Advice to Stop the Gailey Freight Hub
Back to listEnquiry
- From
- Stop the Gailey Freight Hub
- Date advice given
- 7 March 2017
- Enquiry type
Thank you for your recent reply. However your answer suggests that the proposers letters are a benign request for information and outside of the scope set out in the Planning Act 2008.
Remember that we only sent you the covering letter not the seventeen pages of details and questions.
Those documents revealed extensive research into property and land ownership has already taken place. The tables they included detailed exactly who owns the land, including tenancies or mortgagors – together with details of what neighbours owned.
It would therefore be naïve to think that the letters are just for double checking their data at this pre-application stage; they are part of a slick strategy of applying pressure by suggestion that the project is a done deal – particularly to older or more vulnerable members of the community.
In fact the agency used by the proposer, TerraQuest, hosted a forum in London in February on how to get major infrastructure projects passed the planning inspectorate.
TerraQuest also operate the Planning Portal – possibly running PINS Portal as well?
If you have elderly parents, consider the effect of a seventeen page package arriving full of personal information and unexplained data, highlighted in red as affecting your retirement property - maybe even shaded in pink on the plans to suggest demolition. That is not the intention of pre-application legislation.
Last week the House of Lords debated community interests in Strategic Planning matters: (Quoting from Hansard) “…. applicants are required to engage and consult local communities and local authorities from the outset, with local authorities having a role in assessing the adequacy of that consultation”.
c.29 Part 5 Chapter 2 of the 2008 Act stipulates:
42 Duty to consult those persons specified and the Local Authority for that same consultation - which was not done.
45 (2) States pre-application consultations requesting answers, to give not less than 28 days - which they did not.
46 (1) Notification to the Commission of the same information on or before commencing pre- consultation under section 42 – which was not?
47 (1) The applicant must prepare a statement detailing how to consult people living in the vicinity, in conjunction with the local authority – which it has not. We assume that the timetable for this should have been after first consultation with PINS and taxpayer expenditure commences. Given that the pre-application stage is already in progress and that PINS have had a number of meetings and a site visit, at what stage would you expect to a Statement of Community Consultation?
- Obtaining information about interests in land. For a compulsory reply to property information it would require the commission to authorise it. That should have been stated - rather than to construct letters which imply it. Currently there is no legal requirement to provide private information – including the telephone numbers and emails that were requested. A strategy to isolate and pressure individuals.
55 (3) The commission may only accept the application if the applicant has complied with Chapter 2: Pre-application procedure. By which means can the Commission know this if there is no Statement prepared?
We look forward to your response.
We hope the Planning Inspectorate will apply neutrality, fairness and rigid compliance to these proceedings. Do not forget that with a major proposal such as this (where the sole purpose of the project is to make money); the advice of influencing it in the pre-application stage is somewhat moot. This proposal is the evolution of several earlier commercial, industrial and logistics applications thrown out by local government - that have now found the magic key of parking it next to a railway. Clever and well funded developers will exploit every trick to make a project appear to save the planet and employ most of England.
For us it is not a question of objecting to minor aspects; if we don’t prevail over this application our community will cease to be.
You requested our South Staffs District Council contact: David Pattison, Director of Legal and Public Health Protection. D.Pattison@sstaffs.gov.uk
We also requested clarification of registering as the group representing local community opposition to the proposal. Can this be entered now - if not when?
Advice given
The covering letters you have provided to us do not appear to be statutory consultation under either Section (s)42 or s47 of the Act (the latter of which would have to be informed by a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC)) or a statutory request for information under s52. They appear to be non-statutory requests for information.
How the applicant chooses to conduct their non-statutory, pre-application public engagement activities is not something that we control. The Secretary of State has provided advice on the pre-application process, including consultation, that can be found here. I have also attached the following Advice Notes which explain in detail the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects, which may be helpful to you:
Advice Note 8: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public Advice Note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination Advice Note 8.3: Influencing how an application is Examined: the Preliminary Meeting Advice Note 8.4: The Examination
Our full series of Advice Notes can be found here.
You have also correctly identified those sections of the Act that set out statutory pre-application consultation duties, and in addition there is s49, where the applicant has a duty to have regard to statutory responses received. If an application is submitted, the applicant will have to show, among other things, that all of the requirements in Part 2 of the Act have been met (including that a SoCC has been produced and followed) before we can consider accepting it for examination. We will invite the host and neighbouring local authorities to comment on whether or not consultation has been adequate before making that determination, and so you may wish to make your concerns known to them as well.
The best opportunity to influence the form of, or likelihood of an application is at this pre-application stage. I note your view that the applicant may not be engaging in good faith. I encourage you to respond to the applicant’s pre-application consultation, even if you have concerns about whether or not your views will be considered. One of the duties in Part 2 of the Act (s49) requires that the applicant have regard to responses to their statutory pre-application consultation.
If an application is submitted, and if one is accepted for examination, you will have the opportunity to register to participate in that examination and make submissions on whether or not the form of the proposal that is described in the application is acceptable, and whether Development Consent should be granted. The period for registering as an Interested Party to the proposed development will be at least 28 days, and the deadline for responses will be advertised by the developer in their publicity notices, as well as by ourselves on our webpage for this project, where you can also register for updates via email on key events.