Dear Caroline, I am confused about the approach you are taking here. You have responded to other S51 requests for advice in this matter and published attachments. Could you therefore be more specific about your statement 'Following further consideration of the attachments these do not fall within the remit of s51 of the Planning Act 2008.' Without attachments my request for advice lacks important context. Further, as you know, I have already expressed concern that the original answer you gave to my request for advice did not address the specific query I have and directed me to an answer related to a different query from a different person. My understanding is that S51 "..provides that the Commission may give advice to an applicant, a potential applicant or others about applying for an order granting development consent or making representations about an application or proposed application. Any such advice cannot relate to the merits of any particular application or proposed application. The Secretary of State may make regulations about giving advice for the purposes of securing propriety. In particular, these regulations may provide for the disclosure of requests for advice and any advice by the Commission." para121. In this context 'propriety' could mean conformity to conventionally accepted standards of behaviour or morals, and if so, it is reasonable to expect applicants to make statements that are true and verifiable. In this case the research contained in the attachments suggests that claims made in a meeting with PINS on 19th October 2022, and online (www.pvdp.eu) about retained experience of actually constructing large scale solar capacity is not the case, whereas securing planning for such proposals does appear to be true. PVDP appear to have secured several permissions for large scale solar and sold on the 'investment' prior to build. This must be relevant to a future application given the scale and sensitivity of this proposal as the largest solar farm in Europe. If true, it also questions the credibility of the applicant in respect of competence at this scale, and motivation to build out in the first place. My original query was "The advice I am seeking is to understand how it might be possible to ensure that the Inspectors have access to the most recent and verifiable information, and therefore the accuracy of an applicants claims, when assessing any application that might be lodged." My attachments provided examples of recent and verifiable information, and are fundamental to the credibility of my query. I urge you to reconsider and publish my query with attachments. Finally, could you confirm which information you believe is subject to copyright and intellectual property. I am quite happy to seek permission from copyright holders to publish and/or adjust my own attachment summary to make the same points without breaking copyright.

Dear Anthony, Thank you for your email. You have summarised that the advice you are “seeking is to understand how it might be possible to ensure that the Inspectors have access to the most recent and verifiable information, and therefore the accuracy of an applicants claims, when assessing any application that might be lodged”. If the proposed applicant makes an application for an order granting development consent and if that application is accepted for examination the Examining Authority (the Inspector/s) subsequently appointed will consider all relevant information submitted into the Examination by the Applicant and Interested Parties. I trust my previous correspondence clarifies the process for resubmitting this information at the appropriate time using the Relevant Representation process and making submissions into the Examination. The guidance and advice referred to in my email of 09 August 2024 referring to hyperlinks, intellectual property and copyright is general advice to consider when structuring representations. We would urge you to obtain your own independent legal advice on matters of copyright or other intellectual property rights. The Planning Inspectorate cannot advise you further on this. In reference to your point regarding publication of attachments, it is not the usual policy of the Planning Inspectorate to publish such information during the pre-application stage. We appreciate that in some instances it has occurred, but it is not usual policy. We apologise for any confusion caused by this. For your information and reference Regulation 11 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 provides for the keeping of a written record of any advice given in accordance with and maintaining on a website that is accessible to the public, a record in respect of any advice given in accordance with section 51 of the Planning Act 2008. Kind regards