If you missed this letter on Christmas Eve from the Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) to the Planning Inspectorate in relation to the Sizewell C DCO it's worth a read (see here).
Perhaps buoyed by the numerous extensions to the statutory timetable for DCO decision-making which BEIS has allowed itself in recent times, PINS wrote to BEIS, asking for an extension of six weeks to the three month statutory deadline by which PINS is required to produce its report on a DCO examination. PINS cited the need for an extension as being due to a number of changes being made to the application during the examination, and to unexpected health issues experienced by the examining Panel.
This was the first such request made by PINS for more time. If they hoped to set a precedent for some flexibility, BEIS gave them short shrift. While granting the extension, the BEIS letter sends what was no doubt intended to be a strong message: don't ask us again:
"While acknowledging the current difficult circumstances facing the Examining Authority at the Reporting stage of this project, the Secretary of State is keen that the Planning Inspectorate should ensure that future timetables, including the Reporting stage, are adhered to so that developer confidence in the certainty of timings under the Planning Act process for Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects is not eroded. He would be grateful, therefore, if you could reflect on the circumstances that led to this request for an extension in order to ensure as far as possible that they do not reoccur including how to build greater resilience into the Examining Authority process so that it is better able to cope with unexpected circumstances such as illness; and how to cater for situations that can be anticipated, such as very large volumes of documentation, strong and divided views, and some material changes for a nuclear project, all of which we have also seen in previous nuclear applications."
Having acted for the developers of two of the three nuclear DCO projects to have gone through the DCO regime (Hinkley C and Sizewell C), I have some sympathy with PINS. While the changes made to the Sizewell C application were minor in the grand scheme of things, the sheer volume of material overall submitted at each of the 10 deadlines was phenomenal. This is of course the downside of a largely written reps process. Given that our Panel was already 5-strong (the maximum allowed under the Act), it would be interesting to know what reflections PINS have on how they can ensure they meet the timetables on these mega-DCOs. Some funding for more support behind the scenes for additional case officers perhaps?
Worth noting, of course, that despite the tone of this letter, the granting of the extension does in fact provide a precedent for delays to PINS delivering its reports.
If we add this precedent for delay to the reporting stage, to the spate of cases where decisions themselves have been delayed by the Secretary of State, the timeline for DCO applications is becoming increasingly uncertain.
For further information please contact:
Disclaimer
The articles published on this website, current at the dates of publication set out above, are for reference purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Specific legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be sought separately before taking any action.