Section G.18 of the adoption standards - Find a freedom of information request

Naam Grove LN1 3NL

1. Section G.18 of the adoption standards (from the LCC's own website) state that any nonadoptable structure within 3.66m, and 1.37m or higher near the highway will require structural calculations to demonstrate suitability. Have these structures been shown to demonstrate suitability? One such structure fell down into the road a few years ago.

2. On this alleged public highway where do vehicles turn around? how is this possible?

3. On this alleged public highway, have the LCC also adopted the sewer drain system on area of road in question?

4. Why did your organisation not charge the COLC for the adoption? for example if a developer was building such a road in the hope that this may be adopted, they would have an upfront fee of £2,150 to pay. Why were the COLC not charged this?

5. Why would a developer have to adhere to the stipulated standards if he/she wanted their road adopted, when they could simply be agreed upon in the way that the LCC suggest this case has been agreed. Do you think that is fair to all the developers who pay the fee and apply for adoption?

6. Have the standards that would usually be investigated in an adoption been overlooked?

1. The development road specification may be what is being referred to here, this relates to adoption of development roads under S38 of the Highways Act. We are not aware of the structures being referred to.

2. As this is not a through route we would not expect vehicles to travel the route without intent to access private property.

3. The gully at the junction of Naam Place and Naam Grove is listed as an LCC asset.

4. This section of Highway was not adopted under S38 of the Highways Act, rather through agreement with City of Lincoln Council following a review of streets in Lincolnshire after case law from Gulliksen vs Pembrokeshire CC 2002 highlighted a responsibility (across all Highways Authorities) under the Highways Act through Section 36 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/36

as such this did not require agreements as S38 would.

5. This section of Highway was not adopted under S38 of the Highways Act, rather through agreement with CoLC following a review of streets in Lincolnshire after case law from Gulliksen vs Pembrokeshire CC 2002 highlighted a responsibility (across all Highways Authorities) under the Highways Act through Section 36 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/section/36

as such this did not require agreements as S38 would.

6. No this has been adopted through a different route as per answer 4 and 5.