A585 Windy Harbour to Skippool Improvement Scheme

The list below includes a record of advice we have provided for this project. For a list of all advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate, including non-project related advice, please go to the Register of advice page.

There is a statutory duty, under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008, to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application, including the name of the person who requested the advice, and to make this publicly available.

Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
My wife and I live at {Redacted} We are concerned that the proposed plans to replace the old roundabout with the new signalled junction will bring traffic closer to our house leading to increased noise and devalue our property. In particular the proposed new "slipway" from Skippool Road onto the Amounderness way-will it be constructed nearer to us? Will the house Throstles Nest be demolished to use its land? Would you let me have detailed plans of the proposed new junction-the plans I can see online are not detailed enough.
Dear Mr and Mrs Evans, Thank you for your email in relation to the above project. All application plans submitted by Highways England, the Applicant, have been published on the project’s page, please see the link: [attachment 1];stage=app&filter1=Plans If you require further information on the proposed development we would suggest that you approach the Applicant who is copied in this email.

02 May 2019
Graham and Heather Evans
Enquiry received via email
Mock up land plans
Susannah has passed your email to me for response, I will be the Case Manager for this project and my contact details are below. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding, our initial response to the Land Plans issue is below.

Firstly, in reviewing the plans electronically, the potential ‘cluttered’ appearance is perhaps less that it appears on the hard copy plans.

Secondly, whilst we understand why you have sought to present the Land Plans and Book of Reference in the proposed form we do have some significant reservations about the approach and would like to check some of the following points:

• Are you satisfied that the approach complies with the requirement in the APFP regulations - 5(2)(i)?

• Are you satisfied that the approach complies with the MHCLG guidance? In particular Annex C of the ‘Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land’ provides the following useful tips for dealing with this not uncommon issue, namely:

? In general, the map scale should not be smaller than 1/1250, and for land in a densely populated urban area, the scale should be at least 1/500 and preferably larger. Where the order involves the acquisition of a considerable number of small plots, the use of insets on a larger scale is often helpful.
? It is also important that the plan should show such details as are necessary to relate it to the description of each parcel of land (including land affected by temporary occupation) described in the book of reference. This may involve marking on the map the names of roads and places or local landmarks not otherwise shown.
? The boundaries between plots should be clearly delineated and each plot separately numbered to correspond with the book of reference.
? There should be no discrepancy between the description of the land in the book of reference and the plan, and no room for doubt on anyone’s part as to the precise areas of land which are to be compulsorily acquired. Where uncertainty over the true extent of the land to be acquired causes or may cause difficulties, the Secretary of State may refuse to make the order until this is made clear.
? The descriptions of each plot of land included in parts 1-5 of the book of reference where it is intended that all or part of the proposed development and works shall be carried out, should include the area in square metres of each plot.

We do note that other Highways England project teams have submitted Land Plans which also had a large number of small plots and used scale and insets effectively (A30 Temple to Higher Carblake):https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR010014/TR010014-000126-2.02%20Land%20Plans.pdf

Finally, have you considered:

• how an Examining Authority would determine which bit of the plot was owned by each person, or the relative size of the sub-plot;
• how owners of the different plots could identify which bits they owned; and
• how compensation claims might be considered without clarity about the individual plots.

In light of the above queries/questions/reservations, this could call in to question the satisfactory nature of the plans if they were to be submitted in the proposed form.

I hope the above is helpful, please let me know if you have any further queries.

27 September 2018
Highways England - David Hopkin
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting with Highways England
Please see attached meeting note

20 August 2018
Highways England - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project meeting with Highways England
See attached meeting note

08 January 2018
Highways England - anon.