Notes for the Guidance of Inspectors Holding Inquiries into orders and Special Road Schemes.

6. The Scope of the Inquiry (continued)

Compulsory Purchase Orders for Roads Schemes

6.22 Particular care is required in setting the limits for evidence at inquiries into Compulsory Purchase Orders as follows:

Line Order Made

6.23 If a line order has already been made and a statutory objector to a consequent CPO wishes to raise or repeat an objection to the line fixed for the road, the Secretary of State / NAW, in accordance with Section 258 and Schedule 20 of the Highways Act 1980, has the power to disregard that objection. This power is not specifically extended by the Act to the Inspector holding the CPO Inquiry, but this does not mean that the Inspector should therefore listen to arguments and evidence which strictly relate to the order already made. The Inspector should instead ensure that what he or she hears is strictly relevant to the order before him or her, and that the scope of the inquiry is not widened to become a re-hearing of the cases of the earlier line order inquiry. If anyone is determined to make submissions or present such evidence, he or she should be invited to do so in the form of a written submission, which the Inspector can attach to the report. If exceptionally the Inspector decides to exercise discretion and hear the evidence, he or she should explain the reasons so that no one is under any misunderstanding as to where the Inspector stands on the matter.

Planning Permission Granted

6.24 If a local authority has already granted planning permission for the construction of a road, the authority might argue that the need for the road is not at issue and should not be debated at the CPO inquiry. Such an argument cannot be entertained however, because Sections 239 and 240 of the Highways Act 1980 merely give to highway authorities the power to acquire compulsorily land which is required for the relevant purposes. The granting of planning permission for such construction means no more than that the local planning authority regards the road as an acceptable use of the land. The local planning authority may not have considered the need for the road, or indeed the merits of alternative routes however, even if they have been, this would not rule out objection on these grounds. Where the proposed road has been included in a Local Plan or Unitary Development Plan and has been the subject of a planning inquiry, the situation is different and is explained below.

Planning Permission Granted after Local Plan Approval

6.25 Different considerations might apply to a local authority proposal for which planning permission had been granted after the precise route of the proposed road had been included in an adopted Local Plan or Unitary Development Plan and the plan had not been successfully challenged in the Courts. Guidance on roads in the development plan context in England is in DoE Planning Policy Guidance 12, December 1999 Edition, Chapter 5, and in Wales in Unitary Development Plans Wales (2001). The aim is to ensure that local road proposals are scrutinised and integrated with the land use planning system through development plan procedures. These provide the means to examine the need for the road and if appropriate to settle its detailed alignment. An Inspector holding an inquiry into a CPO for a local authority highway proposal may therefore wish to consider whether:

1. The precise route of the road has been included in an adopted Local Plan or Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposal received wide publicity during the consultation period of the plan and the deposit stage when objections to the plan could have been made.
3. Any objections to the proposal were considered at inquiry into the plan and the precise route adopted only after full consideration of the Inspector's report.
4. Planning permission for the road precisely on the line in the plan was granted after the adoption of the plan.

6.26 If all of these stages have been undertaken and completed, the requirements of natural justice regarding a hearing of the issues concerning the need for, and route of, the road should have been satisfied and the issues should not be reopened at the inquiry into the CPO (or SRO). On the other hand, if the above stages have been completed but instead of a precise route the plan defines only the land to be safeguarded for the road, there would be scope for objections to the line and scope for the promotion of alternatives, but the need for the road should not be an issue.

Objections on Grounds of Hardship

6.27 If anyone wishes to object to a CPO on the grounds of hardship and/or inadequate compensation (as distinct from land use), it should be remembered that whilst hardship which cannot be met by compensation is always a relevant consideration, the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (Schedule 1 Paragraph 4(5)) provides that the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales may disregard objections which relate to matters which can be dealt with by the tribunal (the Lands Tribunal) by whom the compensation is assessed. Since the assessment of compensation is not a matter for the Secretary of State / NAW, the Inspector should neither hear evidence about the calculation of compensation nor seek the disclosure of expected levels of compensation. Authorities are nevertheless normally expected to be able to give the estimated costs of a scheme as a whole.

Accommodation Works

6.28 Anyone affected may put to the Inspector the nature and extent of the accommodation works which the affected person would expect to be carried out if a road proposal were to be implemented. He or she should be allowed to do so because what is said could have a bearing on whether what is proposed should proceed, with or without modification. However, the extent of the accommodation works is one of the factors taken into account in the calculation of the compensation payable when a proposal is approved, but the precise details of the accommodation works are matters for the Highways Agency and the landowner concerned and should not therefore be included in the Inspector's conclusions or recommendations. The Inspector should take care to avoid conclusions and recommendations in his or her report which would appear to usurp the functions of the Lands Tribunal.

---

Accessibility | Contact Us | Privacy Statement | Site Feedback | Site Map | Planning Portal | Directgov | Gov news | Crown Copyright © 2004

---