Guidance

Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the examination stage of an application

This guidance covers the examination stage for a Development Consent Order (DCO) application.

• From: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
• Published: 3 July 2026

Applies to England and, in limited circumstances, to Wales and Scotland

1. The purpose of this guidance

1.1 This guidance sets out the requirements and expectations during the examination stage for a Development Consent Order (DCO) application. It covers the statutory framework relevant to this stage, including:

• the examination timetable and process
• written representations
• hearings

and other elements of the examination stage including:

• the role of written questions
• local impact reports
• tracking key issues
• site inspections
• the participation of public authorities during the examination stage
• handling requests to change the application during the examination stage
• the completion of the examination

1.2 This guidance should be read in conjunction with the Introduction to National Infrastructure Planning Guidance which includes information about audience, legal status and territorial extent of the full guidance suite.

2. Principles of examination

2.1 The examination of a DCO application is controlled by an Examining Authority. It is an inquisitorial process focused on gathering and testing evidence, probing and assessing the key issues relevant to the application, and enabling an informed and reasoned recommendation to be made to the Secretary of State in accordance with the legal and policy framework. The government expects examinations to be proportionate, efficient and targeted, with sufficient time and effort directed towards the key matters most relevant to the decision.

2.2 An effective Initial Assessment of Principal Issues (IAPI) underpins the examination by identifying the matters that are most likely to require the most detailed consideration during examination and shaping how the examination is structured and conducted. While the examination will be guided by these principal issues identified at its start, the Examining Authority will consider all relevant matters raised before forming its recommendation.

2.3 The Examining Authority will ensure that all evidence is subject to robust and impartial scrutiny, supporting a sound and well-reasoned recommendation following completion of the examination. The Examining Authority will have reviewed all relevant material available at the time before making and issuing its IAPI, and will then set a timetable and issue questions to address the matters it considers require further exploration, while retaining the ability to consider additional evidence as it arises during the examination.

2.4 The examination should not need to examine matters that are clearly established through national policy or focus on issues where there is already sufficient evidence before the Examining Authority. Instead, it should concentrate on clarifying the key issues, testing the application and any support for or objection to it, and seeking sufficient evidence to enable the Examining Authority to reach clear conclusions. This approach will ensure that the Secretary of State is provided with a reasoned recommendation and given a clear understanding of the matters that are likely to be of greatest significance to the decision.

2.5 The government expects examinations to be inclusive, accessible and fair, enabling all interested parties to participate meaningfully and have their views properly considered. To ensure this the Examining Authority may (and will, when required under the Planning Act) hold hearings in addition to its consideration of written material. However, it is for the Examining Authority to determine how it examines an application, in the context that this is primarily a written process.

2.6 The expectation is that examinations, and participation in examinations, will be conducted in accordance with the following principles:

Principle 1: Conducted within the context of relevant national policy

2.7 The examination should proceed on the basis that the Secretary of State must decide the application in accordance with any relevant National Policy Statement (NPS). Where an NPS establishes the need for the infrastructure type, further testing is not required unless there is a clear reason for doing so. The Examining Authority may consider relevant context including recent Secretary of State decisions in relation to national policy in similar applications, where they consider this to be important and relevant.

Principle 2: Focused, proportionate, and fair

2.8 The examination should reflect the nature, scale and complexity of the proposed development, with the timetable and resource directed towards the key issues raised by the application. The examination should be:

a. Driven by the IAPI – the IAPI should guide the structure, focus and timetable of the examination, and participants should concentrate representations and other submissions where required during the examination on the main issues of concern, particularly those identified through the IAPI. This is notwithstanding the fact that all relevant material issues will be considered as part of the examination.

b. Primarily a written process, with targeted hearings – the examination is conducted mainly through written submissions (relevant representations, written representations and written responses to questions) supported by oral hearings only where required or considered necessary. Concise and timely submissions should set out key points and the reasons relied upon clearly, avoiding unnecessary detail, duplication or repetition. This may include proportionate, responsible and transparent use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Where parties are invited to attend hearings (particularly statutory bodies and local authorities), they should focus their time and resources on those hearings and the specific issues that require further examination as identified by the Examining Authority. Attendance at such hearings is important, as they are targeted to address matters where the Examining Authority considers further oral representations are needed to assist its examination.

c. Effective questioning and scrutiny – the Examining Authority’s questions during examinations (and expectations it has of applicants in relation to responses received) should be specific, targeted to relevant parties, and focused on matters it needs to understand to reach a conclusion, supporting fair and rigorous examination of the evidence. Participants should support the inquisitorial process with contributions designed to assist the Examining Authority in testing and understanding the issues, rather than seeking to restate positions unnecessarily, and avoiding unnecessary or irrelevant material. Engagement by all parties should be respectful, constructive and contribute to a fair consideration of all views.

Principle 3: Clarity of outcome

2.9 The examination should enable the Examining Authority to reach clear and reasoned conclusions on the key issues on completion, whether or not parties are in agreement, enabling a final recommendation to be made to the Secretary of State.

3. Statutory requirements

Examination process and timetable

3.1 The pre-examination guidance explains how an Examining Authority is appointed to carry out the examination of an accepted application for development consent under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (“the Planning Act”). Section 87 of the Planning Act provides that it is for the Examining Authority to decide how an application is to be examined, and that it will comply with the provisions in Chapter 4 of Part 6 of the Planning Act and the rules in the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 (as amended) (“the EPR 2010”). Examining Authorities will decide how to conduct an examination based on various factors, including the scale and complexity of the proposed development as well as the range and depth of public interest in the case, and the materiality and scope of the issues raised.

3.2 A key task of the Examining Authority under section 88 of the Planning Act and Rule 5 of the EPR 2010 is to prepare its IAPI, which identifies the key matters that are likely to require more detailed examination, including further interrogation and the provision of additional information in written submissions and responses, or through hearings. The IAPI is expected to be used by the Examining Authority to inform the structure and timetable of the examination. The pre-examination guidance contains detail about the role of the IAPI in DCO examinations, which should ensure examinations focus on matters where further evidence and assessment is required in order to enable the Examining Authority to reach conclusions on whether development consent should be granted and make a reasoned recommendation to the Secretary of State.

3.3 The Examining Authority is required by section section 88(3) of the Planning Act to invite interested parties, statutory parties, relevant local authorities and the applicant to a preliminary meeting. Rule 6 of the EPR 2010 requires the Examining Authority to give notice of such meeting and the matters to be discussed. The purpose of this meeting is to enable invitees to make representations to the Examining Authority about how the application should be examined, including its proposed examination timetable, procedural matters (such as arrangements for site inspections) and whether the Examining Authority’s IAPI appropriately reflects the key issues of the applicant and interested parties. It is not to discuss the merits of the application or particular issues as these are matters that will be dealt with during the examination itself.

3.4 In practice, the invitation notice contains the Examining Authority’s IAPI and proposed examination timetable with the deadlines for matters such as:

• the receipt of written representations from interested parties
• receipt of Local Impact Reports (LIRs), although it is recommended in pre-examination guidance that local authorities submit their LIRs (in draft if necessary) at the same time as submitting their relevant representation, to encourage greater front loading in the examination process
• details of when the Examining Authority will publish written questions and when responses to those questions must be submitted
• indicative dates for when the Examining Authority intends to hold hearings

3.5 The Examining Authority may set specific deadlines for the submission of written evidence and notice periods for any hearings and will ensure that these are reasonable for the parties involved. In accordance with Rule 8 (1)(d) of the EPR 2010, the Examining Authority will, as far as practicable, specify periods within the examination timetable for which interested parties will have the opportunity to comment on each other’s submissions. While this allows for a wide range of views to be expressed, it can be complex to manage and may be difficult for some interested parties to navigate. Applicants may choose to respond to submissions made by other parties, but are not required to do so unless invited by the Examining Authority. Interested parties should not expect the applicant to respond individually to every representation, particularly where a general or thematic response may address the points raised.

3.6 Sections 98(1) and 98(2) of the Planning Act place the Examining Authority under a duty to complete the examination of the application by the end of the period of 6 months from the day after the preliminary meeting concludes. The Examining Authority has control over how that time is organised to achieve the required outcomes. The examination process is a pressured period for all parties. The Examining Authority should be mindful of likely impacts on the wellbeing of all participants and take this into consideration when setting its timetable. Where possible, the Examining Authority should consider whether the timetable can be put together in a way that achieves the same outcomes whilst respecting the demands placed on applicants in particular to respond to written questions and other parties’ submissions.

3.7 Once the preliminary meeting has been concluded, the examination formally begins. Following this, the Examining Authority is required, under Rule 8 of the EPR 2010, to issue a final version of the examination timetable to confirm how the application is to be examined, and the deadlines for the receipt of written material and other matters as set out above. It will send the timetable to all interested parties and any other persons the Examining Authority has invited to attend the preliminary meeting. The examination will proceed according to this timetable. If it needs to be altered for any reason, then the Examining Authority will prepare a revised examination timetable and under Rule 8(3) of the EPR 2010, notify the same interested parties and any other persons invited to attend the preliminary meeting (except for any persons who have subsequently formally withdrawn under section 102(1ZA) of the Planning Act).

3.8 The examination of DCO applications is principally conducted on the basis of written representations (section 90 of the Planning Act) supplemented, where necessary or required, by hearings. The expectation is that examinations for low complexity applications should need few, if any, issue-specific hearings. When needed, hearings should be focused on decision critical issues where oral hearings would assist the Examining Authority in understanding the key areas of disagreement, testing evidence and seeking to ensure it has all the material necessary to enable clear conclusions to be drawn. Interested parties should not repeat matters raised in their written representations at oral hearings.

3.9 Where appropriate, the Examining Authority can request the appointment of one or more assessors with specialist expertise to advise and assist them (section 100 of the Planning Act), as well as a barrister, solicitor or advocate to provide legal advice and assistance (section 101 of the Planning Act). This may include, for example, where new or novel evidence or technologies arise which are not addressed in existing guidance; in such cases, applicants are encouraged to identify these at an early stage. Under Rule 11 and 12 of the EPR 2010 the Examining Authority must notify all interested parties of the particular matters for which assistance is to be provided.

3.10 While the Examining Authority has a maximum of 6 months to carry out the examination of the application, the Secretary of State may extend this deadline under section 98(4) of the Planning Act. The expectation is that this will happen only in exceptional circumstances, including to deal with unforeseen late arising matters to enable the Examining Authority to issue a robust recommendation. Section 98(4A) of the Planning Act provides that the Secretary of State may set a deadline for completion of the examination which is earlier than the 6-month period. Examining Authorities should, where possible, aim to complete examinations within around five months, with shorter examination periods for applications deemed capable of being examined faster, and a maximum of 6 months for more complex applications.

Written representations

3.11 A “written representation” is defined in Rule 2 of the EPR 2010, as meaning “the full particulars of the case which a person puts forward in respect of an application” and “includes any supporting evidence or documents”. Written representations may only be submitted by interested parties, except where the Examining Authority permits any other persons under Rule 10(3) of the EPR 2010. As part of the examination timetable set out in their Rule 8 letter, the Examining Authority will specify a deadline for the receipt of written representations. The Examining Authority may disregard any written representation received after the specified date. Rule 10 of the EPR 2010 sets out the detailed provisions for making written representations.

3.12 The role of written representations in the examination is closely related to the role of relevant representations, as defined in Regulation 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties and Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2015 (as amended) and covered in more detail in pre-examination guidance. Interested parties must submit any relevant representation in the form of a registration form, which must include contact details and their principal submissions. These principal submissions are the person’s main case in respect of the application, setting out matters of concern, identifying the key points and reasons relied upon to support them and, where possible, any suggested mitigation. A relevant representation submitted at the pre-examination stage, will include, where practicable, the full particulars of the case which the person proposes to make in respect of the application. This will enable the Examining Authority to have as full an understanding as possible of the key issues the application is giving rise to before the start of the examination.

3.13 This means that written representations, where needed, should develop the case set out in the relevant representation by providing further detail or supporting information. Written representations should, therefore, focus on matters already identified in the party’s relevant representation and not seek to introduce new issues, except when requested to do so by the Examining Authority or where necessary to respond to submissions made by other parties on those matters. Interested parties do not, however, need to repeat points already made in any subsequent written representation, as repetition does not carry any greater weight. Where several parties share a common position on a matter, it is helpful to make this clear to the Examining Authority.

3.14 As is set out in pre-examination guidance, all parties involved in examinations may choose to use AI to help prepare submissions, for example by structuring contents, summarising information, or presenting material in a clear and accessible format. This applies to all submissions and representations made during the examination. Where AI is used, it should be done in a proportionate, responsible and transparent way that supports the effective conduct of the examination and should not result in frivolous, repetitive or otherwise inappropriate submissions, and does not remove the responsibility of parties to ensure the accuracy and quality of material submitted. Further advice on written representations and the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in document preparation is provided by the Planning Inspectorate.

3.15 As there is no longer a statutory requirement on applicants to undertake engagement or consultation at the pre-application stage, the approach taken by the applicant is unlikely to, in itself, determine the outcome of the application. Where representations raise concerns about engagement or consultation, the Examining Authority will consider whether these identify matters relevant to the examination (for example, gaps in evidence or issues requiring further scrutiny) and may seek additional information where appropriate. The focus of the examination will remain on the planning merits of the application and the supporting evidence before the Examining Authority, rather than the consultation or engagement process undertaken during the pre-application stage.

3.16 Under Rule 17 of the EPR 2010 the Examining Authority may require or invite further written submissions at various stages of the examination, including responses to its written questions or to submissions of other parties. Unlike written representations, these ‘written responses’ are typically more targeted and are used to address specific matters as they arise. This is considered in more detail in a section below.

Hearings

3.17 As stated above, the Examining Authority’s examination of an application for development consent is primarily a written process, on the basis that written exploration of the issues is the most productive and appropriate form of examination for the majority of matters. However, sections 91, 92, and 93 of the Planning Act provide for three different types of hearings during an examination: issue-specific, compulsory acquisition, and open-floor. Where an affected person (as defined by sections 59(4) and 92(5) of the Planning Act) requests a compulsory acquisition hearing or an interested party (as defined in section 102 of the Planning Act) requests an open-floor hearing, the Examining Authority will hold that hearing, provided that the request is made by the deadline notified under Rule 13 of the EPR 2010. Any requests made after this deadline may be disregarded by the Examining Authority.

3,18 By contrast, the Examining Authority retains discretion as to whether to hold an issue-specific hearing and on what issues, in accordance with section 91 of the Planning Act. A hearing will be held where the Examining Authority considers it is necessary for the purposes of the examination (for example, its understanding of a key issue to consider oral representations about that particular issue). This is an important threshold, and hearings should not be used where matters can be appropriately addressed through written submissions. Such hearings programmed in the Rule 8 letter and timetable at the beginning of the examination can be cancelled if subsequently found to be unnecessary or added if issues emerge which need exploration through such a hearing.

3.19 In practice, the primary purpose of an issue-specific hearing, if an Examining Authority decides to hold one, is to ensure the Examining Authority has all the material it needs to reach a conclusion on a particular issue. Such issues will typically be complex or contentious matters which need thorough examination, often with attendance from specialists representing the applicant, local authorities, and statutory bodies where this is within their advice remit.

3.20 Where such hearings are held, the Examining Authority should ensure that they are tightly focused on the matters in question and provide clarity in advance about their scope and content, in order to, a to enable relevant stakeholders to prepare accordingly. Requests for participation of public authorities by the Examining Authority should be given significant weight, with an expectation that they will attend (further guidance on this point follows below under ‘the participation by public authorities’). Issue-specific hearings are not a forum for a wide-ranging general discussion with all attendees nor an opportunity to repeat matters set out in representations. Although section 91(3) of the Planning Act provides that each interested party is entitled to make oral representations about the issue that the hearing has been arranged to consider, this will be limited to that issue and it is important to note that this is subject to the Examining Authority’s powers of control over the conduct of a hearing, including setting time limits for oral representations.

3.21 The conduct of issue specific hearings is expected to be inquisitorial in nature and Examining Authority-led. They allow the Examining Authority to explore issues that it has not been able to consider or understand adequately from the written material before it. Issue-specific hearings are an opportunity for the Examining Authority to test the applicant’s case, but also to test that of any interested party making representations in support or opposition to the application. Exceptionally, the Examining Authority may allow cross-questioning in line with the provision in Rule 14(5) of the EPR 2010 to ensure adequate testing of evidence or to afford a party a fair opportunity to put their case. In practice, this is only very rarely required and remains at the discretion of the Examining Authority.

3.22 In practice, Examining Authorities often hold an issue-specific hearing concerning the draft DCO at a very early stage in the examination, often the day after the preliminary meeting. Many of the issues which the application gives rise to are typically reflected in the construction of the draft DCO, and for this reason, programming of an issue-specific hearing into the draft DCO at the beginning of the examination is strongly encouraged as an efficient way to understand the scope of the proposed works and the adequacy of control mechanisms embedded within the DCO as early as possible. This can help to ensure focus on what will become the Examining Authority’s recommendations concerning the content of the DCO which is the main output of the examination process which if consent is granted, in practice is contained in a statutory instrument governing how the authorised project will be constructed and operated.

3.23 A compulsory acquisition hearing is typically a more formal and structured event. This type of hearing allows a systematic consideration of objections made to the proposed compulsory acquisition of land or of an interest in or right over land. It is not the purpose of compulsory acquisition hearings to discuss compensation that may be payable, and the Examining Authority may refuse to allow this.

3.24 An open-floor hearing can be held at any time during the examination, and some Examining Authorities hold more than one to allow interested parties to make oral submissions on the application, in addition to any representations they have made in writing. The Examining Authority should discourage repetition of points already made and registered in writing or at previous hearings. Interested parties’ views are expected to be succinct and focused, and common points may be made by one party on behalf of those who share the same position. In the interests of efficiency and fairness, the Examining Authority may set a time limit for the submissions of each interested party.

3.25 Where the application is examined by a Panel, sections 76 and 77 of the Planning Act provide that part of the examination (such as a hearing) may be allocated to, and procedural powers may be exercised by, one or more members, which allows for hearings to be held in concurrent sessions. The Examining Authority will notify participants of any concurrent hearings to allow interested parties to organise their attendance accordingly.

3.26 All types of hearing can be held in person, virtually or as blended events (a mix of in-person and virtual), but must be in public except in circumstances under section 95A of the Planning Act where the Secretary of State directs otherwise in the national interest for reasons of defence or national security. In practice, most hearings take place in a blended format. The Examining Authority will advise persons present at the start of hearings about matters relating to General Data Protection Regulation, live streaming and the recording of the event by those attending in-person and virtually. The only official record of the hearings will be the digital recording placed on the project page of the Planning Inspectorate’s website. Any social media or similar communications arising out of the hearing will not be accepted as evidence in the examination of the application.

3.27 Under sections 94 and 95 of the Planning Act, it is for the Examining Authority to determine how all types of hearing are to be conducted. In practice, the Examining Authority will publish an agenda as early as possible and at a minimum five working days before an issue-specific or compulsory acquisition hearing.

3.28 Where additional hearings are arranged after the examination timetable has been published, sufficient notice should be provided to enable interested parties to prepare appropriately. The agendas for these types of hearings should reflect the latest submissions from relevant interested parties, and are expected to cover the matters to be discussed with as much clarity and precision as possible, focusing on key issues and making it clear what information will be required for the hearing. This is to enable interested parties to arrive fully prepared and with the appropriate expertise and evidence to deliver effective and constructive outcomes. The agenda will be more general for an open-floor hearing, given this is an opportunity for any interested party to raise matters relating to the application, but may include a running order of interested parties who have registered to speak.

3.29 The Examining Authority will determine the procedure at the hearing and the order in which persons will be heard. In practice, in most cases other than open-floor hearings, the applicant will give evidence first and will have the right of final reply, unless the Examining Authority decides otherwise. The Examining Authority may limit speakers to those it has specifically invited to speak and may invite particular expert witnesses to give evidence on an issue, and may set time limits for oral representations to ensure that hearings are conducts efficiently and remain focused on the matters under examination.

3.30 Parties may rely on their written submissions and are encouraged not to repeat those points at an oral hearing, as matters do not carry any greater weight if they are raised again at hearings. The Examining Authority may refuse to allow oral representations at hearings which are irrelevant, vexatious or frivolous, relate to the merits of policy set out in the NPSs, repeat other representations already made in any form, by any person, or which relate to compensation for compulsory acquisition of land or of an interest in or right over land. In extreme situations, the Examining Authority may require any interested party or person behaving in a disruptive manner to leave the hearing.

4. Other matters

Written questions

4.1 Written questions are Examining Authority-led requests for clarification or additional information intended to further support the Examining Authority in assessing and understanding the application. The Examining Authority may make the procedural decision to issue its list of first written questions early (further information on the Examining Authority’s procedural decisions is set out in the pre-examination guidance).

4.2 The examination timetable set out in the Rule 8 letter will specify the deadlines for submissions during the examination, including responses to the Examining Authority’s written questions, and will provide opportunities for interested parties to comment on the submissions of others. The Examining Authority may issue further written questions during the examination as matters arise and may vary the timetable where necessary.

4.3 An Examining Authority may conduct more than one round of written questions during an examination, contingent on the number and complexity of the issues arising from the application. The Examining Authority should raise written questions that are targeted and proportionate to the application, and limit written requests for information to those which are genuinely necessary and focused on the principal issues of the examination as identified in the IAPI, or other matters considered to be of likely importance and relevance to the decision. The Examining Authority should also set reasonable timescales for the provision of further information, recognising that longer timescales may be appropriate where, for example, further modelling, survey work, engagement with other parties or assessment is required.

4.4 Rule 17 of the EPR 2010 provides that the Examining Authority may, at any time, before the completion of the examination, request further information or written comments from an interested party, including by issuing written questions to which responses are required.

Local Impact Reports

4.5 The pre-examination guidance explains the unique role that Local Impact Reports (LIR) requested by the Examining Authority from local authorities have in the examination and decision process and sets out guidance for the content of LIRs. Local authorities are encouraged to submit their final LIR or draft LIR, where they are available, to coincide with the submission of relevant representations.

4.6 It may be that a local authority can only submit a draft of its LIR at the relevant representations stage, to be finalised during the examination, alongside any written representations the local authority may wish to submit. The Examining Authority will usually set a deadline for the receipt of final LIRs together with the opportunity for all other interested parties to comment on them in its Rule 8 letter. Where a local authority has submitted a draft of its LIR at the relevant representation stage then this should be either updated or confirmed as the final LIR by the deadline given in the Rule 8 timetable.

Tracking key issues

4.7 Guidance on preparing applications encourages applicants to identify likely key issues for examination early, determine how they choose to identify, monitor the progress of, and update on issues throughout the NSIP planning process, and make progress to address these before submitting an application. Therefore, the Examining Authority should receive, as part of the DCO application, the applicant’s own assessment of the key issues presented by the application, as well as a report on the outcomes of any collaborative work between the applicant, the Planning Inspectorate, and other parties at the pre-application stage to track the progress of key issues. The Examining Authority will review these products alongside the application, relevant representations, any final LIR or draft LIR, relevant national policy, and other relevant matters to inform the preparation of the examination programme.

4.8 Applicants and other parties have several tools available to them to help track the key issues. These include Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) and Principal Areas of Disagreement Summary Statements (PADSS).

4.9 The Examining Authority will normally request in its Rule 6 letter the submission of a SoCG from a number of interested parties (including statutory bodies) and the applicant and set out the timetable for submission of an agreed SoCG in its Rule 8 letter. Not all interested parties should expect to be requested to provide a SoCG. Some applicants choose to include SoCG, often in draft form, as part of the application submission.

4.10 A SoCG is a written statement prepared jointly by the applicant and another interested party or parties but led and submitted by the applicant, setting out the factual matters about the application on which they agree, for example, on data or methodologies concerning the determination of any significant effects, but can just as helpfully record disagreement. SoCGs which just record a long programme of detailed engagement between the applicant and the party involved may assist in demonstrating the extent of discussions undertaken over the course of a project. However, for the purpose of the examination, the primary value of a SoCG lies in clearly identifying the matters agreed and disagreed between parties.

4.11 SoCGs are expected to be concise and focused on the key issues, with the scope agreed between the parties from the outset of discussions on the application during the pre-application stage. SoCGs are often revised during the course of the examination as matters are agreed or disagreements clarified between the applicant and interested parties. It is expected that SoCGs will be agreed and signed by all parties by completion of the examination. Any SoCGs which remain unsigned at the close of examination may be afforded less weight where the absence of agreement limits the Examining Authority’s ability to rely on them as an agreed SoCG. However, the Examining Authority will consider the content of such documents on its individual merits, including the extent to which matters are clearly evidenced, agreed in substance, or remain in dispute.

4.12 A PADSS builds on a SoCG by clearly identifying the key areas of disagreement between the applicant and an interested party and setting out how those disagreements can be resolved. This may include specifying the changes sought, for example to the draft DCO. The Examining Authority may request a PADSS from particular interested parties during the examination to enable it to reach a conclusion on the key issues as quickly as possible and this approach is therefore encouraged where appropriate.

4.13 The government is keen to trial new approaches to streamline examinations. This includes, where appropriate, more effective use of the IAPI for tracking issues throughout the examination, and templates developed by the Planning Inspectorate. Different and innovative approaches to tracking key issues to reduce duplication, streamline information handling and instigate processes which will enable greater efficiency throughout the examination are also welcomed. In turn this will help the Examining Authority to form an evidenced and complete recommendation to the Secretary of State. It should be recognised, however, that not all issues will be capable of agreement between parties by the end of the examination, and that achieving consensus between parties is not the main purpose of examination. Accordingly, documents such as SoCGs and PADSS should be proportionate, focused on matters material to the decision, and avoid the unnecessary duplication or inclusion of information that does not assist the Examining Authority’s understanding of the key issues.

Site inspections

4.14 It is common practice for the Examining Authority to make site visits to become familiar with the proposed location of the NSIP including the features of the area in which it is proposed to be situated. The Examining Authority may use a mixture of approaches, including virtual arrangements, to become familiar with the application site and surrounding area. As is set out in guidance on Planning Propriety, Secretaries of State do not undertake site visits; any site visits necessary to inform the consideration of an application are undertaken by the Examining Authority during the examination, rather than by the Secretary of State.

4.15 Under Rule 16 of the EPR 2010, the Examining Authority (or members of the Examining Authority) may make an unaccompanied site inspection of an application site before, or during the examination, without giving notice. The Examining Authority may also undertake one or more site inspections, accompanied by any interested party during the examination, provided all interested parties are notified of the date, time and place of the inspection. Interested parties may draw attention to particular features of the location and its surroundings. However, this is not an opportunity for any party to make representations about the applicant, the application or its merits.

The participation of public authorities

4.16 Under the Planning Act, certain public authorities (as defined in the Planning Act) are subject to specific statutory duties and functions in relation to the examination of a DCO application. These include statutory parties, local authorities (i.e. host authorities and neighbouring authorities), and other public bodies (i.e. those with regulatory, landowning, operational, or policy functions affected by the proposed development). Public authorities play a vital role in the examination stage. As well as fulfilling relevant statutory obligations, for example in relation to Highways, they bring essential expertise and local knowledge which may assist the Examining Authority in tracking key issues and ultimately examining applications.

4.17 Once an application is accepted, statutory parties become interested parties if they have made a relevant representation or subsequently request to become an interested party. As interested parties, they can participate in the examination. Public authorities have an important role to play in examinations by providing expert evidence within their statutory remit and otherwise assisting the Examining Authority. Within their statutory remit, public authorities are expected to participate as follows:

Written representation	Where not already fully addressed in the relevant representation, submit clear and focused written representations that build on the relevant representation accompanied where appropriate by technical detailed evidence.
Local impact report	Local authorities may submit LIRs for the first time or, preferably, finalised versions of previously shared draft LIRs submitted as part of the pre-examination stage. Further information on this can be found above and in pre-examination guidance.
Written questions and further requests for information from the Examining Authority	Provide comprehensive responses to questions and requests from the Examining Authority.
Issues-tracking tools such as SOCG and PADSS	Participate in the preparation and review of the relevant SoCG and PADSS between the applicant and the public authority (as applicable), and engage with the applicant, where required, to narrow or resolve issues where able to do so.
Comments on submissions from other parties	Comment on the written material and responses submitted by others, when invited to do so by the Examining Authority.
Attendance and participation in hearings (in person or remotely)	Attend and participate in hearings when invited by the Examining Authority, to explain or test evidence already submitted, or provide additional evidence where requested by the Examining Authority. Requests for participation by public authorities should be taken seriously, with an expectation that they will attend, and be prepared to contribute with appropriate expertise that is proportionate to the agenda of the hearing.
Site inspections	Facilitate or participate in site inspections where relevant (e.g. where involved as landowners, regulators or advisors).

4.18 Public authorities are expected to engage with applicants as early as possible and throughout the whole NSIP process, working closely and proactively with the applicant in identifying, narrowing and resolving key issues. As part of NSIP examinations, public authorities are encouraged, where practically possible, to streamline material submitted to the Examining Authority, minimise duplication, and avoid raising new issues or reopening issues previously resolved unless the submission of new information requires it. Public authorities are also expected to submit their material within the deadlines set by the Examining Authority. Failure to do so risks delays or evidence being absent from the examination record and could give rise to cost claims by the applicant.

Change requests to an application during examination

4.19 It is expected that applications will be well prepared prior to submission. An application will only be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) to proceed to examination if it is of a satisfactory standard and complies with the other requirements of section 55 of the Planning Act.

4.20 However, there may be occasions when applicants wish to or need to make changes to their application after it has been accepted for examination, particularly where matters have arisen during pre-examination or examination that suggest that a change may be beneficial. This is expected to be the exception rather than routine practice.

4.21 It is for the applicant, rather than other interested parties, to decide whether to propose a change to the application during the examination. Applicants are encouraged, in line with the approach to pre-application engagement and consultation set out in pre-application guidance, to engage with and, where appropriate, consult relevant stakeholders including statutory bodies and local authorities, on the implications of those changes. Applicants are expected to notify the Examining Authority of proposed change requests at the earliest opportunity.

4.22 In deciding whether to accept an applicant’s proposed changes to an application, the Examining Authority will consider a number of factors including whether:

• the changes would mean the project is fundamentally different from the original application
• the application (as changed) remains of a satisfactory standard for examination
• sufficient engagement on the changed application can be undertaken to allow for the examination to be completed within the statutory timetable
• any existing other procedural requirements can still be met

4.23 Where these considerations cannot be satisfied, it may not be possible for the Examining Authority to accept the proposed change within the examination. Applicants should therefore seek to bring forward any proposed changes as early as possible.

4.24 Where an applicant proposes to include provisions related to compulsory acquisition of additional interests in or rights over land during the examination, the Examining Authority will need to consider if the proposed changes trigger Regulation 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Compulsory Acquisitions) Regulations 2010 (as amended) which, if triggered, requires Regulations 5 to 19 of these Regulations to be complied with, including statutory timetables.

4.25 During the course of an examination there may be changes to land interests (for example changes of land ownership, the applicant no longer requires the land). Applicants do not need to submit a revised Book of Reference each time such a change occurs, but should record the changes in a schedule, and a final Book of Reference which consolidates all the relevant information will need to be submitted to the Examining Authority by completion of the examination. The Examining Authority may also request information about land rights and the progress of negotiations in different formats to the Book of Reference to assist in the examination process. Requests for these matters to be provided will be included in the amended examination timetable.

4.26 Section 53 of the Planning Act provides a right of entry to any land for persons authorised by a proposed applicant, an applicant, or person who has been granted a DCO that includes provision authorising the compulsory acquisition of that land or an interest in it or right over it. This enables entry to land to carry out surveys and take levels of it, and to facilitate compliance with the requirements of section 53(1A) of the Planning Act. A person authorised in writing may only enter land where at least 14 days’ notice, including prescribed information, of the intended entry has been given to every owner or occupier of the relevant land. Anyone seeking to rely on these powers is encouraged to engage with every affected owner or occupier, in relation to any proposed entry land, in a manner consistent with the approach set out in pre-application guidance. Further information on securing entry to land, including engagement with owners or occupiers of the relevant land, is provided in pre-application guidance.

Changes to the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) during the examination

4.27 If an application for a DCO is granted by the Secretary of State under section 114 of the Planning Act, the Secretary of State will make a DCO. This will in particular:

• grant the development consent and, where applicable, certain other required permissions for the project
• define the works which have been approved
• grant the power to compulsorily acquire land and rights, where applicable
• set out the requirements attached to the DCO and the conditions attached to a deemed marine licence or other deemed licences, if relevant which will control the construction, commissioning, operation and, if relevant, the decommissioning of the approved works

4.28 It is expected that the draft DCO will receive detailed scrutiny during the examination resulting in multiple revisions, for example in response to:

• questions raised by the Examining Authority
• representations made by interested parties, particularly statutory bodies, and/or
• agreement reached with interested parties, for example in relation to protective provisions or revisions to requirements

4.29 Whilst taking account of such revisions, the draft DCO is expected to remain as concise as possible and proportionate to the application being examined. In considering the appropriateness of requirements and any other obligations, the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State will consider national policy relating to conditions, requirements and planning obligations, including any relevant NPS, Biodiversity Gain statements, the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance.

4.30 It is expected that interested parties will submit their preferred wording on the draft DCO, requirements and protective provisions relevant to their interest by the final deadline set in the examination timetable. The Examining Authority will consider those submissions and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State on these matters. There should be no expectation of further consultation during the decision-making stage solely because matters remained not agreed between parties at the close of the examination.

4.31 In practice, the examination timetable will in most cases make provision for revised version(s) of the draft DCO to be submitted to the Examining Authority by the applicant. Where this is not expressly provided for in the timetable, applicants may choose to submit revised drafts at other times during the examination, for example, at timetabled deadlines for the submission of written representations. It is expected that applicants maintain a clear audit trail to keep a record of any changes to the draft DCO made during the examination together with the reasons for those changes. This will greatly assist the Secretary of State in understanding any changes made to the draft DCO from acceptance of the application to the recommendation to the Secretary of State.

4.32 To achieve this, the expectation is that each revised draft DCO submitted by the applicant during the examination is accompanied by:

• a track changed version of the draft DCO highlighting any changes made from the most recent version
• a detailed explanation of the purpose and effect of proposed revisions to the draft DCO (in the form of a Schedule of Changes to the draft DCO if not in a revised version of the Explanatory Memorandum)

4.33 It is expected that the Examining Authority will request a track changed draft DCO, showing all the changes made to the original draft DCO included in the application to be submitted before the completion of the examination, together with an updated Explanatory Memorandum. Alongside this, applicants should explain the changes that have been made and the reasons for these. Applicants should refer to pre-application guidance covering the form and content of a DCO, including use of the Statutory Instruments template (or any successor format), and ensure that the final version of the DCO submitted before the end of the examination is prepared in accordance with that format.

5. On completion of the examination

5.1 Under section 98(3) of the Planning Act, within three months from completion of the examination, unless a different date is set by the relevant Secretary of State under their powers in sections 98(4) or 98(4A) of the Planning Act, the Examining Authority is required to make its recommendation report to the Secretary of State. Sections 74(2)(b) and 83(1)(b) of the Planning Act and Rule 19 of the EPR 2010 require that the Examining Authority’s recommendation report includes its findings and conclusions in respect of the application, and its recommendation as to the decision to be made on the application.

5.2 The Secretary of State must reach and publish a decision on a DCO application within 3 months under section 107(1) of the Planning Act. To ensure the Secretary of State can issue a decision within three months, it is essential that the recommendation submitted by the Examining Authority is clear, comprehensive and unambiguous. It is for this reason that the identification of the principal issues in the IAPI is integral in providing the focus of the examination, thereby allowing the Examining Authority to make a clear recommendation and the Secretary of State to make a reasoned decision.

5.3 If new matters, which are material to the decision, have unavoidably arisen late in the examination, the Examining Authority will need to take a considered judgement about how to manage this, in line with the legal and policy framework. The Examining Authority may (in exceptional circumstances) request the Secretary of State to extend the deadline for the examination or the report writing stage (as appropriate), under section 98(4) of the Planning Act. An extension should only be requested to enable the Examining Authority to complete the examination by examining the relevant late arising matters and then make their recommendation report. This should avoid the decision-making department needing to request extensive further information to resolve late arising matters. Extensions to statutory deadlines at the examination stage should be a last resort and only in exceptional circumstances.

5.4 On occasions, where conclusions on specific issues remain outstanding, the Examining Authority is expected to ensure these are clearly identified in the recommendation so that the Secretary of State can immediately identify any additional information that may be needed during the decision stage. Practically, this is handled by the Secretary of State publishing any requests for additional information on the “Find a National Infrastructure Project” maintained by the Planning Inspectorate, where all the responses to such requests are also published.

5.5 The greater the number of outstanding matters left for resolution by the Secretary of State, particularly where they are complex, on receipt of the Examining Authority’s recommendation report, the greater the likelihood of the statutory three-month decision-making period being compromised. This may result in the Secretary of State exercising their power to extend the decision-making period under section 107(3) of the Planning Act. If a later date is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament announcing the new deadline under section 107(7) of the Planning Act. Further information on the decision-making stage is set out in the decision guidance.

Published 3 July 2026