Advice to Mark de Pulford
Back to listEnquiry
- From
- Mark de Pulford
- Date advice given
- 19 September 2018
- Enquiry type
i have just read the explanation given on page 120 of the applicant's Planning Statement regarding his astonishing disregard of the extensive representations made by the host local authority in relation to the final part of the statutory consultation. (I have also read the similar account given on p318 of the Consultation Report).
I am wondering if PINS was aware of this when it took a view on the adequacy of the consultation and the overall compliance of the application with applicable norms and standards?
I ask the question because it seems to me that the applicant's actions were improper: it ought not to have disregarded an important part of the statutory process on the basis of an email from a local politician who very plainly had no authority to issue the instruction he did.
I would like to know why PINS has allowed this abuse to pass.
Advice given
Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out what the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to in reaching a decision about whether an applicant has complied with its Pre-application duties, namely:
• The Consultation Report received; • any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received from local authority consultees; and • the extent to which an applicant has had regard to statutory guidance.
The decision to accept the application by RiverOak Strategic Partners for examination has been made, and the conclusions reached by the Inspectorate in that respect are expressed in the published Section 55 Acceptance of Application Checklist*. If you disagree with the way in which the Secretary of State’s decision in this case was taken, the decision may be challenged in the High Court through the process of Judicial Review (JR). For more information about the JR process you will need to seek your own legal advice.