Advice to BNP Paribas for Royal Mail
Back to listEnquiry
- From
- BNP Paribas for Royal Mail
- Date advice given
- 20 December 2017
- Enquiry type
I was surprised to read from paragraph 1.4.2 of the Report to the SoS that Royal Mail’s submission following the IP Registration date was not treated as a Relevant Representation despite correspondence from PINS accepting it as such (as attached) and subsequent dialogue with PINS and HE up to 22 May 2017 before completion of the Examination on 2 June 2017. Based on previous advice from PINS, as a statutory consultee Royal Mail is able to notify the Examining Authority under section 89(2A) b of the Planning Act 2008 that it wishes to become an IP post registration.
Please can you explain why Royal Mail was not advised that its submission was not being treated as a Relevant Representation during the Examination process.
Advice given
The representations submitted by Royal Mail were received on 19 October 2016. The registration or ‘Relevant Representation’ period closed on 3 October 2016.
What constitutes a Relevant Representation is a matter of fact, as set out in s102(4) of the Planning Act 2008. The representations provided by RM were not in the prescribed form and were received later than the applicable deadline under s56 (3 October 2016). RM’s submission therefore could not be treated as a Relevant Representation. Please see my attached email to you dated 25 November 2016.
Notwithstanding this, statutory consultees such as RM can notify an Examining Authority of their wish to be considered as an Interested Party at any time prior to the close of an Examination.
In short, RM became an IP following our receipt of your 19 October 2016 email request, but the attached submission could not be treated as Relevant Representation. The submission was however accepted by the ExA to be read in conjunction with the Examination.