Infrastructure Planning Blog

This week's entry considers the Planning Inspectorate's (PINS) updates to its advice notes, including a more detailed look at the new pre-application advice on environmental impact assessment (EIA).

Let me give you some advice

The Planning Inspectorate has been busy this week updating its advice notes. This follows the removal of the statutory requirement for applicants to carry out pre-application consultation on 24 July as a result of the reforms contained in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (the 2025 Act).

Here is what has happened:

The advice on the preparation and submission of application documents also includes a new template section 55 checklist. This captures all of the changes to the pre-application process as expected. Note box 19 which is new and says that an applicant must have regard to any section 51 advice given by PINS, whether requested by itself or another party.

The pre-application advice on EIA (here) is a new advice note, replacing the two earlier advice notes on EIA matters.  Much of it echoes the earlier advice but here are the more notable changes:

• Removal of mandatory preliminary environmental information: this duty was repealed by section 6 of the 2025 Act, so all references to the Preliminary Environmental Information Report have been removed (except to say there is no longer a requirement for one).  Instead, it confirms that (emphasis added):

"In line with the Government's Guidance on preparing an application … pre-application steps, engagement and/or consultation based on a succinct description of the impacts may be appropriate and the Planning Inspectorate strongly encourages this approach, together with iterative sharing of relevant environmental information with statutory bodies for discussion and feedback. Provision of a voluntary evidence plan agreed between the applicant and a statutory body may assist in identifying and addressing potential impacts and effects at an early stage of the EIA".

• Rochdale envelope: this section is worth reading and there is definitely a tightening up of the wording around project flexibility. In summary:
  
  • PINS continue to recognise the need for some flexibility where parts of a proposed development are not confirmed at application stage and would be determined post-consent.
  • Where this is the case, maximum design parameters should be clearly defined in the project description chapter of the Environmental Statement (ES) and be in accordance with those defined in the draft Development Consent Order (DCO).
  • DCO documents should clearly explain the need for, and extent of, any flexibility sought within these parameters. Characteristics that are yet to be finalised should be clearly identified in the description of the proposed development in the ES.
  • There's a bit of a warning about seeking too much flexibility – "Applicants should ensure that the flexibility sought does not result in a project description that is so wide that it is insufficiently certain to address the requirements of the EIA Regulations". This might sound familiar to readers of blog 55 – there, we reported that following the withdrawal of the Kingsway Solar Farm DCO application, PINS' section 51 advice noted that "… the use of the 'Rochdale envelope' approach is not an excuse to submit applications with insufficient survey material". This comes quite close to undermining the purpose of the Rochdale Envelope if interpreted precautiously, and in the wrong hands. Just as an aside, compare the quite strict claims about surveys here with the relevant case law (see, for example, National Trusts’ Application [2013] NIQB 60 at [70] and R (Jones) v Mansfield District Council [2003] EWCA Civ 1408 at [39]). It is hoped that Government ensures that its impending environmental assessment reforms are clear, proportionate and Make Rochdale Envelopes Great Again.
  • The section on "post-acceptance changes" is worth noting too.  First, it emphasises that applicants must ensure any implications for the ES as a result of a change are addressed and that "requests for changes to an NSIP application introduces [sic] additional complexity and potential delays to the consenting process" (i.e., we do not like changes very much).  Second, it cautions that it may not be possible to continue a 'fast track' application where changes are proposed (i.e., we do not like changes very much).  No DCO applicants have adopted the fast-track process so far, of course.
  • Related to the Rochdale envelope, PINS also caution that "applicants should avoid submitting requests with multiple and varied design and layout options as this may affect the ability of the Planning Inspectorate and consultation bodies to provide detailed comments and may limit the Planning Inspectorate's ability to agree to scope out aspects or matters".  It does however confirm that "it is understood in some cases…options may remain under consideration".
• Site visits: reflecting the emphasis on greater front-loading, applicants are "encouraged to provide adequate time following the project inception meeting to allow for a site visit prior to the submission of scoping request."

These changes have all been made on an "initial basis". A further detailed review is underway and "will inform future updates to the advice page collection to fully align content with the amended legal framework".  We will comment on those as and when they are published.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at July 2026. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases. For more information see our terms & conditions.