Skip to main content
Find a National Infrastructure Project

Beta This is a beta service - your feedback will help us to improve it

Advice to Chris Girdham

Back to list

Enquiry

From
Chris Girdham
Date advice given
27 June 2014
Enquiry type
Email

Request for information in relation to the Book of Reference and s59 notice.

Advice given

Book of Reference:

In your submitted Book of Reference, you have included within it a non-prescribed schedule of Statutory Undertakers ? akin to that submitted under TWA applications. Annex D to the DCLG Guidance on Compulsory Acquisition states:

?Applicants should not add any further (non-prescribed) parts to a book of reference, for example schedules of statutory undertakers or other like bodies having or possibly having a right to keep equipment on, in or over the land within the order limits.?

Not attempting to fetter the discretion of the Examining Authority at a later date; I would advise preparing a justification as to the purpose of this schedule and the reasons why it has been included within the Book of Reference, should the issue be raised. This is in the absence of any justification being provided for in the Statement of Reasons ? section 8 ? ?Statutory Undertakers Land?.

Furthermore, there are instances where statutory undertakers ? which appear in the said non-prescribed schedule ? do not appear in either Parts 1 or 3 of the Book of Reference. Could this also be explained please.

Section 59 Notice:

The purpose of a section 59 Notice is to act as a vehicle to inform the Planning Inspectorate of the names, address for service and contact details of the affected persons as described in Part 1 of the Book of Reference.

We note that there is references to Parts 2 and 3 of the Book of Reference within the s59 Notice. Could you please confirm these amendments, separately, in writing, to the Planning Inspectorate by further correspondence. Please can you also explain the nature of any such amendments ie. is it exactly the same person (including firm or company) which has simply itself changed its own name, or is it actually a different person (including firm or company)?