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

A SHORT ARTICLE ON LOBBYING

By
This article relates to R (Holborn Studios) v London Borough of Hackney [2020] EWHC 1509. One of the issues related to the submission of information to a member of the planning committee by way of lobbying and the reactions of both the member and the council when dealing with that information. An examination of the judgement shows that the analysis boiled down to two particular points which are worthy of further commentary. First, the question of whether or not this process involves considerations relating to freedom of expression. Secondly, perhaps more importantly, the way in which members and councils should react to lobbying.   The facts The facts of the case are relatively complicated because they include a long discussion about the rights and wrongs of an economic viability assessment which was presented to the council with the objective of demonstrating that the scheme was not capable of accommodating affordable housing. The developer had aspirations to redevelop a site for empl
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 liv
Read more

BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN A SUITABLE CASE FOR TREATMENT?

By
  The Environment Act 2021 will promote biodiversity net gain by way of a number of mechanisms but principally by way of a statutory condition which will be imposed upon most substantial planning permissions. In a nutshell, the condition provides that the developer must provide a biodiversity gain plan to the local planning authority and that this plan must be approved prior to the commencement of development. At first blush, this seems like a relatively straightforward provision; however, it is arguable that it is not particularly well thought out. This article will explore the shortcomings in this approach and, also, discuss a possible methodology for overcoming those flaws A 'zero sum' problem The initial problem is an economic one. Those familiar with larger development schemes will now also be familiar with economic viability assessments. An economic viability assessment is a financial model for the scheme itself. It is a snapshot in time and the parameters of the mode
Read more