PINS publishes pre-application prospectus

This entry reports on the publication of a document describing the Planning Inspectorate's service for prospective applicants under the Planning Act 2008.

It's not often I manage a fully alliterative headline, but this one came naturally. Without much fanfare, or any that I can detect, the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) has fulfilled the second of the Government's 2014 review pledges by publishing a description of what it can offer those contemplating an application for a nationally significant infrastructure project - ta-dah!

The prospectus can be found here. You can also see an introductory video from Director of Major Applications and Plans Mark Southgate here.

Chapters 1 and 2

Chapter 1 divides what PINS can offer into five aspects:

• assisting with knowledge and experience of the NSIP process;
• providing advice about applications and policy;
• reviewing draft documents;
• facilitating connections with major consultees; and
• providing a structured approach by means of a 'contact plan'.

As the document goes on to say, all this is free, optional and flexible. What's not to like?

Chapter 2 sets out the things an applicant needs to do before making an application. Unfortunately, the first one, 'refining the details of the project', tends to take place at the same time as all the other ones - and beyond. The list is what you would expect, but perhaps 'obtaining other non-planning consents' before making the main application is somewhat optimistic.

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 goes into the five aspects above in more detail. It says that responsiblity for delivering the pre-application service falls to PINS' five 'Infrastructure Planning Leads', their most experienced officers. For the record they are currently Jessica Powis for offshore renewables, Andy Luke for onshore renewables, Tom Carpen for fossil fuel generation, Kath Powell for electric lines, and Mark Wilson is Lord High Everything Else. I can vouch for their knowledge of the regime - four of them are subscribers to this blog.

For each project there will be an examining inspector, an EIA/HRA adviser, a legal adviser and a case manager or officer.

The advice section sets out no fewer than 15 areas where PINS can give advice to prospective applicants, from procedural matters to statements of common ground via transboundary consultation.

Perhaps the most interesting item in the document is PINS' decision on when to publish advice that those seeking it would prefer to be delayed (or not published at all, in fact). The policy of openness continues, but publication will not necessarily be immediate. They say that they will delay publication, if good reasons are given, for up to six months or until they have received notice that the project is EIA (environmental impact assessment) development, or asking whether it is, whichever is earlier. That's actually fairly early on in a project's lifetime, but does include mentioning the project at all on the list of forthcoming projects. Once this step has been taken, all advice is published more or less straight away.

Aspect three is reviewing draft application documents. The document says that PINS can review virtually everything except the environmental statement, and even on that they will comment on approach and methodology.

Applicants are to allow about three months for the review stage, although this could vary between six weeks and six months depending on project complexity. It is recommended that applicants give PINS three weeks' notice that they are about to send documents, and then leave three weeks after having done so before any review meeting is called. Note that meetings are 'normal practice' rather than just doing everything in writing.

As with pre-application advice, advice on draft documents will be published by PINS. I should just mention that we This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. of providing pre-application advice and reviewing draft documents where the results are not published. It is optional and flexible and good value, but not quite free. Washing your dirty linen in public, or being taken to the cleaners, it's your choice.

On facilitation, PINS will try to knock heads together if necessary, hosting meetings with local authorities and statutory consultees (noting that some of the latter may charge for this).

The final aspect is the new concept of a 'contact plan'. Perhaps this is the nub of the offering resulting from feedback that applicants want to be helped to formulate and stick to their programmes. The idea is that an initial meeting will be held and a timetable and 'pre-application engagement programme' organised, recorded in this contact plan. A blank plan is included as an appendix. And yes, the contact plan will be published for all to see.

Chapters 4 and 5

Chapter 4 turns the tables and sets out what PINS expects from prosective applicants. It can be summed up as 'be realistic, and keep us in the loop and updated when things change'. Chapter 5 is the inevitable FAQ.

So that's a run-down of what PINS can offer applicants before they make their applications. I think it should be a great help, not just to first timers but even repeat applicants, who after all often have different teams for different projects. My only hesitation as to its effectiveness is not the document itself, which is very clear and well-written, but the policy of openness, which may deter the engagement with applicants that PINS is now very explicitly able to offer.