If you are unable to find the information you require in this FAQ list, or in this list's archive, then please contact us to pose a new question.
Please can you confirm if site length, width and depth are mandatory or optional in the following situations:-
Reference a small rejected notice problem regarding the interpretation of updating of works which I would like to pose to the working group;
Is it permitted for the works status to go from 9 (in progress) to 7 (abandoned). My Exor computer says no. However a few of my stats are saying yes !!! I have to say, that I can understand their reasoning. EG Transco sets up a notice for emergency works, they then send an in progress (9) when they arrive on site. However, they subsequently find that there is no leak or no work required and they abandon the works (7).
What's the 'official line on this ? Currently I'm rejecting a small, but steady, stream of notices for this change in works status.
I have a Utility which has overrun its completion date and I have notified them of this. A notice extension has now been received. Does the charging period run for just the days that there was no notice or does it cover the period up to completion and Works clear?
What are the new data capture codes to cover:-
Notice Type = Section 74
Works Status = In Progress
Works Status = Works Clear
Can you clarify whether Statutory Undertakers have to supply a return Ftp path for Section 74. If not, is it envisaged that this will become mandatory?
Can they be charged for faxing defects, comments, etc in the way they were when the original ETON notices where not sent electronically?
The flow diagrams in the code of practice suggest that the reinstatement should be registered before the works clear/closed, which may be the case for larger jobs, but in practice the priority on smaller jobs may be to send the Works Clear/Closed to stop the charges and register the reinstatement within 7 days when the information is returned from site.
Can you confirm that this is correct, the registration of the reinstatement can be sent after Works Clear/Closed and will the HA systems accept this?
Could you also clarify the Notice Type, Works Status and Site details etc that should be sent if the Works Clear/Closed, Section 70(3) and Registration of Reinstatement are combined.
The Site Status Code 9 presumably is used following a remedial reinstatement, and Site Status Code 10 would be used after a reinstatement was made safe and further work is required, and following the final remedial work the Site Status Code would become 9.
Appendix E of the Co-ordination Code of Practice does state that the code is optional, but a Highway Authority is looking to reject notices where no code has been populated .
Is the Steet_Special_Desig_Code on a Notice Optional or Mandatory?
Appendix E Street Works Data Validation (E3.6.9) details the steet_Special_Desig_Code attribute as Optional. However the validation rules for this attribute say 'The DETR Data Capture Code here it applies to the activity on this site. To be left blank for Section 58 and Section 85 notices'.
The DETR capture codes for Special Designation Type (page 17) lists 15 permissible values, one of these is 4 - 'NOT IN A DESIGNATION'. This implies that where no other special designation code is applicable code 4 would be. The DETR capture codes also state that the code should be used that 'applies to the activity on this site' . QED the field is in fact Mandatory because of the existence of code 4.
When the Utilities sends a reinstatement notice (code 0) after the Section 74 Notice (code 11) and work status closed (code 6) should the work status be left as closed (code 6) or changed to permanent reinstatement complete (code 4). ?
There appears to be a contradiction regarding sites on a Works Clear notice.
In section E3.6.7 the statement is made 'Where a Section 74 notice of Works
Clear or Works Closed is given and that notice is not intended to also include either a Section 70 (3) notice or a registration of reinstatement, then that works batch must NOT include any sites'. Under Section B2 Flowcharts however, in the Major Projects chart the Works Clear Notice box entitled Section 74 Notice states 'site details – create one record for each completed site with site_extant_date se(n)t to the date works reinstated, site status code of interim or permanent reinstatement. Site length, depth and width to be left blank.
Can you tell me if I should be including sites or not?
Following the issuing of a notice of Permanent Reinstatement Proposed the work can't be carried out when noticed therefore the works are abandoned, the notice will be reissued at a later date when the works are to be carried out.
What is the correct Site Status when sending the notice of Abandoned Works in this situation, or is it necessary to send site detail?
Quite some time ago I created an organisation code in conjunction with Pete Rogers (before his days with EXOR) to cater for the Nottingham Tram which is now under construction. However this has never been included in the definitive DETR codes and having recently updated these had to manually add the relevant codes again.
I am not sure what the current procedure is given that aspects of the sheet originally included in an ETON newsletter are now slightly out of date and did not include transport Authorities anyway. Can we get this additional organisation set up? Only Nottingham City are affected by it directly although Nottinghamshire have of highway sections and therefore some associated affects.
The codes I have used to date are as follows (and would clearly prefer these to be retained if possible):3061, 4, Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit, N1
(This has been derived to avoid conflict with other codes on the basis that 3061 is next sequentially after our own code, 4 is for Transport Authorities, N1 is unique since all others are alpha in an alphanumeric field)
I wonder if you could clarify an issue for me.
I wrote to all utilities giving them one month's notice of my intention to instigate section 74 on 1st April 2001. I also requested that they advise me of their FTP addresses for return path. Whilst many utilities have complied with my request, to date, some have still not provided the relevant information and have written suggesting their preferred option is to e mail or fax challenges, defects etc.
Could you clarify the position on this and if I can insist on an FTP address?
Works Start Time is now mandatory for Emergency, Special Urgent and Urgent works, which require noticing within 2 hours of work starting. Remedial Dangerous works also require noticing within two hours of work starting, yet the Works Start Time is not mandatory for this Works Type. Is the correct?
It is our understanding that if undertaker A wishes to be notified of undertaker B's works, undertaker B would send undertaker A a copy of their Area Of Interest (AOI) file. We understand that the local authority is not involved in this and that it is not incumbent upon local authorities to put such data onto their NSG. Is this the case or can such data be put onto the NSG by local authorities? If data can be added by local authorities is this for information only? If local authorities have the data, is it mandatory for them to issue it via the NSG?
We currently have a problem since one HA has put some undertakers operational district numbers into their NSG (as type 21 street records) for certain streets. We are not sure whether we should be processing this information or not. Is a type 21 record the correct way of sending this detail to us? Should we be acting upon this - for example, should we be sending copy notices to other named undertakers? We are a little confused, as we are named as one of the undertakers for certain streets but we have not yet declared an interest in those streets.
If we wish to notify anyone of out interest in a street, should we inform the local authority or all other undertakers - or both?
If we have sent notification of an interest in a street and at a later date we no longer have a strategic interest in that location, how do we delete or deregister our Area of Interest?
What do you do with manual notification of multiple sites? Are we required to submit works for every site (a separate sheet for each site). Are we required to submit all details for each site - could we allocate a group number where there is common information?
What notification would be required if a problem has occurred whilst working under a 3 day (Daily Whereabouts) notice and a local agreement has been reached between ourselves and the Highways Authority to extend the period? (This would be where a broken duct/sewer is uncovered during our excavations and our work is delayed due to a third party)
Can you please confirm which example is correct and compliant with the CoP as the third paragraph on Page 125 seems to imply that both are compliant.
:Return Path Testing - Opening Notice Do not Process
:Return Path Testing - Do not Process - Contact Tim Goddard
This question relates to DW, Emergency and Urgent works where we have sent an opening notice. In the event of works not taking place at all, and a notice to abandon these works not being sent until after the prescribed period has expired, can a daily charge for over run of works be imposed until the date the abandoned works notice is sent?
In the event of a works over running, does charging commence from the next working day following the end of the prescribed period or from end of the additional working day available to send the works clear or closed notice?
1. In the first couple of weeks of implementing the latest Section 74 changes, we have experienced a number of cases where we have made genuine input errors. This has resulted in us sending the wrong information in notices to the HA. For example, we have registered an interim reinstatement as a permanent one or vice versa. What is the recommended route under the code of practice to rectify this situation with the HA?
2. Other examples of incorrect information being sent to the HA include where the details from the works are entered using the information supplied to us from the workmen on site, only to find that this information was incorrect (e.g. one of the dimensions is wrong or one site was omitted from the list of sites and the works are now closed or cleared). If we have transmitted the notice before the problem has been discovered, is there any mechanism by which we can send a correction notice to the HA?
3. In the examples quoted above, we are currently phoning our contact at the relevant HA to explain the situation. The solution that we then employ to rectify the situation depends on what is decided between ourselves and the HA – which can vary depending on the circumstances. For example, we may send a faxed amendment notice; might abandon the works and recreate a new works to send the correct details; or might agree with the HA that they change the data for us. Thus, we do not always address the issue in the same way – and are not even sure if some of the options taken break the code of practice. Can you advise on one standard recommended solution here?
4. We are concerned that it is unrealistic to assume that we will always key everything in correctly first time and would welcome the ability to send an amended (i.e. corrective) notice. Is there any way that the code of practice allows this – either now or possibly in the future?
5. We have been considering ways that we could use to address the correcting notice issue – could we use a comments notice to amend previously transmitted information on notices?
6. As a second thought, could we use the version number (Works_Version_Num) to indicate an amended notice is being sent? We do not currently use this field – are there any restrictions on how we apply versioning? Would the HA know what we are attempting to achieve?
Our main concern is that the absence of the facility to amend notices transmitted with incorrect information on results in us having to take up the time of HA's staff in explaining each problem to them as they occur. This involves at least one phone call each time it happens and is time consuming in administration on both sides. It appears that we are losing the advantage gained by being able to communicate electronically.
We have had to change ETON software supplier following withdrawal of Blick. Consequently there are a number of version 1 ETON opening notices, sent before 01 April 2001, which require / will require closing using old Blick version 1 system. One highway authority is refusing to accept any version 1 notice closures as their revised ETON version 2 system rejects them all. They are trying to insist on a fax copy in version 2 Appendix E full formats and to charge for processing. We are refusing to accept this as version 1 system will not print details required in version 2 format. Also other highways appear to be accepting both versions. Please confirm that highways should be capable of receiving notices in either version of ETON.
I am working on the replacement system for JCS the current notice generation system. I am running into some difficulties with transmitting appendix E's to Authorities using Exor.
When generating an appendix E without a provisional street but with a valid NSG reference, should we include the 'start of repeating group' followed by 6 colons on separate lines (as shown below) followed by the 'end of repeating group' for provisional street?
This relates to the batch Structure, specifically the use of colons (:). We are generating the Notice with colons (:) even when the field is not populated as it states in E3.2 Para 5, line 1 that:
Where a repeating group contains no information then the 'start of repeating group' can be followed on the next line by the 'end of repeating group' (i.e. no information has to be supplied ever if there are internal repeating groups)".
The can statement implies that including the colon would also be acceptable, both SBS and MayRise systems allow the Appendix E Provisional street group to appear as below.
I need to clarify with the ETON Steering group what date is used as the 'works closed' date. Is it the S74, or the last works completed date sent in.
This email is just to confirm the changes to Highway Notices that we agreed today.
I will change the program that produces notices as follows.
The reference number will change to wonumber/1, wonumber/2 etc every time a notice is sent with Works Status of ABAND-07 and Notice of 2HRSB4-05, DWHERE-04, ONEMNTH-01 or SEVNDY-02.
Site Status Code will be generated from Works Status as follows: -
If Works Status = PROPOSE-01 or INPRG-09 then Site Status Code = 1.
If Works Status = INTERIM-02 or CLEAR-10 then Site Status Code = 2.
If Works Status = PRPREIN-03 then Site Status Code = 5.
If Works Status = CMPREIN-04 then Site Status Code = 3.
If Works Status = CLOSE-06 and interim or permanent reinstatement present then site Status Code = 6.
If Works Status = CLOSE-06 and only estimated reinstatement present then Site Status Code = 7.
If Works Status = ABAND-07 then Site Status Code = 8.
If Works Status = REMREIN-05 then Site Status Code = 9.
For notices produced with Works Status of PRPREIN-03, the site depth, length and width will all be blank.
Notices will be produced with Works Status REMREIN-05 even if a DEFECT record is not present.
I will also produce a new report program that will list details of work order numbers for which the latest notice produced has a Works Status of PROPOSE-01, INPRG-09 and PRPREIN-03 and for which the Scheduled Completion Date is before the run date (and after 31/3/01). The details listed will be Area, Contractor, Work Order Number, Scheduled Start Date, Scheduled Completion Date, Notice Type and Works Status. Let me know if I have missed anything out.
I am seeking clarification of an issue raised in the NJUG Newsletter 7 article on the ETON 2 return path.
The article implies there is an element of compulsion within the regulations for utilities to have a return path in place on 1 April. Can you confirm if this is the case and what penalties exist for none compliance if a return path is compulsory.
I would point out that it is our intention to put a return path in place. It has been delayed as a result of the drive to put in place electronic noticing for App E v2.
We are unable to find any penalties within the Regulations or Code of Practice, however, the article has introduced an element of doubt within our section 74 implementation team.
Do section 74 charges apply to notices served prior to 1 April 2001 but are still active now?
Please could you confirm the correct Site Status when returning to carry out permanent reinstatement following Works Clear.
The flow diagrams in Appendix B of the Second Edition of the COP (Blue Book) show the Site Status of "A site of proposed street works" with a Works Status of "Permanent Reinstatement Proposed".
Should the Site Status not be "A Permanent Reinstatement Proposed" with a Works Status of "Permanent Reinstatement Proposed"?
Emergency, Special Urgent, Urgent and Remedial Dangerous Works can never have a 'Permanent Reinstatement Proposed' or 'Remedial Reinstatement Proposed' status within their life cycle.
This has come about for the reason that the above Work types start at 'In Progress' for their initial Notice and to allow them to enter a different phase under the same Works type would suggest subsequent phases should also start at 'In progress' which does not make sense.
I'm sure someone could think of a reason why a subsequent phase may have to be an Emergency (etc) but we would prefer this to be actioned by changing the Works type for that Works reference to 'Minor with Excavation' or similar.
On Emergency/Urgent works the start times are Mandatory, which is no problem. However, HA's are rejecting our notices because the subsequent notices that follow are not populated with the start times. Our notices are being rejected when we don't send a Street Location code for no excavation. What should we populate this field with if we haven't carried out any work, the initial location?
I am looking for some clarification concerning the use of updating versions of electronic notices sent by utilities in accordance with Appendix E.
We often receive updating versions (e.g. a 7 day notice following a one month or changes to proposed working dates) but as our database is working at site level, the information is not accepted as we only receive the header details. This is becoming an increasing problem with the introduction of Section 74 as we already have some utilities using updating versions to advise of the actual starting date of their work.
When I have questioned the use of updates in the past I have been advised that it is in accordance with Appendix E. When I look at section E3.6.8 STREET WORKS DATA VALIDATION, my interpretation is that as the fields for site version created date; NSG code; site extant date and site status code are all mandatory, an updating version should not be acceptable as it does not include these fields. Am I interpreting wrongly or should all versions of a notice comply with this section?
Question about handling a situation whereby a Minor Works notice has been issued for works Interim to Permanent reinstatement and how should the HA be notified if the works cannot be undertaken for any reason. The notice cannot be abandoned and re-numbered because works have already taken place and any further works have to be cross-referenced to the original notice.
It was suggested that the Minor Works Notice should be 'refreshed/resent' when works are to take place. We are hoping that the new Code of Practice will give clear instructions on this subject because at present there are obviously contrasting views, which could potentially cause Uploading problems.
I am seeking clarification for works other than minor which don't involve excavation i.e. works not involving excavation which have an expected duration of more than 3 Days.
Does a utility have to serve Section 74 notices for such work?
Bearing in mind that most systems will be set up to send Section 74 notices regardless of the work content, provided the utility makes it clear on the notice that the work does not involve excavation, does this mean the Highway Authority can't challenge the duration of the works?
Or does everything apply as if the works involved excavation except the charges?
Non Exor batches are being created that contain Emergency, Urgent (and possibly Daily Whereabouts) type works with a Status of 'In Progress'. Exor software currently rejects this combination as the Works is assumed to have started (and be 'In Progress' on the 'Estimated Start Date' supplied in the original Notice. The situation seems to occur when the batch sender decides to change the 'Estimated End Date'.
As Exor understands the process, the alteration of the 'Estimated End Date' will result in the issue of a 'Section 74' Notice with a status of 'Proposed' or 'In Progress'.
As the status of 'In Progress' is significant in relation to Notices of more than one day, that is, it is the day on which the Works actually started and must be delivered within one Working day, to allow the Status of 'In Progress' to be introduced on occasion for Emergency, Urgent and Daily Whereabouts may lead to confusion as to what is being described. The situation needs to be resolved either by:
Status of 'In Progress' is not permitted for Emergency, Urgent and Daily Whereabout type Works,
The initial status of Emergency, Urgent and Daily Whereabouts type Works should be 'In Progress' and not 'Proposed'.
Exor would prefer option 1 above, as if option 2 were implemented then Emergency, Urgent and Daily Whereabout type Works at status 'In Progress' (with 'Proposed' sites) would have to be able to be abandoned which complicates the rules for the application.
The Table on Page 28 now states that Minor Works without Excavation now requires a Section 74 notices, indicated by a tick in the appropriate box. In draft versions Minor Works without Excavation has not required a S74 notice, and as Chapter 8 of the COP still states that 'Works not involving excavation are exempt from section 74', I am wondering whether the tick in the box is a typing error.
The current SWA_ORG_REF.txt within the swartxt.zip contains the following line:-
9999,0,"STREET WORK LICENCES","ZT"
The SWA_ORG_TYPE of 0 does not exist. It is not in the latest DCC specification. What should it be?
My question is with regard to the transmission times for the Daily Whereabouts.
The practice varies throughout the country with regard to when the Daily Whereabouts is transmitted. In some areas it is transmitted the day before work is to be carried out but in other areas it is transmitted on the day work is carried out because problems could not be seen in advance. Could you give me a ruling on the meaning 'otherwise - no prior notice is required' as stated in the C.O.P. 5.4.6(b).
I need to update our OD Batch file this week in response to the changes in ETON working practices. What is the format for the return path information? I have attached our present batch for your inspection.
An example of the return path spec. would nice to have.
We understand that we are only allowed to send a Works_Start_Time for emergency, special urgent and urgent works. For all other categories of works, we must leave the start time as null. This is not a problem for us to do, but what happens if we want to work on a street which is only traffic sensitive at certain times of the day. We know the times and so plan to do the works outside those times. For example, a minor works with excavation will be undertaken outside the traffic sensitive times and noticed by daily whereabouts accordingly. How does the relevant HA know that we are not working at a traffic sensitive time? Will they reject the daily whereabouts because they are expecting a one month advance notice first?
Can you confirm in writing the answer to a verbal question asked on 23rd February to Dave Capon? We have major projects where there are typically a large number of separate sites in various stages (i.e. at different site statuses). We are expecting to send a batch of reinstatement status notices under S 70(3) and registration notices periodically, as we make progress (say each week). Once the last site is complete and the street is cleared of all spoil and signage etc, we will send one works cleared or works closed notice (S74). Our understanding is that this will not be rejected by the receiving computer. Can you confirm this?
We originally asked the following question in January: Daily Whereabouts works are not intended to last longer than three days, however, it is always possible that works that were planned and intended to last three days will need to be extended. Appendix E does not appear to allow for this - how is an extension of time to be communicated in these circumstances. Your answer was:
Daily Whereabouts works have never been allowed to be extended as the definitions for such works are contained in the Notices COP prevent this. Daily Whereabouts are minor works that have a set duration of no more than three days, if they go over this they are no longer minor works. Appendix E has not altered this rule as it is a mechanism for transferring data and nothing else. In essence for works that are likely to extend beyond the three days I suggest you should re-notice as standard works, revise the estimated duration and discuss with the local Highway Authority. Our additional question is as follows: We understand that we have to re-notice as standard works, but do we have to change the Works_Type_Code from 3 (minor with excavation) to 2 (standard)? This could cause us problems. As we are already out in the street working on the job (albeit, taking longer than first anticipated), is it sufficient simply to re-notice correctly?
Can we send a combined notice for S 70(3) and the registration of a reinstatement? We know the status of the site and have its dimensions, but haven't yet cleared the site. If we can combine the two notices, do we send it is a Notice_Type of 9 (section 70) rather than a Notice_Type of 0 (Registration)?
Is a utility required by the Regulations to have an electronic 'return path' capability from 1 April 2001? Please clarify the communication options.
HA's may not be in a position to transmit electronically and would therefore have to resort to fax. It would be a non-sense for those HA's which could communicate electronically to send these into the 'ether'! It would seem sensible in some defined period of Section 74 that HA's communicate by fax to avoid any confusion and complication. Clearly electronic has to be the future.
I have been working through the new documentation for the above and the DCC Capture Code documentation. As a developer it would be very handy that when adding new fields to a table, or changing text on a Static field. You indicated that it was a new feature/change.
For instance the Type 21 table, you have added 5 fields. But no indication is made that they are new. Basically what was partially implemented in the DCC re: V1 & V2 would be very handy in focusing on the issues. To make sure that I hadn't missed anything I did a step by step comparison of out current implementation and the new documentation, very time consuming.
If you work this in to future documentation standards it would be most useful.
Can you kindly information me what the standard system practice is with regard to section 50 where the contractor does not have a DETR code.
Will Highways Authorities send a complete life-cycle of notices (i.e. Proposed, Permanent Reinstatement Proposed, Works Closed etc.), or just a Proposed notice?
Which attribute in the notice indicates the date of the start of the restriction?
Will a Section 58 notice always contain a value for NSG_Street_Identifier_Ref, or can a notice be given for a provisional street?
Will Section 58 notices also contain Site Co-ordinate and Site in Special Designation data?
Section 58(2) of the act states that the notice shall '...specify... the extent of the restriction.' Does 'extent' refer to the physical extent (i.e. the restriction could apply to part of a street), or the time extent (i.e. less than 12 months)?
Section 58(4) of the act states that a Section 58 Notice will cease to be effective if the works are not substantially begun within one month of the proposed date. Will Highways Authorities send a notice with Works Status of Abandoned in such cases?
Original Question 1
According to the flow charts: Site status on a Section 70 (3) notice is set to interim or permanent. Similarly the registration site status are Interim or permanent. On the Section 74 notice App E3.6.7 specifically states that no site details must be sent.
In this scenario there appears to be no mechanism to set site status to closed. Can you confirm that there is no requirement to set site status to closed if section 70 (3) and Section 74 notices are sent separately?
If there is a requirement to set site status to closed, please advise on when and on what type of notice these should be sent.
The new Appendix E for ETON II, which comes into effect on 1 April, requires a new format for gazetteer records. I, as well as many others, have been attempting to establish what the plans are for changeover from the old to new formats.
Apparently, the new OS validation software is to be made available from 1st March, and will therefore be used by authorities for the next submission, which they make after that date (which may or may not be May/June). This would mean that as from April, all the gazetteers are likely to be in the old format until at least June. Worse still, after that date there may be a mixture of different versions, depending on when a user last submitted their gazetteer.
This seems a totally unrealistic situation. Surely it would not be unreasonable to institute an appropriate means of switchover, such as producing a simple conversion program which would convert existing NSG files from Phase I to Phase II format, so that they would all become available on the NSG site in Phase II format on the morning of April 1.
The FTP server set up for receiving electronic notices from utilities has been frequently used by Internet users for storing files etc. The FTP server has been brought down twice due to this illegal use and has this time made the server inoperable, the server having to be rebuilt.
What security measures can we place on the FTP server? Can we disable the use of the anonymous login and ask utilities to login using a specific username and password? Can we restrict access to the server to known IP addresses? This would require co-operation from utilities who would have to supply us with the information.
Are other authorities experiencing the same type of problem and how are they overcoming the situation.
I would be grateful for an early response, as currently we are unable to accept electronic notices.
I have been asked a question in regard to sect 74, trench sharing and ETON and wondered if you would be able to help.
In the COP it advises that the main contractor for trench sharing ventures should be able to issue notices on behalf of the other parties by local agreement (paraphrasing) do you think we would be expected issue fully correct batchfiles with their numbers in the title or would it be acceptable to include the names of the other parties in the comments fields. Obviously the former would be very difficult as the systems only create notices for the owner utility.
I would be interested to get your views, as trench sharing is financially attractive as well as helping with the spirit of the act by reducing streetworks. Section 74 is seen as exposing the utilities to greater risk during sharing and has developed the greatest amount of debate compared with the rest its implications and will affect our company policy on this type of work.
We would like to include special surfacing types such as high skid resistance/thin surfacings in our ASD for the NSG. In the Data Capture Codes Consultation Draft dated 03/10/00 the proposed code for Special Surfaces is 10.Has the draft now been agreed?
If a defect is served after April will it be considered that the works are not closed and attract a charge for overstaying our welcome as well as the defect charge?
If we damage another utilities apparatus and they do not attend to repair within the 'Reasonable Period' of our notice and we cannot backfill for safety reasons what are the implications. Will we be charged for extended stay?
If we cancel a DWA because we cannot do the work on day of notice for some reason, can we resend the DWA with the same number? Our works management system issues the notification against a job and this will cause some problems if we have to use another number.
Having served a Section 70(3) notice with say one site and the section 74 works clear / closed, can we then send a registration notice with say 4 sites within 7 working days.
I am currently attempting to compile a Record Type 22 CSV ASD Gazetteer and have a number of queries.
Am I correct in assuming that there must be at least one record for each USRN?
Where there is more than one record for a USRN, do they have to appear in order as you progress along the street e.g. Type 1, then Type 3, then Type 1, Type 2 etc or can I just group all the type 1's then type 2's for a particular street, each with a different sequence no?
Can I submit a type 22 gazetteer and its validation certificate on its own without a type 01?
I n the event of a utility being ready to transmit in appendix E version 2, how will we be expected to transmit notices to any HA's that, for what ever reason, cannot receive and / or process version 2 notices?
If 1 above occurs, will transmission of the notices by Appendix E version 2 format be deemed as compliance with the law, regulations and Code of Practice even if the receiving HA is unable to load and read the information?
If 1 above occurs, will the HA's who are unable to receive this information still be in a position to levy charges under section 74? Having issued a Works Reinstatement Status notice (Section 70(3)) can this be followed by a Reinstatement Registration notice before the Site Clear or Closed (Sect 74) notification. (This assumes that the Site Clear / Closed notice will be served on the day following the expiry of the reasonable period).
Is it a requirement to give an estimated end date for Emergency and Urgent proposed works?
On the flow chart for Urgent Works, page 18, the notice with the WORKS_STATUS_CODE of Permanent Reinstatement Proposed (bottom right hand corner, just above the Work Started box) has a NOTICE_TYPE specified as 'an appropriate code'. What would be the NOTICE_TYPE in this case?
On the flow chart for Emergency Works, page 15, the notice with the WORKS_STATUS_CODE of Permanent Reinstatement Proposed (bottom right hand corner, just above the Work Started box) does not have a NOTICE_TYPE identified. What would be the NOTICE_TYPE in this case?
What is meant by the Notice Type "Within 2 hours" which is used quite frequently on the flow charts for Emergency Works and Urgent Works?
A number of utilities I have spoken to insist that their normal business practice is to go straight to Permanent Reinstatement - i.e. they do not do an Interim Reinstatement phase at all. Do the new ETON II rules allow for this? Can I issue a Works Closed directly after an Actual Start (assuming a single Works Closed Notice with the Section 70(3) and Registration details is allowed under the rules)? Or, do I have to issue the intermediate notices even thorough the steps haven't been performed?
My understanding from discussions with various people on the relevant working parties (but not documented) about cancelling Daily Whereabouts is this:-
Daily Whereabouts with Works Status Code = Permanent or Remedial Reinstatement Proposed. If the works don't commence on the stated date, the Notice lapses and can be re-issued?
Is the above assumption correct?
What happens to work that has started prior to April 1st. Are these affected by the new legislation? If not, will this cover project work that could go on for several months after the go-live date?
Please could you confirm if the NSG and ASD file formats will be changed for phase 2? It appears that the type 21 records will now have SWA_ORG_TYPE, START_X,START_Y, END_X, END_Y. I have checked some current type 21 records and they do not seem to contain SWA_ORG_TYPE which is marked as Mandatory in newer Appendix E, the other fields were not present (although they are marked as optional).
Is SWA_ORG_TYPE a new field for Phase 2? It is not stated to be new format changes to Type 11, 21, 22, 23 records, but clearly SWA_ORG_TYPE has not been included as mandatory before.
Appendix E states that a number of code combinations will not be acceptable after 31 03 01. Since it is inconceivable that all utilities and HA's will be ready to go live on 01 04 01 how will this mixture of appendix E version 1 and 2 codes be dealt with by HA's. The new Notices COP and associated regulations will become law as from 1st April 2001 and 1. The new data formats must be used. Highway authorities must also be ready to receive in the new format.
Will it be possible under the new COP to serve notices under ETON 1 by electronic means and the section 74 ( ETON 2 ) elements by paper notice. Yes it would be possible to notice electronically and section 74 by paper but you will be charged for the paper element.
Notices Code of Practice - Can the working party give any indication as to when the new Notices C of P will actually be available.
D5.1 Works Form - Has the Works Form in Consultation Document been altered at all?
If so is it possible to obtain final version of form as there seems to be some differences between 'Street Works Data Validation' and the 'Works Form' which have probably been sorted out already.
Works_Insp_Units_Type_Code - Not in form
Site_Version_Created_Datim - Appears in different order on Works Form
Please clarify which Street Works Data populates the Location and Position fields on Works Form
Section 74 charging - There seems to be some debate amongst local Highway Authorities as to which notices Section 74 charging will apply to. This needs confirming so that everyone is working to same guidelines.
The majority are indicating only those notices actually served after 01 April 2001 will be considered for charges.
Some however are suggesting they will immediately start charging for any notices they have actually 'open' and past expected completion date on The Register at 01 April 2001.
Do Section 70.3 notices need to be sent after each reinstatement or can they be sent after all reinstatement is completed in that relevant street?
Is it a requirement to use the new format of Appendix D notices or as stated at the third ETON Workshop can we use the existing format?
We are allowing the 'Abandoned' works status change to change back to 'Proposed as 'Suspended' is no longer available (customers have requested this). We are interpreting 'Permanent Reinstatement – Barholes' the same as 'Works Closed' and assuming it is a no excavation job with no guarantee period.
The Works Type/Notice Type table suggests a 'Minor without Excavation' in a traffic sensitive street does not have to be closed. We are assuming it should be closed using appropriate 'No Excavation' attributes.
We are ignoring the changes shown in the data capture codes for inspection items for phase 2 as the Code of Practice has nothing for inspection included.
We are assuming that the remedial site status is at the same level as Site Closed. E.g. a valid site transition is: 'Remedial Reinstatement Proposed' to 'Permanent Reinstatement' to 'Remedial (Resets the Guarantee Period)' or Remedial (Does not reset the Guarantee Period)'.
Where a site specific comment is entered against a provisional street we are assuming the 'NSG_Street_Identifier_Ref has to be set to zero (and not NULL).
Our company has recently received invoices from two HA's charging the faxed notice rate for electronic notices that have been rejected.
Our understanding form the ETON working group is that charging in this way is not permitted under the legislation passed for ETON 1. The charges are for HA's processing faxed notices only. Can you confirm this to be the case?
In the Works Comment transaction, Comment_Num is described as "The unique sequential number of the Comment from the "Commenting" Organisation". Is this sequential number envisaged to be "unique within one works", or "unique throughout all works". I have taken a limited poll and there seems to be about 50-50 in what people have assumed. We see no value in the field at all and are unlikely to be making any use of it, but would clearly like to avoid rejections at the receiving end.
Example:- A single Project Works that covers twenty streets is raised by a Stat company. Two of the streets cross a boundary, or are motorway, therefore are dealt with by a different Authority, (I know of several instances where this has happened, for example L.B. Croydon received a project from Transco that covered part of L.B. Sutton). In my example the Works would be transmitted to at least two different bodies, (it could possibly be more), each of which would have to 'ignore' any irrelevant sites, (perhaps by marking them as for 'information purposes only'). However, the total estimated and actual inspection units would still include these irrelevant sites and would be wrong. How should we calculate this figure?
Also can we assume that:-
The Actual Start, Works Clear, Works Closed would cover all of the sites irrespective of whose area they fell in?
Any resulting Section 74 charge would be apportioned between the two Authorities?
Any electronic, and in some cases manual, transactions, whether from the Stat or Authority must go to all of the registered interested parties as given in the Type 21 records, otherwise how would each body be able to progress the works? Shouldn't this rule apply to all Works and not just the one in my example?
The IT department are currently bringing our FTP site in-house.
However this will mean a change in FTP address. They want to know if they can just specify an IP address rather than a domain name address for the FTP site.
Can you let me know fairly quickly if this is allowable? Our original FTP site (which is out of our direct control) has been out of action for a month now!
I have spoken to a few people at OS with responsibility for the web site etc. and they felt it may have something to do with ETON Working Group. Because we are only custodians of the data for the Local Authorities, do we have any responsibility for the FTP/IP route that this local authority want to pursue. Can you throw any light on a possible answer to this enquiry?
What is the 'basic information' required that is referred to in E2.3? When the return path is implemented, will exactly the same requirements be incumbent upon the highway authorities i.e. after three attempts the undertaker will be contacted by the HA by telephone prior to any further action being taken.
We need to send our ODF to everyone concerned. Can this be done via FTP in the same way as we would send a normal notice and if so what file naming conventions should be adhered to? We would appreciate ETON's guidance on this matter.
We are currently in a slight dispute with a utility over the conditions and circumstances where charging for fax transmissions on apparent ETON failure is acceptable.
The situation is basically as follows on two occasions the utility could not transmit to us notices and have backed this up with evidence that their server was working- we also have evidence that our 3rd party ftp site was functioning properly around this time. Whose fault as to why the ETON process could not be successfully followed is therefore unclear. Now the utility feels we should not charge them as they claim that they attempted to send the notice 5 times (within a 5 minute period) and that they therefore conformed to ETON specifications and therefore should be excempt from paying. I find this area of the Code unclear and believe it is questionable whether this 3 times is applicable if it occurs in 5 minutes of the two hour time scale that seems to be talked about in section 5.2.6 (code of practice) (which should only apply to emergency works which these notices were not) and in other areas (d3.1) it seems to suggest that if electronic failure occurs it might be necessary to phone the authority. E2.3 of the revised Appendix E in the new code suggest the intention again that in the event of failure a phone call might be necessary and the timescale is unclear.
Further reading of the Street Works Regulations (Registration fees) 1999 (SI 1999 no.1048) even suggests in point 4 (2) that a fee could be payable on any occurrence whereby manual entering of notices is required following ETON failure.
A statement has been made with regards to fax charges not being applicable during the implementation of ETON Phase 2. Therefore, can you please confirm if a formal statement to this effect has been made.
Please could you confirm that Defects are in or out of phase 2 - i.e. are they part of Inspections code of practice?
Please could you confirm if it is mandatory for utilities to supply areas of interest polygons?