Advice to Peter Anderson
Back to listEnquiry
- From
- Peter Anderson
- Date advice given
- 26 June 2014
- Enquiry type
Would you please inform me why the Inspector at the initial meeting in Norwich is not continuing? It is disturbing that such changes are taking place. The new panel will not have gauged the tone and/or the feelings expressed at that first meeting. Could we be informed of the backgrounds of the new panel, please?
This type of examination is quickly becoming very difficult for an individual member of the public of Norwich to follow and to comply with. I note that a harassing tone has now crept in with the threat that a form of financial penalty may be applicable in certain instances. Is this and the hurried changes being made to the procedures indicative that the examination is scrambling to keep up with its time limits at all costs?
Advice given
In the Examining Authority?s (ExA) Rule 8 Letter of 25 June 2014 it notifies that a panel of inspectors has now been formally appointed by the Secretary of State to examine the application. The Secretary of State had regard to the complexity of the case and the level of public interest in the outcome in making its decision to appoint a panel. The emergence of a draft of the national roads and rail networks National Policy Statement going out to consultation, and which is likely to be designated prior to the close of the examination period, combined with the large number of submitted representations and persons attending the Preliminary Meeting have helped inform the Secretary of State?s decision.
Guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on the Planning Act 2008; examination of applications for development consent, identifies the criteria for appointing an Examining Authority. You can view the said guidance by accessing the following link:
The newly appointed panel has worked closely with the case team at the Planning Inspectorate prior to its formal appointment; the case team was also present at the Preliminary Meeting of 2 June 2014 at Blackfriars Hall. The panel has listened to a recording of the Preliminary Meeting, which was made available on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website and is aware of the tones and feelings expressed at the meeting. Therefore the newly appointed panel has familiarised itself with the case and has the necessary knowledge of the proceedings to date.
We advise any person who has any questions regarding the proceedings to contact us at the Planning Inspectorate case team as we can provide advice accordingly. We also have a suite of advice notes; I have include a link to advice note 8.5: participating in the examination, which I hope you find useful:
http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Advice-note-8-5v3.pdf
In referring to the possibility of the award of costs against interested parties; the statement included within the Rule 8 Letter was also included in the ExA?s letter of 8 May 2014, known as the Rule 6 letter. This statement is common across all Nationally Significant Infrastructure projects and is included to ensure that all parties involved in an examination behave in an acceptable way and follow good practice.
I hope you find this information useful, If you have any further questions please do get in touch.