 85 (78%) 20 (18%) 2 Do you travel the C13 regularly? 96 (88% 9 (8%) 3 How do you usually travel for the main part of N/A N/A your journey – Bus, Car, Van, Cycle, Motorcycle, HGV 4 Do you support the advisory HGV routing of 59 (54%) 47 (43%) Northbound on the A350 and Southbound on the C13 5 Do you agree with a consistent message 74 (68%) 21 (19%) being provided along both routes 6 Do you support the proposed principle of 79 (725) 27 (25%) 50mph between villages and 30mph in villages along the A350 7 Do you support the proposed 40mph speed 91 (83%) 12 (11%) limit on Spreadeagle Hill on the approach to Melbury Abbas 8 Do you see the value of Vehicle Activated 91 (83%) 13 (12%) Signs (VAS) to warn of speed limits, HGV restrictions etc: 9 Are you happy that the visual impact to the 68 (62%) 35 (32%) environment has been considered 10 Has the consultation provided with you with 70 (64%) 26 (24%) suitable information to make a considered opinion on proposals

5.3 Ongoing stakeholders meeting have been taking place to ensure that community groups have been kept up to date. It is anticipated that community representation will be made on presentation of this report.

5.4 Dorset Police Force

Dorset Police Force have been consulted on the route strategy regarding speed limits, traffic management etc. however specific comments about HGV’s are shown below:

‘There have been many conversations and discussion surrounding the use of the A350 and C13 by HGV’s. Dorset Police would support any proposal to prohibit vehicles of this nature using the Melbury Abbas and Dinah’s Hollow sections.

It has been suggested that local authorities liaise (Dorset County Council & Wiltshire) in order to identify a more preferred route towards the C13 from Shaftesbury taking traffic through Ludlow and towards Compton Abbas airfield towards a roads junction which is receiving future works and changes to its layout which will ultimately assist if the road is to receive an increased flow of traffic. ‘Access Only’ should be introduced within the village therefore prohibiting HGVs and being mindful of the proposals surrounding the unofficial one way route outlined already’.

Page 80 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

5.5 South Western Ambulance Service

Following an incident of an ambulance on call becoming stuck against an HGV in Melbury Abbas on 5 July 2017 which was reported extensively in the local and national press, the Ambulance Service was consulted on the route strategy and specifically HGV issues. Response as below was given by the local Operations Officer who covers the Blandford and North Dorset Area:

‘Following the incidents of ambulances becoming wedged by much larger articulated vehicles I looked into the issue from our service delivery point of view. I also spoke to members of the local stations that use and commute on these roads on a daily basis.

The consensus is that there are far too many exceptionally large vehicles using the C13. It was felt that a restriction of 7.5 tonnes along the C13 route would be appropriate as this would allow for easier navigation around the pinch points. The voluntary one way system helps, but inappropriately large vehicles risk trapping our vehicles on emergency calls. The C13 provides a rapid route for our emergency vehicles, a divert to the A350 could potentially lengthen a journeys between Blandford and Shaftesbury by 10-15 minutes. Also, our station is based on the Sunrise Business Park and therefore convenient for the C13.

Vehicle Activated Signage does not appear to work efficiently through Dinahs Hollow. The larger HGVs take so long going through Dinahs Hollow (due to the narrow width) that the signage has switched off well before the vehicle has passed through meaning that oncoming vehicles do not receive adequate notice on some occasions.

Our preference would be that if the one way system for HGVs were to continue, we would like to see a restriction on the maximum size allowed along the C13. Ideally, no HGVs would be preferable but I understand the need to relieve pressure on the A350 too’.

5.6 Dorset & Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service

The Fire and Rescue Service were consulted on the overall route strategy and had no specific comments regarding HGV routing.

5.7 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Cranborne Chase and West Wilts Downs AONB Team was consulted on the full scheme proposals in June 2017. Comments specific to HGV’s are shown below:

‘The proposals for Melbury Abbas do not appear to deal with the fundamental issue which is the use of the route by HGVs. It seems that the only way to ensure a free flow of traffic through the village, without major works to pinch points that would encroach upon private properties, is to impose a vehicle weight limit.

The suggestion to include further vehicle activated signs would merely further degrade and urbanise this rural village. The AONB is mindful that the C13 has not been identified locally, regionally, or nationally as a primary route for HGVs so therefore it would be inappropriate to encourage HGV use for through traffic. Restricting the route to small vehicles could lighten the load on the A350 element of this north/south corridor by facilitating a route for small vehicles.

Page 81 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

As I mentioned earlier, the analysis and proposals for Melbury Abbas would be more meaningful if they indicated the locations of blockages and other incidents that are, nevertheless, not classified as ‘collisions’.’

5.8 Road Haulage Association

Dorset Highways Officers have been in regular contact with haulage representatives locally and with the national body the Road Haulage Association. Officers attended the Dorset Sub-Regional meeting on 7 September 2017 to discuss HGV matters along the A350/C13 corridor. The following comments are taken form the minutes:

Officers ‘from Dorset Highways gave members the opportunity to voice any thoughts, concerns and issues regarding Dorset roads before introducing the A350/C13 voluntary one-way system.

£2.4 million pounds of funding had been provided in March to be invested over the year to provide consistency, structural maintenance and resurfacing.

Sec note: The one-way system was supported in principle (as currently advisory) but making the system permanent/compulsory would not work in its current form and the consensus was not in favour of the latter without consideration to other factors, for example:  Removing or redesigning high kerbs in MA  Widening the road in certain areas in MA / A350  Upgrading light system in MA (Traffic lights were mentioned)  Tree canopy height too low in MA making it difficult for tall trailers (double decked?)  Overhanging branches A350  One-way southbound to end at Gore Clump leaving option to use airport road  Grip surface to Spreadeagle Hill

5.9 Neighbouring Local Authorities

The neighbouring Highways Authority of Wiltshire County Council were informally consulted for views regarding HGV issues in the area as there is potential for cross border implications. If Option 6 (HGV Ban in Melbury Abbas) is pursued there would be a strong possibility that drivers would utilise alternative routes such as Boundary Lane (past Compton Abbas Airfield) and Dennis Lane which leads to the village of Ludwell located in Wiltshire on the A30. Comments from Wiltshire County Council related to HGV issues in the area and potential for re-routing HGV’s away from Melbury Abbas are outlined below:

‘Authorities continue to manage and improve their networks using local funds – options involving rerouting of HGVs can cause occasional tension, especially when there are cross border implications. The use of Dennis Lane through Ludwell is one of those.

Dennis Lane is not one of the advisory freight routes in our freight strategy. Indeed the existing levels of HGV use regularly prompt calls for the imposition of a weight restriction along its length between A30 and B3081.

Our response to that pressure is to confirm that this road provides a crucial access route for many farms and rural businesses in the Cranborne Chase area and a weight restriction would have significant consequences for many of these businesses.

Page 82 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

In addition, Dennis Lane provides a useful link for HGVs that travel between the A30 and B3081 who wish or need to avoid the difficult Zig Zag Hill section of the B3081.

Although I’m very happy to meet and discuss further, I’m sure we would resist the idea that its use could be more actively encouraged’.

6. Risk Analysis

6.1 “The Dorset County Council Risk Management strategy’’ offers a methodology for quantifying risk, based on a scoring of impact and likelihood linked to the Council’s “risk appetite”. In layman’s terms, this is ‘the level of risk that an organisation is prepared to accept’. The council has defined its risk appetite against five key risk categories:

 Financial Risk  Strategic priorites and opportunities  Health and Safety  Reputation  Service Delivery

6.2 The risk assessment process provides an evaluation and estimation of the levels of risk associated with an activity or scenario. For this risk assessment methodology, both impact and likelihood are given a score between 1 and 5, and then multiplied to provide a risk score. A risk score of 15 or above is deemed ‘high’, which would be deemed to be above the council’s usual appetite for risk. However, an informed decision may be taken to tolerate high risks where they are agreed to be acceptable (for instance, based on further actions proposed) or where it is not feasible to mitigate further.

6.3 This risk assessment for the 6 options as shown in Appendix 13, has been populated following discussions with technical officers within the council and the Senior Assurance Manager (Governance, Risk and Special Projects). Scoring reflects both the level of risk without any further action being taken (ie without mitigation) and then reassessed with additional measures that can be taken to reduce the level of risk (ie including mitigation). It is important to note that this risk assessment process cannot categorically guarantee that even a well-controlled risk will not occur. However, it does provide a formal and evidence-based tool for informing the ‘decision making process’.

6.4 Of the six options considered Option 2 (advisory HGV routing southbound on A350 and northbound on C13) and Option 4 (one way TRO enforceable HGV routing southbound on A350 and northbound on C13) had the highest (worst) risk scores following mitigation. The two options with the lowest (best) risk scores following mitigation are Option 1 (current HGV advisory routing southbound on C13, northbound on A350) and Option 5 (Melbury Abbas advisory ‘not suitable for HGV’s’ signs).

Page 83 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

7. Estimated Costs

7.1 Estimated Costs of Options and Mitigation

Option Estimated Cost Mitigation Total Estimate Option 1 – ‘Advisory’ One £72,600 £260,000 £332,600 Way Routing (Current) A350 – Northbound C13 Southbound Option 2 – ‘Advisory’ One £96,600 £260,000 £356,000 way routing (reverse of current) C13 – Northbound A350 - Southbound Option 3 – One way £117,600 £260,000 £377,600 routing with TRO A350 – Northbound C13 Southbound Option 4 – One way £117,600 £260,000 £377,600 routing with TRO C13 – Northbound A350 - Southbound Option 5 – Advisory ‘Not £45,000 £204,000 £249,000 suitable for HGV’s’ in Melbury Abbas Option 6 – 7.5 Tonne £60,000 £204,000 £264,000 HGV ban in Melbury Abbas

 Options 1,2,3 & 4 would require mitigation measures in Melbury Abbas which is estimated at £220,000.

 Options 5 and 6 would require mitigation measures along the A350 which may include footway/signals in Fontmell Magna which is estimated at £170,000.

8. Comparison of Options

8.1 Six options for HGV routing along the A350 and C13 have been considered as detailed in Section 4.

8.2 All options have been reviewed and subjected to a full Risk Assessment as shown in Appendix 13.

8.3 The risk assessment takes account of the financial, strategic, Dorset County Council reputational and the health and safety aspects of each option and provides an initial risk score and a residual risk score after mitigation measures for all the options.

8.4 Based on the residual risk scores, Option 4 (enforceable HGV routing south on A350 and north on C13) and Option 2 (advisory HGV routing south on A350 and north on C13) have the highest (worst) risk scores. Given that these options also have the particular safety concerns of directing HGV’s down Spreadeagle Hill, Options 2 and 4 are not considered further.

Page 84 A350/C13 HGV Route Strategy Options

8.5 Of the remaining four options the risk score ranking from 1 (best) to 4 (worst) is as follows: 1. Option 1, one way advisory HGV routing south bound on C13 (current situation). 2. Option 5, C13 Melbury Abbas advisory ‘unsuitable for HGV’ signs. 3. Option 3, one way enforceable TRO for HGV routing south bound on C13. 4. Option 6, 7.5 Tonne HGV ban in Melbury Abbas.

8.6 Following consultation, both the Police and Ambulance Service support a restriction on HGV’s travelling through Melbury Abbas and Dinahs Hollow. Results from the community consultation in response to specific questions about HGV’s show 54% supported southbound routing along the C13 and 83% supported the use of vehicle activated signs to warn of speed limits and HGV restrictions.

8.7 In terms of capital cost Option 5 has the lowest implementation cost of all the 6 options and Options 3 and 4 have the highest capital cost.

8.8 Of the four remaining options above, Option 5 (C13 Melbury Abbas advisory unsuitable for HGV signs) and Option 1 (advisory one way HGV routing southbound on C13 – the current situation) do not require a TRO process and so can be implemented without further public consultation.

8.9 Should Options 5 or 6 be selected, project funds allocated to the provision of an HGV layby and vehicle activated signs in Melbury Abbas required for HGV routing on the C13 could be directed to provide further improvements on the A350, potentially including additional footway provision and a crossing in Fontmell Magna with traffic signals.

Mike Harries Corporate Director for Environment and Economy December 2017

Page 85 This page is intentionally left blank Page 87 A350/C13 Advisory HGV Routing

Information Sheet

Dorset County Council has put in place an advisory route directing HGV's & LGV's between Blandford Forum and Shaftesbury along the A350 and C13

Direction of advisory route:

A350 - Northbound B3081/C13 - Southbound

Why are we doing this?

To prevent two HGV's/LGV's meeting in opposite directions at the various pinch points on BOTH routes including Dinahs Hollow, Melbury Abbas, Cann, Steepleton Bends and Fontmell Magna to: o Reduce disruption and improve quality of life for residents of communities along the route o Reduce damage to HGV's passing in the pinch points o Keep traffic flowing o Reduce damage to verges and hedges.

How are we doing this?

By the use of internationally recognised HGV Advisory route signing (white on black HGV symbols) as shown below:

Shaftesbury +- A3..50

Page 88 A350/C13 - Traffic Data

WEEK DAY AVERAGES .., ... CAR Site 1 (0832) - A350, South of Shaftesbury Site 2 (0348) - A350, South of lwerne Minster

Week Beginning Total Flow Difference OGV1&2 Difference OGV2 Difference Week Beginning Total Flow Difference OGV1&2 Difference OGV 2 Difference 17/05/2010 4608 435 139 _7/05/2010 2966 403 138 13/05/2013 4755 489 160 13/05/2013 3176 471 156 LICHT 28/04/2014 7863 3108 640 151 156 -4 28/04/2014 6079 2903 651 180 161 5 GOOIJ5 12/05/2014 7846 3091 643 154 155 -5 12/05/2014 6005 2829 604 133 148 -8 VEWCLI 09/06/2014 09/06/2014 5247 2071 593 122 151 -5 (LGV) t? I 30/06/2014 30/06/2014 5229 2053 593 122 153 -3 11/05/2015 7639 2884 589 100 144 -16 11/05/2015 4469 1293 503 32 132 -24 29/06/2015 8101 3346 666 177 164 29/06/2015 4929 1753 600 129 158 2 13/07/2015 5316 561 289 -200 86 -74 13/07/2015 3336 160 471 0 144 -12 10/08/2015 5006 251 513 24 155 -5 10/08/2015 3402 226 472 1 156 0 OTHER 21/09/2015 4821 66 469 -20 133 -27 21/09/2015 3065 -111 441 -30 134 -22 GOODS ,..,...... 13/06/2016 5059 304 482 -7 150 -10 13/06/2016 3093 -83 460 -11 157 VERICLES (OGV!J 06/03[2017 4552 308 481 40"-----"14.:,:6"----"17 06/03/ 01 2 59 -517 394 -77 142 ---- _4_..

Week Beginning Total Flow Difference OGVl&~-- Difference OGV2 Difference Week Beginning Total Flow Difference OGV1&2 Difference OGV 2 Difference ,....,._ 26/11/2013 4244 441 \ 129 23/09/2013 2877 462 117 Page 89 Page 13/10/2014 7174 2930 436 -5 131 2 22/09/2014 4774 1897 600 138 157 40 09/02/2015 7104 2860 569 128 161 32 09/02/2015 4149 1272 537 75 168 51 05/10/2015 4794 550 480 39 145 16 05/10/2015 2939 62 425 -37 138 21 03/10/2016 2995 118 407 -55 130 13 OTIIIR Northbound 212 18/Q9/2017 99 11 394 -68 121 4 GOO DS Southbound 239 vuo.cu:s Northbound 154 (OGVl) Southbound 240

Site 3 (0340) - B3081, South of Shaftesbury Site 4 (0342) - C13, Stourpaine Down

Week Beginning Total Flow Difference OGV1&2 Difference OGV 2 Difference Week Beginning Total Flow Difference OGV1&2 Difference OGV 2 Difference 17/05/2010 8543 504 53 14/06/2010 7159 464 69 BUSES 13/05/2013 8501 513 61 17/06/2013 7274 488 71 4c 28/04/2014 4625 -3876 28/04/2014 2419 -4855 259 -229 38 -33 CO ACHES 12/05/2014 4831 -3670 192 -321 5 -56 12/05/2014 3779 -3495 253 -235 41 -30 (PSV) 09/06/2014 4847 -3654 219 -294 6 -55 09/06/2014 4496 -2778 247 -241 52 -19 30/06/2014 4971 -3530 201 -312 7 -54 30/06/2014 '" a;a 11/05/2015 4880 -3621 225 -288 16 -45 11/05/2015 4897 -2377 247 -241 34 -37 29/06/2015 5140 -3361 230 -283 6 -55 01/06/2015 4955 -2319 269 -219 37 -34 13/07/2015 8118 -383 432 -81 33 -28 13/07/2015 6335 -939 397 -91 49 -22 Site 5 (2147) - C13. Melbury Abbas 10/08/2015 8479 -22 429 -84 47 -14 10/08/2015 6586 -688 409 -79 61 -10 21/09/2015 8381 -120 448 -65 32 -29 21/09/2015 7112 -162 491 3 51 -20 Week Beginning Total Flow Difference OGV1&2 Difference OGV2 Difference 13/06/2016 8600 99 444 -69 46 -15 13/06/2016 7010 -264 364 -124 47 -24 10/05/2010 5645 385 52 '""'06"'/0'-'"'3'-'/2"'0"'17,__ _...., 84.,5_,2.__ _-4 _..,9 ..,44.,1,___ _... -7.a 2._ 4.,5 -16 06/03/2017 7178 -96 489 5 08/06/2015 1568 46 0 Road Closed 13/06/2016 5779 -1495 371 -117 43 -28 Week Beginning Total Flow Difference OGV1&2 Difference OGV2 Difference Week Beginning Total Flow Difference OGV1&2 Difference OGV2 Difference 18/09/2017 5748 -1526 @ -165 49 -22 26/11/2013 8423 469 52 26/11/2013 7137 504 79 03/11/2014 4606 -3817 196 -273 5 -47 15/12/2014 4610 -2527 09/02/2015 4477 -3946 197 -272 6 -46 09/02/2015 4701 -2436 283 -221 36 -43 Northbound 127 05/10/2015 8136 -287 406 -63 30 -22 05/10/2015 6983 -154 423 -81 55 -24 Southbound 196 18 09/2017 8854 431 468 -1 5 19/09/2016 7373 236 485 -19 74 -5 18/09/2017 7281 144 483 - l 8 3

Northbound 208 Northbound 219 Southbound 261 Southbound 264

Combined A350/C13 at Northern End Combined A350/C13 at Southern End

Week Beginning Total Flow Difference OGV1&2 Difference OGV2 Difference Week Beginning Total Flow Difference OGV1&2 Difference OGV2 Difference May-10 13151 939 192 May-10 10125 867 207 Spring 2013 13256 1002 221 Spring 2013 10450 959 227 28/04/2014 12488 -768 28/04/2014 8498 -1952 910 -49 199 -28 12/05/2014 12677 -579 835 -167 160 -61 12/05/2014 9784 -666 857 -102 189 -38 09/06/2014 09/06/2014 9743 -707 840 -119 203 -24 11/05/2015 12519 -737 814 -188 160 -61 11/05/2015 9366 -1084 750 -209 166 -61 29/06/2015 13241 -15 896 -106 170 -51 29/06/2015 9884 -566 869 -90 195 -32 13/07/2015 13434 178 721 -281 119 -102 13/07/2015 9671 -779 868 -91 193 -34 10/08/2015 13485 229 942 -60 202 -19 10/08/2015 9988 -462 881 -78 217 -10 21/09/2015 13202 -54 917 -85 165 -56 21/09/2015 10177 -273 932 -27 185 -42 13/06/2016 13659 403 926 -76 196 -25 13/06/2016 10103 -347 -135 204 -23 06/03/2017 13004 -252 92 -80 191 -30 06/03/2017 9837 -613 - 6 218 -9

Week Beginning Total Flow Difference OGV1&2 Difference OGV2 Difference Week Beginning Total Flow Difference OGV1&2 Difference OGV2 Difference Nov 13 12667 910 181 Nov 13 10014 966 196 Wlnter2014 11780 -887 632 -278 136 -45 Wlnter2014 9384 -1066 n/a n/a 09/02/2015 11581 -1086 766 -144 167 -14 09/02/2015 8850 -1600 820 -146 204 8 05/10/2015 12~ 263 886 -24 175 -6 05/10/2015 9922 -528 848 -118 193 -3 Autumn 2016 10368 -82 892 -74 204 8 18/09/2017 10272 -178 877 -89 203 Rural A routes - Collision rate ranking * . e; o:. ; _ a :«

A350 jct A354, Pimperne to Shaftesbury 14 46 2652 13.1 30.4% 73 22 = - . ~ =~- - ~ A3052 jct A35 to 30mph East of Lyme Regis 0 5 - 3294 1.4 0.0% 59 0 A30 Five Bridges to Shaftesbury 11 45 - 5466 - - 8.1 - 24.4% -- 56 14 A353 Osmington Hill to Warmwell Rounda2out - 6 28 8318 3.6 21.4% 51 - - 11 A352 Dorchester to Sherborne (junction with Ottery Lane) 10 49 3886 17.1 20.4% 40 8 -·- - = ~ . -- -- A350 Upton to Blandford St Mary 21 75 11839 9.2 28.0% -- 38 11 A3066 Bridport to Somerset borde-r 17 42 6854 9.2 40.5% 36 15 ~ - = . -- ...... A356 Frampton to Crewkerne_ 8 26 2730 14.4 30.8% -- 36 11 Page 90 Page A354 Puddletown to Blandford St Mary 5 33 5274 9.5 15.2% 36 5 - = . A352 Dorchester to Wareham 21 79 8623 - - 15.7 26.6% -- 32 - - 8 A35 Bere Regis to Bakers Arms 15 53 13681 6.8 28.3% 31 9 _...... ~------· - ~ ~ A3030 Lydlinch to Sherborne 3 18 5422 - 6.9 16.7% -- 26 -- -- 4 A354 Pimperne to Salisbury --8- 38 5916 13.9 21.1% 25 5 -· - - - , ~ A354 Blandford Bypass - Blandford St Mary to Pim_p~e rbt __ 2 13 19808 1.6 15.4% 22 ~- -- 3 A357 Durweston to Henstridge 6 29 5365 13.2 20.7% 22 5 - - - - ~ ~- ~- A37 Dorchester to Yeovil - - 15 66 11970 16.2 22.7% 19 4 A351 jct A352, Wareham to 40mph Swanage 10 30 12664 8.3 33.3% 16 5 collision rate - all rural A routes Colour-coding by Severity Total Accidents (44) .A. Fatal (2) • Serious (11} Slight (31)

Road Traffic Collisions Crown copyright All rights reservedt------+------; Dorset County Council °"" 02/ 11/2017 ~ .~icenfe No LA 100019790 2017 A350 route, Blandford Forum to Shanesoury Dorset County Council Latest avaialble five years: July 2012 to June 2017 Page 91 A Fatal (0) • Serious (1) 0 Slight (4)

_,, ,,_, oa,a q °'""' c.o,-ngm SCA-= 1 : 80000 Road Traffic Collisions involving at Crown aipyright All rights reservedt------+------< least one HGV> 7.St Dorse!CountyCouncil :Are 02/11/2017 ~ .~icenfe No. LA100019790 2017 A350 route, Blandford Forum to Shanesoury Dorset County Council Latest avaialble five years: :~5Y July 2012 to June 2017 Page 92 Colour-co ding by Severity Total Accidents (29) A Fatal (1) • Serious (6) 0 Slight (22)

1 : 80000 Road Traffic Collisions Crown copynght All rights reserved1>------+------< Dorset County Council om 02/11/2017 Ll

Road Traffic Collisions invovling at Crown copyright. All rights reser,edll--so._s-· __ +-_:__1 _:__: -=2-=-50-=-0:..:0:..___ least one HGV > 7.5t Dorset County Council cere 02/11/2017 ~ L~~nce).lo LA100019790 2017 C 13/B3081route, Blandford Forum to ~nartesbury Dorset County Council Latest avaialble five years: July 2012 to June 2017 Page 94 Road Traffic Collision Data - Latest available five years -July 2012 to June 2017

Year 1 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 7 0 7 Year 2 1 3 3 4 7 1 7 5 8 13 Year 3 0 4 9 4 13 0 7 16 7 23 Year4 1 4 8 5 13 1 7 11 8 19 Years 0 0 6 0 6 0 0 6 0 6 Total 2 11 31 13 44 2 21 45 23 68

Year 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Year 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 Year 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Year4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Years 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 1 4 1 5 0 1 4 1 5 7% Page 95 Page % of A350 0% 9% 13% 8% 11% 0% 5% 9% 4% %of all HGV 0% 4% 5% 3% 4% 0% 3% 3% 3% 3%

Year 1 18 158 713 176 889 19 179 1070 198 1268 Year 2 17 183 710 200 910 18 216 1040 234 1274 Year 3 16 209 765 225 990 18 248 1097 266 1363 Year4 19 207 687 226 913 19 260 1055 279 1334 Years 12 174 645 186 831 13 202 1041 215 1256 Total 82 931 3520 1013 4533 87 1105 5303 1192 6495

Year 1 0 7 14 7 21 0 8 53 8 61 Year 2 3 9 19 12 31 4 12 30 16 46 Year 3 1 5 13 6 19 1 6 20 7 27 Year4 2 4 17 6 23 2 4 26 6 32 Years 0 3 16 3 19 0 3 25 3 28 Total 6 28 79 34 113 7 33 154 40 19 % of DCC 7% 3% 2% 3% 2% 8% 3% 3% 3% 3% A350/C13 Option 1 and Option 3 - HGV Direction of Travel

A350 Northbound - B3081/C13 Southbound

Wn Green .,.

\ \

Page 96 A350/C13 Option 2 and Option 4 - HGV Direction of Travel

B3081/C13 Northbound -A350 Southbound

\ \

Page 97 A350/C13 - Consultation Feedback Forms Ql Do you travel the A350 regularly? Stourpaine - 19 forms received 55 attendees+ Cllrs Croney & Carr-Jones & MP Simon Hoare Q2 Do you travel the C13 regularly? Mel bury Abbas - 32 Forms received 106 attendees Q3 How do you usually travel for the main part of your journey? Q4 Do you support the advisory HGV routing of Northbound on the A350 and Southbound on the C13 68 Feedback forms returned at consultation events QS Do you agree with a consistent message being provided along both routes 41 Online Feedback forms Q6 Do you support the proposed principle of 50mph between villages and 30mph in villages along the A350 109 TOTAL Q7 Do you support the proposed 40mph speed limit on Spreadeagle Hill on the approach to Me/bury Abbas QB Do you see the value of Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS} to warn of speed limits, HGV restrictions etc. Q9 Are you happy that the visual impact to the environment has been considered Ql0 Has the consultation provided with you with suitable information to make a considered opinion on proposals

Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 QS Q9 Ql0 Yes No Yes No Bus Car van cycle MC HGV Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

TOTALNO.s 85 20 96 9 2 99 5 3 2 6 59 47 74 21 79 27 91 12 91 13 68 35 70 26

% of TOTA L responses received 78% 18% 88% 8% 2% 91% 5% 3% 2% 6% 54% 43% 68% 19% 72% 25% 83% 11% 83% 12% 62% 32% 64% 24% Page 98 Page C13 - A350 HGV Options LIKELIHOOD Risk Assessment 3 4 10 ti

Option One - Current Position

One way Northbound Risk Rating: 1 1 1 1 3 3 ..) J .1. .1 .., JV L. .1 .1 .., .L L , ..) L ....., ...... a. .1. ... .JV .._ .JJ,,uvv .... .J .. H.,vvu advisory signed routing Mitigation to Improve Mitigation measures of Permanent Vehicle Message Signs IPVMS) in Melbury Abbas combined with an HGV pull in lay-by, would be required to reduce conflict of larger vehicles passing in the village. This along the A35D; One way Risk: would be in addition to and link up with the existing signs on Spread eagle Hill which and the traffic signal control in the narrow shuttle working section of Dinah's Hollow. Anti-skid surfacing would be Southbound advisory required on the uphill section of Spreadeagle Hill for HGV's heading south out of Melbury Abbas to improve traction. signed routing along the (13

O 99 Page ption Two One Way Advisory HGV Risk Rating: 1 1 1 1 3 3 . 5 4 1 1 1 45 £ 96,600 1 1 1 1 2 2 5 3 1 1 1 39 £ 260,000 £ 356,600 Routing [Reverse current Mitigation to Improve Mitigation measures of Permanent Vehicle Message Signs IPVMS) in Melbury Abbas combined with an HGV pull in lay-by, would be required to reduce conflict of larger vehicles passing in the village. This situation) Risk: would be in addition to and link up with the existing signs on Spreadeagle Hill which and the traffic signal control in the narrow shuttle working section of Dinah's Hollow

Op_tlon Three One way enforceable HGV I Risk Rating: I 11 11 1 I 1 I 3 I 3 I 5 I 3 - 4 I 5 1 I 1 I 1 ·136 I £117,600 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 2 I 2 I 5 I 2 110 I 4 I 5 - 1 I 1 I 1 I 34 I £ 260,000 I £ 377,600 routing TRO - Northbound I Mitigation to Improve I Mitigation measures of Permanent Vehicle Message Signs IPVMS) in Melbury Abbas combined with an HGV pull in lay-by, would be required to reduce conflict of larger vehicles passing in the village. These along the A35D; Risk: would be in addition to and link up with the existing signs on Spreadeagle Hill and the traffic signals in the narrow section of Dinahs Hollow. Anti-skid surfacing would be required on the uphill section of Spreadeagle Hill for HGV's heading south out of Mel bury Abbas to improve traction. One way enforceable HGV routing TRO - Southbound along the Cl3

Option Four One Way Enforceable HGV Risk Rating: 1 1 1 1 3 3 5 4 1 1 1 45 £117,600 1 1 1 1 2 2 5 3 1 1 1 39 £ 260,000 £ 377,600 Routing (Reverse current Mitigation to Improve Mitigation measures of Permanent Vehicle Message Signs (PVMS) in Melbury Abbas combined with an HGV pull in lay-by, would be required to reduce conflict of larger vehicles passing in the village. These situation) Risk: would be in addition to and link up with the existing signs on Spreadeagle Hill and the traffic signals in the narrow section of Dinahs Hollow.

O_11_tlon Five C13 Melbury Abbas - Risk Rating: 11 31 3 2 I s 1 I 37 I £ as.coo 3 2151211014 4 1 I 32 I £ 204,000 I £ 249,ooo Advisory 'Unsuitable for Mitigation to lmproveljvtitigation measures will be required on the A350 to reduce conflict in key locations. This includes proposals for footway and signal improvements in Fontmelt Magna HGV's' Risk:

O_11_tlon Six C13 Melbury Abbas - 7.5 I Risk Rating: I 11 31 3 I 1 I 2 ! 2 ·I 5 I 3 - 4 I 5 1 ! 1 I 1 I 41 I £ 60,DDD I 1 I 3 I 3 I 1 I 2 ! 2 I 5 I 2 110 I 4 I 5 - 1 I 1 I 1 I 36 I £ 204,000 I £ 264,000 I Tonnes (except for Access) I Mitigation to Improve I Mitigation measures will be required on the A350 to reduce conflict in key locations. This includes proposals for footway and signal improvements in Fontmell Magna HGV Ban Risk: A350/C13 Route Management Outline Project Programme Dorset County Council Correct as of 20th November 2017

Dec-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17

06/11/2017 13/11/2017 20/11/2017 27/11/2017 04/12/2017 11/12/2017 18/12/2017 25/12/2017 Task 04/09/2017 11/09/2017 18/09/2017 25/09/2017 02/10/2017 09/10/2017 16/10/2017 23/10/2017 30/10/2017

A350 Drainage - Design A350 Stepleton Bends Design Structural Maintenance - Design C13 Patching - Design Design Traffic proposals - Design Gateway Signs - Design Gore Clump - Design PVMS Signs - Design 6th Dec Cabinet Report Preparation Legal, land & Legal consultation notice period TRO process - Speed Limits etc WSP/HI Primary Consultation Committee Gateway Signs - order Process Gore Clump - Land/Legal PMG 21/09 Valuers instructed whitecliff stourpaine A350 Drainage - works A350 Stepleton Bends (Kerbs) Works A350 Stepleton Bends - lining & signing C13 Patching - Works 06/11 to 17/11 20-24/11 - nigflts C13 Structural Maintenance - Sunrise Stourpaine 2 7/ 11 ta 15/12 Works A350 Structural Maintenance A350/B3082 Whitecliff Mill Street Junction 06/11 to 14/11 Gateway Signs - Installation New signs & Lines/TRO's - installation PVMS Signs - Installation Gore Clump - Construction (DHO) Page 100 Page Revision G 20/11/17 Design _, C13 pathcing & Structural confirmed dates ____ Construction A350 Stourpaine confirmed dates TRO/Land process ____... Cabinet process A350/C13 Route Management Outline Project Programme

Dorset County Council

Jan-18 Feb-18 Mar-18 Apr-18

Task 01/01/2018 08/01/2018 15/01/2018 22/01/2018 29/01/2018 05/02/2018 12/02/2018 19/02/2018 26/02/2018 05/03/2018 12/03/2018 19/03/2018 26/03/2018 02/04/2018 09/04/2018 16/04/2018 23/04/2018

A350 Drainage - Design A350 Stepleton Bends Design Structural Maintenance - Design C13 Patching - Design Design Traffic proposals - Design Gateway Signs - Design Gore Clump - Design PVMS Signs - Design

Page 101 Page Cabinet Report Legal, land & TRO process - Speed Limits etc WSP/HI 4/1/18 Regulatory? seal order Committee Gateway Signs - order Process Gore Clump - Land Negotiation

A350 Drainage - works A350 Stepleton Bends (Kerbs) Works A350 Stepleton Bends - lining & signing C13 Patching - Works C13 Structural Maintenance - Sunrise Works A350 Structural Maintenance lwerne Minster-Sutton Sutton-Fantme/1 ' A350/B3082 Whitecliff Mill Street Junction a Gateway Signs - Installation Erect Signs New signs & Lines/TRO's - installation ll PVMS Signs - Installation Gore Clump - Construction (OHO) n This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9 Page 1 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR)

Cabinet

Date of Meeting Cabinet: 6 December 2017

Cabinet Member(s) Tony Ferrari – Cabinet Member for Community and Resources Local Members All members (local members affected have been consulted/engaged separately) Lead Officer(s) Richard Bates - Chief Financial Officer Mike Harries - Director for Environment and the Economy

Subject of Report Quarterly Asset Management Report

Executive Summary This report is a quarterly report which sets out key issues relating to the various asset classes of Property, Highways, ICT, Fleet and Waste.

Some of the key items to note are as follows:

 An update is provided on the countywide office re- configuration works which are continuing at pace, enabling the County Council to free up office accommodation across the county (Para 2.2)  An update is provided on ongoing discussions with Lytchett Matravers Parish Council concerning the transfer of various County Council assets to the Parish Council. Approval is sought to gift the Lymat Youth Centre site to the Parish Council (Para 3.1)  Approval is sought for a small increase in the investment budget at Dorset Innovation Park (Para 3.2)  Approval is sought to ‘Commit to Construct’ for the works to South Annexe at Colliton Park (Para 3.3)  Approval is sought to dispose of West End House in Cattistock (Para 3.4)  Approval is sought to change the name and terms of reference of the Modernising Schools Board (Para 3.5)  The Cabinet is asked to note the use of delegated powers in relation to several schools projects (Para 3.6)  The Cabinet is asked to endorse the withdrawal of the application for a drug and alcohol recovery unit in Weymouth (Para 3.7) Page 103 Page 2 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR)

 The Cabinet is asked to note progress with several highway projects (Para 4)  The Cabinet is asked to note an update on the roll-out of Microsoft Windows 10 (Para 5.1)

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment:

The most recent equalities impact assessment was undertaken on the Asset Management Plan and identified the need to ensure that the interests and needs of the six equality groups are addressed at service level as part of the service asset management planning process, including consultation with users.

Use of Evidence:

The Asset Management Plan makes use of the following sources of evidence:  The Corporate Plan and Community Strategy  Medium Term Financial Strategy  Outcomes from a Members Seminar on 25 September 2014  Periodic public consultation  Local and National property performance data  Service (property) asset management plans  Highways asset management planning data  Corporate IT strategy

Budget:

If all the recommendations in the report are approved there will remain a capital sum of £0.3m unallocated up to the end of 2020- 21.

Risk Assessment:

Specific project risk registers are in place. None of the recommendations relate to or create high or medium risks.

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: LOW Residual Risk: LOW

Recommendations It is recommended that the Cabinet:

(i) Approves the use of the County Council’s general powers of competence to gift the freehold of the Lymat Youth Club site in Lytchett Matravers, which is subject to a lease until 2056, to the Lytchett Matravers Parish Council, to the Parish Council and on further terms to be agreed by the Chief Financial Officer (Para 3.1.3)

(ii) Approves an increase of £300,000 to be made available for investment at Dorset Innovation Park as a loan for up to Page 104 Page 3 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR)

a ten-year period through Forward Funding from the County Council by way of prudential borrowing (Para 3.2.5)

(iii) Approves the ‘Commit to Construct’ application for the project to refurbish South Annexe building on Colliton Park (Para 3.3.4)

(iv) Approves the disposal of West End House, Cattistock, on terms to be agreed by the Chief Financial Officer (Para 3.4.1)

(v) Approves amendment of the Modernising Schools Board’s title to “School Organisation, Capital Programme and Admissions Board”, with amended governance and Terms of Reference as attached at Appendix 4 of this report (Para 3.5.4)

(vi) Approves the overall revised estimates and cash flows for projects as summarised and detailed in Appendix 1 (Para 8.2)

(vii) Endorses the decision made using delegated powers to withdraw the planning application on 22 Abbotsbury Road, Weymouth pending further consideration of all options (Para 3.7.2)

(viii) Notes the use of delegated authority to the Director for Children’s Services, after consultation with the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and the Modernising Schools Programme Board, to approve four specific items relating to the Schools Basic Need Programme budget and the Capital Project Delivery Protocol (Para 3.6.3)

(ix) Notes the emerging issues for each asset class.

Reason for A well-managed Council ensures that the best use is made of its Recommendation assets in terms of optimising service benefit, minimising environmental impact and maximising financial return.

Appendices Appendix 1 Financial Summary and Capital Control Totals Appendix 2 Plan of Dorset County Council assets in Lytchett Matravers Appendix 3 Plan of West End House, Cattistock Appendix 4 Terms of Reference for School Organisation, Capital Programme and Admissions Board (“Board”) Appendix 5 Exempt information in respect of South Annexe, Colliton Park

The Property Asset Management Plan 2015-18 The Highways Asset Management Plan (Vol. 1/Vol. 2)

Officer Contact Name: Peter Scarlett, Estate & Assets Service Manager Tel: (01305) 221940 Email: [email protected]

Page 105 Page 4 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR)

Name: Tony Diaz, Senior Finance Manager Tel: (01305) 224950 Email: [email protected]

1 Background

1.1 This report provides an update on key issues relating to various assets, including progress in property asset reduction and rationalisation. It also seeks approval for a number of transactions and project matters.

1.2 This report covers all the County Council’s asset classes: Property, Highways, ICT, Fleet and Waste (via DWP).

2 Assets / Whole authority performance

2.1 The Asset Management Plan (AMP) sets out the key property priorities and strategies of the County Council over a three year period. There are 10 performance indicators detailed within the AMP which detail the progress that the County Council is making in delivering those priorities. Progress against the KPIs is reported on Dorset for You, via this link: https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/dorset-property/assetmanagement-plan

2.2 Roll out of works to adapt the countywide office estate continue. The adaptions of both the Weymouth Local office and Cedar House, Ferndown are now complete and work is ongoing in the North Dorset local office and the Ferndown local office. These projects are converting the buildings into flexible workspaces, where visiting staff can hot desk if required. The rotunda works in County Hall are now complete and the adaptations of these spaces have transformed the way that staff are able to work and have enabled more staff to be accommodated within the building. These works are key to enabling the County Council to generate savings in running costs of £850,000 per annum from the disposal of surplus office space. Capital receipts in excess of double the expenditure will also be realised from this programme.

3 Dorset Property Asset Management

3.1 Transfer of Lymat Building and Library to Lytchett Matravers Parish Council

3.1.1 On the 13th June the Lytchett Matravers Neighbourhood Plan to 2031 (LMNP) was adopted by Purbeck District Council and now forms a material consideration both during and after the adoption process of the Local Plan. Part of the LMNP envisages change to some areas of the Parish in which the County Council has service and property interests. The County Council was approached by the Parish Council to explore the marriage of the LMNP objectives and the County Council’s savings agenda. Initial discussions have identified the following County Council interests:

 DCC ‘Lymat Youth Club’ freehold premises (highlighted 1 on annexed plan) let to the Parish Council for an unexpired term of 39 years at a peppercorn rent for use as a youth focussed facility.  DCC freehold library premises (2) and library service.  DCC freehold recreation land (3) let to the Parish Council for an unexpired term of 15 years and upon which a MUGA has been constructed for the use of the Community Primary School as well as other third parties on a booking system.  Eldon’s Drove safe route to school access way and attached school expansion land (4) - currently let to a third-party grazier.

Page 106 Page 5 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) 3.1.2 It is proposed to transfer the freehold interest of the former Youth Club premises to the Parish Council which will in turn enable the demolition of the near-end-of-life youth building and replace it with a Scouting facility, spearheaded by The Scouts with their own fund-raising.

3.1.3 The Scouts obtained planning permission to demolish the existing building and erect a new youth and community hall on 26 May 2016 (ref 6/2016/0121). There were a number of objections from neighbours relating to the various factors that redevelopment and Scouting use would bring. The intention is to maintain youth focussed activities upon the site and potentially offer wider community benefit. This proposal would in turn free up the existing under-sized Scout Hut which the Parish Council would promote for alternative community use. Due to the length of the outstanding lease the deferred value waived, assuming residential planning permission could be obtained at the end of the lease in 39 years, is in the region of £25,000. It is therefore recommended that the County Council gifts the freehold of this land to the Parish Council and on other terms to be agreed by the Chief Financial Officer (Recommendation i).

3.1.4 The library building has a small parcel of unused land to its rear and the Parish Council has suggested that this might be utilised to extend the premises and provide a self- contained meeting room suite, primarily for the Parish Council, but also to be hired out as an adjunct to library activities. The Parish Council would require a long-term interest in the land and/or library premises. It has asked the County Council to consider transferring the Library building to the Parish Council and in return it would grant a long lease to the County Council on part of the library building used to deliver library services. This would enable the County Council to divest itself of some of the building and grounds maintenance costs, whilst enabling the current service to be maintained. The running costs of the building for the current year are £14,800 and the identified maintenance costs are £27,600. Final terms have yet to be agreed and will be reported back to the Cabinet in due course.

3.1.5 Other projects within the Neighbourhood Plan include improvements to the parking facilities relating to the MUGA and school parent drop-off and pick-up. This will require the Parish Council handling the planning and highway applications and funding the ensuing works. The Parish Council wishes to extend it lease, which has an unexpired term of 15 years, to provide greater certainty of occupation and to enable it to apply to Sport England for funding to construct further MUGA facilities adjacent to the existing facilities.

3.1.6 Eldon’s Drove, owned by the County Council, has long been suggested as a safe route to school, although expensive to promote and upgrade to a suitable standard. The school is supportive of the idea. The Parish Council intends to explore grant funding options for the redevelopment of the reserved school expansion land for creation of sports pitches to FA Youth and Local Club standard. The project would likely involve the grant of a long lease to the Parish Council with rights for school use to comply with educational standards and with lease termination provisions. There would be a need for a pavilion with changing facilities also. These discussions remain at an early stage. Further updates will be brought to Cabinet as they are developed.

3.2 Dorset Innovation Park – investment resources 2017- 2022

3.2.1 Following consideration of the business case for investment in the development of Dorset Innovation Park (Enterprise Zone) at the Cabinet meeting on 6 September 2017 (Min 107) it was agreed to make available £2,276,000 as a loan for up to a ten-year period through Forward Funding from the County Council by way of prudential borrowing.

Page 107 Page 6 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) 3.2.2 At the subsequent meeting of the Dorset Local Enterprise Partnership Board (26 September 2017), the Board agreed to provide a loan of £1 million for investment at Dorset Innovation Park from Growth Deal funds.

3.2.3 This level of commitment leaves a budget gap of £300,000 based on the agreed business case. This situation was reported to Cabinet on 27 September, where no objections were expressed in principle to the increase of the County Council’s loan facility to cover the unfunded £300,000 to ensure appropriate investment in Dorset Innovation Park by fully funding the initial phase of the implementation plan, subject to a proposal being included in the Quarterly Asset Management Report (Min 107).

3.2.4 Purbeck District Council owns a 1/6th proportion of Dorset Innovation Park, and has approved funding for its share of the landowners’ responsibilities identified in the implementation plan (£196,000).

3.2.5 Hence, the funding package for the delivery of the first five years of the implementation plan will be complete subject to the agreement to increase the loan facility by £300,000, for which approval is sought from Cabinet (Recommendation ii).

3.3 ‘Commit to Construct’ – Refurbishment of South Annexe, Colliton Park

3.3.1 The refurbishment and re-configuration of the South Annexe building is an individual project within the wider Countywide Office Reconfiguration Programme. The business case for this programme, which will enable the County Council to reduce its overall office estate from 28 buildings to just 8, was approved by the Way We Work Programme Board on 22nd June 2016 and the allocation of funding for this programme was subsequently ratified by the Cabinet during its consideration of the Asset Management Capital Priorities report on 1st February 2017.

3.3.2 The South Annexe building comprised the former Dorchester library and upon relocation of the library function it was partly refurbished as office accommodation. The majority of the remainder of the building has been used by the library book handling service, where library books are delivered, stored and packaged up for distribution to local libraries. This function is a quasi-industrial function and is being re-located to a more suitable building on the Marabout Industrial Estate in Dorchester. This will free up the majority of the building, which it is proposed to refurbish and re-configure to transform the whole building into offices. This will enable services currently located in both Monkton Park and Princes House (mainly Children’s Services staff) to be re-located into that building freeing up those buildings and enabling their eventual disposal saving the County Council annual revenue costs of £358,000 per annum. There is also the opportunity to generate a capital receipt from the disposal of Monkton Park of up to £1.5m (if the County Council elects to dispose of the site on the open market).

3.3.3 Further information in respect of the budget for the works and the estimated construction costs, which at this stage of the project are commercially sensitive, are contained within Appendix 5 of this report, which is exempt under Paragraph 3 of the Local Government Act.

3.3.4 As this contract exceeds the key decision threshold, the Cabinet is requested to approve the ‘Commit to Construct’ application for this project (Recommendation iii).

3.4 West End House, Cattistock

3.4.1 Following the decision reached at Cabinet on 27 September 2017 to close West End House in Cattistock permanently with the site (see plan at Appendix 3) offered for disposal, Cabinet is requested to approve the disposal of West End House on terms to be agreed by the Chief Financial Officer (Recommendation iv). Page 108 Page 7 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) 3.5 Proposed Amendment to the current Modernising Schools Programme Board Terms of Reference

3.5.1 The Modernising Schools Programme Board (MSP Board) has reviewed it’s of terms of reference. The current Board title and terms refer to the Modernising Schools Programme and projects, which no longer exist. Currently the Board’s primary responsibility is for giving oversight and direction to the progress and delivery of the Basic Needs Programme. This includes acting as the primary forum for the Director of Children’s Services to exercise delegated authority in relation to Basic Needs Projects and the Programme.

3.5.2 The aim of the review was to update the terms to ensure they were accurate and to consider the scope of the Board. A wider scope and agenda are proposed, to enable delivery of the Basic Needs Programme in the context of improved school organisation and place planning. In addition, discussions would benefit from a wider membership, engaging with officers, representatives of the Schools Forum and District Councils.

3.5.3 The proposed new Terms of Reference are attached in Appendix 4, providing for a 2 part agenda. The first part will focus on school organisation and place planning, with wider membership and minutes to be shared with the Schools Forum. The second part of the agenda will be a confidential session for County Council officers and Elected Members to oversee delivery of the Basic Needs Programme, in the wider context of the Children’s Services Capital Programme. For this part, the current delegation to the Director for Children’s Services remains; to take decisions in relation to the Basic Needs Programme and projects in consultation with Cabinet and officer membership of the Board.

3.5.4 The Modernising Schools Board recommends to the Cabinet for approval, amendment of the Board title to “School Organisation, Capital Programme and Admissions Board”, with amended governance and Terms of Reference attached at Appendix 4 (Recommendation v).

3.6 Schools Basic Need Programme, use of delegated authority – to note

3.6.1 The Cabinet previously approved authority to the Director for Children’s Services, after consultation with the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and the Modernising Schools Programme Board, to approve individual projects within the Schools Basic Need Programme budget proceeding through gateways of the Capital Project Delivery Protocol.

3.6.2 The Director has exercised that delegated authority to allow the following decisions, following consultation with and the support of the MSP Board:

 agreed to increase the budget allocation for the Swanage St Mary’s Primary School replacement project by a further £13,000 to enable the outstanding highway works to be undertaken as soon as the S278 agreement is completed.

 agreed to increase the budget allocation for the Twynham Primary School (Phase 5) from £290,000 to £330,000 to cover the additional costs associated with this project.

 agreed to an increase in the budget allocation for the replacement and extension of Wimborne First School from £7,758,000 (inc. OB), which was set in July 2015, to £11,205,000 (inc. OB) to enable the project to proceed.

 approved ‘Commit to Invest’ (Project Delivery Gateway 6) for the replacement and extension to 3FE of Wimborne First School.

Page 109 Page 8 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) 3.6.3 The Cabinet is requested to note the use of these delegated powers (Recommendation viii).

3.7 Drug and Alcohol Recovery Unit, Weymouth

3.7.1 The County Council has been pursuing a planning application on a property in Abbotsbury Road, Weymouth for change of use to enable it to be acquired and used as a centre for local people recovering from drug and alcohol use. However, in response to strong local opposition to the location of this facility, Members have used their delegated powers to withdraw the planning application, pending further consideration of all the options available. The County Council are working with Weymouth and Portland Borough Council to consider alternative sites, prior to a final decision being made.

3.7.2 The Cabinet is requested to endorse the decision made using delegated powers to withdraw the planning application on 22 Abbotsbury Road, Weymouth pending further consideration of all options (Recommendation vii).

4 Highways Asset Management

4.1 Bridge issues – To Note

4.1.1 Stadium Cycleway Bridge – Highways England are proposing to improve safety for cyclists using the Weymouth-Dorchester cycleway. The initial proposal is to construct a cycle bridge over the A35 between the stadium roundabout and the railway bridge. The Transport Planning team are offering to facilitate the delivery of the project for Highways England using Dorset Highways/WSP to deliver the design element. The cost of the project including construction is estimated to be £1m - £1.5m. Highways England will fully fund the project and own the asset created.

4.1.2 Wareham Railway Footbridge Ramps – All the planning documents for this scheme have been prepared and submitted. The application is due to be registered for public scrutiny by mid-November. The budget required for construction is estimated to be £1.7m. This is a joint project with Network Rail (NR) being led by the County Council. Negotiation with NR regarding the funding formula is underway and is likely to result in a 50/50 split. Assuming the County Council’s contribution will be £850,000 approval for an additional £350,000 funding, in addition to the £500,000 already approved, will be sought when planning consent is received. The proposed ramps will be County Council highway assets but their construction will save the County Council revenue costs of £120,000 per year for provision of attendants at the level crossing.

4.1.3 Uploders Road Closure - The road through Uploders was closed in February 2016 due to a landslip removing support to the highway. The site work to realign the highway away from the landslip and river over a length of 100m is due to begin in April 2018. This work is to be funded from the structural maintenance allocation of the LTP maintenance grant and, following redesign, is now estimated to cost less than £200,000.

4.2 Highway Improvements schemes (to note)

4.2.1 Dorchester Transport and Environment Plan (DTEP) - Great Western Cross junction, South Gate Junction and South Street paving works have all been completed this financial year with the High West Street/Trinity Street scheme due to be completed in December 2017. The overall budget of £3.038m has increased by £36,000 with a contribution of £25,000 from the Shire Hall project and £11,000 interest on the s106 contribution from the Brewery Square development. The County Council’s commitment of £2.078m (as approved by Cabinet on 24 February 2016) remains unchanged. The Williams Avenue/Damers Road junction improvement is awaiting land acquisition from Network Rail. The Maumbury Cross scheme is dependent on s106 monies and land from WDDC’s Fairfield CarPage Park. 110 Page 9 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR)

4.2.2 West Stafford Bypass - Phase 1 works which were completed in April 2017 continue to be successful in preventing a reoccurrence of the highway flooding problem. An additional £77,000 has been added to the original preliminary scheme budget (of £300,000) to cover an over spend on phase 1 and the cost of land purchase including sufficient land to allow the introduction of Phase 2, storm water detention ponds, should it be required.

4.2.3 Springfield Road - Construction is currently taking place with a completion date programmed for spring 2018. The budget is currently close to forecast although it is expected to go slightly over by about £10,000, subject to the final cost of statutory undertakers’ work, particularly Bournemouth Water, whose programme is currently impacting on the scheme programme.

4.2.4 A350/C13 - The first phase of patching works, carriageway resurfacing, drainage work and signing/lining improvements are currently taking place at various locations along the A350 and C13 following commencement in November 2017. Members are referred to the separate report at this committee on the A350/C13 to address HGV routing options.

5 ICT Asset Management

5.1 Microsoft Windows - to note

5.1.1 The County Council’s desktop PC (excluding those used only to access remote services), laptop and tablet estate has been using a mix of operating systems including Windows XP, Windows 7, 8 and 10. In many cases the Windows XP and 7 operating systems were required to support the use of business applications that do not operate on later versions of Windows. The mix of operating systems has impacted on the consistency of the user experience. 5.1.2 Windows XP has been decommissioned across our computing estate. DCC ICT Services are in a position where they can upgrade the vast majority of Windows 7, 8 and older versions of Windows 10 to the latest release of Windows 10 helping to address a number of known issues impacting on user experience, and improving consistency such that ICT Services are able to more easily triage and resolve the issues being encountered by users. 5.1.3 Windows 10 is subject to two major releases per year, and Microsoft support latest version and two prior releases only. DCC ICT Services will maintain the estate at Microsoft supported levels of operating system. To achieve this, they have been trialling the use of self-service capabilities through which they can remotely upgrade device operating systems. Maintaining the County Council’s estate at current and supported levels of operating system is essential to maintain the security of our ICT systems and to ensure a good user experience. 6 Fleet Asset Management

6.1 Nothing to report.

7 Waste Asset Management

7.1 Nothing to report.

8 Financial Performance

Page 111 Page 10 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) 8.1 Financial Summary and Capital Control Totals a) The overall financial position is summarised in Appendix 1. Over the next three years the total sum available is £0.3m up to the end of 2020-21.

8.2 Executive Summary of Approved Projects, including significant changes a) Details of the approved schemes are set out in the schedule situated on Dorset For You, accessed via the following link: https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/dorset-property/asset- management-plan b) The Cabinet is requested to approve the overall revised capital expenditure estimate and cash flows as summarised in Appendix 1 (Recommendation vi).

Richard Bates Mike Harries Chief Financial Officer Director for Environment and the Economy

December 2017

Page 112 Page 11 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) Appendix 1

CAPITAL PROGRAMME - CABINET DECEMBER 2017

EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES (GROSS) DIRECTORATE 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000

CHILDRENS 20,102 23,990 1,593 3,988

ENVIRONMENT 31,741 22,405 18,483 12,965

ADULT & COMMUNITY 690 850 4,622 2,838

CABINET / WHOLE AUTHORITY 8,088 14,962 1,893 1,893

DORSET WASTE PARTNERSHIP 2,829 5,114 6,991 5,798

CAPITAL FLEET REPLACEMENTS 1,539 1,053 510 1,000

CAPITAL R & M 5,517 5,967 5,967 5,967

TOTAL 70,506 74,341 40,059 34,449

Anticipated Slippage (10,000) (10,000) 5,000 5,000 Contingency re Risk Items 2,279 0 0 0 (Overcommitted) / Remaining flexibility (to 276 0 0 0 meet target)

Gross Predicted Capital Spend 63,061 64,341 45,059 39,449

17/11/17

Page 113 Page 12 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) Appendix 2

Plan of Dorset County Council assets in Lytchett Matravers

Page 114 Page 13 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) APPENDIX 3

Plan of West End House, Cattistock

Page 115 Page 14 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) APPENDIX 4

School Organisation, Capital Programme and Admissions Board (“Board”)

Terms of Reference

Dorset County Council membership for Parts 1 and 2 of the Agenda

Delegated Decision Maker Director for Children Services (Chairperson)

Consultees for Delegated Decision Making Cabinet Member for Economic Growth, Education, Learning and Skills Cabinet Member for Community and Resources Cabinet Member for Natural and Built Environment Leader of the second largest group (or nominee) Director for Environment and the Economy Senior Finance Manager Legal Services Manager

Non-County Council membership For Part 1 and 2 of the Agenda Diocesan representative (on behalf of the Church of England and Roman Catholic Diocese) For Part 1 of the Agenda only 3 representatives of the Dorset Schools Forum to include the Chairperson (or their nominee) Democratic Services Manager (or nominee) (to attend by invitation for an annual report about admission appeal numbers) District Council representative (local plan and housing development) (to attend by invitation to support sharing of information, discussion and development by the Board of strategic pupil projection plan including details of planned developments)

Terms of Reference

Part 1 - School Organisation and Place Planning

1. To oversee and provide strategic direction to: a. proactive school organisation (place provision projections and planning); b. organisation of specialist provision; c. monitoring of out of county trends

2. To share non-commercially sensitive and non-confidential data and information with the Dorset Schools Forum and other Non-Council members, as appropriate, for the purpose of engagement and collaboration to achieve strategic school organisation.

3. To receive reports as follows a. an annual report from Democratic Services providing details of admission appeal numbers in the previous 12 months, numbers withdrawn, numbers successful and costs; b. an update on strategic planning for specialist provision; c. an update on strategic planning for mainstream provision.

Part 2 - Children’s Services Capital Programme

4. To oversee and provide direction to the progress and delivery of the Basic Needs Programme;

Page 116 Page 15 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) APPENDIX 4

5. To receive reports including progress updates and recommendations from officers on: a. Individual Basic Needs projects; b. Basic Needs Programme (“Programme”); and, c. capital spend under the MTFP.

6. To act as Project Board for any projects within the Programme, as required;

7. To consider strategic project and Programme risks and issues;

8. To consider relevant budgets, budget monitoring and control measures;

9. To bring together the key stakeholders from across the organisation and other areas to ensure the projects and Programme runs effectively and delivers in accordance with project, Programme and Corporate aims, outcomes and objectives;

10. To act as the primary forum within which the Director for Children Services, exercising delegated authority in relation to projects and the Programme, will consult with Cabinet and County Council Board members;

11. Through Directors to report to the Cabinet/Full Council where matters for decision exceed delegated authority of the Director for Children Services;

12. To advise the Chief Executive, Leader and Chairman of the County Council of the need to exercise urgency powers, where necessary;

Standard Agenda Items:

Part 1 - School Organisation and Place Planning  Annual report on admission appeals;  Update on strategic planning for specialist provision  Update on strategic planning for mainstream provision

Part 2 – Children’s Services Capital Programme  Basic Needs Programme Budget  Update on projects and Basic Needs Programme

Procedural matters:

 The Agenda for this Board is in 2 parts;

1. School Organisation and Place Planning 2. Children’s Services Capital Programme.

 Part 1 of the Agenda may be attended by the County Council membership and non- County Council membership as listed above.

 Part 2 of the Agenda is confidential and for attendance by the County Council membership only.

The quorum for Part 2 of the Board is 3 County Council Members and 3 County Council officers.

 The Board will meet six times a year, twice in each school term.

 Board papers are to follow the same discipline and timing as County Council committee papers. Page 117 Page 16 – Quarterly Asset Management Report (QAMR) APPENDIX 4

 Board minutes are to be prepared separately for Parts 1 and 2. Part 1 reports and minutes are to be reported the Schools Forum. Part 2 minutes are to be reported to the Cabinet. A summary of the Board’s minutes and any recommendations being made to the Cabinet will be reported to the Asset Management Group, prior to the Cabinet discussion so that their advice is available for the cabinet consideration.

 Individual projects within the Basic Needs Programme are subject to the County Council’s normal project procedures including the Capital Projects Delivery Protocol.

November 2017

Page 118 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 119 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10 Highway Infrastructure Assets – 2018/19 Investment Strategy

Cabinet

Date of Meeting 6 December 2017

Cabinet Member(s) Daryl Turner – Cabinet Member for The Natural and Built Environment

Local Member(s) All Councillors

Lead Director(s) Mike Harries – Corporate Director for Environment and Economy

Subject of Report Highway Infrastructure Assets – 2018/19 Investment Strategy

Executive Summary Dorset County Council’s Highway Asset Management Plan Volumes 1 and 2, outline the strategic approach adopted in managing the highway network across the County.

The Department for Transport (DfT) recommends a Highway Authority’s Asset Management Plan, and any subsequent amendments, should be ratified by Cabinet Members, and to date all relevant Highway Maintenance Plans have followed this process.

Revised guidance documentation has been issued by the DfT relating to the process and parameters to be followed when identifying sites for detailed investigation, following the receipt of skid resistance survey data.

This report highlights the contents of the new guidance document and seeks the Cabinet`s approval to adopt the new approach into our strategic planning processes for the compilation of future highway maintenance programmes.

Impact Assessment: See Appendix

Page 121 Highway Infrastructure Assets – 2018/19 Investment Strategy

Use of Evidence:

The report documents a proposed strategy which links to Dorset Highways’ Service Plan which is supported by a robust Highways Asset Management Plan, and a performance framework that links to corporate outcomes. It has been developed in line with DfT guidance and the Highways Maintenance Efficiency programme.

Budget: The anticipated capital maintenance budget for 2018/19 is £13,735,249 (subject to confirmation from the Department for Transport).

Risk Assessment:

There are risks that are highlighted in the report which relate to under investment and the impacts on asset condition.

This under investment will also impact on asset value through depreciation. As condition deteriorates the demand placed on revenue budgets will increase through increased revenue reactive defects.

There are further risks specifically linked to the management of skid resistance on the network, and this change in approach sets out how we will tackle these highest risk sites. It may also provide a defence against any third party claims where the carriageway has been alleged to have been a contributory factor.

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: MEDIUM Residual Risk: MEDIUM (ie reflecting the recommendations in this report and mitigating actions proposed)

Other Implications: None

Recommendation That the Cabinet approve a change in approach and subsequent investment in tackling high risk skid sites, to conform to revised Department for Transport guidance in relation to skid resistance.

Reason for To support key corporate aims linked to ‘Safe’, ‘Healthy’ and Recommendation ‘Prosperous’, and to demonstrate adherence to national highway maintenance strategies.

Appendices Equalities Impact Assessment: Ref EqIA-61989194

Background Papers None.

Page 122 Highway Infrastructure Assets – 2018/19 Investment Strategy

Officer Contact Name: Mike Hansford Tel: 01305 228168 Email: [email protected]

Highway Infrastructure Assets – 2018/19 Investment Strategy

1. Introduction

1.1 For a number of years, the County Council’s capital highway maintenance programme has been compiled in accordance with the published Highway Asset Management Plan Volumes 1 and 2, with any necessary amendments being formally ratified by Cabinet through the recognised democratic process.

1.2 Following the publication of revised Department for Transport (DfT) guidance, it is has become necessary to re-visit our current strategy and our approach to categorising our carriageway maintenance schemes.

2. Our Existing Strategy

2.1 The existing maintenance strategy relating to our carriageway asset, is linked directly to identifying sections of the network where existing condition has declined below recognised intervention levels and as a result, maintenance is required. This treatment may vary from substantive resurfacing, surface dressing or extensive patching.

2.2 In addition, in accordance with our published skid policy, where a section of the network is found to have a skid resistance below the defined intervention level, maintenance treatments will be implemented to remove the risk. This is invariably achieved by carrying out surface retexturing, resurfacing or surface dressing.

2.3 The above approach has ensured that we can demonstrate linkage to the County Council’s corporate outcomes of Safe, Healthy and Prosperous by reducing risk to the travelling public and minimising potential congestion and delays that could disrupt and inconvenience the local economy.

3. Establishing And Benchmarking Network Condition

3.1 Network condition is assessed through nationally recognised surveys called SCANNER and SCRIM. these are carried out through a specialist external contractor on an annual basis.

3.2 SCANNER is a surface condition assessment which identifies road defects such as cracking, texture, rutting and ride quality (bumpiness). These defects are weighted in an algorithm that provides condition bandings to reflect overall condition, based on ‘Red’ (Plan maintenance), ‘Amber’ (Plan investigation) and Green (Generally in good condition).

3.3 SCRIM (Sideway Coefficient Routine Investigation Machine) is an assessment of the skid resistance properties of the road surface based on increased need of individual sites to provide additional traction to prevent skidding.

3.4 The data received from these survey exercises is interpolated to compile prioritised programmes of maintenance using our specialist asset management software.

Page 123 Highway Infrastructure Assets – 2018/19 Investment Strategy

Defining Skid Resistance on the Network

3.5 The most recent skid data was collected in September 2017 and is assessed against the national guidance published by the Department for Transport.

3.6 The guidance identifies a category of difference (recorded in points) between the required level (known as IL), and that recorded during testing. Anything recorded below the minimum recommended level is recorded as a negative figure and referred to as SCRIM difference.

3.7 The current condition bandings for the Dorset Highway Networks are shown in Chart 1 and 2 below, and shows that 1.82% of our principle network and 4.39 % of our B Class roads falls into the red (Functional Deficiency) category and will require immediate attention.

Chart 1 SCRIM Difference Principal Roads

Chart 2 SCRIM Difference B Roads

Purple = Above minimum required level. Green = marginally below IL but can come back within the minimum level with seasonal variations. Yellow, amber and red are all below the minimum level.

Page 124 Highway Infrastructure Assets – 2018/19 Investment Strategy

3.8 Dorset’s Highway Service is a member of The Direct Management Group (DMG) Benchmarking Club, consisting of 21 Highway Authorities throughout the UK.

3.9 Through this process we can compare our performance data over a wide scope of activities and budget provision information.

3.10 Chart 3 below shows how our SCRIM survey results compare to other Benchmarking Club member Authorities across the UK. This shows Dorset as being in the second from bottom quartile, in terms of percentage of principal network above the desired minim level of skid resistance.

Chart 3 Benchmarking of Percentage of Network Above Minimum SCRIM Level

Percentage of principal roads with skidding resistance above investigatory level (Satisfactory) 100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Dorset

3.11 Chart 4 below demonstrates that recent strategies implemented to increase the percentage of our network above the minimum level of skidding resistance, have proved to be successful with an improving trend being achieved.

Chart 4 Trend in Dorset’s Percentage of Network Above Minimum SCRIM Level Skidding Resistance Above Minimum Level - A Roads 74.00% 72.00% 70.00% 68.00% 66.00% 64.00% 62.00% 60.00% 58.00% 56.00% 2014 2015 2016 2017

Page 125 Highway Infrastructure Assets – 2018/19 Investment Strategy

Carriageway Condition

3.12 Chart 5 below, shows a breakdown of current carriageway condition across the four road classes (A – D), based on analysis of the SCANNER survey data. This is expressed as a percentage of the network identified to be in good condition (‘green’), where investigation should be considered (amber), and where maintenance should be planned (‘red’).

Chart 5 Road condition Condition Assessment of Road Network (%)

100 3.7 4 5.7 11.12 90 Plan 26.9 28.5 80 33.1 Maintenance 70 35.08 60 Plan 50 investigation 40 69.4 67.6 30 61.2 53.8 20 Generally good 10 0 A B C D

3.13 Chart 6 below shows that in comparison with Direct Management Group Benchmarking Club members, Dorset`s network is ranked in the top quartile of Authorities where the Principle Road network is in need of maintenance.

Chart 6 Benchmarking of Percentage of Principal Network Where Maintenance Should be Considered (Data collected 2017)

Percentage of principal roads where maintenance should be considered 4.50% 4.00% 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% Dorset

Page 126 Highway Infrastructure Assets – 2018/19 Investment Strategy

3.14 Since 2012, we had seen a continual annual improvement in network condition as can be seen in Chart 7 below. However restricted investment in our capital maintenance funding including a reduction in Corporate funding in 206/17, has resulted in the latest data collected in September 2017, highlighting a reversing trend.

Chart 7 Trend in Percentage of Network Where Maintenance Should be Considered % of Network Where Maintenance Should be Considered 14.00%

12.00%

10.00%

8.00%

6.00%

4.00%

2.00%

0.00% 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

Principal A Roads B Roads C Roads Unclassified D Roads

4. The Need To Revise Our Existing Strategy

4.1 The Department for Transport (DfT) has published new guidance (HD28/15) relating to management of carriageway skid resistance which recommends increased emphasis on the adoption of a more proactive approach to dealing with high risk sites. To demonstrate Dorset County Council`s alignment with this national agenda, it is our intention to adopt the contents of this new guidance document into our core strategy.

4.2 This approach will link to our revised Skid Policy which sets out how we propose to manage skid resistance on the network (see separate report on this Agenda).

5. The Proposed Approach to Identifying Maintenance Need

Network Lengths with Defective Carriageway Condition

5.1 It is proposed to continue to use SCANNER condition data for scheme identification and prioritisation on the A and B Class roads. This will be done through our Horizons asset management software, which recommends optimised treatments and proposed timing.

5.2 Sites on the C class and unclassified network (D roads) will be identified and prioritised through a combination of SCANNER (where this data is available) and recommendations arising from Community Highways Officer inspections, and

Page 127 Highway Infrastructure Assets – 2018/19 Investment Strategy

reinforced by historic recorded defects. Repairs will consist of a combination of patching, surface dressing, recycling techniques and resurfacing.

Network Lengths Failing to Meet Skid Resistance Intervention Level

5.3 Based on the revised DfT guidance relating to skid resistance it is intended to put increased emphasis on sections of the network that fall into the highest risk category based on the scoring matrix (figure 1 below) documented in HD28/15, which has been replicated in our Horizons asset management software. Analysis of current data indicates that scores range from 1 (low risk) to 29 (high risk).

5.4 We have proposed that the policy state that any sites scoring 24 or over, be subject to an immediate detailed site investigation (see decision matrix below), to determine whether any remedial works are required. Based on our assessments this has identified twelve sites.

Figure 1 -Priority 1 Sites for Detailed Investigation (Intervention Level Score 24>) Scores and Criteria Number of Crashes 0 1 2 3+ Score 0 4 8 12 Likely impact of a crash Slight Slight/Serious Serious Serious/Fatal Score 1 2 3 4 >-0.10 and <- >-0.15 and <- Skid resistance difference (SD) >0 >-0.05 and <0 0.05 0.10 <-0.15 Score 0 1 3 6 12 Site has SD <0 and poor texture at the same point No Yes Score 0 1

5.5 Based on our current investment strategy, we are proposing to investigate sites scoring 18 or more (see figure 2 below). At present, a total of one hundred sites fall into this category, and these sites will form the basis of our future maintenance programme.

Figure 2 - Priority 2 Sites for Further Investigation (Intervention Level Score 18>) Scores and Criteria Number of Crashes 0 1 2 3+ Score 0 4 8 12 Likely impact of a crash Slight Slight/Serious Serious Serious/Fatal Score 1 2 3 4 >-0.10 and <- >-0.15 and <- Skid resistance difference (SD) >0 >-0.05 and <0 0.05 0.10 <-0.15 Score 0 1 3 6 12 Site has SD <0 and poor texture at the same point No Yes Score 0 1

Page 128 Highway Infrastructure Assets – 2018/19 Investment Strategy

6. Current and Anticipated Future Funding

6.1 Table 1 below, outlines the current capital maintenance funding and the net budget availability once other commitments have been applied for the financial years 2017/18 and 2018/19.

Table 1 – Annual Capital Maintenance Funding

2017/18 2018/19 DfT Maintenance block funding £12,364,000 £11,193,842 DfT Incentive Fund £1,189,000 £2,331,407* DfT Pothole Acton Fund £1,070,000 £500,000* Corporate Top Up £750,000 £550,000* Less efficiency savings £340,000 £340,000 Less A338 Scheme contribution £370,000 £500,000 Adjustments -£15,000 £0 £14,648,000 £13,735,249

*Denotes final confirmation awaited

7. Proposed Allocation of Available Capital Maintenance Funding

7.1 To reflect the anticipated reduction in budget, and the revised investment strategy to target high risk skid resistance sites, the table below sets out proposed investment across our highway infrastructure asset groups for 2018, with a comparison to the current financial year.

Table 2 – Investment Strategy Across Highway Asset Groups

2018/19 2017/18

Carriageway Skid resistance 1,000,000 7% 4,631,016 32% Resurfacing strategic routes 3,325,729 24% Preventative maintenance (premium surface 1,100,000 8% 1,200,000 8% dressing)- Strategic / main distributor Unclassified/Classified C road maintenance 3,550,000 26% 4,157,464 28% (including patching / surface dressing) Footways 500,000 4% 400,000 3% Drainage 300,000 2% 600,000 4% Bridges & structures 2,000,000 15% 2,000,000 14% Strategic sign replacement 74,520 1% 74,520 1% Roadmarkings 80,000 1% 80,000 1% Capitalised funding (Patching and C/way defects) 1,805,000 13% 1,505,000 10% 13,735,249 14,648,000

Page 129 Highway Infrastructure Assets – 2018/19 Investment Strategy

8. Impact of Current County Council Funding Strategy

Current funding/capitalisation of funds

8.1 An area of concern is the availability of both revenue and capital funding. Chart 8 below shows current funding levels in comparison to other local highway authorities in the DMG Benchmarking Club. This shows that Dorset is the second lowest revenue funded authorities per km of network.

Chart 8 Benchmarking of Revenue Investment per KM Revenue works budget / network length £4,500.00

£4,000.00

£3,500.00

£3,000.00

£2,500.00

£2,000.00

£1,500.00

£1,000.00

£500.00

£0.00 Dorset

8.2 Shortfalls in the revenue budget leave us vulnerable in the delivery of our statutory obligations to maintain the Highway under The Highways Act 1980.

8.3 This is mitigated by investing £1.8million of capital funding on reactive repairs, and other essential cyclic activities, in line with that permitted under CIPFA guidance.

8.4 This figure is relative to demand, so if the number of potholes increased, further demand is placed on the capitalised funds, which will lead to the deferral of capital schemes.

Page 130 Highway Infrastructure Assets – 2018/19 Investment Strategy

8.5 Chart 9 below, from the DMG Benchmarking Club, also shows a comparison in capital funding for highway structural maintenance which again shows Dorset to be below the average of participating Authorities.

Chart 9 Highway Structural Maintenance Capital Investment per KM Structural maintenance block / network length £7,000.00

£6,000.00

£5,000.00

£4,000.00

£3,000.00

£2,000.00

£1,000.00

£0.00 Dorset

Corporate capital support

8.6 Historic lifecycle planning exercises carried out in recent years have indicated a £5.9million gap in funding between that required to maintain even existing condition, with that we receive annually.

8.7 In an attempt to reduce this gap, Cabinet provided additional corporate support of £2million for both 2015/16 and 2016/17 financial years. This level of funding was reduced to £750,000 for 2017/18, and is likely to be further reduced to £550,000 for 2018/19.

Lifecycle Planning

8.8 Based on the most recent condition data, we have produced updated lifecycle plans which again model the impacts of current investment and treatment strategies.

8.10 These Lifecycle Plans show that to maintain the condition of our network in a steady state, £19million of annual capital investment is required if we implemented a ‘worst first’ strategy. As can be seen within table 1 within Section 6 of this report, we have only £10,780,729 being invested in carriageway maintenance (including £ 1,805,000 of capital patching works) in 2018/19. This is a significant gap which gives cause for concern that will significantly affect our ability to maintain current network condition levels.

8.11 This now declining trend in condition has already become apparent with the percentage of network where maintenance should be considered across Principal (A roads) and Non principal (B&C roads) showing a 1% decline between 2016 and 2017.

Page 131 Highway Infrastructure Assets – 2018/19 Investment Strategy

8.12 Chart 10 below shows that should the current level of investment remain as at present, the percentage of our Principle A roads where maintenance should be planned would increase from 4% in 2017, to 6% over a five year period shown in the red segment below.

Chart 10 – Projection on A road condition over five years based on current investment

8.13 Furthermore, should funding levels be maintained at current levels, the percentage of our B and C network requiring planned maintenance over the next five years would increase from 5.1% to 15.9% as shown in the red segment in Chart 11 below.

Chart 11 – Projection on B and C road condition (130-02) over five years based on current investment

Andrew Martin Service Director for Highways and Emergency Planning November 2017

Page 132 EqIA Initial assessment

Introduction

Details

Title of strategy, policy, Highway Infrastructure Asset Investment project or service: STrategy 2018/19

Type of strategy: New or proposed

Is this an internal or external Internal EqIA?:

Officers involved in the Mike Hansford screening: About you

Your name: Michael W Hansford

Your email address: [email protected]

Directorate or service: Environment & Economy calc_EQIARecipient: [email protected]

USERGROUP-0759996c-98e1-4765-a035- calc_ApprovalGroup: 5a2427e6a3b8 Aims

Page 133 What are the The aim of the strategy is to put increase emphasis on aims of your the 'Safe' corporate objective through promoting safe strategy, policy, travel. This will see increased investment targeting parts project or of the carriageway network where skid resistance issues service?: have been identified as high risk.

Dorset County Council`s Highway Asset Management Plan Volumes 1 and 2, outline the strategic approach adopted in managing the highway network across the County. The Department for Transport (DfT) recommends a Highway Authority`s Asset Management What is the Plan, and any subsequent amendments, should be background or ratified by Cabinet Members, and to date all relevant context to the Highway Maintenance have followed this process. The proposal?: proposal is to invest a proportion (£1million) of our capital funding for 2018/19 to address high risk skid sites, which would otherwise be used to target carriageways based on superficial carriageway surface condition.

Intelligence & comms

What data, information, evidence and research was Data used is based on collected carriageway used in this EqIA and how condition (SCRIM and SCANNER) and data has it been used to inform collected and benchmarked against other the decision making Highway Authorities. process?:

What data do you already have about your service The proposal will impact on all highway users, or the people your users, who were represented as part of the proposal will have an NHT and member/parish council surveys. impact on?:

Public engagement has been conducted through NHT public satisfaction surveys and What engagement or member and parish council surveys, which consultation has taken identifies road safety as one of the most place as part of this EqIA?: important factors we should be considering. Consultation has also taken place with Daryl Turner, as our Portfolio Holder.

Page 134 Is further information needed to help inform this No. proposal?:

How will the outcome of consultation will be fed This will be reflected in our Highways back to those who you Service Plan for 2018/19. consulted with?:

Assessment

Age: Positive impact

Please This proposal can only have a positive impact on all age provide groups. details:

What age bracket does All this affect?:

Disability: Positive impact

Please This proposal will have a positive impact on all, provide regardless of disability. details:

Does this affect a specific All disability group?:

Gender Positive impact identity:

Page 135 Please The proposal positively impacts on everyone who uses the provide highway. details:

Pregnancy Positive impact and maternity:

Please provide The proposal will have a positive impact to all. details:

Race and Positive impact ethnicity:

Please The impact of the proposal will have a positive effect on provide all races and ethnic groups, who use the carriageway. details:

Religion or Positive impact belief:

Please The proposal will have a positive impact to all highway provide users regardless of religion of beliefs. details:

Sex: Positive impact

Please provide It will positively impact all highway users. details:

Sexual Positive impact orientation:

Please The proposal will have positive impacts on all highway provide users regardless of sexual orientation. details:

Page 136 Other socially excluded Unclear groups:

The targeting of capital investment into high risk skid sites which will sit nearer the top of our hierarchy, depending on confirmation of DfT funding for 2018/19, may mean investment in rural unclassified roads be reduced, therefore potentially impacting on rural isolated groups. This is part of a larger strategy to protect network Please resilience on the higher use strategic network. The provide Cabinet report sets out risks of under investment across details: the highway network, which will impact on the condition of some highway assets. This risk is being mitigated through trials of lower cost treatment options on our unclassified network which will also include the treatment of urban unclassified estate roads which could potentially have a positive impact on deprived areas.

Summary

Page 137 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11 Dorset Highways Revised Skid Policy

Cabinet

Date of Meeting 6 December 2017

Cabinet Member(s) Daryl Turner - Cabinet Member for The Natural and Built Environment

Local Member(s) All Councillors

Lead Director(s) Mike Harries - Corporate Director for Environment and Economy

Subject of Report Dorset Highways Revised Skid Policy

Executive Summary This report contains the latest revision to our policy to managing skid resistance on the County Council’s highway network.

This revision has been published to reflect changes in the guidance produced by the Department for Transport in relation to the management of skid resistance.

The report sets out how data is collected by the highway officers and analysed to identify and prioritise sites for detailed investigation and future remedial treatments.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment: Ref EqIA-61975586

EQIA screening carried out. A Full Assessment exercise not required.

Use of Evidence: This report uses guidance documented in HD28/15 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. The data is based on the most recently collected SCRIM (skid resistance) data collected this autumn, and reflects the review in site categories and associated minimum levels of skid resistance which was carried out in June 2017.

Page 139 Dorset Highways Revised Skid Policy

Budget: We are proposing to invest £1million into targeting the highest risk sites to ‘promote safe travel’. This will be funded from existing budget allocations.

Risk Assessment:

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: HIGH Residual Risk: MEDIUM (ie reflecting the recommendations in this report and mitigating actions proposed)

There is a risk to strategic priorities – ie safe travel.

Other Implications: None identified.

Recommendation That the Cabinet approve the revised Skid Policy and approach to the management of skid resistance on the highway.

Reason for To support key corporate outcomes and objectives linked to ‘Safe’ Recommendation and ‘Prosperous’, and to demonstrate compliance with national guidance in relation to the management of skid resistance on the network.

Appendices Policy to Manage the Skid Resistance on Dorset’s Roads - 2017 Revision

Background Papers None.

Officer Contact Name: Mike Hansford Tel: 01305 228168 Email: [email protected]

1. Background

This report accompanies the revision to Dorset County Council’s Carriageway Skid Policy, which aligns with the latest guidance, and replaces the previous version dated January 2013.

The Policy sets out how Dorset Highways manages skid resistance on the highway network, in terms of data collection, identifying appropriate minimum levels of skid resistance, and how sites are identified and prioritised for investigation, and subsequent repair.

2. Why the Policy is Required

2.1 The approval of the policy is required to ensure we conform to the latest guidance in the management of skid resistance on the carriageway network, as set out in HD28/15 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

Page 140 Dorset Highways Revised Skid Policy

The DfT guidance is intended for the trunk road network, managed by Highways England, therefore we will adopt elements of this guidance appropriate to our network.

2.2 The methodology for identifying and prioritising high risk sites has also changed, with the change in asset management software provider. Documented in the policy is the methodology in the new Horizons software which uses the model set out in the guidance to ‘score’ sites based on SCRIM difference, impacts of a collision (based on the type of site), number of recorded collisions and correlation with surface texture (see matrix documented in figure 1 below).

2.3 There is potential risk arising from sites that fall into these high risk categories therefore targeting these sites underpins all works we do in terms of promoting safe travel.

The proper application of this policy may also provide a defence against third party claims where the road surface is alleged to have been a contributory factor in a road traffic collision.

3. Intervention Levels

3.1 Assessment of our network, based on this matrix in Figure 1 (taken from HD28/15 DMRB), scores sites on our network between 1 (low risk) and 29 (high risk).

As can be seen in Figure 1 below, a site assessed as shown would have a cumulative score of 24 and therefore would be subject to an immediate assessment. By applying this new criteria assessment process, twelve sites around the county have been identified.

Figure 1 Priority 1 Sites for Detailed Investigation

Scores and Criteria Number of Crashes 0 1 2 3+ Score 0 4 8 12 Likely impact of a crash Slight Slight/Serious Serious Serious/Fatal Score 1 2 3 4 Skid resistance difference (SD) >-0.10 and <- >-0.15 and <- >0 >-0.05 and <0 <-0.15 0.05 0.10 Score 0 1 3 6 12 Site has SD <0 and poor texture at the same point No Yes

Score 0 1

This is a deviation from the guidance, relating to the strategic road network, which recommends anything scoring 6 or above should be investigated. Based on our 4,000kms of network this would be unrealistic in terms of the resource required.

4. Additional Approach

4.1 Based on our proposed investment strategy, (also being submitted to Cabinet) linking to Service outcomes of ‘Promoting Safe Travel’, we are also proposing to investigate sites scoring 18 and above, with a view to forming a forward looking plan of maintenance.

Page 141 Dorset Highways Revised Skid Policy

Figure 2 - Priority 2 Sites for Further Investigation

Scores and Criteria Number of Crashes 0 1 2 3+ Score 0 4 8 12 Likely impact of a crash Slight Slight/Serious Serious Serious/Fatal Score 1 2 3 4 Skid resistance difference (SD) >-0.10 and <- >-0.15 and <- >0 >-0.05 and <0 <-0.15 0.05 0.10 Score 0 1 3 6 12 Site has SD <0 and poor texture at the same point No Yes

Score 0 1

This will identify sites on a route basis and look for opportunities to implement low cost treatments to improve the skid resistance on the network.

5. Service Outcomes/Corporate Objectives

5.1 This policy will support corporate objectives of ‘Safe’ and ‘Prosperous’ through Service objectives linked to ‘Supporting Safe Travel’.

This is monitored through targets set out in the Highways Service Plan and measures documented in the Highways Performance Framework which are:

 Reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on Dorset’s roads.

 Reducing the overall number of casualties on Dorset’s roads.

 Reducing the percentage of principal road network that is below the minimum level of SCRIM difference.

 Improving public perception of safety on Dorset’s roads.

Andrew Martin Service Director for Highways and Emergency Planning November 2017

Page 142 Dorset County Council

POLICY TO MANAGE THE SKID RESISTANCE ON DORSET'S ROADS

2017 Revision

~- ,;-, >/

I 1/,{-':~/,1/,

1/, '0ii., ;,;

.,

Policy written by: Mike Hansford, Asset and Performance Manager

Policy Authorised by:

Date of Authorisation:

Page 143 Skid Resistance Policy Revision November 2017

I ntrod uctio n

This document replaces the Skid Policy dated January 2013 to ensure conformance to the new guidance set out in HD28/15 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) for the management of skid resistance on the network.

The management of skid resistance on the highway refers to the frictional properties of the road surface in wet conditions. The skid resistance of a wet or damp road surface can be substantially lower than the same surface when dry, and is more dependent on the condition of the surfacing material. :i,& The management of skid resistance is a significant activity in ~,fil,g the safety of highway users; one of the key corporate objectives of the County Counci,l. .•, Dorset's Skid Policy ~,,, ,, As the DMRB is primarily intended for use on th~-,.,~.;g.t egic Road N'et'l: ;J<, managed by Highways England, Dorset County Council will adopt elem'J,~H the guidance docu~~ed in the revised standard HD28/15 (the Department for Transpor tJl/dance on how skid relf~ce should be managed), appropriate to its network. ' ~ ' . . . ~~- ~ . The policy will define our approach to./:M'Jt',ffe,j ,,,£~gement off,l~es1stance on the network, to include the process for identifying and investigijjfJg'if&~JY sites. ' Skid Policy Objectives ~~ '~ ~ ,,, . , ,,, $;~~//, ·~

Service Performance Outcomes

This policy supports the Service outcomes of 'Supporting Safe Travel' as set out in our Performance Framework, which links to corporate objectives of 'Safe' and 'Prosperous'.

We can measure how effective we have been through monitoring and reporting on :

Targets for these outcomes will be set out in the annual Highways Service Plan.

Page 144 How will we do this?

Dorset County Council will apply this policy to its higher use roads, to include annual SCRIM surveys, which include the following:

[JRiF,;lffitgh~/-(~:-: -.~, ~·-1piiii;;~l[:!#~1C;~;;Cl)b[ii~J;F;\\. i '. 1:;i,t?'"7"''T?7:>~~-:-. ·;--: -,~~::--.: ;.,:;. ',' ,;·,f ··, ; -.- ~- ·::·--· ~ :-···~· .;"~ I 1H);lri;ui,cJh1o/:-r ... "' Jl ,1M:Jinl·~ltt~i/n1~f1~)n'~. ·, ,: , ' , . ' . '.' _: . '. . :. . J I 1n~t:Jr1;1~d~1i2/~l.·_. 1.· .':.Jlt~croJl1~b~r\V[i~H=11Ir1J,b1u~~ol1'fi,, __ .. --~-' ..•... · •. " __ .'_' __ .. ··-~_-:. __ · ,. . _· -~ _j

Additional sites on any road hierarchy may be identified through liaison with partner organisations including the Police and with the Collision Reduction Team. Further surveys may include SCRIM or Griptester.

Site categories/ Investigatory Levels (IL) - HD28/15 specifies.appropriate I Ls based on site category. The network is assessed and assigned a site category, wi\h ~n:appropriate IL based on an assessment of collision history. ,x:~.-;.,.. // /, '1/ The assigned IL will relate to the table (figure 1 belowfin the DMRB and'ifsubject to a review of :t:ffe ;?· •.//}f, collision history at individual locations to determine,,,.,,,,, an appropriate IL. · /, ,,., . ';?, '?°1 ;,: ¼ Figure 1 - HD28/15 Possible /Ls for each site category ~ £/, ,,z , 01 / . ,,,,,_,,._ ... ,i}-:f*. "/, ~ /,,;:,ttf1: 1/ 'l '. ·' tu.. to.r csc data' (i~.kid data speed corrected 1/, -- .r~,~. -~'¼- Site Category and definition /,; ,J; to:.>0~.,,~/h and see1§0n_ally corrected) ~ t ,. 1/~,. 1,; . 0.55 0.60 0.65

A Motorwa / '

B Non-~Y,'.e~t carriageway IJ'.'{ith., oae:-wa· ' fraffic . .,

C : Non-event carriageway with two-wa traffic Approaches to and across minor and major junctions Q approaches to roundabouts and traffic si rials .see note 5 Approaches to pedestrian K crossings and other high-risk situations see note 5

R Roundabout

G1 Gradient 5-10% longer than 5Om see note 6

G2 Gradient >10% longer than 5Om see note 6

S1 Bend Radius <5OOm -

Page 145 carriageway with one-way traffic see note 7

Bend Radius <500m - S2 carriageway with two-way traffic see note?

A review of Dorset's site categories and investigatory levels was carried out in June 2017 by 'Votta' and updated in the Horizons Asset Management software.

In line with recommendations in the guidance; I Ls will continue to be reviewed every three years, thereafter.

% :J;,#. ,: , :,,;~,1/'% "1-if~ Data Collection I' , ,I ~ :,,-,, ,';/ The standard specifies scientific methods for the aists~ment of skid res1s!~,nce. Dorset County Council will apply the CSC (Characteristic SCRIM G;~fficient) methodolog;;' ~\,. 1/.~ ,,1/~:0,, '/ ,~ SCRIM* surveys will be carried out using an accredit,~/,9 ~urvey m~fhine in 'wet" e,9}1<;litions, replicated ~~1/'.r. ,,.~'-½·~,- .x ",/ ,• by the SCRIM survey method. These surveys will be c6n{fy5,=te9' j_r:i:early, mid and late:-}easons, for the . ...;.;z~, '///,(0 .,fy"l,;,,, . 'l,;;,, purpose of seasonal corrections, over ~:~p~~e year cycle, as Sfi!;:;.out in the table below: z, . ;',/4f,,.- 1/~, '• 1f,%;' W:;::-,:r,..,, ·, ~ - ·, ,- -· .. 'uiin'illnl:{'•)/ ';:l,c],~li:-')l ':J.UJr r14y l ---· ~ ... \'/:J,l r' - -·~ :I .. . ' 2018 Early season /:, 1st M~Y,,: 20th Ju ' :.,-;.· ,,,,. ... 2019 Mid ~~J§C?l:.k- :%~ 21st Juife\~JQth Aug(i,~t 2020 Late seas~Y, //· % ;; tf/1ftf:'/;'3 h ,:/. ;~·,r.r, • '• /.' \ rn1t~,, ~l;!g · s ~, 9L Sept .,_; th 2021 Eariy. season ~/,. ·, "?,,1Js ',,~:&. &,AfW'·'""- 20 JLlfre½ '%'W'J-:- •,;'ff:. -/,~(/ %% , if;, The recorded ~SC v~lue is cdmf)ared;te,.-fh\J~JJ ident,ify a SCRIM difference which highlights lengths of road, tl'laf flave fallen.below tf:l,~m,inimum'litve,Jpf skitl"resistance. ,'l '((?/ •' * SCRIM is the registered trage mark 6tj.D.M. Limited

Site Identification - Initial desktop study : ,,,/.,, A desktop study will be carried out as soon as is practicable, on receipt of the data, having been processed and loaded into-the Horizons asset management software.

The desktop study will include:

• A data validation exercise

• Identification of priority sites for detailed investigation based on SCRIM data and five years of collision data. This will be managed through our Horizons Asset Management software to identify sites with the highest risk in relation to skid resistance.

Based on the scoring matrix documented in table below from HD28/15 a report in Horizons will score priority sites with the highest scoring sites being identified for detailed investigation.

Page 146 Priority 1 Sites for Detailed Investigation Scores and Criteria Number of Crashes 0 1 3+ Score 0 4 12 Slight/Serio Likely impact of a crash Slight us Serious Score 1 2 3 Skid resistance difference >-0.05 and >-0.10 and c- {SD) >0 <0 0.05 Score 0 1 Site has SD <0 and poor texture at the same point No Yes Score 0 1 /,, ?-, '%~;;. '/.-., -~ ~,::, ,.:~ 1 I'/ /,/-:,:.,: ,.,;i,;p;qf,? ,. Analysis of current data indicates that scores range from 1 {low risk) to 29· (ijigh risk). Dorset /. /,1 ;.(.,, 'l Highways will carry out a detailed investigation as'~ m,atter of priority, to sit@JiiJing 24 or above. ,, /~ ~ijr,;,-/,/, ,,, '/'.~' I?,~ #//£,#" 'l,3/,//. , . ;f. · iif_ Jf«:lf;ff Y ~J,1/: Detailed site investigations //f<,x . ~- ? %:' Sites identified through the desktop ana1y;sis will in:vestigate~ivta competent individual which ', be/.· ' 1~///4 will typically be Project/ Des,ign Engineers rA the Asset ittd. l;>erforrri@f.~ Team, with support from /, ,-,: I _,_, _, -'~/ 1 the Collision Reduction Je.anf:,.., ,, /, 1/ ,;;. t,1,1~ % ·-,'/.' ½;'~ 1 /. / ' '0-,,~; The main objectives at'e//.:,:. ·_ t< ;. . U;~ · 1// / ~ ., 1/,, ,, • To determine whether, a surfi;).:ee treatment (s;j.µstified • 1o determine whether so~e otherform of actfdn is required (to include enforcement (eg hedges), re-prefillng, or referral to the Ca~8glty Reduction Team for a review of the site layout and/or markings. • To-determine whether the site should be kept under review to determine whether the IL is appropriate.

The findings of the investigation will be documented on the 'Detailed Site Investigation Report' form (documented in Appendix A).

Erection of 'slippery road' signs

Following detailed site investigations, where remedial works have been identified, 'Slippery Road' signs will be put out until such time that this risk has been removed or mitigated.

Page 147 Appendix 1 Detailed Investigation - Priority Skid Sites Site Investigation Report

Da,1le: Inspected l:>y: ,

Lew gr:ip tester o,r:, . . se~im:

Accident report; li>ocumelilt r;,ef.er.ence:. ·

1 Have ar.iy layout changes beea made 110 trne site since investiigat0ry level t;: was assigned:

Sl!lr:facililg tv.. pe:

Surface c0n0itiofiitexture:

Presence of debris or 0t"1ef centamtneaon,

; Local defects (ipotll!lol!,!s; fatting up etc):

Is the dnaiaage adequate:

Are there any issues with surface profile:

4. R@acd users:

Volume and type of traffic:

Traffic speeds in relation to road layout:

Page 148 Evldenoe of erash damage:

S. Road L.ayout:

Is tt'le layout aJl)propriate for vulneratile road users;

' ,?.lie junctions appropslete for tt1mmg rma111oew,wes:

6. Markings SigITTs aITTd Visilbility:

Are traffic sjgnals, sigma ls; r.oad markings, in good condirlon and

Clear sight lines/visibility of_(l!ueues/ vegetaaoa:

"/1/ .

, Rev.iew IL: Wf.lat type ot ti'ieatmeAt:. Re.view routtne I\Yilaii'ilter:iar-ice: : Other actlon required;

Sigmat11.rne: Daille:

Page 149 Page 150 Agenda Item 12 Purbeck Health, Housing and Social Care Master Plan Memorandum of Understanding

Cabinet

Date of Meeting 6 December 2017

Cabinet Member(s) Cllr Jill Haynes – Cabinet Member for Health and Care Local Member(s) Cllr Beryl Ezzard – County Councillor for Wareham Lead Director(s) Debbie Ward – Chief Executive and Director for Adult and Community Services

Purbeck Health, Housing and Social Care Master Plan Subject of Report Memorandum of Understanding

Executive Summary Dorset County Council, Purbeck District Council, Dorset Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, and NHS Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group have agreed to work together to jointly develop plans to re-provision and enhance Health, Social Care and Housing services in Wareham.

Dorset Healthcare and the CCG have already begun to shape their thinking around how they might redesign the Health offer in Wareham, as a direct implementation of the Clinical Services Review and Strategic Transformation Plan. Dorset County Council and Purbeck District Council have recognised the opportunity that this presents to develop new housing and social care services co-located with Health in line with the district council Local Plan.

This in turn will create opportunities to make best use of public land assets in Wareham. This project ties in with One Public Estate, Community Living and Learning, and will allow partners to test place- based budgets and commissioning.

To formalise this agreement a Memorandum of Understanding has been developed setting out the scope and aims of the partnership.

The next step is to agree a single roadmap and shared governance structure for the delivery of this development. Individual organisations will remain accountable for their own public money expenditure.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment:

EqIA is not applicable at this stage, but will be completed as part of the work to develop the proposals for Wareham sites

Page 151 Purbeck Health, Housing and Social Care Master Plan Memorandum of Understanding

Use of Evidence:

At this early stage no detailed analysis of specific need in Wareham has been undertaken. Purbeck has a shortage of housing and accommodation options, and a detailed exploration of the evidence base will be conducted to inform what the final development plans will look like.

Budget:

There are no budget implications at this stage; detailed proposals and any budget implications will be fully scoped out during the next phase of planning.

Risk Assessment:

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: LOW Residual Risk LOW

Other Implications:

Dorset County Council holds numerous land and building assets in Wareham, and this project gives us the opportunity to consider how best to make use of these assets. This may lead to Property and Asset implications including potential release of sites for disposal or re- provision of services in buildings designed to be fit for the future. This will be fully explored in the more detailed planning work.

Recommendation To approve Dorset County Council signing the Memorandum of Understanding, to work with partners to develop a joint Health, Social Care, and Housing solution for Wareham

Reason for Signing up to this agreement will allow Dorset County Council to Recommendation participate in further discussions and undertake more detailed analysis and planning.

Appendices Memorandum of Understanding Purbeck Health, Housing and Social Care Master Plan – Final Version

Background Papers None

Officer Contact Name: Helen Coombes Tel: 01305 224317 Email: [email protected]

Page 152 Final Version 20.09.2017

Memorandum of Understanding Purbeck Health, Housing and Social Care Master Plan

This memorandum of understanding (MOU) will support the aspirations of the local authorities, county and district, NHS partners and the wider system to work together and integrate health, housing and social care plans in Purbeck to improve health and wellbeing sand support prosperity.

The MoU sets out why we are doing this, what we want to deliver and the principles we will follow. As such the parties acknowledge that it will not be legally binding or legally enforceable by any party but will be a statement of the parties’ commitment to work collaboratively.

The partners have agreed that to deliver change at pace, alignment of the district council Local Plan, the Sustainability and Transformation Plans, and the individual operational plans of each partner is required. This MOU will set out the underpinning principles that all the organisations will agree, with the next step to agree a single roadmap, and governance structure for delivery for Wareham that can be used to develop the more detailed plans and delivery required at pace.

It should be noted that the MoU does not propose any legal changes in any legal responsibilities or accountabilities that any NHS or local authority organisation holds. However, it recognises that by working together will improve the health and wellbeing of the local population, reduce inequalities and support economic growth through the provision of housing in the local area.

It is intended that the MoU and subsequent working may provide the backdrop for a submission to the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) next round of bids and enable further work on whether a locality place based budget and commissioning can be tested in Purbeck across health and social care.

The parties to this MoU are;

Purbeck District Council, Dorset County Council, Dorset Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group

The parties share the following objectives

1. To improve Health and wellbeing of the population and close the quality and financial gap facing health and social care services through building on the Purbeck Project which brings together in a single hub primary care, community health, social care and wider public and voluntary sector community based interventions.

2.Make the best use of public sector land to deliver health and social care buildings fit for a modern technology based health and local government services and thereby release land for housing with a specific focus on housing for

 Health and social care keyworkers  Older persons and specialist disability accommodation all ages  Housing growth general needs for Purbeck including brownfield sites

3.Contribute to economic growth and prosperity in Purbeck including skills and opportunities for young people

4. Develop a model for locality place based budgets including health, housing and social care integrated working. Testing a concept in Purbeck that could be replicated across other similar communities in England providing the building block for the delivery of an accountable care system for the health and care elements through a single provider leadership model

Page 153 Final Version 20.09.2017

Overarching Principles

Decisions will be based on the interests and outcomes for the population in Purbeck and all organisations will collaborate to prioritise those interests

Decision making will be undertaken by transparency and the open sharing of information across all the organisations but recognising the clear accountability of individual organisations for its own public money expenditure.

We commit to review and discussion of our respective public sector land, and the plans that we currently have for development and sale as a partnership to identify collectively the best configuration and use of this land and where required engage in land swap and/or sale and retention to maximise opportunity of delivering our collective objectives

As a partnership, we agree to work together to consider the full range of capital and revenue funding sources including different strategic partnerships to maximise the use of public land for the provision of care and accommodation in a timely way ensuring that our collective work can be considered as part of the Purbeck Local Plan

Through our partnership we will consider developing a One Public Estate bid for submission to national government that may include elements of locality based budgeting and a governance structure that includes other partnerships including the third sector, social investment partners, and social housing providers.

We will establish a local governance structure and programme Board that enables local government, the NHS, and other key stakeholders to oversee the development and delivery of the masterplan together ensuring it has the appropriate routes into other established local government democratic committees and the NHS governance structure.

NHS and social care commissioners and providers agree to work together to deliver an integrated hub with a view to establishing a single, systematic approach to using the local health and social care resources for the local population. This includes the leadership of design and delivery of a model of care as part of accountable care system developments

Signed

Purbeck District Council

Dorset County Council

Dorset Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust

Dorset Clinical Commissioning Group

Page 154 Agenda Item 13 South Western Railway Timetable Consultation Response

Cabinet

Date of Meeting 6 December 2017

Cabinet Member Cllr Daryl Turner – Cabinet Member for Natural and Built Environment

Lead Director Mike Harries – Corporate Director for Environment and Economy Dorset County Council’s response to South Western Railway’s Subject of Report consultation on proposed timetable changes from December 2018

Executive The County Council has been contacted as a key stakeholder by Summary South Western Railways (SWR) to provide a response to their consultation regarding proposed timetable changes to their services from December 2018.

SWR propose to run two trains per hour off peak from Weymouth – one fast direct to London Waterloo, the other stopping at all stations to Portsmouth so that journeys from Weymouth to London will be up to 12 minutes faster and the two trains per hour between Weymouth and Bournemouth to be spaced much nearer to a half-hourly frequency. Wool will get an increase to 2 trains per hour in each direction.

So this can be achieved, off peak direct services to and from London will not be provided from Upwey, Moreton and Holton Heath. Instead passengers must change trains either at Brockenhurst or Southampton to connect to/from London. An indication of the numbers likely to be affected can be found in the table included in the main body of the report. There will still be direct trains to/from London to Upwey and Moreton in peak times.

The questions pertinent to Dorset are focussed on timetable 158 for the Weymouth – Waterloo Service and timetable 160 for the West of England line covering Sherborne and Gillingham.

DCC are asked:  Do you support the speeding up of services from Weymouth with improved service intervals between Weymouth and Bournemouth and the change in connectivity for smaller stations?

Page 155 South Western Railway Timetable Consultation Response

 Do you feel that the seasonal Saturday through service that operates between Waterloo, Yeovil Pen Mill and Weymouth, via Maiden Newton, should continue?

Impact Equalities Impact Assessment: Assessment: To be carried out by South Western Railway.

Use of Evidence: The Local Transport Plan 3 adopted by the Local Authorities and the Transforming Dorset document produced by Dorset LEP influenced the recommendations.

Budget: Not applicable

Risk Assessment:

To be carried out by South Western Railway.

Recommendation That the Cabinet:

(i) respond positively to the proposal of speeding up of services from Weymouth with improved service intervals between Weymouth and Bournemouth and the change in connectivity for smaller stations;

(ii) respond positively to the proposal of seasonal Summer Saturday service between Waterloo and Weymouth via Gillingham, Yeovil and Maiden Newton.

Reason for (i) The aspiration for faster journey times to London are included in Recommendation the Local Transport Plan 3 adopted by the Local Highway Authorities and the Dorset LEP Strategic Economic Plan. It has also been a long held aspiration to have a more even interval between train services. There will still be provision to commute to and from London and there is little difference in the frequency of local service between Weymouth, Dorchester, Poole, Bournemouth and Southampton Central meeting the needs of most of Dorset’s rail passengers.

(ii) The County Council has in the past contributed to a trial summer Saturday service on the route and more services on the Weymouth-Bristol line are included in LTP3.

Appendices Appendix 1 – Top 12 Destinations per Dorset Station provided by SWR.

Background https://www.southwesternrailway.com/contact-and-help/timetable- Papers consultation

https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/article/417819/View-the-Local- Transport-Plan

Page 156 South Western Railway Timetable Consultation Response

https://dorsetlep.s3.amazonaws.com/SEP%20Pics%20&%20Docs/634 2%20LEP%20Strategic%20Economic%20Plan%20v3%20LOW%20RE S.pdf

Officer Contact Name: Kelly Flynn, Sustainable Transport Officer Tel: 01305 224687 Email: [email protected]

1. Weymouth Mainline - Summary of Current Rail Service

1.1 The current Weymouth to Waterloo service takes between 2h 46min and 3 hours and can be achieved with no changes. There are 2 trains per hour (tph) at 17 and 43 minutes apart with the first train of the day from Weymouth arriving at London Waterloo at 08:50.

1.2 In the morning peak Upwey and Moreton has 6 direct trains to London, Holton Heath has 5.

1.3 After 08:39 alternate trains from Weymouth do not stop at Moreton, Wool or Holton Heath, meaning there is 1 direct tph to London Waterloo. Moreton and Wool passengers are usually given the option to go back to Dorchester south using the Weymouth bound train and change to the faster London bound train instead of waiting for the stopping train. Holton Heath is not offered the same alternative to hourly service as the Weymouth bound train does not call there.

1.4 There are 2 (tph) from Wareham to London in morning peak times.

1.5 Wool and Hinton Admiral (serving East Christchurch and Highcliffe) have 1 tph off peak in each direction to/from Waterloo, with the service from Hinton Admiral terminating at Parkstone.

1.6 2 tph stop at Southampton Airport and the current ‘stopping’ train calls at Clapham Junction.

2. Weymouth Mainline - Proposed Service

2.1 The proposed service will have 2 tph off peak at 23 and 37 minutes apart therefore more evenly spread across the hour, one fast to London the other a new hourly stopping service to Portsmouth. The fast train Weymouth to Waterloo will have a journey time of 2h34m offering a time saving of up to 12 minutes with the first train of the day arriving in London at 08:22.

2.2 The first 3 trains of day will be fast, direct trains to London stopping at Upwey and Moreton, Dorchester South, Wool and Wareham and there will be 3 late afternoon/early evening fast, direct trains from London that stop at Moreton and Upwey. Hinton Admiral will also get 3 fast, direct trains to London in the morning peak and 3 from London in the afternoon/evening peak thereby still offering a commuter service.

2.3 In the morning peak Upwey and Moreton will have 7 train services – 3 direct to London, 4 stopping to Portsmouth. Holton Heath will get 3 stopping services to Portsmouth with no direct train to London.

Page 157 South Western Railway Timetable Consultation Response

2.4 There will be two morning peak time trains from Holton Heath to Waterloo, the first one gets into London 25 minutes later than the current service.

2.5 There will be 2 extra stopping local trains from Wareham to Bournemouth early morning, where it will join the fast train to London Waterloo meaning that Wareham will have 3 tph (one going to Portsmouth) in morning peak times.

2.6 There will be no direct off peak trains to London from Upwey, Moreton, Holton Heath and Hinton Admiral. Instead there will be one stopping service to Portsmouth requiring a (same platform) change at Brockenhurst or Southampton to get to Waterloo for passengers travelling from Upwey, Moreton and Holton Heath.

2.7 In off peak times Hinton Admiral will no longer have a direct train service to London or the other hourly service to Southampton. These will be replaced by an hourly stopping service to/from Portsmouth. Connection to London onto a fast train can be made either at Brockenhurst (16 min wait) or Southampton (10 min wait) with an overall journey time 3 minutes faster than the current timetable.

2.8 Hinton Admiral will get a direct stopping service to Weymouth.

2.9 Throughout the day Wool will have an additional train service in each direction per hour.

2.10 There is little difference in the frequency of local service between Weymouth, Dorchester, Poole, Bournemouth and Southampton Central, however there will be a reduction to 1 tph direct to Southampton Airport Parkway.

2.11 There will no longer be a direct service to Clapham Junction from most Dorset stations (although Christchurch will get 1 per hour). You would need to change trains at Woking or London Waterloo to get to Clapham Junction. Clapham Junction only features in the top 12 destinations list (Appendix 1) 4 times with 1% of journeys from these stations to Clapham.

3. Other Information

3.1 A reduction in journey time to London is included in the Local Transport Plan 3 adopted by the Local Authorities, and Dorset LEP’s Strategic Economic Plan.

3.2 DCC officers have looked at the potential impact of the additional trains stopping at Wool on the level-crossing barrier downtime and the barriers are likely to be down for slightly longer (approximately 5 minutes instead of 3.5 minutes), but less frequently so overall barrier downtime will probably be less. This has not been verified by SWR or Network Rail.

3.3 The media headline of one direct train per hour to London does seem on the face of it a dramatic decline in service provision for Dorset. However, thorough interrogation of the consultation proposals included in this report shows that there will be some betterment as well as new travel opportunities and consideration has been given by South Western Railways to achieving some of our rail aspirations.

Page 158 South Western Railway Timetable Consultation Response

3.4 Table showing passenger and population data.

Station Population1 Number of Approx. no. of % trips to % Trips to Annual Trips to Approx Daily Total Daily Total Daily Total Daily Total Daily Total Households proposed new London3 Dorset and London3 trips to London Passengers Passengers Passengers Passengers 3 (existiting)1 dwellings 2 Southampton (annual trips/365 (London Train) (London (Weymouth (Weymouth days) On 4 Train) Off4 Train) On4 Train) Off4 Weymouth* 58,295 25,359 2,000 19% 49% 42,910 118 1,392 - - 1,176 Upwey*** 6,336 3,176 900 9% 66% 2,182 6 87 16 15 64 Dorchester South 19,481 8,449 2,000 9% 76% 8,718 24 790 395 333 686 Moreton** 2,754 1,148 600 11% 80% 2,850 8 Not collected Wool 5,689 2,015 1,000 14% 70% 9,121 25 Not collected Wareham 5,654 2,557 200 19% 61% 22,469 62 563 141 156 434 Holton Heath N/A N/A N/A 5% 82% 181 0.5 Not collected Christchurch 49,480 21,475 950 Not provided 0.0 410 316 340 374

* Population and households for Weymouth & Portland less Upwey, Broadwey and Littlemoor 1 Data provided by Dorset Area Statistics on dorsetfoyou.com ** Population figures for Moreton and Crossways 2 Data included in current adopted local plans which are under review *** Population figures for Upwey, Broadwey and Littlemoor 3 Data provided by SWR 4 Data collected by DCC Aug 16

3.5 These proposals are for the duration of the franchise (7 years), although South Western Railways will have another opportunity to ‘tweak’ the timetable in this period.

Mike Harries Corporate Director for Environment and Economy December 2017

Page 159 This page is intentionally left blank South Western Railway Timetable Consultation Response Appendix 1

Top 12 Destinations per Dorset Station

Page 161 South Western Railway Timetable Consultation Response Appendix 1

Page 162 South Western Railway Timetable Consultation Response Appendix 1

Data provided by SWR Nov 2017

Page 163 Page 164 Agenda Item 14a Cabinet – 6 December 2017

Recommendations from the Regulatory Committee on 19 October 2017

Proposed Speed Limit Reduction C12, Charminster 16 A report was considered by the Committee on a proposed reduction to the speed limit - from 50mph to 40 mph - on the C12 between Lower Burton and Charminster. Following consultation on the proposal, an objection had been received and the Committee was now being asked whether the proposed change to the speed limit should be implemented, as advertised.

The officers’ presentation described what the proposal entailed and why it was necessary. The characteristics of the road were described and its relationship with the surrounding area. The steep decent over the southern section of the length, towards Lower Burton, was noted. The reduction in the speed limit was being proposed on road safety grounds and was designed to regulate or reduce the speed of traffic to be able to readily meet the conditions of the road in a managed way.

Given that the amount of traffic using this road had increased markedly over recent years due to the development at Charlton Down, that there were numerous accesses onto the C12 and that there had been many recorded injury collisions over that length, officers considered that reducing the limit as proposed would go a long way to minimising risk in the future.

Analysis of the speed survey data had indicated that a 40 mph limit would be reasonable and appropriate along that stretch of road. This proposal met the necessary speed limit policy criteria which the County Council had adopted

In response to the consultation exercise held, support had been received from the County Councillor for Three Valleys, West Dorset District Council, Charminster Parish Council and Dorset Police, with one objection to the proposal being received from Andrew Culley.

Public speaking then took place. Mr Culley considered that given that the mean vehicle speeds in the speed survey were below the limit being proposed; the new limit was unnecessary and could not be justified. He considered that there was no clear evidence to support what was being proposed and that Council resources could be put to better use. He said the Department for Transport (DFT) guidance was that speed limits should not be reduced where there was an engineering solution and a right turn lane would be the solution here. His view was that there was no basis for the reduction, which was contrary to DfT and the County Council’s policy and that the officer’s opinion on the benefit of this should not be supported.

Mark Simons, Chairman of Charminster Parish Council considered that the reduction would certainly benefit road safety given the use now being made of the road, its configuration and what limitations there were to visibility along the stretch, the number of accesses onto it and its accident record, there having been an accident in the last week. This would also enable traffic speeds to be more readily monitored. Concern had been expressed for some time at excessive speeds on this road and the reduction would allay much of that concern. The reduction in the limit was seen to be a key part of a package of measures supported by the Parish Council which was designed to manage traffic speeds.

Richard Coode considered the reduction to be necessary as a means of addressing excessive speed so that those manoeuvres which were necessary to

Page 165 Cabinet – 6 December 2017 take place on the road could be undertaken safely and without undue risk. He felt that the reduction proposed would largely achieve this.

Clarification was provided by officers, in response to members questions, of how the speed survey data had been analysed and how it had been used as a basis for what was being proposed. Confirmation of how the speed limit policy had been applied in these circumstances was also provided.

Members considered that to have access to the accident statistics and how the speed survey data had been applied would benefit their understanding of the what they were being asked to consider and put matters into perspective. Given this, they asked that, when considering speed limit proposals in the future, this information should be made accessible to them. Particularly useful to them would be the accident data from the previous 5 year period so that trend comparisons could be made.

In this instance however, members considered that from what had been explained to them, what they had seen in the report and what they had heard at the meeting, they were able to recommend to Cabinet that the speed limit along this length of the C12 should be reduced to 40 mph. In their opinion, there was enough evidence to suggest that what was being proposed was largely in line with what was being experienced on the ground and there would be benefits to be gained from reducing the speed limit, in terms of improved road safety and in minimising what risks could arise.

Prior to this vote being taken, the Senior Solicitor had advised those members whom had arrived after the start of consideration of this matter to determine for themselves if they felt that they had received sufficient information on which to base their decision. If they felt this was not the case, they should not participate in the voting process. Members accepted this advice.

Recommended That having considered the objection received, the proposed reduction of the speed limit from 50 mph to 40mph on the C12 between Charminster and Lower Burton be approved.

Reason for Recommendation The proposal would regulate or reduce the speed of vehicles to a level which drivers can readily meet the general hazards which may be expected on this road. This would also fulfil the County Council’s obligation to review speed limits in light of changes in DFT (Department for Transport) guidance “setting local speed limits”.

Page 166 Page 1 –Proposed 40mph Speed Limit C12

Agenda I tem:

Regulatory Committee

Date of Meeting 19 October 2017

Local Member Cllr Jill Haynes Member for Three Valleys Lead Officer Mike Potter, Collision Reduction Team Manager, Dorset Highways

Subject of Report Proposed Speed Limit Reduction C12 Charminster

Executive Summary Following the consultation for the proposed change to the speed limit on the C12 at Charminster from 50mph to 40 mph an objection was received. This report considers the objection and whether the proposed speed limit change should be implemented.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment:

Use of Evidence:

Site investigations, traffic and collision data, primary consultation and support of Local Members, Parish Council and the Police.

Budget:

The cost of making the Order is estimated at £8,900 inclusive of advertising charges.

Risk Assessment:

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as: Current Risk: LOW

Page 167 Page 2 –Proposed 40mph Speed Limit C12

Residual Risk: LOW

Other Implications None

Recommendation That having considered the objection received, Cabinet be recommended to approve the proposed new speed limit of 40mph for the C12.

Reason for The proposals will regulate or reduce the speed of vehicles to a Recommendation level which drivers can readily meet the general hazards which may be expected on this road. Also to fulfil our obligation to review speed limits in light of changes in DFT (Department for Transport) guidance “setting local speed limits”.

Appendices Appendix 1 – Location plan of the proposed speed reduction from 50mph to 40mph.

Background Papers The letters of response are available in the Members Room prior to the meeting.

Consultation responses from the District and Parish Councils, Dorset Police and the local County Councillors are held on file in the Environment and the Economy Directorate.

Report Originator and Name: Mike Potter Contact Collision Reduction Team Manager, Dorset Highways Tel: 01305 221767 Email: [email protected]

Page 168 Page 3 –Proposed 40mph Speed Limit C12

Page 169 Page 4 –Proposed 40mph Speed Limit C12

1 Background

1.1 The C12 between Lower Burton and Charminster currently has a speed limit of 50mph. There are multiple entrances and side roads accessing the stretch of road. In recent years the traffic has increased on this road due to the development at Charlton Down and there have been a number of injury collisions on this route.

1.2 When the proposals were advertised 16 letters of support and one objection were received.

2 Information

2.1 The existing speed limit for the stretch of road in question is 50mph. County Council officers propose that a 40mph speed limit should be applied to the stretch of road, as shown in drawing in Appendix 1. The length of the 40mph limit would be approximately 0.8 of a mile.

2.2 It is felt that the use, length and layout of this section of the C12 meets with Department for Transport guidance adopted by the County Council as Policy for a 40mph speed limit.

2.3 Speed survey data has been reviewed and the mean average and 85 th percentile speeds recorded were close to what would be considered reasonable for the speed limit to be reduced to 40mph limit as per DfT guidance which the County Council adopts as policy.

A speed survey was conducted between 21 July and 27 July 2017. Table 1 shows the recorded speeds for an average 24 hour period for each direction; the survey took place on the C12 between the junctions with Charlotte Close and Burn View. This site was selected as it is where traffic is most often free flowing.

Table 1 – Speed survey results for existing 50mph limit on the C12:

*Speed at which 85% of vehicles were travel at or below.

3 Law

3.1 Section 84 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allow the County Council to make an Order prohibiting the driving of motor vehicles on the road(s) at a speed exceeding that specified in the order.

4 Consultation

4.1 Under Dorset County Council’s procedure, primary consultation was carried out on the proposed scheme and support was received from the Local Member, West Dorset District Council, Charminster Parish Council and the Police. The proposal was then advertised and 16 letters in support and one objection were received.

Page 170 Page 5 –Proposed 40mph Speed Limit C12

5 Objection received

5.1 The main points of the one objection received are as follows – “Current mean vehicle speeds as demonstrated by a recent speed survey are below the new limit being proposed. As such it is clearly both unnecessary and misuse of DCC’s limited resources. The support expressed by the elected member and the Parish Council cannot, due to the lack of evidence available, be based on anything other than personal feelings and opinion, rather than evidenced facts. Those opinions are expressed by people who, whilst having the very best of intentions, have no practical experience of, or more importantly any formal qualification of any kind in Road Safety Matters. The reasons for their support can only therefore be based on personal views rather than evidence”.

5.2 The main points mentioned in the 16 letters of support were – “The proposal would improve safety where sightlines are poor and pedestrians crossing to the footpaths and enable the local speed watch team to monitor speeds. Significant increase in the traffic on this road and the current speed limit is too fast given the number of turnings off the road and the proximity of the well-used footway. Traffic speeding from Sherborne/Charlton Down causes problems”.

5.3 A 40mph limit on this section of the C12 is considered necessary and justifiable by officers as it meets with the criteria set out in DfT guidance which the County Council adopts as its speed limit policy.

5.4 The results of the traffic survey outlined earlier in the report show that the majority of drivers using this section of the C12 are traveling close to 40mph. A 40mph limit on this section of road would serve to reinforce the typical speeds to drivers currently choosing to travel notably faster than the norm.

5.5 DfT guidance states that changes to speed limits should be a last resort with speed management measures implemented as a primary measure. Speed management measures such as warning signs and markings have been exhausted on this section of the C12 and collisions have continued to occur at conflict points after their installation. This provides further justification for proposing to reduce the speed limit to 40mph.

6 Conclusion

6.1 The Department of Transport stated in their circular 01/2013 “Setting local speed limits, the following; “There is clear evidence of the effect of reducing traffic speeds on the reduction of collisions and casualties, as collision frequency is lower at lower speeds and where collisions do occur, there is a lower risk of fatal injury at lower speeds”.

6.2 Therefore, while we cannot say 100% that the road in question will be safer, it would be reasonable to suggest that there is the evidence to indicate that it will be if the speed limit were reduced to 40mph. Within the stretch of road in question there are farms and businesses which the County Council feel would benefit from a reduced speed limit.

6.3 Having considered the objection it is proposed that the Regulatory Committee recommend that Cabinet approve the proposal.

Andrew Martin Service Director Highways October 2017

Page 171 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 1

Access road to Wolfedale Golf Course

C12

Key:

Proposed 40 mph speed limit

Existing 50 mph speed limit Existing 30mph speed limit

Existing national speed limit (60 mph)

The Sun Inn

Page 173

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 14b Cabinet – 15 November 2017

Recommendations from the Regulatory Committee on 19 October 2017

Proposed Speed Limit Reduction A353 White Horse Hill, Osmington 17 Prior to consideration of this application, Councillor David Jones assumed Chairmanship of the meeting and thanked the Vice-Chairman for the part he had played in his absence.

The County Councillor for Linden Lea – Nick Ireland – withdraw from the Committee prior to consideration of this item as he considered that his strong support for the proposal constituted pre-determination. He moved to the public seating area on order to fulfil his role as the local member and, having addressed the Committee in that role, he left the meeting.

The Committee considered a report by the Service Director – Highways and Emergency Planning for a proposed change to the speed limit from 60mph to 40 mph on the A353 at White Horse Hill, Osmington. Whilst, originally, primary consultation had raised an objection from Weymouth and Portland Borough Council - on the basis that the proposals would not necessarily solve any road safety issues and that a footway would be more beneficial – the Committee, at its meeting on 6 April 2017, had agreed that the proposals should be advertised and consideration given to any responses received. Following this, an objection had been received and, therefore, the Committee were now being asked to consider whether the proposed speed limit change should be implemented, as advertised.

Officers confirmed that, as there had been no recorded collisions involving pedestrians, in the circumstances there was no justification for a footway as suggested by the Borough Council. In any event, the cost of providing this would be prohibitive given the budgetary constraints.

With reference to the provisions of the Update Sheet provided to members prior to the meeting, officers described the proposal, what it entailed and why it was necessary. Speed survey data had assessed that it would be reasonable and appropriate for the speed limit to be reduced to 40mph limit. This proposal met the necessary speed limit policy criteria which the County Council had adopted. The characteristics and topography of the road was described, there being a significant incline and decent in the road’s configuration, with bends throughout, which restricted visibility.

Within the length of road over which the reduction was proposed to be imposed were entrances to three farms and three businesses: a holiday park, a garage and a car sales operation. During the summer holiday season, two of the three farms operated successful and busy camp sites, increasing the traffic accessing these sites. The road was a county “A” road which carried significant amounts of traffic in an east/west direction, particularly during the summer season. Consequently, there had been a number of injury collisions on this route and it was considered that by significantly reducing the speed permitted would assist in reducing this and considerably benefit road safety.

Given that the amount of traffic using this road had increased markedly over recent years due to the attractions in the area, the numerous accesses onto the A352 and the number of recorded injury collisions over that length, a reduction in the speed limit was considered to be necessary on road safety grounds and was designed to regulate or reduce the speed of traffic to be able to readily meet the conditions of the road in a managed way and would go a long way to minimising risk in the future. Page 175 Cabinet – 15 November 2017

In response to the consultation exercise held, support had been received from the County Councillors for Linden Lea and Lodmoor, Osmington Parish Council and Dorset Police, with one objection to the proposal being received from Andrew Culley.

Public speaking then took place. On a point of procedure, Mr Culley was dissatisfied that he had not been notified directly of when this proposal would be considered by the Committee. The Chairman confirmed that this matter would be looked into, but confirmed that the dorsetforyou.gov.uk website provided this information. On the proposal, Mr Culley considered that the proposal was unnecessary and could not be justified given that analysis of the speed survey data appeared to show that the speed of traffic was already largely self-regulating. As before, he considered that there was no clear evidence to support what was being proposed. His view was that there was no basis for the reduction and that the officer’s opinion on the benefit of this should not be supported. Only if there was conclusive evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt, of the speed limit being necessary should it be approved.

The Senior Solicitor took the opportunity to clarify the basis on which decisions taken by quasi-judicial committees were made and that their decision should be taken on the balance of probability, considering the evidence and the policy.

Gillian Pearson supported the proposal to reduce speeds to a level which minimised risk to road users and met what Osmington Community Speed Watch felt was necessary. By doing this, traffic would be ready to enter Osmington from a westwards direction in a manageable way. Given that there were now considerably more pedestrians and cyclists using the route to access the amenities along the stretch, and the volume of traffic had itself increased, a reduction in traffic speeds was justified on road safety grounds.

Hilary Ballard considered that a reduction was necessary given the volume and speed of traffic and the use of the route by pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists. She felt that the bends on the road could obscure pedestrians from drivers. The number of accesses onto the road also justified what was being proposed. She too considered that the reduction along that length would better prepare drivers for entering the villages of Preston and Osmington to either side.

Ian Balaam, manager of the PGL site, felt that by reducing the speed limit to a more appropriate level would minimise the risk to his staff who regularly used the route to and from work. As many of his staff either walked or cycled to work, in his view there was no other practical means for them to get there other than to use the road. There was considerable danger to them having to do this, especially during the nightime period. He and his staff had experienced several dangerous situations over the years and he felt it was time this was addressed.

Justin Measures considered the reduction was needed on road safety grounds as advantage was regularly taken for sightseeing at that prominent vantage point and it was commonplace for motorists to do this without necessarily putting safety first. Manoeuvres were often made spontaneously and brought their own risk. Even the formal ‘pull in’ designed for this purpose brought its own hazards upon exit. Motorists travelling at a lower speed would serve to minimise any such risk. Given the amenities being accessed and those vulnerable road users accessing them, there was a need for traffic speeds to be addressed to improve road safety.

Page 176 Cabinet – 15 November 2017

The County Councillor for Linden Lea, Nick Ireland, fully supported the measures being proposed. He considered that the speed limit reduction was necessary given the limited visibility and what activities took place over that length, particularly from the camp sites, rural recreation by pedestrians and cyclists and by vehicles exiting the garage. Whilst he would have preferred to have seen engineering solutions as an answer, he recognised that the cost of these were prohibitive. Given that there was widespread local support for the reduction, including the Parish Council and the previous County Councillors serving the two divisions, he sought the Committee’s approval for the matter to be implemented as advertised. The support of Rachel Fraser for the proposals was reported in the Update Sheet and referred to by Councillor Ireland.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the receipt of a representation from the County Councillor for Lodmoor, Tony Ferrari, who fully supported the proposals given the activities which took place along that length of road and the traffic speeds which had been recorded there.

The Committee were then provided with the opportunity to ask questions of the officer’s presentation and officer’s provided clarification in respect of the points raised. The costs of the proposals, and why these differed from the costs of the C12 proposals considered earlier in the meeting, was explained - in that there was significantly more traffic management signage required for that proposal. Advertisement costs applied in both cases.

Clarification was once again provided by officers of how the speed survey data had been analysed and how it had been used as a basis for what was being proposed. Confirmation of how the County Council’s speed limit policy had been applied in these circumstances was also provided.

As previously, Members considered that to have access to the accident statistics and how the speed survey data had been applied – with access available to the accident data from the previous 5 year period so that trend comparisons could be made - would have benefited their understanding of what they were being asked to consider and put matters into perspective. Nevertheless, members were satisfied that the data available was still valid and relevant.

Particularly useful to them would have been accident data which could be directly attributable to excessive traffic speeds. On this occasion, whilst officers were unable to provide that direct correlation, the reduction as proposed was considered to significantly assist in reducing the risk of that being the case.

Similarly, members would have found it useful to have traffic flow data. However members considered that whatever past flows had been, it was reasonable to believe that traffic flows would have significantly increased over recent years. A number of members spoke in support of the proposal. They considered that, whilst noting the data was out of date, traffic volumes had only increased in the meantime; the road affected was only a 0.7 mile stretch between existing 30 mph limits; the road alignment affected visibility; and there were no footways.

The Chairman was of the view that the evidence presented did not convince him that a speed restriction was appropriate. He did not consider that the traffic flow data showed excessive speeds or that the accidents were caused by excessive speed. In his view, where motorists could not necessarily see the reasoning for a certain limit, this could well lead to unsafe driving practices, bringing risk with this. For that reason he felt he was unable to support what was being proposed as he was unconvinced this would satisfactorily address the issues at hand. He favoured Page 177 Cabinet – 15 November 2017 stricter enforcement and more stringent penalties as a deterrent to inappropriate driving practices.

Whilst his view was recognised, other members did not share that view. Members were supportive of what was being proposed on the grounds that forward visibility was limited throughout the stretch, given its topography; that there was no accessible pedestrian footway; that the road was well used by other vulnerable road users (horse riders and cyclists); that access was needed to numerous amenities over the length; and that there was a high chance of encounters with slow moving traffic i.e agricultural or caravans. For those reasons, the majority of the Committee considered the proposals should be supported.

Having heard from a number of members who supported the proposal, the Chairman provided the opportunity to hear an alternative point of view. Other than his own, no alternative view was put forward.

The Committee noted that the use of speed management measures, such as warning signs and markings, had been exhausted without the desired outcome. Given that there was a need to minimise the risk for the vulnerable road users using the road and for those accessing the amenities along its length, the Committee considered that by reducing the limit to a manageable speed was the most appropriate means of meeting that obligation. In their opinion there was enough evidence to suggest that what was being proposed was largely in line with what was being experienced on the ground and there would be benefits to be gained from reducing the speed limit, in terms of improved road safety and in minimising what risks could arise.

Subsequently, given the Committee’s understanding of the issues at hand, the activity taking place on a busy “A” road, the number of traffic incidents recorded, and how this was seen to be the most suitable means of improving road safety, members considered that from what had been explained to them, what they had seen in the report and what they had heard at the meeting, they were able to recommend to Cabinet that the speed limit along this length of the A353 should be reduced to 40 mph. A 40mph limit on that section of road would serve to both reinforce the typical speeds being experienced and reduce those speeds which were far in excess of that.

On being put to the vote, the Committee recommended that the Cabinet should be asked to support the proposals, as advertised.

Recommended That having considered the objection received, the proposed reduction of the speed limit from 60 mph to 40mph on the A353 at White Horse Hill, Osmington be approved.

Reason for Recommendation The proposal would regulate or reduce the speed of vehicles to a level which drivers can readily meet the general hazards which may be expected on this road. This would also fulfil the County Council’s obligation to review speed limits in light of changes in DFT (Department for Transport) guidance “setting local speed limits”.

Page 178 Page 1 –Proposed 40mph Speed Limit A353

Agenda I tem:

Regulatory Committee

Date of Meeting 19 October 2017

Local Members: Cllr Tony Ferrari Member for Lodmoor Cllr Nick Ireland Member for Linden Lea Lead Officer Mike Potter, Collision Reduction Team Manager, Dorset Highways

Subject of Report Proposed Speed Limit Reduction A353 White Horse Hill

Executive Summary Following the consultation for the proposed change to the speed limit on the A353 at White Horse Hill from 60mph to 40 mph an objection was received. This report considers the objection and whether the proposed speed limit change should be implemented.

Impact Assessment: Equalities Impact Assessment:

Use of Evidence:

Site investigations, traffic and collision data, primary consultation and support of Local Members, Parish Council and the Police.

Budget:

The cost of making the Order is estimated at £2,750 inclusive of advertising charges.

Risk Assessment:

Having considered the risks associated with this decision using the County Council’s approved risk management methodology, the level of risk has been identified as:

Page 179 Page 2 –Proposed 40mph Speed Limit A353

Current Risk: LOW Residual Risk: LOW

Other Implications None

Recommendation That having considered the objection received, Cabinet be recommended to approve the proposed new speed limit of 40mph for the A352.

Reason for The proposals will regulate or reduce the speed of vehicles to a Recommendation level which drivers can readily meet the general dangers which may be expected on this road. Also, to fulfil our obligation to review speed limits in light of changes in DFT (Department for Transport) guidance “Setting local speed limits”.

Appendices Appendix 1 – Location plan of the proposed speed reduction from 60mph to 40mph.

Background Papers The letters of response are available in the Members Room prior to the meeting.

Consultation responses from the District and Parish Councils, Dorset Police and the local County Councillors are held on file in the Environment and the Economy Directorate.

Report Originator and Name: Mike Potter Contact Collision Reduction Team Manager, Dorset Highways Tel: 01305 221767 Email: [email protected]

Page 180 Page 3 –Proposed 40mph Speed Limit A353

1 Background

1.1 The stretch of road at White Horse Hill currently has a speed limit of 60mph between the 30mph speed limits in Preston and Osmington. The section of road has entrances to three farms (Northdown, White Horse and Eweleaze) and three businesses (White Horse Holiday Park, Top Gear Garage and the adjacent car sales operation). In the summer holiday season both Eweleaze and White Horse farms operate successful and very busy camp sites and during this period there is an increase in the traffic accessing these sites. There have been a number of injury collisions on this route where excessive speed has been the contributory factor.

1.2 Proposals were advertised and an objection was received.

2 Information

2.1 The existing speed limit for the stretch of road in question is 60mph. County Council officers propose that a 40mph speed limit should be applied to the stretch of road, as shown in drawing in Appendix 1. The length of the 40mph limit would be approximately 0.7 of a mile.

2.2 It is felt that the use, length and layout of this section of the A353 meets with Department for Transport guidance adopted by the County Council as Policy for a 40mph speed limit.

2.3 Speed survey data has been reviewed and the mean average and 85 th %ile speeds recorded were close to what would be considered reasonable for the speed limit to be reduced to 40mph limit as per DfT guidance which the County Council adopts as policy.

A speed survey was conducted between 17 October and 29 October 2014. The results of this survey are felt to still be representative of current traffic speeds. Table 1 shows the recorded speeds for an average 24 hour period for each direction; the survey took place on the A353 at the access points for a car service/sales business and holiday park.

Table 1 – Speed survey results for existing national (60mph) speed limit on the A353, Osmington Hill:

*Speed at which 85% of vehicles were travel at or below.

3 Law

3.1 Section 84 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 allow the County Council to make an Order prohibiting the driving of motor vehicles on the road(s) at a speed exceeding that specified in the order.

Page 181 Page 4 –Proposed 40mph Speed Limit A353

4 Consultation

4.1 Under Dorset County Council’s procedure, primary consultation was carried out on the proposed scheme and support was received from the Local Members, Osmington Parish Council and the Police. An objection was received from the District Council stating there seemed no logic to the proposal and the money would be better used to produce a footpath away from the traffic. As an objection from a primary consultee was received a report was taken to Regulatory Committee held on 6 April 2017 and a decision to proceed to public advert stage was approved. After the proposals were advertised one objection was received from a member of the public.

5 Objection received

5.1 The main points of the one objection received are as follows – “It is totally unwarranted and unnecessary as the current mean average speed of traffic is at 39.5mph & 41.1mph so traffic is already self-regulating to very close to the proposed 40mph. DCC have been unable to produce any evidence to support the need to lower the current limit to 40mph, or to show what quantifiable benefits other than pleasing the local members and Parish Council. The support expressed by the elected member and the Parish Council cannot, due to the total lack of evidence available, be based on anything other than their own personal feelings and opinion rather than evidenced facts”.

5.2 A 40mph limit on this section of the A353 is considered necessary by officers as it meets with the criteria set out in DfT guidance which the County Council adopts as its speed limit policy.

5.3 The results of the traffic survey outlined earlier in the report show that the majority of drivers using this section of the A353 are traveling close to 40mph. A 40mph limit on this section of road would serve to reinforce the typical speeds to drivers currently choosing to travel notably faster than the norm.

5.4 The collision history on this section of the A353 is further evidence for justifying a 40mph limit. DfT guidance states that changes to speed limits should be a last resort with speed management measures implemented as a primary measure. Speed management measures such as warning signs and markings have been exhausted on this section of the A353 and collisions have continued to occur at conflict points after their installation. This provides further justification for proposing to reduce the speed limit to 40mph.

6 Conclusion

6.1 The Department of Transport stated in their circular 01/2013 “Setting local speed limits” the following; “There is clear evidence of the effect of reducing traffic speeds on the reduction of collisions and casualties, as collision frequency is lower at lower speeds and where collisions do occur, there is a lower risk of fatal injury at lower speeds”.

6.2 Therefore, while we cannot say 100% that the road in question will be safer, it would be reasonable to suggest that there is the evidence to indicate that it will be. Within the stretch of road in question there are farms and businesses which the County Council feel would benefit from a reduced speed limit.

6.3 Having considered the objection it is proposed that the Regulatory Committee recommend that Cabinet approve the proposal.

Page 182 Page 5 –Proposed 40mph Speed Limit A353

Andrew Martin Service Director Highways October 2017

Page 183 Page 6 –Proposed 40mph Speed Limit A353

Page 184 Appendix 1

Sutton Road

A353 Page 185 Page

Plough Cottages

Key: Proposed 40 mph Speed limit

Existing national speed limit (60 mph)

Existing 30 mph speed limit

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 17 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 187 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 18 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3, 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 195 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3, 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 205 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3, 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 215 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 19 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 247 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 20 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 253 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 257 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 263 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 21 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 291 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 295 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 303 This page is intentionally left blank