Advice to Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP
Back to listEnquiry
- From
- Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP
- Date advice given
- 18 October 2011
- Enquiry type
I am writing with a query in relation to the need for a separate ?rights plan? or whether this information can be included on the works plan.
As you know, under Regulation 5(2)(k) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009, there is a requirement, where applicable, for ?a plan? identifying (amongst other things) any new or altered means of access and the stopping up of streets or roads. At our meeting on 19 September, you and your colleagues kindly reviewed our works plan drawings. As you may recollect, our works plan drawings contain the information relevant to our scheme required under Regulation 5(2)(k), namely the means of access and limit of streets to be temporarily stopped up (see the ?key to symbols? on the top right of each works plan drawing).
I further note that: Article 11(3) of the Model Provisions refers to the letters and numbers showing roads to be temporarily stopped up being on ?the works plan?: and page 4 of the recently revised Advice Note 6 states that ?duplication and superfluous content should be avoided?. I am not sure what point there is in showing the means of access and limit of streets being temporarily stopped up on an independent set of drawings when these are shown sensibly and in the context of the works on the works plan drawings.
Accordingly, I propose leaving the works plan drawings as drafted, showing the information required by regulation 5(2)(k), without producing a separate set of drawings to fulfil this requirement. Is the IPC satisfied with this approach or should a separate plan be produced?
Advice given
Regulation 5(2)(j) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (APFP) prescribes the information which should be provided on a works plan namely, in relation to existing features- (i) the proposed location or (for a linear scheme) the proposed route and alignment of the development and works;and (ii) the limits within which the development and works may be carried out and any limits of deviation provided for in the draft order;'.
We agree that the Model Provisions anticipate that the works plan may be used to show roads which are to be stopped up temporarily. However, the Model Provisions are a starting point and not determinative of the procedural requirements under the Act and APFP. Regulation 5(2)(k) of the APFP requires an application to be accompanied by 'where applicable, a plan identifying any new or altered means of access, stopping up of streets or roads or any diversions, extinguishments or creation of rights of way or public rights of navigation.' This indicates that a separate plan is required to comply with Regulation 5 (2) (k) even though the information (in this case) may already have been included on the works plan. The Regulation 5(2)(k) plan could be described as a "rights plan" (this is not a defined term in the APFP and there is no procedural requirement as to its content) or the information could be included on another plan which is separate to the works plan. The plan should nonetheless be clearly identified as a plan submitted in compliance with Regulation 5 (2) (k).
For purposes of clarification when cross referencing plans with supporting documentation a consistent approach is necessary and any divergences from model provisions for example, should be explained. It may be necessary to update draft documents accordingly.