PINS AND EMAILS - WHAT COULD GO WRONG ?

By


Electronic filing in appeals 


It is a fair guess that when the Planning Inspectorate say they are invoking the magic of modern IT, then something will go amiss.


The famously dour Wittgenstein is said to have made an uncharacteristic joke: “I will not say that I will see you tomorrow because I cannot predict the future”.  True, but one can hazard a fair guess based on past experience.

This brings me to the current advice in Procedural Guide Planning appeals – England (March 2020).  Appendix I1 (@p.57) states:

“Documents submitted may be no bigger than 15mb each.

It is your responsibility to keep your documents to a manageable size.
If you have documents that are larger than this you can try the following;
•       Break long documents into several files, but note the document naming conventions below.
•       Try and use black and white wherever possible (unless submitting photographs).
•       If submitting images, your software may have file/image compression facilities to make them smaller.
•       Note scanned documents are usually bigger than nonscanned versions.
•       Provided you are using the acceptable file types above, you can use ZIP files to compress documents.
•       If you have a large file and you are unable to use the options listed, you can email anything up to 10mb to appeals@planninginspectorate.gov.uk Security Remove any document security and enable macros if necessary.  . . .” (Emphasis added)

The obvious problem is that the inclusion of photographs and the like will easily take one over the 15MB limit.  PINS deal with this by saying:

“ Send pictures, photographs, plans, maps or drawings as individual files. Avoid the use of bitmap images as they are very large.”

This sounds fine in theory, but problem is that somebody at the PINS end must print and collate these documents.  The resultant bundle will not, necessarily, be what the author intended.[1]

I hope I am wrong, but I do wonder what is difficult about using a cloud based facility such as ‘Dropbox’ ?  My Powerpoint slides for seminars are normally around 25MB and so they are delivered to the organisers via Dropbox.  This always works smoothly.  Likewise, I am aware that some Chambers use the cloud to receive papers for Counsel. 


[1] I will not say too much about the RCJ losing my electronic skeleton argument in a JR last year ! 

Comments

Post a comment

Popular posts from this blog

QUESTIONS ON ENVIRONMENT BILL

By
I recently spoke (if this is the right word) at a webinar on the Environment Bill, hosted by Bath Publishing. We had a good response in terms of questions from delegates (probably not the right word) but could not tackle them all on the day. I have listed them below and will try to answer them all over coming weeks.

SO WATCH THIS SPACE !



Can I just clarify - this Bill is for England only?Do you think local plans will need to demonstrate biodiversity/environmental improvement can be delivered on sites allocated for development to show they are viable, deliverable and developable (10% uplift in biodiversity/environmental improvement)?Where local planning authorities seek to achieve a net gain in biodiversity on current applications, i.e. ahead of the finalising of the Bill, how much weight does their request have when the gain isn't mandatory yet?Could the 'Responsible Person' be the Local Nature Partnership?Apologies if this will be answered later but existing policies allow…
Read more

ON WHY BIODIVERSITY ENHANCEMENT AND BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN AMOUNT TO THE SAME THING.

By
The re-emergence of the Environment Bill has heralded some considerable debate about the proposed statutory enshrinement of the concept of biodiversity net gain.There have been arguments about whether this a good thing or a bad thing.Arguably, those debates are slightly academic because the reality of the situation is that biodiversity net gain is already with us.

In terms of statute we have section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.Section 40(1) provides as follows: “(1) [A] public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.” A “public authority” includes a Minister of the Crown, a public body, a government department, a local authority and a local planning authority: Section 40(4). Section 40(3) then provides an extended definition of “conserving”: “(3) Conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habita…
Read more

A STRANGE TALE OF STONEHENGE

By
Image
Given that the summer solstice is fast approaching, it provides the excuse to regale those interested in highway law with a tale which comes close to being very strange.

It has to do with culs de sac[1], ancient monuments, the “vulgar public” and too much Latin.
Lord Eversley’s book “Commons, Forests and Footpaths The Story of the Battle During the Last Forty-Five Years for Public Rights Over the Commons, Forests and Footpaths of England and Wales” (Cassell & Co.) was published in 1910. He was the president of the, then, Commons Preservation Society (which later became the Open Spaces Society by merger). In part, the book explains the background to the fencing around Stonehenge and the legal battle which then ensued over it. As a broad generality, it is fair to say that it is difficult to show that a cul de sac is a highway.The problem being, of course, that it is not a through route.The conventional wisdom is that a highway is a route which connects two separate points.The conceptua…
Read more