Old Codes - Code of Practice for the Co-ordination of Street Works and Works for Road Purposes and Related Matters. (Second Edition, 2001)

Answer:

1. Dimension fields must be NULL
2. Dimension fields must be filled (it is assumed from the question that notification of Registration is being submitted as the reinstatement is complete).
3. Dimension fields would be NULL (but if they were filled the notification would also be acting as a Registration).
4. Dimension fields must be NULL (it is assumed that Section 74 has already been served)
In summary, where a Section 70 notice is being submitted, dimensions would not be included. If dimensions are available then a Registration should be used. If a Section 74 Notice is being submitted then sites with, or sites without dimensions can be included and the notice will then also act as Section 70 or Section 70 and Registration.

Answer:

The principle was established early on, that works can not be Abandoned when 'In Progress'. Works can only be Abandoned when at a status of 'Proposed'. On the Utilities part, if an emergency situation arises, an Emergency notice should not be raised until it is known that excavation or barholes will take place on site. An exception will be where the emergency site is a traffic sensitive street, in which case if nil excavation occurs, a Registration will be required for closure.

Answer:

A utility is required to submit a Revised Duration Estimate before the expiry of the existing reasonable period. If the Revised Duration Estimate is sent at any time after that expiry date, then it is deemed invalid. In such cases, the charge for overstay will be calculated according to the number of days between the last valid Estimated End Date and the serving of a Works Clear or Works Closed Notice, as required by the Regulations and the Code of Practice.

Answer:

The full list of Data Capture Codes can now be downloaded from the DETR website at www.dft.gov.uk. With regard to Notice Type of 'Section 74', the relevant Works Status are 1 - 'Proposed Works', 6 - 'Works Closed (Permanent Reinstatement)', 9 - 'In Progress', 10 - 'Works Clear (Interim Reinstatement)'.

Answer:

The current Regulations do not cover charging for any of the notices sent by Undertakers or Highway Authorities in connection with Section 74. However it is anticipated that this situation will be discussed by the reconvening HAUC UK Notices Working Group.
With regard to Undertakers having to establish a return Ftp path the answer is yes. Similar to existing regulations Section 74 permits the method of serving notices to be at the choice of the sender. This does mean that Undertakers would have to establish an Ftp path for the receipt of Section 74 Notices although they would not necessarily have to accept other comments or inspections. Nevertheless it is also anticipated that this situation will be discussed by the reconvening HAUC UK Notices Group as this would, no doubt, become part of the charging discussions.

Answer:

You have highlighted a problem that was not noted during the revision of the Code of Practice and the introduction of Section 74. Works can be registered using Notice_Type - Registration after the Works have been declared Works Clear or Works Closed but the problem is that once the Site Status is declared as Closed then it is not possible to "go back" on the status and subsequently use the Site_Status_Code of 3, 9 or 10.
In cases where Works Clear/Closed, Section 70(3) and Registration are combined the Works Clear/Closed notice will also serve as the Section 70(3) notice and as the Registration of the Reinstatement. However you have raised a similar problem to that indicated above that has not been covered by the Code of Practice in respect of Site Status Codes 9 and 10. For a Works Status to be Works Closed all the Site(s)Status must be Closed. If the Site(s) Status is Closed then it is not possible to differentiate between Remedial Reinstatement (Resets the Guarantee period - 9) and Remedial Reinstatement (Does Not Reset the Guarantee period - 10). This problem also occurs when a Registration follows Works Closed as the Site Status cannot "go back" from Site_Status_Code = 6 to 9 or 10.
It is, of course, regretted that this has occurred and it will have to be addressed by the reconvening HAUC UK Notices Working Group.

Answer:

The intention of the code value '4', 'NOT IN A DESIGNATION' is to provide a facility to clearly indicate that a notice being submitted is not subject to any of the designations that apply on that particular street. The intention of Working Group was that, where a street does not carry any designations at all, the field would not need to be used. Where a street does have designations then only those designations that apply would be detailed on the notice. If designations existed but none applied, the code value '4' would be used as confirmation.

Answer:

The definitions of each of the notices (Appendix A) would be the determining factor as to which status the 'Works' would be at.
In the scenario quoted once the permanent reinstatement has been completed, the Registration details sent and/or the Section 70 (3) and the whole works site cleared then the 'Works Closed' status would be correct.

Answer:

The 'Works Clear' and 'Works Closed' notices relate to the whole works and where this notice is sent after a Section 70 (3) and/or a Registration then it does not need any site information to be entered. Where you send a 'Works Clear/Closed' and it also acts a Section 70(3) or Registration then the site details must be included.

Answer:

Once you have 'abandoned' a Works you have effectively cancelled the unique reference number for that notice and all previous notices sent under that unique number. You therefore cannot 'abandon' any Works where an interim reinstatement has taken place and a registration notice/works clear notice has been sent. The same principle applies at Remedial works stage.
You may abandon a Site and you may revert a notice to its previous status but once a Works has been abandoned it cannot then be reopened (i.e. use the same unique reference number.

Answer:

Pat Negus at the DETR will assist patrick_negus@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Answer:

Thank you for your query and the ETON group has the following advice. It is not mandatory for Undertakers to supply a return FTP path but it is expected that most will. As with ETON phase 1 it not expected that any charges would be levied for paper transactions by Undertakers who have not provided a return FTP address.

Answer:

This would appear to be an oversight. The HAUC UK Notices/ETON Working Group will review this issue. In the mean time, notifications should be submitted in accordance with the Code and therefore there should be no Start Time given for Remedial (Dangerous)works.

Answer:

Your understanding is correct. You do not need to inform the LHAs as this information would not be held within the NSG or ASD.
The LHA should not have included SU information within the Type 21 ASD records. You have no requirement to issue copy notices to any organisations other than those defined within the Code. If an SU requires copy notifications, the procedure described in Question 1 (based on exchange of AoI information) applies.
You should only inform other SUs. However, if it is a street in an LHA area that you have never worked before you should inform that LHA and provide a copy of your Operational District Batch File. Nevertheless if your interest is because you have an "item" of special engineering difficulty in a street then you should notify the LHA of the details in order that the LHA can generate the appropriate Type 23 Record.
Having submitted AOI and OD Batch Files to other SUs it would be appropriate to simply re-submit the files depicting your revised Area of Interest. In the case of SED you would need to advise the LHA accordingly.

Answer:

The preferred method would be to use the repeating group structure defined within Appendix E. This would involve repeating the Site information for as many sites as required. If the Appendix D template is held electronically it should be very easy to repeat the necessary information by cutting and pasting the appropriate parts of the form.

Answer:

The correct way to deal with this situation is to re-notice with standard works. Clearly you will not be providing the minimum notice period but this is acceptable as long as you have made prior agreement with the LHA.

Answer:

The Group can confirm that your Example 2 is correct as it states in Section E3.2 of the Code of Practice - the repeating group indicators [ and ] (square brackets) must always present. In addition there is an example of the end of how the batch would look.

Answer:

This point is not specifically covered. An Emergency notice is served two hours after commencing works and if works have commenced they cannot be abandoned. An Urgent notice is similar for non-traffic sensitive situations but must be served two hours before commencement in traffic sensitive situations. However it would be known immediately if the works were abandoned in the traffic sensitive situation. It is also similar for DW's as they are served by the end of one day for commencement the next day. It would therefore be known within twenty-four hours that work did not commence and it could therefore be abandoned. None of these cases would exceed the prescribed period and therefore the question of charging would not arise.
It is not clear what is meant by "additional working day". Charging is from and including the working day after the end of the prescribed period or the reasonable period which ever is the later date.

Answer:

You have clearly demonstrated the appropriate action to take when errors have been made, as you state in Q3 that you adopt the practice of contacting the HA to mutually agree the solution. Unfortunately the range of situations that can arise are far too varied and are often complex, making it impractical to provide any kind of 'Ready Reckoner' that could be consistently followed.. It must be stressed, however, that the onus is on the sending party to ensure that all information is fully validated before transmission. This is clearly of advantage to both sender and receiver in reducing errors and associated costs and in ensuring compliance with the Act.

Answer:

The requirement is for any works that were noticed and begun prior to April 1st, using version 1 format, to be completed (closed) using version 2 format i.e. closure by use of a 'Final R' notice. Highway Authorities are not required to receive and process notices after April 1st in version 1 format, although they may elect to do so on an individual basis.

Answer:

The intention of the code is and the example shown in the revised Appendix E is that where the repeating group contents are not required then colons are not required. It is accepted that the wording is slightly unclear and will be reviewed as part of an ongoing review but the intention was that colons should not be included.

Answer:

I do not fully understand the question but the Works_Completed_Date is the actual date that all sites were cleared (at either interim or permanent stages).The Works_Status_Code will be set to either 'Works Clear' or 'Works Closed'. The notice type is 'S74' and this notice will stop the clock on any potential overrun.

Answer:

The following advice is available.
When a streetworks has been abandoned by sending the Works Status = 7
(Abandoned Works) then that Promoters_Works_Ref cannot be reused EXCEPT if the abandoned has been due to the failure to be able to carry out making an interim reinstatement permanent or failure in attempting to carry out remedial reinstatement work. A similar situation prevails if the notice (which can correctly lapse) that was sent has lapsed. Advice on dealing with this is given in ETON Newsletter 7 and your suggestion in using /1, /2, etc as required, is a reasonable approach.
DETR Data Capture Codes
The ETON Group cannot provide detailed advice for configuration of users systems. The options available are contained within the Code of Practice and users will need to ensure that their systems have the capability of providing the information required by the Code.
However for your first example if Works_Status_Code = 1 (Proposed Works) or 9 (In Progress) then Site_Status_Code could = 1 (A Site of Proposed Street Works) but there are other valid options.

This is correct. Site_Depth_Code, Site_Length_Value and Site_Width_Value fields are only filled in as shown in Para E3.6.9 Street Works Data Validation of the Code of Practice.
It is assumed by the wording …. even if a DEFECT record is not present …
that this is a reference to DEFECT under the Inspection regime. It is agreed that an undertaker may wish to carry out some remedial work to a reinstatement other than triggered by the Inspection regime. It would be correct to use Works_Status_Code = 5 (Remedial Reinstatement Proposed).

Answer:

As stated in the Newsletter article the 1992 noticing regulations require notices to be sent in a form chosen by the sender. In this case the sender (the HA) will obviously send in FTP format so the recipient (the utility) must be able to receive same.
Failure to receive notices legally sent will render any utility liable for charges if breaches occur due to lack proper response. For example if a HA sends a S56 notice (timing of works) and the utility ignores it and carries on with the original start date then a criminal offence could occur.

Answer:

No. This is provided for in Para 11 of The Street Works (Charges for Unreasonably Prolonged Occupation of the Highway) Regulations 2001.

Answer:

Yes. There are a number of errors in the flow diagrams, which will be corrected, in the next 'sweep up'

Answer:

Your interpretation is basically correct as the Works Status of Permanent Reinstatement Proposed or Remedial Reinstatement.Proposed does not fall into the definitions as set out in the Code of Practice for Street Works Types of Emergency, Special Urgent or Urgent works and therefore the work would not be In Progress when initially notified.
However it would be possible to have a Works Status of In Progress for a Street Works Type of Remedial Dangerous on the basis that the work in this case is an emergency. Para 7.7.8 Fig 2 of the CoP refers.

Answer:

Emergency/Urgent works. - The data validation table within Appendix E (E3.6.9) sets out the rules to apply and in this case the Works_Start_Time is mandatory for Street Works Types of Emergency, Special Urgent and Urgent Works otherwise null. This means that whenever these Street Works Types are used the Works_Start_Time must be given.
Street_Location Code - The Street_Location Code is Optional/Mandatory, Optional for proposed sites mandatory all other times. For instance if you are sending in the no excavation as a registration then the data has to be supplied. The initial location would be appropriate as any other location could give the impression that work was carried out.
Works Closed - For Section 74 purposes the works closed date is the date when everything has been removed from the street and the Section 74 notice must be given no later than the end of the next working day following the day on which the works were closed. However the Works cannot be closed until all the Sites are closed. Nevertheless, under the appropriate circumstances, the Section 74 notice can also be taken as the Section 70 notice and it can included the reinstatement measurements as indicated in Chapter 8 of the CoP.

Answer:

While within Appendix E there is the facility to update at site level within the whole Works, Section 74 applies at Works level. Within Appendix E it is also allowable to send Works without sites where only the Works information is being updated e.g. the Section 74 Revised Duration Estimate or the Works Clear or Closed (where the section 70 (3) or Registration is not also being sent

Answer:

You are quite correct in your statement that a Daily Whereabouts for work following an interim reinstatement i.e. for the proposed permanent reinstatement cannot as such be abandoned/cancelled. However, the question is really of how to inform the Highway Authority that the DW is 'cancelled' and therefore the Section 74 clock is stopped. I would suggest that there are several ways and mechanisms for undertaking this task but providing the information is sent and the systems can receive and record that information then that fulfils the requirements.

Answer:

The regulations require that the "actual start" notice be given regardless of the type of works. Where there is no excavation the "works closed" notice would still be required to indicate completion of the works and clearance of all materials and signs from site. This notice would be submitted when all of the sites have achieved the site_status of "SITE CLOSED (NO EXCAVATION)".
Charging does not apply where works do not involve 'breaking up or opening the street' and therefore if a highway authority did choose to challenge a duration, it would be inconsequential! The correct approach, if a highway authority felt that the works were not being progressed, would be to use the existing powers under Section 66(3) of the Act.

Answer:

Thank you for your query and the following advice is available. It may be most helpful to refer you to page 42 of the Code of Practice which sets out the various notice requirements except the Section 74 Notices. Initial Notices that are received and for these purposes a Daily Whereabouts is referred to as a Notice, would be as follows:
-Urgent (Traffic Sensitive) and Daily Whereabouts – Works Status "Proposed" as the Notice is always served before Works commenced.
-Emergency – Works Status "In Progress" as the Notice is served two hours after Works commencing.
-Urgent (Non Traffic Sensitive) and Special Cases of Urgent would be the same as Emergency. i.e. Works Status "In Progress" as the Notice is served two hours after Works commencing
-Urgent (Traffic Sensitive) and Daily Whereabouts – Works Status "Proposed" as the Notice is always served before Works commenced.
All of these Notices contain the Actual Start Date and a separate Section 74 Notice the day after the Works have started is not required.
Turning now to the updating of the Estimated End Date this can, of course, occur at any time before the completion of the Works. However all these Notices are Section 74 Notices and are not updates, as such, of the initial Notice previously sent/received. It should be said that in the majority of cases and certainly in I. and II. Above the Works Status would be "In Progress" for any Section 74 giving a Revised End Date. It is also likely that a Section 74 with a Revised End Date would also have a Works Status of "In Progress" in the case of III. above. However this may not necessarily be the case as the Section 74 revised end date could conceivably be served prior to the Works commencing. In which case the Works Status would be "Proposed". The Daily Whereabouts has been included in this possibility as it could be that the initial DW said one day duration and the Undertaker subsequently realises that it will take two or three days. This scenario is most unlikely as the prescribed days are three but it could occur.
Note: The use of the expression "initial Daily Whereabouts or initial Notice" is not implying that a series of DWS or Notices could be served. Initial means the beginning of the Noticing procedure for carrying out any works.

Answer:

The Code of Practice was slightly modified to bring in line with the Regulations. Regulation 4 (2) refers to minor works in the highway and it does not differentiate between minor with excavation and minor without excavation, therefore Section 74 notices are required for both. The Table on Page 28 of the DETR Data Capture Codes document therefore reflects this situation. This information will assist co-ordination. However it should then be mentioned that the charges do not include minor works without excavation and this is made clear in Regulation 5 (2).

Answer:

Thank you for your query. Street Works Licences themselves are not electronically transferable as the SWL originates with and sits with the highway authority. However it was necessary to generate a code to enable those highway authorities, who wished, to store the information on their street works registers. Therefore DETR was asked to allocate 9999 specifically to street works licences. The 0 indicates the code is neither undertaker or highway authority.

Answer:

It is appreciated that the situation can be confusing as many different incorrect practices regarding Daily Whereabouts have been in use across the country. However, no prior notice means that no advance notice is required as set out for section 55 notices etc. Nevertheless the Daily Whereabouts should be received at a street authority office by 1630 hours on any day for works commencing the NEXT DAY; this is also integrated in the Section 74 Regs. This is even more important in future as the Daily Whereabouts also contains the actual start date as well as being used for sample inspections.

Answer:

The format for the electronic transmission is contained within Appendix E of the Revised Code of Practice. You will also need to view the Data Capture Codes. It is understood from DETR that copies of both these documents will be available from their web site on Monday 2nd April 2001.

Answer:

A Statutory Undertaker should indicate which designations apply to the Works by including the appropriate codes within the "Site in Special Designations" repeating group within the Works Batch. There is no need to specify the start time to confirm that you are not working within a traffic sensitive period. Highway Authorities cannot reject a notice in the circumstances that you describe.
It is quite acceptable to send Section 70(3) and Registration information in advance of the 'Works Closed' (or 'Clear') notice. It is however important that the Section 70(3) is required the following day and the Registration within 7 days; you cannot group these notices up if this results in these time scales being exceeded.
The Works should be re-noticed correctly as standard works and therefore must carry the correct Works_Type_Code.
By sending this information as a Registration you will, as long as it is sent within the required timescale, have effectively served the Section 70(3) notification as well.

Answer:

The article entitled "The Return Path" published in the ETON Working Group's 7th Newsletter addresses your questions. The newsletter is being distributed by NJUG and LGA but a copy can also be obtained at: http://www.neHAUC UK.org.uk/HAUC UK_eton.htm

Answer:

The point is well made and the idea adopted for future changes.

Answer:

It should perhaps be mentioned that how you "store" SWL's is a matter for an individual highway authority as street works registers can be kept in any form. However from your question it is assumed that you wish to include the information within your computerised register and allowance has been made for this by using the DETR Data Code 9999 and any Operational District that you care to construct. Finally I would also mention that no contractor should have a DETR Data Code as these are only allocated to those organisations that have a legal right to excavate and lay apparatus in the highway. It is hoped that this information is helpful.

Answer:

It is unlikely that a HA will send a complete life history. What you can expect is advance notification a minimum of three months in advance. This will be followed by a closing notice giving the date in which the works have been completed. This would set the clock running for the 12 month period. Of course certain utilities will have to cater for electronic and non-electronic notices.
The feeling of the group is that should be at the works level and therefore the works_completed_date will be the attribute which sets the 12 month period in motion. Keeping everything at the works level will mean multiple streets can be handled as in line with the section 74 rules of restrictions do not start until all sites/streets are complete.
This situation is rare but of course somewhere in the country it is bound to happen. In practical terms I would have thought the street authority could create the gazetteer entry, reference the section 58 to that entry and explain that the new entry will appear in the next NSG update, which would be a maximum of three months.
The precise OSGR's will be contained within the type 23 record for the street. At the notice site co-ordinates are optional and site in special designation is specifically excluded for section 58 within the data validation rules.
This question I assume is asking about the definition of the word extent. It could be read as time or physical location however, looking at the data structure and the validation rules you could presume that the extent in time is the start and end date, physical being in the site location or the works description text. The other way to view could be once the works completed date is completed, the extent runs from that date for 12 months. Somewhere amongst the data I am sure the extent is covered.
The question again I assume is whether section 58 notices lapse as with utility notices. I am not 100% sure but the COP is silent on the lapsing concept so one could assume it is not required. What could happen is the notice could be updated to reflect the new start date. If the works do not go ahead you might expect a works abandoned but again I am not 100% sure. In system terms I would plan to receive the data but not make it a mandatory requirement.

Answer:

You are correct in your thinking in that there is no need to send site details on section 74 as it focuses on the works as a whole. You have a choice when at the interim or permanent stage in that you must send section 70(3), reinstatement details and works clear/closed data either individually or all at once etc. However, the site status is designed to reflect what is happening on the ground and therefore it is also conceivable that some sites could be at interim and some at closed. The majority of works being single site works site closed would normally be expected to accompany the permanent reinstatement works status or works closed. A system must be able to cope with the various combinations.

Clarification required
If we do want to send a site closed notice, what should the notice contain in the Notice_Type field
If you wanted to close an individual site and not the works as a whole you would be doing this by way of a registration or a Section 70(3) notice. There is no need to tell a Highway Authority about individually closed sites in any other circumstance.
How is the notice recognised as a site closed notice (as opposed to any other type of notice)?
As above, there is no need to notify the closure of individual sites within a works. You do however need to give notice under Section 70(3) and registration at a site level. Notice of 'closure' is given under Section 74, and this is at the works level. If we have 5 sites at interim and 3 of them are closed, what notices should be sent for the 3 that have been physically closed - assuming that the other 2 sites are closed and the works are cleared 4 days later.

In this case the overall status of the works is the crucial factor; on closing the 3 sites where permanent reinstatement has been achieved, assuming registration and Section 70(3) have been issued, the works status will be set to 'works clear'. The Highway Authority will know that 2 sites are at interim and three are at permanent and will therefore expect further notice regarding the intended permanent reinstatement on the remaining two sites. If, as you indicate in your example, the permanent reinstatement of the remaining two sites is impending (following on within a matter of days) then it may be that you would wish to leave the works as 'in progress'. This however, will clearly have a detrimental affect on the duration of the works. The example that you have given, showing 'staged' reinstatements highlights the need to give careful consideration to the planning of works. If we send notices for the 3 sites that are closed, when should we send them - is there a deadline?

Yes; if you are closing or clearing the works you must submit the notice 'not later than the end of the day following' the closure (or clearance) of the works. If you keep the works 'in progress' then you must submit the Section 70(3) the following day and the registration within 7 days for each of the relevant sites.

Original Question 2
Where one notice is sent to cover the section 70 (3) and section 74 requirements do we need to send the site status as closed? If this is the case will subsequent registrations be rejected if sites are sent with status of permanent or should the site status on registrations following works closed also be set to closed?

Original Answer 2
The site status of closed would be normally indicate no further work unless the work is remedial. In effect you would view site closed in the same light as works closed and systems must cope with the combinations.

Clarification required
If we send a combined S 70(3) and S 74, when we subsequently send the registration of reinstatement, what do we set the site_status_code to: is it 5, 6 or something else?
The site status could be either 5 or 6; the important thing to note is that the works have been closed. The recipient's system should be capable of receiving the follow up registration information even though the sites and works have been set to closed. Original Question 3
Where one notice is sent to cover all three requirements, with sites set to closed, this implies that it is acceptable for sites to go straight from proposed or interim proposed to closed. We will NEVER send a site status of Permanent.
Can you confirm that this is acceptable?

Original Answer 3
If you follow the sequence you describe I would expect a works clear to follow an interim proposed followed by a permanent proposed then permanent complete and or works closed.

Clarification required
Is it mandatory to send an interim proposed notice; then a works clear notice; then a permanent proposed notice; then a permanent complete notice; then a works closed notice?

The original answer may not have provided the guidance that you required as the 'site' and 'works' status codes were not made clear within the original question, or the answer provided by the group. The answer to your original question is that the 'works' status cannot go from proposed to closed as there would be a need to issue an actual start notice under Section 74. An individual site status could go from proposed to closed in the circumstances described within your original question.

If all 5 notices above are not mandatory, which ones are optional?

In legal 'noticing' terms all five notices would be required however, as described within your original question, notifications under several different sections of the act can be rolled up into one single works file within an Appendix E transaction. You should note however, that if the separate stages are followed and there is a time lag between the permanent and interim reinstatement (and you choose not to leave the works in progress) then you must submit the separate notices.

Is it possible to send an proposed (site_status_code = 1) followed by site closed (site_status_code = 6)

As mentioned above under certain circumstances this would be valid.

Answer:

The gazetteer records i.e. Records 11 and 12 are unchanged although the opportunity was taken during the updating to correct the omission of the double quotation marks from around the text fields in the examples at the end of each respective table. The requirement for the text fields delimiters is still contained, as previously, within Para E6.1.1. This has not changed the format of the records from the previous records.

Answer:

The rules regarding anonymous ftp still apply and are there to enable the practical application of electronic noticing. There are many ways in which to lessen the risk of 'outside' interference or to prevent unsuitable material being placed on your servers. Some possible methods suggested by the group are as follows:
Scan the directories regularly (every minute) and delete any non Appendix E files that are placed on the server.
Make the directories 'WRITE ONLY'. This would frustrate anyone who wanted to place files on the server to be read by someone else at a later date.
Make the directory size match the expected maximum required size for Appendix E files. If files are moved every minute the size required for Appendix E files will be very small and would therefore be unsuitable for the types of files that hackers would want to place on the server.
Record all log-ins by IP addresses that are undertaking malicious activity and then bar those IP addresses from future attempts at logging in (this could possibly be automated?).
This is not an exhaustive list and you may find that your Notice Management System supplier may be able to advise you further as they are likely to have a wider range of experience and expertise.

Answer:

In the case of trench sharing, two undertakers may decide to enter into contractual agreement whereby one of the undertakers (the excavating undertaker) takes on the role (for NRSWA purposes) of prime undertaker and, in addition, responsibility for all noticing under the Act. The prime undertaker should then provide sufficient details of the trench sharing arrangement and the other parties (undertakers) involved in the Works Description Text field so that the Highway Authority is aware of the situation. The batchfiles would not need to be changed.
The primary undertaker shall ensure that estimates of works duration are agreed and / or confirmed with the secondary undertaker (s) when submitting notices to comply with Section 74 charging principles. It must be emphasised that such arrangements cannot remove legal liability imposed by the Act on individual undertakers.

Answer:

The Data Capture Codes have been updated since 3 October 2000. The code now for Special Surfaces is 11 and this will not change.

Answer:

Once you have sent the appropriate Works Clear/Closed notice you have effectively stopped the section 74 clock. If a defect is found after sending the correct notices then that is considered to be a separate 'job' and should be treated as such.
It is the responsibility of the excavator to ensure they communicate with the Highway Authority and keep them aware and informed of the situation. How you do this is up to you. Only you can devise the processes and systems that will enable you to do this and only you can produce a solution that will mitigate your liability under the section 74 provision
The Code quite clearly states the Daily Whereabouts also acts as an Actual
Start Date notice and therefore must be abandoned. This is defined in Appendix A and clearly states you cannot use the same reference number again.

Answer:

There is no reason why you could not add extra site information after issuing a section 70(3) notice but what could cause you problems is if you have sent a Works Clear or Closed notice and then you add the extra sites with your R notice. A Street Authority may well become suspicious as it may seem to them that you are buying extra time to complete the other sites. However, if you combine your "R" notice and Works Clear/Closed adding extra site information then I believe you would be ok.

Answer:

Yes, there must be at least one Type 22 record per street.
The order does not matter as long as the co-ordinates are recorded accurately. The Gazetteer should always be submitted in total.

Answer:

All English highway authorities will be required to be in a position to receive and process version 2 notices from 01/04/01. If a highway authority is unable to receive notices electronically, then they will, by default, be expected to receive the notices by fax.
The sending of notices in version 2 format will be deemed compliance.
The highway authority will always be in a position to levy overstay charges providing that they have provided a minimum of one month notice of their intention to implement charging under Section 74 i.e. even if they can only receive notices by fax. It should be noted that the highway authority, in case 2 above, where only able to receive by fax, will not be expected to levy charges for the receipt of the information by this means.
Yes. Following a Section 70 (3) notice, a Reinstatement Registration can be sent in advance of a Site Clear or a Site Closed notice.
Yes, it is a mandatory requirement for the undertaker to provide an estimated end date for Emergency and Urgent proposed works.

Answer:

The flow chart indicates " to an appropriate code" as the code can vary depending on what the notice requirements would be for those works. For example if the permanent reinstatement works were minor works then they could be made permanent under a Daily Whereabouts and the code would be 4. However the works may not be minor and/or they could be in a traffic sensitive situation. The code can therefore vary. I hope that this helps explain the situation.

Answer:

The notice_type will follow the normal noticing ruler and therefore the works promoter will have to make a judgement as they would have done for the original works.

Answer:

The text "within 2 hours" is an abbreviation for "within 2 hours of the work having started" and relates to Notice Type Code value '6'.

Answer:

The revised Code of Practice including ETON 2 and the Section 74 provisions have catered for both one stage and two stage processes. Some Utilities carry out interim reinstatements others carry out 1st. time permanent reinstatement and both scenarios are catered for using the 'new notices'.
You do not have to send the intermediate notices if you do not take the intermediate steps. You can send a Works Closed Notice after an Actual Start date notice if a permanent reinstatement is carried out and The Revised Code of Practice supports this mechanism.

Answer:

Your assumption is correct. The re-issuing of notices with the same promoter_Works_Ref is allowed where the works are Permanent Reinstatement Proposed or Remedial Reinstatement Proposed. This would apply not only to 'lapsed' works but also abandoned works.

Answer:

Work that has commenced prior to April 1st will be governed by the existing legislation and CoP and will not therefore be subject to the requirements of Section 74, as legislation, in general, cannot be retrospective.
However it should be noted that this should not be seen as an opportunity to raise numerous projects shortly before the April 1st date. Undertakers identified as acting in such manner shall be appropriately directed.

Answer:

The SWA_ORG_TYPE has previously been used in the DETR Data Codes where it was used with SWA_ORG_REF, SWA_ORG_TYPE, SWA_ORG_NAME_TEXT, SWA_ORG_PREFIX which, for example, in the case of the Isle of Wight Council would be 2114, 1, ISLE OF WIGHT, RF. It is not therefore new to Version 2.
As you correctly mention the Type 21 Records have been extended and this has been done, following comments received from the Consultation exercise, to allow for more than one Interested Party to be flagged up for a street and SWA_ORG_TYPE has been included together with a facility to indicate part of a street for that organisation. SWA_ORG_TYPE does not appear in Type 11, 22 or 23 records.

Answer:

The new codes will be operational as from 01.04.2001 and all works notices must be in the new version format. This means all Street authorities must be ready to receive in the new format.
No new works notices must be transferred in version 1 format after 01.04.2001. You could send version 2 format notices electronically and fax section 74.

Answer:

The Revised CoP should be generally available from April 2001 according to the DETR.
The Appendix D form does not exactly match the Appendix E Data Batch but it contains
the same basic data items.
In answer to your detailed points;
The Works Insp_Units_Type_Code would appear (in text form) together with the Works Insp_Units_Num field, for example "11 ESTIMATED" or "42 ACTUAL" might appear within the Appendix D form.
The Site Version is in a slightly different location on the Appendix E form.
Site_Location_Text + - LOCATION (within AppendixD)
Site_Location_Post_Code_Text- (within Appendix E)
Street_Location_Code (within Appendix E)
- POSITION (within Appendix D)
With regard to the effective date of section 74, only those Works notified from 1/4/01can be included. Works which have been notified before that date are still subject to the current CoP and in general legislation cannot be retrospective.

Answer:

For one-off works it is clear that the Section 70(3) notice has to be received by the HA from the undertaker before the end of the next working day after the day on which the reinstatement is completed. The notice therefore has to be sent for each reinstatement (or reinstatements) that is completed on a different day within the street.

Answer:

Following the consultation exercise for the Code of Practice the inclusion of the new format for paper notices within Appendix D was confirmed. There will therefore be a requirement to serve paper notices in that format.

Answer:

This is contrary to the noticing rules. If the Works are abandoned the status cannot return to 'proposed'. The Code of Practice also clarifies that a Promoters_Works_Ref is unique (Section E3.6.1 ... all Street Works will be unique nationally...) and this is being emphasised in the body of the Code itself due to an interpretation that Promoters_Works_Ref could be reused.
It is correct to assume that the barhole reinstatement code indicates that there is no other reinstatement work as this is a works status code.
The Notice Type/Works Type Relationship Table does not include information on valid Works Status Codes and therefore makes no such suggestion!
Until further information is available from the HAUC UK Inspections Working Party you are right to ignore Inspection Batch and Data Capture Codes.
The Site, and Works should conclude with CLOSED otherwise Section 74 charging will continue to apply. It could possibly be that Works are concluded with CLEAR or CLOSED as there may be the very rare occasion when the remedial work is not the permanent reinstatement required. eg an urgent repair with black top in a brick footway.
Although this has not been stated explicitly within the Code, it would appear to be a logical approach as it follows the rules within the Works Batch.

Answer:

The regulations drawn up as part of ETON phase 1 allowed the Highway Authorities to charge for the receipt of notices sent by means other than electronic. If notices are rejected by a computer system then there is a system/software/content issue and is not a basis for charging.

Answer:

The Comment_Num is sequential and unique to the individual works and not unique throughout all works.

Answer:

The basic principle is that the type 21 record defines the street owner for roads or parts of roads and that will determine where the works information should be sent. Therefore the works and sites have to be split by the works promoter to ensure that each authority only sees data for those works in areas for which they are the street owner. The inspection units etc would also have to be split accordingly. There will no doubt be circumstances where a highway authority, to facilitate co-ordination, may wish to receive the notices for streets other than their own. The procedure for dealing with this situation is clearly set out in Appendix E, section 3.3.1
With regard to information that is sent to registered interested parties, the highway authority may choose only to send information, which is considered to be relevant.

Answer:

Yes an IP address is acceptable.

Answer:

The basic information required would be that which the Highway Authority needs in order it might carry out its co-ordination and inspection obligations.
While there is no hard and fast rule for the Highway's to contact the 'senders' in the event of ftp failure, it would be in their interests to let the senders know. In addition I would expect each undertaker to have some monitoring regime in place to identify that their ftp process has failed. However, despite all the technology and rules the essence of NRASWA is communication and co-operation and it would seem only sensible for either party to inform the other in the event of any difficulties or change.

Answer:

Yes. The structure is described on page 10 of the current Appendix E.
The original intention of charging for notices transmitted by means other than electronically was to encourage the electronic transfer of notices and to defray some of the cost borne by those receiving paper notices of entering the information into their systems. It is not intended to be a revenue stream'. It has always been accepted that if a utilities ftp process failed then they would employ other means to send the notices and the Highway Authority would be within their rights to charge if they so wish, however if the HA ftp process failed you would not expect a charge to be levied on the utilities.
In this particular circumstance it seems unclear where the technical failure lies and until that can be established I would suggest continuing dialogue to ensure the same situation does not arise again between the parties concerned.
We have tried to clarify the process in the event of ETON failure in the revised CoP by stating a telephone call is required as soon as you know the failure has occurred

Answer:

Charging for faxes was included in the original regulations for the introduction of Appendix E to encourage utilities to join the club. The charges for non electronic notifications will remain in place but are not applicable to phase 2.

Answer:

The Working Group can confirm that all references to inspections data (which will include defects) have been removed from Appendix E. The requirements for inspections will now be dealt with entirely within the Inspections Code of Practice, which is still under review. It should be noted however that whilst inspections data has been removed from Appendix E, the "return path" will still be required for Section 74.

Appendix E, recently signed off by the Minister, provides that undertakers must send a copy of their Areas of Interest batch files to all highway authorities. See Section E3.5.1. In addition Areas of Interest data must be provided by an undertaker to all of the other undertakers from whom copy notices are required. See Section E3.5.4. On this basis it is mandatory to provide to highway authorities and also mandatory to provide to any undertakers from whom you have requested copy notices. Nevertheless this reply should not be taken as indicating that it is mandatory to exchange notices between undertakers.