How short can NSIP examinations get?

This entry looks at the time examinations of nationally significant infrastructure project applications are taking.

Yesterday, the 35th examination into a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) came to an end and it was the shortest so far. What factors allow examinations to be shorter than the six-month maximum and how short might they get?

The A160/A180 Improvements application examination took just 133 days out of a maximum 184 days (i.e. six months when the months are July or August to December or January). That only just beat the record, previously held by the Ipswich chord at 134 days.

Examinations have taken the following numbers of days so far:

You can see that they are clustered towards the high end, with just 14% taking fewer than 170 days. Note too that on the other hand none has taken more than its allotted six months, thanks to strict timetabling by inspectors and policing by government departments (and despite a few extension bids).

There's nothing like a deadline to focus the mind - on the one hand it can be relied upon not to be exceeded, but on the other, work tends to fill the time available. What allowed the outliers to take substantially less time, and could other projects do the same? Having worked on the A160 I can offer a few insights.

First, the projects are at the smaller end of the scale, despite being technically nationally significant. All of the five that took fewer than 170 days had a single inspector. In fact the only project with more than one inspector to take fewer than 180 days was the first, Rookery South, and that took 179. I wasn't expecting the length/inspectors correlation to be so marked, but there you are. Not much you can do about the scale of your project.

Secondly, the shorter projects are less controversial than average. The five sub-180 day examinations all had fewer than 50 relevant representations except the Heysham to M6 project, which stands out at 323. Some projects just are less controversial, but proactive pre-application engagement with affected parties surely helps.

Thirdly, the fastest examinations only had one formal round of written questions from their inspectors. There were a couple of mop-up 'rule 17 requests' (ad hoc requests for information), but a second formal round was avoided. Having a well-developed strategy for answering questions - and really answering them even if it is slightly uncomfortable to do so - must help here.

Fourthly, the allocation amongst the applicant's team of tasks for all activities, not just answering questions - responding to representations, preparing for hearings, producing statements of common ground, reaching agreements with objectors - should be shared around and not overburden any particular individual. While ensuring consistency, of course - a difficult balance to strike.

How quick can an examination get? Remembering that it is a series of deadlines for written material with some hearings woven in amongst those, there is an irreducible minimum. The first round of questions is issued shortly after the preliminary meeting that kicks off the six months, these need at least 28 days to answer, and a further 28 days for comments on them from others - similarly for written representations and local impact reports. 

Although it is possible to have hearings before then, that would probably place an intolerable burden on the applicants so hearings would almost certainly follow, with time for written summaries, any updates to the development consent order (DCO) and comments on it after that. There is thus an irreducible minimum of about three and a half months, perhaps four months - 122 days or so - being a realistic floor. But then an Usain Bolt of applications might come along and smash the record, who knows.