Advice to Marrons
Back to listEnquiry
- From
- Marrons
- Date advice given
- 13 December 2012
- Enquiry type
We are not needing to consult any further because we are not proposing to carry out any works in Leicestershire. A very minor alteration to the junction amendments which caused the concern has obviated the need for the three white lines.
Whilst we do intend to send a scheme update document to our s.42 consultees this is simply for information and not a consultation exercise. We will be relying on our stage 1 and stage 2 consultation exercise as before, having addressed the concern raised in respect of that exercise relating to Leicestershire.
We will be writing to Cambridgeshire, however, since failure to consult them was not an acceptance issue the resubmission need not await their response, if any.
We currently anticipate that our resubmission will be towards the end of next week.
Advice given
Please find attached a link to a copy of the finalised meeting note and the adequacy of consultation response from Leicestershire County Council for ease of reference.
We have some concerns about your proposed approach to consultation in relying on Phase 1 (where no highway works were put forward) and Phase 2 where your own Consultation Report and the response from Leicestershire County Council (attached above) in relation to the initial application has identified that they were still awaiting details of the highway works, and would note that it appears to be at variance with the approach you outlined and we discussed in the meeting.
In our view, Leicestershire County Council would probably still need to be consulted as a relevant highway authority even if you have amended the detailed drawing to remove proposed highway works in their area because the project is still "...likely to have an impact on the road network..." in their area, given the works on A5, for example. This point is clearly made at section 2 iii) of the meeting note (attached above). The definition of "relevant" in Schedule 1 of the APFP Regulations refers to bodies which have "...responsibility for an area which neighbours that location" (i.e. neighbours the location in which the proposals may or will be sited). On that basis it seems to us that Leicestershire County Council would probably need to be consulted under s.42(1)(a). If not, you would need to explain in your consultation report why you consider that this body does not need to be consulted. In the meeting, Mr Lewis agreed that he would seek to obtain a response from Leicestershire County Council.
Not consulting Cambridgeshire County Council was referred to as a failure to comply with Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Planning Act 2008 in the non-acceptance letter and noted in the spreadsheet, albeit it was not stated as one of the three reasons for non-acceptance in the letter, as these were the most significant items. In any event, you have previously accepted that Cambridgeshire County Council were not consulted under s.42 at pre-application stage.
If either or both of these bodies were to be formally consulted then arguably they should be given at least 28 days in which to respond. If the application was to be 're-submitted' before the end of that consultation period or receipt of any response(s) (if earlier) then the question arises as to how this would be dealt with in the consultation report.
I look forward to your clarification of how you consider the 'resubmitted' application will be able to meet all the requirements of the Planning Act 2008, relevant Regulations, and CLG Guidance as per the non-acceptance letter, the meeting note, and this email.