Advice to Susan and Philip Salaun
Back to listEnquiry
- From
- Susan and Philip Salaun
- Date advice given
- 26 September 2014
- Enquiry type
The amount of consultation that has taken place for such a major development has been minimal and has left so many questions unanswered. This area of NW Leics has taken the brunt of so many developments over many years ? not least EM Airport, but also the M1, the A50, Donington Park Race Track and lots of green spaces that have been swallowed up by manufacturing and warehouse units on the basis of geographical position ? and this shows no sign of stopping.
The piece of land in question means a great deal to the people who live in this area as it is one of the few remaining green spaces and indeed is agricultural land. We fail to understand from the developers why they cannot find a brown field site (of which there are a number) to develop instead. This would be more environmentally friendly and would allow the land at Lockington to continue to be used for farming. This feels very much like a stitch up between the land owner and the developer and it is almost impossible for ordinary people to be able to fight them when they have the power of big money at their disposal. This development is not for the good of the area, it is designed to line a few people?s pockets. Big business always seems to hold sway and it is soul destroying for ordinary people. The developer?s display boards with their diagrams and artist?s impressions give no definitive answers, they simply appear ?professional?, but do not impress.
Not only have we not received clear answers from the developers to questions about the increased amount of noise, pollution and traffic movements, (which may well create more congestion at an already over-used junction of the M1), but we are concerned too about the issue of drainage and the possibility of more water running into the existing water courses, given that this is a designated flood area. This issue has not been properly addressed either.
Advice given
Pre-application consultation is a statutory duty for applicants, and the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) requires for it to be carried out in a certain manner and to a certain standard. Where any person feels that an applicant?s pre-application consultation was inadequately carried out, they should seek resolution by approaching the applicant in the first instance. Where dissatisfaction remains, the appropriate mechanism is to make a complaint to the relevant local authority (who can consider this complaint as part of their representation to the Secretary of State on the adequacy of consultation), or to the Secretary of State (via the Inspectorate). Any complaint should be made promptly following the close of pre-application consultation to ensure that it was received no later than the point at which an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. In all cases, the final decision as to whether pre-application consultation was adequately carried out rests with the Secretary of State.
As you are likely aware, on 19 September 2014 the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) made its decision that the application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd was of a satisfactory standard to proceed to be examined. The period within which complaints about pre-application consultation could be made and considered by the Inspectorate as part of its acceptance decision has therefore elapsed. Local authorities were invited to make representations to the Inspectorate concerning the adequacy of the applicant?s pre-application consultation, and any complaints made to them should have been taken into account. Those representations are available to view by clicking the following link:
On submission of the application the Inspectorate applied the associated legal tests (under s55 PA2008) to the application documentation, including the consultation evidence provided by the applicant. The Inspectorate decided that the applicant?s pre-application consultation had been of a satisfactory standard, and its commentary and conclusions are available to be read in the ?Acceptance of Applications Checklist?:
Importantly, the Inspectorate?s decision to accept the application to be examined did not comprise any consideration of the merits of the application. These issues will be tested in detail by an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time.
The examination of the application cannot commence until a ?relevant representations? period has elapsed; a minimum period of 28 days within which anybody can register to become and ?interested party?, enabling them to make written and oral representations about the application throughout the six month examination period.
The applicant advertised the acceptance of the application today (26 September 2014), and the relevant representations period for the application period opened concurrently. In order for the comments comprised within your email to be considered by an Examining Authority, once appointed, I must request that you register as an interested party as described above. The comments comprised within your email concerning the merits of the application should be repeated on the appropriate prescribed form. The form is available by clicking the following link:
Please be aware that the deadline for making a relevant representation is 3 November 2014. For more information on how to register as an interested party please read the Inspectorate?s associated advice note (Advice note 8.3: How to register and become an interested part in an examination), available here:
http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/
The Inspectorate has also produced a short film explaining the process from end-to-end, available here:
http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/application-process/the-process/