Nine more authorities were designated in June, sharpening interest in a route tested extensively in Uttlesford.
Writing in NLJ this week, Joel Semakula of Landmark Chambers and David Poole of Decade Three say the process offers a clearer timetable, responsive consultees and focused hearings. Yet applicants must submit material ‘ready for determination’ early: there is limited scope to amend plans, and late evidence risks unfairness or exclusion. One Uttlesford decision was quashed after a High Court challenge and later redetermined in the developer’s favour.
Section 62A is no automatic shortcut. An inspector decides the application instead of the council, and refusal carries no ordinary appeal right, only statutory review. Its strongest advantage, the authors suggest, may be certainty about the process, provided applicants prepare thoroughly from the start.
