Guidance

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

Guidance on the pre-examination stage for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

• 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 explains the requirements and expectations on the Examining Authority, applicants, interested parties including affected persons, as well as local authorities and other relevant public authorities during the pre-examination stage of a Development Consent Order (DCO) application. It covers the statutory framework  relevant to this stage including:

• notification of acceptance and publicity in relation to the application
• submission of relevant representations and the registration of interested parties
• interested party and affected persons status
• appointment of the Examining Authority
• the Examining Authority’s Initial Assessment of Principal Issues
• the preliminary meeting

and other non-statutory elements of the pre-examination stage including:

• the purpose, scope, structure and timing of the Initial Assessment of Principal Issues by the Examining Authority, relevant representations and local impact reports
• the tracking of key issues for the subsequent examination stage
• the submission of local impact reports during the pre-examination stage

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. Statutory requirements

2.1 Pre-examination is the preparation stage for the examination of an application and runs from the acceptance of an application for development consent by the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) until the commencement of the examination. There is no statutory timetable for the pre-examination stage, unlike other stages of the NSIP process. The expectation is for  this period to be kept as short as possible, generally lasting no longer than four months and a maximum of five months in exceptional circumstances. All parties should make effective use of this valuable stage to ensure that the examination can focus on the key issues.

2.2 The timetable below sets out an overview of pre-examination process, which is expected to be concluded within 4 months:

Stage	What happens
Start of pre-examination	Pre-examination begins when the applicant is notified by the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) that the application is accepted. The applicant is responsible for notifying persons of the accepted application, publicising the application and setting the deadline for submitting relevant representations. The Examining Authority (either a Panel or a single appointed person) is appointed by the Planning Inspectorate.
Early stage (registration)	Interested parties register and are invited to submit relevant representations and any local impact reports, where relevant, by the deadline. Where possible, local authorities are encouraged to submit early or draft local impact reports at this stage to support early issue identification.
Mid stage (appointment and issue identification)	Once appointed, the Examining Authority reviews the application documents, relevant representations, and any early local impact reports or draft local impact reports and prepares  its Initial Assessment of Principal Issues (IAPI) within 21 days of the deadline for submitting relevant representations.
Later stage (examination planning and preliminary meeting)	The Examining Authority plans how the application will be examined, prepares a draft timetable and shares this with its IAPI in its Rule 6 notification at least 21 days before the preliminary meeting. It may hold meetings other than the preliminary meeting where helpful  and will invite parties to attend the preliminary meeting (giving at least 21 days’ notice). In light of the preliminary meeting and the IAPI, it may issue procedural decisions and information requests.
End of pre-examination	The preliminary meeting is held to enable invitees to make representations about how the application will be examined, normally no later than 10 weeks from the deadline for submitting relevant representations and four months (or five months in exceptional circumstances) from acceptance of the application. The pre-examination stage ends, and the examination begins the day after the end of the preliminary meeting.

Notification of acceptance and publication of application

2.3 Following acceptance of a DCO application by the Planning Inspectorate, the applicant is required to give notice to certain persons of the accepted application pursuant to section 56 of the Planning Act 2008 (“the Planning Act”), Regulation 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (“the APFP Regulations”) and Regulation 16 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (“the EIA Regulations”). During this period, applicants must also publicise the accepted application under Regulation 9 of the APFP Regulations and issue a certificate to the Planning Inspectorate under section 58 of the Planning Act and Regulation 10 of the APFP Regulations certifying compliance with the requirements of section 56 of the Planning Act and the requirements of Regulation 16 of the EIA Regulations.

Relevant representations

2.4 In the above notice and publicity, applicants must provide details of how to make representations about the accepted application and set a deadline for their receipt by the Planning Inspectorate. This opens the period for the submission of relevant representations which must be no less than 28 days (or 30 days in the case of EIA development) after the required publicity and notices are received. As the deadline for the submission of relevant representations is not prescribed (save for the minimum period) and is for the applicant to determine, the expectation is that it should not normally  exceed 6 weeks to enable an overall normal period for pre-examination of four months (and a maximum of five months in exceptional circumstances).

2.5 A relevant representation is a crucial element of the NSIP process for two reasons. Firstly, this is the means by which anyone who has an interest in the application, in addition to the applicant, host local authorities, affected landowners, and other parties defined in section 102 of the Planning Act, can become an interested party for the purposes of the examination of an accepted DCO application. Secondly, it is the means by which interested parties set out their principal submissions, and in as much detail as possible the particulars of their case, including identifying the aspects of the application they support or oppose, and the reasons for their position. The importance of this is that the Examining Authority will consider all the matters raised in relevant representations when preparing its IAPI and planning of the examination.

2.6 Further information on registering to become an interested party is set out in the Planning Inspectorate’s advice.

Content of relevant representations  

2.7 Under section 102(4) of the Planning Act, a representation is a relevant representation if it:

• is about the application
• is submitted in the prescribed form and by the deadline (under section 56 of the Planning Act)
• contains prescribed material

2.8 A representation will not be treated as a relevant representation if it includes material:

• relating to compensation issues relating to compulsory acquisition or interests/rights over land
• relating to the merits of policy in a National Policy Statement (NPS), and
• that is vexatious or frivolous

2.9 Under Regulation 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties and Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2015 (as amended) (the “IPMPP Regulations”) a relevant representation must be made using a registration form available on the appropriate project page on the Planning Inspectorate’s “Find a National Infrastructure Project” website. The prescribed material that a relevant representation must contain includes contact details and the principal submission. The principal submission is the person’s main views about the application, setting out matters of concern, the key points and reasons relied upon and, where possible, any proposed mitigation. A relevant representation must also include, where practicable, the full particulars of the case which the person proposes to make in respect of the application.

2.10 A relevant representation should identify which aspects of the application are supported or opposed, the reasons why, and should include supporting evidence where available, and documentation such as any data, methodology and assumptions used to support the submission. Given that relevant representations must relate to the application, these should not include matters concerning procedures which no longer form part of the Planning Act such as the previous statutory duties to consult. They should provide location specific detail, for example by naming the particular affected road junction, or the heritage asset that the representation relates to, rather than registering generic concerns about transport or heritage impacts.

2.11 Applicants and interested parties may use Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the preparation of materials during pre-examination and examination. This may include, for example, using AI to help prepare submissions by structuring content, summarising information, or presenting material in a clear and accessible format. Where AI is used, this should be done in a proportionate, responsible and transparent way to support the preparation of clear, relevant, concise submissions that remain focused, evidence-based and helpful to the examination. Parties should ensure that outputs generated or materially influenced by AI are accurate and appropriate, and remain responsible for the quality and integrity of the material submitted. Further advice on the use of AI in document preparation is provided by the Planning Inspectorate.

2.12 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 relevant 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.

2.13 Due to the size and nature of nationally significant infrastructure projects, and the number of persons who may want to make representations, the number of relevant representations submitted can vary enormously between DCO applications. In all circumstances, relevant representations give the Examining Authority a clearer understanding of the scale and nature of matters that are of interest or concern to interested parties, and which therefore may warrant consideration during the examination. However, not all issues raised in representations will be the subject of questions from the Examining Authority or discussed in examination hearings. It is important that relevant representations are set out in a manner that enables a clear articulation of the main issues, and interested parties may wish to follow an issues-based structure to support this. Therefore, the more precise and comprehensive relevant representations are, the better they will enable Examining Authorities to prepare for an efficient and effective examination.

2.14 Applicants are encouraged to publish their application documents at the earliest opportunity on their own website and to authorise the Planning Inspectorate to do so as the definitive version on the “Find a National Infrastructure Project” website at the time of submission of the application. This will enable interested parties to have access to the application at the earliest opportunity and so help them in preparing and submitting comprehensive relevant representations.

2.15 The requirement to submit as detailed a relevant representation as possible does not preclude any interested party, whether an individual or a public authority, from continuing to make written representations to the Examining Authority as the examination unfolds in line with section 90 of the Planning Act. Written representations enable interested parties to further develop the elements of their case set out in relevant representations, but only if they need to with more detailed or additional material. It follows that relevant representations should be as full as possible in line with  Regulation 4 of the IPMPP Regulations and not be regarded as a holding position until the examination.

Relevant representations from public authorities

2.16 Section 96A of the Planning Act requires relevant public authorities (as defined in sections 56 and 56A of the Planning Act) including local authorities and other prescribed persons, to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State to assist such authorities in making representations during the pre-examination and examination stages.

2.17 Certain prescribed public authorities can charge applicants fees for relevant services (including during the pre-application stage). These are listed in Schedule 2 of the Infrastructure Planning (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 and include:

• The Environment Agency
• Natural England
• Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (‘Historic England’)
• National Highways
• The Coal Authority
• The Health and Safety Executive
• Marine Management Organisation
• Natural Resources Wales
• host local authorities

2.18 These prescribed public authorities will normally be involved by the applicant and support the preparation of an application during the pre-application stages. Therefore, the government expects these prescribed authorities to be well prepared, and in a strong position, to produce and submit issues-focused relevant representations. However, this may be dependent on applicant behaviours, and it is recognised that capacity constraints may affect the extent and timing of the input of these prescribed authorities.  Early and effective engagement between applicants and these prescribed public authorities can help to identify potential resourcing pressures and enable parties to plan accordingly, including prioritising key issues and agreeing proportionate approaches to information sharing. Applicants are also encouraged to provide them with the information they need, in a timely and proportionate way, to support effective participation at the relevant representations stage.

Incomplete or late submissions

2.19 There may be instances where interested parties will not be able to submit the full particulars of their case, for example if further information is required from the applicant or other parties. Despite this, it is expected that they provide a clear explanation of their main case that focuses on the matters of concern and identify the matters where further information will be provided as part of a subsequent written representation.

2.20 Where a party has not submitted a relevant representation within the specified time period for relevant representations and wishes to participate in the examination, the Examining Authority may consider whether to exercise its discretion to allow the party to do so. It is strongly advised that any submission received after the deadline for relevant representations be accompanied by an explanation for the late submission. Once appointed, the Examining Authority also has discretion to decide whether anyone whose submission is late, incomplete or on the wrong form can participate in the examination.

Interested parties

2.21 Interested parties have important procedural entitlements during the examination of a DCO application, as provided for in the Planning Act and the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 (“the EPR 2010”). These include:

• being invited to attend the preliminary meeting and make representations about how the examination should be conducted
• being given the opportunity to be heard at an open-floor hearing, including the ability to request that such a hearing is held
• being given the opportunity to participate in issue-specific hearings, where the Examining Authority decides that such hearings are necessary
• being notified when the Examining Authority has completed its examination
• being notified of the Secretary of State’s decision and the reasons for it

2.22 A full definition of interested parties is set out in section 102 of the Planning Act and includes the following persons and bodies:

• the applicant
• certain persons with an interest in relevant land who have been notified of the acceptance of the application under section 56(2)(d) of the Planning Act (affected persons) or have asked the Examining Authority to become an interested party under section 102A of the Planning Act
• the Marine Management Organisation for relevant applications
• the local authority or authorities where the land for development is located (host local authorities)
• the Greater London Authority where the land is in Greater London
• persons who have made relevant representations about the application to the Examining Authority
• (if they notify the Examining Authority) neighbouring local authorities adjacent to the authority in which the development is located, and other statutory parties as prescribed in the IPMPP Regulations 2015

2.23 Examining Authority is required by section 89(4) of the Planning Act and the EPR 2010 to inform interested parties of any procedural decisions (including the proposed approach to the examination), provide sufficient information through its Rule 6 notice to enable them to make informed representations about how the examination should be conducted and notify, and invite interested parties to the preliminary meeting. The EPR 2010 also requires the Examining Authority to provide interested parties with opportunities to participate through written and oral representations and to notify interested parties of procedural decisions which may affect how the examination is conducted and how they may participate.

2.24 Equally, interested parties are entitled to comment on the procedure of the examination at the preliminary meeting, participate in the examination, make written representations, and where the Examining Authority provides for hearings, make oral representations on relevant matters, respond to the submissions of others, and be provided with meaningful opportunities to engage with all relevant material.

2.25 There are provisions within section 102A of the Planning Act enabling persons to make a request to the Examining Authority to become an interested party after the examination of the application has begun, if they can demonstrate they meet the requirements in section 102A of the Planning Act, including that they fall within one of the categories set out in section 102B of the Planning Act (persons with interests in certain relevant land). Conversely, under section 102(1ZA) of the Planning Act interested parties may deregister as an interested party by writing to the Examining Authority requesting to withdraw from the process.

2.26 It is important to note that statutory parties and local authorities adjacent to the authority in which the development is located are not automatically interested parties. Statutory parties are defined by section 88(3A) of the Planning Act, Regulation 3 and specified in Schedule 1 of the IPMPP Regulations. Depending on the nature of the project, neighbouring local authorities may be involved in the process up to, and including, at the preliminary meeting. In such cases statutory parties and local authorities are encouraged to submit their relevant representations in order to confirm their status as an interested party.

Affected persons

2.27 One of the most significant elements of an application for a development consent order is that it may include provision authorising the compulsory acquisition of land and rights needed to carry out the proposed development. Most applications include a request for these powers.  “Affected persons” (as defined by section 59(4) of the Planning Act) are the bodies or individuals having an interest in the land or any part of the land to which such a compulsory acquisition request relates. These persons are included within the definition of an “interested party” under section 102 of the Planning Act and therefore have the same participation rights in the examination as other interested parties.

2.28 The applicant is under a duty under section 59 of the Planning Act to provide the names, and such other details as may be prescribed, of each affected person in relation to the application. In practice this is satisfied by the submission of the Book of Reference as provided for in Regulation 7 of the APFP Regulations and the land plans showing each plot required or affected by the proposed development as part of the application.

2.29 A person or organisation can be an affected person as well as an interested party, but there are separate rights relating to each category. For example, where affected persons notify the Secretary of State that they wish a compulsory acquisition hearing to be held, the Examining Authority must hold such a hearing, and the applicant and each affected person are entitled to make oral representations at that hearing. Information on the handling of compulsory acquisition matters is covered in specific guidance.

2.30 Affected persons are encouraged to include in their relevant representation a clear and unambiguous statement about whether they are objecting to the compulsory acquisition of their land / rights (as opposed to the principle of the proposed development or certain planning impacts), and if so, to list the relevant plot numbers.

3. Local Impact Reports

3.1 Section 60 of the Planning Act provides that once an application has been accepted for examination the Secretary of State must invite each local authority in whose area a proposed project is located, and any authority adjoining the host authority, to submit a Local Impact Report (LIR). A LIR is a written report detailing the likely impact of a proposed development on the local authority’s area (or any part of that area). Under section 60 of the Planning Act, a local authority (other than in Scotland) must have regard to any relevant guidance issued by the Secretary of State when preparing a LIR.

3.2 Whilst it is not mandatory for local authorities to accept the invitation to prepare and submit a LIR, the LIR has a distinct status in the examination and decision-making stages. Sections 104 and 105 of the Planning Act  provide that the Secretary of State must have regard to any LIR (submitted within the deadline) when making a decision on an application. LIRs are important documents and are given significant weight by the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State when making their final decision.  Local authorities are therefore strongly encouraged to use the opportunity afforded to them to submit a LIR to inform the Examining Authority about the main issues affecting their local area as a result of the proposed development.

3.3 To support consistent and proportionate LIRs, local authorities should focus on the impacts that are most significant to their area and to the determination of the application, rather than seeking to address all topics in equal detail. A LIR should clearly identify the key local impacts and any matters requiring further examination and is not intended to provide exhaustive coverage of all aspects of the application.

Timing of Local Impact Reports

3.4 In practice, whilst the formal invitation to submit a LIR will not be made by the Examining Authority until the publication of the Rule 8 letter after the commencement of the examination, this guidance encourages local authorities to submit their LIRs as early as possible in the pre-examination stage following acceptance of the application. Early submission of LIRs or draft LIRs will mean that local authority evidence can help an Examining Authority shape an effective IAPI that frames the examination’s principal issues and thereby sets the stage for an efficient examination with reduced burden at later stages. Host local authorities are also able to charge applicants fees for relevant services including preparing a LIR under the Infrastructure Planning (Fees) Regulations.

3.5 To support local authorities in submitting quality LIRs during the pre-examination stage, the government recommends that applicants share their application with the relevant local authorities, on a without prejudice basis, as soon as possible after it is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State), prior to the acceptance decision.

3.6 This will enable a local authority to begin to prepare the LIR immediately and to submit it (either in draft or final form) alongside its relevant representation prior to examination. In turn, the Examining Authority will then have the benefit not only of the local authority’s representation on the application itself, but also the local context within which it is provided by the LIR prior to finalising the IAPI.  If the local authority wishes to add to its LIR or is encouraged to do so by the Examining Authority in the Rule 8 letter to address any particular matter, then it will do so during the examination to a timetable as set out in the examination guidance.

3.7 Preparation of a LIR should draw on and build upon, engagement undertaken during the pre-application stage, and any matters progressed through Statements of Common Ground or by other means. Early preparation of a draft LIR can help local authorities to identify areas of agreement and disagreement with the applicant at an early stage and ensure that any outstanding issues are clearly articulated and evidenced for the examination. Where a draft LIR is submitted during pre-examination local authorities may refine it during the examination where they consider this necessary, or where requested to do so by the Examining Authority.

Content of Local Impact Reports

3.8 The purpose of the LIR is to assist the Examining Authority by providing an objective evidence-based assessment of the likely impact of the proposed development on the local authority’s area and community and drawing on its local knowledge, evidence base, and statutory functions. In doing so, the LIR should clearly identify the key local impacts of the proposed development. Where relevant, it may also include the local authority’s assessment of the extent to which the applicant’s draft DCO and its associated requirements appropriately address or mitigate those impacts.

3.9 It is important to stress that the role of a LIR is to reflect the impacts of the proposed development on the communities affected in the local authority’s area. This could cover, for example, possible consequences for housing provision or social services, or a major economic development programme. A local authority may need to commission additional specialist evidence to help inform its LIR. Where this is necessary, a local authority may recover the reasonable costs of providing that work as part of its relevant services for which fees may be charged .

3.10 A LIR should add value to the examination by providing a locally informed interpretation of impacts, including where the local authority agrees or disagrees with the applicant’s assessment. It should not repeat or summarise the material contained in the applicant’s Environmental Statement or other application documents, except where necessary to explain clearly the local authority’s assessment or to highlight areas of difference.

3.11 A LIR is distinct from a relevant representation or written representation. It is not intended for a local authority to set out its overall case on the application, its views on the merits of the application or whether development consent should be granted.  A relevant representation is the appropriate mechanism for this, which details an explanation of the main case the local authority intends to make about an application, setting out key points and reasons relied upon.

3.12 Many local authorities produce a range of information as part of their local plan preparation and more generally across their functions and responsibilities, and they are encouraged to use such information, where relevant, to help prepare focused and proportionate LIRs that will assist the Examining Authority in its examination.  Where a project crosses multiple local authority areas, local authorities are strongly encouraged to produce a joint LIR which can both be effective and will reduce the overall burdens of the examination process.

3.13 Where relevant, the LIR may include a local authority’s assessment of the applicant’s draft DCO articles and requirements, where these relate to identified local impacts. This may include consideration of the extent to which the proposed provisions address or mitigate those impacts. Any such assessment should be presented concisely and in a structured way to assist the Examining Authority in understanding key local issues and whether further examination of those matters may be required. It is not the role of the local authority to assess the draft DCO in its entirety.

3.14 There is no prescribed format for a LIR. However, presenting information in a clear and structured format will assist the Examining Authority in identifying the key matters requiring further examination. Where appropriate, local authorities are encouraged to present information in tables or structured summaries for examples setting out:

• the identified local impact
• the local authority’s assessment (including any areas of agreement or disagreement with the applicant)
• the proposed mitigation or compensation, including where relevant the local authority’s view of how these are reflected in the applicant’s draft DCO provisions

3.15 Local authorities should determine the most appropriate structure and presentation for the LIR based on the nature, scale and complexity of the project and the impacts that are most significant locally.

4.     Appointment of the Examining Authority

4.1 As soon as possible, following the formal acceptance of a DCO application, the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) appoints an Examining Inspector(s) to comprise the Examining Authority. All those who have been informed of the acceptance of the application are notified of the Examining Authority’s appointment under Rule 4 of the EPR 2010. An Examining Authority is comprised of a single Examining Inspector (single appointed person) or a panel of between 2 to 5 persons.

4.2 The size of the Examining Authority depends on the novelty, nature, scale and complexity of the proposed development. Section 61 of the Planning Act requires the Secretary of State to publish the criteria to be applied in appointing the Examining Authority. Specifically, in making this decision the Planning Inspectorate will (on behalf of the Secretary of State) apply the following criteria:

(a) The complexity of the case – an initial assessment of the application documents will enable the Planning Inspectorate to indicate whether the proposal:

• raises novel issues for consideration during the examination
• raises complex legal or technical considerations
• would require consideration of policy contained in more than a single NPS
• raises specific practical considerations which need to inform the appointment of the Examining Authority / panel and the construction of / approach to the examination, or
• involves analysis of policy issues because, for example, there is no designated NPS that has effect in relation to the application

(b) The range and depth of public interest in the case - the initial assessment of the application documents, relevant representations, and any LIRs including draft LIRs will provide the Planning Inspectorate with an indication of the level of public interest in the proposal, the range and depth of issues being raised, and the likely level of public participation in the examination of the application. In particular, the Planning Inspectorate will consider the likelihood of the examination requiring hearings so that interested parties can make oral representations about the application to the Examining Authority.

4.3 A high level of public interest on its own may not warrant more than a single Examining Inspector as the number of issues raised will not usually increase proportionately with the level of public interest. The expectation is that the majority of applications will be examined by a single Examining Inspector and that a panel (especially of more than two persons) will only be required for the most complex and high-profile applications.

4.4 Under section 62 of the Planning Act, where the Planning Inspectorate has appointed a single appointed person to examine an application, a decision can be made to change this at any time so that the examination is handled by a panel, if the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) considers the application is more complex than the original assessment and requires a wider range of expertise and/or more Examining Authority capacity.

4.5 An Inspector may give pre-application advice to the applicant pursuant to section 51 of the Planning Act and may also contribute to the consideration process when an application is submitted for acceptance. Whilst an Inspector involved in giving section 51 advice will be in a position to offer an Inspector’s perspective on the significance of issues arising during pre-application for the examination, this does not represent the view of any Examining Authority on the merits of any application, which will be informed by considerations through the examination. The government strongly supports the contribution of Inspectors to these pre-application and acceptance stages to enable continuity to the identification and framing of issues for consideration during the examination. This may also be carried forward into informing or advising the Examining Authority on the application and its progress post acceptance, or in some circumstances by an Inspector involved in earlier stages forming part of the Examining Authority for the examination.

Initial assessment of principal issues

4.6 As noted above, the relevant representations period must be no less than 28 days or 30 days (where the application involves EIA development) from the date that the notice under section 56 of the Planning Act is published, and the expectation is that this should not exceed 6 weeks, (or 8 weeks, where appropriate, in exceptional circumstances). The Examining Authority is required by section 88(1) of the Planning Act to prepare an IAPI identifying the principal issues arising on the application that require examination. It is required to do so within 21 days of the day after the closing date for the receipt of relevant representations under Rule 5 of the EPR 2010. The IAPI will be based on the application documents, relevant representations, and any LIRs (including draft LIRs) received.

4.7 In the light of the IAPI the Examining Authority will then draft its proposals for the examination timetable. The standard practice is that this is issued including the IAPI in the Rule 6 notice towards the end of the pre-examination period, giving 21 days notice and invitations to attend the preliminary meeting required by section 88(3) of the Planning Act and Rule 6 of the EPR 2010. The expectation is that the pre-examination period in total should take no longer than four months (and a maximum of five months in exceptional circumstances).

4.8 The purpose of the IAPI is to assist the Examining Authority in identifying the matters most likely to require detailed examination. This helps focus the time spent during the examination on those issues where further evidence and interrogation is needed, through written submissions and responses, or through hearings, to enable clear conclusions to be drawn. It does not limit the scope of the examination, and the Examining Authority will continue to consider all relevant matters. The IAPI must therefore be tailored to the application in question and clearly explain why the matters identified require particular focus during the examination, having regard to the nature of the proposed development, the application documents, relevant representations and any LIRs or draft LIRs. Without this targeted approach, IAPIs can become extensive lists of matters and topics common to many major infrastructure projects without clearly indicating what is of particular significance to the application in question.

4.9 A focused IAPI in this way supports an efficient examination by helping to ensure that the examination focuses on matters most pertinent and significant to the planning balance in the application at hand. It should avoid the unnecessary examination of matters that are not controversial, or low complexity.

4.10 Section 89(1) of the Planning Act as amended by section 9 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 strengthens the role of the IAPI in informing the Examining Authority’s decisions about how the application is to be examined. The government strongly recommends that the IAPI is sharply focused and identifies a concise set of typically around 6 to 8 key issues that the Examining Authority considers at that stage most likely to require detailed testing during the examination. In so doing the Examining Authority will take into account any major unresolved matters between the applicant and interested parties, as well as key legal and policy matters (such as international obligations and the contents of relevant NPS) which the Examining Authority is required to examine. The number of principal issues will vary depending on the complexity of the application and is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all matters. Apart from those identified in the IAPI, the Examining Authority will consider all relevant matters, including those that are less complex or not in dispute.

4.11 The government is keen that Examining Authorities trial different approaches to the format and content of the IAPI to optimise its role in the examination process. At a minimum, the IAPI, or information accompanying the IAPI, should:

• reflect relevant national policy
• be prepared in the light of general approaches taken in decisions for similar cases
• explain why the Examining Authority considers each matter to be a principal issue, and conversely
• set out why other matters are likely to require little or no further evidence to enable reasoned conclusions and recommendations to be reached

4.12 Established practice is that the IAPI is published as part of the Examining Authority’s draft examination programme and timetable under Rule 6 of the EPR 2010. Interested parties have the opportunity at the preliminary meeting to express views on the IAPI which the Examining Authority will consider in any update of its IAPI. Constructing an examination based on the IAPI at an early stage of the pre-examination process does not prevent the Examining Authority from subsequent consideration of relevant topics or matters not identified, or indeed for principal issues to fall away during the course of an examination.

4.13 In all cases, the IAPI is intended to support a focused and proportionate examination in order to inform the Examining Authority’s recommendation as to whether development consent should be granted. The Examining Authority’s recommendation report should therefore demonstrate how the IAPI has informed the examination of the application and clearly set out how the key issues have been examined. It should enable the Secretary of State to understand how those matters, and other relevant issues, have been considered, the evidence gathered and the Examining Authority’s conclusions. Only in exceptional circumstances should the report leave any matters on which a clear conclusion has not been reached.

Tracking key issues

4.14 The government’s emphasis on a sharper focus and higher profile for the IAPI is consistent with the identification of key issues at the earliest stage in the NSIP process and keeping track of them during the examination and into the recommendation stage. Applicants are encouraged to identify what they regard as being the substantive matters likely to require particular focus during examination when the application is submitted for acceptance. They will have a clear view from engagement with statutory parties and affected communities about the  issues of particular significance relevant to the application.

4.15 This will provide the Examining Authority with a helpful perspective during consideration of the application documents and analysis of the relevant representations and any LIRs or draft LIRs. These will inform the Examining Authority’s preparation of the IAPI, the preparation for and handling of the examination and ultimately the recommendation to the Secretary of State. That way, there will be a consistent focus on clearly identified key issues throughout the handling of a DCO application. This is intended to enable all parties to marshal their efforts in order to assist the Examining Authority in considering the principal controversial issues, and thereby to avoid disproportionate time and effort being spent on peripheral matters. Overall, this should lead to more efficient and effective handling of DCO applications.

5. Procedural decisions by the Examining Authority during the pre-examination stage

5.1 Procedural decisions by the Examining Authority during the pre-examination stage are an important tool to help deal with the key matters early and support the efficient examination of DCO applications. Sections 88(5) of the Planning Act and Rule 6(3) of the EPR 2010 enables an early start in the Examining Authority’s understanding and investigation of contentious matters and the identification of key issues. The use of procedural decisions, and ‘other’ meetings is encouraged where they are likely to be purposeful in moving the examination forward as swiftly as possible and in turn keeping the pre-examination period to four months or a maximum of five months in exceptional circumstances.

5.2 A procedural decision is defined in section 89 of the Planning Act, as a decision about how the application is to be examined. Procedural decisions at the pre-examination stage will vary depending on the specific detail of the application, but could include:

• publication of the Examining Authority’s list of First Written Questions;
• requests for information from the applicant, for example in relation to document updates to correct minor errors and omissions
• requests for specific interested parties to participate in the preparation of any Statements of Common Ground
• requests that the applicant maintains or updates the Principal Areas of Disagreement Summary Statements submitted with the application to reflect the current position on matters in dispute between the applicant and interested parties, where the Examining Authority considers this would assist the examination

5.3 During the pre-examination stage, the Examining Authority may request updates or clarification to application documents where necessary. Where more substantive changes to the application are proposed after submission, these are typically considered during the examination stage. Further guidance on the process for making changes to an application is set out in the examination guidance.

6. The preliminary meeting

6.1 Once the Examining Authority has made its IAPI, it is required under section 88(2) of the Planning Act to hold a meeting. This is known as the “preliminary meeting” and the day after the end of the preliminary meeting, the examination will begin. In practice, as an open public meeting any person or organisation having an interest in the proposed development can attend the preliminary meeting. There is no statutory timeframe for when the preliminary meeting is to be held, but the expectation is that it should normally take place within 10 weeks from receipt of the relevant representations by the Examining Authority to meet the ambition of completing the pre-examination stage within 4 months.

6.2 The Examining Authority is required by Rule 6 of the EPR 2010 to give no less than 21 days’ notice of the date, time and place of the preliminary meeting, and matters to be discussed, to all those who have submitted relevant representations, relevant statutory parties, relevant local authorities and the applicant. This is published in the Examining Authority’s ‘Rule 6 Notice’ which typically includes a draft of their proposed examination timetable, the IAPI, and other information including details about how people and organisations can register to speak at the preliminary meeting.

6.3 In constructing the draft examination timetable and how the application is to be examined, the expectation is that this will be based firmly on the key issues identified during the preceding stages of preparation of the application and articulated in the Examining Authority’s IAPI. This will be a clear indication to all the participants about where the examination will focus and will ensure that all matters relevant to the Examining Authority’s recommendation are appropriately considered, including those capable of being addressed through written submissions.

6.4The examination is not intended to investigate matters that are not material to the Examining Authority’s recommendation, and subsequently the Secretary of State’s decision on the application. The IAPI is expected to inform the examination timetable so that it is proportionate to the nature, scale and complexity to the project being examined and supports more effective use of resources and proportionate participation. Where the IAPI is limited in the number and complexity of issues, the examination is expected, where practicable, to conclude sooner than the statutory deadline, while allowing sufficient flexibility to address other relevant matters as necessary.

6.5 The preliminary meeting is governed by section 88 of the Planning Act and Rule 7 of the EPR 2010. Its purpose is to enable invitees to make representations to the Examining Authority about how the application should be examined, including its proposed timetable, procedural matters (such as the arrangement of site inspections), and the Examining Authority’s IAPI. It is not to discuss the merits of the application or particular substantive issues as these are matters that will be dealt with during the examination itself.

6.6 The Examining Authority should make clear at the preliminary meeting that the examination is primarily a written process, meaning that the principal mechanism for parties to explore and respond to issues will be through written submissions. The Examining Authority should also clarify that the purpose of any issue-specific hearing is for invited parties to assist the Examining Authority in exploring detailed technical and policy matters, rather than providing a forum for a wide-ranging discussion with all attendees or updating the Examining Authority on engagement and discussions between the applicant and other interested parties. Further information on hearings is outlined in the examination guidance.

6.7 The Planning Inspectorate has developed different approaches to conducting preliminary meetings, tailored to the circumstances of each DCO application, including holding such meetings virtually, or a blend of in-person and virtually. Such flexibilities are very helpful in making participation for attendees as easy as possible.

6.8 In the light of the discussion at the preliminary meeting (as well as the IAPI), the Examining Authority must make appropriate procedural decisions about how the application is to be examined, including the structure and timetable for the examination. These decisions may be made at the preliminary meeting or after it and are typically set out in its Rule 8 letter which is issued shortly after the preliminary meeting. The close of the preliminary meeting marks the end of the pre-examination stage, and the examination begins the day after the preliminary meeting concludes.

Published 3 July 2026