Today's entry reports on the growing practice of asking for further information before the start of the examination into a Planning Act application.
Those familiar with applications under the Planning Act 2008 regime will be aware that there is a 'pre-examination' period between an application being accepted for examination and the examination itself actually starting. During that time a there is a period for advertising and accepting representations, one or more inspectors are appointed, and an invitation to the preliminary meeting is sent out to interested parties, along with a preliminary assessment of the main issues and a draft timetable (the so-called 'Rule 4 and 6 letter').
Increasingly, the Planning Inspectorate and inspectors are asking for more information during this period. This is either done shortly after the application is accepted for examination as 'section 51 advice' or in the Rule 4 and 6 letter. Here are some examples:
- after accepting the Atlantic Array offshore wind farm application, PINS issued section 51 advice about various aspects of the application that it suggested be addressed;
- PINS also issued s51 advice on the application for the A30 highway project in Cornwall;
- in the Rule 4 and 6 letter for the Thames Tideway Tunnel, the panel asked for a series of documents, to be supplied 11 days after the preliminary meeting - see pages 27-31;
- in the Rule 4 and 6 letter for the A556 highway project, the inspector asked for a series of documents, to be supplied a week before the preliminary meeting (and a month after the letter) - see Annex F.
Why is this happening? I think that there are two reasons. First, PINS is now erring on the side of accepting applications for examination rather than rejecting them when there are some question marks about them, but then ensuring that the question marks are picked up during the examination. Indeed, the inspector appointed to consider whether to accept an application is often then appointed to examine it, so there is little chance that the issues will not be picked up.
Secondly, given that there are only six months in which to examine an application, whatever its size, inspectors are trying to ensure that as much written information as possible that they consider likely to be relevant is in their possession before the starting gun is fired - or shortly afterwards. Indeed, the Thames Tideway Tunnel request resulted in a further 20,000 pages of information being supplied - better sooner than later.
The lesson for promoters of up and coming projects is that the period between an application being accepted and the examination starting is increasingly being filled with activity and they should ensure that they have resources available then. Immediately following the acceptance of an application PINS may suggest further documentation is prepared, as may the inspector or inspectors in the month or so before the preliminary meeting, and it would be unwise to ignore their pleas.
Another tip is not only to read other projects' 'section 55 checklists' to see what sort of queries are picked up about applications, but also to read any s51 advice that is issued after other applications are accepted. The situation is not static, either: practice evolves over time as more applications enter the system. Here at BDB we keep tabs on these issues so that each subsequent application we make learns from all the previous ones and risks are minimised.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
