Better information for your journey
The National Traffic Control Centre collects real-time information on road conditions.
The Project Control Framework
On 1st April 2008 we launched the Project Control Framework. The Framework sets out how we, together with the Department for Transport, manage and deliver major improvement projects.
Traffic news on your desktop
Helpful ways to access the latest traffic information when you need it.
A500 City Road & Stoke Junction Improvement
4. PROCEDURAL SUBMISSION - APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT
Mr Hopkins Shirley
4.1. On the second day of the inquiry, after reading his proof and before his cross-examination Mr Hopkins Shirley applied for an adjournment of several weeks. His concern was that, drawing on his Australian experience in the construction of road tankers, he believed the proposed scheme had design shortcomings with regard to its ability to facilitate rapid ingress of emergency vehicles, and in order to progress his objection to the Orders he wished to consult technical experts in his own country who were not currently available to him because of distance.
4.2. Furthermore, Mr Hopkins Shirley, in his capacity as a claimant to thrones in Scotland, and Poland, to several English titles, and to lands in America, Australia, Samoa and other territories, expressed interest in some of the land described in the Schedule to the Compulsory Purchase Order, but was not equipped with his proof of title. He also wished to challenge the land and compensation costs given in the Highways Agency's statement of case, and on these matters he also needed to take expert advice.
Mr Goatley
4.3. For the Highways Agency, Mr Goatley urged resistance to the application because the Agency's process and procedures regarding the bringing of the proposed scheme to a public inquiry had all complied with the 1994 Highways Procedure Rules (S.I. 1994 No. 3263 The Highways (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1994.); this included compliance with regularity and with timescales. There was no indication that Mr Hopkins Shirley had been prejudiced in any way by the operation of these rules, and there was no evidence of any attempt, within the time available to him, to instruct such experts to attend as he believed he needed.
4.4. The material dates were:
4.4.1. 29 April 2002. Mr Hopkins Shirley objected to the proposals. His objection was acknowledged by the Highways Agency on 3 May 2002, and further correspondence seeking clarification of the nature of his objection was sent to him on 21 May 2002.
4.4.2. 6 June 2002. Mr Hopkins Shirley stated that he had noted the inquiry was to be held in November, and that he would be attending with his representative.
4.4.3. 13 June 2002. Mr Hopkins Shirley was informed by the Highways Agency that neither land ownership nor compensation were matters for consideration at the inquiry.
4.4.4. 16 July 2002. Highways Agency Statement of case sent to Mr Hopkins Shirley.
4.4.5. 5 September 2002. Mr Hopkins Shirley advised that the inquiry was likely to start in the week commencing 4 November 2002.
4.5. Mr Goatley submitted that Mr Hopkins Shirley had been aware of the inquiry start date since June which meant he had had sufficient opportunity to get all necessary help. There had been no satisfactory explanation as to why he had not taken this opportunity. The scheme was of significant public importance and it was undesirable to hold it up any longer.
Inspector's ruling
4.6. I had no reason for considering Mr Hopkins Shirley to have been prejudiced. All statutory procedures had been complied with, and the parties to the inquiry had exchanged statements of case by 8 August 2002. Mr Hopkins Shirley had been fully informed of inquiry dates throughout the five months leading to its start, and I noted from his letter, forwarded by his sister on 8 August 2002 to the Highways Agency, that he was then planning to attend the inquiry with an adviser.
4.7. The essence of his objections were that there would be inadequate emergency access, and inadequate arrangements for oil and spilt fuel run off on the one hand, and that more land than was necessary was to be compulsorily purchased on the other. I did not perceive any prejudice against his ability to advance these valid objections, and there had been nothing to prevent his experts, had he have consulted them in the months available to him, from submitting their supporting evidence in writing. There was no justification for adjourning the inquiry to allow more time to prepare invalid objections concerning land ownership and compensation.
4.8. I dismissed the application for adjournment.
