Meeting Note File reference EN010011 (Pre-Exam) - National ...

Meeting Note 

File reference 

Status 

Author 

EN010011 (Pre-Exam) 

Final 

Amy Cooper/David Cliff 

Meeting with 

Meeting date 9 th November 2010 

Attendees (IPC) 

Representatives of Bedford Borough (BBC) & Central 

Bedfordshire Councils (CBC) 

Ian Gambles, Janet Wilson, David Cliff, Kay Fry, Amy 

Cooper 

Attendees (non IPC) CBC: Sue Marsh, Roy Romans, James Delafield, Andy 

Emerton 

BBC: Iain Blackley, Nigel Bennett 

Location 

Meeting purpose 

Note of meeting 

including any 

advice given 

Mills & Reeve LLP: David Brock (providing legal advice to 

both authorities) 

Stewartby Village Hall, Stewartby Way, Stewartby 

To discuss general procedural matters in relation to the 

development consent examination process. 

At the start of the meeting CBC & BBC (the LAs) explained 

their eagerness to structure an internal work programme 

and expressed concerns about the short timescales 

associated with the PA 2008 and the need for additional 

clarity from the IPC on procedural matters in relation to the 

examination process. 

The following matters were discussed at the meeting and, 

for clarity, have been categorised here in accordance with 

the ‘matters to raise with the IPC’ note circulated prior to 

the meeting. Where appropriate, topics have been 

condensed in the same section. 

1) The date for the preliminary meeting: 

IPC advised that it is anticipated that the preliminary 

meeting will take place in mid to late January subject to 

formal confirmation by the Examining Authority (ExA). 

To help the LAs to allocate resources internally, the LA 

Page 1of 6 

P:\CASE MANAGEMENT\Rookery South\091110_EN010011_Meeting CBC BBCFinal.doc

asked whether the IPC can provide a steer on how the 

preliminary meeting will proceed including whether 

parties will be called upon to discuss matters at the 

preliminary meeting, noting that the minimum 21 days 

notice is constraining. IPC explained that notice of the 

preliminary meeting including an agenda of the matters 

to be discussed will be sent to interested parties (Rule 

6 of Examination Procedure Rules) following the 

appointment of the ExA and its initial assessment of 

issues. The matters to be discussed will be influenced 

by the relevant representations made by interested 

parties and will be a matter of the ExA to decide, not 

the Secretariat. 

2, 3,& 4) Timescale for the production of the Local 

Impact Report (LIR), Written Representations and 

Statement of Common Ground (SOcG): 

There is no statutory timescale for the submission of 

the LIR, the deadline for the submission of any LIR 

being a matter for the Examining Authority to decide in 

its procedural note to be issued following the 

preliminary meeting. The CLG Guidance on the 

examination process states that this should normally be 

received by the ExA within a six week period following 

the procedural decision. Interested parties will have 

the opportunity to make oral representations on the 

time they require to produce LIR, representations on 

SoCG at the Preliminary Meeting. The preliminary 

meeting is the correct forum for this discussion. 

The LAs explained that, bearing in mind the Council’s 

decision making processes, it would be beneficial if the 

deadline for the submission of the LIR, written 

representation and the Statement of Common Ground 

could be the same. This was noted by the IPC but it 

was re-emphasised that this was a matter for the ExA 

to determine. 

The IPC did advise however that bearing in mind the 

likely timescale for the pre-examination stage, the 

deadline for submission of written representations was 

not likely to be before the end of January at the 

earliest, noting also the CLG guidance referred to 

above in respect of the LIR. 

IPC advised that written representations will be made 

available on the Commission’s website . A deadline for 

submission of comments on others’ representations will 

be set in the examination timetable. 

5) Time for completion of s106 agreement (s174 

PA 2008): 

Page 2of 6 


IPC explained that any legal agreement would need to 

be signed before the end of the examination period in 

order that is can be taken into account when the ExA 

makes its decision or recommendation. 

Representations from interested parties on any draft 

Head’s of Terms or proposed obligations from the 

applicant can be made through written representations 

or the LIR (for LAs). Whilst there will be opportunity for 

discussion at any specific issue hearing, interested 

parties should not assume such hearings will take 

place – the primary form of examination being by the 

means of written representations. The same advice is 

relevant to requirements. The LA s expressed a view 

that this could cause practical difficulties in coming to 

any conclusion on any legal agreements or 

requirements. (Note: Section 7 is also relevant to this.) 

6) The Draft National Policy Statements (NPSs) – 

Processes 

Given that the NPSs are due to be implemented at a 

time when this application is being examined the LAs 

questioned how the ExA will decide what weight to give 

to them? In addition, how will the examination proceed 

if there are significant changes to the NPS from its 

draft? 

IPC advised that the ExA will need to decide the weight 

that should given to any relevant draft NPS, in a similar 

way to how an Planning Inspector would need to give 

the appropriate weight to any emerging policy 

document in an planning appeal. Should significant 

changes occur during the examination process, 

consideration would need to be given by the ExA to 

whether further representations are invited from 

interested parties. This decision will obviously depend 

on what the particular issues are. 

IPC also advised that the Chair would be reluctant to 

extend an examination but has the power to do so 

under s98 of the Planning Act 2008. However should 

the Commissioner(s) and Chair feel that the changes 

between the draft and implemented NPS were 

significant and of relevance to the application, the Chair 

may choose to extend the examination. 

7, 9, 10 & 11) Hearings - Issue Specific Hearings / 

Identification of matters at the start of a Hearing / 

Council representatives at hearings / Oral 

Representations: 

IPC reiterated that the time for interested parties to 

make representations on whether any issues require 

Page 3of 6 


specific issues hearings will be at the preliminary 

meeting. The ExA will make its decision based upon 

the contents of the application, the relevant 

representations and oral representations at the 

preliminary meeting. Interested parties should not 

assume that specific hearings will take place on any 

particular issue. 

With regard to requirements and legal obligations, 

interested parties will have the opportunity to make 

representations on the merits of any particular 

requirement or obligation when commenting on a 

particular issue to which it relates. 

The LA’s wish it to be noted that it would be helpful for 

the ExA to inform interested parties of the matters to be 

considered, and those which it requires further 

information on, in advance of any hearing so that they 

can consider their response. 

In relation to who appears on the behalf of the LA’s at 

any hearing, the IPC explained that it would be 

appropriate for a person with the technical background 

relevant to the particular issue being heard to appear at 

any specific issue hearing. IPC also emphasised that it 

will be an inquisitorial rather than adversarial process 

more akin to a traditional Planning Hearing rather than 

a Planning Inquiry. 

Additionally, at the request of the ExA, the Chairman 

may appoint a person to act as an assessor (i.e. a 

technical expert in a particular field) to assist the ExA in 

its examination of the application (s100 PA 2008). 

The IPC stressed that the principal method of 

examination is the consideration of written evidence. 

The LA’s asked the IPC what it sees as the difference 

between a Specific Issue Hearing and an Open Floor 

Hearing? IPC explained that if one person requests for 

an open floor hearing, one will be held, whilst Issue 

Specific Hearings will be held if the ExA decides it to be 

necessary. All interested parties will have an 

opportunity, subject to the ExA’s powers of control over 

the conduct of the hearing, to make oral 

representations about the application. Those sharing 

the same views will be encouraged to put forward a 

spokesperson as the ExA is unlikely to allow oral 

representations repeating those that have already been 

made. 

The ExA will determine the time allocated for oral 

Page 4of 6 


epresentations based upon the relevant/written 

representations made and what particular additional 

information or clarification is required. The IPC notes 

that LA’s request for as much notice as possible to be 

given for the time allocated for oral representations. 

8) Appeals against refusal of requirements and 

s.121 of the Planning Act 2008: 

IPC explained that further clarification on the discharge 

of conditions is expected from the Government. The 

CLG Local Authority Guidance states that the 

Development Consent Order can include provision that 

allows the Commission to determine requirements in 

default of agreement by the Local Planning Authority. 

CBC and BBC advised that they would be inviting the 

IPC to apply existing statutory provisions to appeals 

against requirements. IPC responded that this would 

be clarified prior to this aspect of the process being 

applied. CBC and BBC advised that they would be 

considering the draft DCO with this in mind. 

The IPC invited the LA’s to submit to it in writing any 

questions and/or issues in relation to s.121 so that any 

matter can be carefully considered and a full response 

provided. 

12) What does the IPC understand by the Local 

Impact Report (LIR)? 

The IPC explained that the LIR provides an important 

opportunity for LA’s to provide their technical 

assessment of the likely impacts upon their area, using 

the LAs local knowledge and expertise. Further advice 

on the possible content of the LIR is provided with IPC 

Advice Note One. It is entirely up to the LA, however, 

whether they submit a LIR and what information is 

provided within it. Advice about the LIR remains 

generic with the intent to allow flexibility of it contents. 

13) Individual and Joint Submissions: 

IPC stated that groups or individuals may make joint 

submissions if they wish. For example, if a member of 

a public is a member of a residents group there is 

nothing to prevent that individual making their own 

representation along side the representation made by 

the residents group. However, some care will be 

needed. For instance, if a Parish Council submits an 

individual representation and then a joint 

representation with another Parish Council, confusion 

could result should the two representations contradict 

each other. This is a matter for each interested party 

to consider how best to make its representation. 

Page 5of 6 


14) Registration problems: 

The LA's indicated that they had been made aware of 

concerns raised by parish councils and others 

regarding difficulties of accessing and submitting 

relevant representation forms electronically. 

The IPC explained that the registration process has, for 

the most part, been progressing without any major 

problems. Remedies that have been introduced to 

resolve any specific problems including the provision of 

downloadable PDF copies of the registration form on 

the website should anybody have any difficulty with the 

‘captcha’ process. If any parts of a form submitted be 

incomplete, members of the secretariat are contacting 

people to let them know that they need to provide 

additional information. The decision to formally 

validate any representation as a ‘relevant 

representation’ is a matter for the ExA to determine 

following its appointment. Drop in sessions in the 

locality of the site have been held to provide guidance 

on the submission of the form and the IPC helpdesk is 

also able to do this. 

15) CBC and BBC submissions: 

IPC confirmed that the LA’s may submit their relevant 

representation form(s) by email should they wish. 

AOB – Future Meetings: 

The LAs requested future meetings such as this to 

discuss procedural matters. IPC explained that 

dialogue within any future meetings must only discuss 

general and non case-specific procedural and process 

queries and not issues arising from the application itself 

– these being strictly matters for the formal examination 

process. Consideration to be given to the format and 

frequency of any future informal meetings. 

Specific 

decisions/follow up 

required? 

Circulation List 

• The LA’s are invited to submit in writing any 

questions in relation to s121 of the Act. 

• Consideration of any future ‘informal’ meetings. 

Attendees as listed 

Helen Adlard (Director or Legal Services) 

Peter Bond 

Page 6of 6

Meeting Note File reference EN010011 (Pre-Exam) - National ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?