plan to accompany TP1 - is this acceptable quality?

I'm (hopefully) nearing the end of a torturous boundary dispute with my neighbour. Said neighbour has agreed to purchase my portion of a shared path they accidentally (?) incorporated into a new parking area they had built, and recently their solicitor provided me with the TP1 and plan necessary for the transfer.

My gut instinct is that the plan (see above) is too vague to be fit-for-purpose, but I would be interested to get an opinion on this from the Land Registry. As the strip to be transferred is relatively small (approximately 7m x 0.5m) and will, in effect move the legal boundary between our front gardens to the edge of a new brick-edged resin-topped parking area, I would like to see reference to this brick edge, measurements on each of the lines, and an outline of the my 'retained property', on the plan. Do you think this is a reasonable expectation?

Modifiedplan.jpg (see above) is my crude modification of the plan. The brick edge runs from A to B to C to D. (Ideally there would be measurements between each pair of letters.) The green line outlines the southeastern part of my retained property.

Attached is the plan from the solicitor in unmodified form in case my links don't work.

Tim - too vague if that's the exact plan being prepared. See our PG 40 supplement 2 section 5 for guidance on the quality of plan needed
Preparing plans for HM Land Registry applications (PG40s2) - GOV.UK

Thanks for the swift and clear response, Adam. I'll point this out to the solicitor.

Adam, if it's not too much trouble, please could you give an opinion on the two attached plans.

After two months of exasperating silence/stonewalling, my neighbour's solicitor finally sent me an ‘improved’ plan last Friday.

As can be seen from improvedplan.jpg, it's just the old “too vague” plan with some measurements crudely biro-ed in. I'd be interested to know whether this plan would pass muster if sent to the Land Registry along with a TP1 that contains no text describing the position or size of the property to be transferred.

I was so dismayed by the shoddiness of the above, that yesterday I had a go at creating a better version myself (see myplan.jpg). If my plan -which shows retained land and has, I think, clearer annotations - is acceptable to the LR, I'll suggest to the conveyancer that we use it instead.

(NB. Both plans are pdfs and have scales and North indicators, but the latter aren't visible in the cropped jpegs)

Tim - it matters not a jot what I think of the plans you have shared as the application (and plan) will be treated on merit and considered by the casework team.
The PG guidance is quite clear as to what quality of plan is required and your solicitor should be aware of this already.
If you asked me to make a choice re 'best' plan then I would go with your 'myplan' but it's all about what is being transfererd and the parties both agreeing that the plan accurately defines the transferred extent and that the plan matches the 'quality' required as explained in the PG

Thanks for the input, Adam. I'll suggest using my plan.
 
My neighbours' solicitor is handling the conveyancing for this land transfer and communicating directly with me (In order to keep costs down I'm not using a solicitor at the moment). As conveyancing has already been ongoing for over eight months, I don't want to sign/approve a plan that will end up being rejected by the Land Registry, leading to even greater delays and wasted time and resources, hence my original enquiry and today's.

   

Tim - understood and appreciated. The PG 40 sup guidance is very clear as to what is a good quality plan. Match your efforts to it and you shouldn't have any issues