If the CAA are a statutory consultee does ODPM 01/2003 not apply which would result in Bournemouth Airport being a statutory consultee as that circular took the responsibility for safeguarding from the CAA to local aerodromes?
Following advice from colleagues, I have been informed that ODPM 01/2003 only applies to Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) applications and not the Planning Act 2008. As local aerodromes are not listed as a prescribed bodies under the PA 2008, this means that Bournemouth Airport are not automatically a statutory party in relation to the Navitus Bay application.
However, the Examining Authority does have the discretion to accept written or oral representations, throughout the examination, from any party.

Bournemouth Airport - Will Fuller

Enquiry regarding the production of Local Impact Reports
Having checked our records, I can confirm that our letter requesting Local Impact Reports was sent to ‘Head of Planning, Breckland District Council … ’ on 6 June 2014. The letter, with the request on the second page, is at: [attachment 1]. Would you like further correspondence directed to you or another named individual?
If your authority is reconsidering its decision regarding the production of a Local Impact Report, you may find the following advice note useful: [attachment 2].
Notably, Local Impact Reports have a special status in our examination because they are produced by local planning authorities. However, the internal processes regarding contributions and approval are entirely at the discretion of the submitting authority. The contributions of Parish Councils are valued by the Examining Authority, and relevant parishes have had, and continue to have, the opportunity to participate in our examination. Several have submitted written representations, which can be viewed at: [attachment 3];stage=4&filter=Written+Representations. You could also review the joint report provided by Norfolk, Norwich, Broadland, South Norfolk and the Broads Authority at: [attachment 4].

Breckland District Council - Iain Withington

Request for information regarding the Examination stage of the Planning Act 2008 process
I write to provide you with some information about the Examination stage of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) under the Planning Act 2008 regime. As you may or may not already be aware the Examination stage is a statutory period of up to 6 months. This stage serves the purpose of allowing the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) the opportunity to seek as much information as they can about a project from various sources in order to form their recommendation.
The first step of the Examination stage actually takes place in the previous stage, Pre-Examination, where a Preliminary Meeting (PM) is held to discuss the principle issues of the project and form a timetable for the Examination itself. This timetable is formed by the ExA based on various criteria (e.g. the size of the project, level of public interest) and is fed into by the attendees of the PM who may offer comments and suggestions to the ExA as to how the timetable should be structured, particularly in terms of the inclusion of various hearings.
The Examination stage itself is primarily made up of written submissions from the various registered interested parties (IPs) at numerous set deadlines over the course of the 6 month period. As an Interested Party, Chapel Haddlesey Parish Council is entitled to make such submissions for these deadlines; the link below outlines which submissions are to be made for which deadlines:
[attachment 1]
In regards to your latest submission, dated 1 June 2014, I can see that you had not had sight of the Draft Construction Traffic Management Plan prior to being made aware of it through Eggborough Parish Council. Where this is the case could I please remind you to regularly check the Knottingley Power project page on the Planning Inspectorate pages of the Planning Portal (please see link below). Where all documents we receive for submission deadlines are usually published within 2 to 3 days.
[attachment 2]
Further to this I would recommend you have a look at our Advice Note series which explain the various components of the Planning Act 2008 process. In particular I would suggest you read AN 8.5: Participating in the Examination which provides further information to what I have explained above.
[attachment 3]
If you require any further information relating to navigating the website or the form of submissions then please feel free to contact us and we will aim to answer any queries.

Brian Metcalf

Request for information on prevenance of Local Impact Reports
Email correspondence attached

Norwich Green Party - Andrew Boswell

Letter received by the Planning Inspectorate from Simon Wright MP for Norwich South attached.
Response from Mark Southgate, Director of Major Applications & Plans at the Planning Inspectorate attached.

Simon Wright MP

Can local authorities charge a fee for DCO related work?
There is no mechanism in the Planning Act 2008 for any party to charge a fee, other than the Secretary of State. Developers of some NSIP projects have entered into Planning Performance Agreements to facilitate the input and engagement of local authorities and other statutory bodies in the DCO process, particulalry at the pre application stage.

Doncaster MBC - Roy Sykes

Query relating to the next stages of the process following the close of the relevant representations period
After the registration period has closed, the Secretary of State will appoint the Examining Authority.
Once appointed, the Examining Authority has up to 21 days to review the application and all relevant representations and identify the initial principal issues for examination. These are included together with a draft timetable, in a letter inviting all interested parties to attend the Preliminary Meeting, to discuss the procedure to be adopted for the examination.
After the Preliminary Meeting, the Examining Authority will issue a procedural decision to all interested
parties, stating how the application will be examined, including a timetable for the examination.

Susan Massey

Query relating to the next stages of the process following the close of the relevant representations period, specifically querying at what stage Local Impact Reports and Written Representations will be required from Local Authorities.
After the registration period has closed, the Secretary of State will appoint the Examining Authority.
Once appointed, the Examining Authority has up to 21 days to review the application and all relevant representations and identify the initial principal issues for examination. These are included together with a draft timetable, in a letter inviting all interested parties to attend the Preliminary Meeting, to discuss the procedure to be adopted for the examination.
After the Preliminary Meeting, the Examining Authority will issue a procedural decision to all interested
parties, stating how the application will be examined, including a timetable for the examination. The final timetable will include details about when Written Representations can be made, and when Local Impact Reports are to be submitted.

A Christchurch Resident

With reference to the latest letter from the PI giving details of the Preliminary Meeting.
I believe that I wrote to you giving my apologies in advance for not being able to attend the meeting.
I noticed that the PI letter gave details of all organisations present at the meeting.
Sadly however no details were given of organisations who sent their apologies. Can these details be added to the relevant correspondence?
I have requested an answer to this question previously.
How can the PI panel give a recommendation of acceptance of the Tidal Lagoon project to the relevant Secretary of State (SoS), and following on how can the SOS grant permission for the project to be accepted, when the UK Government have a Infringement Action against them from the EU, over not designating SAC sites for the Harbour Porpoises in UK waters?
In one instance specifically, the OUTER BRISTOL CHANNEL.(Read PET's letter).
Refer to letter sent with Porthcawl Environment Trust's (PET)Relevant Representation.
Surely the PI and the Secretary of State could face an action of Contempt of Court. Current legal action by the EU still ongoing.
Would someone give an answer to above questions please Ewa?
Regards
Brian Saunders. PET.
Apologies for the delay in responding to your email of 17 June 2014.
The Planning Inspectorate has a template for the taking of meeting notes for the Preliminary Meetings which are held in every examination. This template does not include the inclusion of apologies sent. Your apologies were made known to the Panel of inspectors and published on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website [attachment 1]. Furthermore, the meeting note cannot be amended.
In relation to your question regarding the outer Bristol Channel and the concerns raised in the Porthcawl Environmental Trust’s relevant representation, this is a matter for the examination to address and therefore would be inappropriate for me to comment at this point. Any concerns that you have should be raised through your written representation which should be submitted for Deadline II of the examination by 9 July 2014.

Portcawl Environment Trust - Brian Saunders

Advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate to the applicant concerning missing document

Forewind Limited Andrew Guyton

Query from West Dorset District Council and Weymouth & Portland Borough Council requesting amendments of relevant representations
Unfortunately, as the deadline for registration closed on Monday 23 June, we are unable to amend your representation, or remove a representation, at this stage.
However, we can advise that you include any corrections or amendments to your relevant representations within your written representations which will be requested during the examination stage.

Joint Councils - Hilary Jordan

Rhossili Working Group made a Freedom Of Information request asking the Planning Inspectorate to supply a copy of a report into harbour porpoises, referenced in the applicant's Environmental Statement.
Thank you for your email. The Planning Inspectorate has published all documents that it has received for this examination to date. As such, to my knowledge, we do not have a copy of of the Pierpoint, C. 2008a. A two year pre-construction baseline of harbour porpoise activity at Scarweather Sands Offshore Wind Farm. Report to E.ON Renewables and DONG Energy by RPS Group.
This is a document referenced in the Environmental Statement submitted by the applicant and therefore it may be possible to obtain a copy from Tidal Lagoon (Swansea Bay) Plc. Furthermore, it is my understanding that it is a publically available document and available via this link: [attachment 1];aid=2183144&fileId=S0025315408000507 subject to conditions.
Apologies that I cannot assist you further with this matter.

Carl Johnson

Would you please inform me why the Inspector at the initial meeting in Norwich is not continuing? It is disturbing that such changes are taking place. The new panel will not have gauged the tone and/or the feelings expressed at that first meeting. Could we be informed of the backgrounds of the new panel, please?

This type of examination is quickly becoming very difficult for an individual member of the public of Norwich to follow and to comply with. I note that a harassing tone has now crept in with the threat that a form of financial penalty may be applicable in certain instances. Is this and the hurried changes being made to the procedures indicative that the examination is scrambling to keep up with its time limits at all costs?
In the Examining Authority’s (ExA) Rule 8 Letter of 25 June 2014 it notifies that a panel of inspectors has now been formally appointed by the Secretary of State to examine the application. The Secretary of State had regard to the complexity of the case and the level of public interest in the outcome in making its decision to appoint a panel. The emergence of a draft of the national roads and rail networks National Policy Statement going out to consultation, and which is likely to be designated prior to the close of the examination period, combined with the large number of submitted representations and persons attending the Preliminary Meeting have helped inform the Secretary of State’s decision.
Guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on the Planning Act 2008; examination of applications for development consent, identifies the criteria for appointing an Examining Authority. You can view the said guidance by accessing the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/planning-act-2008-examination-of-applications-for-development-consent
The newly appointed panel has worked closely with the case team at the Planning Inspectorate prior to its formal appointment; the case team was also present at the Preliminary Meeting of 2 June 2014 at Blackfriars Hall. The panel has listened to a recording of the Preliminary Meeting, which was made available on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website and is aware of the tones and feelings expressed at the meeting. Therefore the newly appointed panel has familiarised itself with the case and has the necessary knowledge of the proceedings to date.
We advise any person who has any questions regarding the proceedings to contact us at the Planning Inspectorate case team as we can provide advice accordingly. We also have a suite of advice notes; I have include a link to advice note 8.5: participating in the examination, which I hope you find useful:
[attachment 1]
In referring to the possibility of the award of costs against interested parties; the statement included within the Rule 8 Letter was also included in the ExA’s letter of 8 May 2014, known as the Rule 6 letter. This statement is common across all Nationally Significant Infrastructure projects and is included to ensure that all parties involved in an examination behave in an acceptable way and follow good practice.
I hope you find this information useful, If you have any further questions please do get in touch.

Peter Anderson

Mr Parry - Jones queried on behalf of Royal Mail as to their status in Development Consent Order examinations.
The Planning Inspectorate explained that Royal Mail would be identified as a "universal service provider established under the Postal Services Act 2000" and directed Mr Parry -Jones to section 1F of Advice Note 3 on the Planning Inspectorate's National Infrastructure Pages on the website for further information.

on behalf of Royal Mail - Dan Parry Jones

A14 Consultation – Spring 2014
We are writing to object to the proposed routing and also to express our concerns over the impact the new A 14 route would have on Hilton. In our view the consultation process can only be described as lip service. The booklet produced this spring to accompany the recent exhibitions did reveal a number of interesting matters.
There was no mention of Hilton or the impact of the road on our village, whether noise or air or flood risk nor does it consider the impact of traffic that will use our village as a rat run as a result of the proposed road layout.
The representatives at the exhibitions, Jacobs, did admit that "Hilton is one of the big losers" and stated that "there was no realistic chance of the route being changed at this late stage". The consultation will not give any serious consideration to the points raised by our community.
The proposed A 14 will be much nearer to Hilton than the existing one. We believe it could have been designed to be further to the North without affecting adversely other communities. We have been made to understand that the proposed bunds will be principally for visual effect. We need proper noise barriers, as used extensively in Europe. We also need the data in order to reach proper conclusions and we are told that such data is not yet available. We do not understand how the proposed route can be so advanced without these data being available.
In addition, under the current proposals, we will lose our westbound access to the existing A 14 at the 81040. There seems no persuasive reason as to why this should be the case, a situation that will only add to the traffic flow through the village.
Hilton is a small village which already suffers intolerable levels of heavy goods traffic. When so much is up in the air it is puzzling why this project is being pushed forward, before noise and pollution surveys and flood risk assessments have been completed. It seems that all the decisions have already been taken and we can only assume all the surveys will be made to fit the plan.
What is clear, however, is that Hilton has been sacrificed for the benefit of other parts of the constituency. We believe that there are several practical measures that could be taken, at relatively modest cost, to ameliorate the damage which will otherwise be done to our beautiful village and weurge you to implement them, in the event that the design of the scheme is not reconsidered.
We ask the Highways Agency to explain clearly, its decision to route the road so close to Hilton when it is open to them to move it further north and also for them to reconsider Option 6. We also ask the Highways Agency to complete their various surveys and assessments and consult again - in an honest and transparent way this time. And finally urge/insist that a permanent 24 hour HGV ban throughout Hilton is established prior to the commencement of any construction.
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period was 15 June 2014. It is at the developer’s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer’s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Peter and Pauline Lee

Unsolicited advice to constituency MPs
Application by National Grid Electricity Transmission plc (National Grid), for the proposed Hinkley Point C Connection Development Consent Order
I am writing to let you know that the Planning Inspectorate accepted the above application by National Grid for examination on Thursday 19 June 2014. As a Member of Parliament with a constituency along the route of this proposed development, information about what to expect following acceptance has been provided below.
National Grid are required to announce a period of time during which persons with an interest in the project may register to take part in the examination of the application. The announcement will occur shortly, and will be in the form of public notices placed along the route of the project and advertisements in media distributed in the locality. They will set out when and how people may register. Registration is likely to occur during July and August 2014. If you would like to be kept informed of the progress of the application please make sure you register by the deadline set out in the advertised notice and on our project page. The form will be made available on our HPCC project page in approximately 2 to 3 weeks’ time.
Following the close of the registration period the Inspectorate will appoint the panel of Inspectors (the Examining Authority), who will examine the application. All those who have successfully registered, among others, will be notified and invited to attend a Preliminary Meeting that will convene to consider how the application should be examined. This meeting is likely to take place in September 2014.
The examination period of no more than six months, will commence following the close of the Preliminary Meeting, and will primarily be a written process. Please find attached some Inspectorate advice notes and Department of Communities and Local Government guidance regarding the process. Further information and the application documents can be found on the Inspectorate’s website:
[attachment 1]

Constituency MPs associated with the project

Request to make paper application documents available and to provide reassurance over level of evidence required in support of written representations.
Dear Cllr Hawker,
It was a pleasure speaking with you yesterday and I am glad that you found it useful.
I’m sure that you will appreciate that it is the nature of these applications that there documentation will be lengthy and sometimes cumbersome. You can write to Norfolk County Council requesting the production of a paper copy of the application, but the cost is significant. As it comprises more than fifty ring binders, you may find this just as inconvenient as the electronic version. Norfolk County Council has moved the full set of documents from Hellesdon Library to the Forum Library in central Norwich following requests from interested parties. The Forum is open until 8pm Monday to Friday and during the day on Saturday; the complete opening hours were including in our letter of 6 June 2014.
DCLG Guidance sets out the manner in which examination are to be run; paragraph 4 establishes the need for fairness and proportionality https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/192673/Planning_Act_2008_-_Guidance_for_the_examination_of_applications_for_development_consent.pdf:
‘Key aims are to promote best practice; to ensure consistent application of examination procedures; and to promote fairness, transparency and proportionality.’
Regarding the production of written representations, it is most precise to quote paragraph 70 from the guidance produced by DCLG
‘The written representations should include each party’s detailed case and set out the reasons why they support or oppose the application. It should identify those parts of the application and specific matters with which they agree, and those parts or matters where they do not agree. Reasons for any disagreement should be provided.’
Clearly the Examining Authority will want to understand the reasoning behind statements made to the examination, but such requests for evidence must be fair and proportionate.
I trust this is of assistance; thank you for the constructive engagement of Hockering Parish Council in this examination.
Yours sincerely
Nicholas Coombes
Case Manager

Hockering Parish Council - Richard Hawker

Request to explain how the need case for the scheme will be examined in light of the s35 Direction of the scheme as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project and the draft National Networks National Policy Statement.
Attached.

NNTAG - Denise Carlo

Formal complaint about access to application documents, requesting extension to deadlines. To be dealt with following Planning Inspectorate complaints procedures by Quality Assurance Unit.
Dear Cllr Hawker,
Thank you for including me in your email this morning. As you have identified, formal complaints of this nature are dealt with separately, so you will not be receiving any further response from me or the case team.
The applicant has recently provided a further set of documents to provide navigational guidance to their application, which we have published at [attachment 1];stage=app&filter=Other+Documents; I have found the composite contents table very useful.
As you mention, Local Impact Reports were discussed at the Preliminary Meeting. The Examining Authority explained that these were to be produced by local planning authorities such as Norwich City and Broadlands District Council, though neighbouring authorities such as Breckland are also welcome to do so. As you will have seen in our draft examination timetable, there will be provision for interested parties to comment on these reports.
Please do get in contact directly if we can provide any advice about the process of the examination.
Yours sincerely
Nicholas Coombes
Case Manager

Hockering Parish Council - Richard Hawker

Query regarding submitting comments
Any comments should be submitted on the correct ‘relevant representation’ form on our website. By completing the relevant representation form you are registering as an ‘Interested Party’ in the examination of this application. Please follow the link below to the Navitus Bay project page, where there is a link in banner to ‘Register online’, which will direct you to the form: [attachment 1].
The deadline for registering is 11.59pm on Monday 23 June 2014.
Before completing the form you may find it useful to read our ‘Advice Notes’ which you will also find on our website, which explain the Planning Act 2008 process as well as how to complete the relevant representations form. In particular, Advice Note 8.3 provides advice on how to register as an interested party: [attachment 2].

Margaret Manning

On ploughing through the Application it seems there may be information on which a Written Rep. should be made notwithstanding that the topic was not specifically identified and therefore mentioned at the time when Relevant Reps were made. Does the process allow for this to happen at the WR stage?
A written representation is a more detailed representation, supported with relevant information and evidence and is not constrained by the topic you identified in your relevant representations. The purpose of written representations is to provide the Examining Authority with submissions and evidence regarding issues which are important and relevant to the consideration of the application. You may provide as much or as little detail as you wish in your written representation, but a representation is more likely to carry weight with the Examining Authority if it is specific and supported by evidence.

Roy Pointer

Queries regarding the examination process
Interested parties can take part in the examination of the above application for development consent which has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) and you can become an interested party if you make a relevant representation. Everyone who has registered as an interested party in relation to an application is given the opportunity to provide a more detailed written representation, supported with relevant information and evidence, by the deadline set out in the examination timetable.
The examination is first and foremost a written process, based upon the relevant and written representations of interested parties and the written responses to questions asked by the Examining Authority.
As written evidence is such an important part of the examination, it is essential that you make any points you wish to make in writing, before the deadlines set by the Examining Authority.
The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following link:
[attachment 1]
I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

Elizabeth Wood

Unfortunately, I cannot find annexes A, B or C referenced in the ES Cat 6 Vol B Appendices [6.2.2.16.1......Appendix 16.1.pdf] which is the navigation risk assessment. I presume these annexes should have been contained in this document, but they seem to be missing.. Please could you either point me in the right direction, or ask NBDL to provide them asap?
Also, we have in the past requested data from NBDL that they have refused to supply and that are still not available in the full ES. As an example, we have requested radar track data from the summer navigation survey for a few specified individual days rather than the whole period so that individual tracks can be made out (the scale of NBDL's charts is very small). How should I request that these data are made available so that we can prepare a properly informed response? These and other missing data currently impede independent assessments of parts of the ES.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. It does appear that the annexes you identified have not been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. We have contacted the applicant and they have confirmed the omission which appears to be due to an administrative oversight. The applicant has sought the Inspectorate’s advice into how the documents can be submitted into the examination. The Inspectorate has given the applicant the following advice which constitutes s51 advice under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended).
The earliest opportunity for submission of the documentation will be the preliminary meeting. The Examining authority will then be able to make a decision on how to proceed.
To enable this information to be brought into the public domain and comply with the Planning Inspectorate's openness policy, we have suggested that the applicant submits a formal request for the Examining authority, when appointed, to accept the information at the preliminary meeting. If the Examining authority decides to accept the information, the information would then be published on the Planning Inspectorate project webpage shortly after the preliminary meeting and considered by the Examining authority as formally submitted. This would afford all interested parties the opportunity to view and comment on the submitted material at the start of the examination period.
If you wish to view the documentation prior to its formal submission into the examination then you should contact the applicant directly to request this.
I cannot comment on your request for the applicant to supply you with radar track data from the summer navigation survey as this is a matter between you and the applicant. An Examining authority, when appointed, will look in detail at the data and representations submitted and if they subsequently feel that the data, as you describe, is required then they can request this from the applicant. If you feel that this would be useful then can draw the Examining authority’s attention to this in your relevant representation, but it is ultimately for the Examining authority to decide if it is required for the purposes of the examination.

Challenge Navitus - Andrew Langley

We understand that three Annexes to the technical appendix of Chapter 16 (Shipping and Navigation), Volume B of the Environmental Statement were erroneously omitted from Navitus Bay's electronic submission. These Annexes are as follows:
• Annex A – Consequences Assessment Report
• Annex B – Hazard Log
• Annex C – Navitus Bay MGN Checklist.
We would be grateful if this omission could be brought to the attention of the Examining Authority when appointed, so that an appropriate opportunity to submit copies of the Annexes can be scheduled into the examination timetable
We note that there are a small number of annexes to the Environmental Statement that were unintentionally omitted from your application to the Planning Inspectorate for the Navitus Bay Wind Park. It is understood that this is the result of an administrative oversight.
As you will be aware, the application is currently in the pre-examination stage and an Examining authority has not yet been appointed to examine the project. We are not able to accept any other documentation until the examination begins and as such, the omitted annexes cannot be entered into the examination at this stage. It is up to you, as the applicant, to decide when to make the Examining authority aware of this information. The Planning Inspectorate however offered the following advice on how to proceed.
The earliest opportunity for submission of the documentation will be the preliminary meeting. The Examining authority will then be able to make a decision on how best to proceed including whether or not to accept the material into the examination.
To enable this information to be brought into the public domain and comply with the Planning Inspectorate's openness policy, I would suggest that you follow the following approach.
You may wish to submit a formal request to the Examining authority, when appointed, to submit the information at the preliminary meeting. When issuing the Rule 6 letter, the Examining authority may make reference to this information and bring these matters to the attention of all interested parties and other persons invited to the preliminary meeting in advance of that meeting.
If the Examining authority decides to accept the information, the information would then be published on the Planning Inspectorate project webpage shortly after the preliminary meeting and considered by the Examining authority as formally submitted. This would afford all interested parties the opportunity to view and comment on the submitted material at the start of the examination period.

Navitus Bay Development Ltd - Helen Cassini

s51 advice issued alongside s55 checklist
Dear Ms Suri
Planning Act 2008 (as amended) – Section 51

Application by National Grid for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Hinkley Point C Connection project

Advice under s51 concerning the Book of Reference, Land Plans, and Environmental Statement
The Secretary of State made the decision on XX June 2014 that the application for the proposed Hinkley Point C Connection project has satisfied the acceptance tests under s55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). The Planning Inspectorate’s acceptance checklist, published on our website today, notes at section 3.3(d) some observations in relation to the submitted Book of Reference; at section 3.3(i) in relation to the Land Plans, and at 3.3(a) in relation to the Environmental Statement. This letter contains advice to you provided under s51 of the PA 2008.
Special Category and Crown Land Plans
The Special Category and Crown Land Plans do not divide the land into plots and no plot numbers are shown. This makes it difficult to identify individual plots and is not consistent with Paragraph 7 of Annex to the DCLG guidance on Compulsory Acquisition, which states that: “The boundaries between plots should be clearly delineated and each plot separately numbered to correspond with the book of reference.”
It is assumed that this is a printing error; however, we suggest that you prepare to rectify this error in order that all parties can be certain about the nature and extent of compulsory acquisition.
In addition to the above, in section B, D and G there are plots identified in the Book of Reference which do not appear on the relevant plans. This has been identified in detail on the s55 checklist. It is likely that the Examining Authority (ExA) will request that Special Category and Crown Land Plans should be updated in order that they are consistent with the Book of Reference in this regard. It is important that the ExA has certainty about the nature and extent of the land subject to compulsory acquisition powers.
Land Affected Plans and Land Plans
It is noted that the Land Affected Plans and Land Plans contain several very small plots. Paragraph 4 of Annex C of the DCLG guidance states that: “Where the order involves the acquisition of a considerable number of small plots, the use of insets on a larger scale is often helpful.” The ExA is likely to request thatplans should be submitted that would enable the ExA and any affected persons certainty about the location of the plot. Plots 157 and 158 of Section B and Plots 592, 593 and 594 of Section G are pointed out in the checklist.
In addition to the above, discrepancies have been noted between the rights sought in the book of reference and the rights that appear to be shown on the Land Plans. Plots that appear to be affected by this issue are identified in the s55 checklist as plot 403 of Section G and plots 67, 68, 89, 94, and 95 of Section B. It is assumed that this is a printing error; however, the ExA will need certainty about which rights are sought and the Land Plans should be updated in order that they are consistent with the Book of Reference.
With regard to this omission and all of the above issues in relation to plans, we advise that a full audit of the plans is carried out, bearing in mind the DCLG guidance, in order that the ExA and interested parties can have certainty that the plans accurately represent the nature and extent of Compulsory Acquisition for this project.
Book of Reference
The Special Category and Crown Land Plans show multiple plots in Section H; however, the corresponding Book of Reference identifies no plots of special category land. The ExA is likely to request that the Book of Reference be updated to correct this omission.
S42(1)(d) Consultees
In order to establish whether all persons with an interest in land had been consulted under s42(1)(d), we carried out a comparison of the s42(1)(d) list provided at Appendix 18 to the Consultation Report with addresses in the Book of Reference. We found that a small proportion of the addresses in the Book of Reference were not listed in Appendix 18. It may be that addresses and names were added to the Book of Reference after statutory consultation had been completed; however, we can find no statement confirming this in the Consultation Report or any other document.
It is important that persons with an interest in land are able to participate in the process. To ensure this happens we strongly advise that an audit is carried out prior to the notification of the deadline of relevant representations under s56, in order that there can be certainty that all those affected have been notified and are afforded the opportunity to submit a relevant representation.
Environmental Statement
Officers welcome the well-structured way the Environmental Statement has been put together, which makes finding information in it straightforward. However; it is noted that some baseline data is missing from Chapter 8 of the Environmental Statement. The Environmental Statement states that the relevant ecological surveys are currently being undertaken and will be prioritised for survey during the examination period. The ExA is likely to request that the applicant submit the missing ecological surveys at a very early date within the examination period to ensure that the Examining Authority has all relevant evidence before them, and we advise you to prepare for this request.
Minor Discrepancies
The following two minor document naming issues have been noted, the submission of corrected documents will ensure that no confusion arises:
• the electronic copy of ‘Environmental Statement Project Need and Alternatives Appendix 2L (5.2.2.7)’, the front cover incorrectly names this Appendix as (12); and
• the hard and electronic copy of Consultation Report Appendix 10A (6.2.2), refers to this document as Appendix (10) rather than 10A on the internal index page.
Submission of updated documents
You are strongly advised to prepare any updates to the documents referred to in this letter so that they can be submitted early during the examination in line with any future timetable which is likely to set a deadline for the submission of updated documents. The ExA is likely to set an early deadline for this material, in order to ensure that all parties have adequate time to consider the updates and comment upon them.
Please pay close attention to the advice set out in this letter and act on it accordingly. This will contribute towards a more efficient examination and give any future ExA comfort that the documentation is complete and accurate.
Mark Wilson
Infrastructure Planning Lead

National Grid

Questions regarding the process for making represenations and queries regarding taking part in the examination process
This application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014. There is a period of 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept it. This decision should be made not later than Thursday 8 May 2014.
The Secretary of State’s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination must accord with the provisions of section 55 of the PA 2008. Amongst other things, the application must be of a standard the Secretary of State considers satisfactory to proceed to examination and the applicant’s pre-application consultation should have complied with the statutory procedure. Please see link to the checklist:
Link to Checklist
Issues related to the merits of an application, such as the location of the proposal, can only be considered during the examination of an application. If an application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two successive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of ‘relevant representations’ is also opened via the Planning Inspectorate’s website.
Interested parties can take part in the examination of the above application for development consent which has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) and you can become an interested party if you make a relevant representation. Everyone who has registered as an
interested party in relation to an application is given the opportunity to provide a more detailed written representation, supported with relevant information and evidence, by the deadline set out in the examination timetable.
The examination is first and foremost a written process, based upon the relevant and written representations of interested parties and the written responses to questions asked by the Examining Authority.
As written evidence is such an important part of the examination, it is essential that you make any points you wish to make in writing, before the deadlines set by the Examining Authority.
The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following link:
[attachment 1]
I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

Mark Watts

Comments on the Interim Consultation Report for Rhiannon Offshore Wind Farm, submitted by Celtic Array Limited.
Please see the attached document.

Celtic Array Limited - Kirsty McGuiness

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement scheme Statutory pre-application consultation
Iam writing to you as a resident of Hilton village which four miles south of St lves and approximately 1.5 miles south of the existing A 14. It is a village noted for its history and very old properties. It is also a village that has been noted in the A14 Improvement Scheme documentat ion as one of "the losers" (my words) in the Scheme due to the adverse and detrimental effects of the proposed route of the new A 14.The village and surrounding area is totally flat , the road will have a huge visual impact on the area and noise andenvironmental pollution will travel further distance than in towns and built up areas.
I have attended two local Highways Agency exhibitions where Iwas disappointed to find that the representatives from HA gave conflicting information to the public, each answer depended on the person you spoke to. In order to try and find out the actual facts I attended the consultation meeting offered by Hilton Parish Council on 8 May 2014 which was attended by a representative from Jacobs who also, unfortunately, was unable to answer many of the questions asked by local residents. The Jacobs representative did give a commitment to go away, search out, and provide, the information and cross sections we requested . To date it appears that this was an empty promise as I understand that the information has apparently not yet been provided. I can, however, understand the difficulty he must have encountered in gathering and providing this information because,as he so proudly told us, Jacobs are responding to the concerns raised during consultat ion and are "parallel planning" ,working in parallel, in order to achieve the tight deadlnes.The result of this is that there is still no definitive plan and the goalposts are constantly moving.
Despite the lack of precise Information forming the consultation process and the lack of commitment to giving accurate information, Iam expected to make my own comments on the proposals. Ifind this very difficult...... what are the definitive proposals? They move with the wind!!

I do understand the need to address the existing problems of the present A 14. There are frequent accidents and resulting delays and hold up to traffic. This affects local people on a daily •basis when they are trying to go about their daily work, it affects people travelling long distances for work and pleasure...it is a nightmare and something DOES need to be done. It must have a devastating cost to the economy. In fact I'm absolutely amazed that local initiatives, costing far less than the proposed new A14 Improvement Scheme, have not addressed the problem areas years ago. Linking the A428 directly to the M11 would have helped. Creating a "hard shoulder'' for much of the Huntingdon to Cambridge route where it runs through open agricultural land would have helped. Making dual carriageway for the A 14 east bound sweep away from the start of the M11 at Girton Interchange would have helped. Lengthening and making a safe two lane "run in" from Spittals Roundabout (Huntingdon) onto the A14 eastbound would have helped. Each of these improvements would have changed the way in which the A 14 flows....each would have been a sensible traffic improvement.
The centre of the proposed route of the new A14, the "Huntingdon bypass" will pass just BOOm from our village. Each direction will be three lanes wide and there is likely (yet to be confirmed ... again.....I) a hard shoulder (a fourth lane in effect) ...all this will be projecting further towards our village.The present road from Hilton to St lves will be crossed by the new A 14, there will be a bridge, the bridge needs to have a safe straight access ......however the existing road bends and therefore it will need to be straightened out and therefore access towards the flyover/bridge is likely to start at the very edge of our village. It may not...who knows? At the Parish meeting on the 8th May the representative from Jacobs committed to providing parishioners with a "cross section" of the proposed route/bridge/bund so that we can see for ourselves what is planned. Height, width, distance. This has not been provided and I am unable to comment on the proposed route. Therefore I believe that the contractors and the Highway agency are in breach oftheir own process and I would ask you to Investigate this.
It appears, from the lack of support and interest from our local councillor and local mp (deliberate lower case letters shows the disgust in which I hold them), that the proposed route will go ahead. There is absolutely no interest in the outcome of consultation process, we were told that the expectation is that work on the new A 14 will have started by the end of 2016. Therefore I need to accept that it's "a done deal" and list my views on what is needed for the amelioration of the effects of the A 14 as it passes a few hundred yards from my home.
I have written to the Highways Agency with a similar letter to this, but I have listed in more the detail the environmental issues that, I believe, need not only consideration but also are absolutely critical and crucial to the safe future of this historic small village. I believe that amelioration of the effects of pollution from emissions, from noise, from light at night and from visual pollution need to be considered of paramount importance and should be written in to the final contract. To date, despite commitment from Jacobs, the parishioners have no accurate information about plans for amelioration other than a 1 metre for aesthetic purposes. I'm sure that you would agree that this is totally unsatisfactory and is no protection from the pollution caused by very heavy traffic on the new A 14.

I would ask you therefore to investigate what amelioration is being written into this contract and to ensure that there is a commitment to deliver it as part of the contract and not treat it as an option if there is any money left over at the end of the construction phase. As a community we desperately need your interest and involvement to ensure that the potential pollutants are limited and confined to no less than European standards and that life in this historic small village continues, unpolluted, into the future.
I look forward to hearing from you with regards to either your own comments or with directions as to where I should direct these concerns within the Planning Inspectorate.
Dear Ms Clark
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period was 15 June 2014. It is at the developer’s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer’s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Susan Clark

Request for information regarding the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) under the Planning Act 2008 regime and information about becoming organised as an interest group in the run-up to the examination.
The pre-examination stage:
The Progress Power Station application is currently at the pre-examination stage. This stage precedes the statutory 6 – month examination stage and includes the following ‘milestone’ events in the order they occur:
- Notification of an accepted application by the applicat to prescribed persons;
- The period to register as an Interested Party or ‘IP’ commences - a minimum of 28 days set by the applicant;
- Those who submit a relevant representation (‘RR’) – a 500 word summary of ones views either in support or objection to the proposal – become an IP;
- The applicant must certify it’s compliance with the legislative requirements when notifying persons of an accepted application and confirm whether it has identified any further persons whose land may be affected by the proposed development;
- Relevant Representations are published on the Planning Portal;
- The Examining authority (ExA) is appointed which comprises either one, 3 or 5 examining inspectors.

The appointment is based on:
- The level of public interest – derived from the RRs;
- The size of the project; and
- The level of complexity the project brings.
- A Rule 6 letter is issued to all Interested Parties (those which registered as an IP and others prescribed in statute). This letter confirms:
- The ExA – names and size;
- A draft timetable of the 6-month examination;
- An initial assessment of the principle issues the project entails; and
- 21 days’ notice of the date, time and venue of the Preliminary Meeting.
- The Preliminary Meeting is held at a venue close to the proposed development.
- The examination stage commences, the day after the Preliminary Meeting.
- A final examination timetable a ‘Rule 8’ letter is issued to all IPs as soon as practicable following the PM.
- Submissions of written reps & hearings commence as set-out in the Rule 8 letter over the statutory 6-month period.

What happens with your relevant representations?
The relevant representation period has now closed. All relevant representations have been published on the Progress Power Station Project Page. All those persons who submitted a Relevant Representation have, in-turn, regisetered themselves as Interested Parties or an ‘IP’. IPs are assinged a legal status and invited to take part in the examination of the application i.e. to speak at hearings and submit evidence (in the form of written submissions) to the Examining authority (ExA) for them to consider.
The ExA – once appointed – will review all relevant representations, the application documents and discuss pertinent matters with the case team in compiling its initial assessment of issues. All IPs will have the opportunity to comment on others’ RRs during the examination.

I’ve submitted a RR - what happens next?
All IPs will be sent the Rule 6 letter confirming the details for the Preliminary Meeting; the Initial Assessment of Principle Issues; name(s) of the ExA; and a draft examination timetable. The preliminary meeting is purely a procedural meeting to discuss the draft timetable and not the merits of the project.
Following the preliminary meeting, the examination stage will commence. The examination can be an intense period, with tight deadlines for the receipt of information, responses to written questions posed by the ExA and summaries of case put at hearings.
It is important to utilise the pre-examination stage as much as possible in getting prepared for what might be voiced at a hearing or what might constitute your written representations. I have included a link to a timetable of a project, similar to that of Progress Power – this will enable you to see example dates between milestones in the examination and the benefit of being prepared with submissions as we lead into the examination. I am happy to discuss with you what types of submissions may consist of, but I am unable to assist in their preparation ie. advising on specific content:

[attachment 1]

The Examination:
During the Examination, all IPs will be kept up-to-date of procedural decisions made by the ExA. These will either be via email or in letter form – as confirmed in RR forms. It should be remembered that the premise of the examination is to the inform the ExA’s Report for recommendation to the Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change.
Further written representations will be requested during the Examination stage – these should be based on one’s relevant representation submitted during the pre-examination stage. There is no word limit to written representations, however, we do ask that summaries are provided for large documents.
Please see the link at the bottom of this email to our Advice Notes for more information.
Although primarily a written process, the examination timetable will make provision for hearings. There are three types of hearings:
- Open-Floor Hearings – anyone can attend an OFH but only IPs can speak at them. Those who are not an IP and wish to speak at an OFH, must make a request to the ExA for consideration. If representing a group of people, a spokesperson may be best suited to represent those who find public speaking difficult or uncomfortable
- Issue-Specific Hearings – these are held at the request of the ExA and focus on specific matters e.g transport or ecology.

- Compulsory Acquisiton Hearings – these are only held if a request by an affected person is received.

A deadline will feature in the examination timetable to inform the ExA of a party’s wish to speak or attend a hearing. This date is important should you wish to attend or speak at hearings.

Site visits:
The ExA may feel the need to visit the site – this can either be conducted accompanied (by IPs and the applicant) or unaccompanied. Details on site visits will be included within the Rule 6 and Rule 8 letters.

I’ve included some links to our advice notes (8.1 – 8.5) which you will no doubt find useful:

[attachment 2]

Common Concern

Could you please tell me who supervises the project during the construction phase to ensure the project adheres to the scheme as approved by the Secretary of State, and any planning conditions. And how are Building Regulations administered?
A DCO will usually be drafted in the form of a Statutory Instrument (an Order) and as such it is in effect a piece of legislation in its own right. In general terms this means that failure to comply with the provisions of the Order is illegal. Any breach of the terms of the DCO could be reported directly to the Secretary of State who would then need to consider whether to take enforcement action and what that would entail. In the case of a Nuclear project, if the alleged illegality involved the main power station site then the matter would need to be referred to the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) as a potential breach of the Nuclear Site Licence, which is separate to the DCO. In reality the ONR would be regularly monitoring the construction of the main nuclear site and so it would be very unlikely that they would be unaware of any deviation from the consented scheme.
A DCO typically contains protective provisions and requirements (akin to planning conditions). Some of these will relate to on-going monitoring, some will need to be discharged or signed off upon completion in a similar way to a planning permission being implemented. As to the authority responsible, it really depends on the nature of the provision or requirement. Usually a local authority would fulfil this role; however, there may be other instances where the Environment Agency or another statutory body will assume responsibility for monitoring compliance. It will be up to the developer to agree the detailed wording of the DCO and any associated monitoring / discharging responsibilities with the organisations concerned at the pre application stage and at the examination.
The Hinkley Point C DCO would be a useful comparator in this instance. In that case the local authorities negotiated the detailed wording of the majority of the requirements and also a charging schedule for undertaking these responsibilities, with the ability of the applicant to appeal to the Secretary of State if the discharging authority was acting unreasonably. See Schedules 2 and 14 of the DCO
In the case of HPC the monitoring regime associated with the construction of the Power Station and the associated development was included in documents which are referred to in the requirements. For example, the Code of Construction Practice or the Environmental Management Plan. These documents contain the detailed mechanisms and controls needed to mitigate the construction phase of the development, but which would be too detailed and lengthy to be contained in the DCO itself.
I hope this makes sense. I would recommend you have a go at reading the Hinkley Point C DCO. On first sight it’s a bit impenetrable to the untrained legal eye but in terms of its structure and how its powers are exercised you should be able to gain an understanding of how a Sizewell C DCO could be structured. In basic terms a DCO is typically structured in the following way; firstly, the DCO defines what the “development” is (schedule of works); secondly it defines what powers are enshrined in the DCO (articles and provisions) and thirdly how the powers sought will be controlled / mitigated (usually a schedule of requirements).

Sizewell Parishes Liaison Group - Jon Swallow

E-mail received from Denise Carlo of NNTAG below:
The Notes of the Preliminary Meeting state that:

“written submissions should not include web links. If a party wished a document to be considered, it should be provided as a copy.”

However, what do Interested Parties do if they wish to submit a large number of documents, several of which may be large?

For example, NNTAG wishes to refer to a ‘Trunk Roads and the Generation of Traffic’ (1994). This is a substantial technical report. It includes a case study about the Norwich NDR. Do we submit the whole report electronically or just the Norwich case study, even though the whole report is relevant to the conclusions about eh particular Norwich case study?

We also wish to submit a number of Norfolk County Council documents, notably, reports to Committee meetings. Do we submit the whole document or can we just reference them please?
Response from the Planning Inspectorate:
Thank you for your e-mail below of the 13 July 2014.
As you are aware, unlike relevant representations, which need to be submitted on the prescribed form, written representations can be submitted electronically or in paper form and can include additional evidence to strengthen the submission. As the examination is primarily a written process, it is essential that you make any points you wish to make to the Examining Authority (ExA) through the submission of written evidence.
Ultimately, it is your decision what you include within your written representation and how you present that information. I would like to remind you that guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government on the Planning Act 2008: examination of applications for development consent, states ‘Participants should also provide with their written representation any data, methodology and assumptions used to support their submissions.’
If you wish a whole document to be considered by the ExA for the purposes of examination, I advise you include any such document/report in its entirety as an appendix to your written representation. We will clearly label any appendix to your written representation as being submitted by yourself when publishing it on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website.
Alternatively, if you do wish to include a reference to a document but do not want to include that entire document as an appendix, I advise you make reference to it within the text of your written representation clearly quoting the relevant paragraphs, chapters and/or policies you are making reference to.
I would advise that both approaches are acceptable, however as mentioned earlier, it is ultimately your decision what you present to the ExA. You may also wish to prepare a summary of your written representation should you believe it will assist the ExA better understand your case.

NNTAG - Denise Carlo

The applicant contacted the Planning Inspectorate seeking a view on how an IROPI (Imperitive Reasons of Overriding Public Interest) case should be presented, at what point in the proceedings such a case should be put forward, and if there is any guidance in place now or planned for the future.
Thank you for your enquiry, I have spoken with colleagues in the Environmental Services Team and the Planning Inspectorate are able to provide the information provided below which will hopefully be of assistance to you in preparing the application.
When preparing an application for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), as amended by the Localism Act 201, applicants must consider the potential effects on protected habitats. If an NSIP is likely to affect a European site and/or a European marine site, the applicant must provide a report with the application showing the site(s) that may be affected together with sufficient information to enable the competent authority to make an appropriate assessment (AA), if required. Where an AA has been carried out and results in a negative assessment (in other words, the development will adversely affect the European site(s), despite any proposed avoidance or mitigation measures, or if uncertainty remains), consent can only be granted if there are no alternative solutions, there are Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) for the development and compensatory measures have been secured.
Applications intending to proceed on the basis of IROPI will need to provide sufficient information to the Examining Authority (ExA) to demonstrate that the three sequential tests required under Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive have been met. These are as follows:
• There must be no feasible alternative solutions to the plan or project which are less damaging to the affected European site(s);
• There must be ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’ (IROPI) for the plan or project to proceed;and
• All necessary compensatory measures must be secured to ensure that the overall coherence of the network of European sites is protected.
To date there has been only one NSIP case that has proceeded on the basis of IROPI, this was for the Able Marine Energy Park. The link to the project on the National Infrastructure Planning website is provided below. You may wish to review the details of this case to better understand some of the associated issues.
[attachment 1]
We also encourage you to review the Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 10 (AN10) which explains how the four stages of the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) process interact with the stages of the PA 2008. This includes a summary of Stage 3 (assessment of alternatives), Stage 4 (IROPI), and compensatory measures. AN10 can be found at the following location:
[attachment 2]
More detailed guidance is also available from Defra regarding article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive (this is the article of the Habitats Directive that provides a derogation which would allow a plan or project to be approved in limited circumstances even though it would or may have an adverse effect on the integrity on a European site). This document can be accessed here:
[attachment 3]
Given the nature of your enquiry we also remind you of the role of the Major Infrastructure Environment Unit (MIEU) in Defra that supports progress on individual infrastructure projects and intends to improve processes for infrastructure projects by:
a) Playing a key early risk management role to identify issues associated with the Directives for projects;
b) Ensuring collaboration between all parties to support resolution of issues as necessary;
c) Introducing and overseeing a new process for agreeing evidence requirements; and
d) Providing greater clarity to developers on key requirements.
We understand and welcome that you have been working with the MIEU to develop an evidence plan to provide a formal mechanism to agree upfront with relevant stakeholders the HRA information you need to supply to us as part of a Development Consent Order (DCO) application.
The Planning Inspectorate has also recently published its Prospectus for applicants which sets out our service for applicants at the pre-application stage of the NSIP process, I enclosed a link to this in a previous email but have included it below for ease of reference. Of particular relevance here is our ability to review and comment on draft documents including draft HRA reports and our ability to offer detailed advice under Section 51 in relation to the applicant’s approach to HRA. The prospectus can be accessed at the link below:
[attachment 4]

I trust you will find this information useful; however, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss and understand this issue with you in more detail perhaps by telephone or at a meeting.

East Anglia THREE Limited - Keith Morrison

Mr Jones asked if the applicant's submissions prior to the Preliminary Meeting,mentioned in their lawyers letter dated 3 June 2014, had been published.
Thank you for your email. The applicant's response to the s51 advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate was discussed at the Preliminary Meeting, the Examining Authority was required to review these and make a procedural decision as to whether to accept these into the examination. The Chair at the Preliminary Meeting suggested that a decision was likely to be made in the Rule 8 letter which is sent out following the Preliminary Meeting and includes the final examination timetable.
This letter has been issued today and can be viewed on the project webpage. As a result of the decision taken, the documents received from the applicant have also now been published. The Examining Authority have also set a deadline for comments on these documents.
I hope that this clarifies the situation

Phil Jones

Whilst Ifully agree that the current A14 cannot manage the existing level of traffic let alone the projected increases in volume I fundamentally disagree with the traditional solution of building new roads at the expense of the environment and the quality of life for residents living in the area.
I believe that constructing a single route to funnel traffic through the area is making the
same mistake as that made when the current A14 was planned and constructed and is merely providing a patch for the problem to overcome the A14 bottleneck between Huntingdon and Cambridge and not a solution to the problem.
Whilst the new highway will have an additional SO% capacity it being a single route through the area will do little for the locality in alleviating congestion when the inevitable incidents occur, resulting in a continuance of the existing rat-running through our towns and villages.
Drivers will be 'stuck' in congestion on the new highway between the very limited number of junctions and as we know only too well from the experience of the current A14 the whole area will come to a halt as drivers trying to avoid the congestion seek alternative routes.
living in Hilton the impact of the A14 on village life has for some years been considerable. The current road effects movement in and out of the village on a daily basis with commuter traffic and HGV's passing through the village, often exceeding speed limits, in an effort to avoid the A14. When the inevitable incidents occur on the A14 Hilton, along with other neighbouring villages, becomes totally deadlocked by diverting traffic as few alternatives are available when the A14 is closed.
The Highways Agency proposal accepts that the impact of this development on Hilton village will be considerable. Engineering difficulties to overcome the high level of the water table
on the chosen route will result in the proposed highway being 2 metres above the current road level. The proposed mitigation to limit this impact includes earthwork banking and woodland planting of trees and shrubs however the visual impact of the construction of the road and bridges will result in a significant scar on our rural landscape.
In addition to the visual impact it is accepted by the Highways Agency that in Hilton air pollution will deteriorate along with increases in noise pollution, light pollution and vibration along with the disruption to village life caused by an increase in traffic passing through the village.
Considerable work is planned in the scheme to realign existing water courses and to
introduce water containment measures but the works will ultimately run to the existing drainage system, this in an area where the flooding problems are already well documented.

It is accepted that the current through traffic includes a much higher than normal number of heavy goods vehicles travelling to from Felixstowe Container Terminal.
Has due consideration been given to the impact on routes caused by the london Gateway Container Terminal?
The new terminal at london Gateway will compete with Felixstowe Container Terminal for business and clearly some current shipping using Felixstowe will opt to use london Gateway.
HGV's travelling to and from london Gateway from most areas of the UK will opt to use the M2S to access the motorway network. The only london Gateway traffic opting to use the M11/A14 route from the M2S would have destinations in East Anglia/lincolnshire.
The net result of this movement of current shipping from Felixstowe to london Gateway will be to REDUCE the HGV traffic using the A14 Felixstowe to M1J19 route!
It is essential to an acceptable quality of life for villagers in Hilton that all vehicles associated with any construction work be banned from travelling through the village at all times 24/7. This ban must be in place before any construction commences, be applicable to all vehicles above the size of a transit van and be enforced using number plate recognition technology with penalties issued for offenders, reimbursement being available for offenders able to prove access to Hilton village for deliveries etc.
The 24/7 HGV ban must be retained after construction and further traffic calming measures will be required on the 81040 at both ends of the village and midway through the village. Similar traffic calming measures will be required on the Hilton Road from Fenstanton before traffic enters the village and the existing calming measures on Graveley Way be enhanced, this to ensure rat-running through Hilton is made as inconvenient as possible for all traffic.
As an alternative to the construction of another new highway better surely to avoid again building a single through-route to funnel traffic and to consider introducing a more sophisticated solution offering alternative routes through the area that allow traffic to be directed using 'smart' signage.
The A428 has the capability of providing an alternative route to the M1if the dualing between Caxton Gibbett and St Neots is completed and a St Neots bypass is introduced to incorporate the troublesome Black Cat roundabout on the A1, this to give easier access onto the already completed A421 dual carriageway to the M1J13.
The same route would offer a viable alternative from Cambridge to the Midlands via the A1
to the Ellington Junction.
Retaining and improving the current A14, with a remodeled junction at Spittals involving flyover access north of Huntingdon Racecourse to the Ellington Junction would therefore offer routes that allow traffic to be directed based on the destination rather than funneling and in cases of incidents provide improved resilience for the network that allows credible diversions to be set-up and rat-running reduced.

The paranoia to remove the viaduct over the East Coast Mainline railway close to Huntingdon station is resulting in a farcical road construction as part of the proposal, taking traffic off the de-trunked A14, providing a route around the railway station and running, via a road to be constructed, between the Cambridgeshire Police headquarters and Hinchingbrooke Hospital, then returning onto the de-trunked A14.
The section of the de-trunked A14 to be removed either side of the viaduct is minimal and
the proposed route will cause considerable congestion at peak times, and in cases where incidents occur on the Huntingdon Southern Bypass will result in a bottleneck for traffic seeking an alternative route.
Better to retain the viaduct, replacing the bridge if deemed necessary and avoid building the Views Common Link.
The removal of the viaduct is strongly supported by Huntingdon District Council, could this be influenced by the fact that in de-trunking the existing A14 the financial responsibility for the upkeep of the bridge moves from the Highways Agency to the local authority and with the history of expenditure on the existing bridge this is a factor in the decision to remove?
Creating improvements to existing roads would provide viable routes to 'dilute' traffic rather than funneling in one direction and effectively passing the problem onto other geographical areas.
Finally when will we appreciate that the road network in the UK has exceeded its capacity and realise that the building of yet more roads does not address the long term problem. Freight should be moved by rail over all but local distances and whilst this would require Governmental support and investment in rail infrastructure private finance for this development would be available from rail franchisees if supported by legislation and extended franchise terms.
Dear Mr Shaw
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period is 15 June 2014. It is at the developer’s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer’s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Jeff Shaw

A141mprovement Scheme Protest


I am writing to protest about the impact of the design of the new A 14 and inadequate
mitigation measures on the village of Hilton in Cambridgeshire.
I have many concerns over the design itself, which include the proximity , scale and height of the carriageway and bridges.The bridges will be 9 metres above ground only 800 metres from the village, which will have horrendous visual, sound, pollution and traffic impacts.
The plans used for consultat ion lack detail and do not answer questions about why the current design is even closer to the village than the original design and why the construction needs to be so much higher than the existing A14 (other than 'for drainage reasons').
In addition to the massively negative impact of the road itself, the construction phase will cause huge problems to the village including construct ion traffic and compound sites as well as extraction of gravel from local Borrow Pits.
The mitigation measures must include low noise road surfaces and ensure that the height of the carriageway and bridges is as low as possible, with natural banking of adequate height (certainly more than the 1metre currently suggested), and including trees as mature as possible as well as sound barriers for the length of the village.
During construction no construction traffic should be allowed through the village and there
should be assurances that the borrow pits will be closed after completion.
Footprint data should be established prior to commencement of the scheme and adequate contractual mitigation measures should be included as a required part of the tender process
- not an optionalextra.
Please take my concerns for my village seriously. Whilst I accept that improvement to the
A 14 is important for the County it is unfair for the scheme to negatively impact even more dramatically on residents of Hilton than is absolutely necessary ,
Dear Ms Coleman
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period is 15 June 2014. It is at the developer’s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer’s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Lesley Coleman

I am writing firstly to express my disappointment with the way in which the consultation is being conducted for the latest proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme.
The Highways Agency booklet discusses the aim to create a "Positive legacy", "working to ensure the area continues to be an attractive place where people want to live, work and visit, by protecting the local landscape character". As a resident of the village of Hilton, I consider this to be an absolute
joke. Within 800 metres of our "protected" ancient village green (from which we will have uninterrupted views), will be a six-lane (plus hard-shoulder?) motorway which will cut through hitherto unspoilt countryside, bringing with it untold noise, light and environmental pollution. The new road will be raised by 2-3 metres at best, rising to 9 metres over the bridges (the gradient for which must be forced to begin almost on our historical village green) which will have a devastating visual impact on our village. Our property prices will plummet and indeed several friends are already struggling to sell their properties with the threat of the road looming. Forgive me, therefore, if Ifeel you are failing in your aim to "protect" my "local landscape character".
I believe that the Highways Agency is rushing through the application for the DCO, to the extent where the public are being consulted without access to any of the relevant environmental studies. The lack of precise information on what Iconsider vital issues about the road- for example where the gradient for the road bridges will begin, what mitigating measures might be employed, how
plans to ensure flooding does not become an issue, to name but a few- makes it virtually impossible to provide any kind of detailed feedback to the consultation. Perhaps most notable is the fact that the proposed route is significantly closer to Hilton than the previous tolled route, yet on the relevant page in the booklet (Pg 24) absolutely no mention is made of the fact that the route has moved. I find it staggering, and frankly cannot believe that the process can be legal, that no mention is made of this fact. I understand that from its first conception it has been an incredibly lengthy, drawn out process to get to this stage. However, Icannot believe that this can excuse the rushing through of this consultation on this particular route which is different to that consulted upon last year, particularly when the Agency has chosen not to mention the fact that the route has moved closer to Hilton. In order for the DCO to be submitted in the time frame the Agency is dictating, the additional studies into the environmental issues of this new route cannot possibly be completed in time to be acted upon in any useful fashion -I suspect it is a "done deal" as they say (backed up by the brochure's reference on the proposed timeframe page to the "Acceptance" by the Planning Inspectorate in Autumn 2014; seems fairly confident to me).
Aside from my concerns about the environmental impact of the road itself, both during and after construction, Iam deeply concerned about the effect on traffic levels through our village. I understand that the B1040 is to be straightened which will lead to increased traffic speed and improved access to the village for through traffic increasing rat-running. As the shortest route for people wishing to get between Godmanchester and St lves, significantly increased traffic in Hilton is inevitable. I would urge the Highways Agency to take all of this into account when considering mitigation measures for the area.
If the DCO is submitted and approved (in spite of the appalling manner in which consultation has been implemented), I would implore that the Agency agrees to contractual mitigation measures for Hilton to be included in the design specification for the scheme. It is essential that these measures are an integral part of the tender process rather than an afterthought should there be any money left at the end of the building process. I understand that the current design proposal includes a bund of only one metre above the carriageway level. Substantial natural banking would be essential (not just a few saplings but semi-mature trees of a sufficient height and planting density to limit pollution) along with effective sound barriers and low noise road surfacing along the length of the scheme adjacent to Hilton. We would urge that no construction traffic be allowed through the village at any time of day with site access via the main trunk roads.
I am deeply saddened by the way in which the Highways Agency and those councillors and politicians meant to represent us, are riding rough shod over the residents of Hilton. Because we are relatively few in number compared to the might of Huntingdon and Godmanchester, it seems our views do not count for anything. I bought my house in this beautiful, unspoilt conservation area because this was the lifestyle Ichose. I have accepted that I have to adhere to village conservation rules which dictate I cannot put up a certain style of garden shed or fence in my garden which does not comply with the visual requirements of being located in a conservation area just off our ancient village green. Yet the Highways Agency is allowed to erect a six-lane highway within clear sight and earshot of that "protected" area of natural beauty?
Dear Ms Turner
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period is 15 June 2014. It is at the developer’s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer’s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Joanne Turner

Proposed A141mprovement Scheme
Iam writing to express my disapproval of the route and design of the new A 14. The cost has escalated above that originally used to prioritise schemes, the current route adversely affects the village of Hilton, the design seems to be driven by priorities around Huntingdon (which were not the stated objectives for the primary scheme), and the design does not effectively mitigate affects on Hilton, particularly noise and visual intrusion.
I have major concerns over the design itself, which include the proximity, scale and height of the carriageway and bridges. The bridges (of which there are many) will be 9 metres high only 800 metres from the village, which will have horrendous visual, sound, pollution and traffic impacts.
The plans used for consultation lack detail and do not answer questions about why the current design was chosen above other routes (in particular following the existing A 14) which is even closer to the village than the original design and why the construction needs to be so much higher than the existing A 14 (other than 'for drainage reasons').
In addition to the massively negative impact of the road itself, the construction phase will cause huge problems for the village, including construction traffic, and include unsightly contractors compound as well as borrow pits for gravel extraction.
Mitigation measures must be carried out to offset the impact. This as a minimum should include noise attenuation such as minimising the height of the road, using low noise road surfaces and providing physical noise barriers (not just bunds). The visual intrusion should be addressed by extensive landscaping and planting, to disguise the road and naturally integrate it with the rural setting. Numbers of bridges and their heights should be minimised. Flooding issues should be avoided by creating equivalent area lagoons elsewhere or other offsetting measures.
During construction no construction traffic (or diverted traffic) should be allowed through the village and there should be assurances that the borrow pits will be closed after completion.
Baseline data should be established prior to commencement of the scheme and adequate
contractual mitigation measures should be included as a required part of the tender process
- not an optional extra. Traffic modelling should take into account realistic movements informed by local knowledge and future proposals. Quite clearly current models do not address this affectively.

Design should be led by the priorities for the scheme not landfill errors from the past (such as that at Swavesey) or bridge shortcomings (such as Huntingdon) .
To date little notice has been taken of the significant concerns of villagers. With each iteration the design has progressed closer to Hilton and risen further from the ground making the visual and noise intrusion worse. This has not been explained and no attempt has been made to explore more sensitive designs that take account of the views expressed in previous consultations .
With no consistency in the designers (or even design companies) the design has progressed without continuity and failed to take account early input and considerations to the detriment of Hilton.
The current design I option is not acceptable and should be abandoned but as a minimum pay far greater attention to mitigating the affects on the village of Hilton.
Whilst Iaccept that improvement to the A14 is important for the Country I County it is unfair for the scheme to negatively impact even more dramatically on residents of Hilton than is absolutely necessary, and this will certainly be the case unless sufficient funds and measures are put in place. In every phase of the proposal Hilton villagers concerns have been ignored, clearly demonstrated by the fact that each new proposal makes things worse.
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period is 15 June 2014. It is at the developer’s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer’s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Martin Coleman

Re A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme
As residents of Hilton, we wish to write to you in the strongest terms about the proposals for the Al4.
We have been to various consultatons of the years about the proposals but the current scheme is closer to Hilton than other proposals we have seen. The current route is less than 1km from the village in some parts, and the resulting impact on the village in terms of noise and general pollution will be excessive. Even with the A14 in its current position, the noise and air pollution is considerable.
Living as we do on the Graveley side of the village, the fact that thre is to be a rasied carriageway is also a cause for concern. From discussions at the various roadshows, we understand that the new carrigeway will be 2-3m above existing ground level. The increased noise will clearly therefore be worse and will travel further, not to mention the issue of light pollution. We further believe that there are to be bridges to cross the new road which will be up to 9 metres above ground level. This will completely despoil the area as a whole, with the visual impact.
As if the impact of this were not sufficient, the B1040 is to be straightened , thus increasing traffic speed and noise through the village. The traffic at the moment travels far in excess of 30mph and the traffic calming measures do very little to
alleviate this in their current form. Traffic through Hilton will also inevitably increase, as the shortest route between the Godmanchester junction of the Scheme and the St Ives area will be through our village, not to mention the issue of"rat-running" through the village.
We have been informed that there are to be local gravel extraction pits in or very near to the village in order to extract large amounts of gravel and the impact of these both visually and in terms of noise and dust will harm the environment. We should point out however, that of most concern is the fact that there seems to be a lack of precise and detailed information regarding the scheme which makes it hard to make any proper assessment of the impact on our lives and to make any detailed response/suggestions for compromise.
We had mentioned during the roadshows several years ago that the scheme should include plans to build the carriageway at the minimum height possible. The existing road is not elevated so we do not understand why the current scheme requires the carriageway to be so high. Our objections even to the current route, might be less if the road were lower as this would greatly reduce noise and light and would make our own personal attempts at screening far easier.
We hope to see plans at the earliest opportunity regarding the proposed banking and planting schemes, sound barriers, proposals re road surfaces and reassurance that any gravel pits will cease to be used when the road has been completed and that no construction traffic will be permitted through the village. Please also confirm that mitigation measures will be included in the design specification for the Scheme and that they are included in the tender process and become a fixed part of the Scheme.
We await hearing from you
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period is 15 June 2014. It is at the developer’s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer’s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Mr and Mrs Sheppard

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Schem e
Iam writing as a resident of Hilton for the past 17 years and consider the proposed above scheme will
have a very significant negative impact on the village in many ways.
I have attended various open meetings organised by the Parish Counc il and also attended v arious exhibitions of the plans for the above in the local village hall.
: wo,tld like to comment on a oumber of issues which I think should be more clearly explained in
respect of the proposals and these are as follows -
1. The existing A 14 in the area is not elevated and it has not been made clear why the proposed elevation is necessary or the likely height of suc_h elevation. This proposed elevation will obviously be more visual from a distance and also possibly the village - if more precise details we re available, it would be possible to conside the impact of this on the village.Ithink that further consideration should be given as to why this elevation will greatly improve the functionality of this improvement.
2. The proposed improvement to the A 14 w ill bring the road a lot closer to the village with increased level of noise , air pollution etc. Again , furthe r consideration should be given as to whether any alternatives are possible so as to minimise the impact on the village.
3. Following a review of the existing plans available for the route of the•improved' A 14 indicate that there will be considerably more traffic through the village as a quicker alternative to reach surrounding towns and villages ie. between Godmanchester and St lves.ln view of the proposed junctions for the improved road, again , a siginficant number of vehicles are likely to use the village as there will be changes to access to various villages and towns in the area.
4. If the improvement goes ahead, a number of restrictions should be placed on construction traffic and construction compounds so as to minimise the impact on the village.lf possible , no construction traffic being allowed t hrough the village for t he duration of the construction. The Scheme is a very significant development which will take years to complete and thts will clearly impact on our village for many years.
5 When I attended one of the exhibitions in the village hall , it became clear that insufficent thought had been given to any noise reduc tions plans for the scheme ie. natural banking , sound barners and it would be very helpful to know how t his will be addressed and how much has been provided in the scheme financing for this. In addition, very little information was available as to whether any pre scheme review of the possible noise impact etc on t he village was likely to be undertaken.

I appreciate lf)at the A 14 is a major route and requires an upgrade but Ido not think that sufficient thought has been given to the impact of the scheme on village life in Hilton. In line with other residents in the village , Iwould welcome a further consultation period to assess whether there are alternative routes possible and also to consider whether sufficient conside ration has been given to minimising the impact on the village from many aspects so as to protect the future of the village and its residents.
I look forward to receiving a response to this letter as soon as possible.
Dear Mr Platt
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period is 15 June 2014. It is at the developer’s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer’s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Jon Platt

1. Is if necessary for each application document to have a summary? Advice Note 6 suggests this is the case. However, we have a number of descriptive documents (e.g. site description and proposed development description) where a summary would not be particularly useful to the reader, while we have others that are very short documents (e.g. Consents and Licences required under Other Legislation).
2. Advice Note 6 refers to documents having a font size of 12. While we have followed this for most documents we have adopted a smaller font for very large documents (10 or 11) such as the Consultation Report and the ES. I previously discussed this with Susannah Guest who confirmed that this would not be an issue provided the documents were still legible. I would be grateful if you could confirm that the use of a 10 or 11 font size is acceptable.
I have set out answers to your two queries below:
Q1: Is it necessary for each application document to have a summary?
A: PINS do not require a summary for every application document submitted. Summaries are expected for larger documents however, you should make your own judgement when preparing the application documents, as a summary for smaller documents may not be useful to the reader.
Q2: Could you confirm that the use of a 10 or 11 font size is acceptable.
A: Ideally, the application documents should be drafted using the same size font throughout the suite; font size 12. However, font size 10 or 11 is acceptable, as previously advised by Susannah Guest, for larger documents. Most importantly all the documents must be legible.

Dalton Warner Davis LLP - Geoff Bullock

Re: Impact on Hilton with the proposed A14 improvement scheme
We live in a beautiful village with a Green which is acknowledged as one of the finest in the country. This area is quite rightly designated a conservation area to protect it from unsuitable developments- indeed we have to go through lengthy planning processes to change the design of our garden fence.
It is against this background that I find it baffling that we are in a situation where there is no public statement from our elected representatives on protecting this environment from a raised 6lane highway being constructed 800 metres away.
In addition the information we are being given as part of the 'consultation' process seems to have been of the 'back of a fag packet' variety.
Questions asked of Jacobs (appointed by the Highways Agency to design the scheme) at the recent village meeting:
How high will the carriageway be? Not sure
Why is the carriageway raised when the current road is not? Don't know Why is the road coming closer to the village than was proposed on previous consultations? Don't know
What pollution measures will be in place? Not sure...
We are being 'consulted' on a proposal that doesn't appear to have been completed. When the detail does appear I have a feeling that any attempt to influence will be met with the response that it is too late to make any changes. It appears that this scheme, for so long on the drawing board, seems to be being rushed through with some haste. Those paying the price for this haste will be the villagers of Hilton.
I would ask that you listen to the concerns of all of those living in this village and provide us with a voice at the decision making table to ensure that all of our concerns are addressed.
Dear Ms Lawton
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period is 15 June 2014. It is at the developer’s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer’s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Rachel Lawton

Query regarding the potential date for and preliminary meeting and other queries regarding submission of Local Impact reports and written represenations.
As the representation period is still open the inspectorate has not appointed an examining authority and therfore a date for the Preliminary neeting date has not yet been set.
Relevant local authorities should prioritise preparation of their LIR irrespective of whether the local authority considers the development would have a positive or negative impact on their area. The local authority will be able to submit a separate written representation if it wishes to express a particular view on whether the application should be granted.

Bournemouth Borough Council - Phil Robinson

Late representation received after the close of the Relevant Representations period for the Progress Power Station.
Thank-you for submitting a representation to us. As you mentioned in your representation, you had unfortunately, missed the deadline to submit a ‘relevant representation’ and register as an interested party for the Project. The deadline was 5pm on 6 June and we are unable to extend the registration period.
We will keep your submission on file and make it available to the Examining Authority (ExA), which will be appointed shortly.
Although the information you supplied was received after the deadline, the ExA is able to exercise its discretion to consider your evidence. This does not mean that you will be regarded as an ‘interested party’ – a legal status allowing one to speak at hearings and submit written evidence - instead, if your representation is accepted, you will have the status of an ‘other person’.
As an ‘other person’ the ExA has the power to invite you and any other persons they consider it to be appropriate to the preliminary meeting – a procedural meeting to discuss the timetable of the six month examination – not the merits of the project. Any person who is invited to the preliminary meeting in this way will also be sent, for information purposes, the Rule 8 letter, confirming the final examination timetable: detailing dates to submit written evidence, responses to questions posed by the ExA and dates of hearings such as open-floor hearings. The timetable will of course include, and any amendments made to it following the preliminary meeting.
The ‘other person’ status does not give you an automatic right to make representations during the course of the examination, as you do not have the status of an interested party. You can, however, make written representations to the ExA in accordance to the deadlines set out in the Rule 8 letter or request an opportunity to speak at a hearing as the ExA has the discretion to allow such representations, either written or oral, to be made as part of the examination.

Nigel Highfell

I am very concerned about the situation with regards to flooding in Girton.I hope you realise that this has occurred three times recently and has caused major damage to properties.I am not confident that the measures you plan will be sufficient to cope with run off rainwater and would make the situation worse for householder in the future and pose a greater risk of flooding in Girton.
I am also unhappy about the increase in noise pollution. Is it possible to use low noise tarmac and also increase measures to screen the noise.
The proposals have negative impact on our village as already outlined and in addition access on entering and leaving the A14 is also worse
Dear Mr Hunter
Thankyou for your email regarding the proposed A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon scheme.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. The Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period is 15 June 2014. It is at the developer’s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer’s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
.Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have attached links below to two advice notes which may be of particular interest:
“Advice Note 8.1: How the process works”
[attachment 1]
“Advice Note 8.2: Responding to the developers pre-application consultation”
[attachment 2]
If you have any further queries, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Bruce Hunter

I am writing to register my concern about the design of the new A14 and the inadequate mitigation measures proposed for the village of Hilton. My woll'ies are mainly concerning the scale of the scheme in the vicinity of the village -the road itself will be 3 metres above ground level and the bridges will be 9 metres- only 800m away.
I cannot understand why the design is so much higher than the existing road; the answer given that it's to do with drainage is inadequate- I have never known the current A14 to
flood . The latest design is also even closer to the village than the original design- why is this necessary?
The impact on the village goes beyond the visual- the road noise, pollution levels and extra traffic through the village during the construction phase and afterwards will be disproportionately negative unless serious measures are taken ti mitigate them.
The mitigation measures must be guaranteed by including them as part of the tender process and need to include low noise road smfaces, ensuring that the height of the carriageway and bridges is as low as possible, natural banking of adequate height (including generous tree planting) as well as sound barriers for the length of the village. No construction traffic should be allowed through the village and there should be assurances that the borrow pits will be closed after completion.
It is really important that these concerns are taken seriously and that the inevitably negative impact on the village is no greater than absolutely necessary.
Dear Mr Coleman
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period is 15 June 2014. It is at the developer’s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer’s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Alexander Coleman

Query regarding the application.
The Secretary of State’s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination must accord with the provisions of section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). Amongst other things, an application must (where applicable) be accompanied by an Environmental Statement required pursuant to the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) and must be of a standard the Secretary of State considers satisfactory to proceed to examination.
On consideration of the Navitus Bay Wind Park application, the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, had regard to the matters set out in section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 and concluded that the application (including accompaniments) is of a standard considered to be satisfactory to be accepted for examination.
The completed s55 checklist that details the Planning Inspectorate’s consideration of whether or not to accept the application can be viewed on our website. Issues related to the merits of the application will be considered by an impartial Examining Authority during the examination of the case.
Regarding your query about your interpretation of the law, The Planning Inspectorate is unable to provide you with legal advice. If you feel you require legal advice on any matter I would advise you to seek this independently.

David Gerry

Query regarding original submissions to the applicant.
Thank you for the two emails, addressed to Hannah Dickson and received by the Inspectorate on 11 June 2014. I can see from our records that your status in the examination is that of an interested person. This is because the applicant has identified that you have an interest in the land affected by the proposal and have added you to the book of reference.
I can also see from our records that the Inspectorate wrote to you on the following dates to keep you updated about the examination:
28 November 2013 – Notification of preliminary meeting
20 January 2014 – Notification of examination timetable and examining authorities first questions
25 February 2014 – Notification of a procedural decision by the examining authority
7 April 2014 – Notification of a site visit
20 April 2014 – Change to examination timetable
24 April 2014 – Notification of examining authorities second questions
4 June 2014 –Notification of issue of draft DCO.
I cannot comment on any correspondence between yourselves and the applicant or their representatives, but I can assure you that the comments that we have received, by email, on 11 June, will be put before the Examining authority for consideration. Please note that your submissions will also be published on our website.

Derby Aero Club - Thomas Jones

Thank you very much for your response to my previous questions.
Would it be possible for you to let me know how many notifications (i.e. where a potential applicant has informed PINS that they intend to make an application - including those that did go on to make an application) have been made since 1 June 2013?
Would it be possible for someone to get back to me by Wednesday the 11th as the figure is needed for a presentation that my colleague is giving?
Please be advised that as of the 1 June 2013, PINS received 17 notifications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP). I have attached FYI a list of these projects to which I refer.
Furthermore, it may be of interest for you (although it was not requested) to know that from 1st April 2013 to 31st May 2014, in total PINS has received 20 notifications for potential NSIPs to be submitted to the National Infrastructure Directorate (NID). It is worth noting, that of these 20 NSIP currently on our register of projects, 2 have already been accepted for examination. The additional NSIPs, which are not included in the attached document are:
1. Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2) Power Station (EN010061), date of notification May 2013.
2. Progress Power Station (EN010060), date of notification May 2013 and subsequently submitted for Acceptance on 31 March 2014. Decision to accept the application was issued on 25 April 2014.
3. Hirwaun Gas Fired Power Station (EN010059), date of notification May 2013 and subsequently submitted for Acceptance on 21 March 2014. Decision to accept the application was issued on 15 April 2014.
I trust you find this information satisfactory and if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us.

Bond Dickinson LLP - Will Budge

Enquiry about Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEEC).
"I should be grateful to know where this method or its equivalent for National Infrastructure is covered in the legislation, whether it is in the Planning Act or elsewhere."
The concept of Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEEC) has been replaced by that of Best Available Techniques (BAT), emanating from Directives of the European Parliament and Council. The most recent relevant Directive being Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), more commonly known as the Industrial Emissions Directive 2010.
It should also be noted that the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is the UK Government’s expert body on marine management and as such it has important roles to play under the 2008 Act regime in relation to proposed NSIPs in the marine area.

Statutory nature conservation agencies are able to advise on current best practice relating to matters within their statutory functions.
The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note Eleven “Working with public bodies in the infrastructure planning process” (including its annexes) summarises the roles of the MMO and of certain other public bodies. Links to Advice Note Eleven (and its annexes) are provided below:
[attachment 1]
[attachment 2]
[attachment 3]
[attachment 4]
[attachment 5]
[attachment 6]
The Planning Inspectorate is unable to provide you with legal advice. If you feel you require legal advice on this or any other matter please seek this independently

Bill Hoodless

Query regarding the application.
This application was accepted for examination by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State on 8 May 2014. During the 28 day acceptance period, which began when the application was submitted on 10 April 2014, Planning Inspectorate staff completed the ‘Section 55 Acceptance of Application checklist’ which sets out the tests and criteria which the application documents must fulfill. During this stage of the process, the application was reviewed under procedural tests as set out by the Planning Act 2008 and its subsidiary legislation; there is no consideration of the merits of the application as these will be examined later in the process.
The s55 checklist was completed by Planning Inspectorate staff, including input from an Examining Inspector who was appointed to advise on the acceptance decision. Based on the findings of the checklist, a recommendation was put forward to the acceptance decision maker who is the Planning Inspectorate’s Director of Major Applications and Plans, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. You can view the s55 checklist for the Navitus Bay Wind Park application on our website by looking under the ‘Documents’ tab.

David Gerry

Letter received by the Planning Inspectorate from Mr Tony Clarke, Right to Ride representative of the Cyclists Touring Club, the National Cycling Charity, following the Preliminary Meeting of 2 June 2014 attached.
Response the Planning Inspectorate attached.

Cyclists' Touring Club - Tony Clarke

Query regarding submitting comments.
Any comments should be submitted on the correct ‘relevant representation’ form on our website. By completing the relevant representation form you are registering as an ‘Interested Party’ in the examination of this application.
Before completing the form you may find it useful to read our ‘Advice Notes’ which you will also find on our website, which explain the Planning Act 2008 process as well as how to complete the relevant representations form.

David Gerry

I was at the meeting at St. Andrews hall and came away confused and unconvinced that the mislaid documents issue has been openly and convincingly dealt with.
I feel unhappy that such a major development should start with such shaky foundations. It's a matter of confidence and trust.
Of course this is in addition to any original objection that I simply do not think the huge cost of such a road is acceptable, when the county cannot afford to keep present roads free of potholes. Apparently our weather events are becoming more severe, so road maintenance costs will increase.
My other concern is the attraction and charm of Norfolk has always been it's rural and - dare I say - sleepy reputation. This does not mean backward, we have a vibrant and flourishing county, without any more major roads. Surely we should be encouraging fewer, not more, cars.
A city encircled by a ring of speeding traffic - please no.
I am sorry to hear that you were confused and unconvinced following the Preliminary Meeting. The issue has been discussed at some length within the Planning Inspectorate and with other parties. The Planning Inspectorate’s assessment of the episode is contained within our section 55 acceptance checklist at [attachment 1]. We have also explained our process in correspondence with CPRE, at [attachment 2];ipcadvice=3cedad9354.
Your own representation has been published at [attachment 3];relrep=998, and you may use our website to view any other submission. We publish material after the deadline for which it was submitted, so any party can check whether their material has been included.
The latter part of your email deals with the merits of the scheme, and I would consider this to the a written representation, in accordance with the Examining Authority's request of Friday 6 June 2014. Therefore, unless I hear otherwise, this will also be published and considered in the examination.

Melody Wright

Mr Hawker sought an explanation as to the definition of "relevant" in regarding to Parish Councils. He was not consulted by the Applicant because Hockering parish council was neither a host nor a neighbouring parish council.
Advice was given in the fom of a letter attached. The letter gave the definition of the word "relevant" and links to the legislation.

Hocking Parish Council - Richard Hawker

Mr Powell on behalf of Afan Valley Angling Club made several queries in a submission prior to the Preliminary Meeting on 10 June 2014. The full submission is published.
Thank you for your submission. It will be published along with other submissions that the Planning Inspectorate have received in relation to the Preliminary Meeting and will be put before the Examining Authority.
Your submission deals with very similar issues of those stated in the letter by Mr Phil Jones, representing Pontardawe and Swansea Angling Society Ltd. Please see the following documents: [attachment 1] and [attachment 2];ipcadvice=e2178b9d33.
The advice given to Mr Jones is relevant in this case and I therefore reiterate the main points to you here:
The preliminary meeting is held to discuss the running of the examination and not to discuss specific issues of merit which will need to be covered subsequently in writing and if relevant at hearings. At the Preliminary Meeting the Examining Authority (ExA) therefore is likely to adopt a listening rather than inquisitorial role.
An overall point would be that the 'Principal Issues' are a snapshot in time. They are written very early on in the pre-examination period. The issues identified could be argued to be applicable under a number of headings (as have been identified in your submission). They are not an exhaustive list of issues but are a vehicle to communicate to all interested parties issues which the ExA have identified to date. The examination is able to evolve and cover any issues that the ExA deem appropriate, as such the principal issues will not be revised. The ExA can probe any issue raised in the application documents and other examination documents and representations submitted.
I note your comments on the draft timetable in relation the topics identified for hearings. The reasons for identifying issues is to enable all interested parties to have some indication of when they may wish to attend hearings. This is a reflection of feedback that the Planning Inspectorate has received in previous examinations and is deemed good practice. This is not exhaustive and of course is subject to change as representations are received. At this stage, the hearings topics are provided as guidance.
Further information will be provided in the hearing notifications and again in agendas which will be published prior to the hearings. It should be noted that the Planning Act 2008 is based upon a process to follow written representations supplemented by oral hearings and therefore hearings are not required on all topics.
You queried if the applicant can submit new information during the examination for example in respect of its environmental impact assessment. There is some provision within the legislation for an applicant to submit supplementary information relating to the environmental statement during the examination period. Supplementary information may also be requested by the ExA. I would refer you to the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2010 (as amended). In practice, this enables proposals for, for example, mitigation or monitoring measures, to be agreed between parties during the course of examination. If relevant, the ExA will be able to advise on how this may be achieved within the bounds of the legislation as the examination progresses.

Afan Valley Angling Club - Lennard Powell

Mr Jones on behalf of Pontardawe and Swansea Angling Society Ltd made several queries in a submission prior to the Preliminary Meeting on 10 June 2014. The full submission is published.
Having read your submission, I thought it appropriate to email you prior to the Preliminary Meeting to give some advice under s51 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) in relation to some of your queries. The preliminary meeting is held to discuss the running of the examination and not to discuss specific issues of merit which will need to be covered subsequently in writing and if relevant at hearings. At the Preliminary Meeting the Examining Authority (ExA) therefore is likely to adopt a listening rather than inquisitorial role.
An overall point would be that the ‘Principal Issues’ are a snapshot in time. They are written very early on in the pre-examination period. The issues identified could be argued to be applicable under a number of headings (as you have identified). They are not an exhaustive list of issues but are a vehicle to communicate to all interested parties issues which the ExA have identified to date. The examination is able to evolve and cover any issues that the ExA deem appropriate, as such the principal issues will not be revised. The ExA can probe any issue raised in the application documents and other examination documents and representations submitted.
In relation to the applicant’s compliance with s56 and the inclusion of category 3 persons, s51 advice has previously been issued on this point and therefore I would refer you to that.
I note your comments on the draft timetable in relation the topics identified for hearings. The reasons for identifying issues is to enable all interested parties to have some indication of when they may wish to attend hearings. This is a reflection of feedback that the Planning Inspectorate has received in previous examinations and is deemed good practice. This is not exhaustive and of course is subject to change as representations are received. At this stage, the hearings topics are provided as guidance. Further information will be provided in the hearing notifications and again in agendas which will be published prior to the hearings. It should be noted that the Planning Act 2008 is based upon a process to follow written representations supplemented by oral hearings and therefore hearings are not required on all topics.
To provide some advice on the ability for the applicant to submit new information during the examination for example in respect of its environmental impact assessment. There is some provision within the legislation for an applicant to submit supplementary information relating to the environmental statement during the examination period if requested to do so by the ExA. I would refer you to the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2010 (as amended). In practice, this enables proposals for, for example, mitigation or monitoring measures, to be agreed between parties during the course of examination. If relevant, the ExA will be able to advise on how this may be achieved within the bounds of the legislation as the examination progresses.

Phil Jones

I wish to complain about the completely inadequate publication of dates and venues for public consultation on the Roxhill East Midlands Gateway Project. First of all I missed the first round of consultation completely as I only found out about it via a FaceBook contact a week after the consultation had closed and then I find out about the second consultation only a day before the final Exhibition which I believe is at Lockington Hall tomorrow evening. Again I found out about this via a friend at the weekend and I am probably not going to be able to attend due to meetings I have with work several hundred miles away from home. Why am I only finding out about this now? Apparently I should have had several leaflets through my door but have received none, nor have most of my friends and neighbours in Hemington and Lockington! This is COMPLETELY unacceptable. You are able to design and propose a multi-million pound development covering a very large part of the rural area I live in and yet it seems your team finds it difficult to properly consult with the local communities it is going to effect, why is this?
This is not good enough. I wish to look at your plans in detail and yet for some reason this also seems difficult. Can you please send me all of your detailed plans (I don’t mean the low quality sanitised schematics on the Roxhill website) – I assume they are publicly available for all who wish to see them, regardless of the difficulty there seems in obtaining them without attending the exhibitions that only a few people get to find out about.
The East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange scheme is currently at the ‘pre-application’ stage of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA 2008) process.
At this stage of the process the developer should be your first point of contact and it is recommended that you refer to the developer’s website for information on how to contact them. The developer’s project website page describes how they are carrying out their consultation at [attachment 1] and also lists where the documents can be seen and how comments can be made. The page also has links to the consultation leaflet and exhibition boards.
Prior to submitting an application to the Planning Inspectorate, the developer is required to carry out extensive consultation on their proposals. This involves providing information about the proposal to various statutory and non-statutory bodies and the wider community, responding to questions, listening to suggestions, and taking these into account to influence and inform the application ultimately submitted to the Inspectorate. This does not mean that the developer has to accept or agree with every comment or suggestion made but they must give them proper consideration.
Before formally consulting people in the vicinity of the project, the developer must prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), having first consulted relevant local authorities about what it should contain. The purpose of the SoCC is to provide details on the consultation process, which the developer intends to undertake with the local community about their project. The developer is then required to carry out their consultation with the local community as set out in the SoCC.
A link to the SoCC can be found on the application documentation page of the developer’s project website at [attachment 2]
Where any person feels that an applicant's pre-application consultation was inadequately carried out, they should seek resolution by approaching the applicant in the first instance. If following this action you remain unsatisfied with the consultation carried out, you may also wish to raise this with the relevant local authority.
Subsequently, when an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate following the pre-application stage, there is a 28 day period during which a decision is taken on whether to accept the application for examination. One of the factors to be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at this stage is whether or not the developer’s consultation process has been adequate, and we will invite relevant local authorities to provide us with their comments on the adequacy of the applicant’s consultation. In providing their representation on this matter, the local authority may decide to take into account any comments received from the public on this issue. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to the local authority’s response on the adequacy of consultation in making its decision on whether to accept an application to proceed to be examined.

If the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with the Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Where a person believes they have identified an issue which has not been adequately addressed by the applicant, despite raising it with them as part of their pre-application consultation, they may wish to include this as part of their representation. Relevant representations are used by the Examining Authority to help identify the initial principal issues for examination.
Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer in local newspapers and on site notices. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the PA 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available via the link below. In this instance I recommend reviewing advice note eight series – ‘How to get involved in the planning process’. I have attached above PDF versions for your reference. You may also access these documents on our website at the following link:
[attachment 3]
You may also find the following guidance and advice note helpful:

Guidance on the Pre-Application Process (The Planning Act 2008):
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49468/Planning_Act_2008_pre-applications.pdf

Advice note sixteen: The developer’s pre-application consultation, publicity and notification duties:
[attachment 4]

Nick Burton

Cornwall Council referred to commercially sensitive information comprised within the Series 3000 drawings requested by the Examining Authority (ExA) under Rule 17 of Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 on 23 May 2014.
Without fettering the judgement of the ExA, I would anticipate that detailed reasons justifying the omission of the Series 3000 drawings from the examination will be requested. As an organisation we are sympathetic to commercial sensitivities, however in this context there appears to me an inherent risk that in absence of the requested material it may not be possible for Cornwall Council to demonstrate how adequate mitigation will be secured. This issue of course, in light of the high-level nature of the draft Landscape Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) as initially submitted, was the crux of the ExA’s request for further information in the first instance.
In my opinion, there remains for you two options at this stage, and it will be for the Council to take its own legal advice on which might be most appropriate. One option would be for the ‘commercially sensitive’ information to be submitted to the Inspectorate and redacted ahead of publication. This however may be difficult given the nature of some of the information comprised within drawings. The other option would be to submit ‘non-commercially sensitive’ versioning of the drawings which you feel would demonstrate that the necessary mitigation is secured.
To summarise, I would emphasise that the ExA will need to be assured that appropriate mitigation will be secured for the scheme. It is implied in his request for further information in relation to the draft LEMP that the Series 3000 drawings will be required to inform this satisfaction. It is clear that Cornwall Council is keen to assist the examination to the extent that it is able, but in consideration of the content of your voice message I would strongly advise that where you feel that withholding any information requested by the ExA is necessary, detailed justification is provided to the examination in writing.

Cornwall Council - Mark Allott

I am a resident of Lockington and I understand that there is to be a further public exhibition/consultation this month regarding this development.
To date I have not received any notification of when or where this is to be held, and I cannot find any reference to it on the various Roxhill websites.
So this lack of publicity is inadequate to ensure that local people are aware of this opportunity to attend this exhibition.
I look forward to receiving your comments
The East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange scheme is currently at the ‘pre-application’ stage of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA 2008) process.
At this stage of the process the developer should be your first point of contact as it is their responsibility for advertising and carrying out the consultation. We would therefore recommend that you refer to the developer’s website for information on how to contact them and raise any concerns you may have. The developer’s project website page describes how they are carrying out their consultation at [attachment 1] and also shows where the documents can be seen and how comments can be made.
Prior to submitting an application to the Planning Inspectorate, the developer is required to carry out extensive consultation on their proposals. This involves providing information about the proposal to various statutory and non-statutory bodies and the wider community, responding to questions, listening to suggestions, and taking these into account to influence and inform the application ultimately submitted to the Inspectorate. This does not mean that the developer has to accept or agree with every comment or suggestion made but they must give them proper consideration.
Before formally consulting people in the vicinity of the project, the developer must prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), having first consulted relevant local authorities about what it should contain. The purpose of the SoCC is to provide details on the consultation process, which the developer intends to undertake with the local community about their project. The developer is then required to carry out their consultation with the local community as set out in the SoCC.
A link to the SoCC can be found on the application documentation page of the developer’s project website at [attachment 2]
Where any person feels that an applicant's pre-application consultation was inadequately carried out, they should seek resolution by approaching the applicant in the first instance. If following this action you remain unsatisfied with the consultation carried out, you may also wish to raise this with the relevant local authority.
Subsequently, when an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate following the pre-application stage, there is a 28 day period during which a decision is taken on whether to accept the application for examination. One of the factors to be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at this stage is whether or not the developer’s consultation process has been adequate, and we will invite relevant local authorities to provide us with their comments on the adequacy of the applicant’s consultation. In providing their representation on this matter, the local authority may decide to take into account any comments received from the public on this issue. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to the local authority’s response on the adequacy of consultation in making its decision on whether to accept an application to proceed to be examined.

If the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with the Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Where a person believes they have identified an issue which has not been adequately addressed by the applicant, despite raising it with them as part of their pre-application consultation, they may wish to include this as part of their representation. Relevant representations are used by the Examining Authority to help identify the initial principal issues for examination.
Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer in local newspapers and on site notices. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the PA 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available via the link below. In this instance I recommend reviewing advice note eight series – ‘How to get involved in the planning process’. I have attached above PDF versions for your reference. You may also access these documents on our website at the following link:
[attachment 3]
You may also find the following guidance and advice note helpful:

Guidance on the Pre-Application Process (The Planning Act 2008):
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49468/Planning_Act_2008_pre-applications.pdf

Advice note sixteen: The developer’s pre-application consultation, publicity and notification duties:
[attachment 4]

Mike Thomas

Query regarding on what grounds it is possible to object to an application, specifically the following points:
1. Is it legitimate, as a ground of objection, to challenge the development's suitability on the basis that it will not in fact make the stated contribution to the reduction of CO2 emissions; that it may not make any contribution at all; and that, in certain circumstances that depend upon the mix of installed capacity supplying the grid and the demand pattern and the weather, it may in fact cause a net increase by substitution in the nation's CO2 emissions?

Comment: There is evidence that wind farms either diminish national CO2 emissions by a very small amount or increase them, depending upon the operating conditions. In my submission, challenging this development on this ground does not question the merits of the Government's policy: but it does question the extent to which the development makes a useful contribution to the achievement of the policy. I should be grateful to know whether the Inspectorate concurs.

2. Is it legitimate, as a ground of objection, to challenge the development's suitability on the basis that the project's unit mitigation cost in US$ per Kelvin of global warming likely to be abated is excessive in comparison with the unit mitigation cost of other actual or potential methods of attempting to abate CO2-driven global warming?

Comment: Again, the challenge is not to the emissions-reduction policy itself but to the cost of this development when compared with the cost of other available methods of reducing the nation's CO2 emissions. If I were to challenge the proposal on this ground, would the inspectorate dismiss the challenge a priori on the basis that it regards this challenge as a challenge to the policy?

3. Is it legitimate, as a ground of objection, to draw attention to misleading statements or diagrams by the developers?

Comment: This question does not relate to "the merits of policy" at all, but to the merits of the application. There are a number of points that appear to be misleading in the application. Am I allowed to challenge the application on this basis?

4. Is it legitimate, as a ground of objection, to raise questions about whether the Government's overarching CO2 reduction objective is still in date and appropriate, given emerging science and data demonstrating - for instance - that the planet has been warming since 1990 at half the rate predicted by the IPCC, that in the past two decades it has not been warming at a rate at all distinguishable from the measurement uncertainties, and that for theoretical as well as empirical reasons it is not now likely to warm at anything like the previously-predicted rates?

Comment: Here, I am indeed proposing to challenge "the merits of policy" - but to do so not on the basis that the policy was incorrect at the time it was made, but on the basis that it has arguably become incorrect since it was made, in the light of the further scientific information and data that were not then available but are available now. One understands that if the facts and data had not changed it would not be appropriate for an objector to second-guess Parliament's policy decisions. However, now that the facts and data have indeed changed, am I debarred from objecting on the ground that the policy is now out of date?

5. Is it legitimate, as a ground of objection, to draw attention to the evidence that the supposed "97% consensus" to the effect that most of the small global wamring since 1950 was manmade is in fact 0.5%, and that Ministers and MPs who have referred to a "97% consensus" may have taken their decisions to enact the current overarching policy objectives on the basis of information such as this that has subsequently been demonstrated in the scientific literature to be false, and which (in this instance) is the subject of criminal enquiries on three continents?

Comment: This is one of the many points at which the facts and data have changed. It was previously thought, and the Secretary of State also said he thought, that there was a 97% consensus that most of the small global warming since 1950 was anthropogenic. However, the facts no longer support any such contention. Is it, therefore, permissible for me to bring these facts to the attention of the Secretary of State via my objection to this proposal, so that whatever the merits of the original policy he can consider whether the policy ought to be persisted in?

6. Is it legitimate, as a ground of objection, to draw attention to the fact that the very large subsidies available for CO2 mitigation constitute in effect a money-laundering scheme for funding major political parties (on all sides of the aisle) by favouring developers who are then expected, via various subterfuges, to recycle a substantial fraction of the subsidies to the parties in donations or in profitable directorships for Members of Parliament?

Comment: If the policy was in substance motivated by the prospect of financial gain for political parties rather than for any discernible environmental objective, is it permissible, in an objection, to indicate the scale of the contributions to political parties from those who have benefited from the very large subsidies that are now available?

In asking these questions of you, I am not asking for any indication of whether the inspectorate thinks my proposed grounds of objection are meritorious in se. I am asking, on purely procedural grounds, which of the grounds of objection identified in the questions would be regarded as a valid ground on which an objection might be made (without regard to the merits of that ground at this stage). I do hope, therefore, that you will be able to give me an early answer on each of these six points.
As you have already made a relevant representation there is no need for you to submit any further representations before the closing date of 23 June 2014 (unless you would like to do so). If you do wish to make further representations by the deadline, these will be added to the representation that you have already made. Please note that as you have already registered as an Interested Party there will be further opportunities to submit information to us once the examination has started.
Regarding the specific questions that you have raised, the Inspectorate cannot advise you further on the content of the points raised. I would advise you to submit all of the comments that you wish to make about the application at this stage so that they can be put before the Examining Authority when appointed. It will be for the Examining Authority to decide what regard to have to the comments submitted, as relevant representations, during examination of the application and when making a recommendation to the Secretary of State who will decide the application.
If you feel you require legal advice on this matter please seek this independently. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to provide you with legal advice or to pre-judge what an Examining Authority’s views may be on any representation received.
I attach links to our Advice Note 8 series which may be of assistance to you:
Advice note 8.1: How the process works
Advice note 8.2: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation
Advice note 8.3: How to register and become an interested party in an application
Advice note 8.4: Influencing how an application will be examined – the Preliminary Meeting
Advice note 8.5: Participating in the examination

Christopher Monckton

As a resident of Castle Donington, I write to you regarding The East Midlands Gateway, after reading the developers online documents. However in these documents I see no mention of the Loading Gauge for the rail side of the operation.
Now as a Government Department, I am sure you are aware what the loading gauge is. However if not here is a brief explanation. The loading gauge denotes the clearances above and to the sides of the railway track and thus determines the size (height and width) of railway vehicle that can safely use the line. It is a key factor in the context of this proposed development.
The gauge on the UK rail network ranges from W7 (smallest) to W12 (largest).
Main UK freight routes such as the East and West Coast Main Lines are cleared to gauge W10 and cater for larger freight vehicles including the 'High Cube' containers preferred by freight operators. The Midland Main Line (MML) between London and Leicester is only cleared to gauge W7 which restricts the size of vehicle and prevents 'High Cube' containers from being carried on standard freight wagons.
'High Cube' containers can be transported on W7 gauge but on specially adapted freight wagons that are not only in short supply but, more importantly, reduce the number of containers carried per train and are consequently less efficient.
Therefore, in order to maintain viable rail operations, it is clear that the gauge of the MML would have to be increased to W10 at least. Subject to proper survey, this would necessitate increasing clearances between the track and some adjacent structures. This could involve major civil engineering work on bridges, tunnels, platforms and line side buildings, a potentially costly exercise and one that could involve lengthy disruption to existing rail services.
Therefore I believe the Secretary of State should not accept the application until this issue is resolved FULLY. We are concerned that the lack of commitment to enhance the gauge threatens the future viability of rail operations
At this stage of the process the developer should be your first point of contact on the issues that you raise. The developer’s project website page describes how they are carrying out their consultation at [attachment 1] and how to contact them should you wish to make any comments on the proposals.
I should add that, before submitting an application to the Planning Inspectorate, the developer is required to carry out extensive consultation on their proposals. This involves providing information about the proposal to various statutory and non-statutory bodies and the wider community, responding to questions, listening to suggestions, and taking these into account to influence and inform the application ultimately submitted to the Inspectorate. This does not mean that the developer has to accept or agree with every comment or suggestion made but they must give them proper consideration.
Subsequently, when an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate following the pre-application stage, there is a 28 day period during which a decision is taken on whether to accept the application for examination. One of the factors to be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at this stage is whether or not the developer’s consultation process has been adequate. We will invite relevant local authorities to provide us with their comments on the adequacy of the applicant’s consultation. In providing their representation on this matter, the local authority may decide to take into account any comments received from the public on this issue. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to the local authority’s response on the adequacy of consultation in making its decision on whether to accept an application to proceed to be examined.

If the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with the Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Where a person believes they have identified an issue which has not been adequately addressed by the applicant, despite raising it with them as part of their pre-application consultation, they may wish to include this as part of their representation. Relevant representations are used by the Examining Authority to help identify the initial principal issues for examination.
Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer in local newspapers and on site notices. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the PA 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available via the link below. In this instance I recommend reviewing advice note eight series – ‘How to get involved in the planning process’. I have attached above PDF versions for your reference. You may also access these documents on our website at the following link:
[attachment 2]
You may also find the following guidance and advice note helpful:

Guidance on the Pre-Application Process (The Planning Act 2008):
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49468/Planning_Act_2008_pre-applications.pdf

Advice note sixteen: The developer’s pre-application consultation, publicity and notification duties:
[attachment 3]

Steve Haberfield

Mr Rayner raised several points for consideration prior to the Preliminary Meeting on 10 June 2014.
Some of the points have at his suggestion been replied to under this S51 advice. However the full content of his submission is published.
This submission, along with others that have been received by the Planning Inspectorate during this period have been published on the Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay project page.
You raise a number of queries in your submission and I agree that a some may fall under s51 advice which can be provided by the case team rather than being considered as part of the examination. Therefore, I have aimed, where I can, to address some of your queries. Your queries will however remain part of the examination and before the Examining Authority (ExA) should they wish to respond further.
Local Issues Statements
As you note in your email, the ExA did invite Cornwall Council to the preliminary meeting, they have since declined. There is no requirement for the ExA to request Local Issue Statement and on this case, the ExA have chosen not to do so. As a result of this, I am unable to answer question number four of your email in relation to weight given to LISs as this is not relevant to the examination.
Examination Principles
I note your point in relation to the s46 notification identifying the project as having a nominal capacity of 240MW and the Scoping Opinion indicating a capacity of 250-350MW. The s46 notification is a snapshot in time and project can vary to some degree between the notification provided under s46 and submission. It will be for the examination to ensure that the Development Consent Order is drafted in a way reflect the permission sought.
Additional Statements of Common Ground (SoCG)
In relation to your request for the ExA to seek SoCGs from the European Commission and DEFRA, this is matter that I am unable to advise on, however your submission is before the ExA for their consideration.
Use of Section 106 (s174) Agreements
I can confirm your understanding that s106 agreements are to be negotiated outside the examination is correct. There is no requirement for a deadline for the submission of signed s106 agreements to be present in the timetable. Should the ExA become aware through the examination of the presence of s106 agreements, the submission of these can be scheduled. It is not the role of the ExA to prompt s106 agreements to be sought.

Alan Rayner

I am due to provide some initial pre-application advice to a developer who is looking at undertaking a geothermal energy scheme to put the resulting hot water generated through a CHP to create electricity for local businesses. I have looked at the Planning Act 2008 and it states that a generating station over 50MW would be deemed a nationally significant infrastructure project to be determined by yourselves. I cannot however find any definition of what is meant by the term ‘generating station’ and therefore need clarification as to whether the geothermal energy scheme would be classified as a nationally infrastructure project if it were to be over the 50MW threshold.
Section 15(2) of the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008) provides that an ‘onshore’ generating station would be considered a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) if the following criteria is met: (a) it is in England or Wales, (b) it is not an offshore generating station, and (c) its capacity is more than 50 megawatts. You will note from s15(3) that different criteria apply in the offshore environment.
As you correctly identify the body of the PA2008 does not define what is meant by the term ‘generating station’; however, the explanatory note to section 15 does state that generating station has the same meaning as in s36 of the Electricity Act 1989 (the EA1989). For your convenience I provide below links to both the PA2008 explanatory notes, and to the EA1989.
PA2008 explanatory notes: [attachment 1]
EA1989: [attachment 2]
I would emphasise that the content of this email does constitute legal advice upon which you or a developer should rely, and that the Planning Inspectorate is only able to determine whether development consent is required for a project under s55 of the PA2008 once an application has been formally submitted.
As you have anticipated however, we are able to issue free pre-application advice in relation to the NSIP applications. For a scheme that the Inspectorate has not been formally notified of, further enquiries in relation to it should be sent enquiries@pins.gsi.gov.uk.

Cheshire East Council - Emma Williams

The first round of consultations were held in Lockington, Castle Donington and Kegworth back in February 2014, however due to poor advertising, these exhibitions were deemed "inadequate", and therefore the developer, confirmed that a second set of exhibitions would be held in March / April 2014 with the correct and necessary advertising to take place, so that as many people were aware of the planned exhibitions as possible.
I consulted the planning inspectorate (Feb 2014) with regards to the previously poorly advertised exhibitions, and course of action, I should take, based on the "requirements of the developer". On the basis of the previous email (from the inspectorate), I contacted the developer, with no response. My concerns still continue, as I am yet to receive any leaflets in relation to the next set of exhibitions (which I have found out today have already started to take place) - can you please advise me, of how I should voice my concerns, as I feel very strongly that the devloper is not consulting with the local communities, in what is considered as a "nationally significant development"
You ask how you can voice your concerns over the East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange scheme.
Further to the advice we provided in March, in response to your earlier email regarding the consultation carried out by the developer with respect to these proposals, you may wish to look at the developer’s project website page which describes how they are carrying out their consultation at [attachment 1] which also lists where the documents can be seen and how comments can be made. The page also has links to the consultation leaflet and exhibition boards.
The proposals are currently still at a pre-application stage. As described in our previous email, before submitting an application to the Planning Inspectorate, the developer is required to carry out extensive consultation on their proposals. If you feel that the applicant's pre-application consultation has been inadequately carried out, you may firstly seek resolution by approaching them. If, having done this, you remain unsatisfied with the consultation that has been carried out, you may wish to raise this matter with the relevant local authority.
Following on from this stage, when an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, there will be a 28 day period during which a decision is taken by us on whether to accept the application for examination. One of the factors to be considered by the Planning Inspectorate is whether or not the developer’s consultation process has been adequate. We will invite the relevant local authorities to provide us with their comments on the adequacy of the applicant’s consultation. A local authority may decide to take into account any comments received from the public on this issue when they respond. The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to the local authority’s response on the adequacy of consultation in making its decision on whether to accept an application to proceed to be examined.
If the application is accepted for examination, there will be an opportunity for you then to register as an interested party to give your views to the Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer in local newspapers and on site notices once an application is accepted.

Emma Clowes

I live in Castle Donington and I am very concerned about the proposed development of the SRFI at Junction 24 of the M1. This is the biggest threat to my village & the other local communities that we have ever faced or are likely to face during our lives.
There are many unhappy people in this area re: the lack of publicity for the exhibitions in the Public Consultation for this development.
I therefore believe that there has been inadequate notification of this fact and wish to make a formal complaint.

The first attempt at consultation by Roxhill earlier in the year was abysmal, with virtually no leaflets reaching the public in time. I found out about the consultation totally by a fluke viewing of an Internet posting. I therefore attended, but was concerned that there were not many people attending this exhibition, considering the size of the village and the effect it will have on everyone who lives in this community. That was probably due to the lack of publication of the exhibition. Roxhill did say that they would be repeating the consultation due to their lack of effective leaflet distribution. About a week after the said Consultation meeting I received the leaflet that should have arrived well before it.
After attending, I did mention it in conversation to a few local people & they had absolutely no idea that this was happening. Again due to the lack of publicity.
I waited for the repeat session & was finally informed by a contact that this would take place on Monday 19th May 2014. I waited for my information leaflet on the Consultation to arrive. I heard there were a few leaflets delivered in a few locations from 5th May, but to date - 22 May 2014 - I have still not received any leaflet promoting the Public Consultation and with the date of the Public Consultation now long gone.
The timing of the exhibition did not allow the whole village community to attend. The hours of 2.30 - 7.30pm did not allow parents to attend without children hanging on, or allow anyone returning from a late working shift or those who travel a distance from work to attend.
There are several notice boards around the village, including one within sight of my house. It would have made sense to at least put a leaflet on all of these boards as a minimum due to the lack of a local newspaper. There was nothing to this effect on the board near to my house.
I understand that there were a lot of very unhappy local people completing the feedback forms at the exhibition in Kegworth, prior to the one in Castle Donington. It might be safe to assume that these forms will go unnoticed. How many Castle Donington people would have liked the opportunity to complete one too?
I think, as well as other factors in this case, we are all concerned that the assessment for the prediction of the impacts on Castle Donington will have incorrectly estimated the amount of traffic using the main roads through the village. As such the pollutant concentrations and the associated impacts of the development scheme are likely to have been over-estimated.
Yet again Roxhill have failed to consult with the local communities through the proper procedure and there has again been inadequate notification of this fact
Please consider these comments in the formal complaint of inadequate notice for the Public Consultation on this matter.
At this stage of the process the developer should be your first point of contact and it is recommended that you refer to the developer’s website for information on how to contact them. The developer’s project website page describes how they are carrying out their consultation at [attachment 1] and also lists where the documents can be seen and how comments can be made. The page also has links to the consultation leaflet and exhibition boards.
Prior to submitting an application to the Planning Inspectorate, the developer is required to carry out extensive consultation on their proposals. This involves providing information about the proposal to various statutory and non-statutory bodies and the wider community, responding to questions, listening to suggestions, and taking these into account to influence and inform the application ultimately submitted to the Inspectorate. This does not mean that the developer has to accept or agree with every comment or suggestion made but they must give them proper consideration.
Before formally consulting people in the vicinity of the project, the developer must prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), having first consulted relevant local authorities about what it should contain. The purpose of the SoCC is to provide details on the consultation process, which the developer intends to undertake with the local community about their project. The developer is then required to carry out their consultation with the local community as set out in the SoCC.
A link to the SoCC can be found on the application documentation page of the developer’s project website at [attachment 2]
Where any person feels that an applicant's pre-application consultation was inadequately carried out, they should seek resolution by approaching the applicant in the first instance. If following this action you remain unsatisfied with the consultation carried out, you may also wish to raise this with the relevant local authority.
Subsequently, when an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate following the pre-application stage, there is a 28 day period during which a decision is taken on whether to accept the application for examination. One of the factors to be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at this stage is whether or not the developer’s consultation process has been adequate, and we will invite relevant local authorities to provide us with their comments on the adequacy of the applicant’s consultation. In providing their representation on this matter, the local authority may decide to take into account any comments received from the public on this issue. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to the local authority’s response on the adequacy of consultation in making its decision on whether to accept an application to proceed to be examined.

If the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with the Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Where a person believes they have identified an issue which has not been adequately addressed by the applicant, despite raising it with them as part of their pre-application consultation, they may wish to include this as part of their representation. Relevant representations are used by the Examining Authority to help identify the initial principal issues for examination.
Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer in local newspapers and on site notices. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the PA 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available via the link below. In this instance I recommend reviewing advice note eight series – ‘How to get involved in the planning process’. I have attached above PDF versions for your reference. You may also access these documents on our website at the following link:
[attachment 3]
You may also find the following guidance and advice note helpful:

Guidance on the Pre-Application Process (The Planning Act 2008):
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49468/Planning_Act_2008_pre-applications.pdf

Advice note sixteen: The developer’s pre-application consultation, publicity and notification duties:
[attachment 4]

Steve Kirk

Will the inspector publish her report when it is submitted to the Secretary of State?
At the close of the recommendation stage of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) process the Examining Authority's report will be issued to the relevant Secretary of State only. In this instance the relevant Secretary of State is the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
As the Examining Authority’s examination of the application came to a close on 12 March 2014, the Examining Authority’s recommendation report is due to be submitted to the relevant Secretary of State on 12 June 2014. The Secretary of State then has a further 3 months to make the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
The Secretary of State can either grant development consent, grant development consent with conditions (known as requirements), or refuse development consent. If the decision is to grant development consent, there is a six week period for legal challenge, which runs from the date of the publication of the Order (or the statement of reasons if published later). If the decision is to refuse to make the Order, then the six week period for legal challenge runs from the date of publication of the statement
of reasons.
All interested parties will automatically be notified of the Secretary of State’s decision. At that stage you will be able to view the decision and reasons given for making it, and the Inspector’s recommendation, on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website:
[attachment 1]

Ian Gardner

Section 51 advice regarding Evidence Plan process.

RWE - Kim Gauld-Clarke

Letter received by The Planning Inspectorate from Simon Wright MP for Norwich South attached.
Response from Mark Southgate, Director of Major Applications & Plans attached.

Simon Wright MP

Query regarding content of representation
In the second paragraph of your email you ask whether we ‘have the power to require the developers to answer straightforward factual questions from potential objectors about the project’ to help you make your objections accurately, and query whether you can send us a sheet of questions for us to ask the applicant. Unfortunately we cannot do this at this stage. It will be for the Examining Authority, once appointed, to ask questions and examine these issues through the Examination stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) process.
We note that as you have previously submitted a representation to us. This means that you become an “Interested Party” giving you a statutory status with entitlements before, during and after the Examination process. You will be invited to the Preliminary Meeting and you will be informed directly about the Examination timetable and any procedural decisions taken by the Examining Authority during the Examination. Everyone who has registered as an interested party in relation to an application is given the opportunity to provide a more detailed written representation, supported with relevant information and evidence, by the deadline set out in the examination timetable. If you wish to add further details your submitted representation we can accept addition submissions until 23 June 2014 . You may wish to include any questions you have within the substance of your relevant representation. This will then be put before the Examining Authority who will consider it in identifying the principal issues to be examined.
With reference to your other questions, I would refer you to s104* of the PA 2008 which sets out the matters to which the Secretary of State must have regard in deciding whether or not to grant consent for the application. This includes the relevant National Policy Statements (NPS), which for this case would appear to include EN-1 and EN-3. The NPSs set out the need case for certain types of energy infrastructure and the framework for assessing projects being examined. I would also draw your attention to s106* of the PA 2008 which sets out matters that may be disregarded by the Secretary of State when deciding an application. This includes representations relating to (amongst other things) the merits of policy set out in NPSs. I replicate the text of these sections below for ease of reference.
We would advise you to consider these two sections of the PA 2008 and to note that matters relating to the merits of policy set out in an NPS may be disregarded by the Secretary of State.
*s104(2) of the PA 2008 says:‘‘In deciding the application the [Secretary of State] must have regard to -
(a) any national policy statement which has effect in relation to development of the description to which the application relates (a “relevant national policy statement”),
(aa) the appropriate marine policy documents (if any)determined in accordance with section 59 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009,
(b) any local impact report (within the meaning given by section 60(3)) submitted to the [Secretary of State] before the deadline specified in a notice under section 60(2),
(c) any matters prescribed in relation to development of the description to which the application relates, and
(d) any other matters which the [Secretary of State] thinks are both important and relevant to [the Secretary of State’s] decision”
s106(1) says: “In deciding an application for an order granting development consent, the [Secretary of State] considers that the representations –
(a) are vexatious or frivolous
(b) relate to the merits of policy set out in a national policy statement, or
(c) relate to compensation for compulsory acquisition of land or of an interest in or right over land”

Christopher Monckton

The Planning Inspectorate noticed that a document referred to by Usk Fishing Association as attached to their Relevant Representation had not been published as the online form did not capture it.
I am contacting you about a document you have referred to in your Relevant Representation submitted in relation to the above project, which we did not receive from you. A copy of your representation can be found through the following link: [attachment 1];relrep=164
Reference is made to an attachment, which you describe as an independent expert fisheries analysis, commissioned by Fish Legal. Unfortunately this was not visible via the internet form and therefore was not published with your Relevant Representation.
The Planning Inspectorate advise that if you wish the Examining Authority to consider the attachment, it would be helpful if this could be submitted with your Written Representation for Deadline 2 of the Examination.
You should have received a letter from the Examining Authority dated 15 May 2014 inviting you to the Preliminary Meeting. A provisional timetable for the Examination was set out in Annex D of this letter. The provisional deadline for receipt by The Planning Inspectorate of Written representations is Tuesday 8 July 2014.
If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Usk Fishing Association - Harry Legge-Bourke

Query regarding 'whose responsibility is it to investigate and prosecute alleged offences under the Planning Act 2008?'
Thank you for your email of 23 May 2014.
I have looked into your question about whose responsibility it is to investigate and prosecute alleged offences under s58 of the Planning Act 2008.
The advice I have received is that it would be for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to investigate and to prosecute offences under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008). I can confirm that this is not a responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate as the PA 2008 does not confer such powers.
I hope this answers your query.

Phil Jones

Below is a record of advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate in response to questions outstanding from its meeting with local authorities on 30 April 2014.
“Q[1]: How does the NSIP process deal with powers to work on the existing public highway and the adoption (become maintainable at public expense) of new roads built by third parties?
In the ‘normal’ planning application/permission process, these issues are normally dealt with in Leicestershire as follows:
• Agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act:
In Leicestershire, we use a S278 Agreement to enable a developer’s contractor to work on a County Road as if it were acting as the Highway Authority. The Agreement provides for the contractor to work on the public highway and indemnifies the Highway Authority against any actions and costs arising from the works being undertaken. Our Agreement also provides for a range of other matters, including design approval; payment of fees; dedication of land into the highway; and indemnities against any claims arising from the completion and opening of the works, e.g. Part 1 claims. In this case, the A6 is a County Road, as is the Ashby Road and the road leading into Lockington.

Often Agreements are also required under Section 4 of the Highways Act, which gives powers for the Highways Agency to work on County Roads, and Section 6 of the Act, which gives powers for a County Highway Authority to work on a Trunk Road. In this case, the A453 is an existing Trunk Road (which is the responsibility of the Highways Agency) and the Kegworth Bypass will become (see below) a County Road.
• Agreement under Section 38 of the Highways Act:
In addition to providing for the County Authority to take on the maintenance of a new road at public expense (adoption), in Leicestershire we use a S38 agreement to provide us with a range of safeguards to ensure that the road is built to an appropriate standard and that we are able to maintain it in the future, including to provide for the payment of commuted sums. Commuted sums are payments (by the developer) to enable the Highway Authority to maintain assets that are non-usual, complex or which would otherwise impose burdens for which no other sources of funding are provided. Examples might include, structures; landscaping where it is in the Highway; non-standard items of street furniture, such as heritage lighting or bollards; and areas dedicated into the public highway that are not otherwise required for the safe and satisfactory functioning of the highway.” (Leicestershire County Council, April 2014)
Advice from the Planning Inspectorate: The PA2008 does not amend the HA1980 so as to allow s278 or s38 provisions to be included within a Development Consent Order (DCO) and there are no direct references in the PA2008 to entering into an agreement under s278 or s38 of the HA1980.
Any related s278 or s38 Agreement could however be entered into separately with the relevant highway authority in the same way as under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) regime. Any such agreements should be submitted by an applicant as part of its application for development consent; or at a stage in the examination of that application agreed by the Examining Authority. If there were genuine reasons why it would not possible to provide such agreement by the end of an examination it may be possible to have an appropriately worded Grampian-type Requirement included in a DCO. For example, a requirement that the s278 or s38 agreement between the applicant and the relevant highway authority must be entered into before development could commence. I would emphasise however that Grampian-type Requirements are not generally considered desirable by Secretaries of State and every effort should be made to avoid the need for them.
Alternatively, s120 of the PA2008 allows a DCO to apply and modify legislation and allows a wide range of ancillary matters to be included in a DCO. It could therefore be possible for matters relating to such highway works normally dealt with in s278 or s38 agreements to be dealt with as a provision or as a Requirement. However, as detailed specifications and drawings may not be available at the point of application, there could be difficulties associated with this approach.
There are already several model provisions which are frequently adopted in DCO’s that grant developers certain powers to undertake works to highways. For example, granting the undertaker a power to: carry out street works (although the model provisions specifically state that this should not be used to authorise street works to a trunk road); stop up streets; construct and maintain new or altered streets; and enter into agreements with street authorities. These provisions can grant powers to work on existing highways and to ensure that it is clear who will be responsible for maintaining new or altered streets (normally the undertaker for 12 months following completion, then the relevant highway authority). These provisions do not necessarily contain the same amount of detail as agreements under the HA1980 would do and the highways authority for the road may require an undertaker to enter into separate agreements in addition to provisions in the DCO; particularly where the works relate to a trunk road.
Given the anticipated submission of the application in Q3 2014, it is recommended that the affected highways authorities prioritise reaching agreement with the applicant on the preferred method of securing provisions equivalent to ss278 and 38 of the HA1980. It would be useful if the Planning Inspectorate could be kept up to date with these discussions.

“Q[2]: How does the [nationally significant infrastructure project] NSIP process deal with the detrunking of a route?
The A50 southbound carriageway (past the hotel) is currently a Trunk Road but will become a County Road (serving the hotel and Lockington) once the works are completed.” (Leicestershire County Council, April 2014)
Advice from the Planning Inspectorate: Section 120(3) of the PA2008 provides that an order granting development consent may make provision relating to, or to matters ancillary to, the development for which consent is granted. S120(4) provides that the provision that may be made under subsection (3) including in particular provision for or relating to any of the matters listed in Part 1 of Schedule 5 of the PA2008; but this is not an exhaustive list.
While it is not specifically listed in Schedule 5 (unlike the designation of a highway as a trunk road or special road); de-trunking is considered to be an ancillary matter within s120 for which provision can be made in a DCO. This could be done in a number of ways. For example, examination iterations of the A556 Knutsford to Bowden Improvement DCO secured this provision by way of including a Schedule titled ‘Classification of roads etc.’; within which are specified the roads to be classified as trunk roads and special roads as well as the roads which are to be de-trunked. Note that the Knutsford to Bowden Scheme is still in the period within which the Examining Authority is writing its report and recommendation to the Secretary of State for Transport, and the Order has not been made.
Q3: Can CIL be applied to development under the PA2008 regime?
Advice from the Planning Inspectorate: CIL can be applied to development authorised under the PA2008, where the charging authority has issued a Schedule, subject to the tests in the CIL Regulations. As you will be aware however, where the charging authority has issued a Schedule it retains a discretion whether or not to apply CIL to development under its jurisdiction.
S206 of the PA2008 authorises the charging authority to charge CIL in respect of development in its area. This is not limited to development under the TCPA, and Reg 5(1)(f) of the CIL Regs specifically provides that “planning permission” for the purpose of Part 11 of the PA2008 (CIL) includes “development consent granted by an order made under section 114(1)(a) of PA2008”.
Reg 6(2) of the CIL Regs is likely to be of particular significance in relation to NSIPs given the built elements of many such schemes might not ordinarily be frequented by people. Reg 6(2) provides that the following are not to be treated as development for the purposes of the Regulations:
“(a) a building into which people do not normally go;
(b) a building into which people go only intermittently for the purpose of inspecting or maintaining fixed plant or machinery.”
In consideration of the built elements of the scheme proposed by Roxhill Ltd, it will be for the charging authority to apply the tests provided in the CIL Regs. The charging authority should also be reminded that the use of CIL will restrict the ability to enter into s106 Agreements and equally the power to rely on any Grampian-type Requirement to enter into a highway agreement (Reg 123). You will be familiar with the rationale where this ensures that where a charging authority intends to fully or partially fund infrastructure via CIL then it cannot seek a planning obligation contribution towards the same item of infrastructure.
Q4: In the context of the forthcoming general election and the anticipated timescales associated with the emerging application; what, if any, would be the implications of a change in Secretary of State in the decision period?
Advice from the Planning Inspectorate: A change of Secretary of State in the decision period should make no difference to applications progressing under the PA2008, which will continue to be determined in accordance with the National Policy Statements and other relevant guidance; unless and until any changes are made to the statute or guidance.

Affected local authorities Andrew Yeomanson

The National Park Authority is a statutory consultee on the application. As a statutory consultee, is the Authority still required to formally ‘register’ as an interested party to take part in the examination or is the Authority automatically registered as an interested party?
Secondly, the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation Form’ is available online, with the website stating a paper form is available on request. Could you please let me know if it is possible to get a Word version of the form that the Authority could fill in?
As a ‘B’ Local Authority you are automatically registered as an Interested Party in the process. However, it would be useful if you could submit a relevant representation as it will assist the Examining Authority, when appointed, to form their initial assessment of principal issues.
Regarding your other query, we are not able to send you a Word version of the relevant representations form. You should be able to complete and submit the form on-line, however if you need to please reply to this email and we can send you a paper copy of the form to complete.

New Forest NP Authority - David Illsley

Phone call enquiring about the process involved for the application of the Navitus Bay Wind Park
This application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014, and was then subsequently accepted for examination on 8 May 2014. We are currently in the relevant representations period, which is when you can register with the Planning Inspectorate and make a “relevant representation” so that you will become and “interested party”. This will give you an opportunity to participate in the examination of the application. The deadline for making a representation is 23 June 2014.
Shortly after the period for making a relevant representation has closed the Secretary of State will appoint the ‘Examining Authority’ to examine the application. After the close of the registration period, the Examining Authority has up to 21 days to review the application and all relevant representations and identify the principal issues for examination. Following this, the Planning Inspectorate invites all interested parties to attend a meeting, known as the Preliminary Meeting. This is chaired by the Examining Authority and is held to consider how the application will be examined. The meeting may include questions and answers about the key issues that will need to be examined, the timetable for the examination and other important organisational details. However, the merits or otherwise of the application will not be discussed at the meeting, which is purely procedural.
Following the Preliminary Meeting, the Examining Authority will issue a procedural decision including the timetable for the various stages of the examination (including the periods allowed for submission of further written evidence and any hearings the Examining Authority has decided to hold).
The Examining Authority has a statutory duty to complete its examination within 6 months after the last day of the Preliminary Meeting. The examination is a formal legal process, during which careful consideration is given to all the important and relevant matters, including the representations of all interested parties, any evidence submitted and answers provided to questions set out in writing and explained at hearings.
The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following address: [attachment 1]. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.
If you wish to register as an interested party, you will be able to register online from the Navitus Bay project page at the following link: [attachment 2].

Gay Napier

Meeting with the applicant to provide feedback following the decision to withdraw the Mynydd y Gwynt Wind Farm application.
Please find meeting note attached.

David Harries

Thank you for your e mail of 13th May and for keeping us informed.
The verbal discussions referred to occurred in November last year, by telephone, before we sent the e mail below – initially with a gentleman whose name we do not have who told us he considered the matter serious, and then further discussions took place with Kay Sully who advised us to put details in writing with documentary evidence which we have done comprehensively.
We wondered whether the Planning Inspectorate were made aware of our case by the applicant before the project was accepted for examination and if not should you have been informed at this stage by them that there were and still are unresolved ongoing issues?
Thank you for your email of 15 May in response to our letter of 13 May regarding the proposed Dogger Bank Creyke Beck Offshore Wind Farm.
The previous advice I issued regarding your representation was due to the fact that your original representation submitted was initially deemed not relevant as it solely referred to the way in which Forewind accessed your land, rather than providing comments on the proposal itself. In order for a representation to be deemed relevant, it must meet certain criteria set out by legislation. One of these criteria is that your form should include an outline of the principal submissions which you propose to make in respect of the application (Part 3 of the form). This information enables the Examining Authority, when appointed, to identify the principal issues to be examined.
As advised in our previous letter, whilst your correspondence has been accepted into the examination, the issue raised regarding the manner in which Forewind Ltd accessed your land is something that the Examining Authority may not be able to take into consideration when making their recommendation to the Secretary of State.
In support of our openness policy, the application and its supporting documents which Forewind submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for consideration are published on our website and can be found at:
[attachment 1]
It is appreciated this may not provide an answer to your concerns. However in light of the above, it is for these reasons why we would advise you to obtain professional advice regarding this issue.
In addition, the Examining Authority issued a letter on 23 May requesting further information regarding a proposed accompanied site visit so if there are any particular points you wish to point out to the ExA, I would encourage you to respond to this by 3 June 2014 which they will then consider.

John Beaumont Jill Lazenby

A team from the Planning Inspectorate met with a team from the Highways Agency to discuss an applicaiton for the proposed A19/A1058 Coast Road Junction Improvement.
A note of that meeting is attached.

Highways Agency - Guy Lewis

Meeting with the applicant to provide update on the project.
Please see meeting note attached.

David Harvey

Query regarding the content of s58 notification and comments on application documents
Thank you for your recent email received on 13 May 2014, I will aim to address your points set out in your email.
In relation to consultation, as we have previously stated, the duty is on the applicant to identity Category 3 parties. As part of the acceptance procedure, the Secretary of State then considers whether or not the applicant has complied with its duties under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), to consult the people it has identified. The Secretary of State’s role is not to manage the applicant’s consultation process or check whether the applicant has identified the correct persons for the purposes of consultation under section 42(1)(d) of the PA 2008 including those persons the applicant thinks fall within Category 3.
The applicant’s consultation report and the local authorities’ adequacy of consultation report will be taken into account in coming to this decision. It was considered in this case that the consultation was of a satisfactory standard. If any discrepancies in the consultation process come to light after acceptance, the remedy is provided by s102A of the PA 2008. Any person who feels that they fall within any of the s57 categories but were not identified by the applicant prior to acceptance, have an opportunity to request, under s102A of the PA 2008 to become an interested party and therefore participate fully in the examination. Also if the Examining Authority (ExA) thinks that a person might successfully make such a request, the ExA may inform that person about this. The ExA is not however under any obligation to make enquiries in order to discover who these persons might be (s102A(4)).
We note your comments on the “laissez faire stance having practical implications”. The Secretary of State does not have a laissez faire stance but is concerned to ensure that any alleged defects which may come to light after acceptance are rectified by the use of procedures in the PA 2008 which have been specifically included for that purpose ie s102A. The ExA will wish to ensure that the examination is conducted fairly and that no prejudice is suffered by persons who wish to make representations whether they have previously been identified by the applicant or not.
In relation to your final comment, any successful prosecution under s58 of the PA 2008 would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant’s certificate contained a statement which the applicant knew to be false or misleading in a material particular or the applicant recklessly issued such a certificate. Such a prosecution would need considerable evidence in order to support a successful outcome. We are not aware of any such evidence in this case which would support such a prosecution.
In relation to your points on the Environmental Statement and in particular the work that you commissioned on the Salmonoid impacts, we note your comments but advise, similarly to that above, that these points be made to the ExA during the examination via written and oral representations. This will enable the ExA to, if they see fit, to ask questions and examine the issue. Should you wish the ExA to consider your report, we suggest that this forms part of your written submission. It should be noted that this correspondence submitted during the pre-examination stage has not and will not be made available to the ExA.

Phil Jones

Letter received by the Planning Inspectorate from Mr Tony Clarke, Right to Ride representative of the Cyclists Touring Club, the national Cycling Charity attached.
Response from the Planning Inspectorate attached.

Cyclists Touring Club - Tony Clarke

Mr Erlebach has already registered as an Interested Party by making a representation on-line, but would like to know when he can submit more information?
As you have already registered as an Interested Party by making a relevant representation via our website, you do not need to submit anything further to us at this time. A Preliminary Meeting will be held whereby the Examining Authority appointed by the Secretary of State will set out how the examination will run. You will be told in writing when to submit any further comments, once the Preliminary Meeting has taken place. As an Interested Party you will be invited in writing to the Preliminary Meeting. A date for this meeting will be arranged in due course. Once the timetable and any deadlines for the submission of information required by the Examining Authority is known, it will be published on our website so that you know when to make any further submissions.

Richard Erlebach

For the promoter, BDW Trading Limited, to brief the Planning Inspectorate on their proposed business and commercial mixed-use development, and discuss the potential for using the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) process.
Please see the attached meeting note and annex.

BDW Trading Limited - South East Staffordshire Project

For the promoter, BDW Trading Limited, to brief the Planning Inspectorate on their proposed business and commercial mixed-use development, and discuss the potential for using the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) process.
Please see the attached meeting note and annex.

BDW Trading Limited - South East Staffordshire Project

For the promoter, BDW Trading Limited, to brief the Planning Inspectorate on their proposed business and commercial mixed-use development, and discuss the potential for using the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) process.
Please see the attached meeting note and annex.

BDW Trading Limited - South East Staffordshire Project

Query regarding the ‘other person’ status.
Following the close of the registration period on 11 April 2014 at 11:59 pm, we at the Planning Inspectorate were no longer able to register persons as ‘interested parties’ for the purpose of the application. There are no statutory powers to enable us to extend the deadline.
However, we always keep late submissions and requests on file and make the names of those who made them available to the Examining Authority (ExA) who, when appointed, are able to exercise a discretion to consider views and evidence from those who did not register a relevant representation on time. This does not mean that such persons will be regarded as ‘interested parties’ for the purpose of the examination. Under Section 88(3) of the Planning Act 2008 and Rule 6(1) of The Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 (EPR) the ExA can invite such persons and any other persons they consider it to be appropriate to invite, to the preliminary meeting. Any person who is invited to the preliminary meeting in this way will also be sent, for information purposes, the Rule 8 letter, confirming the examination timetable, and any amendments to the timetable under Rule 8(3) of the EPR 2010.
There is no automatic right for other persons to make representations during the course of the examination, as they do not have the status of interested parties. If, however, they wish to make representations then they can submit written representations to the ExA to meet the deadlines set out in the Rule 8 letter or request an opportunity to speak at a hearing. Under the EPR 2010 the ExA have a discretion to allow such representations, either written or oral, to be made as part of the examination.
Also, any person, whether they have been invited to the preliminary meeting or not, may make a request to become an interested party if they meet the criteria in s102A of the 2008 Act.

Phil Jones

Ms Sparks queried what it means to register her interest and also queried what type of information the form should contain. As she is a Clerk to a Parish Council, she also wanted to know how to submit the views of the Parish Council, but also how individual Councillors could submit their own individual views.
In order to register as an interested party, you must submit a relevant representation which should include a summary of what you agree and/or disagree with in the application, what you consider the main issues to be, and their impact. A brief list of points is all that is really required. If a form is being submitted on behalf of an organisation like a Parish Council, it must have the Parish Council's name on it and be clear that it has come from the Parish Council and reflects their views. If however it is being submitted by an individual with their own views, the form will need to have the individuals name on it, rather than the Parish Council's to avoid any confusion about whose views are being expressed.

Mary Sparks

A meeting note has been published for the introductory meeting

Ian Pritchard Goodman Shepherd (UK) Ltd

The Applicant advised the Planning Inspectorate of an extension to formal consultation and the approach to be taken.
I have spoken with the case manager and the Environmental Services team in relation to the extension of your formal consultation under s42 and s47 of the Planning Act 2008 and the consultation on your PIER to provide a further opportunity for comments to be made on the missing appendix from the PIER.
The approach that you set out in our telephone conversation, of 20 May 2014, of re-advertising, ensuring hard copies are available, emailing all consultees and extending the period by another 28 days reflects that undertaken in the previous formal consultation and therefore the Planning Inspectorate raise no issues. From our conversation, I am aware that your team are currently contacting key environmental consultees via telephone to alert them of this consultation. The Planning Inspectorate encourage you to contact as many consultees as possible to ensure their awareness of the extension,
As discussed, the Planning Inspectorate advise that this extension is fully explained and evidenced in the Consultation Report which is to be submitted with the application.

Centrica - Kirsty McGuiness

Query regarding suggestion for combining tidal power and wind energy.
Please see attached link.

Ian Ross

Query regarding late registration as an interested party on behalf of Wyn Jenkins.
Please see attached link.

Seren Contract Publishing

Query regarding late registration as an interested party on behalf of Roger Bassett-Jones.
Please see link attached.

Business In The Community

Query regarding late registration as an interested party on behalf of Alan Duthie.
Please see attached link.

Pleasure Anglers and Kayakers Association

The Applicant - Multifuel Energy Limited - has submitted a draft of their 'No Significant Effects Report' for review. Please find the Planning Inspectorate's comments below.
As previously discussed, the requirement for a ‘No Significant Effects Report’ within the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 10 (HRA) is on the basis that European sites have been identified by an applicant and considered within stage 1 of the HRA process (screening), but that it has been concluded, in agreement with the relevant SNCBs, that the project is not likely to have a significant effect on any of the considered European sites. In this case, whilst you have provided a ‘No Significant Effects’ document, the intention of this document appears to be confirmation that no European sites have been identified as needing consideration under the HRA process, as supported by the ‘final’ Statement of Common Ground between the applicant and NE (the ‘SoCG’ dated 18 December 2013), and not that you have identified European sites for consideration in stage 1 of the HRA process and have concluded no likely significant effects on these projects either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. Therefore, the report you have submitted might be more appropriately referred to as a ‘Screening Report’ for the purposes of HRA. The Planning Inspectorate welcomes the submission of such a document, as it provides clarity on whether or not any European protected sites would be affected by the proposed development.
The Planning Inspectorate would draw your attention to a couple of minor points which it would be helpful to provide clarification on in the final version of the HRA document:
• Paragraph 14A.1.2, defines “Natura 2000 sites” as ‘European Sites’, which is the term used throughout the document when describing whether there is a need for a HRA. However, in Paragraph 14A.3.3, Ramsar sites are also referred to, including the statement that they are afforded the same protection under Government Policy as Natura 2000 sites. For the sake of clarity it needs to be made clear that when you are discussing effects on ‘European Sites’ you are also including consideration of Ramsar sites within this definition. It is up to you to consider how best to define this, whilst noting the difference between the Natura 2000 and Ramsar designations, which you have already done so in the aforementioned paragraphs;
• Paragraph 14A.4.1 states that any ‘European Sites’ within a 15km radius of the Proposed Development were considered as part of the study area (see comment above about the need for clarity of ‘European Sites’ in this context i.e. presumably Ramsar sites within 15km would also have been considered). It would be helpful to provide reference to relevant guidance as to how this 15km buffer “accords with the precautionary approach required for undertaking HRA” (paragraph 14A.4.1), for example by referring to any relevant guidance which prescribes this study area;
• The Planning Inspectorate also notes that paragraph 3.3 of the ‘final’ SoCG with NE, states that “there are no internationally protected Natura 2000 sites (European and Ramsar sites) within a 20km radius of the Application Site”. It would be helpful to clarify the reasoning for applying a 20km radius in the SoCG and a 15km radius within the ‘Statement of No Significant Effects’ document. Whilst the ‘final’ SoCG has been signed by NE, it has not been signed by the applicant. Therefore, the Planning Inspectorate is querying whether this is the final and completed version of the SoCG which will be submitted with the DCO application to support the applicant’s statements in the Statement of No Significant Effects document. Please can this be clarified?

Dalton Warner Davis LLP - Geoff Bullock

Query regarding late registration as an interested party.
Please see attached link.

Martin Wood

Query regarding to a late representation.
Please see attached link.

Climate Friendly Bradford on Avon

Further information required to automatically become an interested party.
Please see attached link.

Steve Bell

Query regarding an incomplete representation.
Please see attached link.

EEF - Paul Byard

Query regarding late registration as an interested party.
Please see attached link.

Peter Keith-Lucas

Query regarding late registration as an interested party on behalf of Colin Chapman.
Please see attached link.

Ogmore Angling Association

Late Representation.
Please see attached link.

Maureen Wood

Query regarding late registration as an interested party.
Please see attached link.

Peter Foreman

Project feedback meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and National Grid
Please see attached meeting note

National Grid

Query regarding project thresholds
Thank you for your email regarding your query as to whether a potential project(s) would fall under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA 2008) as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project.

Section 15 of PA 2008 sets out the criteria under which Generating Stations fall under section 14 of PA2008 as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.
To confirm my understanding, the project consists of a number of projects, which on their own may not generate over 50MW alone but this is not for certain and could generate 50MW cumulatively. Furthermore, they may not come forward as one application.
As a starting point I would advise you seek legal advice and consider as to whether a sole generating station would be over 50MW or whether permission for multiple generating stations may be requested as part of the same DCO and therefore generate over 50MW. This is an important point as the generating capacity relates to the Development Consent Order (DCO) (the permission you request) rather than what a site may provide in the future.

Whilst the Planning Inspectorate is unable to provide legal advice on this point, should you wish to set out your understanding further or seek legal advice and then contact the Planning Inspectorate, we would be able to review this with a view to providing further advice under section 51 of PA2008.

Hedlunds Energy Limited - S Hedlund

Meeting between The Planning Inspectorate, Suffolk Coastal District Council, Suffolk County Council and EDF Energy
Please see attached meeting note

EDF Energy - Tim Norwood

A teleconference presentation regarding Evidence Plans and the 2014 Government Review

Triton Knoll Electrical System

Query regarding last day of submission of paper form and query regarding photocopying of forms
The last date that paper forms can be accepted is 23 June.
In order to enable the efficient and accurate processing of representations,paper forms can only be made available to named individuals and it is not possible for multiple hard copies to be issued for copying and wider distribution.

Jilly Duff

Meeting with promoter to provide feedback on draft documents.
Please see attached meeting note and letter regarding the A63 Castle Street Improvement, Hull.

Highways Agency - Sarah Kearns

Query in regards to the decision to accept the Navitus Bay Wind Park application for examination
This application was accepted for examination by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State on 8 May 2014. During the 28 day acceptance period, which began when the application was submitted on 10 April 2014, Planning Inspectorate staff completed the ‘Section 55 Acceptance of Application checklist’ which sets out the tests and criteria which the application documents must fulfil. During this stage of the process, the application is being reviewed under procedural tests as set out by the Planning Act 2008 and its subsidiary legislation; there is no consideration of the merits of the application as these will be examined later in the process.
The s55 checklist is completed by Planning Inspectorate staff, including input from an Examining Inspector who was appointed to advise on the acceptance decision. Based on the findings of the checklist, a recommendation was put forward to the acceptance decision maker who is the Planning Inspectorate’s Director of Major Applications and Plans, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. You can view the s55 checklist for the Navitus Bay Wind Park application and the letter issued to the applicant, NBDL, notifying of the decision at the following links:
S55 checklist: [attachment 1]
Notification of decision: [attachment 2]

Poole & Christchurch Bays Assoc - Roy Pointer

See advice below/attached
Thank you for your email of 24 April setting out your disagreement with the manner in
which the applicant Forewind Ltd has accessed your land in order to carry out surveys.
We also note that we have received previous correspondence concerning this issue,
including within your relevant representation and written representation. These
representations have been accepted into the examination and published to our
website.
Your email below has been accepted into the examination by the Examining Authority
and will be published in the same manner. You should note however that when
making their recommendation to the Secretary of State about this application, the
Examining Authority are concerned amongst other matters with whether to authorise
the compulsory acquisition of land. If you wish to see the conditions under which land
or rights can be compulsorily acquired they are set out at Section 122(2) of the
Planning Act 2008, which is available at the following link:
[attachment 1]
The issue you have raised concerning the manner in which Forewind Ltd has accessed
your land, is not directly related to the above tests in s122, nor is it related to the
merits of the proposed development. Therefore it may be the case that the Examining
Authority is unable to give your representations about this matter any weight as a
relevant and important matter when making their recommendation.
If you continue to have concerns regarding the manner in which the applicant carried
out surveys or accessed your property it is recommended that you take professional
advice.
With regards to Point 3 of your email of 24 April, based on our records it is our
understanding that you have not attended any oral hearings to date and we therefore
have no record of any oral representations. However there are further Compulsory
Acquisition hearings timetabled for the week commencing 30 June 2014 where you
may wish to raise matters relating to compulsory acquisition of your interests. Further
details of those hearings including an agenda will be published at least 7 days prior to
the hearing.

John Beaumont Jill Lazenby

Mr Nock requested to register as an interested party in regards to Navitus Bay Wind Park development
This application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014 and accepted to proceed to examination on 8 May 2014.
In order to register as an interested party, you must submit a relevant representation which should include a summary of what you agree and/or disagree with in the application, what you consider the main issues to be, and their impact. You can do this using our online registration form, which will be available from our Navitus Bay project page at the following link: [attachment 1]. Alternatively, you can request a paper copy of the form from our helpline on 0303 444 5000. The period in which you can register as an interested party opened today, 13 May, and will close on 23 June 2014.
You can find further information on becoming an interested party and submitting a relevant representation within our advice note at the following link: [attachment 2]. I would also like to draw your attention to our other advice notes, particularly to Advice Notes 8.1 through 8.5, which explain our process and how to get involved.

David Nock

Query relating to when various issues raised will be examined. What is the process?
That there will be a 6 month examination period in which the Examining Authority will examine issues that have been identified. At the end of the pre-examination part of the PA 2008 process, which is likely to last around 3 months, the examination period will begin. However the Planning Inspectorate does not have any further information on when the examination will begin at present. When this is known it will be advertised on our website and people who have made relevant representations will be written to.

Sharpe

I have been looking at the extensive application documents for the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park project. It seems that it is not possible to highlight or cut and paste elements of the application which makes the preparation of responses much more problematic than it need be. Is it possible to enable these features with the documents or am I doing something wrong?
The application documents are as submitted to The Planning Inspectorate by the developer, in the form of secured pdf’s. The secured nature of the files means that the copy and paste function is disabled. We are unfortunately unable to change the file format from that submitted to us, so are unable to enable this function.

Graeme Crouch

Query regarding the outreach event on 22 May, and the location of future hearings.
The outreach event which is being held on 22 May will advise the public of the PA 2008 process and how to get involved. It is likely that any hearings that take place during the examination into the application will be held in a different venue to that of the outreach event. The location of a venue for future hearings will be carefully considered and a variety of options looked at.

J H Smith

Query in regards to application documentation
Many thanks for you email in regards to an incorrect link for 6.1.2.12 Volume B Offshore Chapter 12 Offshore Ornithology. We aware of this error and we have been informed by the applicant that it is simply the front two cover pages which are incorrect on this document; the content is correct for the Offshore Ornithology chapter. We will amend the front pages shortly so that the document is correctly titled.
The application documents which are available on the project pages, are shown as they were received by the Inspectorate from the applicant, NBDL, when they submitted the application on 10 April. Therefore, unfortunately we are unable to provide copies on DVD or hard copies. It may be worthwhile contacting the applicant directly to request copies from them.
Although, there is no overall index for the documents within the Environmental Statement, the Introductions for each section/volume include tables which set out the titles of the documents within that particular section/volume.

Friends of Durlston Committee - Hilarie Lewis

Query in regards to registering as an interested party for the Navitus Bay Wind Park
The relevant representations period is due to open tomorrow, 13 May, and will remain open for people to register as an interested party until 23 June. You will be able to register online from the Navitus Bay project page at the following link: [attachment 1]. Alternatively you can request a paper copy of the form from our helpline on 0303 444 5000. The Planning Inspectorate have produced an advice note on how to register as an interested party and how to make a relevant representation: [attachment 2].
Unfortunately, as you cannot attend the outreach event to be held in Bournemouth on 22 May, there will not be an opportunity for you to meet us. However, our series of advice notes may assist you with further knowledge about our process, and also familiarising yourself with the application documents and adequacy of consultation responses which have been published on the project page may provide you with further information. Please see the links below:
Advice notes: [attachment 3]
Navitus Bay Documents: [attachment 4]

Samar Taha

Query in regards to potential content of a relevant representation
During the examination period the Examining Authority must, as in line with s104 of the PA 2008, have regard to any national policy statement which has effect in relation to the development, and the appropriate marine policy documents.
Just to confirm, the relevant representations period opens tomorrow, 13 May, and will close on 23 June 2014.

Bill Hoodless

Query in regards to the next stages in the process for the Navitus Bay Wind Park application
Now that the application has been accepted for examination, the pre-examination period begins and lasts approximately 3 months. At the end of this period a Preliminary Meeting will be held, and the 6 month examination period will commence( section 98 of the Planning Act 2008) the day after the last day of the Preliminary Meeting. The Preliminary Meeting is where the applicant and other interested parties make representations to the Examining Authority on how the application should be examined (s.88 Planning Act 2008).

The pre-examination stage of the process has no fixed timetable because the Planning Inspectorate has flexibility over when the Preliminary Meeting is held. The period where the public can register with the Planning Inspectorate and make a relevant representation opens on 13 May and will close on 23 June.

Hampshire County Council - Pete Errington

Northumberland County Council apologised that their response to the Examining Authority’s second round of written questions would not be submitted before the deadline set. They explained that they still expect to respond to the questions as soon as possible.
The Planning Inspectorate advised that the Examining Authority would consider whether or not to accept any late submission when it is received. The likelihood that a late submission can be accepted is greatest if submitted promptly.

Northumberland County Council - Bircham Dyson Bell LLP

Concern over technical quality of advertisements on Progress Power Limited website for the proposed project.
Just by means of clarification, the role of the Planning Inspectorate within the Planning Act 2008 process is to provide advice to stakeholders about becoming involved in the consenting process and to advise applicants on how to submit an application for a development consent order or ‘DCO’. The Planning Inspectorate is impartial to both stakeholders and the developers and will be undertaking a 6-month statutory examination of the Progress Power Station application in the near future.
You highlight that you are not satisfied with the visual quality of the applicant’s project website and the material published it. I would advise contacting the applicant about your concerns with regard to their website and other material which has been made publically available.
If you would like to formally raise such issues with the Planning Inspectorate then you can do so via a relevant representation – this will ensure that your views are taken into account as part of the formal examination of the application by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State and ensure you have a legal right to participate in the examination by registering as an interested party. My previous email sets out the process for registering as an interested party.
Please also find attached copies of Advice Notes 6 ‘Preparation and submission of application documents’ and 8.1 ‘How the process works’ which gives more detail as to the role of the Planning Inspectorate and that of the applicant in this planning process.

Stephen Schwarz

Query regarding the proposed access routes for the gas connection.
In your email you ask the Examining authority (ExA) whether the applicants intends to use the A19 for construction traffic. This type of question is the type of issue that can be explored and discussed during examination through written questions issued by the ExA or verbally at any of the hearings taking place.
So you may find it useful to attend one or all of the hearings next week, where you can raise this question and the applicant can respond.
Please see the link below to our website and a letter which gives details of all the hearings taking place next week.
[attachment 1]
Also please see a link to the agendas for the Environmental Impacts hearing and the Compulsory Acquisition hearing.
[attachment 2]
I note in an earlier communication to us you indicated that you would interested in attending an Open Floor Hearing if one was held. For you information an Open Floor hearing is taking place at Knottingley Town Hall, at 7pm on Wednesday 14 May 2014.
You may also find Planning Inspectorate Advice note 8 ‘Participating in the examination’ useful. Please see link to it below
[attachment 3]

Bryan Metcalf

Mr Stebbings requested to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party.
The proposal by Navitus Bay Development Ltd for the Navitus Bay Wind Park has today been accepted by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State, to proceed to be examined.
The developer, Navitus Bay Development Ltd, is now required to advertise in local and the national press, the period within which anybody will be able to make a ‘relevant representation’ and register to become an interested party. It is anticipated that this period will open shortly, and a notification will also appear on the Planning Inspectorate’s project page, here: [attachment 1]. To have your views taken into account you must register.
A form will be available online from the Planning Inspectorate’s project page for parties to register. A paper copy of this form can also be requested from our helpline on 0303 444 5000.

Michael Stebbings

Correspondence recieved during acceptance regarding consultation process
Please see letter attached

John Sharpe

Please see attached advice issued at acceptance

Navitus Bay Development Limited

Correspondence recieved during acceptance regarding consultation process
Please see letter attached

Hurn Parish Council - Nicola Shaw

Follow up email to Sir Mike Pitt, Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate, regarding the relevance of omitted statutory consultation responses to the acceptance of the Norwich NDR application.
Letter attached

CPRE Norfolk - Katy Jones

Query on how to become involved in the process for the Navitus Bay Wind Park application, and when.
The Planning Inspectorate has 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept the application. The decision should therefore be made no later than Thursday 8 May 2014. If the application is accepted a period of 'relevant representations' is opened via the Planning Inspectorate's website, where a form will be available.

Ian Mateer

The applicant requested comments from the Planning Inspectorate on their further draft of the Consultation Report submitted on 17 April 2014
Please see the attached document for the Planning Inspectorate's comments on the draft document

National Grid Carbon Limited

Query on how to become involved with the process for the Navitus Bay Wind Park Application, and when.
The Planning Inspectorate has 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept the application. The decision will be made no later than Thursday 8 May 2014. If the application is accepted a period of 'relevant representations' is opened via the Planning Inspectorate's website, where a form will be available.

Sophie Jephcote

A member of the public enquired as to why their representation submitted to Norfolk County Council at pre-application by her parents was not published on the planning portal website.
The Planning Inspectorate's response was by email.
Thank you for your correspondence with attachments received on 28 April 2014, on behalf of your parents, in relation to the Norwich NDR application.
Having looked at the reasons why the material sent by your parents has not been published on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website, this is because the attached comments dated 27 August 2013 were addressed to the applicant Norfolk County Council in what appears to be a response to their pre-application consultation. As such, it would not be published on our website. The Planning Inspectorate has, however, published ‘relevant representations’ made by persons wishing to become Interested Parties, and these can be found on the project page at the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website:
[attachment 1]
The 2008 Act, and Regulations made under it, set out a number of straightforward matters that a representation must contain before it can be treated as a “relevant representation” giving you an entitlement to become an interested party: it also includes a summary of whether the person agrees or disagrees with the proposal, the main issues and their impact. A relevant representation is defined in section 102(4) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and is “relevant” if it is in accordance with regulation 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2010. These valid representations were submitted on a fully completed Planning Inspectorate Registration and Relevant Representation form, and received by the Planning Inspectorate within the registration period that ran from 14 February 2014 to 23 March 2014 for this application. In these circumstances, your attached comments are not considered to be a relevant representation.
Following the close of the registration period, we are no longer able to register persons as ‘interested parties’ for the purposes of this application. The fact that you have been unable to register your interest in time is not in any way meant to suggest that you are not interested in this application. We are not able to extend the deadline and have no statutory powers that would enable us to do so. However, we will keep your request on file and make your parents names available to the Examining Authority who is able to exercise discretion to consider views and evidence from those who did not register a relevant representation on time. However, this does not mean that you would be regarded as an ‘interested party’ for the purposes of the examination.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office should you have any further questions.

Helen Adcock

Emai receivieved from Department of Culture, Media and Sport, enclosing correspondence from UNESCO
Thank you for your email enclosing the correspondence from UNESCO in relation to the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park project.
We note that UNESCO has submitted representations to you and has asked that these be taken into account by the relevant competent authority when making a decision on whether the application should proceed to examination. It appears to relate to merits of the application and the views held by UNESCO. I set out some advice below about the application acceptance process and ask that you pass this information on to UNESCO.
The application:
The application for the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park project was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014. The Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has a period of 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept the application to proceed to examination. This decision should be made not later than Thursday 8 May 2014. I believe that this is the critical date to which your email refers. If the application is accepted, an Examining Authority will be appointed to examine it through a process of written representations and possibly some hearings held in the local area.
The application acceptance process:
The Secretary of State’s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination must accord with the provisions of section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. Amongst other things, the application must be of a standard the Secretary of State considers satisfactory to proceed to examination and the applicant’s pre-application consultation should have complied with the statutory procedure.
During the 28 day acceptance period relevant local authorities have an opportunity to make representations about the adequacy of the applicant’s pre-application consultation, and any such representations received help to inform the Secretary of State’s decision about whether or not to accept an application. Under the legislation, there is no specific provision for parties other than the relevant local authorities to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate during the acceptance period.
UNESCO’s letter of 2 May 2014:
We note that UNESCO, in their letter of 2 May 2014, submitted representations to you and have asked that these are made available to the decision maker in respect of whether or not the application should proceed to examination. Whilst there is no provision for parties to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate during the acceptance period, UNESCO’s letter and its annex have been made available to the decision maker (which is the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government) when considering the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the PA 2008. Any weight given to the comments will depend on the individual facts of the case.
UNESCO should note that issues related to the merits of an application can only be considered during the examination of an application. We note that UNESCO do not state whether they have informed the applicant or any relevant local authority about their views on the project. We would advise that if UNESCO have not already done so, they contact the applicant (Navitus Bay Development Limited) as soon as possible to make them aware of their views.
Next steps
If the application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two successive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of ‘relevant representations’ is opened via the Planning Inspectorate’s website. This period must run for at least 28 days. If UNESCO are interested in the progress of this application, and if it is accepted for examination, they will need to register to become an interested party in the examination by making a relevant representation during the advertised period. Registering as an interested party would enable UNESCO to participate fully in the examination, including through the making of written representations and if relevant, oral submissions at any hearings that may be held. An Examining Authority would be appointed to examine the application and would make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change who would be ultimately responsible for making a decision about whether or not to grant consent for the project.

DCMS - Leila AL KAZWINI

Query regarding the Navitus Bay Wind Park development
This application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014. There is a period of 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept it. This decision should be made not later than Thursday 8 May 2014.
The Secretary of State’s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination must accord with the provisions of section 55 of the PA 2008. Amongst other things, the application must be of a standard the Secretary of State considers satisfactory to proceed to examination and the applicant’s pre-application consultation should have complied with the statutory procedure.
Issues related to the merits of an application, such as the location of the proposal, can only be considered during the examination of an application. If an application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two successive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of ‘relevant representations’ is also opened via the Planning Inspectorate’s website. If you are interested in the progress of this application, and if it is accepted for examination, you will need to register to become an interested party in the examination by making a relevant representation during the advertised period, which must run for at least 28 days. Notification of this period will also appear on the Planning Inspectorate's project webpage, here:
[attachment 1]
The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 2]. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

Carole Hamburger

Advice to Celtic Array Limited about the Rhiannon Wind Farm Offshore HRA Likely Significant Effects Screening Report Final Draft.
Further to your E mail of 3rd April, we have had the opportunity to undertake a high-level review of the Rhiannon Wind Farm Offshore HRA Likely Significant Effects Screening Report Final Draft, and have the following comments to make:
1. As stated within the HRA Screening report, the report will need to ensure that sufficient information is provided to allow confidence in the conclusion of no LSE where identified. Our main concern is that information used to screen out European sites/qualifying features of European sites – typically noted to include wave/tidal modelling, sediment plume modelling, noise modelling, and bird/marine mammal/fish numbers recorded during surveys – are not included within the report. We appreciate that the ES for the project may currently be in progress; however, we would recommend for the final HRA reports that either the data is provided within/appended to the HRA reports, or references are inserted into the reports to cross-refer to supporting information supplied within the Environmental Statement, to substantiate and support the statements made within the HRA. We note that reference is made to baseline data collected for birds within Paragraph 1.178; however, reference is made to these surveys earlier in the HRA Screening report to screen out designated sites. We would recommend that the baseline survey data used to inform the HRA screening is referenced earlier within the report.
2. We would suggest that further references (whether to scientific papers, site surveys or both) are inserted to substantiate statements included within the text, particularly in relation to species-specific behaviour, for example in respect of fulmar and red-throated diver at sections 1.80 onwards. The HRA Screening report includes a number of references, which we welcome.
3. We note that the use of Ramsar and SPA for European sites is interchanged throughout the HRA Screening report. We would recommend that the definition of European sites for the purposes of the assessment is defined at an early stage in the report and it made clear whether LSE are considered for SPA features and/or Ramsar features.
4. With regard to in combination projects listed in Table 1.7 of the HRA Screening report, the reasons for scoping in or out species/habitats is not well explained. We recommend that further information is provided to explain why projects have been screened in/out in combination and how these have been considered within the SAC and SPA LSE tables within the report. The LSE tables refer to Walney offshore wind farm and the North East Potential Development Area, although further projects were screened in to the assessment within Table 1.7. It is noted in Annex A: Consultee Responses that Walney Extension is the only development predicted to have concurrent piling with Rhiannon offshore wind farm. We recommend that this additional level of information should be provided to support the screening in/out of in combination projects.
5. With regard to Tables 1.48 to 1.62, which describe populations of bird species at European sites, we recommend that references are provided to identify the original source of the population numbers and recent numbers listed. We appreciate that this information is likely to be contained within other supporting information to the application; however, the supporting information used to inform the screening assessment should be provided, or cross-referenced to the relevant chapters and technical annexes within the ES. This also applies to mean maximum foraging ranges, which have been used to screen out effects on certain species from selected European sites. We recommend that the foraging ranges be included to support these statements.
6. We note that the HRA Screening report makes reference to obtaining confirmation from the Competent Authority on the outcome of the screening. At this stage, the Competent Authority would not be able to comment on the screening report. We recommend that reference to Competent Authority approval is removed and reference to the relevant statutory nature conservation bodies is retained/inserted (see Paragraphs 1.8, 1.74, and 1.192).
7. We recommend that the final HRA Screening report include any written evidence that the conclusions of the screening presented within the report are agreed with by SNCBs e.g. copies of correspondence or letters.
8. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 have been amended; we recommend that these regulations are referred to as ‘Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)’ throughout. This also applies to the Planning Act 2008.
I hope you find the above information useful. Should you have any queries regarding the attached please contact us.

Celtic Array Limited - Sarah Wiggins

Query during acceptance regarding access to documentation.
We note the statements in your email that "This would allow our expert to critique it and hopefully result in a saving of valuable time during the Examination. Moreover, it could produce very helpful information that would obviate the need for the ExA to have its own independent advice on this important and highly technical issue".
We feel it would be helpful to provide some advice to you about the application process, and opportunities to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate about an application. This advice is provided under section 51 of the PA 2008, and as such will be published on our website.
As you are aware the Secretary of State’s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination is based on the tests set out in section 55 of the PA 2008 and is, in summary, a decision about whether the application documents are of a satisfactory standard to proceed to examination, and whether the applicant’s pre-application consultation has complied with the statutory procedure.
Issues related to the merits of the application can only be considered during the examination of an application. If an application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of ‘relevant representations’ is also opened via the Planning Inspectorate’s website. If you are interested in the progress of this application, and it is accepted for examination, we would strongly encourage you to register to become an interested party in the examination by making a relevant representation during the advertised period, which must run for at least 28 days. Becoming an interested party will enable you to participate in the examination and submit written representations to the Examining Authority when appointed. It will also allow you to participate in hearings should they be held.
Public copy of the application documents
You also sent a further email dated 28 April 2014 asking whether the developer should have provided at least one public copy of the submitted application documents in accordance with the quote below which is taken from page 3 of the PINS Advice Note 6: “At least one public inspection copy should also be made available at a location or locations in the vicinity of the proposed development”. The first line of the paragraph to which you refer states: “Applicants are reminded that they are required to make the full application including all documents and information accompanying the application available to each person notified of the accepted application.” It is important to highlight that this advice refers to any application accepted by the Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) for examination and does not therefore require applicants to make a copy of the application documents available prior to the application being accepted.
The advice note also states “The Planning Inspectorate also strongly advises applicants to send a public inspection copy of their submission to the local authority(s) within whose area(s) the project is located.” Please note that this is not a statutory requirement but is our good practice advice to applicants.

William Hoodless

Could you please tell me how I may access information on how many formal objections have currently been recieved in opposition to the project and also if possible the nature of these objections.
This application is currently at the Acceptance stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. A decision whether or not to accept the application for examination must be made by 8 May 2014.
If the application is accepted to be examined, the application documents will be published on the Navitus Bay project pages of the website, which can be found at the following address:
[attachment 1]
Also, following a successful acceptance, the developer will be required to advertise in local and national press the period within which anybody will be able to make a 'relevant representation' and register to become an interested party. These representations will be also be published on our website following the deadline for registration.
The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which you may find useful in understanding our process. These are available at the following address: [attachment 2]. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

Danny Alexander

Query relating to the Certificates of Compliance and Book of Reference.
Thank you for your email of 17 April 2014 with regards to your concern in relation to the certificate of compliance submitted by the applicant Tidal Lagoon (Swansea Bay) plc (TLSB). I respond to your points in turn below.
Certificates of compliance with section 56 (your points 1 and 2)
The applicant TLSB has issued its certificates of compliance in relation to the application, under s56 and s59 of the PA 2008, and under Regulation 13 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. There is no requirement on the Secretary of State (SoS) to approve these certificates. It is for the applicant to be satisfied that these comply with the statutory requirements as any liability rests on the applicant if they have committed an offence under section 58 or Regulation 14 of the EIA Regulations.
In order for a criminal offence to have been committed under s58 a person must either have issued a certificate which contains a statement which the person knows to be false or misleading in a material particular or recklessly issues a certificate which is false or misleading in a material particular.
For this reason, if a s58 certificate is issued by reference to information set out in the Book of Reference and the information included in Part 2 is in effect disputed by another person that does not necessarily mean that the person who issued the certificate has committed a criminal offence.
The adequacy of pre-application consultation was a matter for the application acceptance decision. Following your EIR request and subsequent disclosure of information, Fish Legal were able to see the application documents on which they made a representation during the acceptance period. This submission was taken into account by the Secretary of State in making his acceptance decision.
The Book of Reference (your point 3)
As you have noted, Part 2 of the Book of Reference must include any person that falls under Category 3 (as defined in s57 of the PA 2008). A person is only within Category 3 if he/she is known to the applicant after making diligent inquiry.
Due to persons moving properties and changing their address or new persons being identified during the course of the application process, it is not unusual for applicants to have to update the Book of Reference and inform the ExA of any amendments made during the examination period.
The applicant will be able to make any necessary changes to the Book of Reference and submit any amended versions of the document during the examination. The Examining Authority will also be able to ask questions of the applicant and others on this matter.
Compensation (your points 4 and 5)
With regard to claims for compensation, this is a matter dealt with outside of the DCO application process under the Planning Act 2008. The issue of compensation will arise in the event that the development consent is granted and the applicant implements the development consent order. However, the adequacy of funding to meet any likely compensation future liabilities arising from the implementation of the DCO, and any mechanisms proposed by the applicant to secure the funding, are issues which will be considered by the Examining Authority as part of the examination.
It is a matter for the applicant to consider whether in their view a person would or might be entitled to compensation within the meaning of Category 3 in the event that the order sought were to be made and fully implemented. Unless and until the development is fully implemented it may not be possible to ascertain the identities of all those persons who will or might be entitled to such compensation. Any persons not included in Part 2 of the Book of Reference will still be able to make relevant compensation claims at that time. Whether or not a person is included in Part 2 of the BoR is not determinative of any rights to compensation they may have in due course.
Environmental Statement (your point 5)
We note your comments regarding the Environmental Statement and its contents. The likely significant effects of the project, how these are reported in the Environmental Statement and proposed to be mitigated in the draft DCO are matters for the examination. These matters can be considered in written representations and during any issue specific hearings.
Failure to notify of acceptance (your points 6 and 7)
We note your comment that a number of local angling clubs appear to have missed the deadline for registering an interest in this project by making a relevant representation. We have received two representations after the close of the relevant representations period. The Examining Authority has discretion to decide whether to accept these late representations in to the examination.
Should additional persons or groups feel they would or might be entitled to make a relevant claim and they therefore fall within s57, they may make a request to become an interested party and take full part in the examination. If this is the case, we would suggest they complete the form below:
[attachment 1]
Completing this form provides the information that is needed for the Examining Authority to decide whether parties can become an interested party in the examination. All such requests will be considered by the Examining Authority.

Phil Jones

Hockering Parish Council was not officially notified of the acceptance of the Norwich NDR scheme and consequently requests an extension to the period in which relevant representations can be made.
Letter attached

Hockering Parish Council - Richard Hawker

Meeting with Multifuel Energy Limited (MEL) to receive project update and to issue feedback on draft documents
Please see attachment

Multifuel Energy Limited (MEL)

On 28 April 2014, Mr Lamond submitted a suite of questions to the Planning Inspectorate requesting their inclusion by the Examining Authority (ExA) in his second round of written questions to interested parties. Issue of the second round of question had been timetabled by the ExA for 30 April 2014.
Previously, Mr Lamond had written to the ExA on 18 March describing personal circumstances that would prevent him from attending the hearings as timetabled in the draft examination timetable attached to the 'Rule 6' letter.
Thank you for your submission dated 28 April 2014. The Examining Authority (ExA) has chosen to exercise his discretion and has accepted the submission to be read in conjunction with the examination. Your representation will be published to the A30 project webpage as soon as is practicable.
I would emphasise however and you will already be aware, that the process for examining nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008) is primarily inquisitorial. It is for the ExA to decide what questions to direct to which interested parties based on the need to gather evidence to advise the decision-maker; in this case the Secretary of State for Transport. Such evidence will be that which the ExA considers to be relevant and important to the examination.
You may wish to consider pursuing answers to the questions set out in your submission directly with the applicant, Cornwall Council. You may then wish to submit additional evidence at the appropriate stage in the examination to update the ExA on any outstanding matters or any issues that in your opinion the applicant has not addressed through direct questioning. Another appropriate means by which you might bring these issues to the attention of the ExA would be at a relevant hearing. The notification of those to be held in June and July of this year is scheduled to be issued to interested parties shortly. ExAs are committed to the imperative that interested parties are not denied the opportunity to ask questions where the answers are required in order to complete their cases, and you will note from DCLG’s guidance document ‘Planning Act 2008: examination of applications for development consent’ that in certain circumstances cross-examination may be allowed at hearings.

Finally, in relation to the notification of forthcomings hearings in June and July, I refer to the request about timing in your email to the ExA dated 18 March 2014. All parties are challenged by the statutory 6 month examination timetable and you will therefore understand that it is normally impracticable and inequitable for special measures to be employed to accommodate individuals or their representatives. The PA2008 does, however, make provision for parties unable to make representations orally to provide them in writing.

Stephens Scown LLP - Ian Lamond

Request to attend hearings on 14 and 15 May 2014 as a non-interested party.
As you correctly noted, the deadline for registering as an IP has already passed, however please note that anyone can attend the hearings or make a submission to the Examining Authority should they wish so within the deadlines as set in the examination timetable (Rule 8 letter).
Please note however that should you wish to speak at the hearing or make any submission in relation to the application, it will be in the appointed ExA’s discretion to decide whether or not to allow you to participate in the hearing or to accept any submissions made by a non-interested party.
Please see the link below to all letters recently issued by the Examining Authority regarding the Knottingley Power Project. These letters are:
• Rule 8 letter - which includes examination timetable
• Rule 13/Rule 16 – Notification of Hearings and Accompanied Site Visit
• Rule 8(3) and Rule 17 – request for further comments and changes to the timetable
[attachment 1];stage=4&filter=Procedural+Decisions
I suggest following the Knottingley Power Project Website for the hearing agendas which will be published at least a week prior to the hearings.

Emily Agus

I am trying to find out how many notifications of projects have been made to PINS or the IPC under the 2008 Act. The National Infrastructure Planning website lists some projects which have been withdrawn and consequently archived and removed from the website. How many applications have been withdrawn and removed from the website?
Additionally, how many Applications have been made but not accepted for Examination?
As your query consists of three questions, I shall answer each one in turn.
How many project notifications have been made to PINS/IPC?
Firstly, since the Planning Act 2008 regime came into force, there have been 121 project notifications for potential Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) applications.
How many projects have been removed from the website?
Secondly, there are 22 NSIPs that have been removed from the website because either the applicant had confirmed that the scheme is no-longer proceeding (19 - see table below), or the application had been submitted and was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant (3). The latter is expanded on in the response to the next question.
Sector Project
Energy Bryn Llywelyn Wind Farm
Energy Hull New Biomass Power Station
Energy Brigg North Lincolnshire Power Station
Energy Mersey Tidal Power Scheme
Energy Teesside Generating Station and Harbour Facilities
Energy The Isles Wind Farm
Energy Fawley Oil-Fired Reserve Plant
Energy Centrica Glanford Brigg Biomass Power Station
Energy East Thurrock Connection Project
Energy South Wales Network Upgrade
Energy Thorpe Marsh 400kV Overhead Line Project
Energy Warrington West Realignment
Transport Cheesemans Green
Transport A21 Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst Improvement
Transport M1 J28-31 Managed Motorway Improvement
Transport Elmbridge Transport Scheme
Transport Future Luton: Expansion
Transport Ordsall Chord Manchester
Waste and Waste Water Deephams Sewage Works Upgrade
How many applications have been submitted and not accepted?
Finally, there have been 3 NSIP applications that were formally submitted that did not meet the desired criteria to be accepted for Examination by the Planning Inspectorate; The Brig y Cwm Energy from Waste Generating Station, the overhead line connection to Maesgwyn Wind Farm and the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT III) applications were all determined as a non-acceptance. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal III (DIRFT III) application was first submitted in November 2012 and the decision for non-acceptance was issued on 28 November 2012. Following advice from the Planning Inspectorate, the applicant re-submitted the application which ultimately was accepted for Examination in March 2013.

Bond Dickinson LLP - Will Budge

Phonecall regarding the revised Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary (Document 6.4) with a change to the wording of paragraph 1.5.4.
Many thanks for your phone call just now. As discussed, we have published the revised version of the Non-Technical Summary to the Environmental Statement (Doc 6.4) Revision 1 which made amendments to paragraph 1.5.4 – this can be found on the project pages of the Planning Portal along with the original version of the Non-Technical Summary to the Environmental Statement (Doc 6.4) Revision 0. You will notice that the wording included on the banner at the top of the project page highlights that the revised NTS makes amendments only to paragraph 1.5.4.
As a reminder, you will no doubt be aware that section 56(6) of the Planning Act 2008 requires the applicant to make available to each person to whom notice is given under s56(2) of that Act the original documents and information that were required by section 37(3)(d) of that Act to accompany the application. You are therefore advised to make available to those persons the original Non-Technical Summary of the Environmental Statement (Doc 6.4) Revision 0 in addition to the updated version (Revision 1) of it dated April 2014, together with a clear explanation of what has been updated and why.

Chris Girdham

See attached meeting note and presentation.

Affected local authorities David Hughes

Query regarding the Navitus Bay Wind Park development
This application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014. There is a period of 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept it. This decision should be made not later than Thursday 8 May 2014.
The Secretary of State’s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination must accord with the provisions of section 55 of the PA 2008. Amongst other things, the application must be of a standard the Secretary of State considers satisfactory to proceed to examination and the applicant’s pre-application consultation should have complied with the statutory procedure.
Issues related to the merits of an application, such as the location of the proposal, can only be considered during the examination of an application. If an application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two successive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of ‘relevant representations’ is also opened via the Planning Inspectorate’s website. If you are interested in the progress of this application, and if it is accepted for examination, you will need to register to become an interested party in the examination by making a relevant representation during the advertised period, which must run for at least 28 days. Notification of this period will also appear on the Planning Inspectorate's project webpage, here:
[attachment 1]
The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 2]. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

T Harwood

A meeting with National Grid to view and understand their application plans and discuss the preparation and submission of their application.
Please see the meeting note attached.

National Grid

Query on how to become involved with the process for the Navitus Bay Wind Park application
This application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014. There is a period of 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept it. This decision should be made not later than Thursday 8 May 2014.
Issues related to the merits of an application, such as the location of the proposal, can only be considered during the examination of an application. If an application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two successive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of ‘relevant representations’ is also opened via the Planning Inspectorate’s website. If you are interested in the progress of this application, and if it is accepted for examination, you will need to register to become an interested party in the examination by making a relevant representation during the advertised period, which must run for at least 28 days. Notification of this period will also appear on the Planning Inspectorate's project webpage, here:
[attachment 1]
The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 2]. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

Mr Rigler

Comments in relation to Stage 2 Consultation, submitted by TravelWatch Isle of Man (TWIOM) and John Pennington.
Thank you for your letter of 24 April 2014, enclosing copies of correspondence to Celtic Array Ltd from yourself and from TravelWatch Isle of Man (TWIOM), both letters dated 23 April 2014.
I note that you continue to communicate with the applicant in relation to your concerns regarding the Stage 2 Consultation for the proposed development, especially the issues relating to the Rochdale Envelope principle used by the Celtic Array Ltd to assess the worst case scenario. I can confirm that the correspondence that you have sent us will be held on file.
As you are aware the proposal is currently at ‘pre-application’ stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) process for nationally significant infrastructure projects. The expected date of submission of the Development Consent Order application is autumn of 2014. Once submitted, the application will be assessed under s55 of PA 2008 and must be of a standard that the Secretary of State considers satisfactory to be accepted for examination. This process will include assessing the Consultation Report which should explain the applicant’s compliance with all the relevant pre-application procedures, including having regard to consultation responses under s49 of the PA 2008. Please see the link to the ‘Advice Note Fourteen: Compiling the consultation report’: [attachment 1]
Your recent and earlier correspondence will be held on file and made available to the decision maker, which is the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when considering the decision about whether or not to accept the application for examination.
An opportunity to make a relevant representation and therefore to register as an interested party and participate in the examination process will be given to all members of the public if the application for the application is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination.
As this letter constitutes advice under s51 of the Planning Act 2008, it will be published on our website.

John Pennington

Query from a Local Authority as to why they are being invited to comment on a proposal for on offshore wind farm off the Hampshire/Dorset coast.
Developers are expected to consult widely on their proposals and have regard to Government guidance as well as the views of relevant local authorities on their proposed consultation of the local community under s.47 of the Planning Act 2008. The local authorities (including District and County Councils and National Park Authorities) where an NSIP is based are known as the 'B' local authorities, while 'A' local authorities are those that share a boundary with a 'B' authority. All 'A' and 'B' authorities must be notified under Regulation 9 of the EIA Regulations 2009. Your authority has been identified as an 'A' authority and as such we have written to you to advise you that the developer intends to submit an application on 10 April 2014.
For further information on the development, please visit the Navitus Bay project page of the Planning Inspectorate's National Infrastructure Planning Portal website [attachment 1]. You may also wish to visit the developers website at [attachment 2].

Waverley District Council - Graham Parrott

Meeeting with the applicant to provide an update on the project.
Please see meeting note attached.

Karl Cradick

Request to review draft Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC)
Please find attached letter with advice issued to the applicant.

Abbas Raza on behalf of Wrexham Power Ltd

Query regarding applicant pre application consultation
We feel it would be helpful to provide some advice to you about the application acceptance process, and opportunities to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate about an application. This advice is provided under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (“PA 2008”), and as such will be published on our website.
The application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014. There is period of 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept it. This decision should be made not later than Thursday 8 May 2014.
The Secretary of State’s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination must accord with the provisions of section 55 of the PA 2008. Amongst other things, the application must be of a standard the Secretary of State considers satisfactory to proceed to examination and the applicant’s pre-application consultation should have complied with the statutory procedure.
During the 28 day acceptance period relevant local authorities have an opportunity to make representations about the adequacy of the applicant’s pre-application consultation, and any such representations received help to inform the Secretary of State’s decision about whether or not to accept an application. Under the legislation, there is no specific provision for parties other than the relevant local authorities to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate during the acceptance period.
We note that you have, in your email of 22 April 2014, submitted representations to the Inspectorate about the applicant’s pre-application consultation and these will be retained on file and will be made available to the decision maker, which is the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when considering the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the PA 2008. Any weight given to your comments will depend on the individual facts of the case.
You do not state whether you have informed the applicant about your concerns, but it is noted that you have sent a copy of your letter to the relevant local authority. Local Authorities may wish to incorporate your views into any adequacy of consultation representation they may make. Under s55 PA 2008, regard must be had to relevant local authorities’ adequacy of consultation representations, should they choose to submit them.
Issues related to the merits of an application can only be considered during the examination of an application. If an application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two successive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of ‘relevant representations’ is also opened via the Planning Inspectorate’s website. If you are interested in the progress of this application, and if it is accepted for examination, you will need to register to become an interested party in the examination by making a relevant representation during the advertised period, which must run for at least 28 days

Nicola Shaw

The Planning Inspectorate was asked whether the National Grid (North London Reinforcement Project) Order 2014, laid before Parliament, has to undergo any formal parliamentary scrutiny?
The Planning Inspectorate's response was by email.
Thank you for your email enquiry received today in regard to the recent North London Reinforcement Project decision.

This National Grid (North London Reinforcement Project) Order 2014 does not require Parliamentary scrutiny before it comes into force. Orders of this type must be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments under Section 117(6) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended).

Randall's Parliamentary Service - Bradley Rogers

Advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate to the applicant regarding the Book of Reference

Forewind Limited - Andrew Guyton

Query regarding applicant pre- application consultation and request to become an interested person
We feel it would be helpful to provide some advice to you about the application acceptance process, and opportunities to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate about an application. This advice is provided under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (“PA 2008”), and as such will be published on our website.
The application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014. There is period of 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept it. This decision should be made not later than Thursday 8 May 2014.
The Secretary of State’s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination must accord with the provisions of section 55 of the PA 2008. Amongst other things, the application must be of a standard the Secretary of State considers satisfactory to proceed to examination and the applicant’s pre-application consultation should have complied with the statutory procedure.
During the 28 day acceptance period relevant local authorities have an opportunity to make representations about the adequacy of the applicant’s pre-application consultation, and any such representations received help to inform the Secretary of State’s decision about whether or not to accept an application. Under the legislation, there is no specific provision for parties other than the relevant local authorities to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate during the acceptance period.
We note that you have, in your email of 21 April 2014, submitted representations to the Inspectorate about the applicant’s pre-application consultation and these will be retained on file and will be made available to the decision maker, which is the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when considering the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the PA 2008. Any weight given to your comments will depend on the individual facts of the case.
You do not state whether you have informed the applicant or the relevant local authority about your concerns. Local Authorities may wish to incorporate your views into any adequacy of consultation representation they may make. Under s55 PA 2008, regard must be had to relevant local authorities’ adequacy of consultation representations, should they choose to submit them. If you have not already done so, we would suggest that you contact the relevant local authority and the applicant as soon as possible to make them aware of your views.
Issues related to the merits of an application can only be considered during the examination of an application. If an application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two successive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of ‘relevant representations’ is also opened via the Planning Inspectorate’s website. If you are interested in the progress of this application, and if it is accepted for examination, you will need to register to become an interested party in the examination by making a relevant representation during the advertised period, which must run for at least 28 days.

BAHA - Andrew Woodland

Request to become an Interested Party.
Thank-you for your email dated 15 April 2014 relating to the Progress Power Station application – I have the following information for you which I trust will be of use:
An application for the Progress Power Station was received by the Planning Inspectorate on 31 March 2014. The Inspectorate now has a period of up to 28 days to consider whether or not the application meets the standards required to be formally accepted for examination. The Secretary of State’s decision on whether or not to accept an application for examination is based on a number of legal criteria, including whether or not the applicant’s consultation has been adequate, when considered against the statutory tests. The decision as to whether the said application should be accepted for examination must be made by Monday 28 April 2014.
If and when the application is formally accepted by the Secretary of State the preparations and arrangements for the examination get underway – this stage is known as the ‘Pre-examination’ stage and it is during this stage that you can register as an Interested Party with the Inspectorate by submitting a relevant representation. First, the Inspectorate notifies the applicant of the acceptance. The applicant is then required to publicise the fact that their application has been accepted and the arrangements for making representations about it.

The easiest way to register as an Interested Party and submit a relevant representation is by completing an online registration form on the National Infrastructure portal (www.planningportal. gov.uk/infrastructure), which has been designed to ensure that you do not miss any of the required sections. The form includes space for you to provide an initial written summary of what you agree and / or disagree with in the application, and this is known as a ‘representation’. Representations should relate specifically to the project and its impacts.
Here's a link to the Progress Power project page on the Planning Portal, where you can get updates on this project's progress:
[attachment 1]
I would recommend signing up to receive email updates about the project via the box on the right hand side of the page.

As you're thinking of registering as an interested party and making a representation on the application if it is accepted for examination, it's worth taking a look at our advice note on the subject:
[attachment 2]

Brian Guthrie

Query in regards to what arrangements were made to consult with residents of the Wirral concerning the Burbo Bank wind farm extension
The application was submitted on 22 March 2013 and subsequently accepted for examination on 19 April 2013. Following this, there was an opportunity for interested parties to submit relevant representations and the period for registering as an interested party closed on 24 June 2013, to view copies of these please follow the below link;
[attachment 1]
A single examining inspector was appointed as the Examining Authority (ExA) to examine the application and during a six month examination period which began on 26 September 2013, written representations and supporting material were received and made publicly available, an open floor hearing and a number of issue specific hearings were also held during the examination which came to a close on 26 March 2014.
The ExA is currently writing their report to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and as the examination is now closed, the ExA cannot take any further representations into consideration. It should however be noted, any submissions which are received, will be forwarded to DECC at the time the ExA’s recommendation report is submitted.
The Planning Inspectorate’s advice note eight - how to get involved in the planning process explains the process in further detail, including procedures that must be followed by the applicant which can be found at the following link;
[attachment 2] 8-1v4.pdf
This also sets out the consultation an applicant is required to comply with by law and in accordance with the PA 2008 (as amended) and its supporting legislation.
The applicant is also required to include as part of their application, a consultation report which shows how they consulted with the local community during the pre application stage, this can also be found at the following link;
[attachment 3]

Pete Upton

Phone call received from Mr hoodless regarding noise matters relating to the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park development
This application is currently at the Acceptance stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. A decision whether or not to accept the application for examination must be made by 8 May 2014.
As such, should the application to accepted and you wish for comments on specific points about the application to be taken into regard by the Examining Authority appointed to examine the application, it is suggested that you submit these comments as a relevant representation during the Pre-Examination stage. There will be a minimum period of 28 days to provide these comments.

Bill Hoodless

Is section 42 consultation defined and when is consultation regarded as formal / informal?
There is no detailed definition of what s.42 consultation should look like. Needless to say it’s a consultation aimed at statutory consultees and land owners. Therefore we would expect it to be technical in nature in order to facilitate the progressively detailed preparation of the application, depending on what stage the consultation has reached.
Once a developer has notified PINS under section 46 then all consultation from that point can be considered as “formal” in the sense that it is being carried out pursuant to the PA2008. Calling consultation “informal” after PINS have been notified is pointless in both PR and legal terms. Some s.42 consultation may happen iteratively and may be targeted at certain groups eg SNCB’s; from PINS’ point of view this is fine as long as the rationale for targeting certain consultee groups is justified and reasonable, and reported in the Consultation Report.

Environment Agency - Louisa McKay

Query regarding Adequacy of consultation reports
Section 55(4) of the Planning Act 2008 provides that in reaching a conclusion as to whether or not an applicant has complied with chapter 2, part 5 of Planning Act 2008 (pre-application procedure), the Secretary of State must have regard to the documents, representations and matters listed in that subsection.
There is not a prohibition against the Secretary of State having regard to representations made by persons not referred to in s55(4). Any weight given to representations made by such persons will depend on the individual facts of the case.

Navitus Bay Development Ltd - Daniel Bates

Mr Kennen queried the sending of examination correspondence to Treswigga Farm for the attention of a former owner, and provided the address details of the present owner. Mr Kennen requested for the Planning Inspectorate's 'residence database' to be updated to reflect this change in ownership, and also for examination correspondence to be sent for his attention at Treswigga Farm. He stated that he had registered his interest in the application with Cornwall Council at the pre-application stage, and did not understand why examination correspondence was not being sent to him.
Under the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008), the examination of applications for development consent must rely upon the information provided by applicant’s in relation to land interests. Applicants are required to document land interests, based on their own inquiries, in a Book of Reference (BoR) which must be submitted alongside their application. Based on the information provided in BoRs, applicants are required to provide the Planning Inspectorate with a list of persons with an interest in land to which a compulsory acquisition request relates, and also to notify those persons and other categories of persons referred to in section 57 of the PA2008 of an application which has been accepted by the Inspectorate as of a satisfactory standard to be examined.
Persons notified in the manner described above are automatically afforded status in the examination of nationally significant infrastructure projects which enables them to take part by making written and oral representations, and by attending any site inspections. In addition, the Planning Inspectorate is also required to send those persons all procedural decisions made by an Examining Authority (the Inspector or panel of Inspectors appointed to examine an application) over the course of an examination.
Mr Runnalls was described within the BoR submitted by Cornwall Council as the owner of Treswigga Farm; hence the address is receiving procedural decisions marked for his attention. In response to your statement that ownership of the farm changed in 1998, I must emphasise that it would be unlawful for the BoR to be amended by the Inspectorate at this stage of the process. Whilst correspondence must continue to be sent to Mr Runnalls at Treswigga Farm, I have forwarded your email to the Council for its consideration of the change in ownership. I would anticipate that a response will be provided to you shortly.
In response to your registration at Blisland Village Hall in 2013; this exhibition is likely to have been one of Cornwall Council’s pre-application consultation events held on 10 and 11 of January and 23 and 24 May of last year. To take part in the examination of the application, persons whom were not notified in the manner described in paragraph one and whom did not fall within any of the other categories set out in section 102(1)(a) to (e) of the PA2008 were required to register with the Planning Inspectorate to become an interested party by making a ‘relevant representation’. This period was advertised by Cornwall Council and ended on 22 November 2013.
If, as your email suggests, you are a resident of land formerly owned by Mr Runnalls which would be subject to powers of compulsory acquisition were development granted and the Order made in its present form, and you were not notified of the accepted application, the ability for you to become an interested party has not elapsed. You may make an application to the Examining Authority to become an interested party using the form available at the following link: [attachment 1]
If in the meantime you wish to keep up to date with the progress of the examination, all of the documents attributed to it have been published to the project webpage on the Planning Portal, here: [attachment 2]

Phil Kennen

Query regarding developer's consultation
The application was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 10 April 2014. There is period of 28 days from 10 April to decide whether or not to accept it. This decision should be made not later than Thursday 8 May 2014.
The Secretary of State’s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination must accord with the provisions of section 55 of the PA 2008. Amongst other things, the application must be of a standard the Secretary of State considers satisfactory to proceed to examination and the applicant’s pre-application consultation should have complied with the statutory procedure.
During the 28 day acceptance period relevant local authorities have an opportunity to make representations about the adequacy of the applicant’s pre-application consultation, and any such representations received help to inform the Secretary of State’s decision about whether or not to accept an application. Under the legislation, there is no specific provision for parties other than the relevant local authorities to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate during the acceptance period.
We note that you have, in your email of 14 April 2014, submitted representations to the Inspectorate about the applicant’s pre-application consultation and these will be retained on file and will be made available to the decision maker, which is the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when considering the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section 55 of the PA 2008. Any weight given to your comments will depend on the individual facts of the case.
You do not state whether you have informed the applicant or the relevant local authority about your concerns. Local Authorities may wish to incorporate your views into any adequacy of consultation representation they may make. Under s55 PA 2008, regard must be had to relevant local authorities’ adequacy of consultation representations, should they choose to submit them. If you have not already done so, we would suggest that you contact the relevant local authority and the applicant as soon as possible to make them aware of your views.
Issues related to the merits of an application can only be considered during the examination of an application. If an application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two successive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of ‘relevant representations’ is also opened via the Planning Inspectorate’s website. If you are interested in the progress of this application, and if it is accepted for examination, we would strongly encourage you to register to become an interested party in the examination by making a relevant representation during the advertised period, which must run for at least 28 days.
Becoming an interested party will enable you to participate in the examination and submit written representations to the Examining authority in due course. It will also allow you to participate in certain hearings should they be held. The Planning Inspectorate has produced the Advice Note Eight series which explains the process under the PA 2008, and how you can become involved. It can be viewed at: [attachment 1]

John Lambon

Section 51 advice following issue of acceptance decision
Please see document attached.

Hirwaun Power Station Hirwaun Power Limited

I was unable to register by Friday due to being away from my computer but would very much like to register Ogmore Angling Association’s opposition to the construction of the Swansea Bay Tidal lagoon in its proposed location.
Thank you for your email in respect of your wish to register Ogmore Angling Association to become an ‘interested party’ to the above project.
Following the close of the registration period on 11 April 2014 at 11:59 pm, we at the Planning Inspectorate are no longer able to register persons as ‘interested parties’ for the purpose of this application. The fact that you have been unable to register your interest in time is not in any way meant to suggest that you are not interested in this application. We are not able to extend the deadline and have no statutory powers that would enable us to do so.
However, we will keep your request on file and make your name available to the Examining Authority who, when appointed, would be able to exercise discretion to consider views and evidence from those who did not register a relevant representation on time. However, this does not mean that you would be regarded as an ‘interested party’ for the purposes of the examination.
Please note this response constitutes s51 advice and will be published on the project page for Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay; please see the attached link: [attachment 1]
If you have any other queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Ogmore Angling Association - Colin Chapman

The Planning Inspectorate received a query by letter from the Applicant. This letter can be found under the documents tab of the South Hook CHP project on the planning portal, entitled 'Additional submission from QPI Global Ventures Ltd relating to section 106 agreements' published 16 April 2014.
Please see the attached letter from The Planning Inspectorate to the Applicant to read the advice given

South Hook CHP - Lyn Powell

Natural England asked for clarification of the Examining Authority's Second Question No. EO18 e which asked: "What possible contingent or other mitigation or compensation measures would Natural England think necessary to ensure an appropriate degree of confidence in outcomes?"
The Examining Authority was asked if this question related to the possibility to apply conditions, or put in place mitigation or compensation provisions in order to provide confidence that there will not be an adverse impact on the integrity of European Sites?
The Examining Authority has confirmed that options you described are not exclusive alternatives and so both can be considered.

Natural England - Jamie McPherson

Email to Sir Michael Pitt, Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate, asking for his opinion on the continuing discussions between CPRE Norfolk and Norfolk County Council regarding the 'investigation into failings by Norfolk County Council during NDR Consultation'.
Letter attached

CPRE Norfolk - Katy Jones

Mr Eady requested to be allowed to register an an interested party. As the deadline for submitting relevant representations had expired, he was informed that this was not possible. He asked for elaboration on why he could not be registered.
Thank you for your email received Wednesday 9 April 2014 in respect of your wish to register to become an ‘interested party’ in regards to the Norwich Northern Distributor Road (‘NDR’) application.
Registering persons who wish to become ‘interested parties’ in relation to the examination of nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) is set out by legislation, namely the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA 2008) and associated regulations. As such, the regulations for registration have to be followed as required by law and it is not a matter that can just be processed by the Planning Inspectorate through the receipt of an email or telephone request to that effect.
In compliance with the PA 2008, a registration period for becoming an ‘interested party’ for this application ran from 14 February 2014 until the 23 March 2014 (a period of at least 28 days as set by the applicant). The registration period would have been advertised by the applicant at the proposed site for the project and through a range of media. The Planning Inspectorate also provided notification of the registration deadline of 23 March 2014 on the relevant project page of the National Infrastructure portal. To have become an ‘interested party’, a representation should have been submitted on a fully completed Planning Inspectorate Registration and Relevant Representation form and received by the Planning Inspectorate within the registration period. This form was available at the Norwich NDR project page of the National Infrastructure portal during the registration period and a postal version of the form was also obtainable on request. The form included sections for your personal information, your representation about the application and several questions relating to how you would have intended to participate in the examination.
The term ‘interested party’ in relation to this process has a legally defined status. As the Department for Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) document ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent’, explains, the statutory definition of an ‘interested party’ is significant because:
“[…] interested parties are given important entitlements before, during and after the examination process. These include the right to be invited to a preliminary meeting; the right to require, and be heard at, an open-floor hearing; the right to be heard at an issue-specific hearing, if one is held; the right to be notified of when the Examining Authority has completed its examination; and the right to be notified of the reasons for the decision. [Paragraph 16]”
DCLG guidance further adds:
“A “relevant representation” is defined in section 102(4) of the Planning Act. A representation will only be “relevant” if it is in accordance with regulation 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2010, and is received by the Secretary of State by the deadline specified in the application acceptance notice given by the applicant. A representation is not relevant to the extent (but only to the extent) that it contains material about compensation for compulsory acquisition of land or an interest in or right over land; material about the merits of policy set out in a national policy statement; or material that is vexatious or frivolous. [Paragraph 21]”
Following the close of the registration period, we are no longer able to register persons as ‘interested parties’ for the purposes of this application. The fact that you have been unable to register your interest in time is not in any way meant to suggest that you are not interested in this application. We are not able to extend the deadline and have no statutory powers that would enable us to do so.
However, we will keep your request on file and make your name available to the Examining Authority who is able to exercise discretion to consider views and evidence from those who did not register a relevant representation on time. However, this does not mean that you would be regarded as an ‘interested party’ for the purposes of the examination.
The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes that are intended to inform developers, consultees, the public and others about a range of process matters in relation to the PA 2008 process. In relation to your enquiry, you may find Advice Note 8.3 ‘How to register and become an interested party for an application’, of interest:
[attachment 1]
Moreover, DCLG’s guidance is also available on the National Infrastructure pages of the planning portal website:
[attachment 2]
If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

John Eady

Teleconference to discuss draft documents submitted in March 2014 and general project update
Please see attached meeting note

National Grid Carbon Ltd

Drayton Parish Council submitted a section 102A request to become an interested party.
Letter attached

Drayton Parish Council - John Gotts

Query regarding final date and time to register as an Interested Party
advised that registration closes at 11:59pm on Friday 11 April 2014

Public Health wales - Daniel Rixon

The applicant requested comments from the Planning Inspectorate on the draft documents submitted in March 2014, including their draft sample Land Plans and the draft preamble to the Book of Reference
Please see the attached document for the Planning Inspectorate's comments on the draft documents

National Grid - Richard Gwilliam

Query relating to where to view the application documents
When the application has been submitted the application documents will be published on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal, however until this time the developers website is the best place to go to get information on the Navitus Bay project.

John Riddington

Query relating to adequacy of consultation
The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, makes the decision about whether or not to accept an application for examination. So far as we are aware, the application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate today, 10 April 2014.
Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 relates to acceptance of applications for examination . Section 55(4) of the Planning Act 2008 provides that in making its decision about whether or not to accept an application the Secretary of State must have regard to (amongst other things) any adequacy of consultation representation received from a prescribed local authority consultee. For this reason, once an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, we invite the host and neighbouring local authorities to submit a representation about whether the applicant has complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008
We note that you have submitted representations to the Inspectorate about the developer’s pre-application consultation and these will be retained on file and will be made available to the decision maker, which is the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when considering the decision about whether or not to accept the application under section55 of the Planning Act 2008. .
You do not state whether you have informed the developer or the relevant local authority about your concerns. Local Authorities may wish to incorporate your view into their adequacy of consultation representation. As outlined above, the local authorities’ views on the adequacy of consultation, should they choose to submit them, form a part of the section 55 assessment. If you have not already done so, we would suggest that you contact the relevant local authority and the developer as soon as possible to make them aware of your views.
Issues related to the merits of the application can only be considered during the examination of an application. If the application is accepted for examination, the Planning Act 2008 provides an opportunity for individuals, organisations and to submit a 'relevant representation' and to register as ‘interested parties’. Developers are required to advertise the acceptance of an application and the period within which a relevant representation must be made - this period must be at least 28 days. Relevant representation forms must be completed online or in paper copy and at the relevant time the forms will be available on the Planning Portal’s Navitus Bay Wind Park project webpage: [attachment 1]
Relevant representations should indicate whether an individual, organisation or group supports or opposes a scheme and highlight any issues that they may wish to make further detailed representations on later in the examination process. All relevant representations will be made available to the appointed Examining Authority in conjunction with the application documents and may influence the Examining Authority’s initial assessment of the principal issues for examination.

Peter Fenning

Email from Selby District Council regarding their status as an Interested Party 'IP'.
The Planning Inspectorate provided the following advice:
Please note that the Examining Authority is aware that Selby District Council (SDC) did not submit a relevant representation, however, as per section 43 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended), as a lower tier district council SDC is classified as a local authority ‘B’ for the project. Moreover, a ‘B’ local authority is the authority in whose area the land for proposed development is situated.
As a ‘B’ local authority you are therefore automatically an Interested Party ‘IP’ for the above application as per section 102(1)(c) of the 2008 Act. Please note that as an IP you can participate in the examination of this application through submitting documents and representations within deadlines specified in the examination timetable, including the Local Impact Report and Statements of Common Ground. Please note that you are also invited to attend and participate in examination events including site visits and hearings.

Louise Milnes

Submission regarding adequacy of consultation
The Planning Inspectorate is expecting the Development Consent Order application to be submitted tomorrow - 10 April 2014.
You have written to us to express concerns about the developer’s pre-application consultation for this project.
It is noted that you have submitted the attached reports to relevant local authority representatives for possible inclusion in their adequacy of consultation reports, and it is noted that the reports have also been sent to Navitus Bay Development Limited (NBDL).
The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, makes the decision about whether or not to accept an application for examination. The Secretary of State has 28 days from the date of submission to decide whether the application meets the required standards to proceed to examination. This will include an assessment of whether the applicant has complied with all the relevant pre-application procedures including having regard to consultation responses.
The requirements that must be satisfied in order for an application to be accepted for examination are set out in s55 of the PA 2008. s55(4) of the PA 2008 states that in making its decision about whether or not to accept an application the Secretary of State must have regard to (amongst other things) any adequacy of consultation representation received from a local authority consultee. For this reason, once an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, we invite the host and neighbouring local authorities to submit a representation about whether the applicant has complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA 2008. Under the legislation there is no provision for parties other than the relevant local authorities to make adequacy of consultation representations to the Planning Inspectorate. As you have sent your reports to the local authorities they may wish to incorporate your view into their adequacy of consultation representation, once an application is submitted to us.
As you have submitted representations directly to the Planning Inspectorate about the developer’s pre-application consultation, these will be retained on file. The concerns detailed in your correspondence will be made available to the decision maker which is the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when considering the decision about whether or not to accept the application under s55 of the PA 2008. It will be for the Secretary of State to decide the weight to give the views expressed in your correspondence based on the individual facts of the case.
Issues related to the merits of the application can only be considered during the examination of an application. If the application is accepted for examination, the PA 2008 provides an opportunity for individuals, organisations and groups to register as ‘interested parties’ and to submit a 'relevant representation'. Developers are required to advertise the acceptance of an application and the period within which a relevant representation must be made - this period must be at least 28 days. Relevant representation forms must be completed online or in paper copy and at the relevant time the forms will be available on the Planning Portal’s Navitus Bay Wind Park project
Relevant representations should indicate whether an individual, organisation or group supports or opposes a scheme and highlight any issues that they may wish to make further detailed representations on later in the examination process. All relevant representations will be read by the appointed Examining Authority in conjunction with the application documents and may influence the Examining Authority’s initial assessment of the principal issues for examination.

Challenge Navitus - Andrew Langley

Query about the accompanied site visit
Thank you for your telephone call today querying if the accompanied site visit notified to you in our letter dated 7 April includes a visit to your land, and your query if the proposal is on your land.
As advised please contact the developer to confirm if the proposal is on your land.
As confirmed the site visit will only visit the plots listed in the letter. If you are not sure of your plot number you can check against the plans published on our website.
Please find a link to the relevant pages for the Willington C Gas Pipeline proposal of the planning inspectorate website.
[attachment 1]
If you have any furtehr queries do not hesitate to contact the willington team using the email address:
willington@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk.

K Howell

Tidal Lagoon Power Ltd to provide information on ambitions for future tidal lagoons and programme for delivery. This programme to be related to that of Tidal Lagoon Swanse Bay's forthcoming examination, recommendation and decision stages. Discussion as to where there could be procedural efficiencies.
See attached Meeting Note

Tidal Lagoon Power Ltd Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay plc

Query from the applicant regarding suitability of deposit locations for the application documents, and the format in which application documents should be provided to these deposit locations.
Thank you for your email regarding deposit locations. We have sought to provide advice to the queries in your email in two parts:
(a) Are you able to advise whether the locations as listed in the SoCC are suitable for deposit copies of the DCO submission to be placed:
Firstly, please note that it is for the applicant to use its own judgement when considering the suitability of deposit locations.
Secondly, applicants are advised that where the proposed development consists a linear scheme, it is helpful to consider more deposit locations to make the application documents available for public inspection. When identifying the suitability of the venue, you may wish to consider its population density and location. In general, documents should be made available to the public in a way that is reasonably convenient for people living in the vicinity of the land where the development is proposed, perhaps you may therefore wish to consider having your deposit locations in the vicinity of the land near the main elements of the project. It should be noted that when choosing deposit locations the following should be considered:
• availability of free internet access;
• availability of printing and photocopying facilities and details of charges. In the case where these facilities are not provided within the venue, details of where and when documents may be printed/copied.
Please also note that venues should also be easily accessible to all users.
(b) Is PINS happy for CD copies of the DCO submission to be sent to these locations? (some of the libraries and centres are quite small and may struggle to accommodate the DCO in totality)
The applicant will need to send its application documents to deposit locations no sooner than once the application has been accepted for examination. Section 56 of the Act requires the applicant to publish a notice of the accepted application in the relevant newspapers and at intervals of not more than 5 kilometres along the route, as per Regulations 9 (1), 4 (2) and 9(3) of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2010. The same Reg 9(4) of these Regulations states that the notice must include a ‘statement that a copy of the application form and its accompanying documents, plans and maps are available for inspection free of charge at the places (including at least one address in the vicinity of the proposed development) and times set out in the notice.’ The Regulations therefore do not explicitly state whether the applicant must make their application documents available for inspection in the hard or electronic form.

It would be helpful if locations chosen can support free internet access, have printing facilities and that staff at the locations are able to assist the public. If the application is accepted, this would then enable examination documents to also be made available by the Planning Inspectorate at the same electronic deposit locations.
It should be noted however, that it is good practice for the applicant to provide some hard copies of the application documents at deposit locations to ensure that all members of the community have fair access to the information. It is therefore recommended that the applicant chooses, for example, four main deposit locations where hard copies can still be stored and made available to the public for inspection. As above, this is for the applicant to make its judgement based on the knowledge of its project and the area within which the proposed development is sited.

I hope this is useful however please do get in touch should you have any further queries.

WYG - Liz Wells

Responses to enquiry raised by the applicant at the meeting with the Plannining Inspectorate on 19 February 2013 regarding:
- Carbon Capture Readiness (CCR) and the "Appropriate Authority"
- The Benefit to an Order Article in a Development Consent Order (DCO) and how this works
- Extending the life of a DCO
The Planning Inspectorate provided following advice:
Carbon Capture Readiness (CCR) and the "Appropriate Authority"
In the meeting on 19 February 2014, you mentioned that the proposed site of the Seabank 3 CCGT may incorporate an area, set aside for, the potential future installation of carbon capture technology.
The full details of the requirements in relation to CCR are set out in in the ‘Guidance on Carbon Capture Readiness (CCR) and Applications under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989’, DECC, November 2009. (See also the review of that guidance as to required footprint for some types of plant https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/43615/CCR_guidance_-_Imperial_College_review.pdf).
Currently the Carbon Capture Readiness (Electricity Generating Stations) Regulations 2013 (the 2013 Regulations)(in force from: 25.11.2013) relate to Development Consent Orders (DCO) under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) and to consents under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the construction of combustion plants with a rated electrical output of 300 megawatts or more.
Before making such an order (regulation 3) or granting such a consent (regulation 5) the Secretary of State must determine whether certain conditions are met relating to the feasibility of carbon capture and storage. If the conditions are met, the order or consent must include requirements or conditions for suitable space to be set aside for equipment necessary to capture and compress all the carbon dioxide that would otherwise be emitted from the plant.
The "Appropriate Authority" as defined in the 2013 regulations refers to the Secretary of State for the purposes of determining carbon capture readiness and conditions to be imposed under s. 36 consents. For DCO's the Secretary of State is also the relevant authority under reg. 5 - he "must not make a relevant consent order" (DCO) unless the "CCR conditions are met". These are met if "in respect of all of its expected emissions of CO2 "
(a) suitable storage sites are available;
(b) it is technically and economically feasible to retrofit the plant with the equipment necessary to capture that CO2; and
(c) it is technically and economically feasible to transport such captured CO2 to the storage sites referred to in sub-paragraph (a).
Additionally, the determination must be made on the basis of (a) a CCR assessment of the combustion plant prepared by the person who made the application for the relevant consent order; and (b) any other available information, particularly concerning the protection of the environment and human health (Reg 3 (2)).
Similar principles are applied to the Secretary of State's determination whether to grant a s. 36 consent (Reg 5).
The Examining Authority will have regard to advice from the Environment Agency as to whether the applicant has demonstrated they propose to retain sufficient space to accommodate the CC equipment and that it is technically feasible to retrofit the CC technology selected.
The Benefit to an Order Article in a DCO and how this works
Section 156(1) of the Planning Act 2008 sets out the general position - if an order granting development consent is made in respect of any land the order has effect for the benefit of the land and all persons for the time being interested in the land. Where Articles 4 and 5 of the Model Provisions are used, or a variant thereof, this overrides s. 156 (1) (see s. 156 (2) "Subsection (1) is subject to…any contrary provision made in the order.")
A DCO will usually therefore contain articles dealing with the benefit and transfer of the benefit of the order. Generally it would follow article 4 of Schedule 1 to the DCO Model Provisions and thus grant only the applicant the benefit of the Order (who would be identified as the beneficiary of the Order).
Transfer of the benefit of the Order may be based on article 5 of Schedule 1. Provision may be made for delivery of various aspects of the authorised project by an infrastructure provider (as for example in the case of Thames Tideway Tunnel, an infrastructure provider under s. 36D Water Industry Act 1991). The article might therefore allow for the transfer of powers (with the exception of compulsory acquisition) to the infrastructure provider to facilitate delivery. It may also allow for transfer of powers to other bodies with the consent of the Secretary of State.
Advice on process was given in reply to a query about Willington C Gas Pipeline on 26.10.2011. The following principles can be extrapolated for this:
- Post-decision granting of consent to transfer of benefit of an order is a matter for the DCO decision maker, ie the Secretary of State
- There is no formal procedure for obtaining the consent of the SoS to the transfer of the benefit of the order or any of its provisions once an order has been granted.
- Developers with the benefit of a DCO that provides for a transfer will need to write a letter to the relevant department requesting consent. The department will then consider this as appropriate and write back accordingly.
- Applicants who do not themselves intend to develop a project, or who anticipate selling their interest on, should make this clear during the examination process (or ideally earlier).
- One of the ancillary matters listed in schedule 5 PA 2008 refers to the transfer of property, rights, liabilities or functions. Applicants should therefore give some indication in their application on what are their ultimate plans.
Extending the life of a DCO
In the event that an undertaker is not able to avail itself of the provisions for a non-material change to the DCO it would have to seek to make a change to the Order under paragraph 2 (2) of Schedule 6.
However, the procedure for making material changes to orders should only be used where the proposed change is one that could not have been foreseen at the time of the original application (to prevent an application being made in stages). Further compensation may be payable where a person with an interest in the land has incurred expenditure in carrying out works rendered abortive by the change or has incurred loss attributable to the change. Therefore a material change to the DCO may be costly in terms of the procedure to be undertaken, information to be provided and any potential claim for compensation.
The process is closely modelled on the procedure for the original application: the applicant is required to carry out a pre-application process comparable to that required for the original application, notify the Secretary of State and publicise it in the same way in which the original application was publicised. Only new information relating to the change applied for needs to be provided with the application. Once the application is submitted, the applicant must notify those persons consulted at the pre-application stage and publicise the application. The format for notification and publicity broadly follows that for the pre-application stage and the Secretary of State must follow substantially the same examination procedure as previously.
There is a certain lack of flexibility in the current procedure and a discussion document
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reviewing-the-nationally-significant-infrastructure-planning-regime-a-discussion-document
has been published that includes a proposal to split the current material changes definition into two categories: minor material change and significant material change. A more proportionate change procedure could then be used for minor changes - for example, more limited consultation and publicity and discretion about whether to ask for further representations or hold a hearing (see p19). Conceivably this might be appropriate for such matters as an extension to the life of the order. Responses to the consultation are currently being considered.
If the Secretary of State considered it necessary at the time development consent is granted, to provide for an extension of the DCO in order to give full effect to the order then he would appear to have powers to include such a provision in the original order. S154 (1) (b) PA would have the effect of allowing a longer period than that prescribed (5 years) provided that this is "specified in the order granting the consent".
Before development begins the default position is that (s154(1) "Development for which development consent is granted must be begun before the end of— (a) the prescribed period, or (b) such other period (whether longer or shorter than that prescribed) as is specified in the order granting the consent." By s154 (2) if the development is not begun before the end of the prescribed period the DCO ceases to have effect at the end of that period.
Compulsory purchase: by s. 154 (3) where a DCO authorises the compulsory acquisition of land, steps of a prescribed description must be taken in relation to the compulsory acquisition before the end of— (a) the prescribed period, or (b) such other period (whether longer or shorter than that prescribed) as is specified in the order. By s154 (4) if such prescribed steps are not taken before the end of the period applicable under subsection (3), the authority to compulsorily acquire the land under the order ceases to have effect.
The prescribed period is defined by Regulation 3 of Infrastructure Planning (Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2010: development for which development consent is granted must be begun before the end of a period of five years beginning on the date on which the order granting development consent is made. In relation to the compulsory acquisition of land, and a notice to treat is served, that notice must be served before the end of 5 years starting with the date the DCO is made.
I am not aware of an applicant requesting an extension of the life of a DCO between the date it was granted and the date by which it had to be implemented. As noted above the legislation effectively requires that provision is made within the order itself when it is granted. Although changes to a DCO may be made under Schedule 6 to the PA 2008 if the Secretary of State "is satisfied that the change is not material" - it would not be prudent to rely on this provision as an extension might well be regarded as a materially significant change.
In the event that an undertaker is not able to avail itself of the provisions for a non-material change to the DCO it would have to seek to make a change to the Order under paragraph 2 (2) of Schedule 6. However the procedure for making material changes to orders should only be used where the proposed change is one that could not have been foreseen at the time of the original application (to prevent an application being made in stages). Further compensation may be payable where a person with an interest in the land has incurred expenditure in carrying out works rendered abortive by the change or has incurred loss attributable to the change. Therefore a material change to the DCO may be costly in terms of the procedure to be undertaken, information to be provided and any potential claim for compensation.
The process is closely modelled on the procedure for the original application: the applicant is required to carry out a pre-application process comparable to that required for the original application, notify the Secretary of State and publicise it in the same way in which the original application was publicised. Only new information relating to the change applied for needs to be provided with the application.
Once the application is submitted, the applicant must notify those persons consulted at the pre-application stage and publicise the application. The format for notification and publicity broadly follows that for the pre-application stage and the Secretary of State must follow substantially the same examination procedure as previously.

URS - Bill Gregory

The Planning Inspectorate recieved a copy of the advertisement that was placed in the Isle of Man Courier by the Developer regarding the Public Consultation. The concern related to the size of the font in the Public Notice.
Thank you for your letter of 31 March 2014, enclosing a copy of the Public Notice in relation to the Public Consultation on the Rhiannon Offshore Windfarm project. We note your concerns regarding size of font used in the public notice printed in the Isle of Man Courier.
The proposal for the Rhiannon Offshore Windfarm is currently at the ‘pre-application’ stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) process for nationally significant infrastructure projects. The Planning Inspectorate’s role at the pre-application stage is to provide advice about the process of making an application, or the process of making a representation about an application. All advice that we give is recorded via an advice log, in line with s51 of the PA 2008. This log is published on our website.
Whilst we are happy to be copied in on any comments you make to the applicant, we are unable to provide comment. This ensures the impartiality of the Planning Inspectorate and protects the interests of all parties involved in the application process. We therefore suggest that you communicate with the applicant at this stage.
During the pre-application stage, there is a duty on the developer to undertake consultation with people living in the vicinity of the proposed project, and to have regard to responses to that consultation. This information is reflected in the notice. We have contacted the developer to make them aware that we have received comments on the size of font used in the notice and have forwarded them a copy of the attachment to your letter. The developer has requested an opportunity to respond to your letter. Should you wish us to forward your letter, please can you confirm that you are happy for the developer to have your details either by phone or by post, using the contact details at the top of this letter.
The Planning Inspectorate is expecting the Development Consent Order application to be submitted in autumn of 2014. If the application is accepted for examination, there will be an opportunity to register as an interested party and participate in the examination process.

Jane Tatchell

Correspondence relating to acceptance
Letter attached

Steve Brine

Ms. Sheldon requested to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party.
The proposal by Navitus Bay Development Ltd for the Navitus Bay Wind Park is currently at the 'pre-application' stage of the process for making decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) regime.
The opportunity for persons to register to become an 'interested party' will not arise until any formal application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and accepted to proceed to be examined. If the application is accepted to be examined, the developer will be required to advertise in local and national press the period within which anybody will be able to make a 'relevant representation' and register to become an interested party. Notification of this period will also appear on the Planning Inspectorate's project webpage, here: [attachment 1].
Based on current information, Navitus Bay Development Ltd anticipate submitting this application shortly. Until such time as the application is accepted to proceed to be examined by the Inspectorate, any views about the proposal should be directed to the developer (email: info@navitusbay.com tel. 01926671592).
The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following address: [attachment 2]. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

Tracy Sheldon

Query regarding local authority status and adequacy of consultation submissions by a party other than the local authority.
Your Status is as an A authority, because the project is not based in your authority. Local authorities where an NSIP is based are known as the 'B' local authorities, while 'A' local authorities are those that share a boundary with a 'B' authority.
Any local resident or local resident group, who have a view or complaint about the adequacy of a developer consultation will be advised that they may wish to notify the Local Authority of their views or complaint. The CLG Guidance states that Local Authorities can consider the complaint as part of their representation to the Secretary of State, it would therefore be helpful if your submission includes the Local Authority’s consideration/view on any submissions of this type that you have received. You may also wish to attach their comments to your adequacy of consultation representation.
I attach the relevant guidance for information.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49468/Planning_Act_2008_pre-applications.pdf

Poole Borough Council - Rebecca Landman

What is an EIA Scoping Request?
A Scoping Request is a document and process whereby the applicant asks us (acting on behalf of the Secretary of State (SoS)) for our view on the matters and topics which they intend to include in their Environmental Statement. For example, they may wish to “scope out” certain topics which they consider are not relevant to the context and location of the project. Perhaps there are topics which are more suited to an urban environment or features which aren’t present in the area such as disused mines and such like. In any event, we provide them with an opinion on their suggested range of topics after consulting with other statutory bodies. If we get a scoping request we’ll publish it along with our Scoping Opinion and any responses we receive from the statutory bodies.

Joan Girling

Seeking clarification to one of the questions posed within the ExA's second round of written questions. The relevant question is EO 18(c) which is as follows: “What further work on the derivation of appropriate behavioural factors for specified species would be necessary?”
Further to your query below we can confirm that questions EO 18(b), (c), (d) and (e) apply specifically to Band Model 4. Question EO22 seeks comparison of Band Model 1 and Band Model 4 in various respects.
The Examining Authority does not think it is appropriate to give any further guidance on this as the questions are precise.

Natural England - Jamie McPherson

Meeting with Local Authorities
See attached meeting note

City & County of Swansea Council Neath Port Talbot CBC

I have been asked to check whether the Highways Agency still need consent under Land Drainage Act Section 23 from the Councils Flood Team for all the culverts on the A14 bypass/improvements or whether the DCO order will supersede any requirement for it.
Item 32 in the schedule to the Miscellanous Prescribed Provisions Regulations 2010 identifies s23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 as being a consent which may be included in a DCO as a deemed consent, with the agreement of the consenting authority.
As such you should seek the Environment Agency's advice on their approach to s23 of the LD Act in the context of the draft A14 DCO.

Cambridgeshire County Council - Richard Pitt

Query regarding a submission after the close of examination
Submissions received after an examination has closed (during the recommendation stage) are not made available to the Examining authority and will not be taken into account within an Examining authority's report to the Secretary of State. The Planning Inspectorate will, however, hold your letter until the end of the recommendation stage and then send it separately to the relevant Secretary of State, immediately following the submission of the Examining authority's recommendation report. It is then for the Secretary of State to decide whether or not to take your letter, and any further representations you may wish to make on this matter, into consideration

DONG Energy - Ferdinando Giammichele

Query regarding receipt of letter by local authority
Developers are expected to consult widely on their proposals and have regard to Government guidance as well as the views of relevant local authorities on their proposed consultation of the local community under s.47 of the Planning Act 2008. The local authorities (including District and County Councils and National Park Authorities) where an NSIP is based are known as the 'B' local authorities, while 'A' local authorities are those that share a boundary with a 'B' authority. All 'A' and 'B' authorities must be notified under Regulation 9 of the EIA Regulations 2009. Your authority has been identified as an 'A' authority and as such we have written to you to advise you that the developer intends to submit an application on 10 April 2014.
For further information on the development, please visit the Navitus Bay project page of the Planning Inspectorate's National Infrastructure Planning Portal website [attachment 1]. You may also wish to visit the developers website at [attachment 2].

Somerset County Council - Paul Browning

Query regarding receipt of letter by local authority
Developers are expected to consult widely on their proposals and have regard to Government guidance as well as the views of relevant local authorities on their proposed consultation of the local community under s.47 of the Planning Act 2008. The local authorities (including District and County Councils and National Park Authorities) where an NSIP is based are known as the 'B' local authorities, while 'A' local authorities are those that share a boundary with a 'B' authority. All 'A' and 'B' authorities must be notified under Regulation 9 of the EIA Regulations 2009. Your authority has been identified as an 'A' authority and as such we have written to you to advise you that the developer intends to submit an application on 10 April 2014.
For further information on the development, please visit the Navitus Bay project page of the Planning Inspectorate's National Infrastructure Planning Portal website [attachment 1] . You may also wish to visit the developers website at [attachment 2] .

Chichester District Council - anon.

As per your website, [attachment 1];ipcadvice=3b390885c4 the developer for the proposed development is currently in consultation with the local community,
however after poor publicity of these events, further exhibitions 'are planned' and will be
advertised in due course, these are yet to be announced.
In the meantime we are able to view their (developers) plans/proposals via the following website,
with the ability to email the developers in relation queries / questions, however as a local resident
with questions and concerns relating to their proposal, I have sent 5 emails over as many weeks,
I have only received 1 response, despite chasing them on numerous occasions.
[attachment 2]
Can you advise me whom i should forward my concerns too, if the developer continues to not
respond ?
I look forward to hearing from you
Before submitting an application, the developer is required to carry out extensive consultation on their proposals. This involves providing information about the proposal to various statutory and non-statutory bodies and the wider community, responding to questions, listening to suggestions, and taking these into account to influence and inform the application ultimately submitted to the Inspectorate. This does not mean that the developer has to accept or agree with every comment or suggestion made but they must give them proper consideration.
Before formally consulting people in the vicinity of the project, the developer must prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), having first consulted relevant local authorities about what it should contain. The purpose of the SoCC is to provide details on the consultation process, which the developer intends to undertake with the local community about their project. The developer is then required to carry out their consultation with the local community as set out in the SoCC.
Where any person feels that an applicant's pre-application consultation was inadequately carried out, they should seek resolution by approaching the applicant in the first instance. If following this action you remain unsatisfied with the consultation carried out, you may also wish to raise this with the relevant local authority.
Subsequently, when an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate following the pre-application stage, there is a 28 day period during which a decision is taken on whether to accept the application for examination. One of the factors to be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at this stage is whether or not the developer’s consultation process has been adequate, and we will invite relevant local authorities to provide us with their comments on the adequacy of the applicant’s consultation. In providing their representation on this matter, the local authority may decide to take into account any comments received from the public on this issue. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to the local authority’s response on the adequacy of consultation in making its decision on whether to accept an application to proceed to be examined.

If the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with the Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Where a person believes they have identified an issue which has not been adequately addressed by the applicant, despite raising it with them as part of their pre-application consultation, they may wish to include this as part of their representation. Relevant representations are used by the Examining Authority to help identify the initial principal issues for examination.
Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer in local newspapers and on site notices. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
You may also find the following guidance and advice note helpful:

Guidance on the Pre-Application Process (The Planning Act 2008):
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49468/Planning_Act_2008_pre-applications.pdf

Advice note sixteen: The developer’s pre-application consultation, publicity and notification duties:
[attachment 3]

Please contact me on the details below if you have any further queries.

Emma Clowes

Questions regarding the Planning Process and Adequacy of Consultation queries
The decision maker about whether or not to accept an application for examination is The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
Any weight given to comments submitted by parties other than local authorities will depend on the individual facts of the case. Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 explains what the decision maker must have regard to when deciding whether an application can be accepted. Comments sent to the Planning Inspectorate by Poole & Christchurch Bays Association are currently being kept on file and will be made available to the decision maker. Any comments which are made available to the Planning Inspectorate, who is the decision maker on behalf of the Secretary of State, are therefore also before the Secretary of State. Parties are of course able to make further representations, by sending them to enquiries@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk at the Planning Inspectorate, if they so wish.
Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 provides that, in making a decision on whether to accept an application, the decision maker must have regard to, amongst other specified matters, any adequacy of consultation representation submitted by a prescribed local authority. Because the legislation is clear on this point, the CLG Guidance Planning Act 2008: guidance on the pre-application process https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-the-pre-application-process-for-major-infrastructure-projects> advises that where other parties wish to comment on the adequacy, they should in the first instance inform the applicant of their views (to allow the applicant time to consider those views) and they can also submit the comments to the relevant local authorities. In making comments to the local authorities before an application is submitted, local authorities will have the opportunity to include any comments (if they so wish) in any adequacy of consultation representation they may make.
If the comments from other parties are provided to the local authority before the application is submitted, they may have more time to consider if they wish to include these points in any representation they make.
The procedure to challenge decisions, in relation to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, made under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) is to make an application to the High Court for judicial review under section 118 of the Planning Act 2008. A judicial review application can be made by any party and not solely the applicant. We are not able to provide parties with legal advice on which they may rely. They should seek their own independent legal advice on the extent of permitted challenges, if required.
Once an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, we invite the host and neighbouring local authorities to submit an adequacy of consultation representation. The definition in the legislation of an adequacy of consultation representation is a ‘representation about whether the applicant has complied, in relation to that proposed application, with the applicant’s duties under sections 42, 47, and 48’. of the Planning Act 2008. The CLG Guidance: Planning Act 2008: guidance on the pre-application process (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-the-pre-application-process-for-major-infrastructure-projects>) states that ‘Any representation must be limited to how the applicant has carried out the consultation’.

Poole & Christchurch Bays Assoc - Roy Pointer

Regarding the definition of a generating station under section 15 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). If a project has a total capacity of 65 MW but was only technically capable of exporting 45MW, would that qualify as an NSIP?
An applicant would need to take a view, and is encouraged to seek its own legal advice, on the definition of capacity in relation to the specifics of a project. As part of this you may wish to consider how permanent any technical limitations to exporting more than 45MW are / whether limitations could theoretically be overcome at a future point to raise the export capacity above 50MW. The Planning Inspectorate would be happy to review a more detailed consideration and provide future advice under section 51 of the Act.
Please note that under s160 of the Act a person commits an offence if development is carried out, or caused to be carried out, where that development requires but does not have development consent in force.

Wai Kit

PINS comments on NG approach to the EIA.

National Grid - Richard Gwilliam

Tidal Lagoon Power Plc copied the Planning Inspectorate into email correspondence between themselves and Natural Resources Wales (NRW).
The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) have been copied into email correspondence between Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay Plc (TLSB) and Natural Resources Wales (NRW). Whilst the Inspectorate have previously stated (by email on 25 March 2014) that it is not the role of the Inspectorate to get involved in discussions between parties during the pre-examination stage we have decided upon the receipt of your email of 25 March 2014 that s.51 advice may assist all parties.
It is common practice for the pre-examination stage to be used to prepare for the examination by applicants discussing issues with potential interested parties to ensure an effective examination, and the Planning Inspectorate encourages this. However, it is important that any information that may have a bearing on the examination or influence a representation, should be made available to all interested parties during the examination to ensure an open, fair and transparent examination.
Particular consideration should be given to the dissemination of environmental or other information to parties during the pre-examination stage which may have implications for information included in the Environmental Statement (ES). For example, such information may be additional to that included in the ES or otherwise render the ES unable to be read as a standalone document. Any information that was relied upon in producing the ES should have been referenced in the ES.

Where any information is being disseminated to parties during the pre-examination stage, for example to clarify points, its derivation, status and purpose should be made clear. How any such information relates to the ES and other application documents should also be made clear.

It is important that a clear paper trail is available for any party wishing to understand the application and participate in the examination. Any such information should be formally submitted into the examination at the earliest possible opportunity.

Tidal Lagoon Power Plc - Michael Baker

Feedback on the Planning Act 2008 process as managed by the Planning Inspectorate
See attached Meeting Note

Bond Dickinson

Query regarding PINS guidance advising members of the public to make their concerns known about the Adequacy of consultation to local authorities
Under the legislation, the decision maker must have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received from a Local Authority consultee, when making a decision on whether or not an application can be accepted for examination. The legislation does not refer to adequacy of consultation representations received from other parties when making this decision.
The Planning Inspectorate has been contacted by P&CBA and we have advised, in line with the guidance, that they should inform the developer about their concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. We also advised that they may also wish to notify the Local Authority, who may wish to incorporate P&CBAs view into their adequacy of consultation representation. If you wish to see the full advice given it has been published on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning portal website. The CLG Guidance states that Local Authorities can consider the complaint as part of their representation to the Secretary of State, it would therefore be helpful if your submission includes the Local Authority’s consideration/view on P&CBAs comments. You may also wish to attach their comments to your adequacy of consultation representation.
Comments on the proposed scheme itself should always be made directly to the developer at the pre-application stage of the process. This allows the developer to have regard to these comments prior to finalising and submitting their application. The guidance suggests that comments on the pre-application consultation undertaken by the developer (as opposed to comments on the scheme itself) can be made to the developer, local authority and The Planning Inspectorate, prior to an application being submitted. I hope this provides clarification.

Hampshire County Council - Pete Errington

During a break of the issue specific hearing, case manager Nicholas Coombes discussed discrepancies between the project co-ordinates in the draft Development Consent Order and the Order Limits plan with the applicant's project team.
Nicholas Coombes pointed out the anomalous co-ordinates identified in the ExA's Comments on DCO4 using the hard copy application documents.

DONG Energy Walney (UK) Ltd - Sally Holroyd

Email received from NRW regarding various matters on the Hirwaun Power Station scheme, including European Protected Species, air quality and Habitats Regulations Assessment documentation.
This application is currently at the Acceptance stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. A decision whether or not to accept the application for examination must be made by 18 April 2014.
Please be advised that the Examining Authority will not have regard to these comments during the Acceptance stage of this application. As such, should the application to accepted and you wish for these comments to be taken into regard by the Examining Authority appointed to examine the application, it is suggested that you re-submit these comments as a relevant representation during the Pre-Examination stage. There will be a minimum period of 28 days to provide these comments. Please note it is for the applicant to publicise the decision to accept its application for examination, and invite anyone who wishes to do so to register with the Planning Inspectorate to make a representation about it.

Natural Resources Wales NRW

Asked for advice relating to Compulsory Acquisition of Statutory Undertaker's land.
Further to our telephone conversation on 26 March 2014, I can provide you with the following advice on s.127 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA 2008), which relates to the proposed compulsory acquisition of statutory undertaker's land.
In summary, s.127 would be engaged where a person has made a representation about an application which relates to land acquired by a statutory undertaker and used for the purposes of carrying out their undertaking, and the representation has not been withdrawn.

Such a representation could be made at any time before completion of the examination of an application, and could include a relevant representation to the Planning Inspectorate. As you are aware, the relevant representation period for the application made by Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay Plc is currently open and is due to close on 11 April 2014 at 11.59pm.

There is no prescribed procedure under s.127. Where an applicant considers that s.127 is engaged they may make an application to the Secretary of State responsible for the type of statutory undertaker whose land is proposed to be acquired. Such an application could be made at any time before completion of the examination of an application.

It is possible that any detriment caused to the statutory undertaker by the proposed compulsory acquisition of their land could be mitigated. For example, by the applicant including protective provisions in the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) which are agreed with the statutory undertaker, and result in the representation triggering s.127 being withdrawn.

Therefore, in relation to you representing your client in this matter, the Planning Inspectorate advise you to continue to discuss any relevant objections your client may have with the applicant, including the potential for protective provisions to be incorporated into the draft DCO. In addition, we would advise you, on behalf of your client, to submit a relevant representation through the project webpage setting out your clients position in this regard.

Geldards LLP - Tomas Phillips

Enquiry regarding the application of Regulation 7 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009.
Our views on the persons who fall within the s57 categories and the Book of Reference are set out below :

Owners/lessees/ tenants/ occupiers of the Order land are persons within Category 1. Any other persons who have an interest in the Order land e.g. a right over the Order land, are persons within Category 2. If this land is to be subject to powers of compulsory acquisition or powers to use the land in some way (such as the temporary use power you refer to specifically in your letter), then these Category 1 and 2 persons should be listed in Part 1 of the Book of Reference (BoR). If the Category 2 person's right is to extinguished, suspended or interfered with, then they should also be listed in Part 3 of the BoR.

Persons within Category 3 will be those who the applicant thinks would or might be entitled to make a relevant claim. These persons may include:

a) persons whose land is not part of the Order land but that land benefits from a right over the Order land which is to be suspended or interfered with
b) persons whose land is within the Order land and that land benefits from a right of way over another piece of land within the Order land, which is to be suspended or interfered
c) persons whose land is not part of the Order land and whose land does not benefit from any rights over the Order land but they may have a claim under the Land Compensation for Act 1973 as a result of noise, dust etc from the use of the project.

All these persons will be listed in Part 2 of the BoR.

A person may be within more than one category. They may also need to be listed in more than one part of the BoR.

Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP - Giles Pink

Request to remove a draft Statement of Common Ground from our website.
Your comments regarding the status of the draft Statement of Common Ground submitted for deadline III are noted. We have decided not to remove the draft Statement of Common Ground from our website as your letter dated 25 March clearly sets out your views on the status and publication of this document. We also note that each page of the draft Statement of Common Ground is clearly marked 'draft', the front page gives the draft reference number, and it's unsigned and undated. We do not think any person could reasonably come to a view that this document had been concluded or completed, nor that the statements in it represent the final positions of the parties since it clearly only reflects their positions at the time it was submitted.

RSPB - Mark Williams

There is a lurking doubt whether they could consult on the 299 project then submit the 1200 one to yourselves. Am I right thinking that once they have started the statutory consultation process they are bound to submit to you the proposal on which they have consulted?
Before submitting an application to the Planning Inspectorate, the applicant is required to carry out extensive consultation on their proposal.
This involves providing information about the proposed development to various statutory and non-statutory bodies, as well as the wider community to gain information and feedback that can help in shaping the proposal. For example, where the application is larger and more complex, applicants are encouraged to go beyond the statutory requirements of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and carry out several stages of consultation.
The length of time for the applicant’s pre-application consultation will vary depending upon the scale and complexity of the application. The applicant will usually carry out number of non-statutory pre-application consultation stages in order to inform the proposal before starting its statutory consultation on a more refined development.
Once the application is submitted the applicant must demonstrate in its Consultation Report document which is submitted as part of the application documents, how the proposal progressed as a result of both statutory consultation as well as non-statutory consultation.
As you have noted, the applicant must therefore carry out its statutory consultation with local communities including local planning authorities, relevant statutory organisations and members of the public. Before starting its statutory consultation with the local community under s47 of the Act, the applicant is required to prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) and carry out their consultation as set in that document.
In their SoCC, the applicant should clearly describe their project and its scale and refer to both benefits and the impacts that proposed development would on the local community.
The SoCC should also indicate what information will be provided during the consultation process on the scope for any associated land restoration, landscaping, other mitigation or compensatory measures for natural habitats impact.
The description of the proposal must be clear during consultation, should the applicant make any changes to its proposal following its statutory consultation are encouraged to carry out further consultation (see DCLG: Guidance on pre-application process available from the link below).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-the-pre-application-process-for-major-infrastructure-projects
Pre-application consultation therefore, whether it is non-statutory or statutory, is the best time to influence the proposal and provide the developer with suggestions about how the impact of the project could be mitigated.
Once the application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, the 2008 Act process lays down a strict timetable. It is not normally possible for substantial changes to be made to an application once it has been submitted.
Summarising the above to answer your query, the applicant is encouraged to carry out both non statutory and statutory consultation in order to shape their proposal. Moreover, the applicant is encouraged to carry out their statutory consultation on the most refined option that progressed as a result of its consultation. Moreover, once the application is submitted for consideration, no substantial changes to the application are allowed.

George Tranter

Further to our earlier conversations, I set out below an overview of the position:
• The Ex. A notified through its letter of 18 December 2013 (the Rule 8 Letter) the procedural timetable for the examination of the Project, which included the dates of the proposed hearings. In particular the Rule 8 Letter noted that dates had been reserved for further hearings on Tuesday 29 April 2014, Wednesday 30 April 2014 and Thursday 1 May 2014;
• Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 13(6) of the Examination Procedure Rules (EPR), the Applicant advertised and erected site/public notices to publicise the hearing dates (including the reserved dates). Pursuant to Rule 13(10) of the EPR - this included the time of the proposed hearings, which was stated to be 10.00am (consistent with the start time of the hearings held on the Project to date); and
• The Ex. A notified through its letter of 20 March 2014 (the Second round of written questions) a variation to the proposed times of the Hearings on the reserved dates, noting that these will now instead commence at 9.30am.
On the basis of the above, it is our understanding that:
• we do not require to further advertise the dates of these upcoming Hearings as they were included in our original advertisements/notices; and
• we do not require to advertise the variation to the start time of these Hearings, as the Ex. A has already done this in its letter of 20 March 2014 (pursuant to Rule 13(4) of the EPR).
I would be grateful if you would confirm in writing ASAP that our understanding is correct and that we do not require to re-notify.
On 18 December 2013 the Examining Authority (ExA) notified all interested parties of the procedural timetable for the examination of the Hornsea Offshore Windfarm Project One, which included the dates reserved for further hearings on Tuesday 29 April 2014, Wednesday 30 April 2014 and Thursday 1 May 2014 and a start time of 10am.

The applicant is required to advertise the hearing by posting and maintaining notices and by publication in a local newspaper at least 21 days before the hearing in accordance with the provisions of Rule 13(6) of the Examination Procedure Rules (EPR).

You have confirmed that the applicant has complied with the requirements set out in Rule 13(6). This notification has been published on the project pages of the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website.

Rule 13(4) of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure Rules) 2010 (EPR) permits the ExA to vary the date, time and place for any fixed hearing with as much notice as appears to be reasonable. In accordance with this power the ExA have varied the time of the hearings on Tuesday 29 April 2014, Wednesday 30 April 2014 and Thursday 1 May 2014 to 9.30am. Notice of this was given by letter to all interested parties dated 20 March 2014.

The Planning Inspectorate does not consider that this invalidates compliance by the applicant with Rule 13(6). However, please note that the interpretation of the EPR rules is ultimately a matter for the Court and this e-mail does not constitute legal advice on which you can rely.

SMart Wind - Ian Mack

After receiving the Rule 8 letter dated 20 January 2014, Sheffield Metropolitan Council queried whether it was correct that they were contacted in regards to the Willington C Gas Pipeline.
Sheffield Metropolitan Council are a local authority who share a boundary with an authority within which the development is located. The council are not required to make any comment if they do not wish to, but the Planning Inspectorate are statutorily required to inform them of the application entering examination as they are a peripheral authority to the development.

Sheffield Metropolitan Council

Please see attached meeting note

Local Authorities - anon.

Concerns about the Inspectorate's future consideration of the Visual Impact information provided to date by developers for the Navitus Bay Wind Park development
The Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Park application is yet to be formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and is currently at the 'pre-application' stage of the process for making decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) under the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008) regime. The developer currently anticipates that the application will be submitted in Quarter 1 2014. On submission, the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, makes the decision about whether or not to accept an application for examination. The Secretary of State has 28 days from the date of submission to decide whether the application meets the required standards to proceed to examination. This will include an assessment of whether the applicant has complied with all the relevant pre-application procedures including having regard to consultation responses. Until this decision is made, your point of contact in relation to the proposed scheme should be the developer - Navitus Bay Development Limited - on the following details: info@navitusbay.com or 01926671592.
The requirements that must be satisfied in order for an application to be accepted for examination are set out in s55 of the PA 2008. s55(4) of the PA 2008 states that in making its decision about whether or not to accept an application the Secretary of State must have regard to (amongst other things) any adequacy of consultation representation received from a local authority consultee. For this reason, once an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, we invite the host and neighboring local authorities to submit a representation about whether the applicant has complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA 2008
If the application is accepted for Examination, the PA2008 establishes the opportunity for individuals, organisations and other groups to register as ‘interested parties’ by completing a registration form and submitting a 'Relevant Representation'. Relevant Representation forms can be completed online, and will be available on the project webpages of the Planning Portal, here: attachment 1. It is also possible to call the Inspectorate’s customer service desk on 0303 444 5000 to request a paper copy of the registration form. The developer will advertise when and how long the period for registration will be open; which must be a minimum of 28 days.
Relevant Representations should include whether an individual, organisation or other group supports or opposes a scheme and highlight any issues that they may wish to make further detailed representations on later in the Examination process. All Relevant Representations will be read by the appointed Examining Authority, and in conjunction with its reading of the application documents, will help to inform its 'Initial Assessment of Principal Issues'. If you choose to register to become an interested party, you can include your concerns over visual impact in your Relevant Representation. By registering as an interested party with the Inspectorate, you will be kept informed of the Examination by either email or post and be invited to engage in the process further by making written representations (and oral representations at any hearings) over the course of a statutory 6 month Examination period.

Worth Matravers Parish Council - Roger Khanna

Query regardimng adequacy of consultation.
Please see attached letter

Roy Pointer

A meeting with National Grid to provide a project update and discuss the presentation of documentation and issues concerning application submission and examination.
Please see the attached meeting note.

National Grid

Advice on whether Windsor Link Railway project is likely to qualify as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP).
Following your correspondence in respect of the Windsor Link Railway project, please see below s.51 advice on whether this project is likely to qualify as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP).
Please note that at this stage, the Planning Inspectorate is unable to give a definitive answer to whether a project qualifies as an NSIP, this being in the first instance a matter for the applicant to decide having sought their own legal advice if necessary, and ultimately a matter for the Secretary of State (SoS) to determine and the Courts.
Railways
With regards to potential rail schemes, we would refer you sub-section 14(1)(k) and to the relevant thresholds of a NSIP under section 25 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (the PA 2008). In the first instance it is for the applicant to decide whether the project falls within the criteria set out in section 25 of the PA 2008.
In coming to such a decision all the relevant criteria and thresholds in either s.25(1) or s.25(2) would need to be satisfied in order to conclude that the project is an NSIP. If development is (or forms part of) an NSIP then the applicant would be required to seek development consent under the PA 2008 (see section 31 PA 2008).
From the information provided to date there are a number of criteria which do not appear to be satisfied, and the applicant is advised to consider the following points in deciding whether this project constitutes one or more NSIPs:
• To what extent, if at all, some or all of these proposed works could be carried out as permitted development (PD). Network Rail (NR) enjoy extensive PD rights, and whilst it appears that NR would not be the applicant in this case, it's not clear what their involvement (if any) would be.
• Whether what is proposed would amount to laying (or constructing) a continuous length of track of more than 2km. This criterion applies equally to either the construction or alteration of a railway.
• Whether at least part of the proposed works could be carried out on railway operational land. Note s.25(1)(ba)(ii) and s.25(2A), which allow construction or alteration of a railway on railway operational land, without obtaining an order granting development consent, if that land was acquired for the purpose of that construction or alteration.
From the information provided to date we are also not clear to what extent the works comprise alterations to rather than construction of a railway, and the reasons for coming to this view.
Highways
With regards to the highways elements of the scheme and consideration of whether these may comprise part of an NSIP or a separate NSIP, we would refer you to s.14(1)(h) and the relevant thresholds of a NSIP under section 22 of the PA 2008. If development is (or forms part of) an NSIP then the applicant would be required to seek development consent under the PA 2008 (see section 31 PA 2008).
In deciding whether an order granting development consent is required for the highways element of the scheme the applicant is advised to consider the following points:
• Whether what is being proposed constitutes an improvement to rather than an alteration or construction of a highway(s) or a combination of two or more of those. This will determine which thresholds are applicable to the project.
• Whether the Secretary of State will be the highway authority for the highway.
• In the case of construction or alteration, whether the highway/s exceeds the area thresholds specified for motorways, roads where the speed limit exceeds 50mph, and any other highways.
• In the case of highways where the works comprise improvements, whether the improvement is likely to have a significant effect on the environment.
Associated development
Should the applicant decide that any of the railways and/or highways elements of the works described do constitute development for which development consent is required it should be noted that in addition to the development for which development consent is required, consent may also be granted for associated development. It is for the applicant to consider whether any of the proposed development would comprise associated development in accordance with s.115(2) PA 2008, having regard to the relevant DCLG guidance.
Other matters
The current description is of two phases of development, which implies that these are two parts of the same project, whereas it would appear that what is being proposed could potentially be multiple projects which may or may not be carried out on a phased basis. Hence, what is proposed could constitute two or more NSIPs.
The applicant may wish to note that it is possible for 2 or more NSIPs to be included in a single application for an order granting development consent, provided that those projects are progressed in parallel, and are thus able to be included in the same application. The applicant will need to consider all of the relevant criteria under Sections 25 and 22 of the PA 2008 for each NSIP.
Given the above, how the applicant describes and consults on the project(s) would be a key consideration for the SoS when deciding whether or not to accept any application(s) for development consent that may be forthcoming, and the applicant is therefore advised to consider carefully how the project(s) are described and consulted upon.
If, having considered the relevant thresholds in the PA2008, the applicant concludes that none of the development being proposed constitutes an NSIP(s), the developer may consider the option of seeking a Direction under s.35 PA2008 from the SoS for Transport so that this development is treated as development for which development consent is required.
The works described include related residential development. Residential development could not be included under sections 22 or 25 of the PA 2008, nor could it be included if the developer was to seek a Direction from the SoS under s.35, even on the basis of it being a business or commercial project. Consent for any residential development would therefore need to be sought separately from the relevant local planning authorities.
From the information provided to date it’s not clear to us how readily the housing and non-housing elements of "phase 1" could be physically separated from each other for consenting purposes. If this proves to be possible, careful consideration would need to be given so as to ensure that the NSIP and residential elements of the overall scheme are clearly distinguished when describing and consulting on any proposed applications.

If the projects were to be separated out, and either or both elements were EIA development, any cumulative effects would need to be assessed in the relevant EIA(s) and reported on in the respective ES(s).
Possible next steps
We hope that the above advice is useful. Having considered the above, you might consider it helpful to meet to discuss these matters further. In any event, it would be necessary to receive additional information from you before any further s.51 advice could be given about whether these proposals might constitute NSIP(s).

George Bathurst

Late representation received on 12 March 2014 regarding Knottingley Power Project. The Examining Authority exercised its discretion and has chosen not to accept the representation at this stage.
Please note that your name has been given to the Planning Inspectorate in the Knottingley Power Limited’s notice under section 59 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) which the applicant is required to provide under the 2008 Act. The purpose of the notice is to inform the Secretary of State of persons affected by the proposed development or who have an interest in land to which compulsory acquisition request relates. Moreover, as an affected person by the proposed development please be advised that you are already considered as an interested party ‘IP’ for above application.
As you may be aware the deadline to submit a relevant representation to the Planning Inspectorate closed on 6 January 2014. Please note that as your comments were received outside of this deadline, the Examining Authority (ExA) has decided to disregard your representation and not to take into account your comments on this occasion.
However, as an interested party you will be invited by the ExA to take a full part in the examination of the application by making written representations within deadlines set in the examination timetable. Please note that as an IP you will also be able to make oral representations at the hearings should any take place during examination. I therefore advise you to resubmit your comments included in your email dated 12 March 2014 as a written representation for the first deadline set within the final examination timetable.
Please note that the ExA will shortly be issuing a letter to all interested parties, which contains the final examination timetable for the application, known as the Rule 8 letter.
The Rule 8 letter will include a number of deadlines for submissions to be made by interested parties during the examination, including a deadline for submission of ‘written representations’. The purpose of a written representation is to identify those parts of the application that each party agrees with and those parts which they do not agree with, including the reasons for such disagreement. There is no prescribed form for making written representations, however all submissions should be made within deadlines as set within the ExA’s timetable. All late submissions may be disregarded by the ExA.
The ExA will also invite all interested parties in its Rule 8 letter to notify the ExA of their wish to be heard at the hearings should any take place.

Kelly Storey

I agreed to set out the issues discussed during the call that it would be useful for PINS to consider and provide a response on. These are set out below:

1. Generation licence – SSE already holds a generation licence for Ferrybridge. Is it sufficient for the Applicant (MEL) for development consent to have a letter of intent from SSE that it will be able to operate FM2 under the existing generation licence?

2. Ownership interest – What is the minimum level of interest that the Applicant must have in the Application Site for DCO purposes? Would a letter of intent from SSE (the owner of the majority of the Application Site) be sufficient or would an option to enter into a lease (on condition of consent being granted) be required?

3. Non DCO consents – is it necessary to be able to produce a letter of ‘no impediment’ in relation to each non DCO consent required from the relevant consenting body at the examination stage?
I’ll deal with each question in turn, but in a broad sense the less certainty you can provide an Examining Authority, the greater the likelihood that there would be questions on the relevant matter to understand the issue in full. As you are aware, once an application has been submitted, there is limited scope to make changes and the application is handled under statutory timescales. From experience this means turn-around times are very tight. The more issues that can be addressed prior to submission the more focused the examination can be.
1 Generation licence
It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure it has a necessary generation licence. In the absence of a generation licence at the start of an examination, it may be an issue that an Examining Authority wishes to examine in depth. Where you can provide a letter of intent along with any supporting full explanation of the context and any supporting evidence such as from Ofgem, then the Examining Authority may find this sufficient, However if that’s not considered sufficient the ExA has the remit to ask further questions.
2 Ownership interest
It may be helpful to consider this from an Examining Authority’s point of view. In general, they would be looking to understand the level of certainty that the undertaker who would benefit from the order can give to meeting any obligations, in particular where compulsory powers trigger the need to provide compensation. In that respect, it would be a matter for the examination, however the greater the certainty available upon submission the less the risk of this being a detailed examination issue.
3 Non DCO consents
From an Examining Authority’s point of view, in general it would look to consider whether there are any impediments to a consent outside of the DCO being granted and may wish to ask questions of the relevant statutory / consenting bodies as well as the applicant. In absence of letters of no impediment, and / or if impediments are identified during / remain at the close of examination then it would be for the ExA to consider the balance of evidence during the reporting stage and make their recommendation to the secretary of state in the context of the application as a whole.
In the first instance, I’d advise continuing discussion the Consents Service Unit on the consents it covers, and identifying all non-DCO consents prior to submission. As part of this, do consider the way in which the non-DCO consents interact with the scheme design and DCO provisions / requirements, in discussion with the relevant consenting bodies. This should help identify where mitigation may be needed through deisgn and / or DCO requirements. As mentioned above, if impediments are identifed after the submission of the DCO application, and then require a material change to the application that would be a procedural issue that would be challeging to address.
Just to advise, we strongly encourage working with statutory bodies to identify potential issues as early as possible, and are happy to work jointly with parties at pre-application where this can potentially benefit the effective examination of a future application.

DWD LLP - Geoff Bullock

Update meeting to discuss progress of the project.
View meeting note: attachment 1

Highways Agency

Late representation received regarding Knottingley Power Project. The Examining Authority exercised its discretion and has chosen not to accept the representation at this stage.
Please note that your name has been given to the Planning Inspectorate in the Knottingley Power Limited’s notice under section 59 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) which the applicant is required to provide under the 2008 Act. The purpose of the notice is to inform the Secretary of State of persons affected by the proposed development or who have an interest in land to which compulsory acquisition request relates. Moreover, as an affected person by the proposed development please be advised that you are already considered as an interested party ‘IP’ for above application.
As you may be aware the deadline to submit a relevant representation to the Planning Inspectorate closed on 6 January 2014. Please note that as your comments were received outside of this deadline, the Examining Authority (ExA) has decided to disregard your representation and not to take into account your comments on this occasion.
However, as an interested party you will be invited by the ExA to take a full part in the examination of the application by making written representations within deadlines set in the examination timetable. Please note that as an IP you will also be able to make oral representations at the hearings should any take place during examination. I therefore advise you to resubmit your comments included in your email dated 12 March 2014 as a written representation for the first deadline set within the final examination timetable.
Please note that the ExA will shortly be issuing a letter to all interested parties, which contains the final examination timetable for the application, known as the Rule 8 letter.
The Rule 8 letter will include a number of deadlines for submissions to be made by interested parties during the examination, including a deadline for submission of ‘written representations’. The purpose of a written representation is to identify those parts of the application that each party agrees with and those parts which they do not agree with, including the reasons for such disagreement. There is no prescribed form for making written representations, however all submissions should be made within deadlines as set within the ExA’s timetable. All late submissions may be disregarded by the ExA.
The ExA will also invite all interested parties in its Rule 8 letter to notify the ExA of their wish to be heard at the hearings should any take place.

Craig Moss

The applicant requested comments on the draft Statement of Community Consultation
The Planning Inspectorate provided comments to the applicant. Please see document attached.

Meaford Energy Limited

Request for comments on the following draft documents: draft Development Consent Order (clean), a track-changed version of the draft Development Consent Order and land and works plans.
The following comments are without prejudice to any decision made under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) or by the Secretary of State on any submitted application.
Draft Plans
The individual Book of Reference (BoR) plots within the plans are not as easily identifiable – it is not clear where one plot starts and another one ends. The suggestion here would be to make boundaries between plots more distinctive.
It is noted that some CA plots have now been removed from the plans. The applicant is encouraged to ensure that the BoR matches the plot numbers on the plans. For example if 1_MS has now been removed, the shift in the numbering of the plots needs to be consistent in both the plans and the BoR.
Draft Book of Reference
The following are general comments which the applicant may wish to consider:
- Reference should be made within the document to plot numbers and on which plan(s) these numbers are presented. This could be in the form of a column at the far left which references the plan for each of the plots.
- Details of addresses should be repeated in full throughout the document, rather than ‘Address as at parcel 1_ER’, for example.
- Part 2 of the Book of Reference should not be split into Part 2a and Part 2b, rather a single Part 2 should be present.
- If there are no persons within Parts 4 and 5 then an overall statement should be present. For example, ‘No land was identified which should be included in this section’.
Draft DCO
The comments on the draft DCO are attached. Please note that these queries relate solely to matters raised by the drafting of the substantive DCO Articles and Schedules, and not the merits of the proposal. They are not exhaustive, are limited by the restricted time available for consideration, and raised without prejudice to the acceptance or otherwise of any eventual application and any queries that may be raised by the Examining Authority if an application is accepted.

Colin Turnbull

An outreach presentation was delivered by the Planning Inspectorate at a meeting of National Grid's Hinkley C Connection Group meeting on 14 March 2014.
Please see PowerPoint presentation attached

National Grid

Advice to Parish Council regarding its status as an interested party.
I note in your email that you may wish to attend an open session hearing for above application.
Please note that the letter dated 18 February included an indicative timetable for examination of the application.
As mentioned in my previous email, shortly following that meeting the Examining Authority will issue a letter to all parties including the final timetable for the examination. This letter is known as the Rule 8 letter.
In order for an Open Floor Hearing to take place, the ExA must receive a notification/request for one from at least one interested party ‘IP’. The notification must be received before the deadline set within the ExA’s final timetable.
I note that Chappel Haddlesey Parish Council is currently not registered as an IP. The Examining Authority in its Rule 8 letter will provide statutory parties with an opportunity to notify the ExA of your wish of becoming an IP.
Once registered as an IP, you will then be able to make a request to the ExA for an Open Floor Hearing to be held. Moreover, you will be able to take a part in the examination not only by attending the hearing but submitting your representations directly to the Examining Authority.
I therefore strongly recommend to use this opportunity to notify the ExA of your wish to become an interested party, in order that your Parish Council can take part in the examination, request an OFH and should you wish to do so make any representations during the examination of that application.
A reply to this email indicating you wish to be an interested party for this examination would suffice.

Bryan Metcalf

Correspondence relating to acceptance.
Letter attached
Letter attached

MP for Norwich South - Simon Wright

Follow-up advice to the applicant Norfolk County Council regarding a revised Book of Reference.
Since our letter dated 26 February 2014 to Mr Skinner, we note Norfolk County Council has not corresponded further about extending the relevant representation deadline for newly identified persons pursuant to Section 56 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA 2008).
If amendments have been made to the Book of Reference since the application was compiled, the most suitable time to send the Planning Inspectorate a revised version would be along with the applicant’s certificate of compliance under Section 58(2) of PA 2008 and the Section 59 notice in relation to the application. Any such amendments in the Book of Reference would be expected to reflect the applicant’s compliance with Section 56.
This advice of course is without prejudice to Section 87 and any decisions made about how the examination is to be controlled by the appointed Examining Authority. The Examining Authority may request information about the Book of Reference as part of the examination, subject to the Procedure Rules.

Norfolk County Council - Jon Barnard

Please see Smart Wind’s additional submission published on the North Killingholme project page 11 March 2014.
Thank-you for your email dated 10 March 2014 - we note the points that you raise in your emails dated 10 March to the Examining Authority (‘ExA’) and would like to provide clarity on those points.
Protective Provisions:
The role of the ExA is primarily to establish whether the protective provisions are agreed or not. The ExA is already aware, through Smart Wind providing its own draft protective provisions which differ from those provided by the applicant, that in this case, the protective provisions are not agreed between the parties involved. This is also stated in the applicant’s response to question CA3/01.
Ultimately, protective provisions must be agreed between the parties themselves. The ExA is not a party to such an agreement and it is for both the Applicant and any other relevant party to agree on protective provisions.
The existence of agreed protective provisions is one factor that the ExA and the s.127 Examiner will take into account as part of its examination, but any application for CA and for s.127 certificates, will still have to be considered in the report writing stage unless any application for these has been withdrawn by the applicant or any representation by a statutory undertaker has been withdrawn in respect of s.127. Neither of these has happened, as yet, in the case of SMart Wind.
End of the Examination Stage:
For clarity, the ExA will take into account all material that is received in response to deadlines or that has been accepted by the ExA as a result of a procedural decision during the examination. However, all material must be received before the close of the examination stage. For the avoidance of doubt, the ExA has exercised their discretion and accepted both your emails of 10 March into the examination.
The ExA will make its Report on the basis of the information which has been submitted and accepted by the end of the examination – the ExA cannot take into consideration, any material which is received following the closure of the examination. Any information which is submitted and received during the Recommendation stage, will be forwarded to the Secretary of State for consideration alongside the Report. It will then be for the Secretary of State to decide whether or not to take this into account in making his decision and whether to do so would require any further consultation on such material submitted after the close of the examination.
The power to extend an examination rests with the relevant Secretary of State which he can exercise upon request. Unless the Secretary of State grants an extension during the examination period the ExA must close the examination by the deadline specified by s98(1) Planning Act 2008 (as amended) – ie 6 months from the day after the Preliminary Meeting.

Patricia Hawthorn

Comments received from Chapel Haddlesey Parish Council regarding Knottingley Power Project application.
Please note that the purpose of the letter dated 18 February 2014 (Rule 6 letter) was to invite all parties to the Preliminary Meeting on 13 March 2014. The purpose of this meeting is for the appointed Examining Authority ‘ExA’ to discuss how the application will be examined. The meeting may include questions and answers about the key issues that will need to be examined, the timetable for the examination and other important organisational details. However, the merits or otherwise of the application will not be discussed at the meeting, which is purely procedural.
Following the meeting, the ExA will consider all comments and suggestions received and set the timetable for examination. The timetable will be included in the letter to all parties, known as the Rule 8 letter. The timetable will include a number of deadlines for submissions to be made by interested parties, including a deadline for submission of ‘written representations’. The purpose of a written representation is to identify those parts of the application that each party agrees with and those parts which they do not agree with, including the reasons for such disagreement. Please note that there is no prescribed form for making such a representation and that all submissions should be made within deadlines set by the ExA in its Rule 8 letter.
I note that Chapel Haddlesey Parish Council has not submitted a ‘relevant representation’ for the deadline of 6 January 2014. Please note that should the Parish Council wish to take a part in the examination as an interested party ‘IP’, you must notify the ExA of your wish within the deadline specified in the timetable.
As an IP you will have the opportunity to provide further written evidence due course of examination. Moreover, as an IP you will be given an opportunity to request an ‘open floor’ hearing. These hearings provide interested parties with an opportunity to make oral representations, based on their initial relevant representation or subsequent more detailed written representation about the application. You will be informed of the progress of the examination, and once it is concluded, you will be notified of the decision.
I am also including links to our Advice Notes 8.1: 'How to get involved in the planning process' and Advice Note 8.3: 'How to register to become an Interested Party in an application', both available from the link below:
[attachment 1]

Bryan Metcalf

The applicant requested comments from the Planning Inspectorate on their draft documents including draft Development Consent Order (DCO) and Explanatory Memorandum, Land/Works Plans, Consultation Report.
Please see comments document attached.

Progress Power Limited

Could you please advise if the Welsh Government will be a statutory consultee for this project.
I can confirm that the Welsh Government is a Statutory Consultee for this application. However, following amendments made to the Planning Act 2008, Statutory Consultees are no longer deemed as interested parties automatically. There are two ways to become an interested party:
1. Make a relevant representation during the period (not less than 28 days) set by the developer during the pre-examination stage of the process. This period is now open and is due to close on 11 April 2014. Representations can be made through the Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay project page on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website: [attachment 1]. Anyone who registers with the Planning Inspectorate and makes a relevant representation about the application becomes an interested party in the application. I would strongly encourage this, as this enables the Welsh Government’s views on the application to be taken into account by the Examining Authority at the earliest stage.
2. If a Statutory Consultee does not make a relevant representation, they may inform the Examining Authority of their wish to become an interested party following receipt of the 'Rule 8' letter (a procedural decision that sets out the examination timetable which is published after the Preliminary meeting) but not before.

Welsh Government - Sharon Davies

Submission of representation during acceptance period
Please see attached letter

Fish Legal - Andrew Kenton

The applicant noted minor errors in its original application documents submitted to the Inspectorate and requested to submitt revised documents along with a schedule highlighting and explaining the changes.
The Inspectorate provided following advice to the applicant:
I note that in point 4 of your letter you state:
‘Since submission of the application, a number of minor errors in the application documents have come to light. KLP has also made significant progress on agreeing amended mitigation measures and DCO requirements with relevant interested parties.
We would propose to submit revised documents along with a schedule highlighting and explaining the changes by the first deadline set by the examining authority. Please could you confirm that this approach will be appropriate?’
I understand that you are requesting to submit revised documents those referred to above, to the Examining Authority by first deadline set in the examination timetable.
Please note that it is in the ExA’s discretion to exercise its powers to decide whether to accept any ‘additional submissions’ that fall outside set deadlines or documents that have not been requested by the ExA. The ExA would, as part of its consideration, need to decide whether the information represents a change to the application.
With regards to above, I advise you to submit your documents to the Planning Inspectorate as soon as possible. In due course it will be for the ExA to decide whether to accept your submission and if so to invite comments through a further procedural decision.

Darragh Carr

Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay documents submitted for acceptance.
Please see attached advice issued at acceptance

Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay plc - Alex Herbert

Advice regarding submissions before Preliminary Meeting.
Please may I advise you that no representations should be made at this stage. Moreover, following the meeting on 13 March 2014, the ExA will issue the letter (Rule 8 letter) to all parties informing of the final timetable for examination of the application. This timetable will include various deadlines for parties to make their representations/submissions within specified deadlines. Note that if submissions are late, it will be in the ExA discretion to decide whether to accept them.
Please, may I therefore suggest to submit your representation/letter following the meeting within the deadlines as specified in the ExA’s examination timetable (Rule 8 letter).

David Hymas

I have searched the DCO final draft for a reference to requirement 18 (g) 2 as directed in question 4 and nothing comes up. Please would you be so kind as to send me the exact page referred to, so that I may read it and if necessary respond.
The reference made by the Examining Authority to requirement 18 (g) (2) of the applicant’s final draft Development Control Order, as directed by question 4 in Appendix A of his letter of 5 March, is made with reference to the track change version of the applicants final draft DCO (a link is provided below). This can be found on page 40 of the document. The reference is made to requirement 18 (1)(g) in association to requirement 18 (2) shown in the track change version of the DCO.
For your ease of reference the draft DCO with track changes can be viewed on the National Infrastructure website at: [attachment 1]

Sally Gray

Meeting with Thorpe Marsh Power Ltd on 6 March 2014
Please see Meeting Note attached

Thorpe Marsh Power Ltd

Request for a review of the list of statutory s42 consultees ahead of Stage 2 consultation
We have now reviewed the list and provide the following headline comments:
• We have not identified any omissions from your list: all of the parties on our Regulation 9 list appear to be present. Your consultee list seems generally very thorough.
• It seems that there are a number of bodies that are listed under the ‘prescribed statutory stakeholders’ section that are not prescribed consultees for the project. From our review it seems that there may be a little confusion between those bodies who are ‘statutory consultees’ (those listed in the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations) and those who are ‘statutory bodies’ (those that have statutory powers, regardless of whether they are listed in APFP Regulations).
• The same also appears to be true in reverse in that a number of bodies on the ‘non-prescribed: selected s42 stakeholders' list should be on the prescribed list, for example a number of the statutory undertakers.
• To assist I have attached a list which sets out where we think bodies should be listed as statutory or non-statutory but I’d suggest you do a thorough check to ensure you are happy that this is properly addressed. Whilst in practice these changes do not affect who you will actually consult for Stage 2, it will be useful to have bodies identified in the correct categories for the purposes of clarity in your eventual Consultation Report.
Some more detailed observations which could crop up in our acceptance stage checks but which on their own are unlikely to cause fundamental problems for the acceptance decision:
• MCA – we would suggest that you add the regional office from our Regulation 9 list (Liverpool Marine Office).
• ESP Electricity Limited – we would suggest that this should be specifically included. We note that ES Pipelines which is at the same address is included but would suggest that both bodies are consulted.
• Environment Agency – we’d advise that Julie Foley should be added to the Environment Agency contacts as per our Regulation 9 list.
• Transboundary consultation – given our recent experience on the Walney Extension case you may wish to also include the contacts that we previously provided for the Republic of Ireland (see attached email). Just also to note that the Isle of Man is not an EEA state and therefore does not need to be consulted under EIA Regulation 24. Whilst I can understand the logic in including them in this list, when it comes to your Consultation Report it may be worth differentiating between states for the purposes of Regulation 24 and other governments.
We have also checked your consultee list against our Advice Note 3 (EIA consultation) and can confirm that it appears that your list has taken into account the Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Amendment Regulations with respect to bodies that have been abolished or combined (for example NRW, Commission for Sustainable Development).
Please aware that we have reviewed your list against the Regulation 9 list of consultees that we provided to you in August 2012 (and subsequently updated in December 2012) and therefore if there have been any changes to the project location or extent subsequent to that date that may affect the parties affected by the project you will need to ensure that these parties are also consulted.
-- Bodies that may be incorrectly listed as prescribed statutory stakeholders --
• DECC
• DfT
• Defra
• Northern Ireland Dept of Agriculture and Rural Affairs
• Northern Ireland Dept of Regional Development
• Northern Ireland Environment Agency
• North West Strategic Health Authority
• Public Health Wales, National Public Health Service
• Association of Police Authorities
• Natural England
• The Police and Crime Commissioner North Wales
• The Scottish Environment Protection Agency
• The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
• The Equality and Human Rights Commission
• The Scottish Human Rights Commission
• Anglesey AONB
• Clwydian Range AONB
• The Homes and Communities Agency
• The Commission for Rural Communities
• Scottish Natural Heritage
• NW inshore fisheries and conservation authority
• north western and north wales sea fisheries committee
• Marine Consents Unit
• The Highways Agency
• Taith (Joint Transport Authority for North Wales)
• Isle of Anglesey County Council, Highways Authority
• Conwy County Council, Highways Authority
• Gwynedd County Council, Highways Authority
• The Rail Passengers Council
• The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee
• The Coal Authority
• Office of Rail Regulation
• Ofwat
• Association of Drainage Authorities
• The British Waterways Board
• Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd
• BRB Residuary Ltd
• Port of Mostyn
• Port of Holyhead
• Port of Larne
• Belfast Harbour Commission
• Dublin
• ABP - Barrow
• ABP - Fleetwood
• ABP - Fleetwood
• Peel Ports - Liverpool
• Peel Ports - Heysham
• Maryport Harbour Authority
• Caernarfon Harbour Trust
• Conwy Harbour Authority
• Strategy Marine Consultancy, acting on behalf of Dee Conservancy
• Lancaster Port Commission
• Isle of Man Harbours
• Port of Workington
• Warrenpoint
• Port of Penrhyn
• Whitehaven Harbour Commission
• The Victoria Group
• Virgin media
• BT
• Horizon
• Magnox
• Halite
• Welsh Language Board
• North Wales Joint Transport Authority
• Lake District National Park Authority
• Republic of Ireland
o Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport
o Commissioners of Irish Lights
• Isle of Man Governent - Energy and Climate Change Committee, DEFA
• Isle of Man Government - Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture
• Isle of Man Government - Department of Communities, Culture and Leisure
• Isle of Man Government - Department of Economic Development
• Isle of Man Government - Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
• Isle of Man Government - Dept of Community, Culture and Leisure
• Belgium
o Institute for agricultural and fisheries research
o Belgian Government, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
• Cadw
• Isle of Man Government - Department of Infrastructure
2. Bodies that it appears should be listed under ‘Prescribed Statutory Stakeholders’
• NATS
• Civil Aviation Authority
• Independent Power Networks Limited
• Energetics Electricity Limited
• UK Power Networks Limited
• ES Pipeline Ltd
• SP Distribution Limited
• SP Manweb Plc
• The Electricity Network Company Limited
• EirGrid Plc
-- Contact details for the Republic of Ireland --
This is the link to the EEA State contact addresses used for Regulation 24 notification
[attachment 1]
We have recently sent letters to Mr Sheridan at the Department of Environment, Community & Local Government in Dublin, as named on the list, regarding other projects, and have received responses from Mr O'Dowd in the same Department.

Stuart Barnes

Advice to local planning authority on getting involved in the examination of the application
Please note that Lancashire County Council has been identified as a relevant local authority ‘D’ as defined under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) who shares a boundary with an upper tier county council within whose area the land for the proposed development is situated.
The letter dated 18 February 2014 was an invitation to the Preliminary Meeting on 13 March 2013. The purpose of that meeting is for the ExA to discuss the draft timetable for the examination of the application with the parties present at the meeting. Please note that following the meeting, Lancashire County Council will also receive a letter from the ExA informing of the final timetable for the examination, known as the Rule 8 letter.
I note that Lancaster County Council did not submit a relevant representation for the deadline 6 January 2014, therefore you won’t be receiving any correspondence about the application following the Rule 8 letter. Please note that should you wish to receive further correspondence following the Rule 8 and/or take a part in the examination, you will be given further opportunity to register by notifying the ExA within the deadline set in the Rule 8 letter.
I would be grateful if you could confirm on or by 6 March 2014 whether Lancashire County Council wishes to attend the meeting on 13 March 2014.

Philip Megson

Request for information relating to attendance at the Preliminary Meeting.
Thank you for your email informing us that you wish to attend the Preliminary Meeting for the above project.
Your name has now been added to our list of attendees.
Please note that following the meeting, the Examining Authority ‘ExA’ will send out a letter with the final timetable for examination of the application. Moreover, as a statutory party you will be given a further opportunity to notify the ExA of your wish to take a part in the examination within the deadline set in that letter (‘Rule 8 letter’).

Chris Harris

I am concerned that this proposal has been in the pipeline for some considerable time.
Please could you reassure me that I have not missed the opportunity to become involved and to be an interested party.
PS I have tried to connect with the developer but I have been unable to register because the link refuses to acknowledge my postcode.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage and has not yet formally been submitted to PINS as an application for development consent.
PINS has been in contact with the applicant, Scottish Power Renewables (SPR). SPR is currently unable to confirm the exact date for submission of the application but has informed PINS that they will be in a better position to provide the "anticipated submission date" in March 2014. PINS will update the Mynydd Mynyllod project webpage with this information once received.

As this is the case, you have not lost the opportunity to become registered with us as an interested party. I would recommend that you regularly refer to the PINS Mynydd Mynyllod project webpage in order to follow progress on the application:
[attachment 1]
I would also encourage you to contact the developer directly in order to register your interest in the scheme, using the following e-mail address: mynydd@scottishpower.com.

Sheila Harman

Request to submit written representation and query relating to attendance at the Preliminary Meeting.
Thank you for your email informing us you wish to take a part in the examination of the application.
I understand from your email that you represent Mr & Mrs Caddick and Caddick Construction Limited. Moreover, I trust that you were allocated a reference number which can be found at the front of the letter dated 18 February 2014, please may I advise you to refer to this number in the future.
Please note that the purpose of the letter you received was to invite parties to attend the Preliminary Meeting, not therefore an invitation to make submissions at this stage. The deadline 6 March 2014 is therefore to notify the Inspectorate whether you wish to attend the meeting.
We encourage parties to attend the PM at which the ExA and all the parties present will be discussing draft timetable for examination of the application.
Please note that the examination of the application starts on the day of the PM. Following the meeting, the ExA will send out final timetable to all persons invited to the meeting giving opportunity to make submissions within deadlines set in that letter – Rule 8.
I would be grateful therefore if you could confirm on or before 6 March whether you wish to attend and speak at the meeting on 13 March 2014.

David Hymas

The applicant requested comments from the Planning Inspectorate on the draft documents submitted in January 2014, including their draft Development Consent Order (DCO), Explanatory Memorandum, Plans and Consultation Report.
Please see the attached document for the Planning Inspectorate's comments on the draft documents

National Grid - Richard Gwilliam

Generic process overview meeting

Simone Wilding

Mr Heard attended a drop-in session organised by the Planning Inspectorate in Norwich on 24 February 2014. He asked a number of questions after the presentation, not all of which could be answered in full.
Letter attached

Stop Norwich Urbanisation - Stephen Heard

Advice to local planning authority regarding Local Impact Report.
Thank you for your email informing us that you are not able to attend the meeting.
Please note that as a relevant local authority you will be informed about final examination timetable of the application. Following the meeting, the Examining Authority will set final examination timetable in its letter to all parties (Rule 8 letter) based on comments received at the meeting.
In the Rule 8 letter, all relevant local authorities will be invited to notify the ExA of their wish to be involved in the examination within specified deadline. As you may be ware the ExA will also invite relevant local planning authorities to submit their representations and Local Impact Report (LIR).
We therefore strongly encourage you as a relevant local authority to use this period of time to start your own evaluation of the local impacts of the proposal. Please note that LPAs are encouraged to prioritise their work on LIR irrespectively of whether the LPA considers the development would have positive or negative impact on the area.
Local Impact Report document plays important role in the process of the NSIP application. In coming to decision, the Secretary of State must have regard to any LIRs that are submitted by local authorities within the set deadline.
Local Planning Authorities are therefore encouraged to produce LIRs when they are invited to do so.
I am providing a link to our Advice Note 1 on LIR below:
[attachment 1]

Wendy Muldoon

Project update on both East Anglia THREE and FOUR applications.
Please see the attached meeting note.

Keith Morrison

Email from Local Planning Authority requesting extension for deadlines set in draft timetable for examination.
Thank you for your email received on 24 February 2014 informing us that you wish to attend the Preliminary Meeting on 13 March 2014.
I note from your email that you wish to make a request for an extension of deadlines set in the draft timetable in letter dated 18 February 2014.
Please note that it is for the appointed Examining Authority ‘ExA’ to decide how to examine the application. The Preliminary Meeting is chaired by the ExA and is held to consider how the application is to be examined. Moreover, the purpose of the meeting may include questions and answers related to the final timetable for examination and general organisational matters. At the meeting, the ExA will discuss the draft timetable with the parties as set in the letter dated 8 February 2014. Following the meeting, the ExA will consider all the requests received at the PM and a further letter known as the (Rule 8) will be sent out to parties informing them of the final timetable for examination of the application.
I therefore suggest attending and raising your request directly to the ExA at the meeting.
As you already noticed, as a part of the examination the ExA will invite relevant local authorities including NYCC to submit their Local Impact Report (LIR) and make other submissions. We strongly encourage NYCC as a relevant local authority to use this period of time to start your own evaluation of the local impacts of the proposal. Please note that LPA are encouraged to prioritise of their LIR irrespectively of whether the LPA considers the development would have positive or negative impact on the area.
Please note that Local Impact Reports play important role and when coming to a decision the Secretary of State must have regard to any LIRs that are submitted by local authorities within the set deadline. Local Planning Authorities are therefore encouraged to produce LIRs when they are invited to do so.
I am including the link to our Advice Note on Local Impact Report below:
[attachment 1]

Ray Bryant

Query regarding the opening of relevant representations
Thank you for your email. As you will be aware, the Secretary of State (SoS) is due to make a decision on whether the accept the application made by Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay (TLSB) by 7 March 2014. Therefore, I provide the following advice without making any judgment on that decision.
In relation to the duty upon an applicant under section 56 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) to notify persons of an accepted application, I can confirm the following. s.56(5) of the PA 2008 requires that the deadline by which persons can make representations must not be earlier than the end of the period of 28 days that begins with the day after the day on which the person receives the notice.

In addition, publicising an accepted application under Regulation 9 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (APFP Regs.) requires, amongst other things, an applicant to publicise acceptance in accordance with Regulation 4(2)(a) to (d) of the APFP Regs. The deadline for receipt by the SoS of relevant representations must not be less than 28 days following the day that the notice is last published (Reg. 9(4)(j)).
Therefore, both these pieces of legislation need to be considered prior to notifying persons of and advertising the start and end of the relevant representation period.

As a result of the legislation, depending on when TLSB sends out the s.56(2) notices, 10 March probably will be (but may not be) the start of the period for making relevant representations. In practice, given that the notices are unlikely to be sent out before 10 March, and in view of the s.56(5) deadline, persons will probably receive these after publication of the first newspaper notices.

TLSB may not send out the s.56(2) notices, place the newspaper notices or put up the site notices at the same time. As noted above, the deadline under s.56(2) is anyway related to when these notices are received rather than sent. However, it would be advisable for TLSB to specify the same deadline by which representations need to be made in each of these (i.e. in the s.56(2) notices, newspaper notices and site notices).

Furthermore, to assist in preparing for examination, where an application is accepted, s.51 advice is often provided. The content of this, may influence your view on when to notify persons of and publicise the period for making relevant representations or how long to make that period.
After considering the advice set out above, it would be very helpful for you to confirm to the Planning Inspectorate, should the application be accepted, the dates between which, you would wish the relevant representation form to be available on the National Infrastructure Pages on the Planning Portal. Further advice on the pre-application period will be provided should the application be accepted.

TLSB - Alex Herbert

The applicant contacted the Planning Inspectorate for advice about whether they could extend the relevant representation deadline for certain persons set-out under section 56 of the Planning Act 2008.
The Planning Inspectorate's response was by email and is attached.
Please see attachment.

Norfolk County Council - Chris Skinner

Project update on both East Anglia THREE and FOUR applications.
Please see the attached Meeting Note.

Keith Morrison

Meeting with applicant to provide update on the project.
Please see meeting note attached.

Karl Cradick

C.GEN has received a copy of Anglian Water's letter of 18 February 2014 withdrawing its representations so far as they relate to s.127. As a result of that letter, PINS has written to C.GEN asking it to confirm in writing that it will be withdrawing the s.127 application in relation to Anglian Water.
S.127, as it applies to C.GEN's case, refers at sub-section (1)(b) to the situation where "a representation has been made about an application for an order granting development consent before the completion of the examination of the application, and the representation has not been withdrawn".
In light of the lack of clarity regarding this issue, C.GEN would like to know PINS' advice as, given Anglian Water has not withdrawn its entire relevant representation, C.GEN would not wish to withdraw its s.127 application if the correct interpretation of s.127 is such that an application is still required.
As you are aware, in its letter to the North Killingholme Power Plant Examining authority (‘ExA’) dated 18 February 2014, AWS stated that:
‘the negotiations between the Applicant and AWS have concluded and the terms of the Protective Provisions and Article 14 are now agreed. AWS wish their representations to remain on the record as useful background for the examining authority but its representations as far as the Section 127 application is concerned is withdrawn and the application is unopposed’.
We note in your email that C.Gen would appreciate clarification on whether, following a representation being made under s127 (1) (b) PA 2008, and thus, engaging the provisions of s127 PA 2008, whether, in order for a s127 application made to the Secretary of State by C.Gen to be withdrawn and the provisions of s127 ceasing to apply, the said representation made by a statutory undertaker (s127 (1) (b)) – in this case, AWS - must be withdrawn either in its entirety or partially – removing only those parts which make direct reference to s127.

As an interested party AWS is entitled to make representations about the DCO application and these representations will remain in the examination. However, AWS has made clear that it has withdrawn that part of its representation which is a representation for the purposes of s127 (1) (b). A certificate from the Secretary of State will therefore not be required in relation to AWS's land before the DCO is made and C.Gen can withdraw its s127 certificate application 20 November 2013 in relation to AWS if it so wishes.
Please ensure the Planning Inspectorate is CC’d into to any correspondence relating to any withdrawal of a s127 application.

Emma Harding-Phillips

Meeting with the applicant to provide an update on the project.
Please see meeting note attached.

Karl Cradick

At what stage is the project and how to submit a represenation to the Planning Insectorate.
The application is currently at acceptance stage. The opportunity for persons to register to become an 'interested party' will not arise until the application has been accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. If the application is accepted to be examined, the developer will be required to advertise in local and national press the period within which anybody will be able to make a 'relevant representation' and register to become an interested party. Notification of this period will also appear on the Planning Inspectorate's project webpage, here [attachment 1]
The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following address: attachment 2. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.
[attachment 2]

Ian Whisby

Query regarding liability of operator of development in making compensation payments if applicant cease to be operator when payment is due.
I understand that you act for Caddick Construction Ltd. Concerns about funding for compulsory acquisition are no doubt a matter that your client would wish to raise as part of its representations. It is a matter that I would expect to figure in the examination of the application.

You may wish to be aware of the following documents in this context:
• The DCLG document "Planning Act 2008 - Guidance relating to procedures relating to the compulsory acquisition of land" contains some guidance relating to the resource implications of compulsory acquisition - see paragraphs 17 and 18
(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/planning-act-2008-procedures-for-the-compulsory-acquisition-of-land).
• As required by the relevant Regulations, the application included a Funding Statement describing how the applicant proposes to fund the compulsory acquisition - see application document 4.2

([attachment 1]).
• The application draft Development Consent Order (application document 3.1) contains provisions that are to apply on the transfer of the benefit of the Order - see article 6
([attachment 2]

David Hymas

Initial meeting with Network Rail.
Please see the attached Meeting Note.

Network Rail - Colin Field

Initial meeting with Network Rail.
Please see the attached Meeting Note.

Network Rail - Colin Field

Query about making representations during acceptance
We note the statements in your email that "lack of access to these documents is hampering my ability to make representations to you about whether or not the application should be accepted for examination" and "you will frustrate my attempt to make meaningful representations to you before you take your acceptance decision".
We feel it would be helpful to provide some advice to you about the application acceptance process, and opportunities to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate about an application. This advice is provided under section 51 of the PA 2008, and as such will be published on our website.
The Secretary of State’s decision as to whether or not to accept an application for examination is based on the tests set out in section 55 of the PA 2008 and is, in summary, a decision about whether the application documents are of a satisfactory standard to proceed to examination, and whether the applicant’s pre-application consultation has complied with the statutory procedure.
During the acceptance period relevant local authorities have an opportunity to make representations about the adequacy of the applicant’s pre-application consultation, and any representations received help to inform the Secretary of State’s decision about whether or not to accept an application. Under the legislation, there is no provision for parties other than the relevant local authorities to make representations to the Planning Inspectorate during the acceptance period.
Issues related to the merits of the application can only be considered during the examination of an application. If an application is accepted for examination, the applicant is, amongst other things, required to publicise the acceptance for at least two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper. A period for the making of
‘relevant representations’ is also opened via the Planning Inspectorate’s website. If you are interested in the progress of this application, and it is accepted for examination, we would strongly encourage you to register to become an interested party in the examination by making a relevant representation during the advertised period, which must run for at least 28 days.
Becoming an interested party will enable you to participate in the examination and submit written representations to the Examining Authority when appointed. It will also allow you to participate in hearings should they be held. The Planning Inspectorate has produced the Advice Note Eight series which explains the process under the PA 2008, and how you can become involved. It can be viewed at: [attachment 1]

Phil Jones

Pre-application meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and the applicant
A note of the meeting is attached below

Ecotricity - Jamie Baldwin

Meeting with applicant to provide update on the project.
Please see meeting note attached.

SSE Plc Seabank 3

Query with regards to the destruction of trees, shrubs and animal habitat on the land on the canal side of the railway track. Also querying action and compensation from developer for damage to properties.
Whilst the Planning Inspectorate examined the application and made a recommendation to the Secretary of State, it is the role of a number of bodies to enforce the permission (Development Consent Order). In relation to some of the issues outlined in your email, a requirement (also known as a condition in other planning legislation) was included at requirement 4 in the Development Consent Order, for the applicant to produce a Construction Environmental Management Plan. I have inserted the wording for this requirement below for your assistance. This document should, as set out below, be submitted to the relevant planning authority and the Health Protection Agency for sign off prior to commencement of works. Therefore, these are bodies to which, in addition to the applicant, Network Rail, you should be addressing your comments. The relevant Planning Authority for this case is Bromsgrove District Council.
Construction Environmental Management Plan
4.—(1) The authorised development must not be commenced until a written construction environmental management plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved by the relevant planning authority in consultation with the Health Protection Agency.
(2) The CEMP must be in accordance with the environmental reports.
(3) The CEMP must reflect the CR-E, and must include an implementation timetable.
(4) The CEMP must in particular include the following:
(a) an external communications plan;
(b) a pollution incident prevention and control plan;
(c) a site waste management plan;
(d) a traffic management plan including a construction traffic code of practice;
(e) a nuisance management plan regarding noise and vibration, dust, air pollution and lighting; and
(f) an ecological management plan.
(5) The construction traffic code of practice under (4)(d) must in particular address:
(a) construction traffic routes and operational hours;
(b) measures to minimise dust and mud;
(c) abnormal loads; and
(d) compliance of drivers with national driving standards and project-specific restrictions.
(6) The CEMP must in particular require:
(a) adherence to the relevant Pollution Prevention Guidelines PPG1, PPG5, PPG6 and PPG21;
(b) except on operational railway land (to which no restriction on working hours applies
under this Order), adherence to—
(i) normal daytime working hours (7am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 2pm on Saturday), and
(ii) no working on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays except for such working outside those times which has been notified to the relevant planning authority and affected residents by an agreed notification procedure in compliance with Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and in full accordance with the nuisance management plan; and
(c) adherence to the scheme of temporary footpaths as approved by the highway authority under requirement 18(1)(d).
(7) The authorised development must be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP and the CR-E.

B Kesslar

Project Update draft documents feedback meeting. Please see attached meeting note.

Navitus Bay Development Limited

Correspondence relating to acceptance.
Letter attached

Graham Martin

Correspondence relating to acceptance.
Letter attached

MP for Norwich South - Simon Wright

Please see attached meeting note

Highways Agency - Lynne Stinson

The applicant requested comments from the Planning Inspectorate on thesecond draft Consultation Report submitted in January 2014.
Please see the attached document for the Planning Inspectorate's comments on the draft document.

Hirwaun Power Ltd - Colin Turnbull

Meeting with applicant to provide update on the project.
Please see meeting note attached.

National Grid National Grid

Request at a hearing on how to submit representations to the Hornsea examination
As requested, I have attached the hearing notification letter, which details where and when the hearings are taking place.
I have also attached the hearing agendas: [attachment 1]
As discussed, these may get updated after this week’s hearings and the next submission deadline, if they do, they will appear on our project page of the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal Website: [attachment 2]
All the deadlines and hearings for the examination are detailed in the examination timetable which is appended to the Rule 8 Letter: [attachment 3]. This letter also provides further information on the examination and how to participate.
The next deadline is 24 February 2014. This is the date at which, the Examining Authority have requested any written submissions following oral submissions given at the hearings this week to be submitted. In addition to any submission you make, the Examining Authority request you submit supporting documents produced by or relied upon by the LEP. This should include, but is not limited to the Hull and Humber City Deal document.
The Examining Authority may, during the course of the examination, vary the timetable, should this take place, a letter will be sent to all interested parties. As the LEP have not requested to become an interested party in this examination as yet, you will not automatically receive these, or any other communications.
Further general advice on examination under the Planning Act 2008 can be found in advice notes produced by the Planning Inspectorate, a full suite of advice notes are available online at: [attachment 4]. Advice notes 8.1 to 8.5 focus on the examination.

The Humber LEP - Emma Toulson

Meeting with applicant of the River Humber Pipeline project to provide an update on the project.
Please see meeting note attached.

River Humber Pipeline National Grid

Would it not be a good idea to post summaries of oral statements as soon as they are received? If you wait until 13 Feb, there will only be a 7 day window for people to comment on them, until 20 Feb.
The Planning Inspectorate only publish submissions for a timetabled deadline once that deadline has elapsed. This is to ensure that all the submissions are given an equal amount of time to be responded to by interested parties.
Therefore, all submitted written summaries of cases put orally at hearings will be made available on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website as soon as practically possible following the close of the deadline on 13 February 2014.

Michael Skuse

During the outreach event on 22 January 2014, a query was raised into what constituted a 'relevant' local authority or parish council for the purpose of the applicants pre-application consultation.
Following on from the Outreach event held in Diss on 22 January, we have looked into the matter of statutory consultees for this project in more depth in relation to parish councils and local authorities, with the aim of providing clarity to all parties. It remains for the applicant to ensure it has consulted correctly, however we hope this information assists all the attendees at the event given the questions raised.
The information includes which local authorities and parish councils we consider are classed as 'relevant', based on the information we have at present, for the purposes of statutory pre-application consultation, those bodies that we consider would be notified by the applicant of an accepted application for examination, and those that would be classed as automatic Interested Parties to an examination if an application was to be accepted in its current form. Please note that should an application be accepted for examination, the applicant would be required to make public notices of the acceptance decision.
It’s important to stress that any person or group can register to become an Interested Party for an examination. Details of how to register are provided in notices and notifications by the applicant, and no-one should feel excluded from the process. We are happy to provide further advice to anyone should they wish and our details are at the end of this email.
I have also included links to our series of Advice Notes and to our new video which explain the process of involvement for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects ('NSIPs').
I would be grateful if you could circulate this email to those who attended the Outreach event, and we will also shortly publish this on our website at the following location: [attachment 1]
Local authorities and parish councils as pre-application statutory consultees:
At the pre-application stage, applicants are under a duty under s42 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) ('PA 2008') to consult statutory consultees about their proposals. These include, amongst others, local authorities and parish councils.
The local authorities and parish councils, who will be consulted upon at this stage include:
• host local authorities (where the proposed development is situated in a local authorities area - known as either 'B' or 'C' authorities); and
• neighbouring local authorities to those host authorities (known as either 'A' or 'D' authorities).
Parish councils which have responsibility for the location where the proposal may be sited are known as 'relevant' parish councils. Applicants are required to consult these parish councils at the statutory pre-application consultation stage. PINS are required to consult these parish councils on any scoping request made by the applicant and we did so during the scoping stage of the project.
On 15 May 2013, the Planning Inspectorate received notification from the applicant, Progress Power Limited, under Regulation 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended). This triggered the requirement for the Planning Inspectorate to produce a list under Regulation 9 of those regulations. On the basis of the information provided by the applicant in relation to this request, the following local authorities were identified by the Inspectorate as local authorities for the purposes of s42 consultation under the 'A', ‘B’, ‘C’ & 'D' tests as prescribed in s43 PA 2008:
Relevant Parish Councils:
• Thrandeston Parish Council
• Eye Town Council
• Yaxley Parish Council.
Local Authorities:
'A' local authorities (local authorities which neighbour the 'host' local authority if that authority is a unitary council or a lower-tier district council):
• Waveney District Council;
• Suffolk Coastal District Council;
• Ipswich Borough Council;
• Babergh District Council;
• St Edmundsbury District Council;
• Breckland Council;
• South Norfolk Council; and
• Norfolk County Council.
'B' local authority (A 'host' unitary council or lower-tier district council):
• Mid-suffolk District Council.
'C' local authority (A 'host' upper-tier county council):
• Suffolk County Council.
'D' local authority (A local authority that is not a lower-tier district council which neighbours a 'host' upper-tier county council):
• Norfolk County Council;
• Essex County Council; and
• Cambridgeshire County Council.
Notification of an accepted application - prescribed persons:
If and when an application is accepted for examination by the Planning Inspectorate, the developer is under a duty to give notice of this acceptance to, amongst others, 'host' and ‘neighbouring’ local authorities and 'relevant' parish councils.
As part of the duty on developers to publicise an accepted application, the developer is required to set the period - being a minimum of 28 days - for the receipt by the Planning Inspectorate of relevant representations. A relevant representation should constitute, a brief, 500 word summary of the main, headline issues a party wishes to put towards the Examining authority (once appointed), allowing such issues to be fed into the initial assessment of principal issues.
In submitting a relevant representation, the party doing so will consequentially be registered as an Interested Party to the examination of the project. This entitles the party to a legal status, allowing full participation within the examination e.g. to attend and speak at hearings and to submit further, written representations to the Examining Authority.
Automatic IPS:
Some parties are automatically registered as Interested Parties, and therefore, not required to submit a relevant representation to the Planning Inspectorate. Such bodies include, but are not limited to:
• Local authorities whose land the proposed development falls within or 'host' local authorities (NB: this excludes parish councils).
Statutory Parties (which includes, but is not limited to, relevant parish councils) are not automatically registered as Interested Parties however they will be invited to the Preliminary Meeting to allow them to make representations to the Examining authority as to how the application is to be examined. Following on from this, the Rule 8 letter will be issued to all Interested Parties and to the said ‘statutory parties’ (s88 (3) (c ) or (d)). The statutory parties will then be invited to register as an Interested Party.
This means that the aforementioned 'host' local authorities (NB: not parish councils) will not need to register as an Interested Party through submitting a Relevant Representation by the deadline as set-out in the developer's acceptance notice, should the project be accepted for examination. However, the Planning Inspectorate still urges those bodies which are automatically classed as Interested Parties to submit a relevant representation to the Planning Inspectorate to ensure the views of such bodies are not missed by the Examining authority at such a key, early stage.
For further information regarding how the process works and how local authorities and parish councils can be involved please refer to the Advice Notes and information videos provided below.
Advice Notes:
8.1 (How the process works) - [attachment 2]
8.2 (Responding to the developers pre-application consultation) - [attachment 3]
8.3 (How to register and become an interested party in an application) - [attachment 4]
8.4 (Influencing how an application will be examined – the Preliminary Meeting) - [attachment 5]
8.5 (Participating in the examination) - [attachment 6]
Information Videos:
A new video explaining the process is now available on our website at the following link:
[attachment 7]

Progress Power Progress Power Limited

During the afternoon session at last weeks Outreach Meeting Mr Simon Cairns, representing Common Concern, questioned the Planning Inspectorate regarding the number of cases to date where local authorities, other than Suffolk CC and Mid Suffolk DC, have resolved to support Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects at the pre-consultation stage.

On this point the Planning Inspectorate (Jeff Penfold) undertook to provide a response to Common Concern regarding the orthodoxy of local authorities resolving, in principle, to support projects in the absence of project design details or EIA evidence at this very early stage of the process.
I am writing in regards to the request for advice following the outreach event held on 22 January 2014 relating to the proposed Progress Power Station by Progress Power Ltd. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to you on this matter.
The question posed by yourself to the Planning Inspectorate related to the frequency of cases where local authorities involved in a project have voiced an opinion, at the pre-application consultation stage of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (‘NSIP’) process, in regards to their stance on a proposal.
At the pre-application stage, local authorities provide responses directly to applicants and this is not information that is given to the Planning Inspectorate. In addition, we do not hold information on the procedure for each authority to prepare its response, for example whether this is a delegated power or report to the relevant cabinet or committee.
The most comprehensive record of local authority responses can be found in consultation reports submitted with each application. We have published all consultation reports submitted as part of applications made, on our website. These documents summarise the response of local authorities to formal pre-application consultation and may prove a useful starting point to help answer your query. Each project has its own page with all the relevant documents. Our home page also lists the latest schemes in examination.
You can search for projects by stage in the process at the following link:
[attachment 1]
For each project, application documents can be found under the ‘documents’ tab, and are sorted by stage on the left hand side of the page.
Consultation Reports can be found under ‘developer’s application’, and you can search for ‘consultation report’ in the filter on the right hand side of the page.
I attach an example below which I hope assists:
[attachment 2];stage=app
As a general point, the aim of the Planning Act 2008 is to use the pre-application stage to identify potential issues before an application is made. We encourage all consultees whether statutory or community consultees, to make responses at the pre-application stage based on the information available for applicants to have regard to when forming an application. It is for each consultee including local authorities to consider how they put together their response.
Local authorities in particular have a statutory role throughout the process. Where they are able to identify issues early on and work with applicants at the pre-application stage, it can help identify potential mitigation measures before an application is submitted. Should an application be accepted, formal responses at the pre-application stage can help applicants and local authorities to establish information needed to inform future representations made as part of any examination. Please note that all parties have the opportunity to comment on any representations made during examination, for consideration by the Examining authority and on the application documents.
I hope this helps to answer your question, please feel free to contact us should you have any further questions regarding any aspect of the process.

Common Concern - Hilary Butler

Telephone Conference - Project Update
Please see attachment

Multifuel Energy Limited (MEL)

A meeting was held with the developer, Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd, about the progress of the project in the run up to submission. The advice given is recorded in the attached meeting note.
Please see meeting note attached

Vattenfall - Ruari Lean

Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

Gail Mayhew

Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

Graham Martin

A meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and National Grid to discuss the proposed Hinkley Point C Connection project on 6 February 2014.
Meeting note attached.

National Grid

PINS comments on the draft HRA document prepared for the Yorkshire to Humber CCS project.

AECOM - Charlotte Clinton

Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

Stop Norwich Urbanisation - Stephen Heard

Norwich Northern Distributor Road documents submitted for acceptance.
Advice offered on acceptance.

Norfolk County Council - Jon Barnard

Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

CPRE Norfolk - Ian Shepherd

see attached enquiry
Please be advised that the submissions received by yourself and Mr AG Hemmings were made by individuals who were not Interested Parties, however the Examining Authority exercised his discretion to accept these submission.
Section 102 of the 2008 Act interprets the term 'interested party' to include a person that has been notified of the acceptance of an application in accordance with section 56(2)(d) of the Planning Act 2008 and has made a relevant representation.
Your original correspondence which has also been published to the Woodside project web page was addressed to CBC and therefore as this was not completed on the Planning Inspectorates application form, it could not be considered as relevant representation. Further representations at a hearing must only relate to the issues raised in the relevant representation. Relevant representations will allow the 'Examining Authority' (i.e. a single Inspector or panel of Inspectors appointed to examine the application) to determine the most appropriate method of examining the application. At examination, interested parties will have the opportunity to submit further detailed 'written representations' on an application.
As the objectors which you have described below had not submitted a relevant representation before the deadline of the 29 July 2013, they cannot be considered as interested parties
Furthermore, as the examination is now in progress, only those people who are Interested Parties are entitled to make submissions on the application.
All those who registered with the Planning Inspectorate and made relevant representations before the deadline of 29 July 2013 automatically became Interested Parties under Section 102 of the Planning Act 2008. As you did not register and make a relevant representation, you are not therefore an Interested Party. Neither is Mr Hemming. The Examining Authority does however have discretion on whether to accept any submissions from people who are not Interested Parties. In this particular case he has decided to exercise his discretion to accept your submission of 24 January 2014.
The persons referred to in the Reports to the Secretaries of State have also not registered and submitted relevant representations. They are therefore not Interested Parties.
If you wish to follow the progress of the application, please be advised that updates regarding the Woodside Link proposal can be accessed via the Planning Portal project webpage [attachment 1]
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact the Woodside project team. I trust you find this information satisfactory.

John-Hateley

Update provided on submission of application
The Applicant informed the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) by email on 15 January 2014 that a small area of land over a high pressure gas pipeline was due to be removed from the application boundary.
The Applicant clarified via email on 3 February 2014 that they intend to identify on their Land Plans the area of land which will be omitted from the Development Consent Order (DCO) application, but do not intend to update the red line boundary of the remaining application documents, including the Environmental Statement (ES).
PINS advises that that the ES should include a clear statement, accompanied by a plan of the omitted land, which explains the differences between plans within the ES and the relevant Land Plan. This statement should also clarify how the change to the site boundary affects the assessment of impacts presented within ES.

Alex Herbert

Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

Norwich Green Party - Andrew Boswell

See attached
131219_TR010015 letter from LA Gray about NCC consultation
131231_TR010015 letter from LA Gray about NCC consultation
See attached
140204_TR010015_Response to LA Gray

Les Gray

Letter received by the Planning Inspectorate from The Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP (North Somerset) attached.
Response from Sir Michael Pitt, Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate attached.

Liam Fox MP

Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

Les Gray

Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

NNTAG - Denise Carlo

Please see attached meeting note

Forewind - Andrew Guyton

Post-Acceptance s51 advice to the applicant
Please see attached letter

Sophie Diver

Initial Meeting with Keuper Gas Storage Ltd
Please see attached meeting note

Keuper Gas Storage Ltd

Mrs Harrington rang the Planning Inspectorate with concerns that the methods used by the developer to advertise the consultation for the proposed application are not reaching the local community and sought advice regarding who she should contact concerning this.
As you may be aware, the East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange scheme is currently at the ‘pre-application’ stage of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (PA 2008) process. The application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in Q1/2 of 2014.
At this stage of the process the developer should be your first point of contact and it is recommended that you refer to the developer’s website for information on how to contact them I have included a link to the applicant’s website below:
[attachment 1]
Before formally consulting people in the vicinity of the project, the developer must prepare a Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), having first consulted relevant local authorities about what it should contain. The purpose of the SoCC is to provide details on the consultation process, which the developer intends to undertake with the local community about their project. The developer is then required to carry out their consultation with the local community as set out in the SoCC.
If you are not satisfied with the developer’s consultation process you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and give them an opportunity to respond. However, as you raised concerns regarding consultation during our telephone conversation, you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority. When an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate following the pre-application stage, we have a 28 day period during which under delegated powers from the Secretary of State the Planning Inspectorate will decide whether to accept the application to progress to the examination stage. During this time we will invite relevant local authorities to provide us with their comments on the adequacy of the applicant’s consultation.
If the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with the Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer in local newspapers and on site notices. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the PA 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available via the link below. In this instance I recommend reviewing advice note eight series – ‘How to get involved in the planning process’.
You may access these documents on our website at the following link:
[attachment 2]

Toni Harrington

The Marine Licensing Team proposes undertaking a shared Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) with the Planning Inspectorate. Subject to agreement, NRW, acting on behalf of the Licensing Authority, proposes to undertake an HRA of the aspects of the project comprising licensable activities for which a Welsh Marine Licence is required. Such assessment would include an in-combination assessment with other relevant plans and projects however would not consider aspects of the development for which a DCO is required. It is proposed that the Planning Inspectorate undertakes the in combination assessment of the aspects of the project for those matters of the development under which a DCO is required.
We consider that this arrangement to be a pragmatic approach which satisfies the requirements of the EIA Directive
I note your proposal that NRW Marine Licensing Team undertakes a shared Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) with the Planning Inspectorate and the proposal that the Planning Inspectorate undertakes the in combination assessment of the aspects of the project for those matters of the development under which a DCO is required.
The relevant Secretary of State determines applications for development consent for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. As the decision maker they are the competent authority for the purposes of the Habitats Regulations, not the Planning Inspectorate. The role of the Examining Authority during the examination is to examine the relevant evidence, including any information requested by them, so that they can subsequently make a recommendation to the Secretary of State who can undertake an appropriate assessment if required. Neither the Planning Inspectorate nor the Examining Authority can undertake an appropriate assessment if one is required.
I understand that NRW, DECC and the Planning Inspectorate have been involved in, in principle, discussions about ways of establishing processes to deal with Habitats Regulations issues where more than one competent authority is involved but that there is yet to be an agreed outcome to this. Should such an approach be proposed it is most likely to be helpful if a process is agreed and established before applications are made for a development consent order or other consents.

Natural Resources Wales - Delyth Rowlands

I have a query relating to the prescribed list of consultees in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009/2264 for NSIPs.
Schedule 1 includes the following health bodies as statutory consultees in Wales:
· The National Health Service Commissioning Board and the relevant clinical commissioning group
· The relevant Health Board
· The National Health Service Trusts
The following health bodies in Wales have been identified:
· The Local Health Board
· The Health Protection Agency.
It has been suggested that the following bodies should also be included as statutory consultees in Wales:
· Public Health Wales
· Wales Health Protection Team
Might you please be able to clarify, with regard to the Welsh NHS system the correct statutory health bodies as envisaged by the Regs?
Thank you for your email regarding who to consult on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. As you have referenced, who to consult is based on the prescribed list of consultees Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009/2264.
It is the responsibility of each applicant to decide who to consult and we suggest that the Schedule 1 list is a starting point. There may be other bodies who you choose to consult. The Planning Inspectorate is not able to provide a comprehensive list or sign off any list as being appropriate. I would strongly advise that developers fully explain and justify the reasons for not consulting any bodies on the Schedule 1 list within their consultation report which will accompany a developers submission. Likewise, any extra consultees should be recorded.
Having said this, I have spoken with colleagues who carry out scoping and screening consultations and have tried to provide some advice on the points in your email based on the approach the Planning Inspectorate follow. As previously stated, we advise that applicants do not rely on this for their formal consultation.
Clinical Commissioning Groups do not operate in Wales therefore they would not be consulted on projects located in Wales.
For projects where a Regulation 6 notification was received by the Planning Inspectorate pre-April 2013, Public Health Wales and local health boards were consulted by the Planning Inspectorate as a statutory undertaker. For projects where a Regulation 6 notification was received by the Planning post-April 2013 the schedule 1 list identifies the relevant local health board and National Health Service trusts (which the Planning Inspectorate have interpreted as Public Health Wales, Welsh Ambulance Trust and the Velindre NHS Trust).
The Health Protection Agency has now become Public Health England. The Planning Inspectorate have received confirmation from Public Health England that they cover Wales, so we consult with them for both English and Welsh projects
The Wales Health Protection Team are not listed on Schedule 1. The Public Health Wales website indicates that they are part of Public Health Wales who are however consulted. We suggest that you investigate this if you require confirmation. As I mentioned earlier, we suggest that the Schedule 1 list is a starting point for consultation and developers are encouraged to consult more widely than the bodies prescribed.
For information, I have would draw your attention to Advice Note 3, produced by the Planning Inspectorate: [attachment 1] and in particular the annex which opens in a separate document: [attachment 2]

Siobhan Gill

1) Are you able to confirm that the "host" authorities for the purpose of s43 of the 2008 Act are:
    a) Dorset county council as the upper tier authority.
    b) East Dorset DC as the lower tier authority?
2) In view of this, are you able to confirm that the Unitary Authority on the Isle of Wight will be excluded from the right to see an advance copy the Consultation Report and to make comments on adequacy under s56(4) during the Acceptance assessment?
3) Further, can you confirm that the Unitary Authority will nevertheless be invited to the Preliminary Meeting with a "Rule-6" letter - and have opportunity to submit a "Local Impact Statement" (LIS) that will be considered equally with any Local Impact Reports (LIRs) that may be submitted by other authorities under s60 of the Act?
4) Can you confirm that the reduction of rights accorded to the Unitary council as a result of the drafting of s43 (and s102) of the Act is a cause of concern that the Inspectorate will refer to the formal review of the Act due to occur during 2014?
  
5) Consequent upon changes to the scheme, would the list of consultees in Appendix One of the November 2011 Scoping Opinion still be valid? What changes would be needed if it were to be complied now?
6) Are there any other aspects of the process where exclusions arising from the drafting of s43 currently place the Unitary Authority in a less advantageous position than it would be if the Solent were to be deemed of zero width and thus Wight be contiguous with Hampshire?
My impression is that the island despite being the second nearest land to the proposed development (just one kilometre further than Dorset) may be at significant disadvantage compared to places like Wiltshire that have no immediate impact from the development. Thus I would hope that relevant minds can give this issue some attention. Whilst the LIS procedure reduces the detriment to local interests resulting from s60 there is still some detriment in that the decision-making Secretary of State is not obliged to have the same regard to any LIS as is required to be given under s105(2) to a Local Impact Report.
1) In May 2011 the Planning Inspectorate received a notification from the applicant, Navitus Bay Development Ltd, under Regulation 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. This triggered the requirement for the Inspectorate to produce a list under Regulation 9 of those regulations. On the basis of the information provided by the applicant in relation to this request, the following local authorities were identified by the Inspectorate as host authorities under the ‘B’ and ‘C’ tests described in s43 of the Planning Act 2008:
a) New Forest National Park
b) Dorset County Council
c) Hampshire County Council
d) Christchurch Borough Council
e) Bournemouth Borough Council
f) East Dorset District Council
g) New Forest District Council
2) The Consultation Report will be sent to s43 local authorities at the start of the Acceptance period to seek an ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representation’ from them. Since none of the proposed development is within the Isle of Wight and it does not share a boundary with any of the ‘host’ authorities listed above; the Isle of Wight Council is not a s43 local authority as prescribed by the PA2008 and therefore the Consultation Report would not automatically be shared with it at the Acceptance stage. What constitutes a s43 local authority is a matter of fact, and the tests in the PA2008 are clear.
This scenario however does not mean that the Isle of Wight Council could not request that the Consultation Report is sent to it at the same time as to the s43 local authorities, or that the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) could not have regard to any representation received from the Isle of Wight Council in making its decision as to whether the applicant has complied with Chapter 2 Part 5 of the PA2008. It also does not preclude the Isle of Wight Council from making representations to a s43 local authority, including a request for the content of that representation to be considered as part of the s43 authority’s ‘Adequacy of Consultation Representation’ to the Inspectorate.
As you are aware, the Isle of Wight Council will be afforded the opportunity to register as an interested party and on this basis make written and oral representations to an appointed Examining Authority (ExA) at the appropriate time.
3) As described above, the Isle of Wight Council would not be a s43 local authority for the scheme as currently proposed, and therefore it would not be automatically invited to the Preliminary Meeting under Rule 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rule 2010 (as amended). The Council, however, can secure an invitation by making a relevant representation at the appropriate time. An appointed ExA also has discretion to invite ‘Other Persons’ to a Preliminary Meeting; where it feels representations from them would help its consideration of how an application should be examined.
S60 of the PA2008 states that the Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must invite all s56A local authorities to submit a Local Impact Report. An appointed ExA may also invite representations to be provided by local authorities not covered by s56A of the PA2008, which could comprise the same type of information that would be included in a Local Impact Report. The weight attributed to any such statement would be at the discretion of that ExA.
4) The ‘2014 Review’ of the Planning Act 2008 regime is being undertaken by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG). The Inspectorate is unable to make any comments pre-empting how CLG will interpret its findings, or on any amendments to the regime which may or may not emerge from these. Details on how to respond to CLG’s consultation in relation to the ‘2014 Review’ can be found on pages 7 and 8 of the following document: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/262984/Reviewing_the_National_Significant_Infrastructure_Planning_Regime_-_Discussion_document.pdf
5) The list of consultees identified in Appendix One of the Inspectorate’s 2011 Scoping Opinion was generated based on a GIS shape file provided by the applicant at that time. A shape file in this context identifies the Order limits (or ‘red line boundary’) of the proposed development.
Immediately prior to the submission of a DCO application, the Inspectorate will request a contemporary GIS shape file from the applicant based on the Order limits of the proposed development as applied for. From this an up-to-date list of consultees will be generated, reflecting any geographical or jurisdictional changes to any Schedule 1 bodies. It is from the list generated at submission of a DCO application that the Inspectorate will base its statutory correspondences in the Acceptance and Pre-examination periods.
6) I would reemphasise the content of my responses to questions 1 and 2, where the PA2008 provides mechanisms for non-prescribed local authorities to provide representations on the adequacy of consultation, and to register as interested parties and become fully engaged with the examination process. I would also request that any comments on the PA2008 statute in the context of the ‘2014 Review’ should be made directly to CLG by the means described in my response to question 4.

Alan Rayner

Tripartite meeting with Progress Power Limited, Suffolk County Council, Mid-Suffolk District Council and the Planning Inspectorate.
Please see meeting note attached.

Progress Power Limited Chris Girdham

Letter addressed to the Director of Major Applications & Plans from the RSPB attached.
Response from the Director of Major Applications & Plans attached.

RSPB - Gwyn Williams

Advice provided following the meeting of 24 October 2013.
Further to advice provided at the meeting of 24 October 2013, and following informal consultation that has been carried out as a result, the Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) has been copied into responses from some parties.
Such exchanges of correspondence take place regularly throughout the pre-application stage, and the Inspectorate is often copied into these. The Inspectorate finds this helpful in keeping us appraised of matters, and enabling advice to be provided to assist all parties in preparing for the submission of an application. The Inspectorate does not intend to make any substantive response to the content of these letters because these are, at this stage matters for the parties concerned and this correspondence was not addressed directly to us, but rather we were copied into it.
The Inspectorate would like to reiterate advice previously provided under s.51 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008). Any matters that have been raised through consultation, be it statutory or non-statutory consultation, and have or have not resulted in alterations in the application or application documents, should be explained in the consultation report.
Under s.55 of the PA2008, the Secretary of State may only accept an application if he is satisfied that the applicant has complied with the pre-application procedure set out in Chapter 2 of Part 5. This procedure includes an applicant's duty to take account of responses to consultation and publicity under s.49. This is best articulated through providing evidence of the iterative consultation activities which have taken place throughout the pre-application stage.
With regards the Environmental Impact Assessment, we would note that where matters have been scoped out or statutory consultee responses not followed the reasons for doing so must be adequately explained and justified in the Environmental Statement, which should be a standalone document.
A further point to note is that under Regulation 5(5) of the Infrastructure Planning (Application:Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009, the Inspectorate can, on behalf of the Secretary of State, request copies of all responses to statutory consultation and publicity. In view of this power, applicants should be ready to provide copies of these at short notice, preferably in both hard and electronic form, in the event of such a request.

Alex Herbert

The offshore element of this application has already been consented.
There is a suggestion in the real world that the developers wish to
make significant changes to the scheme - including a substantial
reduction in the overall capacity.
Please advise the formal status under the 2008 Act of proposals for
deviation from the implementation permitted by the Consent Order.
If developers are allowed unilaterally to implement in a way different to
the Consent Order, it does reduce confidence in the whole process and
could impact upon fulfilment of the 2020 targets for renewable energy.
Consent was granted for 1.2Gw. We need 1.2Gw. How can we ensure
that this is what will be delivered (subject to consent for the Electricity
connection deemed to be an NSIP in November 2013)?
Advice under s51 is requested.
Could this project be re-opened - possibly in connection with the
Electrical connection application? Clearly, examination could be
condensed as much of the material would remain relevant and
presumably would be in evidence - including the previous ExA
report and the decision letter etc.
Thank you for your email.
We note your concerns about the developer proposing to construct a scheme which would be reduced from the maxima consented by the Secretary of State in the made development consent order (DCO) for this project. As you may know, the authorised scheme is set out in the made DCO at Schedule 1 Part 1, which has been published to the project page of the Planning Portal (link below):
[attachment 1]
You will note that Work no.1 (the generating assets) is described as:
"Work No. 1 — an offshore wind turbine generating station with a gross electrical output capacity of up to 1200 MW comprising up to 288 wind turbine generators each fixed to the seabed by one of five foundation types (namely, monopile, jacket, tripod, suction bucket monopod or gravity
base foundation), fitted with rotating blades and situated within the coordinates for the Order limits shown on the Works plan and specified below, and including the further works comprising.."
By the use of the term 'up to' the developer gains the flexibility to construct a wind farm with a generating capacity of less than 1200MW. Hence, less than this maximum capacity may be constructed as long as what is constructed is in accordance with the terms of the Order. You will note that this practice of setting a maximum, or otherwise allowing for a degree of flexibility in what may be constructed, is also used for other aspects of the development, including the number of wind turbine generators and the foundation type(s).
This approach is commonly referred to as using the 'Rochdale Envelope' and was established in case law under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the 1990 Act) by R. v Rochdale MBC ex parte Milne (No. 1), R. v Rochdale MBC ex parte Tew [1999], and R. v Rochdale MBC ex parte Milne (No. 2) [2000]. You may wish to read our advice note on this topic (link below):
[attachment 2]
It is also established practice, in relation to planning permissions granted under the 1990 Act, that developers are not required to construct the full quantum of development for which they permission, and may choose to build out less.
For a development such as this, which is Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development, the developer must provide an Environmental Statement (ES) with their application which will set out the worst-case scenario assessed as part of their EIA. The constructed development must remain within the parameters of what was assessed in the EIA.
With regard to the ability of the developer to deviate from the consented scheme set out in the DCO, there is provision for this in section 153 and Schedule 6 of the Planning Act 2008 (the 2008 Act) which sets out the two prescribed ways in which an Order can be changed post-consent. The procedures to be followed following an application under these provisions are set out in The Infrastructure Planning (Changes to, and Revocation of, Development Consent Orders) Regulations 2011, which can be found at the link below:
[attachment 3]
With regard to whether the examination could be reopened, there is no provision under the 2008 Act for the reopening of an examination once it has been closed. The proposed application for the electrical connection infrastructure will, if submitted, only relate to that infrastructure not the already consented off-shore wind-farm.
You will note however that if an application were made to change the Order under the above regulations, the process set out in Part 2 of those regulations sets out a pre-application, application and examination process that is largely similar to the process that was carried out for the original application. This could result in a further consideration of the project or aspects of it.
The applicant may be able to rely on the original application documents in relation to their application to change the Order, either as originally submitted or as updated. Under Reg 16(i) the applicant is under a duty to provide a statement which:
"(i) identifies the extent to which the information submitted with the initial application for an order granting development consent in accordance with regulations 5 and 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 is correct and relevant to the application; and (ii) where necessary updates the parts of this information that relate to the application;"
In determining the application the Secretary of State is under a duty to have regard to the following under Reg. 47:
"(a) any national policy statement which has effect in relation to development of the description authorised by the development consent order the subject of the application, (a “relevant national policy statement”);
(b) the appropriate marine policy documents (if any), determined in accordance with section 59 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;
(c) any matters prescribed in relation to development of the description authorised by the development consent order the subject of the application; and
(d) any other matters which the Secretary of State thinks are both important and relevant to its decision."
You will note that these obligations are similar to those on the Secretary of State in relation to the original application under section 104 of the 2008 Act.
You may also be aware that there are provisions, under section 72 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, for variations to be made to the deemed marine licence granted in relation to this DCO. You may wish to contact the Marine Management Organisation in relation to this.

Alan Rayner

Meeting with the applicant to provide an update on the project and to discuss draft documents submitted in December 2013
Please see meeting note attached

Hirwaun Power Ltd - Colin Turnbull

There is a particular problem with how the consultation has been conducted by the company.

Much information has been delayed, some of it is very relevant but even now unavailable and many company claims about the scheme are incorrect.

My concern is that the absence of sufficient proper information has had a bad effect on public appreciation of the wind farm plan.

While this is going on, the company endlessly have statements published in the main local newspaper, the Bournemouth Echo, saying how keen they are to consult with everyone, answer all questions and take all comments on board with a view to mitigation.

To be clear, the questions have been asked of the company already, but without result.

Kindly advise if there is any way the public are able to bring to your attention the numerous examples of such poor consultation. If so, what would be the best procedure to use please?
Before a decision can be made by the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) on whether to accept an application for Examination, local authorities are invited to make representations to the Inspectorate concerning the adequacy of the applicant’s pre-consultation. The Inspectorate will write to relevant local authorities when an application has been received to ask for their comments in relation to this. The Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, must have regard to these representations in making its decision on whether to accept an application to proceed to be examined.

Pre-application consultation is a statutory duty for applicants, and the Planning Act 2008 requires for it to be carried out in a certain manner and to a certain standard. Issues about the adequacy of an applicant's pre-application consultation should be shared and considered prior to the Inspectorate making a decision on accepting an application for examination. Where any person feels that an applicant's pre-application consultation was inadequately carried out, they should seek resolution by approaching the applicant in the first instance.

If persons remain unsatisfied, they should make a complaint to the relevant local authority (who can consider this complaint as part of their representation to the Secretary of State on the adequacy of consultation), or to the Secretary of State (via the Inspectorate). Any complaint should be made promptly following the close of consultation to ensure that it is received not later than the point at which an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. In all cases, the final decision as to whether pre-application consultation was adequately carried out rests with the Secretary of State.

Separately, where someone believes they have identified an issue which has not been adequately addressed by the applicant, despite raising it with them as part of their pre-application consultation exercises, they may wish to make a written representation about that issue to the Examination of that application. This will ensure that the issue is read by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination.

You may also find the following guidance and advice note helpful:

Guidance on the Pre-Application Process (The Planning Act 2008):
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49468/Planning_Act_2008_pre-applications.pdf

Advice note sixteen: The developer’s pre-application consultation, publicity and notification duties:
[attachment 1]

Bill Hoodless

E-mail received from Bairbre Ni Bhraonain:
This is Bairbre Ni Bhraonain of the Dun Laoghaire Gazette. Can you tell me how far from the Irish shore the wind farm proposed for the Walney Extension will be? Will you be crossing into Irish territory? What are the transboundary effects Dun Laoghaire County Council speaks of that entitle the residents of that county to be publicly consulted in the planning process for the wind farm?
Response from the Planning Inspectorate:
An application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for an extension to the Walney wind farm off the Cumbrian Coast. Our project page is at [attachment 1], which contains all of the application and examination documents. The project is approximately 19km from the coast of Walney Island (Barrow), partly in UK Territorial waters, the remainder on the UK continental shelf between England and the Isle of Man.

The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the British Government, has screened the possible likely significant effects of the development to other territories. The report is at [attachment 2]. The Republic of Ireland has been included in relation to commercial fishing and migratory avian species.

Consequently, the Irish Government is invited to comment on the proposals as they are being examined. As part of their own processes, it seems that local councils such as Dun Laoghaire are undertaking public consultation into the proposals.

You may wish to contact the developer for further information; their project page is at [attachment 3]

Bairbre Ni Bhraonain

FAO Sophie Moeng.
I refer to your e-mail sent to xxxx and dated 02.2013 and sent at 3.08pm.
I note that a full set of documents(for the above application) will be available for the public to read at---- and you list 4 locations.
Would you please note that either Swanage Library or Swanage Town Hall should be also be issued with a full set of all documents .

The People of Swanage and nearby villages have to travel about 18 miles to Bournemouth via a ferry crossing or a distance of about 20 miles to Poole central Library, and some may be involved in several bus routes.

The population of Swanage includes a higher than national average of Senior Citizens , some of whom may have difficulty in reaching the libraries in Poole and Bournemouth .

If / when this application reaches your office, it will generate intense local interest. It is anticipated that the application will be many, many pages long and may well take some hours / days to read and digest properly and it would be wise to make several copies available at each of the locations that they are sent to, otherwise members of the public may have to wait or make appointments to be able to access the documents.
Perhaps it would be worth making the documents available on a web site and give some publicity to that fact.
Thank you for your email. I note that it is marked for the attention of Sophie Moeng; the Senior Stakeholder Manager at Navitus Bay Development Ltd. If Ms. Moeng was the intended recipient of this correspondence, may I recommended redirecting your email for her attention to info@navitusbay.com.

If and when the application for the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and if it is decided that that application is of a satisfactory standard to be examined by the Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State, both the application documents and all submissions to that examination will be published to the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website. The Navitus Bay Wind Park project page is available on the following link:
[attachment 1]
Based on the information available to me, Swanage Library appears to offer full internet access to the public and therefore if the application is accepted to be examined by the Inspectorate residents of Swanage should be able to use their local library to access the application and examination documents if they wish. The opening hours for Swanage Library are available on the following link:
[attachment 2]

David Gerry

Meeting with applicant to provide update on the project.
Please see meeting note attached.

York Potash Limited

I have recently been shown a document entitled:
E.ON Climate & Renewables UK Rampion Offshore Wind Limited
NOTE ON STATUTORY BLIGHT CLAIMS LAND COMPENSATION ACT 1973 ("The Act")
which I believe was published in December 2013.
E.On claims under 1.4 that, "No right to compensation applies for neighbours disrupted by the construction of public works."
At a hearing of West Sussex County Council's Environmental & Community Services Select Committee held on 12th July 2013, our local representative spoke. The draft minutes state that, "More work is done to consider the need for adequate compensation to individuals." And, "In considering the definition of affected individuals, communities and businesses, this definition is not applied too narrowly." The draft minutes also state that, "The Council could raise the issue of compensation in the LIR (Local Impact Report), but this would be decided by the Secretary of State."
A document entitled Non Technical Summary of July 2012 states under a heading of "Ecology", 26.7.33 , "For residential receptors located as scattered farmsteads including ... Swallow Cottage... direct to slightly oblique, uninterrupted and filtered views of the temporary construction activities may be possible.... At worse, where views are uninterrupted, there will be a prominent change to the quality and character of the view. The magnitude of impact is therefore assessed as being large."
As you will be aware, our neighbours have already lost four prospective buyers who were not prepared to pay the full market price for their property. As we are now in our seventies and may wish to move before the completion of the construction of the on-shore substation, we do not wish to be put in a position of losing a considerable sum of money due to the blight caused by these on-going construction works.
We should be very grateful, therefore, if you would kindly give this matter your attention.
Thank you for your email in regards to compensation for local residents during construction of the on-shore substation for the Rampion offshore wind farm.
As this is in regard to matters of financial compensation relating to claimed impacts upon property value it does not fall for consideration to the DCO examination, as the scope of the DCO examination is limited to consideration of whether the proposed compulsory acquisition meets the tests set out in the Planning Act 2008. Guidance on this is contained in DCLG Planning Act 2008 Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land. The tests involve consideration of the requirement for the land for the development and whether there is a compelling case in the public interest for such land to be acquired.
For this reason, the Examining Authority (ExA) has exercised their discretion under s.87(3)(c) to disregard your representation . However, we can advise you that as these matters are governed by the relevant compulsory purchase legislation, it may be something for the The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). We advise that you should take legal advice regarding your position and those advisors may then consider that you have a case to argue at the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Please also note, the examination must close by midnight on Saturday 18 January 2014 and any submissions received after this time will not be forwarded to the ExA.
We hope this advice is of assistance to you however if you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

K A Hirst

Meeting with applicant to provide update on the project.
Please see meeting note attached.

York Potash Limited

Clarification on which matters in relation to sections 131 and 132 the Examining Authority are anticipating examining at the hearing on 17 January 2014
The PA 2008 is the starting point and the context for considering the compulsory acquisition and temporary use of open space; the need for such land; minimisation of use and impacts; any alternative provision, compensation measures and mitigation. Compulsory acquisition issues in relation to the statutory tests have been considered generally in the earlier CA hearings. However on Friday (17 January) they will be considered specifically in the context of section 4.8 of the NPS and particularly paragraphs 4.8.12 to 4.8.24.

SPP will not be considered as this is the subject of a separate process and determination. Further, whilst any Interested Parties may make submissions in relation to section 4.8, it will be made clear by the Examining authority that submissions relating to issues within sections 131 and 132 will not be accepted as these are being dealt with by DCLG. The session on Friday 17 January will therefore focus on the issues which arise under paragraph 4.8 of the NPS and so far as the applicant is concerned will follow Q4.33 and the applicant's response thereto.

Thames Water Utilities Ltd - Ian Fletcher

A meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and National Grid to discuss the proposed Hinkley Point C Connection project on 9 January 2013.
Meeting note attached.

National Grid - National Grid

A scheme to widen part of the A14 is due to be promoted by the Highways Agency under the Planning Act 2008 in Autumn 2014. In the course of them obtaining a DCO various traffic orders will be required to implement various speed and weight limits. Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO's) will be required. My query is can the requirement for TROs be done as part of the DCO process i.e by the Highways Agency rather than Cambridgeshire as part of the local highways authority? If yes then do the County Council give up their discretion to modify the orders?
The Highways Agency (HA), as the applicant, will need to decide when preparing their application what to include in their draft DCO. Section 150 of the PA2008 allows the HA to include other consents and authorisations in their DCO, with the consent of the relevant body. Therefore, if there are Transport Regulation Orders to which you would otherwise be the consenting authority, that you are content to have included in the DCO, then you should discuss this directly with the HA and ensure that your written consent is included as part of the application documentation.
You might also want to look at the M1 Juntion 10a Luton DCO where proposed modifications to Orders were included within the DCO document. This application was made by Luton Borough Council.

Cambridgeshire County Council - Richard Pitt

Phone call regarding letters submitted to the applicant at the relevant representation stage
Please see the summary of points we discussed over the phone today.
In terms of our discussion about the letters that you have received from various parties at the relevant representation period, please note that those people should have been contacted and advised during the relevant representation period to make their representation on the prescribed form to the Planning Inspectorate as per your 56 Notice that was published in the papers.
Unfortunately, as the relevant representation period has now been closed these letters cannot be accepted by the Inspectorate as a relevant representation. I suggest you reply to those persons to explain that procedure. You might wish to also advise them that letters that were sent to you can be resent to the Inspectorate but it will be at the discretion of the Examining authority (once appointed) to exercise its powers to decide whether to accept their submission. Please also advise those parties that all submissions from now own should be made to the Planning Inspectorate within deadlines that will be specified by the ExA in their procedural letters.
In addition to the above, please note that if the letter was received from members of public but it wasn’t made to us on prescribed form, that person will not have another opportunity to become an Interested Party 'IP'. If the person however is a statutory consultee who did not make a relevant representation, they will be invited again to notify the ExA if they wish to participate in the examination. This invitation will be included in the ExA's procedural letter. Moreover, section 44 persons and relevant local authorities are automatically interested parties for the whole process.
Please note that once the certificates of compliance are received, the Secretary of State 'SoS' will appoint the ExA who will decide on how the application should be examined. As discussed relevant representations will be published following the receipt of certificates. The certificates must be submitted by the applicant within 10 working days that starts from the day following the deadline for receipt of relevant representations.

Ben Wallace

Email correspondence 19 December 2013 to 6 January 2014
See attached

Les Gray

The applicant requested from the comments from the Planning Inspectorate on their draft documents including draft Development Consent Order (DCO) and Explanatory Memorandum, Land/Works Plans, Consultation Report.
Please see document attached for the Planning Inspectorates comments provided to the developer.

Chris Girdham

Advice sought regarding the publicity requirements associated with the need to advertsie an additional open floor hearing session in Deptford Lounge on 5th February 2014.
Examination Procedure Rule 13 (7) defines local advertisement as a newspaper circulating in the locality of the land to which the application relates. I think on that basis your proposal to advertise the change only in the Evening Standard would be proportionate and satisfy the legislative requirements. I also consider that it is not necessary for you to advertise this change on more than 1 occasion.

Thames Water Utilities Ltd - Ian Fletcher

Thames Water Utilities Limited sent a lettter by email to the Planning Inspectorate on 24 December 2013, asking about their interpretation of the Examining authority’s second written questions issued on 19 December 2013
The Planning Inspectorate issued advice in response to that letter on 31 December 2013. Both letters are attached.

Thames Water Utilities Limited - Phil Stride

Many thanks once again for your helpful suggestion. I have canvassed opinion from CPRE, SNUB etc and the view is that we all welcome the PINS proposal for an outreach event.

We would like to see a full day or two even days if possible because there would be too much to cover in one evening, the NDR impacts on a substantial geographical area and the evening bus services are not good in Norwich and poor in the County.

Concerns were also expressed that an outreach event would only gather views once PINS has accepted the DCO – ie too late in the day to influence anything and by that time, people would be locked into a lengthy enquiry process.

Would it be possible therefore for a few of us to meet you next week to hear from you as to how local people can have an input before PINS makes it decision whether to accept the DCO please?
Please see the attached letter.

NNTAG - Denise Carlo

We have received the Examiner's letter dated 13 December 2013 requesting further information and representations on DIRFT3 in the light of the Department of Transport's National Networks NPS. This letter was sent out later on 13 December and was not seen until the beginning of this working week.

Very little time has been allowed for work which requires the obtaining of the DfT's National Networks NPS document and study of it, before considering what representations to make, and drafting and finalising these. This is the more inconvenient because of the holiday season.

Can you please extend the time for representations until Tuesday 24 December? It is unclear why a Friday should be the closing date when the responses will not be examined until the following Monday.

It is not clear when staff at PINS will be available between now and 6 January. When will PINS offices be open and on what days will a member of the DIRFT3 Team be available between Monday 23 December and Friday 3 January 2013, please?
Firstly, the deadlines contained in the Examination timetable are set by the Examining Authority (ExA) and unfortunately the case team are unable to extend them. However, the ExA does have discretion to accept submissions which have been received after a deadline has elapsed.

If you have been unable to meet the deadline of 20 December 2013 I advise you to still submit your response to the ExA's rule 17 letter dated 13 December 2013. Unfortunately, I cannot guarantee the ExA will accept your late submission as part if it's Examination. The case team will confirm receipt and then advise whether the ExA wishes to accept it. Please note that once the ExA closes it's Examination on or before 8 January 2014, there is no scope to accept any late submissions.

Finally, I can confirm that a member of the DIRFTIII case team will regularly check the project mailbox over the Christmas period.

CPRE Warks - Mark Sullivan

The senior planner at Dun laoghaire-Rathdown County Council requested the GPS coordinates of the proposed windfarm location and a site location map showing the location relevant to the Irish Coast.
The Planning Inspectorate's response was by email.
Thank you for your enquiry regarding the Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm application, requesting the coordinates for this proposed nationally significant infrastructure project.
I have copied the site description and coordinates from the applicant’s application form for your information, which is published on the project page of our website along with the supporting application documents.
Application Form (Doc 1.2):
[attachment 1]
Section 6. Location or Route of the Development Proposal
Description of location of application site(s), or route of development (reference to appropriate plans)
“The proposed Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm is located approximately 19 km west-south-west of the Isle of Walney coast in Cumbria, 26 km south-west from the Millom coast, 35 km north-west from the Fleetwood and Blackpool coast, and 31 km south-east from the Isle of Man. The total area of the Agreement for Lease ("AfL") Site is 149 km2.
The offshore export cables will run eastwards from the offshore AfL Site making landfall in the area of Middleton Sands, within Morecambe Bay.
The onshore cable route heads generally north-east from the landfall site towards the eastern side of the village of Middleton, before heading in a northerly direction towards the onshore Substation Site adjacent to the proposed National Grid Middleton substation. The onshore cable route is approximately 3.7 km long.
The onshore Substation site is located to the north of the A683, to the east of the roundabout of the A683 with Imperial Road and to the east of the site of the proposed National Grid Middleton substation.
Full details of the application site and route of development are shown on the Location Plan (Document reference2.1) Works Plans (Document reference 2.4.1 to 2.4.3). The location of the Project is described in more detail in Chapter 4 of the ES (Document reference 10.1.4).
Start grid reference
Easting 274648
Northing 472873
Middle grid reference
Easting 341681
Northing 457067
End grid
Easting 342260
Northing 460325
Start grid reference - furthest point offshore (Order Limits and Grid Coordinates Plan Document reference 2.3.2)
Middle grid reference - landfall (Transition Jointing Bay) (Order Limits and Grid Coordinates Plan Document reference 2.3.3)
End grid reference - Onshore Substation (Order Limits and Grid Coordinates Plan Document reference 2.3.3)”.
I also provide links to the applicant’s plans which may assist in your enquiry:
Location Plan (Doc. 2.1)
[attachment 2]
Works Plan (Doc. 2.4.1 to 2.4.3)
[attachment 3]
[attachment 4]
[attachment 5]
ES (Doc. 10.1.4)
[attachment 6]

Dun laoghaire-Rathdown CC - Moira Jones

See attached
131114_TR010015 letter from LA Gray about NCC consultation
See attached
131219_TR010015_Response to LA Gray

Les Gray

I am hoping you can help with the enquiry below regarding national infrastructure in the UK.
An article was released in June 2013 regarding more major applications being pushed through - 'Nationally significant' consent regime widened
[attachment 1]
Our company tracks planning applications throughout the UK by visiting Local Authority websites. We also monitor any new developments through the planning portal link to National Infrastructure – link below.
[attachment 2]
We want to guarantee that we are viewing all developments and would like to know if the applications that are now being pushed through will be viewable through the infrastructure link above or will they be advertised through a separate link. Does this also mean that they will no longer have to consult with the local authority for planning permission.
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
You are correct that the NSIP regime has been expanded to include business and commercial projects. The Planning Inspectorate will continue to publish details of all NSIP projects on our website, and this will include the new category. However, you may be aware that it can take some time for projects of this scale to reach the planning system, which is why none have been published to date.

Business and commercial projects using the NSIP regime will have to use the same consultation processes as all other NSIPs. The developer will need to consult with many statutory consultees (including the local authority) and the public before making an application. The local authority also has a special role in the examination. including assessing the adequacy of consultation and the preparation of a Local Impact Report. For more information please see our advice notes 1 and 16 [attachment 3].

Barbour ABI - Alison Briggs

A meeting between The Planning Inspectorate and the Highways Agency, to discuss the status of the scheme and provied guidance on the submission of their application
Please see attached meeting note

Highways Agency - Karl Brooks

Advice given on the relevant representation process
I note that you do not wish to make any comments about the application at this stage.
Please note that, the purpose of the relevant representation is to make a summary of issues on whether you agree or disagree with the proposed application. Moreover, for such a representation to be a relevant representation it must be made on the prescribed form and it must include comments about the proposed application as per Regulation 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2010 (as amended).
Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority has been identified as a relevant authority ‘D’ for the project, who shares the boundary with an upper tier county council ‘C’ (within whose area the land is situated).
The ExA (when appointed) will therefore invite you to attend the Preliminary Meeting. Moreover, following the meeting, the ExA will provide you with an opportunity to notify the ExA in writing that you wish to become an Interested Party ‘IP’. All local authorities and statutory parties will be given this opportunity.
Local authorities play vital role in the process of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) by representing their local communities and providing a valuable knowledge about their local area.
We therefore strongly encourage you to use the opportunity and become an IP following the Preliminary Meeting in order to participate in the process. All the representations submitted by interested parties will inform the ExA in making their final recommendation on the application to the relevant Secretary of State.

Yorkshire Dales NPA - Richard Graham

Meeting with applicant to provide update on the project.
Please see meeting note attached.

York Potash Limited

Advice given on the relevant representation process
As you are aware the application is currently at the pre-examination stage, during its relevant representation period that closes on 6 January 2013.
The purpose of the relevant representation is to make a summary of issues on whether you agree or disagree with the proposed application. In order for a representation to be a relevant representation it must be made on the prescribed form as per Regulation 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2010 (as amended).
We strongly recommend that you use the form now to make a relevant representation so that your views can be taken account of by the Examining Authority (ExA) when making the initial assessment of the principal issues and preparing the draft examination timetable. This will be following the ExA's appointment, shortly after the close of the relevant representation registration period. Using the form will also ensure that we have the correct contact details for EH on our database from an early stage.
Please note, however, that as a statutory party listed in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009, the ExA (when appointed) will invite you to attend the Preliminary Meeting. Moreover, in accordance with s89(2A)(b) of the Act, following the meeting you will have an opportunity to notify the ExA in writing that you wish to become an Interested Party if you have not made a relevant representation on the prescribed form. All prescribed consultees will be given this opportunity.
Please may I therefore suggest that you re-register and submit the content of your letter by filling in the relevant representation form via link below:
[attachment 1]
I hope that is helpful, please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

English Heritage - Neil Redfern

Mr Dafydd Roberts e-mailed the Planning Inspectorate asking for confirmation on the applicant's duty regarding consultation with the local community; Mr Roberts also requested that the National Infrastructure Planning Portal Website project pages for Mynydd Mynyllod and Clocaenog Forest Wind Farm be made available in Welsh.
A letter sent (via e-mail) to Mr Roberts is attached in English and in Welsh. The Welsh version of the letter was sent to Mr Roberts as his correspondence to the Planning Inspectorate was in Welsh.

Dafydd Roberts

Meeting with the applicant to provide update on the project.
Please see meeting note attached.

York Potash Limited

Request reassurance regarding scale of plans to be submitted
With regard to the scale of plans to be submitted, here is my advice offered under s51 of the Planning Act 2008.

The Planning Inspectorate expect all plans submitted to be drawn to an identified scale not smaller than 1:2500, in accordance with APFP Regulation 5(3).

We will occasionally accept plans drawn to a smaller scale, when to do otherwise would be inappropriate; this is generally with regard to offshore schemes involving large areas of sea. We would be very unlikely to accept plans drawn smaller than the required scale involving onshore land acquisition, such as those required by APFP 5(2)(i)(j)(k)(n).

If you wish to submit any plans to a scale smaller than 1:2500 you will have to justify why the required scale was inappropriate on that occasion, and why no greater level of detail would be required.

Norfolk County Council - Jon Barnard

The use of an illegible 'captcha with this form is crass. The entire planning system is biased against residents and now you are making it harder for us to register
Knottingley Power Station by Knottingley Power Limited
Thank you for submitting your relevant representation on behalf of North Yorkshire County Council; you are now registered as an interested party (IP) for the above application.
Please note that as an IP, you will be invited to take part in the examination of the application. Once the Examining Authority (ExA) is appointed, you will be invited to attend the preliminary meeting and submit further representations within deadlines specified in the ExA’s Rule 8 letter.
I note in your relevant representation, that you were unsatisfied with the usage of a ‘captcha’ when submitting a relevant representation through our planning portal website.
Please note that this feature is in place to ensure that the representations are from actual people and not submitted automatically by a computer.
For future assistance, if you are unable to read the image displayed, please click the reload button next to the distorted words to display a new image which may be easier to read. There is also an audio button to hear a set of words that can be entered instead of the visual challenge.
I hope this information is helpful.

North Yorkshire County Council - John McCartney

Phonecall from Canal Trust regarding making a relevant representation.
Further to that telephone call, as you have been advised by my colleague please note that the purpose of the relevant representation is to become an Interested Party ‘IP’ by making a summary of issues about the proposed application. Once you are registered as an IP, the Examining Authority (when appointed) will invite all IPs to make more detailed representations during the examination stage within deadlines set in the Rule 8 letter.
Please note that relevant representations inform the Examining Authority ‘ExA’ of the initial issues that are arising from the application and inform the ExA in drafting final examination timetable.
I therefore suggest submitting your relevant representation on behalf of Canal Trust during the relevant representation period which closes on 6 January 2013, 23:59.
The relevant representation form can be filled in via link available below:
[attachment 1]
For more information on what the relevant representation is please see Advice Note 8.3, available from link below:
[attachment 2]

Canal River Trust Knottingley Power Station

Conference call with applicant to provide update on the project.
Please see meeting note attached.

National Grid Carbon Yorkshire and Humber CCS

During a meeting on Tuesday 3rd December 2013 I had with Forewind in Haugesund, Norway, I found that I have missed the deadline to register my interest for relevant representation in Dogger Bank Creyke Beck. I hope it may still be possible register.
Thank you for your email in relation to the proposed Dogger Bank Creyke Beck application by Forewind which has recently been accepted for examination in accordance with the Planning Act 2008.

I can confirm the deadline for registering as an Interested Party ended on 8 November 2013 however you may write to us at the Planning Inspectorate setting out the issues you wish to put before the Examining Authority. Please ensure your representation relates specifically to the application and explain what you agree and/or disagree with and why, upon receipt the Examining Authority will consider whether to exercise their discretion and accept your submission into the examination. It should be noted however, if the Examining Authority agree to accept your submission, we will still be unable to give you an Interested Party status as you will have no legal entitlement to participate like a party who has registered within the statutory time limit.

You may also wish to note that under Regulation 24 of the Environmental Impact Regulations 2009, we have written to the Norwegian Ministry of Environment Department (Regional Sector for Impact Assessment and Community Development) addressed to Mr Jørgen Brun and Mr Harold Noreik inviting them to participate in the examination of Dogger Bank Creyke Beck so you may wish to contact that department with any comments you have about the proposed development. A copy of Advice Note 12 on 'Development with significant Transboundary consultation' may be of use to you and can be accessed at the following link;

[attachment 1]

Parties who have not registered as an interested party can also consider grouping together with an individual or organisation which has already registered and become an interested party, where they have similar views to your own, so that they can express your views on your behalf. A list of the registered interested parties can be found at the following link;

[attachment 2]

If you choose to do this, you may also wish to ask this person or organisation to keep you informed regarding the progress of the application, as the Examining Authority only writes directly to interested parties about the progress of the application although you will also be able to track the progress by monitoring the project web page which you will be able to access at the following link;

[attachment 3]

Should you decide to submit your late representation, please send this to DBCreykeBeck@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk.

If you have any further queries on the above or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me

Harald Oestensjoe

For the landscape and visual assessment, can consented projects that have not yet been constructed be included in the baseline or can they be included in the cumulative assessment?
I refer you to Appendix 3 of the Infrastructure Planning Commission scoping opinion for the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park (November 2011) which contained advice on assessing cumulative impacts. The Scoping Opinion states that the potential cumulative impacts with other major developments should be identified, and the significance of such impacts should be shown to have been assessed against the baseline position (which would include built and operational development). The advice continues to provide a list of project types to be considered in a cumulative assessment and includes permitted applications that have not yet been implemented. On this basis, the Planning Inspectorate advises that consented but not yet built projects are addressed in the cumulative assessment and are not included in the baseline.
I also refer you to Advice Note 10 (September 2013); whilst this advice note is specifically for Habitats Regulations Assessment, it contains a revised list of project types that the Planning Inspectorate considers are also relevant to EIA cumulative assessments.
Whilst it is for the applicant to determine their assessment methodology, the Planning Inspectorate strongly advises that you follow and clearly reference in the Environmental Statement (ES) any relevant guidance. We recommend that you agree your methodology for determining the baseline and assessing impacts with relevant consultees (for landscape and visual assessment this would likely include, but not be limited to, relevant local planning authorities and Natural England). Where you have such agreements these should be clearly documented in the ES. Should you depart from the advice provided within the Scoping Opinion or from consultees then we strongly recommend that you provide justification for doing so within your ES.

Navitus Bay Development Limited - Chris Lloyd

We wish to draw your attention to a DONG document, in which we believe there is significant error, which gives a most misleading impression by showing less than the full magnitude of the Applicant's proposed wind turbine installations.
During the preparations of the Statement of Common Ground, in exchanges of email between TravelWatch Isle of Man (TWIOM) and the Applicant, we have expressed concern at the apparent lack of illustrations comparing size of wind turbine with recognisable features. TWIOM produced a scale drawing (attached below) showing the IoM Steam Packet vessel, Ben My Chree (overall length 125m) , and a 222m overall height wind turbine. The Applicant reluctantly agreed to include this in the Version 2 Draft SOCG, but with his note 'The Project does not believe the illustration provided by TWIOM is accurate nor contributes to useful discussion... The Applicant is confident that the information contained within the ES is sufficient to demonstrate the scale of the proposed developments.'' We could add a vertical 'break line' between ship and turbine pylon, to reassure DONG that such proximity is solely to illustrate comparative sizes.
However, we have now been studying the Applicant's booklet ''Community Briefing Pack, October 2013,'' received recently, and which we understand has been widely distributed by DONG, including at various public exhibitions. Page 5 includes a drawing ''Wind turbine dimensions compared to known landmarks.'' This compares the minimum and maximum sizes of wind turbine with the London Eye and the London Gherkin. No scale is given, and the only dimensions provided are the turbine overall vertical heights of 142m and 222m respectively. Rotor diameters of 120m to 200m are quoted separately on page 4.
The errors became first apparent as the 222m turbine should be approx. 50% taller than the 142m turbine, but is considerably less than this!
Due to absence of stated scale, we are left to assume that the 142m turbine overall height is drawn correctly (and this is consistent with the drawn height of the London Eye, which Wikipaedia quotes as 135m). We then find the following errors:--
--The overall height of the maximum turbine scales as 186m instead of a correct 222m. ie should be drawn TALLER.
--The overall width (ie rotor dia) of the max turbine scales 136m instead of a correct 200m. ie should be drawn WIDER.
--The overall width (ie rotor dia) of the min turbine scales 104m instead of a correct 120m. ie should be drawn WIDER.
These errors give a misleading representation to the public, and to those who have submitted Representations, of both the height and width of turbine installations, and are most misleading.
The use of 'known landmarks' in London city centre by DONG's central London office (Grosvenor Place, London SW1), is hardly informative for the Irish Sea and Cumbrian Coast. More meaningful comparisons would be with the following which are close to the relevant part of the Irish Sea: Blackpool Tower (158m), Barrow Town Hall Tower (50m), or what is claimed to be the tallest building in Cumbria, the Devonshire Dock Hall at BAe shipyard Barrow (51m). (Heights from Wikipaedia.)
We suspect that many would be shocked if they realised how the proposed turbine heights compared with Blackpool Tower. Although most of my professional career was spent working in metric, I was astonished when I realised that 222m converts to 728 feet, the height of a 60 storey building. Is this why the Applicant illustrated the Gherkin instead?
We trust that you will be informing the Applicant, and we shall be pleased if you will let us know the outcome. It is very serious that they have issued such incorrect and misleading material so close to the Examination period.
A possible precedent?? ....We understand that the original Parliamentary Bill for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was rejected in 1825 in Westminster due to errors in levels shown on drawings, resulting from inaccurate surveys. Clearly, the lesson is that Applicants should thoroughly check their material.
We look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully
John Pennington, FICE,
on behalf of TravelWatch Isle of Man
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We have considered this carefully and produced the attached response.
Thank you for your continuing interest in this examination.

TravelWatch Isle of Man - John Pennington

The advice given to the applicant on key aspects of the pre-application stage.
Key aspects of the pre-application I covered in our conversation. Please note the responsibility to ensure compliance with the legislation rests with the applicant. Please also see our Advice Notes and DCLG Guidance available from the link below:
[attachment 1]
In addition, I attach a template for information we require from the applicant in order to register each project on our website. I would be grateful if the information for each case could be provided to us as soon as you are able to so I can assign project resources and the website to be set.
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2009 (as amended)
Before formal consultation under section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) can commence, you need to notify us under Regulation 6 of the EIA Regs.
If you wish to request a Scoping Opinion from our Environmental Services Team, the shapefile with the proposed development boundary should be submitted to us at least 10 days before you submit your Scoping Request to us, see link to relevant Advice Note 7 below:
[attachment 2]
General EIA advice can be found in Advice Note 3, available from the link below:
[attachment 3]
Please could you provide your intended dates for scoping as soon as possible so that we can plan the necessary resources to handle the requests.
Consultation with statutory consultees under section 42 of the Planning Act 2008
You must notify us formally about the proposed application under s46 of Planning Act, before you commence your consultation under s42 of the Act. Please note that at the same time you will need to provide us with your proposed consultation material that you intend to use for the purpose of the consultation under s42.
Consultation with local community under section 47 of the Planning Act 2008
Consultation under s47 can commence before the s46 notification is submitted to the Inspectorate. Before commencing your consultation under s47, you will need to prepare Statement of Community Consultation (SOCC) explaining how you intend to consult with the local community. Before preparing such SOCC, you'll need to formally consult relevant local authorities (within which the projects sit) on the content of the SOCC. You must have regard to any comments received on the content of the SOCC. The applicants have regard to government DCLG Guidance when undertaking their pre-application consultation.
You should carry out community consultation in accordance with the SOCC what should be later explained clearly in your Consultation Report (see Advice Note 14)
Consultation under section 48
You also have a duty to publicise your application in line with this section, in the way as prescribed in the secondary legislation (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009
Duty to have regard to consultation responses - section 49
Your consultation report, to be submitted with the application, should clearly demonstrate how you have had regard to any comments received under formal consultation. We also encourage you to cover any non-statutory consultation and responses in this document in order to understand how the project progressed as a result of various phases of your consultation including non-statutory phase.
Consents outside the Development Consent Order
You'll need to submit details of any other consents you require, along with your application. For proposals in England, the Consents Service Unit (CSU) can advise currently on 12 key non-DCO consents, however we advise applicants to identify all consents early in pre-application as they may relevant to any examination. You can contact the CSU directly and their details provided below:
[attachment 4]
Statements of Common Ground
It is advisable that applicants work on Statements of Common Grounds (SoCGs) with any relevant parties where possible, as early as possible, and for submission with an application.
Submission of draft documents
Once consultation is complete, and your application documents are being prepared, we encourage applicants to submit their draft application documents for review. This is to identify potential technical or procedural aspects with the application. From experience this can be an iterative process of between 2 and 3 months before submission.
Further advice on preparation of an application can be found here:
[attachment 5]
As advised, once an application is submitted there is very limited scope to amend it, and the emphasis at pre-application is on working with consultees to identify issues with the application that may require changes and / or mitigation.
National Policy Statements
Attached is a link to the National Policy Statements against which the applications would be assessed as part of the overall examination
[attachment 6]
The applicant was advised to provide the Inspectorate with initial project information in order to register the project.

Clifton Marsh Power

I write with regard to Wrexham Power Ltd proposals for a Power Station in Wrexham.
My immediate reaction to this consultation is why Wrexham?
There are two relatively new power stations in Connah’s Quay, which is only 23 miles away by road, being Connah’s Quay (1,420 MW gas-fired CCGT type) and Deeside (498 MWe gas-fired CCGT type).
The proposed site does not have the required infrastructure, in that a gas pipeline and power cables are required. In the case of the power cables these would be even closer to the houses of our village and would create new disruption to the small field enclosures of the farms and to the beautiful landscape. The distance needed to transfer the power to the grid is considerable. Is this really a green solution given the loss of energy in the transfer, and the loss of valuable agricultural land for our already struggling local, relatively small farms? The other operational stations in Wales are near the coast, as I understand, this provides a source for cooling water for the process. Wrexham Power are intending to use an air cooling method? Is this site suitable for this given the exposure of the site to strong winds from varying directions?

While the proposal is for a station on the Wrexham Industrial Estate, the station would be on the outskirts and actually using a large amount of ‘green’ land, the proportion of brown field being small. Our village has been a neighbour of the estate for many years without really being effected as the estate occupies a natural dip in the landscape, and generally the landscape of the estate is not of an industrial nature, being mostly manufacturing and warehouse type units. Industrial landscapes such as that of a power station can be seen locally around the areas of Ellesmere Port and Runcorn, for example. These areas are also close to water for cooling, have gas and electricity infrastructure nearby and have large areas of brown field ready for regeneration. I appreciate that the Kellogs plant at Wrexham is of an industrial nature but this is unique on the estate and its emissions are of a pleasant odour which do not affect wildlife, farm animals or crops.

I have concerns regarding the effect of emissions from the power station and the effect of magnetic and electric fields from the overhead wires and pylons on the local environment. The effect on local crops, vital for the sustainability of small farms not only locally but across the river in South Cheshire and beyond, also the effect on the delicately balanced ecology of the River Dee just over half a mile from the proposed site. I am concerned about the effect on birds and wildlife including the protected Great Crested Newt. I have been unable to get answers to my concerns from the company.

The company lists one of the reasons for choosing the site as the proximity of the high demand for electricity from businesses on the Industrial Estate, when in reality the demand from this would only use a miniscule of the amount produced, the remainder going to the national grid. Looking at the ‘Heat Map’ available from the Department of Energy which indicates ‘hot spots ‘of demand, shows Wrexham town centre as a moderate hot spot, not the industrial estate, with huge corridors either side of this with very low demand.
The prospect of long term employment for Wrexham is not as positive as the proposal claims. The similar sized Power Station at Connahs Quay employs only 24 people.
A real concern for me if this proposal should be to go ahead would be the company’s commitment to the ‘green’ aspect of the process, carbon capture. I am aware that this is a process for the future, but realistically is this an appropriate site for transferring carbon dioxide by pipeline to disused gas or oil fields under the sea which is what the Government is proposing? The route if this were possible would be long and expensive. Have the company considered this in proposing this site?
Thank you for reading about my concerns and I sincerley hope that this proposal does not go ahead.
Thank you for your email to Tracey Williams received 2 December 2013 regarding the above application. I have been asked to reply.
Please note that the Planning Inspectorate is currently only aware of the Wrexham Energy Centre Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), not other projects in that area. I therefore understand that your comments relate to that proposal.
As you may already be aware, the above application is currently at the pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process (as amended). At the pre-application stage the developer is required to carry out extensive statutory consultation (under s42, 44 and 47 of the Planning Act 2008) on the proposals before submitting their application to the Planning Inspectorate. This involves providing information about the proposal to various statutory and non-statutory bodies and the wider community, and to have regard to questions and suggestions made in order to influence and inform the application ultimately submitted. The length of time taken to prepare and consult on the project will vary depending upon its scale and complexity.
I am aware that, to date, the applicant has carried out informal consultation on this project. I therefore encourage you to contact the developer directly at this stage of the process as this is the best time to influence a project.
However, we do appreciate however being informed about comments on the project and we will keep your correspondence for our records.
Once the application is formally submitted to the Inspectorate and if it is accepted for examination, everyone will have an opportunity to express their views directly to the appointed Examining Authority by submitting a relevant representation. The submission of a relevant representation will give you the status of an Interested Party, which allows participation in the examination of the application.
Please note that once the application is formally submitted to Inspectorate and before the Secretary of State decides whether to accept the application for examination, local planning authorities will be invited to provide their views on the adequacy of consultation carried out by the applicant at the pre-application stage. Local planning authorities play an important role within the planning processes by representing local communities. Moreover, if the application reaches the examination stage, local planning authorities will be invited to participate in the examination by submitting their representations and a report that explains potential positive and negative impacts of the proposed development.
If you feel that the consultation carried out by the applicant is in any way inadequate or should you have any other comments about the above application, I strongly suggest that your local planning authority is made aware of the content of your email.
I am including links to our advice notes below, on how the process works and how to get involved in the examination of the application.
Advice note 8.1: How the process works [attachment 1]
Advice note 8.2: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation [attachment 2]
Please also find a link to a video which explains the six stages of the Planning Act process.
[attachment 3]
I hope this information is helpful.

Joanna Roberts

Request reassurance that three copies of plans will not be required for acceptance giving large number of drawings produced.
I am putting in writing our reassurance over the submission of plans for the NNDR.
The relevant requirement is set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 5(2)r:
"If requested by the Secretary of State, three paper copies of the application form and other supporting documents and plans."
On behalf of the Planning Inspectorate for the Secretary of State, we request three paper copies of the application form and other supporting documents, not including plans. We only request one copy of the plans for acceptance purposes, but will request further copies if the application proceeds to examination.
This departure from our normal requirements described in Advice Note Six is because of the anticipated high volume of plans to be provided by the applicant.
This advice given under section 51 will be published on the Planning Portal website.

Norfolk County Council - Jon Barnard

A meeting was held with the developer, Mynydd y Gwynt Ltd and Renewable Energy Holdings, about the progress of the project in the run up to submission. The advice given is recorded in the attached meeting note.

David Callister

The applicant requested advice regarding both Protective Species Licensing and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
Protected Species Licensing
National Grid (NG) requested advice from the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) in respect of protected species and in particular land identified for use as a receptor site for the translocation of protected species (great crested newts). PINS advised NG that during examination the Examining Authority (ExA) would need to understand whether there is any impediment to the licence being granted. PINS also advised that the ExA would need to be satisfied that any land outside of the Development Consent Order (DCO) application boundary but required for the purposes of obtaining protected species licenses would need to be adequately and robustly secured. NG requested that PINS provide advice on this issue and also if possible include examples of how this has been handled on other proposed developments within the DCO regime.
In response to this request PINS advice is as follows:
PINS do not feel it is appropriate to highlight any other particular proposal to demonstrate how best to address the approach to protected species.
In addition to the protection given to protected species, the Overarching National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy EN-1 states that PINS (previously IPC) should ensure that species and habitats that have been identified as being of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity are protected from the adverse effects of development by using requirements or planning obligations. NG should be aware that requirements cannot be applied in relation to land outside of the DCO planning application boundary. The NPS also states that PINS (previously IPC) should refuse consent where harm to the habitats or species and their habitats would result, unless the benefits (including need) of the development outweigh that harm. The NPS is also clear in stating that the applicant should include appropriate mitigation measures as an integral part of the proposed development. Further to this Natural England advice in relation to applications for protected species states:
"Before an application for a licence can be submitted, any land subject to the proposed licensable activities, including any land used for mitigation or compensation as well as all receptor site(s), must be owned by the 'developer'. Alternatively, if the 'developer' does not own part or all of the land, they must be able to demonstrate that the current landowner‟s consent has been obtained for all licensable activities. In this case, as part of the application Natural England would need a complete explanation of the land ownership situation within the method statement and reasoned statement, as well as a separate document containing the signed approval of the current landowner confirming that the developer can carry out all the proposed works'." (European Protected Species: Mitigation Licensing - How to get a licence, Natural England December 2012) available online at link: [attachment 1]
Having regard to the points raised above , PINS advises that the most robust method available to NG in order to demonstrate during examination that there is no impediment to them securing a protected species license would be to include all the land required (including for the purpose of licensable activities) as an integral part of the proposed development (within the DCO) along with any necessary requirements . However, if for reasons unbeknown to PINS, NG do not intend to include this land as part of their DCO application they are advised of the need to consult their legal team and be prepared to demonstrate by what alternative means they can guarantee to the ExA the implementation of the works/activities required in relation to protected species are robustly secured. The ExA will wish to know the views of NE and details of any mitigation measures that have been agreed with NE.
PINS Advice Note 11 on Working with Public Bodies states:
Licensing of EPS under the Habitats Regulations
For NSIPs which may affect EPS and where a licence is required, Natural England’s regulation team will be able to provide early advice and opinion on the applicant’s protected species proposals in relation to all 3 licensing tests before development consent is granted. This is done so that the decision-maker under the 2008 Act can have confidence that Natural England, as the relevant licensing authority, has considered the appropriate issues relating to protected species. In order to do this, Natural England needs to conduct an assessment, based on a full draft mitigation licence application, in advance of the formal submission of the NSIP application to the Planning Inspectorate. The steps to be followed when submitting the appropriate information to Natural England, in respect of an NSIP project which has the potential to affect EPS, are set out in the following link.
[attachment 2]
Assistance with EPS licences in England or English waters may be obtained from the Consents Services Unit (CSU).
SSSI Consents within the DCO
National Grid (NG) requested advice from the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) in respect of consents relating to statutorily designated sites and more specifically Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). NG were particularly keen to know if SSSI consent can be included within the DCO.
In response to this request PINS advise is as follows:
Section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) places a responsibility on authorities to have a general duty "to take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of the authority’s functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site is of special scientific interest". Section 28I of that Act also imposes procedural obligations on authorities which must be met before authorising operations likely to damage the special interest features of a SSSI. These are that the relevant Statutory Nature Conservation Body (SNCB) must be notified before a decision is made and 28 days must elapse before deciding whether to grant consent. The Section 28G authority must then take account of any advice received from the SNCB, including advice on attaching conditions to the consent. If it is decided to issue a permission against the advice of the SNCB, the SNCB must be notified and a further period of 21 days allowed before the operation can commence. This gives the SNCB time to consider further action such as legal action to challenge the validity of the permission. In the case of DCO application this duty will fall on the Secretary of State after the completion of the examination/recommendation stages.
A provision authorising an operation which may damage an SSSI (a S28E consent) can now be included in a DCO instead of having to make a separate application to NE. The ExA would seek the views of NE on such a provision.
If an NSIP is likely to affect a SSSI the decision making bar is set high. The ExA will weigh the relevant issues very carefully before reaching a recommendation to ensure that the general duty under the Wildlife and Countryside Act is observed and the advice of the SNCB will be important. A development consent should not normally be granted if the proposed development is likely to have an adverse effect on a SSSI (either individually or in combination with other developments). EN 1 states that an exception should only be made "where the benefits (including need) of the development …clearly outweigh both the impacts that it is likely to have on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest and any broader impact on the national network of SSSIs"(EN-1 5.3.11) . Therefore, National Grid should seek to agree with the SNCB at the pre-application stage the DCO requirements necessary to provide protection to SSSI features and resolve any issues in relation to potentially damaging operations. This agreement could then be documented within a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG).

National Grid Carbon Yorkshire and Humber CCS

Please see attached meeting note

London Resort Company Holdings

As the ExA is aware, the PLA has specific concerns about a number of sites along the river. This means that its interests in compulsory acquisition in relation to these sites will form elements of many – potentially most – of the compulsory acquisition hearings in weeks 3 and 4.
Having made its representations in respect of these sites, the PLA is conscious of the fact that its contribution to the hearings would be likely to be limited to interventions arising from points made by others. However, even this limited input would call for a continuous presence throughout the hearings. Given the anticipated degree of participation the PLA does not believe this would be efficient or effective and considers that its presence would be unlikely specially to assist the ExA, either. The PLA therefore proposes to listen to the Audio Recordings as they become available and make any necessary observations in writing.
The timetable does not contemplate this course of action so that there is no timetabled date that specifically covers submissions of this sort. The most obvious date is 23 December, as if such submissions were written summaries of oral submissions at the hearings. Are you able to confirm that it will be acceptable to the ExA if the PLA proceeds in this way and submits any observations by 23 December?
Thank you for you email concerning the Port of London Authority's intentions in respect of the week 3 and week 4 compulsory acquisition hearings. It will be acceptable to make your comments on other parties oral submissions in writing for the 23 December deadline.

The intention is for each week's recordings to be available early on the following week. If this will present a problem in terms of any comments you wish to make on week 4 oral representations, a submission for the 13 January will also be acceptable. However, you may want to submit any comments you have on week 3 oral representations, for the 23 December, as originally requested.

Port of London Authority - Alison Gorlov

Further to my earlier telephone conversation with Ian Goodall I was wondering if I may be able to obtain some information with regards to the national infrastructure projects.
Essentially, I would like to plot the location of each project into a GIS system in a similar way to the pins that are displayed on the google map on your webpage.
In order to do this I would need an excel-based table with, as a minimum, the following:-
- Name of Project
- The location of the project expressed as at least one of the following:-
o Latitude/Longitude
o National Grid Reference i.e. 6-figure easting and northing
o Postcode
Any additional information that could be included would be very useful, eg developer/applicant, details of project, timescales, etc.
I recognize that you may not issue this information as standard therefore any assistance would be very much appreciated.
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any queries or just wish to better understand my request.
Thank you for speaking with me on the phone earlier regarding location date for infrastructure projects.

The attached spreadsheet has been extracted from our website and contains some of the public project information which you have requested. I have included information about all current and decided applications, and also those which we expect to be submitted in the future that we have been notified about. The date section indicates the stage that the project has currently reached.

Regarding grid co-ordinates, there are many numbers displayed. We ask applicants to supply co-ordinates for our website, but they are not used for any other purpose, which means that they may be approximate or outdated. For linear schemes the matter is even less clear as we typically ask for three points along the proposed route.

I hope that this information is usable for you.

Hope Construction Materials - Guy Martin

Meeting with applicant to provide update on the project.
Please see meeting note attached.

Colin Turnbull

The enquiry refers to a briefing note from Turley Associates, this note has been included as an attachment as have the explanatory comments of Matthew Sheppard below.
"I am pleased to attach a briefing note on this project, which we would really appreciate your opinion on. Its purpose is to help us understand how you would interpret the Act in relation to two options for disposal of hazardous waste from an existing chemical manufacturing plant. Hopefully it is self-explanatory, but please do give me a call if you have any queries on this, or any supplementary questions to help you understand the context."
"Whether the waste is the type of hazardous waste which falls under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008 section 30 (s.30)
We were unable to conclude on whether the waste referred to in your submission is clearly within the meaning of hazardous waste as defined in s.30(5) PA 2008. If either proposal was progressed via the PA 2008 application route, you will need to be satisfied that the waste is covered by the PA 2008 s.30. It is likely that the Planning Inspectorate would seek a further submission on this matter in the event that either proposal was brought forward as an NSIP proposal.
The DSIT option
Our only initial thought on this option is that, given the lack of spatial specificity and the apparent lack of physical containment of the deep disposal element of this option, an NSIP proposal based on this option may be limited to the necessary surface and immediate sub-surface infrastructure. Please see our answer to your question 1 for further advice on this point. A new/varied EP is likely to be required for all of what is proposed.
The WID Oxidiser option
We note your view that this option would trigger the need for development consent on the basis that it would involve the final disposal of hazardous waste. There could though be an argument that a proposal based on this option would actually involve the recovery of hazardous waste and that development consent may be required on that basis.
On the basis of your submission it appears that this option (and the DSIT option) may fall within the definition of 'development' in s.32 PA 2008 in that it constitutes or involves operational development. If this was not the case, for example if what was proposed involved works not amounting to operational development, then development consent may still be required if this proposal constituted a material change of use. In those circumstances careful thought would need to be given to the physical extent of the land for which development consent was being sought, and how any change of use interrelated with the existing use(s) of the site.
Hazardous Waste National Planning Policy Statement (NPS)
We note that NPS paragraph 4.13.1 refers to 'new and innovative technologies'. However, the DSIT and WID Oxidiser options don’t appear to be specifically referred to in the potentially relevant sections of the NPS, specifically section 3.4 or paragraphs 4.13 to 4.20. If you were to progress either option as an NSIP proposal, you may want to seek a legal opinion on whether the proposal is within the remit of the NPS. Legally, the relevance of this is whether an NSIP proposal based on either option would fall to be considered under PA 2008 s.104 (where any NPS has effect) or s.105 (where no NPS has effect).
Turning to the questions you raised towards the end of your request, we would respond as follows:-
Question 1
How does the Inspectorate interpret S30(1) of the Act, in particular the meaning of the terms “facility” and “construction”?
Response
The term 'facility' is not expressly defined in the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) nor is it defined in the Interpretation Act 1978. We are not aware of any case law on this point. We also note that s.30 refers to a 'hazardous waste facility'. This term should therefore be given it's normal meaning in English, and be considered on an application by application basis.
Firstly, we would need to consider whether what is proposed is capable of constituting a facility, for example by reference to the spatial specificity and physical containment of the proposal. If so, the extent of such a facility is likely to depend on what structures, works and operations are necessary for the construction and operation of the proposed development, and hence the extent of the proposed order land.
In terms of PA 2008 s.30, it is our view that 'construction' could involve the carrying out of development as defined in PA 2008 s.32, for example by the carrying out of an engineering operation, thus requiring development consent.
Question 2
Is the “facility” the seal sands site itself and taken as a whole, suggesting that the small modification to the existing process is not a “hazardous waste facility” as meant by the Act?
Answer
In this instance it is difficult for us to advise as to the likely physical extent of the proposed facility. It could be argued that the 'facility' should be physically limited to the extent of what development consent is required for. The order land could though also include any associated development and ancillary works necessary for the construction and operation of the project. This could necessitate the inclusion of a larger area within the order limits than just the development requiring development consent. We would need to see further details of what is proposed before we could advise further on this point.
Question 3
Does the Act apply to the “facility” which is being constructed – ie the DSIT or Oxidiser equipment in isolation, and for which a DCO or Planning Permission would need to be sought?
Answer
As noted in reply to questions 1 and 2 above, the physical extent of the facility would need to include any development requiring development consent and could include any associated development/ ancillary works necessary for the construction and operation of the project.
Question 4
Was the intent of the Act to capture installations whose primary purpose is to dispose of third party hazardous waste, e.g. merchant incinerators, and not hazardous waste disposal operations that are within a wider installation whose main purpose is not hazardous waste disposal and which does not process third party waste?
Answer
It appears to us that the intention of the PA 2008 was to ensure that all applications or proposed applications for development that trigger PA 2008 s.14(1)(p) and s.30 would be considered through the PA 2008 process. We do not consider that there is a distinction to be drawn between applications for proposed development to handle hazardous waste from 'on-site' or 'off-site' sources. On this point, there is also a possibility that, such a facility, once operational, could at some point in the future, either partly or entirely, process waste from 'off-site' sources/ operate independently from the rest of the Seal Sands operation.

Matthew Sheppard

Query regarding withdrawal of status as interested party
The fundamental principle of the Planning Act 2008 regime is that it is frontloaded, having already assessed alternatives during pre-application. In the pre-application stage, under section 47 of the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008), the developer is statutorily required to consult the local community in adherence with a published Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). Prior to publishing, relevant local authorities are consulted with regards to what the SoCC should contain. The developer must then consult the local community in line with the published SoCC. This consultation period is the ideal time to influence the chosen site for the development as the developer is statutorily required to take account of any response to formal consultation.
In general terms, if the developer chooses not to accept the suggestions of alternative sites at the pre-application stage, then it is their risk to take in terms of this potentially leading to objections from an interested party to the chosen sites at the examination, when it is highly unlikely to be possible to make changes of the type you have described.
The Examining Authority (ExA) can only consider the application as submitted and as assessed in the Environmental Statement. Post submission changes to the application can be considered, however the ability to accept them is limited. The consideration of the extent to which the ExA can consider post submission changes is a matter of legal interpretation as to their materiality, whether they have been environmentally assessed and considerations of natural justice in terms of those who may be affected by the consideration of alternatives.
Please see advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate to a similar query here: [attachment 1];ipcadvice=c2a33f7eb1
If pursuant to reading this advice you remain of the opinion that you no longer wish to be an interested party, please provide confirmation in response to this email. Under s102(1ZA) of the PA2008, I will then confirm your request to the ExA and your details will be removed from our distribution list.

Tim Sims

Phone conference requesting advice on the draft Consultation report documents.
PINS Comments on the draft consultation report. Advice given on - as above.

Promoter for NNDR. For NorCC - Jon Barnard

Thank for your email with letter dated 28 Nov 2013, in response to my email sent 1101 on Sat 23 Nov 2013, regarding possible clashes between the Walney Extension Examination, and the consultation periods for Celtic Array's Rhiannon Wind Farm.
We appreciate that the timetable for Walney Extension is now fixed, and note your comment that we should contact Celtic Array direct. You will see from the copy of emails attached below that I have approached Celtic Array's nominated contact (Stuart Barnes at RES Offshore ). As yet, I have received no response to my most recent email of 20 Nov 2013. Unfortunately, Celtic Array has a track record of very slow or no response to correspondence.
We are pleased that you have already brought our concerns to the attention of your colleagues working on the Rhiannon project, and would ask that you forward this email to them with a request for a response from Celtic Array. We am sure that you will appreciate that individuals and voluntary organisations have only very limited resources to address both projects simultaneously.
We look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely
John Pennington, On behalf of self and of TravelWatch Isle of Man
Please find attached a response to your e-mail of 28 November 2013.
I can confirm we have also received your Written Representation dated 29 November 2013 and your response to the ExA's First Written Questions dated 30 November 2013.

TravelWatch Isle of Man - John Pennington

Note of introductory meeting.

Burges Salmon and Vattenfall Wind Power Ltd

I spoke to you last week regarding the fact that the local community had been unable to get a response from SPR regarding what is the current situation with the planning application for this this wind farm. We still have not received any information and, as far as I'm aware, our local county council hasn't, either.
You told me on the phone that the application was now expected in Q2 of 2014, but I have noticed that neither the SPR or NIP websites contain this information. Could you please let me know what exactly is going on.
A local family is due to auction a large property with land in a week or so and this proposed scheme is presenting an enormous blight to their prospects of achieving a realistic sum as the tourist based business is located directly across the valleyy (within a kilometre as the crow flies) of this proposed development.
Please be advised that PINS Mynydd Mynyllod project webpage does state that the application will be submitted in 2014.

I have spoken to James Innes today and he has stated that at present due to issues regarding the Grid Connection, SPR are unable to confirm the exact date for submission of the application, however he did mention that by March 2014 he would be in a better position to provide the "anticipated submission date" to PINS. James has also stated that he has confirmed SPR's current position on the application to the community liaison group i.e. grid connection issues and that the date for submission would only be confirmed once this issue has been resolved.

It can therefore reasonably be assumed that the application is only likely to be submitted to PINS in Q2 of 2014.

Karen Roden

Section 51 advice. Comments on the draft consultation report
I write with reference to your letter received on 26 November 2013 and the draft copy of the consultation report enclosed therein in respect of the proposed Norwich Northern Distributor Road (NDR) project. You have requested our comments on the draft document.
We have now considered the document provided and set out our initial comments on the draft report below. However, in the absence of Counsel’s opinion, to be appended at Appendix D, we are not able to comment on Section 2.6 Compliance with Legislative Requirements. No reassurance is given, therefore, regarding the implications of the s35 direction at this time.
Draft Consultation Report
Section 37(3)(c) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011) (PA 2008) requires an application for development consent to be accompanied by a consultation report which, under section 37(7) of PA 2008 means a report giving details of: what has been done in compliance with sections 42 (duty to consult), 47 (duty to consult local community) and 48 (duty to publicise) of PA 2008; details of relevant responses; and the account taken of any relevant responses. Relevant responses are defined in s49(3) of the PA 2008.
Firstly, we note that the draft consultation report is incomplete, with sections and appendices yet to be finalised including that of the explanatory text providing an overview of the whole pre-application stage. We recommend that this explanatory text sets the scene, from beginning to end, and provides an overview and narrative of the ‘whole’ pre-application stage as it relates to the particular project. It would therefore be of great assistance if a quick reference guide in bullet point form, summarising all the consultation activity in chronological order be included in brief and as a prelude to the chronological order set out in the executive summary.
However, the overall structure of the draft report appears to be clear and logical, with the relevant chapters giving: an account of the statutory consultation with prescribed consultees, publicity, deadlines set, and community consultation activities undertaken at the pre-application stage under primary legislation; a summary of the relevant responses to the separate strands of consultation; and an account taken of responses in developing the application from proposed to final form, as required by s49(2).
Similarly, the ‘executive summary’ would seem to provide a suitable overview of the consultation process carried out, giving a brief chronology of events and its historical context. In addition, your report describes previous consultations on the scheme prior to the enactment of the PA 2008 regime and the Secretary of State’s determination under s35 that the project is of national significance. This is contained in chapter 3 and it is helpful that you have delineated between the statutory and non-statutory phases.
The document states at Paragraph 2.6.13 that the applicant has undertaken consultation in compliance with the PA 2008, as well as the requirements of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 and the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 (APFP); this is described within the report and Appendix F-2.
At Paragraph 2.6.15, the report sets out a table summarising the key advice given in the Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 14 (AN14) and the location of the related information within the report, which provides a useful guide. Under s50(3) of the PA 2008, however, applicants are reminded that they must have regard to DCLG’s ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance on the pre-application process’ and any other guidance published which covers the pre-application procedure for national infrastructure applications. You may therefore wish to consider including references to the relevant paragraphs within the DCLG guidance as part of the table. You must clearly state any departures from any DCLG guidance and the justifications for doing so.
It is also noted that Appendix C contains a summary of pre-application activity as suggested by AN14. Though the Appendix seeks to describe the statutory consultation phase, it would be useful to also summarise any non-statutory consultation undertaken leading up to the statutory stage.
We acknowledge at Paragraph 2.4.4 that the report refers to the division between Norfolk County Council’s role as both applicant and prescribed consultee and the internal structure in this regard. It is also noted that a legal opinion is to be included on the validity of the pre-application consultation preceding the direction by the Secretary of State.
Under Regulation 5(5) of the APFP regulations, the Planning Inspectorate can request copies of all responses to consultation, and the applicant should be ready to provide these at short notice, preferably in both hard and electronic copy, in the event of such a request.
We note that the list of persons consulted under s42(d) has been redacted. This
personal information will need to be published in full in the Book of Reference, so its redaction here is not necessary. Please at least show the complete list of addresses to which consultation documents were sent so that this can be corroborated with the Book of Reference. The Planning Inspectorate will subsequently publish documents in line with our own redactions policy.
Section 46 of PA2008 ‘Duty to notify’ requires the applicant to notify the Secretary of State with such information in relation to the proposed applications compliance with s42 consultation. This, you appear to have done in your letter dated 26 July 2013, however it is noted that the submitted document has been filed within the s48 contents – Appendix N – of your report. This would be more helpfully described as s46 notification and must include confirmation that the information provided to the Secretary of State was the same as was provided to consultees under s42.
The Planning Inspectorate has reviewed the evidence of publicity under s48 and note that the advertisement in a national newspaper does not indicate the date or source of publication. Any further reassurance on this matter would be helpful.
A full check of typographical errors has not been carried out. Therefore we advise that this be carried out by the applicant before submission, as at a glance a few have been detected.
In preparing the submission documents the applicant might find it helpful to work through the s55 Checklist which is appended to Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 6, available on the national infrastructure pages of the planning portal website.
You should note that our comments are entirely without prejudice to any future decisions of the Secretary of State, including the decision under s55 of the Planning Act 2008 to accept any application. Whilst a broad assessment has been made on the draft consultation report, it is for the applicant to be satisfied that the document complies with the requirements of primary and secondary legislation and relevant guidance and advice; and it willbe the duty of the Secretary of State to review compliance at ‘acceptance’.

Jon Barnard

Details of the s51 advice regarding EIA status of the project, given by the Planning Inspectorate.
Please see attached document.

Guy Lewis

Section 51 Advice in relation to the notification under Regulation 17 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) ('the EIA Regulations')
Thank you for your letter dated 11 November 2013 enclosing copies of the compliance certificates for sections 58 and 59 of the Planning Act 2008 and Regulation 13 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended) ('the EIA Regulations').
In the above letter you also provided a document which you called a compliance certificate in accordance with Regulation 17 of the EIA Regulations in relation to the Ornithological Addendum (relating to the cumulative and in-combination assessment dated September 2013) ('the Addendum') provided to PINS on 9 October 2013. However, procedurally this is incorrect as the EIA Regulations do not make provision for a certificate to be provided by an applicant unless a Regulation 17 determination has been made by the Examining Authority.
Regulation 17 of the EIA Regulations applies only where an application has been accepted for examination and the Examining Authority has determined that an applicant's environmental statement is inadequate and should contain further information. Currently this is not the case and it will be for the Examining Authority to consider whether the information you have provided means that the ES was inadequate (and therefore whether the Addendum should be subject to statutory consultation under EIA Regulation 17 and the examination suspended). The Examining Authority will therefore need to make a procedural decision under s89(3) of the Planning Act about how to examine the application in the light of the supplementary Addendum you submitted and this may be communicated through the Rule 6 letter which will invite Forewind and other interested parties to the preliminary meeting. In the meantime PINS will hold this Addendum on file. It will not be published on the project webpage on the PINS' website until a procedural decision has been taken by the Examining authority.
However, as Forewind has published a notice under Regulation 17, we are concerned that the notification has the potential to confuse interested parties and the wider general public. You should of course take your own legal advice, but one option although not a statutory requirement, may be to publish a correction notice. This notice could clarify that the Addendum had not been provided in response to a Regulation 17 notification made by the Examining Authority; it could be published in the same newspapers that the Regulation 17 notice was published. If you decide to take this approach a copy of this new notice should be sent to PINS for information and this would be passed to the Examining Authority. Alternatively, you may consider it appropriate to write to the consultation bodies and any other person who responded to the newspaper notice in order to clarify the position. In the meantime, PINS will remove your cover letter dated 11 November 2013 referring to the Regulation 17 certificate and the copy of the certificate from the project page on the website.
We also note that Forewind, in the "Regulation 17 notice", requested responses to be provided by 8 November 2013. We suggest that if any responses are received, Forewind may wish to provide copies of these responses to PINS so these could be submitted to the Examining Authority, along with the Addendum. Again, whilst we recommend that you take your own legal advice, we would suggest that you also provide the information listed below which will help the Examining Authority to take a procedural decision about whether to accept the Addendum, and if so how it should be examined:
clarify the status of the Addendum and whether you consider it to be other information which is defined as "any other substantive information relating to the environmental statement" (as defined in Regulation 2(1) of the EIA Regulations);
identify any consequential corrections/updates to other application documents, including the ES and HRA Report; and
confirm that as a result of obtaining this other information there are no consequential changes to the authorised development and ancillary matters for which you are applying in the draft DCO submitted with the application.
I would be grateful if you could let me know how Forewind intend to proceed.

Melissa Read

Requested comments on draft Habitats Regulations Assessment documents

Navitus Bay Development Limited - Mr Chris Lloyd

National Grid requested advice on the Contents page of their draft Consultation Report for the proposed Hinkley Point C Connection project.
Letter sent via e-mail from the Planning Inspectorate attached.

National Grid - Richard Walsh

Submission of a request to become an interested party under s102A of the Planning Act 2008
"I act for various tenants and owners of land affected by the linear power connection route from landfall to the proposed Sub Station and therefore need to be advised of progression of the DCO application"
Thank you for your request to become an interested party for the Burbo Bank Offshore Wind Farm project on behalf of G Howatson Esq.
For clarification, the Planning Inspectorate is dealing with an application for a Development Consent Order for the offshore element of the proposed project. This would be located west of the operational Burbo Bank offshore wind farm in Liverpool Bay. This is being dealt with as a Nationally significant Infrastructure project (NSIP) as defined in the Planning Act 2008.
The land and development to which you refer in your form is subject to an application to Denbighshire County Council, under the Town and Country planning Act 1990. The reference for this application is 31/2013/0400.
Unfortunately the only method of registering as an interested party for the Burbo Bank Offshore wind Farm project NSIP is to submit a representation during the prescribed period which ended on 24 June 2013. However, if you were to submit a representation about the project during the examination and ask us to accept it, it would be at the Examining inspector's discretion to consider your request.
We are currently in the examination phase of the process where there are a number of public hearings to discuss the application. The timetable for the examination can be found here: [attachment 1]. You are welcome to attend the hearings and it would be at the Inspector's discretion to consider whether you can speak.
For further information about the process and to follow the progress of the NSIP application on the website please use the following link: [attachment 2].

Williams Rural & Commercial - Richard Williams

Dear Sirs,
I am writing to you as an individual John Pennington 10020174, and on behalf of TravelWatch Isle of Man 10020355.
Although I was unable to attend the Walney Extension Preliminary Meeting on 12 Nov 2013, I read in page 7 of the published notes that possible conflicts between the programmes of Walney Extension and Burbo Bank Extension were discussed, in order that you could take account of staffing resource implications for Natural England, who are engaged on both schemes.
As a matter of urgency, I wish to draw your attention to possible effects of Celtic Array's Irish Sea Zone (SE) Rhiannon programme on our resources which we need to devote to Walney Extension.
Celtic Array Ltd held its First Stage Public Consultation in Nov- Dec 2012, including Public Exhibition in Douglas, Isle of Man. TravelWatch Isle of Man submitted a detailed representation regarding Rhiannon's potential impact on the adverse weather route for the Isle of Man Steam Packet service between Douglas and Liverpool. Celtic Array indicated that they intended to publish their consultation report in early 2013, but it has not yet been issued. TravelWatch has not been able to obtain a response to their concerns from Celtic Array. On 30 Oct 2013, I emailed my Celtic Array contact to ask when we could expect to receive the consultation report, and to seek that we should have sufficient time to study it before the Second Stage Consultation. He emailed me on 20 Nov 2013 (ie after the Walney Extension Preliminary Meeting) and stated that he hoped ''Celtic Array will be in a position to publish the report prior to Christmas ... (or)!
! ...prior to our second stage of consultation. .... As regards our stage 2 consultation... not able to confirm exact dates.... It is planned for early 2014, and we will advise stakeholders when the dates have been finalised.''
Thus we and other Isle of Man interests could be faced with having to study and respond to Celtic Array's Rhiannon Consultation Report, and be actively involved in and responding to the Stage 2 Public Consultation / Exhibition process, at the very same time that we are busy with the Walney Extension Examination. We had not been able to raise this matter at the Walney Extension Preliminary Meeting on 12 Nov, as we had not then received Celtic Array's response re their timetable.
TravelWatch, as a voluntary organisation has limited resources, and Rhiannon will be particularly time-consuming for us as we are questioning Celtic Array's turbine spacing criteria and whether their (over) use of the Engineering / Rochdale envelope is resulting in a needlessly large Potential Development Area, with increased impact on navigation.
As Celtic Array have not yet published their Rhiannon dates, I request that the Walney Extension ExA and PI draw this matter to the attention of their PI colleagues overseeing Rhiannon, to seek to ensure that the Rhiannon programme does not conflict with Walney Extension Examination. It is particularly important that any 28 day response period(s) for Rhiannon are clear of the Walney Extension Examination.
I trust that you will be able to address this matter, and look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully,
John Pennington, FICE.
See attached letter

John Pennington

The Civil Aviation Authority are not currently registered as an interested party for the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck proposed development. Is it possible register as an interested party at this stage? I am concerned that there are currently no registered parties to advise on aviation issues, for example NATS, MOD or the CAA.
Any advice would be much appreciated.
Kind regards,
Thank you for your email regarding the Dogger Bank Creyke Beck application.
As you may be aware the registration period for this project closed on 8th November 2013.
For your information, the Civil Aviation Authority has been identified as a 'statutory party' for this application and therefore will have an opportunity to request to become an interested party during the examination period. You will be notified by the Examining authority of the date Preliminary Meeting for this case (the date of which is yet to be decided) which will set out the draft examination timetable. You are not required to attend this meeting, but it would assist the Examining authority if you could inform us in writing/by email of your request to be considered an interested party after this meeting has taken place and the examination period has commenced.
Kind regards

Kelly Lightowler

A meeting was held at the Planning Inspectorate with National Grid to discuss suspension of the Bramford to Twinstead Tee Connection project at pre-application.
A meeting note is attached.
A meeting note is attached.

National Grid - Steve Knight-Gregson

L A Bird requested to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party.
The proposal by Navitus Bay Development Ltd for the Navitus Bay Wind Park is currently at the 'pre-application' stage of the process for making decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) regime.
The opportunity for persons to register to become an 'interested party' will not arise until any formal application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and accepted to proceed to be examined. If the application is accepted to be examined, the developer will be required to advertise in local and national press the period within which anybody will be able to make a 'relevant representation' and register to become an interested party. Notification of this period will also appear on the Planning Inspectorate's project webpage, here: [attachment 1]
Based on current information, Navitus Bay Development Ltd anticipate submitting this application at some point in Quarter 1 2014. Until such time as the application is accepted to proceed to be examined by the Inspectorate, any views about the proposal should be directed to the developer (email: info@navitusbay.com tel. 01926671592).
The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following address: [attachment 2]. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

L A Bird

Ms. Rance requested to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party.
The proposal by Navitus Bay Development Ltd for the Navitus Bay Wind Park is currently at the 'pre-application' stage of the process for making decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) regime.
The opportunity for persons to register to become an 'interested party' will not arise until any formal application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and accepted to proceed to be examined. If the application is accepted to be examined, the developer will be required to advertise in local and national press the period within which anybody will be able to make a 'relevant representation' and register to become an interested party. Notification of this period will also appear on the Planning Inspectorate's project webpage, here: [attachment 1]
Based on current information, Navitus Bay Development Ltd anticipate submitting this application at some point in Quarter 1 2014. Until such time as the application is accepted to proceed to be examined by the Inspectorate, any views about the proposal should be directed to the developer (email: info@navitusbay.com tel. 01926671592).
The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following address: [attachment 2]. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

Cherrill Rance

Cllr. Woodcock requested to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an interested party.
The proposal by Navitus Bay Development Ltd for the Navitus Bay Wind Park is currently at the 'pre-application' stage of the process for making decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) regime.
The opportunity for persons to register to become an 'interested party' will not arise until any formal application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and accepted to proceed to be examined. If the application is accepted to be examined, the developer will be required to advertise in local and national press the period within which anybody will be able to make a 'relevant representation' and register to become an interested party. Notification of this period will also appear on the Planning Inspectorate's project webpage, here: [attachment 1]
Based on current information, Navitus Bay Development Ltd anticipate submitting this application at some point in Quarter 1 2014. Until such time as the application is accepted to proceed to be examined by the Inspectorate, any views about the proposal should be directed to the developer (email: info@navitusbay.com tel. 01926671592).
The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at the following address: [attachment 2]. I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 through 8.5.

Cllr. Tony Woodcock

Telephone conference call with the applicant and Natural England.
Meeting note attached.

York Potash Limited and Natural England

Mr. Davies queried the status under the Planning Act 2008 of Bournemouth Borough Council in relation to the emerging application for the Navitus Bay Wind Park.
At the ‘pre-application’ stage of the process, applicants are required to identify and consult statutory consultees about the proposed development in compliance with section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (the PA2008) and Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. Local authorities as defined under section 43 are statutory consultees for any proposed Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) which is located in (a 'host' authority) or adjacent to (a 'boundary' authority) their area. If you are in any doubt as to Bournemouth Borough Council’s pre-application status in relation to the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park, please contact the applicant (email info@navitusbay.com or telephone 01926671592).
If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and accepted for examination, section 102 of the PA 2008 applies and sets out those persons who are 'interested parties' and therefore enjoy certain entitlements such as the ability to make written representations and oral representations at any hearings. Host local authorities are automatically registered as interested parties under s102.
If the NSIP or its associated development would not be located in land under jurisdiction of a local authority, but that authority shares a boundary with a host authority, in order to participate in the examination of the application the boundary authority would be required to either:
· register as an interested party by making a relevant representation; or
· as a s43 statutory consultee, confirm to the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) its desire to become an interested party in writing; if possible by a deadline timetabled in that ExAs letter under Rule 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 (the Exam Rules).
S43 authorities that share a boundary with a host authority or authorities will receive an invitation to the Preliminary Meeting under Rule 6 of the Exam Rules, and the procedural decision following that meeting under Rule 8. Unless one of the steps described in the bulleted list above were then taken, the Rule 8 letter would be the last correspondence from the Inspectorate that a boundary authority would receive.
For information on the content and submission of Local Impact Reports, I refer you to the Planning Inspectorate’s non-statutory Advice Note One: Local Impact Reports: [attachment 1]

Bournemuth Borough Council - Steve Davies

I would like to voice my opposition to the above project based on:
-its damage to tourism in the area;
-its damage to the ancient site of Plas yn Dinas;
-its damage to the legacy of countryside for future generations.
I cannot see on your website how I become involved in the process so would be grateful for any assistance you can offer.
As you may be aware, the National Grid Mid Wales proposal is currently at the pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) process; therefore an application has not yet been formally submitted
National Grid is currently undertaking consultation on this proposal and will undertake their pre-application statutory consultation under section 42 in due course, prior to the application being submitted.
For more information about the timing of National Grid’s consultation you may wish to contact National Grid directly, through their website on this link: www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/MajorProjects/midwalesconnection
At this point any responses to consultation on this proposal should go to National Grid and not the Planning Inspectorate to allow National Grid to take account of any points you wish to raise prior to finalising their proposal. I have attached Advice Note 8.2 (below) for your guide to getting involved in pre-application consultation.
Prior to submission of the application, National Grid will publicise how they intend to consult on the preliminary environmental information for this proposal. Once National Grid is ready to submit an application for development consent they will submit an Environmental Statement as part of their application.
I have also attached the Planning Inspectorate Advice Notes 8.2, 8.4 and 8.5 (below) which explain how you can get involved if the application is accepted for examination once submitted.
You may also, for background, wish to view the National Policy Statements for Overarching Energy (EN-1) and Electricity Networks (EN 5 produced by the Department for Energy and Climate Change. National Policy Statements are government policies which are the primary policy consideration for decision makers when dealing with nationally significant infrastructure projects. The above National Policy Statements are available on the Department for Energy and Climate Change website.

Caroline Johnson

Please see attached links for enquiry and response between David Gawthorpe and The Planning Inspectorate.

David Gawthorpe

Officers from the Planning Inspectorate met with the Highways Agency to discuss draft documents relating to the proposed application
A note of the Meeting, and a copy of advice issued following the Meeting, are attached.

Sophie Diver

Ms. Williams, on behalf of Cyngor Cymuned Gwyddelwern, requested clarification on who to address to apply for community funding.
In the first instance I would draw your attention to Chapter 14 of the environmental statement (ES) submitted to the Inspectorate by the applicant, RWE npower renewables Ltd, on 28 March 2013. The ES is available to view on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website via the following link: [attachment 1];stage=app&filter=Environmental+Statement. Hard copies of the application (including the ES), along with submissions to the Inspectorate’s examination of the proposal, are also available at the locations detailed in Annex A of this letter.
Chapter 14 of the ES provides an assessment by the applicant of the potential social and economic impacts associated with the project. In relation to your enquiry, section 14.8.1.6 of that chapter sets out the applicant’s planned provision of an annual community benefit contribution throughout the operational life of the wind farm. This fund is proposed by the applicant in line with the expectations set out in Annex B of Welsh Government’s ‘Technical Advice Note 8: Planning for Renewable Energy’ (TAN 8).
Mechanisms for negotiating and distributing community funding of this nature take place outside of the planning process. Chapter 14 of the ES states that at the point of application to the Planning Inspectorate, the specification or remit of the funding package had not yet been set out. It asserts however that it will be developed in consultation with ‘relevant local organisations’ as, if development consent is granted by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the wind farm moves closer to operation.
It is therefore most appropriate for you to contact the applicant’s Community Liaison Officer (Tel. 01639816180 email. clocaenog@npower-renewables.com) in connection with any enquiries in relation to the fund. Chapter 14 of the ES also asserts that a Community Liaison Group has been established (website here: [attachment 2]) that will be involved with the process of distribution of the community benefits package to ensure equity. It may also be prudent to contact the relevant local authorities (Denbighshire County Council and Conwy County Borough Council) which are likely to have been contacted by the applicant in relation to regulating the fund.

Cyngor Cymuned Gwyddelwern - Carys Williams

Query regarding the designation of 'essential infrastructure' for the Above Ground Installations elements of the project.
In your letter of 20 August, you asked for clarification on the process for designating above ground infrastructure as 'essential infrastructure' in relation to the Flood Risk Assessment.
Further to our conversation at the teleconference of 10 September, I confirm our advice at the time, with clarification on timing of the decision:
The decision would lie with the Secretary of State once any examination has been completed and recommendation made.
It is for National Grid as the applicant to set out its reasoning as part of any submission with the application, and note that your letter of 20 August takes that approach.
Without prejudice to any examination, the Examining Authority may test evidence and representations particularly from the following parties:
- Environment Agency
- Local Planning Authorities
- Internal Drainage Boards
We advise you share your reasoning with those parties and if possible aim to prepare a Statement of Common Ground in relation to this matter, as this could reduce the areas of uncertainty / disagreement that may necessitate further examination. Even if there areas of disagreement, this would assist any examining authority in focusing on key mattes.

National Grid Carbon Yorkshire and Humber CCS

1) Is 2nd Dec the deadline for notifying intention to attend or speak at the Open Floor Hearing? If not, is there another deadline for notifying such intention?
2) Will the Open Floor Hearing permit anyone to attend and speak, or is attendance or making oral input restricted to Registered Interested Parties?
3) Will it be advertised in local press?
Agendas for hearings will be published on the Clocaenog website as soon as practicable. I draw your attention to the DCLG document ‘Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent’. Under section 94 of the Planning Act 2008, it is for the Examining Authority to determine how hearings are to be conducted and Interested Parties will be given at least 21 days’ notice of the date, time and place fixed for the holding of the hearing as well as the subject matter for the hearing (para 77, 86). The hearing items to be examined will be decided by the Examining Authority at its discretion. Moreover, as DCLG guidance states:
'[…] the applicant is required to publish a notice of the hearing in one or more local newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land in question is situated. Secondly, the applicant is required to post a notice of the hearing in places near to the location of the proposed development, and, where within the control of the applicant, post a notice of the hearing on the land itself so as to be visible and legible to members of the public. The published or posted notices must state the place, date and time of the hearing; the relevant section of the Planning Act under which the application has been made; sufficient description of the proposals in the application to identify their location with or without reference to a specified map; and details of a place where a copy of the application and relevant documents can be inspected (para 78, 79).'
As stated in the Examining Authority’s letter, interested parties wishing to attend and speak at an open-floor or issue-specific hearing are required to notify the case team by the deadline of 2 December 2013. Again, it is at the discretion of the Examining Authority to allow any other person who is not an interested party to make an oral representation at a hearing. Meetings are held in public but to ensure that we can plan for this properly we ask that everyone who wants to attend each session tells us in advance by contacting the case team. If the venue has limited capacity, the Planning Inspectorate may need to offer interested parties a seat ahead of other members of the general public.

Ian Sims

Query rergarding how the Examining Authority is proposing to differentiate between Relevant Representations that are made by parties who have financial ties to the developer and others
Please see attachment
Anyone is entitled to register as an interested party by completing the Planning Inspectorate Registration and Relevant Representation form. There are statutory requirements about the information that must be provided on the prescribed form for the representation to be considered ‘valid’. These requirements are set out in section 102(4) of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and associated Regulations. These also include the details of any organisation or person represented by an agent. There are no provisions under legislation that prohibits persons associated or employed by the applicant from making a relevant representation. It is important to note, however, that the applicant is automatically registered as an interested party under section 102.
Relevant representations are used by the Examining Authority to help identify the initial principal issues for examination. Interested parties are then able to submit further representations in accordance with the examination procedures. From the information provided in the relevant representation form and subsequent representations made, the Examining Authority assesses the nature of the representation and its relevance to the examination. If there are issues regarding the relationship of an interested party with the applicant, in terms of contracts or financial matters that may have a bearing on the examination, it will be for the Examining Authority to decide their importance and whether to ask questions in order to clarify points or to seek further information. The Examining Authority may reject any material that is considered vexatious or frivolous.

Ian Gardner

Query on the Interpretation of Capacity

Emily Agus

Could you advise please concerning the statutory consultees for this national infrastructure scheme?

I am aware that there is Schedule One in S.I. 2009/2264 at [attachment 1]

However, that is very general including many consultees that would have no interest in this particular plan.

Thus it occurred to me you may already have a publicly available list of statutory consultees for the Navitus proposal and if so, I should be grateful to receive a copy.
You are correct in stating that the persons prescribed for the purposes of an applicant's duty to consult are those listed in column 1 of the table in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009.

The Planning Inspectorate uses specialised software to generate a list of prescribed persons based on a shape file (mapping the Order limits) provided by an applicant. This is usually done twice; first under Regulation 9 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 and again in immediate advance of the submission of an application. The list generated by the Inspectorate under Regulation 9 of the above regulations for the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park is available to view publicly as an appendix (Appendix 1) to the Inspectorate's Scoping Report, here: [attachment 2]

While lists generated under Regulation 9 of the above regulations are shared with applicants, the Inspectorate emphasises that applicants should not rely on their contents to inform an applicant's duty to consult under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It is for an applicant to identify the required bodies subject to its own investigation and its own legal advice.

The purpose of the list generated by the Inspectorate before submission of an application is to identify any jurisdictional or boundary changes associated with the prescribed bodies in advance of a potential Examination. In practice this may increase or decrease the amount of prescribed bodies. This list will inform to whom an appointed Examining Authority (ExA) will send its letter under Rule 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2009; which amongst other things invites all prescribed bodies to the Preliminary Meeting. Following the Preliminary meeting, the ExA will issue a second letter under Rule 8 of the above rules, to all interested parties and all prescribed bodies. Appended to this letter will be a timetable for the Examination which will include a deadline by which prescribed bodies must respond to the Inspectorate to confirm their status as an 'interested party'. Those bodies which do not reply will not be afforded interested party status, and will not be sent correspondence or consulted with further in the Examination.

Bill Hoodless

Project Update and Discussion on Draft Documents
Please see meeting note attached.

Tata Steel UK Ltd AECOM

Please see attached correspondence between Southwark London Borough Council and The Planning Inspectorate regarding the responses to the Examining Authority's first written questions.

Rachel Mckoy

United Utilities email, ExA with the following:
Thank you for your letter and involving United Utilities Water PLC in this process.
At present we do not wish to speak or to be represented at the examination.
Our historical agreements with DONG Energy Walney Extension [UK] Ltd are still valid and we would like them to be taken into account during the examination process; if necessary we will provide further written evidence.
We would also like to be notified of your decision on whether to accept our comments and the future progress of the Application by DONG Energy Walney Extension [UK] Ltd for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm.
If you wish to discuss this in further detail please do not hesitate in contacting me or Jenny Hope.
The Planning Inspectorate reply was by email.
Thank you for your email and letter of 5 November 2013 regarding the Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm application.
Your letter has been forwarded to the Examining Authority who, in exercising its discretion has accepted your comments as an 'additional submission' in relation to this case, as it was submitted prior to the commencement of the examination stage. It will be published on our website shortly.
For this application, United Utilities has been automatically registered as an Interested Party, being one of the 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 2008 (as amended by the Localism Act 2011) (PA 2008). Consequently, United Utilities has important entitlements before, during and after the examination process that includes: the right to be invited to a preliminary meeting; the right to require, and be heard at, an open-floor hearing; the right to be heard at an issue-specific hearing, if one is held; the right to be notified of when the Examining Authority has completed its examination; and the right to be notified of the reasons for the decision.
In having an interest in the land to which a compulsory acquisition request relates, the name of United Utilities has been given to the Secretary of State in a notice under Section 59. This means that United Utilities is additionally categorised as an Affected Person, which are also statutory parties under legislation. Affected persons are able to request that a compulsory acquisition hearing be held to consider the issues arising in connection with the authorisation of the compulsory acquisition of the land (for example, whether there is a compelling case for it) and to make oral representations at that hearing.
In being automatically registered as an Interested Party under Section 102 of the PA 2008 and The Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2010, procedural letters from the Examining Authority about this application and its examination will be sent to United Utilities accordingly. Following the Preliminary Meeting, the Examining Authority will send its decisions about how the application is to be examined along with an examination timetable. It is therefore for United Utilities to decide whether it wishes to attend the Preliminary Meeting and participate in the examination process (such as submitting representations and responding to Examining Authority's questions) in accordance with the timetable and any other agendas or amendments to the timetable.
Should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact the Walney Team who can assist you further.

United Utilities - David Sherratt

To view the enquiry in its entirety please see attachment-
131108_WW010001_Holbeche SYR concerns about timing of hearings in relation to hearings.pdf
To view the advice given please see attachment-
131111_WW010001_reply_Holbeche_SYR_re_publication_of_WRs_and_timing_of_hearings.doc.pdf

Barney Holbeche

Concern about the short preparation time between publication of written representations and hearings.
See attached letter
See attached letter

Hammersmith & Fulham Council - David Gawthorpe

Advice was given by the Planning Inspectorate under S51 to assist the applicant in preparing for the examination of the application.
The advice was contained in a letter, which is attached.

Northumberland CC - Gary Mills

Southern Gas Networks contacted the Planning Inspectorate requesting the following:
I have been forwarded the attached from Southern Gas Networks (SGN) legal department.
I note the works area is North London, SGN own and operate a small area in Richmond it is Transco own and operate the gas infrastructure in North London.
If you could forward more details including any plans this will help decipher who you would need to contact.
I look forward to your response
In response to the Planning Inspectorate's reply, Southern Gas Networks emailed:
Thank you for your email,
I have checked the project Waltham Cross and Tottenham, North London, this area is not covered by Southern Gas Networks it is covered by National Grid.
Thank you for you enquiry
Thank you for your email received on 1 November 2013 about the North London Reinforcement Project application. This application is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under the Planning Act 2008 as amended (PA 2008) and has been examined by an appointed Examining authority at the Planning Inspectorate.
For your information, Southern Gas Networks Plc was identified as a 'statutory party' for this application who the Examining authority had to invite to the Preliminary Meeting under section 88(3)(c) of PA 2008 and, following that meeting, inform of any procedural decisions made subject to section 89(2A)(a). The Examining authority also needs to inform those invited to the Preliminary Meeting of any variations to the examination timetable, which is why the procedural letter dated 18 October 2013 was sent to Southern Gas Networks Plc. Statutory parties are also given the opportunity to notify the Examining authority in writing that the person wishes to become an 'interested party' for the purposes of being kept informed of the application and participate in the examination (section 89(2A)(b)). We did not receive any such notification from Southern Gas Networks Plc.
Procedural letters were therefore sent to Southern Gas Networks Plc at the following addresses:
c/o Scotia Gas Networks, Inveralmond House, 200 Dunkeld Road, Perth, PH1 3AQ, and;
St. Lawrence House, Station Road, Horley, Surrey, RH6 9HJ.
Please be informed that the examination has now closed for this application. There is a period of 3 months for the Examining authority to submit a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State. Further information can be found on our website:
[attachment 1]
Regarding your request for any plans which may help you identify the works area, I refer you to the applicant's 'Works Plans' and 'Land Plans' submitted as part of their application, which are published on our website:
[attachment 2]

Southern Gas Networks - Dee Mann

I am writing on behalf of the Battersea Land owning companies (BPS). We on behalf of BPS are in discussions with the Thames Water team in connection with the proposed temporary use of land owned by BPS by Thames Water for the purpose of the TTT in the vicinity of Kirtling Street.
The discussions are currently progressing positively and accordingly we believe that it would be most efficient for BPS to attend the hearings at the latter stage (end January 2014?) to give us and Thames the maximum time to establish whether we are able to reach agreement prior to that date and if appropriate withdraw from the proceedings.
The Panel understand that negotiations are ongoing. However, the process of scheduling the different Compulsory Acquisition (CA) hearings is complex and has to be in some sort of logical order to assist with the reporting to the SoS.

The agenda for all the CA hearings is in the process of being finalised and should be issued in the next few weeks. If your session is earlier than you would like, then I would advise that if you attend a hearing, that you provide your views to the Panel as if the objection you have is still outstanding. You can explain to the Panel that negotiations are ongoing.

The Panel will be asking the applicant to provide an update later in the examination of the current state of play at that time in respect of all the land interests, identifying any ongoing negotiations and where an agreement has been concluded or where it cannot be reached.

Battersea Power Station Developm - Simon Murphy

E-mail received by the Planning Inspectorate from Mr David Bath below:
I strongly object to the Hinkley Point C connection project using pylons to distribute new energy supplies across Somerset to reach Avonmouth.
This connection project does not consider the Somerset people or the Somerset countryside / environment enough and is being driven by cost and what is most convenience to National grid.
The Somerset levels are a unique landscape which should be cherished and protected from infrastructure projects of this nature.
Sub-sea:
The Hinkley point C connection project should be Sub-sea.
This has been shown as adding only £1.00 to the bill of householders.
It would avoid a long lasting scar to the environment seeing miles and miles of gigantic pylons.
It would stop communities being disrupted along the proposed route of the pylons.
Allow other projects such as off shore wind to feed into the route.
It would prevent any health risks from the 440 voltage cables.
National Grid must continue to find viable solutions to their negative reasons of not going sub-sea.
With the delay of the Hinkley C power station National Grid have time to do this work.
Underground:
A second option is for this Hinkley C connection is under ground.
By traditional National grid methods or the use of gas insulated lines used in Europe.
The cost could be negligible, about 75p per household, although there will be massive disruption to Somerset communities and the environment whilst it is being built. After completion there will be a lesser long term impact to communities and the local landscape.
Less visual impact throughout Somerset and prevention of health risks to communities in the area.
STUDY AREA B:
Specific comments
The impact on the community now and the future is absolutely disastrous.
The pylons will run parallel to Biddisham Lane across a flat landscape.
The pylons even with the new design will be massively higher and wider than the current pylons (PL 1 Std HT) which run along this route at the moment, making them significantly more visual.
The visual impact from Biddisham Lane cannot be hidden as pylon screening will be greatly reduced.
National Grid requires 10m clearance of trees and hedges from each pylon.
Views looking north to the Mendip hills across this flat landscape have been recognised and documented by National Grid for their local importance of flora and fauna and have a significant value to the community.
Other National Grid documents state that the pylons will only have moderate to minor impact to the landscape. This demonstrates how sadly the National Grid perceives the importance of the local community as the pylons will have a massive impact, blighting the landscape and destroying the valued views.
The sealing end compound for the Loxton gap under grounding will add to the dramatic visual impact locally. It will use many acres of valuable grazing land.
It will be significantly noticeable from the Mendip Hills – Crooks Peak – an area of outstanding natural beauty.
Lighting of the compound will effect local residence and cause light pollution in a rural area
Work area 2D on A38.
This works area based in Tarnock / Biddisham was only divulged by National Grid during this last round of consultation – this is totally unacceptable.
It is planned to follow a highly dangerous red route road. Frequent accidents occur with assioated fatalities.
Selecting this section of the road for lorry turning in and out across the A38 even with a managed road system will cause local traffic chaos.
The compound will have valuable hedgerows and trees removed. This will have a direct impact on noise and light pollution.
This area is also of significant historical interest – and the works will cause damage to beneath the ground archaeology.
Any night work will give disruption to the village of Biddisham and community rural life.
Noise
Noise from the increased voltage line. Noise travels across Somerset levels easily, trees and hedges help to dissipate the noise – but these will be removed.
Rain increases the noise levels, the weather is often damp.
Houses at Tarnock are very close to the new T pylon proposed.
Noise from the installation of the pylons and the construction work lorries will also carry across the fields.
Sedgemoor Planning department committee are well aware of the impact of noise on the Somerset levels.
EMF – The Hinkley connection has been designed for optimum phasing of the lattice pylon and not the T pylon planned for Biddisham. This means there is a greater health risk especially to children.
Biddisham has a large nursery school and houses at Tarnock. I believe these fall outside of the National Grid guidelines of a 60 meter clearance.
There is a lack of information on the works access routes shown as blue lines off Biddisham Lane. Biddisham Lane has houses with road frontages, no passing places and rhynes along the road edge. It is unsuitable for heavy and large verchicles.
Wild life disruption including thickets are used for deer. These will be removed by National Grid.
Please be aware, the way that National Grid has consulted the local Communities over the past few years has been greatly faulted. Feedback from the Mendip forum group has been ignored.
National Grid only supplied limited information, which gave a positive reflection to the project.
i.e. the resent DVD shows only good views not the real view at the Tarnock / A38 area.
Another example is landscaping of pylons through the terrain of hills etc – this cannot happen on the Somerset levels.
Detailed information was only offered if requested and again explanations and information was kept to a minimum; i.e. the ‘T pylon design’ was only discussed as one design not the fact that the design varies along the route for angles and that the T pylon is smaller than the proposed pylon and overlooked it is higher than the pylons already in place.
Specific community information which related to a sensitive part of the connection was gleamed over and well hidden in documents which were very difficult to find or not present.
i.e. the storage area at Biddisham. During National Grid community sessions, the compound was skiped over, stating it would be of minimal impact to the area but the National Grid documents show this is not correct with 2 storey high portacabins.
I feel that National Grid has given communities ‘lip service’ to tick the box and that National Grid was always going to select preferred route 1a corridor using pylon technology. Numerous ideas and technical information has been given to National Grid to prevent pylons and now with the Hinkley C delay and government support for the project, they have had time to find a more friendly community solution for this important energy connection.
Response from the Planning Inspectorate attached.

David Bath

I was advised that the best way to ensure an Open Floor Hearing is for someone to request one,
before doing so, I wonder if you could let me know a little more about how the hearing would be conducted.
This response was given over the phone.
Examining Authorities (ExA) will include a deadline in Examination timetables for interested parties to request to speak at any open floor hearing(s) (OFH). If at least one request is received on or before that deadline, an ExA must hold an OFH as part of its Examination. Although OFHs are held in public and anybody is able to attend; only interested parties may request to give oral representations. These should be based on 'relevant representations' or written representations already submitted. Any request to make oral representations from persons without interested party status would be at the discretion of the ExA.
ExAs must issue a notification no less than 21 days before an OFH is held confirming the date, time and place of the hearing. This notification is generally issued as soon as practicable after the close of the deadline for requests to speak. Applicants are also required to publicise hearings; which comprises publishing a notice in local press.
There is generally no agenda for OFHs. Interested parties who have requested to speak will be allocated a time slot to give oral evidence for a limited period. During this time, only the ExA will be able to ask questions to the person speaking. Oral representations should be based on previous written submissions, but should avoid repeating its content. The ExA will not wish to hear evidence already provided in writing.
ExAs may ask applicants to respond to any oral representations at the end of the hearing; or by written responses following the close of the hearing. Applicants, or other parties, will generally not be permitted to cross-examine speakers on their oral representations.
Please note that ExAs have the discretion to close hearings once all confirmed speakers present have given their oral representations. It is therefore recommended for attendees to arrive promptly and prepared for the start of the hearing.

Michael Skuse

Ms. Charman wrote to the Rt. Hon. Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, regarding the proposed application for the Navitus Bay Wind Park. The Planning Inspectorate responded on Mr. Pickles' behalf.
Please see attached letter.

Patricia Charman

Mr and Mrs Holloway wrote to David Cameron the Prime Minister at his Whitney Constituency office with an accompanying e-mail to Christopher Chope MP regarding the proposed application for the Navitus Bay Wind Park. The Planning Inspectorate responded on their behalf.
Please see attached letter.

Mr. and Mrs. Holloway

Is it acceptable for objectors to a wind farm to refer to their negative view of policy matters within their objections please? If not, would the Inspector strike out the entire objection as tainted with an item beyond his or her remit, or instead, say the objection has been considered except for the part relating to policy? Alternatively, would the Inspector consider the merit of the entire objection, giving due weight to all parts of it?
As you may be aware, the policy context for nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008 regime is embedded in a suite of national policy statements (NPSs). There are six NPSs designated in the energy sector, and these are available to view via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/consents-and-planning-applications-for-national-energy-infrastructure-projects. Where one or more national policy statements have been designated and are relevant to a specific type of development, those statements have primacy in the decision-making process.
Section 102(4) of the Planning Act 2008 defines the term 'relevant representation'; making explicit that a representation is not a relevant representation if it contains material about the merits of policy set out in a national policy statement. The Planning Inspectorate's advice note 8.3: [attachment 1] expands on the content of this provision, stating that " [...] the Examining Authority may disregard representations which it considers are vexatious or frivolous, or those which deal with the merits of matters of national policy, contained in National Policy Statements (NPSs). NPSs have already been the subject of consultation and parliamentary approval and it is not the role of the examination to debate the merits of national policy."
Therefore if a representation were to include material about the merits of national policy, that part may be disregarded by an Examining Authority. A representation that refers solely to the merits of national policy, therefore, is likely to be disregarded entirely by an Examining Authority. The latter scenario may compromise the 'relevant representation' test described above under s102 of the PA2008; and in turn a persons 'interested party' status.

Bill Hoodless

Please see attached correspondence from Jon Barnard - Norwich CC
Advice given in response to above inquiry:
We have now considered the documents provided and set out our initial comments in the attached documents. I hope you find these comments useful at this stage of the process and that they will assist in preparation of the submitted draft DCO. Our comments are entirely without prejudice to any further decisions of the Secretary of State, including the decision under Section 55 of the Planning Act to accept any application.
In addition to the comments as attached, I would like to emphasise the importance of explaining Norfolk County Council's view regarding the sufficiency of the Secretary of State's Section 35 Direction to legitimising the statutory consultation undertaken prior to the Direction.

Jon Barnard

Enquiry regarding the applicant's pre-application consultation.
Thank you for your email dated 10 October 2013 regarding proposed Progress Power Station at Eye Airfield. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.
As you are probably aware, this application is currently at the pre-application stage; where the developer is required to undertake its statutory pre-application consultation exercises in accordance with the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). I believe that the leaflet you received relates to the applicant’s statutory consultation.
We appreciate being informed about the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs); please note however that the pre-application consultation exercise is driven by the applicant. I therefore suggest contacting the applicant directly to make them aware of your concerns. The applicant might be able to provide you with other opportunities to have your say on the project. You may wish to use the conatc details below to make your representation to the applicant;
Progress Power
Email: info@progresspower.co.uk
Telephone: 0131 550 3380
Progress Power Limited
49 York Place
Edinburgh
EH1 3JD
Please note that once the application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate specific tests will be undertaken against the relevant legislation on the submitted application documents during the 28 day acceptance period. As a part of these tests, the Secretary of State will review the applicant's pre-application consultation exercises undertaken and, how the applicant had regard to consultation responses received.
If the application is accepted for examination you will then have an opportunity to register as an interested party (IP) directly to the Planning Inspectorate. In a case where the applicant fails to demonstrate that it has fulfilled this duty there may be grounds to refuse an application for examination and require that the developer restarts its pre-application consultation exercises before an application is re-submitted.
I would suggest that any views you have on the applicant's proposed consultation exercises are formally sent to the developer in the first instance and that you make a record of this. Responses to consultation exercises must form part of the applicant's Consultation Report which will be used to determine the level of 'regard' an applicant has had to responses submitted.
I am also including the link below to our Advice Notes 8.1 - 8.5 on how the process works and how to get involved:
[attachment 1]
I hope this information was helpful.

Nigel Bamber

a) When Mrs Burden ( the single inspector) has prepared her report to send to the Secretary of State will this report contain her recommendations to the Secretary of state as to what action should be taken on RWE's application or will it be merely statements of fact arising from her investigations ?

b) If the the report does contain recommendations will this take the form of either approval or rejection of the plan in total or can she recommend partial acceptance e.g variations in numbers , siting or size of the turbines ?

c) When the Secretary of State makes his final decision on the application will he have have the same options of total acceptance or rejection or partial acceptance of the application ?
Firstly I would like to draw your attention to wording set out in Item 7 of the Rule 8 letter issued by The Planning Inspectorate on 23 September 2013 which provided a response to your query at the Preliminary Meeting. This stated that:
Mr Tilby raised a query concerning changes to the scheme in terms of whether the Examining Authority (ExA) would have the power to recommend to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) that the Applicant should remove/reduce the number of turbines. In answer to that query, an ExA does not have the power to substitute an alternative proposal for the application proposal and recommend that alternative proposal to DECC even if the alternative, on the face of it, may appear to be more acceptable or give rise to fewer objections.
Therefore in direct response to your queries outlined in your email below the following is advised:
a) As set out in Section 83 (2) of the Planning Act 2008, the person appointed to examine and report on the application (in this instance Mrs Wendy Burden) will make a report to the Secretary of State on the application setting out (i) Mrs Burden's findings and conclusions in respect of the application, and (ii) Mrs Burden's recommendation as to the decision to be made on the application.
b) As advised in the Rule 8 letter, and as set out above, an Examining Authority does not have the power to substitute an alternative proposal for the application proposal and recommend that alternative proposal to the Secretary of State even if the alternative, on the face of it, may appear to be more acceptable or give rise to fewer objections. An Examining Authority has a duty to consider the application as made. An applicant may however propose a change to an application which has already been accepted for examination. If that were to happen, the ExA would need to decide whether or not the proposed change was a material one, resulting in a substantially different project than that which was proposed in the original application. If the ExA decided that it was material, the applicant would then have to decide whether to continue with the original application or withdraw the application and start again with a new one.
c) Section 114 of the Planning Act 2008 states that when the Secretary of State has decided an application for an order granting development consent, the SoS must either (a) make an order granting development consent, or (b) refuse development consent. With regard to any proposed changes,the position is the same as in answer b) above. DCLG Guidance on the Examination of Applications states that "When an applicant submits a proposed change to a proposal, The Secretary of State will need to decide on the materiality of the change and whether it is of such a degree that it constitutes a new project or whether it can still be considered under the existing application. If the Secretary of State decides that the change is such that it would result in a materially different project, the applicant will then have to decide whether to withdraw the existing application and restart the pre-application process or whether to continue with the application in its original form" (paragraph 106).
In both cases if any proposed changes were considered to be non-material ones, then the ExA or the SoS would need to consider whether those affected by the proposed change have had, or will have, an opportunity to be consulted.
Mitigation proposals may be put forward by the applicant or third parties as proposed changes. The decision maker must have regard, under s104 of the 2008 Act, to National Policy Statements and section 4.4 of EN - 1 and section 2.7 of EN - 4 deal, in particular, with mitigation issues.

Brynbach Ltd - RP Tilby

1. Some of us are finding difficulty in downloading the Applicant's Representations, because of the massive file sizes. The total MB submitted by RWE nPower is 2,288MB, spread unevenly over 18 files. Can something be done to enable people to view these new documents please?
2. The deadline for receipt by ExA of comments on Written Representations is 14 Nov. Does this mean that we may comment on our own representations, by, for example, expanding certain arguments, or introducing new ones? And does it mean that we may comment on other peoples representations, either in support or to present counter arguments?
Firstly, I am sorry to hear that you and some of your community have been experiencing difficulty viewing the Applicants submissions for the deadline of 21 October 2013. This is down to the sheer size of the submitted material, in particular the reference documentation that was included. Please be aware that all the Examination documents are kept in paper form at five deposit locations close to the development site for public viewing:
Conwy Planning Office, Planning Services, Conwy County Borough Council, Civic Offices, Colwyn Bay, Conwy, LL29 8AR
Denbigh Planning Office, Development Control, Caledfryn, Smithfield Road, Denbigh, LL16 3RU
Denbigh Library, Hall Square, Denbigh, LL16 3NU
Ruthin Library, Record Street, Ruthin, LL15 1DS
Llanrwst Library, Station Road, Llanrwst, LL26 0DF
Please reference appendix F of the rule 8 letter for opening times: [attachment 1]. The Planning Inspectorate are in the process of upgrading and improving the project websites in order for interested parties to be able to navigate the documents more easily in the future.
With regards to your query regarding comments, please see the list we are able to accept for the next deadline of 14 November 2013:
Comments on Written Representations
Responses to comments on Relevant Representations
Comments on Local Impact Reports
Comments on responses to the ExA's first round of written questions
Comments on Statements of Common Ground
You can submit any of the comments above, including comments on submissions from yourself, and can expand on previous arguments, support or present counter arguments if you wish. Please quote the reference number and submission you wish to comment on at the beginning of any comments submitted.

Michael Skuse

Please see link below for the details of a meeting between The Planning Inspectorate, EDF Energy, Suffolk Coastal DC and Suffolk CC to discuss progress of Sizewell C Project.

EDF Energy

At the Preliminary Meeting a point, regarding the proposed acquisition of Open Space land and the proposed provision of replacement land was raised. As this involved Special Category Land it would be
necessary to engage s131 of the Act in terms of acquiring a certificate from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The applicant was not sure whether this should be included in the DCO Examination or whether a separate application to the Secretary of State was required.
Please be aware of the following process regarding s131 applications, as per your query at the Preliminary Meeting dated 8 October 2013.
After investigating this matter further I can confirm that the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has set up the National Planning Casework Unit (NPCU) to manage planning decisions including applications for section 131 on behalf of the Secretary of State.
In terms of what needs to be submitted, there is no formal application form, however sufficient evidence is required to demonstrate that one of the conditions set out in legislation is met e.g. that replacement land is being given in exchange for the land subject to compulsory acquisition. There may need to be some assessment of the relative merits of exchange land against the land being acquired.
Although there is no formal application form, a covering letter outlining the application will be needed along with the detail of the plots, the schedule and a map showing the plots specific to the section 131 application, and any other documentation felt necessary to support the application.
We recommend that you review the guidance available on the planning portal website regarding this matter, which can be found via the following link [attachment 1], where more detailed information can be found in the Planning Act 2008 "Guidance related to procedures for compulsory acquisition" https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7768/guidancecompulsoryacquisit.pdf
As a result the applicant will need to make a separate application as soon as possible and certainly before the application closes to apply for a certificate under section 131.
This application will need to be directed to the NPCU either via email or post. The contact details are provided below.
Email: npcu@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Address: National Planning Casework Unit, 5 St Philips Place, Birmingham B3 2PW

Bircham Dyson Bell LLP - Angus Walker

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

Liam Leahy

The attached refers to a meeting with National Grid and the Planning Inspectorate. National Grid ran through their organisational structure and updated the Planning Inspectorate of future National Grid NSIP Proposals.

National Grid - Catherine McCloskey

Project update meeting with Forewind Ltd.
Please see attached meeting note.

Forewind Ltd - Andrew Guyton

Letter received via e-mail by the Planning Inspectorate from Mr Simon Talbot attached.
Response by the Planning Inspectorate attached.

Simon Talbot

Will there be an opportunity at the next meeting, 7th November 2013, for questions relating to the development, or on matters heard at this meeting?
The Issue Specific Hearing scheduled for 7 November 2013 is to consider only the drafting aspects of the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) document; this hearing is not to consider the underlying issues arising from the application or the representations which have been made about them. Therefore, the hearing will be of interest mainly to those organisations who have a direct contribution to the drafting of the Order, and its implementation should it be granted. As with all hearings, the Issue specific Hearing on the draft DCO will be open for anyone to attend.

Please note there are other Issue Specific Hearings included in the Examination timetable on Policy, Environment and Mitigation and Requirements: [attachment 1]; there may be more scope to raise any questions you have at these hearings. An Open Floor Hearing has also been scheduled which will give everybody the opportunity to speak for a limited time. This may be the most appropriate hearing to attend if you wish to submit an oral representation following previously submitted representations.

Sheila Harman

Please see attched meeting note

SP Manweb

General Project update for the North Wales Wind Farms Connection Project

Claire Duffy

Please see attched meeting note

National Grid

Mr. Hoodless wrote on behalf of the Poole & Christchurch Bays' Association to the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) regarding the proposed application for the Navitus Bay Wind Park. The Planning Inspectorate respondend on behalf of CLG.
Please see attached letter.

Poole & Christchurch Bays' Ass. - Bill Hoodless

General update meeting concerning the progress made by the developer towards submission

SP Manweb

Project update meeting with Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay Ltd. Please see attached meeting note.

Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay Ltd - Alex Herbert

Letter received, via e-mail, by the Planning Inspectorate from Cllr Richard Parker on behalf of Compton Bishop Parish Council attached.
Response from the Planning Inspectorate attached.

Compton Bishop Parish Council - Richard Parker

E-mail and attachment received by the Planning Inspectorate from Emma Talbot:
I have strong objections to the Hinkley Point C connection project using pylons to distribute energy across Somerset. This approach to energy distribution would mar the countryside landscape while an underground distribution method would protect the landscape. The connection project is focussing on cost and ease for the National grid, while we should be concerned about the long term damage to our countryside, wildlife and tourism income. All of which would be affected by an over-ground distribution method.
I believe the Hinkley point C connection project should be preferably subsea (otherwise underground). An idea that is held strongly within the Somerset community. This has been priced at adding only £1.00 to the bill of householders. This approach would avoid a long term environmental disturbances and disruption to communities in the vicinity of the proposed pylons. It would also prevent health risks from the 440 V cables and remove the visual scar of the large pylons proposed.
National Grid must continue to find viable solutions to their negative reasoning for why this cannot be solved by a subsea method. With the delay of the Hinkley C power station National Grid have plenty of time to work with.
The alternative option is an underground method, potentially by the use of the gas insulated lines used in Europe. Again the added cost is negligible for each household (75p). While this method would give large disruptions to Somerset communities during construction/building, following completion there would be less long term impact to communities and the environment and less visual impact across Somerset. The associated health risks with pylons would also be circumvented.
In relation to Study Area B: The impact on our community now and the future will be disastrous. The pylons will run parallel to Biddisham Lane across a flat landscape so will be easily visible. The pylons (even with the new design) will be a lot higher and wider than the current pylons (PL 1 Std HT) which currently run along this route, making them significantly more of a visual scar. The pylons cannot be obscured by natural means, as the National Grid requires a 10m clearance of trees and hedges from around each pylon. This combined with their height and width will make the pylons stick out like a sore thumb.
Views looking north to the Mendip hills across this flat landscape have been recognised and documented by National Grid for their local importance and have great significant value to the community. Other National Grid documents state that the pylons will only have moderate to minor impact to the landscape. This demonstrates how National Grid perceives the importance of the local community as the pylons will have a huge impact, causing blight on the landscape and destroying this much valued vista.
The sealing end compound for the Loxton gap undergrounding will add to the dramatic visual impact locally, and will use many acres of valuable grazing land. It will be significantly noticeable from the Mendip Hills, Crook Peak in particular, an area of outstanding beauty. As well as this, lighting of the compound will effect local residence and cause light pollution.
In relation to Work area 2D on the A38: This work area is based in Tarnock / Biddisham, and was only divulged by National Grid during this last round of consultation, which is totally unacceptable. The work area is planned on a highly dangerous red route road. Frequent accidents occur with fatalities. Selecting this section of the road for the slow turning of Lorries in, out and across the A38, even with a managed road system, will cause local traffic chaos and further casualties. The compound will have valuable hedgerows and trees removed and will have a direct impact on noise and light pollution.
This area is also of significant historical interest, and the works will cause damage to any archaeological artefacts beneath the ground. Additionally, night work will disrupt the village of Biddisham and the life in the rural community.
In relation to noise: there will be substantial noise from the increased voltage line. Noise travels across Somerset levels easily, trees and hedges help to dissipate the noise, but these will be removed. Also, dampness accentuates the noise, and our weather is often damp. The houses at Tarnock are very close to the new T pylon proposed which will undoubtedly affect these residents. Noise from the installation of the pylons and the construction work lorries will also carry across the fields. The Sedgemoor Planning department committee are well aware of the impact of noise on the Somerset levels.
In relation to EMF: The Hinkley C connection has been designed for optimum phasing of the lattice pylon and not the T pylon planned for Biddisham. This means there is a greater health risk, especially to children.
Biddisham has a large nursery school and houses at Tarnock fall outside of the National Grid guidelines of I believe a 60 meter clearance.
There is a lack of information on the works access routes shown as blue lines off Biddisham Lane. Biddisham Lane has houses with road frontages, no passing places and rhynes along the road edge. It is unsuitable for heavy and large verchicles.
Wild life will be disrupted, including thickets, which are used for deer. These will be removed by National Grid.
Please note: The way that National Grid has consulted the local Communities over the past few years has been greatly faulted. Feedback from the Mendip forum group has been ignored.
National Grid only supplied limited information, which gave a positive reflection to the project, i.e. the resent DVD shows only good views not the real view at the Tarnock / A38 area. Another example is landscaping of pylons through the terrain of hills etc. This cannot happen on the Somerset levels.
Detailed information was only offered if requested and again explanations and information was kept to a minimum. For example, T pylon design was only discussed as one design not the fact that the design varies along the route for angles and that the T pylon is smaller than the proposed pylon and over looked it is higher than the pylons already in place.
Specific community information which related to a sensitive part of the connection was gleamed over and well hidden in documents which were very difficult to find/ or not present. For example, the storage area at Biddisham. During National Grid community sessions, the compound was dumbed down stating it would be of minimal impact to the area but the National Grid documents show this is not correct with 2 storey high portacabins.
I feel that National Grid has treated communities poorly, aiming only to tick the appropriate boxes needed and that National Grid was always going to select preferred route 1a corridor using pylon technology. Numerous ideas and technical information has been given to National Grid to prevent pylons and now with the Hinkley C delay they have time to find a more friendly community solution for this important energy connection.
Response, letter sent via e-mail, from the Planning Inspectorate attached.

Emma Talbot

E-mail and attachment received by the Planning Inspectorate on from Claire Talbot:
I strongly object to the Hinkley Point C connection project using pylons to distribute new energy supplies across Somerset to reach Avonmouth.
This connection project is not considering the Somerset people or the Somerset countryside / environment enough and is being driven by cost and what is most convenience to National grid.
The Somerset levels are a unique landscape which should be cherished and protected from infra structure projects of this nature.
Subsea:
The Hinkley Point C connection project should be Subsea.
Independent reports show the cost of this against pylons would be negligible. However, National Grid
refuses to accept these findings.
It would avoid a long lasting scare to the environment, miles and miles of gigantic pylons.
It would stop communities being disrupted along the proposed pylon route.
Allow other projects such as off shore wind to feed into the route
It would prevent any health risks from the 440 voltage cables.
National Grid must continue to find viable solutions to their negative reasons of not going subsea.
With the delay of the Hinkley C power station National Grid have time to do this work.
Underground:
A second option is for this Hinkley C connection would be undergrounding.
By traditional National grid methods or the use of gas insulated lines used in Europe. This is achievable as National Grid have already selected to underground part of the connection – eg Loxton Gap
Again the on cost is negliable per household.
Although there will be massive disruptions to Somerset communities and the land whilst it is being built. After it is completed there will be less long term impact to communities and the environment.
Less visual impact throughout Somerset.
Prevention of health risks to communities.
STUDY AREA B:
Specific comments related to where I live in Biddisham.
The impact on our community now and the future is absolutely disastrous.
The pylons will run parallel to Biddisham Lane across a flat landscape.
The pylons even with the new design will be massively higher and wider than the current pylons (PL 1 Std HT) which run along this route at the moment, making them significantly more visual.
Visual impact from Biddisham Lane can not be hidden as pylon screening will be greatly reduced.
National Grid requires 10m clearance of trees and hedges from each pylon.
Views looking north to the Mendip hills across this flat landscape have been recognised and documented by National Grid for their local importance and have great significant value to the community.
Other National Grid documents state that the pylons will only have moderate to minor impact to the landscape.
This demonstrates how National Grid perceives the importance of the local community as the pylons will have a massive impact, blighting the landscape and destroying the valued view from any direction.
The sealing end compound for the Loxton gap undergrounding will add to the dramatic visual impact locally. It will use many acres of valuable grazing land.
It will be significantly noticeable from the Mendip Hills – Crook Peak – an area of outstanding beauty.
Lighting of the compound will effect local residence and cause light pollution.
Work area 2D on A38.
This works area based in Tarnock / Biddisham was only divulged by National Grid during this last round of consultation – totally unacceptable.
It is planned on the highly dangerous A38 red route road. Frequent accidents occur with fatalities.
Selecting this section of the road for lorry turning in and out across the A38 even with a managed road system will cause local traffic chaos.
The compound will have valuable hedgerows and trees removed. This will have a direct impact on noise and light pollution.
Any night work will give disruption to the village of Biddisham and community rural life.
Noise
Noise from the increased voltage line. Noise travels across Somerset levels easily, trees and hedges help to dissipate the noise – but these will be removed.
Dampness exentricates the noise, the weather is often damp.
Houses at Tarnock are very close to the new T pylon proposed.
Noise from the installation of the pylons and the construction work lorries will also carry across the fields.
Sedgemoor Planning department committee are well aware of the impact of noise on the Somerset levels.
EMF – The Hinkley connection has been designed for optimum phasing of the lattice pylon and not the T pylon planned for Biddisham. This means there is a greater health risk especially to children.
Biddisham has a large nursery school and houses at Tarnock fall outside of the National Grid guidelines of I believe a 60 meter clearance.
There is a lack of information on the works access routes shown as blue lines off Biddisham Lane. Biddisham Lane has houses with road frontages, no passing places and rhynes along the road edge. It is unsuitable for heavy and large vehicles.
Wild life disruption. Thickets are used by deer. These will be removed by National Grid.
Please note:
The way that National Grid has consulted the local Communities over the past few years has been greatly faulted.
National Grid only supplied limited information to the community, which gave a positive reflection to the project in mail shots, presentation boards and the resent DVD. For example the DVD only shows good views of how the pylons will look at Tarnock on the A38 not the real view looking north.
Another example is landscaping of pylons through the terrain of hills etc – this cannot happen on the Somerset levels.
Detailed information was only offered if requested and again explanations and information was kept to a minimum ie T pylon design only discussed as one design not the fact that the design varies along the route for angles and that the T pylon is smaller than the proposed pylon and over looked it is higher than the pylons already in place.
Specific community information which related to a sensitive part of the connection was gleaned over and well hidden in documents which were very difficult to find/ or not present. ie the storage area at Biddisham. During National Grid community sessions, the compound was dumbed down stating it would be of minimal impact to the area but the National Grid documents show this is not correct with 2 storey high portacabins.
I feel that National Grid has given communities ‘lip service’ to tick the box and that National Grid was always going to select preferred route 1a corridor using pylon technology. Numerous ideas and technical information has been given to National Grid to prevent pylons and now with the Hinkley C delay they have time to find a more friendly community solution for this important energy connection.
Response, letter sent via e-mail, from the Planning Inspectorate attached.

Claire Talbot

Meeting to introduce potential NSIP for a Harbour Facility and update on the proposed Yorkshire Potash Pipeline and to discuss issues realting to non-Development Consent Order consents in relationshio to the both applications.
The meeting note attached.

Meeting with the applicant York Potash Limited

Please see attached meeting note regarding the A63 castle Street Improvement, Hull.

Highways Agency

Travis Perkins PLC telephoned the Planning Inspectorate regarding the North London Reinforcement Project to ask why they had received the recent procedural letter.
Our response was by telephone.
Thank you for your telephone enquiry to the Planning Inspectorate regarding the North London Reinforcement Project application and the latest procedural letter.
You received the procedural letter dated 18 October 2013 because Travis Perkins PLC had been invited by the Examining authority to the Preliminary Meeting in April this year; and consequently, under statutory legislation, the Examining authority has a duty to notify any such Persons invited to the Preliminary Meeting of the procedural decisions made at that meeting together with any variations made to the examination timetable.
Travis Perkins PLC at the address provided, was identified by the applicant in Part 3 of their Book of Reference, which forms part of the application. The applicant had therefore listed Travis Perkins PLC as being one of those Persons entitled to enjoy easements or private rights over land which it is proposed shall or may be interfered with, suspended or extinguished as a result of the provisions in the Development Consent Order for which an application is being made.
You can find out how Travis Perkins PLC has been listed by the applicant by reviewing their Book of Reference published on the National Infrastructure pages of the planning portal (Document 4.3):
[attachment 1]
In addition, you may also wish to view the applicant’s latest draft Development Consent Order (published on 29 July 2013), and the draft Development Consent Order issued by the Examining authority for consultation (published on 9 August 2013), as the Articles and Schedules therein sets-out how the proposed development and works shall be carried-out subject to receiving consent from the Secretary of State:
[attachment 2]
Even though Travis Perkins PLC had not registered as an Interested Party, the Examining authority chose to invite Travis Perkins PLC to the Preliminary Meeting in order to establish its interests in respect of this application. Though the recent procedural letter was a request addressed to the applicant to provide further information about their Book of Reference, it also included a change to the examination timetable which explains why Travis Perkins PLC along with those invited to the Preliminary Meeting also received a copy of this letter.
Please note that the examination is expected to close on Wednesday and any correspondence received outside the procedural deadlines and before the examination closes, will be accepted only at the Examining authority's discretion.

I hope this information has been useful to you.

Travis Perkins PLC - N McCarthy

Discussion of concerns raised in the screening opinion which may result in an ES being required
Please see attached file.

Highways Agency

I wrote to you with a written submission about the proposal to fell the Clocaenog forest and erect wind turbines there. I am advised by the planning inspectorate that my written submission was received and is considered acceptable. However, the lengthy document sent to me on 23rd September detailing the actions and enquiries to be made, makes no mention whatsoever of my concern.
I would be grateful if you could confirm that my submission is not to be ignored but to be taken seriously.
Thank you for submitting your 'Relevant Representation' as part of your registration to become an interested party. The Examining Authority (ExA) has read all the Relevant Representations and any concerns you have submitted in your representation have been included in its examination.
The 'Rule 8' letter you recently received dated 23 September 2013 included the ExA's first round of written questions. The ExA's examination is an inquisitorial process where questions are asked to request further information that have risen from its examination of the submitted application documents and representations. If your concerns are not included in these written questions, it does not necesarily mean that they have not been considered as part of its examination.
I recommend submitting a 'Written Representation', which can expand your concerns included in your Relevant Representation, and should be emailed though to the project email address: clocaenogwindfarm@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk or posted for the attention of Iwan Davies - Case Leader, for the deadline of 21 October 2013. Unlike your Relevant Representation, which was submitted on a prescibed form, your Written Representation can be submitted in either email or paper form and can include any evidence you wish to submit with your representation.

Wendy Charles-Warner

Email regarding applicant's adequacy consultation.
I am writing with regards to your response in relation to above project.
Please note that under Regulation 5(5) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009; the Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a power to request original responses from the applicant received by the applicant during its pre-application consultation under s42., s.47 and s.48 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended).
The Inspectorate made such a request and the original responses to the applicant's consultation were submitted to us on 4 October 2013.
The Secretary of State has a 28 day period to decide whether to accept the application for the examination. Before making its decision, the Secretary of State invites all identified relevant local authorities to comment on the applicant's adequacy of consultation.
I would like to therefore confirm that following your response, I identified in the applicant's original responses received during the applicant's pre-application consultation that a response was received from Leo Oliver on behalf of Durham County Council dated 23 April 2013 stating:
'Following receipt of your letter of consultation under s.42 of the PA 2008 (dated 20 March 2013) on the Knottingley Combined Gas Turbine Power Station, Durham County Council as strategic planning authority have no detailed comments to make’.
Having the above evidence, we therefore understand that Durham County Council was aware of the applicant's consultation in relation to above application.
Please note that under s43 of the PA2008, Durham County Council has been identified as a 'D' local authority, who share their boundary with the boundary of the local authority in which the proposed development is to be situated.
I hope the is information is helpful .
Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions about above.
Kind Regards

Claire Teasdale (Durham County Council)

Email rgarding adequacy of consultation.
Thank you for your email received 16 October 2013.
We appreciate being informed of your views.
Our role as an organisation is to examine major Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) on behalf of the Secretary of State under the Planning Act 2008 process (as amended).
As you may be aware from my previous correspondence, we received an application for the proposed Knottingley Power Station in West Yorkshire by Knottingley Power Limited. Before formally submitting the application to the Secretary of State for consideration, the applicant must consult all identified relevant local authorities. Local authorities play a vital role during the pre-application consultation.
As a part of the Planning Act 2008 process, we are under duty to ensure that the pre-application consultation was carried out adequately. We would therefore like to invite all the identified relevant local authorities to provide us with their views on consultation carried out by the applicant.
Leeds City Council was identified as a relevant local authority because it shares a boundary with the local authority in which the proposed development is to be situated. We have 28 days to decide whether the application should proceed for examination. Before deciding on the application we must have regard to all adequacy of consultation comments received.
We therefore are taking the opportunity to invite all local authorities to confirm whether or not they are satisfied that consultation was carried out adequately. In addition, the applicant must comply with the following duties of the PA 2008:
Duty to consult (Section 42 of the PA 2008);
Duty to consult the local community (Section 47 of the Pa 2008);
Duty to publicise (Section 48 of the PA 2008)
The consultation under PA 2008 is carried out to ensure that everyone had an equal opportunity to be involved in the process.
We appreciate however that you may not wish to make an adequacy of consultation representation. If so, it would assist if you could reply in those terms
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Maxwell Rathmell (Leeds City Council)

Meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and National Grid regarding the Hinkley Point C Connection project on 17 October 2013.
Meeting note attached.

National Grid

E-mail received by the Planning Inspectorate from Jane & David Anderson below:
We wish to register our horror at the plan to stop the under grounding of power cables at Webbington and so erect enormous pylons accross Biddisham and Tarnock.

If it is possible to place them underground such a short distance from here then please listen to what local people want for once, which is to have them buried under ground. The estimation of how little it will cost to each household makes it criminal for our views to be cast aside.

Taking the cabling across from Webbington to Tarnock will mean a huge increase in traffic along the A38 for four years when the road is already very overcrowded and dangerous at times.

it isn’t what we want as people living close by and we urge you to listen and choose the underground route.
Response, letter sent via e-mail, from the Planning Inspectorate attached.

Jane & David Anderson

E-mail and attachment received by the Planning Inspectorate from Mr John Hayes below:
National Grid Bridgwater Seabank Connection.
Consultation Stage 4
Biddisham Against Pylons Response
Biddisham lies in National Grid Section B, just south and in view of the Mendip Hills AONB.
The proposed NG pylon route runs through open flat countryside, parallel with and in full view of all properties in Biddisham Lane for a distance of approximately 3 kilometres.
This paper is written more in hope than expectation.
Consultation with National Grid over the past 4 years has, in the main, been pointless. Anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size knows that NG had already decided on the route corridor and the type of transmission long before the initial announcement in 2009. There has been no real consultation only intransigence shown by NG and their agency staff, a never ending stream of misinformation and occasionally prevarication.
We find it difficult to understand why NG refuse to acknowledge independent reports and costings which clearly show that the difference in undergrounding transmission lines, using whole life costings, (including loss of power, maintenance costs, modern technology) show that the margins are significantly smaller than those published by NG.
With the announcement that Hinkley C will not be producing electricity for at least 9 years then there is time for NG to re-look at the entire way that electricity is transmitted. There is time to call a halt to this process and submit two proposals with 2 separate and accurate whole life costings of overhead and underground (using GIL’s in a tunnel) and let the Secretary of State decide what is best for the countryside and the people who live there.
National Grid should demand that all new and upgraded lines will in the future be underground. This could be a pivotal moment in the sea change in electricity transmission, we have to start sometime. If it is not the Hinkley-Seabank connection, then these lines will blight the Somerset Levels for the next 60-80 years. It will affect my generation, my children’s generation, my grand-children’s generation and a further 3 future generations. That cannot be right!
If we start now, then within a few decades, all transmission lines will be out of sight and our countryside will be without a blemish. Remember it was only 20 years ago when the default position was that Water Companies pumped raw sewage into the sea. That is now agreed as being totally unacceptable…. Overhead transmission lines are unacceptable too.
Yes, there will be a cost, but there was a cost to the consumer to make our rivers and seas clean and healthy, it has been proven that there is also a willingness to pay for undergrounding of transmission lines.
With regard to the effect on our village if the lines still go ahead, we will see pylons breaking up the vista towards Brent Knoll. We will have a sealing end compound within our views and for a period of 3-4 years a works compound, the full details of which we still do not know and works traffic leaving and entering the A38 (Red Route) at one of the most dangerous stretches of road in Somerset.
The lack of detail given to us by NG regarding the works compound and the highway matters is astounding. We have no idea the size of the compound although they have earmarked 25 acres to accommodate it. We have no idea of how the access road from the A38 is going to be formed. A local farmer from Biddisham Lane whose farm tracks have been designated by NG as maintenance roads has been informed that a newly erected bridge over the Old River Axe will not be strong enough at a maximum 17.5 tons but no one can tell me why! Biddisham Lane is no more than a single track road with passing places. It has been designated by Somerset County Highways as not suitable for lorries. Peter Bryant told us in an open meeting that these tracks were for maintenance vans only, if that were the case, why is a 17.5 GVW bridge not substantial enough? Lack of detail or more likely economy of the truth, again?
We have also heard that NG has, at this late stage, ascertained that the River Axe is deeper than they first envisaged. This may mean that it will not be possible to run the lines underground, in which case they may have to bridge the river. There is no detail available, no one in NG can tell us what it will look like, how secure it will be, how wide it will be and how high it will be. How can we consult on so many unknowns?
There now seems to be a rush to get this to PINS and at the same time not providing enough detail for us to be able to consult/question.
This paper has been written, in the main, to let PINS know that the consultations with NG have been far short of what was expected due to an almost complete lack of detail within the proposals.
Response, letter sent via e-mail, from the Planning Inspectorate attached.

Biddisham Against Pylons - John Hayes

Query in relation to s127 applications for the examination of East Anglia One Offshore Windfarm
Anglian Water Services take the view that the Written Representations provide useful background information for the Examining authority and would like to maintain this representation, albeit that the protective provisions and Article 13 issues have been agreed and therefore negates the need for a s127 application.
The Planning Inspectorate advise that providing both parties agree, representations can be partially withdrawn, thus enabling text which has engaged s127 to be withdrawn and the rest of the text to remain in the examination.

Kathryn Taylor

E-mail and attachment received by the Planning Inspectorate from Mr Jonathan Talbot:
I strongly object to the Hinkley Point C connection project using pylons to distribute new energy supplies across Somerset to reach Avonmouth.
This project has been driven by convenience and cost factors without taking into account what both the residents say and the beautiful countryside deserves.
Subsea:
The Hinkley point C connection project should be Subsea.
This has been costed at adding only £1.00 to the bill of householders.
It would avoid a long lasting scare to the environment, miles and miles of gigantic pylons.
It would stop communities being disrupted along the proposed pylon route.
Allow other projects such as off shore wind to feed into the route
It would prevent any health risks from the 440 voltage cables.
National Grid must continue to find viable solutions to their negative reasons of not going subsea.
With the delay of the Hinkley C power station National Grid have time to do this work.
Underground:
A second option is for this Hinkley C connection would be undergrounding.
By traditional National grid methods or the use of gas insulated lines used in Europe.
Again the on cost is negliable per household 75p
Although there will be massive disruptions to Somerset communities and the land whilst it is being built. After it is completed there will be less long term impact to communities and the environment.
Less visual impact throughout Somerset.
Prevention of health risks to communities.
STUDY AREA B:
Specific comments
The impact on our community now and the future is absolutely disastrous.
The pylons will run parallel to Biddisham Lane across a flat landscape.
The pylons even with the new design will be massively higher and wider than the current pylons (PL 1 Std HT) which run along this route at the moment. Making them significantly more visual.
Visual impact from Biddisham Lane can not be hidden as pylon screening will be greatly reduced.
National Grid requires 10m clearance of trees and hedges from each pylon.
Views looking north to the Mendip hills across this flat landscape have been recognised and documented by National Grid for their local importance and have great significant value to the community.
Other National Grid documents state that the pylons will only have moderate to minor impact to the landscape.
This demonstrates how National Grid perceives the importance of the local community as the pylons will have a massive impact, blighting the landscape and destroying the valued view.
The sealing end compound for the Loxton gap undergrounding will add to the dramatic visual impact locally. It will use many acres of valuable grazing land.
It will be significantly noticeable from the Mendip Hills – Crook Peak – an area of outstanding beauty.
Lighting of the compound will effect local residence and cause light pollution.
Work area 2D on A38.
This works area based in Tarnock / Biddisham was only divulged by National Grid during this last round of consultation – totally unacceptable.
It is planned on a highly dangerous red route road. Frequent accidents occur with fatalities.
Selecting this section of the road for lorry turning in and out across the A38 even with a managed road system will cause local traffic chaos.
The compound will have valuable hedgerows and trees removed. This will have a direct impact on noise and light pollution.
This area is also of significant historical interest – and the works will cause damage to beneath the ground archaeology.
Any night work will give disruption to the village of Biddisham and community rural life.
Noise
Noise from the increased voltage line. Noise travels across Somerset levels easily, trees and hedges help to dissipate the noise – but these will be removed.
Dampness exentricates the noise, the weather is often damp.
Houses at Tarnock are very close to the new T pylon proposed.
Noise from the installation of the pylons and the construction work lorries will also carry across the fields.
Sedgemoor Planning department committee are well aware of the impact of noise on the Somerset levels.
EMF – The Hinkley connection has been designed for optimum phasing of the lattice pylon and not the T pylon planned for Biddisham. This means there is a greater health risk especially to children.
Biddisham has a large nursery school and houses at Tarnock fall outside of the National Grid guidelines of I believe a 60 meter clearance.
There is a lack of information on the works access routes shown as blue lines off Biddisham Lane. Biddisham Lane has houses with road frontages, no passing places and rhynes along the road edge. It is unsuitable for heavy and large verchicles.
Wild life disruption including thickets are used for deer. These will be removed by National Grid.
Please note:
The way that National Grid has consulted the local Communities over the past few years has been greatly faulted; all feedback from the Mendip forum group has been ignored.
National Grid only supplied limited information, which gave a positive reflection to the project.
ie the resent DVD shows only good views not the real view at the Tarnock / A38 area
Another example is landscaping of pylons through the terrain of hills which cannot occur on the flat terrain of the somerset levels!
Detailed information was only offered if requested and again explanations and information was kept to a minimum
ie T pylon design only discussed as one design not the fact that the design varies along the route for angles and that the T pylon is smaller than the proposed pylon and over looked it is higher than the pylons already in place.
Specific community information which related to a sensitive part of the connection was gleamed over and well hidden in documents which were very difficult to find/ or not present.
ie the storage area at Biddisham. During National Grid community sessions, the compound was dumbed down stating it would be of minimal impact to the area but the National Grid documents show this is not correct with 2 storey high portacabins.
I feel that National Grid has given communities ‘lip service’ to tick the box and that National Grid was always going to select preferred route 1a corridor using pylon technology. Numerous ideas and technical information has been given to National Grid to prevent pylons and now with the Hinkley C delay they have time to find a more friendly community solution for this important energy connection.
Response, letter sent via e-mail, from the Planning Inspectorate attached.

Jonathan Talbot

In regard to the s127 application, Anglian Water Services take the view that the Written representations provide useful background information for the Examining Panel and would like to maintain this representation, albeit that the protective provisions and Article 13 issues have been agreed.
Whilst Anglian Water Services may not have any on going concerns about the proposals, we would wish to maintain our representation should any position regarding the acquisition of new rights over land change.
The Examining Authority can now advise that providing both parties agree, representations can be partially withdrawn, thus enabling text which has engaged s127 to be withdrawn and the rest of the text to remain in the examination.

Kathryn Taylor

The Planning Inspectorate received an email comprising comments objecting of the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park
As no formal application has yet been made to the Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Navitus Bay Wind Park scheme is at its Pre-Application stage. Please note that the developer is expected to submit its application in quarter 1 of 2014.
Until the application is submitted to the Inspectorate, your point of contact should be the developer. Taking part by commenting to the developer at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make representations to the Inspectorate later in the process. Therefore you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. I recommend that you refer to the developer's website for information about how to contact them (link to Developer's website: attachment 1).
Should the application be formally submitted, the Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then provides the opportunity for people to register as an Interested Party by competing a Relevant Representation. Please note that only Relevant Representations submitted on the prescribed form will be accepted during this period. Once the Registration period opens, if you have access to the internet an electronic version of the form will be available on the Inspectorate's project webpage. A paper copy of the registration form can also be requested from the Inspectorate's customer services number on 0303 444 5000. All Relevant Representations will be read by the appointed Examining Authority.
Once you have submitted a Relevant Representation you will become an Interested Party for the whole application process. As an Interested Party, you will receive relevant updates regarding the application and will be invited to submit written representations in which you can expand, with evidence, on any issues mentioned in your Relevant Representation. You will also be invited to any hearings held during the Examination.
The Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available on the national infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal's website; here: [attachment 1]
attachment 1
[attachment 2]

Ann & Nigel Griffiths

See attached
130926_TR010015_Letter from CPRE NTAG SNUB about NCC consultation
See attached
131003_TR010015_Response to CPRE NNTAG SNUB consultation letter

NNTAG, CPRE, SNUB - Denise Carlo

Panel Questions 4.19 to 4.23 deal with the Replacement Land Report which was submitted with the application as a piece of preliminary work, pending the passing and coming into force of the Growth and Infrastructure Act. A new report is being prepared on the basis of advice given by DCLG and this will form part of the submission to DCLG which we will share with the Examining Authority. It is intended that the issues raised in these questions will be dealt with in that report. However, we would appreciate clarity on one issue. Question 4.21 asks whether the option of obtaining “alternative use certificates” was considered. Certificates of appropriate alternative development are only available for land subject to compulsory purchase powers where a notice to treat has been deemed to be served. We assume that this question relates to the general point that there may be an opportunity to change the use of potential replacement land already in beneficial use, or with planning permission for a different use, and we will be exploring that issue further in the new report. Does that meet the question you raise?
Panel Question 6.48 relates to the draft DCO article 47 (rights under or over streets and city walkways), which deals with the appropriation of subsoil under streets/city walkways, and air-space over streets/city walkways, but only within the Order limits. The Examining Authority has asked ‘how do these subsoil and air rights relate to identified interests in the Book of Reference?’. However, it is not possible to list out specific items in the Book of Reference, as this power is not a compulsory acquisition power (and indeed the article is drafted to expressly differentiate itself from acquisition (please see article 47(2))). It is a general power (comparable to article 10 (street works)) exercisable in relation to any and all streets/city walkways within the Order limits, which is intended to allow for temporary appropriation for construction or maintenance purposes only. Any permanent interest is to be secured through the compulsory acquisition powers and not through this article. The power contained in the article means that for example a crane could oversail a street, without any need for other powers to be exercised. For these reasons, we therefore intend to answer the Examining Authority’s question without cross-reference to specific interests in the Book of Reference, and would welcome the confirmation of the Examining Authority that this approach would address its line of enquiry.
Panel Question 8.9 – The question requests that “the applicant provide a photomontage or additional 3D representation to assist understanding of the relationship between the proposed CSO interception structure and the arch of Vauxhall Bridge, as seen in close views from the river walk on either side of the bridge (low tide)?” These views (particularly on the downstream side) may make it difficult to show the full relationship with the river wall, interception structure and bridge as the guarding can obscure the view. We feel that the relationship would be better demonstrated if the view were taken from the foreshore.
Panel Question 12.2 - The preamble to this question indicates that “since the submission of the application, there may have been changes to relevant strategies and plans that have been used in the application documentation and evidence”. However, the question asks “can the applicant advise of any changes or updates to the evidence used in the application, referencing if and how this has affected information provided in the application”. Please could you clarify what is required in the context of question 13.1 and fact that we have already provided updated copies of various of the project strategies, for example the Excavated Materials Options Assessment (EMOA) the updated version of which was submitted on 23 September.
Panel Question 12.4 - We agreed that this related to the provision of hyperlinking back to documents on your web site. We could also provide a document at the end of the process, ie in March 2014, that provides links back to all documents if that would help.
Finally, It is clear to us that the examination of issues raised by Sections 127 and 138 of the Planning Act (statutory undertakers’ land and rights/apparatus) will be a matter for the Examining Authority. Can you please confirm that these powers have been fully delegated for this project and whether, therefore, there is any need to make a formal Section 127 application to the statutory undertakers’ own Secretaries of State.
Panel Question 4.21

This question in respect of Alternative Use Certificates relates, not to the potential replacement land, but to the open space land subject to Compulsory Acquisition (CA) powers included in the application.

Panel Question 6.48

Your approach is not agreed. The question is asked because the appropriation of subsoil and air rights is an exercise of CA powers in relation to land. On what basis is it considered that the inclusion of such powers in an article of the DCO removes the requirement for the usual procedures involving CA powers to be followed?

Panel Question 8.9

The approach you have outlined is helpful and we are happy for you to proceed on that basis.

Panel Question 12.2

If the answers to to the other Panel questions result in you providing updates in relation to e.g. new or revised local/Mayoral planning documents then that is fine. However, the Panel is seeking you to adopt a proactive approach towards monitoring and updating the evidence relied upon to support and justify the application documents e.g. if TfL had revised its plans or policies. The intention would then be for you to provide the Panel with a submission that would indicate what the implications were for the application evidence base and the application documents themselves.

Panel Question 12.4

As discussed, the Panel would appreciate all future submitted documents to contain hyperlinks to the referenced documents in order to aid navigation for them and interested parties. A document at the end of the process which provided links back to all documents would be extremely helpful.

S.127 and 138 applications

While the examination of the evidence and matters relating to these provisions of the Act can be undertaken as part of the examination, TWUL will still have to make an application to the relevant Secretary of State. I refer you to the Rule 6 letter, Annex E, point 7.

Thames Water Utilities Ltd - Ian Fletcher

Comments on the draft Dogger Bank Teesside A & B HRA Screening Report. Please see attached comments.

Forewind - Andrew Guyton

Meeting with applicant to provide update on the project.
Please see meeting note attached.

National Grid Carbon Yorkshire and Humber CCS

The Applicant requested feedback on its draft Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC)
Thank you for providing a copy of your draft SoCC on 2 October 2013, on which we make the following observations:
We note that you have not yet commenced consultation on the content of your SoCC with the relevant local authorities under s47(2) of the Planning Act 2008. Please note that, under s47(3), you should allow a minimum period of 28 days for comment.
In addition to the above, please note that paragraph 31, DCLG Planning Act 2008: Guidance on pre-application process (2013) states that: "where a local authority decides that it does not wish to respond to a consultation request on the Statement of Community Consultation, the applicant should make reasonable efforts to ensure that all affected communities are consulted."
We note that in your draft SoCC you use the terms "formal" and "informal" when describing the two stages of consultation. In the interests of clarity we advise you only to use the terms ‘statutory’ and ‘non-statutory’. Furthermore, it is useful for applicants to use consistent terminology between their SoCC and Consultation Report. It is for the applicant to determine how to explain their consultation approach. However, it must be clear which stages of consultation were ‘statutory’ and ‘non- statutory’ and under which sections of the Planning Act 2008 statutory consultation was undertaken.
The draft SoCC does not appear to mention when you intend to commence consultation under s42. If you are intending to carry out consultation under both s.42 and s.47 at the same time, please be aware that on or before commencing statutory consultation under s.42 you must provide the Secretary of State with notification under s.46 of the Planning Act 2008.
We would also draw your attention to DCLG Planning Act 2008: Guidance on pre-application process (2013), which states "where an iterative consultation is intended, it may be advisable for applicants to carry out the final stage of consultation with persons who have an interest in the land [As set out in section 44 of the Planning Act 2008] once they have worked up their project proposals in sufficient detail to identify affected land interests".
In more general terms, please note that it is advisable for applicants to ensure that the summary of relevant responses received during all pre-application consultation is captured within the Consultation Report. In addition, all applicants are advised to explain how those responses influenced the proposal and how those changes were applied as a result of comments received (please see the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 14 for further information).

Ben Lewis

Thank you for the information it will help me get started in quest to get up to speed on what is happing.

I appreciate that I may too late to register as an interested party. However, are you able to tell who the interested parties are e.g my local parish councils at Waldringfield?

Could you also clarify if the No1 scheme also included provision for the No3 and No4 cable routes?
In answer to your question, who the interested parties are:
Interested Parties are made up of, people and organisations that the applicant has identified as being affected by the application and those who made a relevant representation. Names and addresses of those people identified by the applicant can be found in the Book of Reference (insert link). Please note that this has been updated throughout the examination. A full list of those who made a relevant representation can be found through the following link:
[attachment 1]
I advise that look through the relevant representations would be of most use to you as they list individuals and Parish Councils. You can filter by keywords, for example 'Parish council.' This brings up ten Parish Councils that have made Relevant Representations, and so are interested parties.
If there are particular people you know who have made Relevant, or Written Representations, you can search for them by name.
Re your question if the East Anglia One scheme included provision for the scheme 3 & 4 cable routes;
The applicant has set out in their Development Consent Order for permission to lay 2 cables for East Anglia One and alongside this, four ducts, two ducts for East Anglia 3 and two for East Anglia Four. If East Anglia 3 and 4 gain permission when the applications are submitted at the end of 2014 and beginning of 2015 respectively, cables will be laid in the ducts.

Mr Steffen Larsen

Please see attached meeting note

London Resort Company Holdings

Comments on the Draft Habitat Regulations Assessment Screening Report (July 2013)
Please see the attached note

Alex Herbert

Letter addressed to the Director of Major Applications & Plans from the RSPB attached.
Response from the Director of Major Applications & Plans attached.

RSPB - Gwyn Williams

I write to express my concerns about this proposed wind farm.
My first concern is that this wind farm will destroy the landscape and one for the best view in England not just for now but forever. You will be able to see this wind farm from a great distant as it is to be built in an area overlooked from miles of cliffs and hills including designated sites such as the two Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and England's only natural World Heritage site. Landside installations and cable routes to support the wind farm will also have a detrimental effect on the landscape.
Why don’t you follow Government recommendations and common European practice and site this wind farm further offshore?
We run the risk of destroying the local economies that rely on much on tourism.
Would people still come to the beach in this area if all they could see is a wind farm?
Why would we want to degrade a highly valuable national asset and further risk a fragile tourist industry which is based on the area's wonderful natural environment?
There is also a risk to safety in one of the UK's busiest marine leisure areas as well as an impact on the local ecology and environment effecting fish, marine mammals, migrating and breeding birds, coastal habitats, noise, light pollution, changes in weather and wave patterns, underwater noise.
I hope you will do your best to see that the concerns raised by myself and others are taken on board and are not ignored which is usually the case.
I await your comments.
The Navitus Bay Offshore Wind Park application is yet to be formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and is currently at the 'pre-application' stage of the process for making decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) under the Planning Act 2008 (the PA2008) regime. The developer currently anticipates that the application will be submitted in Quarter 1 2014. On submission, the Inspectorate will have a 28 day period within which to decide whether or not the application meets the standards required to be formally accepted for Examination. Until this decision is made, your point of contact in relation to the proposed scheme should be the developer - Navitus Bay Development Limited - on the following details: info@navitusbay.com or 01926671592.
Section 47 of the PA2008 places a statutory requirement on developers to consult local communities before submitting to the Inspectorate an application for an order granting development consent. Developers must create and publish a 'Statement of Community Consultation' (SoCC), in consultation with the relevant local authorities, which sets out how the they intend to consult the local community. Developers are required to conduct their consultation as set out in the published SoCC, and to demonstrate how they have had regard to any responses received. Developers should then produce and submit to the Inspectorate a 'Consultation Report', as part of the application, which will amongst other things explain how they have consulted the local community in line with their SoCC.
Navitus Bay Development Limited have a number of phases of community consultation, with the final phase closing on 11 October 2013. I therefore advise submitting your concerns to the developer before the final phase of consultation closes.
If the application is accepted for Examination, the PA2008 establishes the opportunity for individuals, organisations and other groups to register as ‘interested parties’ by completing a registration form and submitting a 'Relevant Representation'. Relevant Representation forms can be completed online, and will be available on the project webpages of the Planning Portal, here: [attachment 1]. It is also possible to call the Inspectorate’s customer service desk on 0303 444 5000 to request a paper copy of the registration form. The developer will advertise when and how long the period for registration will be open; which must be a minimum of 28 days.
Relevant Representations should include whether an individual, organisation or other group supports or opposes a scheme and highlight any issues that they may wish to make further detailed representations on later in the Examination process. All Relevant Representations will be read by the appointed Examining Authority, and in conjunction with its reading of the application documents, will help to inform its 'Initial Assessment of Principal Issues'. If you choose to register to become an interested party, you can include your concerns below in your Relevant Representation. By registering as an interested party with the Inspectorate, you will be kept informed of the Examination by either email or post and be invited to engage in the process further by　making written representations (and oral representations at any hearings) over the course of a statutory 6 month Examination period.
The Inspectorate has produced a suite of advice notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and explain how to get involved. These are available at the following links:
Advice note 8.1: How the process works
Advice note 8.2: Responding to the developer's pre-application consultation
Advice note 8.3: How to register and become an interested party in an application
Advice note 8.4: Influencing how an application will be examined - the Preliminary Meeting
Advice note 8.5: Participating in the examination
I hope you have found this information useful, please contact me on the details below if you wish to discuss this matter further.

Chris Goldthorpe

The interested party made a phone request for information regarding how to make her views known regarding the proposed scheme.
Please see attached letter.

Annetta Chennell

An enquiry via post voicing concerns regarding the proposed scheme.
Please see attached letter.

Mr and Mrs A. Rogers

The Planning Inspectorate received an email comprising comments objecting the proposed Navitus Bay Wind Park.
As no formal application has yet been made to the Planning Inspectorate by the developer, the Navitus Bay Wind Park scheme is at its pre-application stage. Please note that the developer is expected to submit its application in Quarter 1 of 2014.
Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer. Taking part by commenting at this stage does not prejudice your ability to make comments to the Planning Inspectorate on the scheme later in the process. Therefore you should inform the developer about your concerns as soon as possible and allow time for a response. As such, I recommend that you refer to the developer's website for information about how to contact them with feedback (link to Developer's website: attachment 1).
Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then asks people to register as an Interested Party with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a Relevant Representation about the proposal. Please note that only Relevant Representations submitted on the prescribed form will be accepted during this period. Once the registration period opens a paper copy of the registration form can be requested from the Planning Inspectorate's customer services number on 0303 444 5000. Alternatively, if you have access to the internet, an electronic version of the form will be available on the project webpage. All Relevant Representations will be read by the appointed Examining Authority.
Once you have submitted a Relevant Representation you will then become an Interested Party for the whole application process. As an Interested Party, you will receive relevant updates regarding the application and will be invited to submit written representations in which you can expand, with evidence, on any issues mentioned in your Relevant Representation. You will also be invited to any hearings held during the Examination.
The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available at the following link: attachment 2
In this instance I recommend the advice note eight series - How to get involved in the planning process.
attachment 1
[attachment 1]
attachment 2

Nigel Griffiths

See meeting note attached

Consenting Forum

Phone call from member of the public regarding pre-application consulation and information about the project.
Thank you for your telephone call on 1 October 2013 regarding the above application.
As discussed over the telephone, the above application is currently at the pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process (as amended). The application therefore has not been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate yet. The pre-application stage is mainly driven by the applicant to carry out its consultation with local communities, statutory undertakers and the local planning authorities. Please note that there is no statutory deadline for the pre-application stage.
Once the application is formally submitted by the applicant to the Secretary of State (SoS) and if accepted for examination, there will be an opportunity to become an interested party by submitting a relevant representation. The purpose of submitting a relevant representation is to express directly to the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) your views on whether you agree or disagree with the proposed application.
For more information on how the process works and how to get involved you may find it useful looking at our Advice Notes 8.1 - 8.3 (please use link below).
[attachment 1]
As discussed over the telephone, if you wish to find out more specific information about the project itself, I suggest looking at the project website and/or contacting the applicant Power Progress Limited. I am including project details and the contact details for the applicant below for your information.
Please note that before the formal submission of the application for Development Consent, the applicant can request the SoS for a formal written opinion, known as a 'Scoping Opinion' on the information that they should include in their Environmental Statement (ES). The purpose of applicant’s Scoping Report is to provide the SoS with information about the proposed development and an assessment of possible effects that the development may have on environment.
Once a request for a Scoping Opinion is made by the applicant, the SoS will then provide its opinion in relation to the proposed development based on the information provided by the applicant and the responses received from the relevant statutory consultees. Further information on Scoping Opinions can be found in Advice Note 3. Please see link below
[attachment 2]
As discussed over the phone, you might find it useful looking at the Scoping Report submitted by the applicant regarding the application and/or the Planning Inspectorate's Scoping Opinion produced by the SoS. I am including the link to those documents below.
[attachment 3]
Please don’t hesitate to contact us should you have any further questions.

Jenny Youden

The applicant queried the status of its application under s131 and s132 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended); made to the Common Land Team at the Planning Inspectorate on 15 August 2013.
The Planning Inspectorate advised that the provisions of the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 (the GIA2013) mean that, as this application was made after 24 June 2013, it would need to be examined and reported upon by the appointed Examining Authority as part of the examination of the application for development consent; removing the need for certification by Defra and the potential for public inquiry.
As such, the application for certification made to the Common Land Team had been retrieved by the Major Applications and Plans Directorate for consideration by the appointed ExA in the manner described above. The associated documentation was published to the A30 Temple to Higher Carblake Improvement project page on the National Infrastructure pages of the Planning Portal website on 2 October 2013.
Representations should be made on this material in the usual way; and the applicant should note that the ExA, once appointed, may request changes to the application documents to reflect the statutory changes brought about by the GIA2013.

Cornwall Council

What is the correct process to respond to the Examining Authorities written questions? Which questions should be responded to?
The Examining Authority (ExA) has issued its first round of questions following the consideration of the application documents and submitted Relevant Representations. The questions are addressed to the Applicant as well as specific organisations and interested parties, although anyone has the opportunity to respond to them. If there are questions addressed to your organanisation, a responce would be appreciated to give the ExA the information they require.
Your response should be sent to the project mailbox: clocaenogwindfarm@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk by the deadline of 21 October 2013.

North Wales Fire and Rescue - Bob Mason

Can I submit a community petition to the Examining Authority (ExA) as evidence and what is the best way to submit it?
Can I suggest viewpoints for the ExA's unattended site visits?
Please can I request attendance to the Accompanied Site Visit (ASV)?
If you have registered to be an interested party for the application you will have the opportunity to submit Written Representations once the Examination has formally opened; this is the ideal time to submit your petition as it can be attached as an appendix. Unlike Relevant Representations, which need to be submitted on the prescibed form, Written Representations can be submitted electronically or in paper form and can include additional evidence to strengthen the submission. You can include suggested viewpoints for the ExA's unaccompanied site visits as part of your Written Representation.
If you wish to submit your Written Representation electronically please email it to the project mailbox: clocaenogwindfarm@infrastructure.gsi.gov.uk before the deadline for Written Representations closes on 21 October 2013. You can also use this email address to confirm your wish to attend the Accompanied Site Visits (ASV) by emailing before the deadline of 3 October 2013 and advising what time/days you wish to attend.

Robert Wynne

Enquiry regarding pre-application consulation.
The proposal is currently at pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended); therefore an application has not yet been formally submitted. Moreover, at this stage the applicant, Capture Power Limited is your first point of contact until the application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.
Please find the applicant's contact details below:
Email Address: info@whiteroseccs.co.uk
Telephone Number: 0800 169 5290
You may wish to contact your relevant local planning authority/ies as they may be able to provide you with more details on your enquiry.
Please note that once the application has been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and if accepted for examination, you will be able to become an interested party ‘IP’ by submitting your relevant representation.
The purpose of relevant representation is not only an opportunity to become an IP but to express your views on whether you agree or disagree with the proposed development directly to the appointed Examining Authority ‘ExA’.
You may find it helpful looking at Advice Notes 8.1- 8.3 which explain in more detail how the process works and how to become involved.

Thomas Sigsworth

I note that the list of participants at the Preliminary Hearing seems less than those in the room,I therefore presume only those who participated by making representation on the day are included?
Would it be possible to show as a matter for public record how many people attended the meeting?
The Planning Inspectorate does not publish an exhaustive list of attendees for examination events. The meeting note that was appended to the Clocaenog Forest Wind Farm Rule 8 letter is not a full transcript of the Preliminary Meeting and the list of precipitants is not a complete record of who attended. As you have stated below, it is a list of the people who introduced themselves or made oral representations during the meeting.
At examination events the case team will make a record of the individuals who attended. These details are kept by the Inspectorate for reference purposes only, and are not published. There is no statutory requirement placed upon the Inspectorate to publish an exhaustive list attendees. I am however able to confirm to you that approximately 70 persons were in attendance at the Clocaenog Preliminary Meeting.

Sheila Harman

In order to evaluate the noise section of the ES I need access to key data that are cited but not presented in the ES.
The four references are cited on the bottom of page 46 of this PDF:
[attachment 1]
They are:
(1) Enercon, 2006. “Sound Power Level E-70 E4 2.3MW”. Dated 17/02/06. Reference: SA-04-SPL Guarantee E-70 2,3MWRev1_
1-ger-eng.doc
(2) Nordex, 2010. “Noise Levels Nordex N80/2500”. Dated 19/04/2010. Doc. No. : F008_158_A03_EN.
(3) Ingenieurbüro für Akustik Busch Gmbh, 2009. “Schallemissionen der Windenergieanlage Nr. 781960 vom Typ Enercon
E-70/E4 im Windpark Bordelum, Betriebmodus II mit 2.300 kW Nennleistung.” Dated 22/06/09.
(4) Nordex, 2010. “Technical Report. Octave sound power levels. Nordex N80/2500.” Dated 26/04/10. Doc. No.:
K0818_008388_EN.
I would prefer that the data were obtained directly from the originators - Enercon and Nordex- rather than from the developers RWE or their consultants/agents.
The Planning Inspectorate have not been supplied with copies of the documents you have requested. These documents have only been cited and therefore have not been submitted as part of the Applicant's set of documents.

The Applicant have submitted all documents which were included as hyperlinks in their application documents, as per the Examining Authority's (ExA) request during the Preliminary Meeting on 12 September 2013. The documents you wish to view were not included as hyperlinks and therefore have not been requested by the ExA.

Please contact the Applicant directly on clocaenog@npower-renewables.com or 01639816180 to request these documents.

Peter Cobbold

Query regarding the location of the Preliminary Meeting
In response to your queries as set out below:
a) Total number of IPs registered
b) Number wishing to attend PM
c) Analysis of (b) by Post Directory code (eg EX, SA, TA etc and also by District Code such as SA62, EX23 etc)
The relevant representations have now been published and are available on the Planning Inspectorate's Atlantic Array project page, the number of representations is approximately 1775. As part of the Rule 6 letter the Planning Inspectorate ask people to confirm, by a date set by the Examining Authority, if they wish to attend the Preliminary Meeting.
1) How can the IPs be involved in reaching a solution on this?
2) Would Bristol be a good compromise? (Is there a suitable venue near to Temple Meads station?)
3) How do PI interpret "as close as possible to the location" in the circumstances?
4) Would assistance with transport be available?
    (especially to offset geographical bias)
5) Could a "conference call" scenario be considered?
Interested Parties may write to the Atlantic Array Case Team if they feel they would like to make a suggestion on the location of the Preliminary Meeting. The Case Team will then ensure that this correspondence is kept on file and made available for the Examining Authority. It will be the Examining Authority's decision where the Preliminary Meeting is held. To date a decision is yet to be made on the location of the Preliminary Meeting, however all reasonable suggestions may be considered by the Examining Authority. The venue of the Preliminary Meeting will be confirmed in the Rule 6 letter. The Planning Inspectorate does not offer assistance with transport for such meetings, however the Examining Authority will consider accessible locations with good public and private transport links.

Alan Rayner

Whilst I have read the information on your website I am not totally clear on when, as an interested member of the public, I should register to express my objection to this proposed development. If I understand it correctly, it is only after the developers have submitted a formal planning application in Q1 2014.

I have already sent a letter of objection to the developer, which has been acknowledged.

I would request that my name and email address be added to any database the Planning Inspectorate maintains so that I receive updates on this proposed development.
As you correctly stated, no formal application has yet been made to The Planning Inspectorate by the developer and the application is expected to submit by the developer in Quarter 1 of 2014, therefore the scheme is currently at its 'Pre-Application' stage. Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the developer, for which we note you have already submitted comments to.
Depending on the nature of your comments to the developer you may also wish to notify the local authority of your comments, as they will later have the opportunity to report to the Planning Inspectorate on their view of the adequacy of the developer’s pre-application consultation, measuring what was delivered against the commitments made in the Statement of Community Consultation (SOCC). Before formally consulting people living in the vicinity of the project, the developer will have prepared a SOCC, having first consulted relevant local authorities about what it should contain. The purpose of the SOCC is to detail the consultation the developer intends to undertake with the local community about their project. The developer is then required to carry out their consultation with the local community as set out in the SOCC.
Should the application be formally submitted, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State has a 28 day period to determine whether to accept the application to progress to Examination. If the application progresses to Examination, the process then asks people to register as an ‘Interested Party’ with the Planning Inspectorate by sending us a 'Relevant Representation' about the proposal. This Representation will be considered by the appointed Examining Authority during the Examination period. By registering as an 'Interested Party' with the Planning Inspectorate, you will be kept informed of the application by email or post. Therefore in direct response to your query it is at this Relevant Representation period that you should register with The Planning Inspectorate.
The Planning Inspectorate has produced several advice notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. These are available at the following link: [attachment 1]. In this instance I recommend the advice note eight series - 'How to get involved in the planning process'.

Ian White

E-mail received by the Planning Inspectorate below:
I have a query about whether a certain development would be considered an NSIP or not, as currently we are a little unsure, and would like some assurances.
The project is:
· 20 km of cable to be undergrounded (in Wales);
· Cable trench to be 20 – 100 m wide; and
· For a non-utility developer.
Our current understanding is that this should be considered under the T&C process, and would not be considered an NSIP.
Is this correct? Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your e-mail dated 24 September 2013 regarding Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs). 
 
The types of project that are designated as NSIPs are set out in section 14 of the Planning Act 2008 as amended (PA 2008); sections 15 to 30 of the PA 2008 detail the thresholds which these types of infrastructure projects must meet in order to considered as NSIPs. 
 
Although we are unable to provide you with legal advice about whether your project is an NSIP or not (and therefore you must pursue this with your own legal advisors to get a definitive view based on the details of the scheme); there is not a category of NSIP in the PA 2008 which would include proposals to wholly underground electricity lines in Wales.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

Natural Power - Joshua Brown

Enquiry from Statutory Party regarding confusion over Rule 8 letter.
It was advised that the Rule 8 letter sets out the timetable for the examination of the above North Killingholme New Power Station application. Alongside this it was explained that the East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust was identified as a statutory party for the application as prescribed in Schedule 1 of the The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. The Examining Authority when making decisions regarding the application must notify everyone as defined in s.88(3)(c)-(d) of the Planning Act 2008; therefore the letter was sent to East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust as a statutory party for that project.
It was explained that following the Rule 8 letter, the East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust would only be contacted in relation to procedural decisions or changes made to the examination timetable. However, it was noted that should they wish to fully participate in the examination of the application and therefore become an Interested Party 'IP' for the project, they could do so by writing to the Planning Inspectorate by 4 October 2013.

Jackie Markham

Project Update Meeting for North West Coast Connection Project, held at The Planning Inspectorate Offices
Please see attached meeting note

National Grid - Andrea Key

Please find attached Sec42 list for Dogger Bank Teesside A&B forthcoming statutory consultation – any comments from PINS would be greatly appreciated.
In preparing this list, the Stakeholder team has taken into consideration Advice Note 3. I appreciate that the scope for PINS to sign off such a list was discussed previously at Creyke Beck (emails early February) – but notwithstanding this – I recall that providing PINS the opportunity to comment on the list was very much appreciated.
Thank you for providing us with your list of s42 consultees in respect of the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project. Apologies for the slight delay in responding to you. We have made some detailed comments below in regard to specific parties however there is a general point that should be made first in regard to your interpretation of the Infrastructure Planning (Prescribed Consultees and Interested Parties) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 ('Amendment Regulations').
The Amendment Regulations specify that the amendments made to Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications:Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 ('APFP Regulations') do not apply where any of the following have taken place before 6 April 2013:
-a regulation 6 notification has been given to the Secretary of State, or
-a scoping request under regulation 8 of the EIA Regulations has been made to the Secretary of State, or
-the Secretary of State has been notified under section 46 of the Planning Act 2008.
For the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project the s46 notification is dated 21 May 2012, and the scoping request under regulation 8 of the EIA regulations is dated 21 May 2012, therefore Regulation 3 of the amendment regulations does not apply and the Schedule provided in the APFP regulations should be applied in any future consultations.
It is noted that all of the bodies removed from your stage 2 consultation, based on your reading of the amendment regulations, have already been consulted via your stage 1 consultation. On the understanding that stage 1 of your consultation was statutory consultation under s42, this would appear to discharge your statutory duty to consult these bodies. However, you should be aware that the Dogger Bank Teesside A & B project does not appear to us to benefit from the above Amendment Regulations and therefore the consultee list against which this project will be assessed at the acceptance stage is the original list at Schedule 1 of the APFP Regulations. In the interest of continued wide-ranging consultation you may wish to consider adding back these bodies to your stage 2 consultation. Further information is set out in National Infrastructure Advice Note 3 and its annex.
Detailed comment in regard to specific bodies is provided below.
6. The National Health Service Commissioning Board and the relevant clinical commissioning Group
If consultation on PEI1 was carried out prior to 1st April 2013 the Strategic Health Authority still existed. If it was the case that the SHA was consulted this should be made clear. It is noted that there is an intention to consult the NHS Commissioning Board and relevant clinical commissioning group in the second round of s42 consultation, this would fulfill the statutory duty to consult "the relevant strategic health authority" as set out in Schedule 1 of the APFP Regulations.
26. Scottish Natural Heritage
If you consider that the project could have any effects on land in Scotland, for example on European Sites in Scotland, it would be advisable on a precautionary basis to consult Scottish Natural Heritage under s42. Similar advice has been given for the Hornsea Offshore Wind Farm (project one) at the link below:
[attachment 1]
39. The Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (OFGEM)
Under stage 2 notes it is stated "removed by the 2013 APFP regulations, but due to the nature of the project will continue to be consulted", however in contradiction to this in the previous column it states "no" to the question of whether they will be consulted at Stage 2. In addition the general point above should be noted regarding the Amendment Regulations and their applicability to this project.
48. Redcar and Cleveland Primary Care Trust
48 Hartlepool Primary Care Trust
In regard to the above PCTs, it is correct that they have been abolished and cannot be consulted, however they have been replaced by CCGs (Clinical Commissioning Groups) and LATs (Local Area Teams), these bodies should continue to be consulted. Annex 1 of Advice Note 3 (specifically Table 2 regarding Statutory Undertakers) may assist in identifying these bodies.
53. The Secretary of State for Defence
(Non-statutory) The MOD
The Secretary of State for Defence should not appear in the Statutory bodies list. Prior to April 2013, the MoD was not a prescribed consultee for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. Although it was added by the Amendment Regulations those regulations do not appear to apply to this project for the reasons given above. The MOD was identified on the Regulation 9 list provided by the Inspectorate as a non-prescribed consultee and it is noted that the intention is to continue consulting with them which seems to us to be a sensible approach.

Andrew Guyton

Meeting between Multifuel Energy Limited and the Planning Inspectorate’s FM2 case team and Consents Service Unit
Please see attachment

Multifuel Energy Ltd

Enquiry from the North East Lincolnshire Council regarding its Interested Party status for North Killingholme Power Project.
It was explained that under s.43 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) North East Lincolnshire Council has been identified as an 'A' authority. This is an authority that shares a boundary with a local authority in which the proposed development is situated; in this instance North Lincolnshire Council.
The appointed Examining Authority must notify each person as defined in s.43 of the 2008 Act about procedural decisions made in relation to the above application. As a result of this it is required that North East Lincolnshire Council authority is contacted with regard to the above Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project.
It was noted that, in future, the local authority will only be contacted about changes to the examination timetable in relation to the above application. The authority was advised that should they wish to participate in the examination they will need to notify the Examining Authority by Friday 4 October 2013.

Jackie Baxter

Request from the applicant to review draft Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC)
The Inspectorate made following obesrvations on the applicant's draft SoCC:
1. In the ‘Summary Statement of Community Consultation’ you have included a statement that the proposed development is considered to be an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development. You may wish to include the same statement clearly in the content of your SoCC for consistency.
2. We note that you are currently waiting for comments on the content of your SoCC from the relevant local authorities, with a deadline for receipt of 25 September 2013. We note that the letter inviting local authorities to comment on the SoCC is dated the 27 August 2013, therefore the statutory minimum period of 28 days for comment would appear to have been provided.
3. We note that in your SoCC and summary SoCC you use the terms “formal” and “informal” (see paragraph 5.1) as well as “technical consultation” (see paragraph 4.9). In the interests of clarity we advise you to use the terms ‘statutory’ and ‘non-statutory’, where appropriate, when describing the relevant stages of consultation throughout the document. Furthermore, it is useful for applicants to use consistent terminology between their SoCC and Consultation Report. It is for the applicant to determine how to explain their consultation approach. However, it must be clear which stages of consultation were ‘statutory’ and ‘non- statutory’ and under which sections of the Planning Act 2008 they were undertaken.
4. We note that when listing the Parish Councils in the table below paragraph 4.6 of the SoCC, the letters ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘S’ are used to denote which local authority they are situated in (Doncaster Metropolitan District Council, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Selby District Council respectively). However, this may not be immediately apparent to some. Therefore consideration should be given to using more than just the first letter of the name of the host authority for clarity. Moreover, s.43 of the 2008 Act categorises local authorities into ‘A’, ’B’, ’C’ and ‘D’ authorities. Therefore, the use of a single letter of the alphabet to denote the location of the parish councils could be misconstrued for the categories used in s.43 of the Planning Act 2008.
5. Paragraph 7.27 of the SoCC states that “consultation documents can be made available in minority languages specify to the area. Large format and Braille options can also be made available of all literature”. You may wish to include more detail on how a person may request such documents.
6. We note the use of abbreviations, such as the use of “TIP Regs” in Appendix 1 of your SoCC. In the interests of clarity you might wish to consider avoiding the use of abbreviations where possible, or provide a glossary of terms. Please also note paragraph 38 of the DCLG Planning Act 2008: Guidance on pre-application process (2013) which states that: “the applicant must set out clearly what is being consulted on” and that: “the document should be written in clear, accessible and non-technical language”.
7. Please note that a number of typographical errors have been identified in the SoCC document. It is therefore advisable that the document is reviewed and any and all errors addressed.
8. Paragraph 7.6 of your SoCC refers to ‘Stage 1 Consultation’. It is understood that at this stage you are intending to carry out consultation under both s.42 and s.47 of the Planning Act 2008. Please be aware that on or before commencing statutory consultation under s.42 you must provide the Secretary of State with notification under s.46 of the Planning Act 2008.
9. We would also draw your attention to DCLG Planning Act 2008: Guidance on pre-application process (2013), which states “where an iterative consultation is intended, it may be advisable for applicants to carry out the final stage of consultation with persons who have an interest in the land [As set out in section 44 of the Planning Act 2008] once they have worked up their project proposals in sufficient detail to identify affected land interests”.
10. In more general terms, please note that it is advisable for all applicants to ensure that the summary of relevant responses received during the pre-application consultation is captured within the Consultation Report. In addition, all applicants are advised to explain how those responses influenced the proposal and how those changes were applied as a result of comments received (please see the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 14 for further information).
11. In addition to the above, please note that paragraph 31, DCLG Planning Act 2008: Guidance on pre-application process (2013) states that: “where a local authority decides that it does not wish to respond to a consultation request on the Statement of Community Consultation, the applicant should make reasonable efforts to ensure that all affected communities are consulted.”

Thorpe Marsh Gas Pipeline Thorpe Marsh Limited

A representative of Windsor Link Railway Limited (WLRL) made enquires about whether or not the proposed Windsor Link Railway (stage 1 and 2) would engage the Planning Act 2008 infrastructure planning regime.
The Planning Inspectorate explained that, whilst we could not advise on whether or not a particular scheme was a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP), the relevant criteria were set out in the Planning Act 2008 as amended, and particularly in section 25 of the Act.
An application for a NSIP in England can include development that is integral or associated with the project. We advised WLRL to carefully consider their consenting strategy and contact us if they felt the 2008 Act regime was likely to be engaged by either or both stages of the proposal.

Windsor Link Railway Limited - anon.

Mr Richard Parker contacted the Planning Inspectorate regarding feedback given to the developer during non-statutory consultation.
The developer began its statutory consultation under s42, 44 & 47 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) on 3 September 2013. Mr Parker was advised to continue to contact the developer as the proposal is still at the process, regardless of whether he has fed back to the developer's earlier non statutory consultation.
The application ultimately submitted to the Planning Inspectorate must be accompanied by a Consultation Report prepared under s37 of the Planning Act which includes a summary of relevant responses to the seperate strands of consultation as well as showing the account taken of responses in developing the application from proposed to final form. In the statutory 28 day acceptance period, the submitted consultation report would be assessed by the Planning Inspectorate against the regulations under s55 of the Planning Act 2008.
In an instance where the application is accepted and satisfies the requirements of s55 to proceed to the examination stage, both the consultation report and the Planning Inspectorate's completed s55 checklist would then be made publicly available on the National Infrastructure Planning Portal website.

Richard Parker

REF: WESTERN GATEWAY INFRASTRUCTURE SCHEME
I am writing on behalf of Peel Holdings regarding the delivery of the Western Gateway Infrastructure Scheme, (“WGIS”). I am the Transport Consultant for Peel on the project. We have been given the links to your email address by the Highways Agency.
WGIS received planning consent in 2009, together with the related Port Salford, (tri-modal inland freight interchange on the Manchester Ship Canal). Planning conditions connect the opening of Port Salford to the delivery of WGIS.
This delivery is proceeding, in collaboration with the Highways Agency, Salford City Council, Trafford Council and Transport for Greater Manchester.
WGIS is the National Infrastructure Plan, (Section 2.15). It is being part funded by the Regional Growth Fund.
WGIS will be delivered in two phases. Contractors have been appointed for the first phase for which construction will commence in Spring 2013, taking approximately 14 months to complete. This enables a portion of Port Salford to open.
The second phase includes the closure of sliproads on the M60, requiring some form of Orders to be obtained. This phase of WGIS also ‘dovetails’ with the Agency’s Managed Motorway Scheme for this section of the M60, which is due to commence construction in Q4 2013. In discussions with the Highways Agency, there is not a clear understanding, (by both parties), on the best way forward to achieve these ‘Orders’ given the several procedural changes that have recently occurred and, from what we are told, will be occurring in the near future.
The purpose of this email is to ascertain a contact name in PINS who we, with the Highways Agency, could meet early in the New Year to discuss all the issues more thoroughly and for PINS then to provide advice on how to proceed.
(Meeting note and additional information recieved by the Planning Inspectortate attached)
Please note that this response does not constitute legal advice on which you can rely and you are strongly advised to seek your own legal advice on this issue.
You obtained planning permission for the development on 16 July 2009 reference 03/47344/EIAHYB. The permission is subject to the following condition:
11. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA in consultation with the Highways Agency no development beyond 50% of the Rail Link Warehousing (77,250sq.m) and the full Multi Modal Terminal pursuant to this planning permission shall be commenced unless and until:
b. The highways order necessary under the Highways Act required for the mitigating highway works as identified in Plan C namely
i. the closure of the M60 Junction 11 southbound on slip
ii. the closure of the M60 Junction 11 northbound off slip
iii. the closure of the M60 junction 11 southbound off slip
have been confirmed.
In March 2012 you applied to vary or remove a number of conditions attached to permission 03/47344/EIAHYB. This resulted in the grant of a new planning permission on the 5 July 2012 reference 12/61611/EIAHYB. This permission was subject to the same condition 11.
The orders required to comply with condition 11 are probably orders under s.18 Highways Act 1980 (HA) (although please note that we have not had the benefit of considering Plan C referred to in condition 11 or the application documents in reaching this conclusion and we strongly advise that you seek the views of the Local Planning Authority, the Highways Authority and your legal team as to the applicable orders).
S.18 (1) provides that:
(1) Provision in relation to a special road may be made by an order under this section for any of the following purposes:—
(c) for authorising the special road authority—
(i) to stop up, divert, improve, raise, lower or otherwise alter a highway that crosses or enters the route of the special road or is or will be otherwise affected by the construction or improvement of the special road;
If you develop beyond 50% of the Rail Link Warehousing and develop the full Multi Modal Terminal without the orders or equivalent authorisation as required by condition 11 you will be in breach of the condition of your planning permission and the Local Planning Authority could take enforcement action.
s.33(4) Planning Act 2008 (PA) states that:
If development consent is required for the construction improvement or alteration of a highway none of the following may be made or confirmed in relation to the highway or in connection with the construction improvement or alteration of the highways
– (d) an order under s.18 of the Highways Act 1980.
This is now reflected in the HA at s.18 (1A) which states:
Subsection (1) is subject to section 33(4) of the Planning Act 2008 (exclusion of powers to make or confirm orders in relation to highways for which development consent required).
s.31 PA states that development consent is required for development to the extent that the development is or forms part of a NSIP
The Planning Act 2008 (Commencement No.4 and Saving) Order 2010/101 states that provisions 31 - 35 came into effect on the 1 March 2013 subject to the saving provision which provides that the provisions of the Act brought into force by then shall have no effect in relation to an application made before 1 March 2010 for any such consent or authorisation as is mentioned in section 33 of the Act (effect of requirement for development consent on other consent regimes).
Your application for planning permission was made before the 1 March 2010. This means that the provisions of the PA do not apply to that application and development consent is not required for the development for which permission was applied for in your application.
You did not make an application for consent for orders under s.18 HA before 1 March 2010 and I assume from your e-mails that one has not yet been made. As detailed above s.33(4) prohibits these orders being made under the HA where development consent is required.
Interpretation of legislation is for the Courts. It is for you to decide, having taken your own legal advice, how and on what basis to proceed and then to justify your approach. If you consider that s.33 PA means that you can only get authorisation to stop up the motorway slip roads by applying under the PA then you will need to make an application to us for development consent. Alternatively, if you consider that development consent is not required and the PA does not apply, you will need to apply for orders under the HA. You may wish to approach the Highways Agency to discuss this.
In your e-mail you also refer to a proposed additional motorway slip road.
S.22(2)PA as amended by the Highway and Railway (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) Order 2013 provides that the construction of a highway which is wholly in England for which the Secretary of State will be the highway authority and the area of development is greater that the relevant limits will be an NSIP. In relation to the construction of a motorway the area of development is 15 hectares (22(4)(a)). Area of development in relation to the construction of a highway means the land on which the highway is to be constructed and any adjoining land expected to be used in connection with its construction(22(9)(a)).
If the area for development of the proposed slip road is more than 15 hectares the development will be an NSIP and you will have to apply for development consent in accordance with the PA. If the area for development is less than 15 hectares the development is not an NSIP and you can obtain planning permission by applying to the LPA. If the development is an NSIP and you apply for development consent under the PA you will not need a scheme under s.16 HA (schemes authorising the provision of special roads) or an order under s.18 HA (in fact you are prohibited from getting these) as the development consent order will authorise the works. If the development is not an NSIP you may need orders under the HA to authorise the works and you will be able to apply for this in accordance with the HA if required. As stated above you should seek your own legal advice on this issue.

Peel Holdings - Colin Townsley

DONG Energy is intending to increase the total installed capacity of the offshore wind farm stated in the draft DCO by 1 MW, from 258 MW to 259 MW.
In support of this change, DONG Energy is conducting an audit of the Environmental Statement (ES) to present to the Examining Authority during the examination. This document demonstrates that the increase in MW capacity is a minor change to the Project, as all other parameters will remain the same in the draft DCO and the revised MW capacity still falls within the worst case as assessed in the ES.
Other consents (being the modification application to National Grid and the Agreement for Lease) are being sought and DONG Energy will update the Examining Authority on their progress during the examination.
With the Examining Authority's consent, DONG Energy will make the audit referred to above available on 28 October 2013 (Deadline I).
I refer to your letter of 10 September 2013, providing a progress update in respect of the application, prior to the preliminary meeting.
Amongst the issues raised was a proposal to increase the installed capacity of the project by 1 MW, described in your letter in the following terms:
“Increase in Installed Capacity from 258 to 259 MW
3.5 DONG Energy is intending to increase the total installed capacity of the offshore wind farm stated in the draft DCO by 1 MW, from 258 MW to 259 MW.
3.6 In support of this change, DONG Energy is conducting an audit of the Environmental Statement (ES) to present to the Examining Authority during the examination. This document demonstrates that the increase in MW capacity is a minor change to the Project, as all other parameters will remain the same in the draft DCO and the revised MW capacity still falls within the worst case as assessed in the ES.
3.7 Other consents (being the modification application to National Grid and the Agreement for Lease) are being sought and DONG Energy will update the Examining Authority on their progress during the examination.
3.8 With the Examining Authority's consent, DONG Energy will make the audit referred to above available on 28 October 2013 (Deadline I).”
The Examining authority (ExA) will need to consider whether the change that you propose is a minor change, capable of being considered within the current examination process.
This letter provides you with advice under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) (‘s51 advice’) about the information that will be necessary to enable the ExA to undertake that consideration.
Whilst the audit approach that you outline in paragraph 3.6 of your letter appears in general terms to be an appropriate course of action, its precise purpose and the detail of its operation remain unclear.
Irrespective of whether or not this is considered to be a minor change to the project, you are requested to commence by setting out a clear statement of what is proposed to change.
Paragraph 3.6 of your letter does not explain how the audit process will then demonstrate how the change might affect the assessment already undertaken or how the conclusions reached with regard to the impacts of the proposed change to the scheme will be explained.
In order to address these matters, it would assist the ExA for a table to be prepared, setting out the likely significant impacts already identified in the ES and to assess against each impact whether or not the proposed change alters the original assessment and provides a description to justify the conclusions reached. A rigorous review will help to demonstrate that your assessment is robust.
It will also be necessary for you to consider and identify whether any new (un-assessed) impacts would arise from the proposed change.
You are requested to assess whether the proposed increase of 1MW affects the 'worst case' parameters that have been identified and assessed for each EIA topic considered in the ES, not only in terms of potential impacts on the number of turbines, but also inter-array and export cables, substations and all other significant elements of project construction. Your revised assessment will also need to assess whether or not the proposed change to the total installed capacity has any implications for any development within Welsh Waters (export cable) and the onshore development in Wales, which would be considered in the EIA under cumulative impacts. The effect on any proposed mitigation identified in the ES will also need to be considered.

You do not expressly refer to the need to reconsider the Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) report provided with the application. It will be equally relevant and important for you to address the HRA as well as the ES. It would therefore assist the ExA if you were to consider the impact of the proposed change on the parameters assessed in the HRA and the outcome of the conclusions reached in relation to the European sites assessed and any mitigation proposed for those sites.
The timing for the receipt of your review of the ES and HRA Report has been added to the agenda for the Preliminary Meeting. The ExA will hear submissions from you and invited attendees, before making a decision about the date, which will be confirmed in the examination timetable. However, unless there are well argued reasons why draft timetable Deadline I should not be adopted as the submission date, it would appear reasonable for you to plan to submit on that date. Please note that this advice is without prejudice to the exercise of discretion by the ExA.