The list below is a record of advice the Planning Inspectorate has provided in respect of the Planning Act 2008 process.
There is a statutory duty under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application and to make this publicly available. Advice we have provided is recorded below together with the name of the person or organisation who asked for the advice and the project it relates to. The privacy of any other personal information will be protected in accordance with our Information Charter which you should view before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.
Note that after a project page has been created for a particular application, any advice provided that relates to it will also be published under the ‘s51 advice’ tab on the relevant project page.
Advice given between between 1 October 2009 and 14 April 2015 has been archived. View the archived advice.
Enquiry
A document described on the PINS website as "Note addressing mitigation actions and management plans-OEMP (panel item 11) Submitted 4 November 2014 for Deadline V (Replacement due to formatting error)." has appeared on the PINS website with a publication date of 12th November.
When downloaded the document is found have a filename of "Tidal Lagoon Swansea Nay PLC Note addressing mitigation actions and management plans - AEMP (Panel item 11).pdf".
The document does in fact relate to the AEMP, not OEMP.
Can you please indicate why it has been necessary to republish this document? What was the "formatting error" and where was it? I don't want to have to compare it line by line with the previous document to see if there is a significant difference.
Advice given
The documents were republished as the applicant felt that the tables with their previous formatting were hard to read. The columns were narrow and therefore text was spread over a number of pages. Therefore the applicant re-submitted these documents. We sought clarification from the applicant that the content was unchanged. Had the contents changed, these would have been published as new, late submissions. A decision was taken to make clear that these were published at a later date so as to ensure that interested parties could see that they have been re-published.
Your email however highlighted that there was an error in this republishing. Whilst the right documents were published, one had been given the wrong description naming it OEMP rather than AEMP. This was an admin oversight. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, this has now been rectified.
