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

BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN AND PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

By
 Planning conditions and planning obligations relating to biodiversity are, nowadays, relatively common.  However, it will probably be the case that current development control practices will need to be reviewed when the somewhat delayed Environment Bill finally obtains the Royal assent.   So far as development control is concerned, one of the principal provisions in the Bill relates to a condition which will be attached to the grant of most planning permissions as a matter of law.   This statutory condition will provide that the development in question cannot be commenced unless an ‘biodiversity management plan’ is submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.   One of the statutory requirements for such a plan will be that it should show a net measurable gain in ‘biodiversity’ of 10% when measured against the pre-development biodiversity value of the development site. The metric to be used is the Biodiversity Metric 0.2 which is limited to producing calculations for
Read more

THE ADVANCE PAYMENTS CODE & THE 'SIX WEEK RULE'

By
I have found that many delegates from highway authorities are worried about the consequences of missing the six week deadline for the service of APC notices. This article considers that topic. The "advance payments code" The “advance payments code” (“APC”) means the code provided by sections 219 to 225 of the Highways Act 1980: Section 203(1).   The APC has effect for securing payment of the expenses of the execution of street works in private streets adjacent to new buildings: Section 204(2). The APC ensures that a sum equivalent to the likely costs of making up the private street is paid to the highway authority or secured before a new building is erected.   The objective of the exercise being to put the highway authority in the position of being able to step in and carry out the street works in the event that the developer fails to do so. A developer is not entitled to commence work (unless the works are exempted) on a building served by the st
Read more

SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS AND MANAGEMENT COMPANIES

By
Planning Authorities and the Avoidance of "Fleeceholding" Many section 106 agreements rely on private management companies to provide and maintain common infrastructure in development schemes, but this approach is not without its own problems It is sometimes proposed that the estate roads on a new development will not become highways maintainable at public expense; indeed, sometimes they will not become highways at all.   Likewise, it might be the case that public open spaces, on-site drainage and structural landscaping will not be adopted by any public authority. One of the matters which must then be considered by the local planning authority is that of the future maintenance of these common parts.   Given that the local highway authority will have statutory duties in respect of new roads, one would anticipate that they will engage a similar exercise. If it is proposed that common parts are to be privately maintained, then the arrangement chosen by the de
Read more