Ms Ebsworth called the Planning Inspectorate seeking information on the Brechfa Forest Connection project and compulsory acquisition of land.
Response provided by the Planning Inspectorate via email to Ms Ebsworth below:

"Dear Ms Ebsworth

Further to our telephone conversation in relation to the Brechfa Connection project and compulsory acquisition of land, I have tried to set out some further information for you below.

A Book of Reference; which provides details of the landowners and/or occupiers, which this Applicant has identified as having interests in land affected by the project can be accessed at the following link:

[attachment 1]

This documents contains details of your land interests.

For information, the relevant plot in the Book of Reference is:

Page 100: Plot A197 ? 2183 square metres or thereabouts of land known as Tynewydd, Nantycaws, Carmarthen, SA32 8EX

Information on the ?Interest/Right to be Acquired or Power Exercised? (described as ?classes?) which the Applicant is seeking can be viewed on page 1 of the Book of Reference.

You can also view the relevant plot on page 16 of the Land Plan provided by the Applicant at the following link:

[attachment 2]

Should you want any further information regarding the above, I suggest you contact the Applicant directly. You can contact Western Power Distribution on:

Tel: 0800 019 3518
E-mail: [email protected]
Post: FREEPOST B FOREST CONNECTION

If you wish to submit a representation to the Planning Inspectorate?s Examination of this application, please feel free to do so at your earliest convenience. May I take this opportunity to remind you that the Examination of the application must end on or before 6 April 2016; once the deadline for Examination has passed the Examining Authority will no longer be able to accept representations from interested parties.

I hope this information is of assistance, should you have any further questions please do get in touch."

Ms Ebsworth

Letter received from Carmarthen and District Angling Club on 15 January 2016 attached.
Response from the Planning Inspectorate on 28 January 2016 attached.

E Davies

The Applicant queried whether the correct interested parties are referenced in question OM2-04 of the ExA's Second Round of Questions.
In response to your query, the Planning Inspectorate can confirm that the reference to the interested parties within OM2-04 is correct.

Amec Foster Wheeler - David Kenyon

Apologies in advance but we have a query in relation to question OM2 -05.

The question posed is;

Does the Marine licence application submitted to and accepted by NRW on 11 November 2015 (CML1551) have any implications on ?Inshore Marine Plans?

I have consulted our Marine Licence team and they advise me that they are not familiar with this term ? Inshore Marine Plans.

We currently have 4 Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) around Wales that we need to take account of, depending on the nature of the works.
Marine planning in Wales is still under development by WG but we believe there are some Marine plans signed off in England, so perhaps that?s where the confusion has arisen.

Would you be able to clarify please?
The Planning Inspectorate can confirm that the reference in question, OM2-05, in the Examining Authority?s second round of written questions to the ?Inshore Marine Plans? is in error and should state ?Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs)?.

Natural Resources Wales - David Watkins

Emails sent as deadline submissions raising concerns about aspects of the work of the Planning Inspectorate.
In relation to your representations which were submitted to the Brechfa Connection project on 16 December 2015 for deadline 3 in the examination. Your representations will be provided to the Examining Authority for his consideration in respect of the examination and, along with other representations, will be made publically available on our website.

I note in your representation that you raise concerns about aspects of the work of the Planning Inspectorate. Should you separately wish to make a complaint then information on how to do so, and the process that the Planning Inspectorate follows in handling complaints, can be found via the following website link:
[attachment 1].

J P and Mrs L Hewer

Submissions to the Examinning Authority 16 - 18 November 2015, copying PINS into correspondence between BJP and the applicant.
Further to correspondence that you continue to copy the Planning Inspectorate into in relation to compulsory acquisition (CA) matters, I have taken the decision to issue formal advice to ensure that you are clear on the CA process under the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) and the role of the Examining Authority. This advice, along with any other advice given during the examination by the Planning Inspectorate, will be published inline with s51 of PA 2008 on the project webpage.

Drawing upon the letter that you sent to the Planning Inspectorate by email on 16 November 2015, which the Examining Authority has accepted as a submission into the examination and published, it was felt that some clarification may be of use.

Please note that some of the terminology used in your correspondence is not appropriate in relation to an application for an order granting development consent under the PA 2008. In this regard we have assumed that:

1. Your reference to the ?CPO process? is intended to be to the examination of the applicant?s request for compulsory acquisition to be authorised by inclusion of it in a Development Consent Order (as the PA2008 does not allow for a Compulsory Purchase Order to be made);
2. Your reference to ?the Inspector? is intended to refer to the Examining authority;
3. Your reference to the ?Acquiring Authority? is intended to refer to the applicant; and
4. Your reference to the ?Public Enquiry? is intended to refer to any Compulsory Acquisition Hearing(s) to be held as part of the Examining authority?s examination of the application for an order granting development consent.

Please be advised that:

(a) contrary to the second paragraph of your letter, all parties present at the Preliminary Meeting held on 6 October 2015 were invited to speak;
(b) under Rule 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010, the Examining authority may disregard any written representations, responses to questions or further information received after the date, or the expiry of the period, specified for their receipt;
(c) under section 94 of the PA2008, the Examining authority may refuse to allow representations to be made at a hearing if they are considered to relate to compensation for compulsory acquisition;
(d) under section 106 of the PA2008, in deciding an application for an order granting development consent, the Secretary of State may disregard representations if they are considered to relate to compensation for compulsory acquisition;
(e) it would not be appropriate for the Examining authority to advise you or your clients as to exactly when or under what precise circumstances or conditions you or your clients should enter into negotiations with the applicant or on the precise terms of any such ongoing negotiations. Those would be matters on which your clients ought to seek their own independent legal and other professional advice if required;
(f) the following guidance has been published: Planning Act 2008 - Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land (DCLG, September 2013); and Awards of costs: examinations of applications for development consent orders ? Guidance (DCLG, July 2013);
(g) the Examining authority is not in a position to confirm the qualifications or experience of individuals employed by the applicant. You should direct any such queries to the applicant if you require such information; and
(h) the Examining authority has not decided to postpone the Compulsory Acquisition Hearing(s) arranged to be held on 2 and 3 December 2015.

Furthermore, please be advised that copying in the Planning Inspectorate to correspondence does not automatically enter it into the examination nor does it ensure that information is before the Examining authority. If you wish representations to be brought to the attention to the Examining authority then we request that you clearly state this in correspondence. As such, the emails that the Planning Inspectorate were copied into over the past few days have not as yet been sent to the Examining authority as they include no clear indication in that regard. Should you wish the Examining authority to consider these emails as submissions into the examination then please do contact me. As discussed previously, there is an examination timetable which sets out when representations are to be made. This ensures that information for all parties in the examination are able to work to deadlines, knowing when documentation will be available for comment and when comments should be made. This ensures a fair and open process. Any representation received after a deadline will, if so requested by the party submitting it, be sent to the ExA for him to consider whether or not to have regard to it. The information above sets out matters that should and should not be before the Examining authority.

I hope that this advice clarifies matters and enables full and appropriate engagement in the examination process.

BJP Land Agents - Iwan Jones

Request to discuss requirements of Examining Authority's Procedural Decision.
The Examining Authority has issued a clear procedural decision requesting information. If the applicant feels that it is unable or unreasonable to provide this information then it should explain why in their submission. Over the course of the examination it may be possible to persuade the ExA that such information is unnecessary, or the ExA may consider that they are unable to recommend consent without it. I don?t feel that I would be able to provide any further assistance other than to reiterate the ExA?s original request.

The matters sourced from the s55 checklist largely relate to consultation. I note that the applicant has now notified in accordance with s56 of PA2008, so any uncertainty over the completeness of consultation is now subject to the procedures set out in s58. The Planning Inspectorate will invite parties to the Preliminary Meeting in accordance with legislation and our published advice notes.

Osborne Clarke - Lara Flynn

Advice issued at acceptance
The applicant was reminded, in the context of the apparent omission of some parties during statutory consultation, that all parties must be correctly notified of the accepted application in accordance with s56 of the Planning Act 2008, with attention drawn to the offences set out in s58.

Particular emphasis was given to the notification of all persons with an interest in land, hosting and neighbouring community councils in line with the Planning Inspectorate's Advice Note 3, and utility operators with national licenses.

Andrew Hubbold

A large section of the local community, and a further raft of local farmers, including local MP's and candidates would like to ensure our public opposition to this grid connection and overall scheme is taken into account fully during the grid connection final appraisal. Would would like our ability to veto plans instigated in line with the immediate changes that have been made to the planning policy to allow local communities a say.

Could you please tell us the best way to feed into this process at this stage?

The decision on this grid connection now appears to fall outside the governments cut-off for schemes to have approval and acceptance, can you please confirm this?
Thank you for your email, which I believe references recent government statements about changes to infrastructure consenting.

These changes have not yet been legislated for, so are not currently in effect. The Planning Inspectorate will continue to operate the processes of the Planning Act 2008 and adhere to designated National Policy Statements until these are formally changed. I note that you have included your local MP and the Secretary of State in your email; I trust that they will be able to provide you with more information.

The existing Planning Act 2008 process provides for public involvement in the examination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. You may be familiar with this process following the examination of the Brechfa Forest West wind farm itself. Advice on how to get involved in the process is published on our website at [attachment 1]; advice note 8 is especially relevant. The Planning Inspectorate is currently considering whether the application made by Western Power Distribution is suitable for examination; the deadline for making this acceptance decision is Friday 26 June 2015. If the application is accepted for examination then you will be able to make relevant representations shortly.

I believe that your final point relates to the funding of renewable energy schemes. Unless and until a live application is withdrawn by its promoter the Planning Inspectorate is under a duty to examine it.

Davies

Response to the points raised within the Planning Inspectorate's s51 advice dated 18 May 2015.
We note that the draft DCO includes the power to remove existing lines and that you consider any new diversion by the laying of new lines is permitted development. We advise you to explain how you are categorising such works as permitted development, including how these have been considered in terms of potential cumulative effects in the EIA. In addition, as discussed at our meeting on 4 March 2015 please can you confirm if all of the works included within the draft DCO (for example the removal of existing lines) have been subject to pre-application consultation.

Regarding works (i) to (xiii) in works numbers 1, 2, and 3 we again draw your attention to Advice Note 15 paragraph 20.1 and advise you to thoroughly explain your approach within the EM, for example we would expect justification be provided as to why certain effects are considered ?insignificant?.

Please be aware of section 150 of the Planning Act 2008 where the inclusion of certain consents within a DCO requires the authorisation of the consenting body.

Currently there is no contents section at the start of the draft DCO.

Please can you explain in your EM what works are to be undertaken regarding ?re-siting of apparatus?.

Regarding Work Number 2 undergrounding, the wording does not refer to horizontal directional drilling but requirement 6 does. Is there a reason for this? You may also wish to include horizontal directional drilling in ?interpretation?.

Article 31 -is there a reason for the square brackets?

Lara Flynn Osborne Clarke

Request for advice on; the revised draft Development Consent Order and Explanatory Memorandum regarding the consolidation of two compulsory acquisition articiles into one article, and articles relating to the temporary use of land.
We have reviewed the previous s51 advice and cannot see that we suggested merging the two compulsory acquisition articles, although we did query whether paragraphs (7) and (8) of the ?compulsory acquisition of rights? article were necessary. We assume that in merging the articles, any internal cross references elsewhere in the dDCO has been double checked and updated as necessary?

In regard to articles 29 and 30 (regarding temporary use of land), they are likely to be the subject of close examination in relation to this proposal. There would be detailed examination of notice periods, possession periods, restoration periods and the maintenance period. The explanatory memorandum should thoroughly explain the scope of these powers. Does the statement of reasons justify the power of temporary possession (for up to one year for carrying out the development) as being less intrusive/more proportionate than acquiring the land by compulsory acquisition?

Due to the tight timeframe provided to us we have not been able to undertake a detailed review of the draft DCO and Explanatory Memorandum, here are just a couple of points we noticed whilst skimming through the authorised development:

The first sentence of work numbers 1, 2 and 3 is slightly confusing to read.

Paragraph 2.19 of the Explanatory Memorandum (regarding the diversion of existing apparatus) appears to contradict (xi) within work numbers 1, 2 and 3.

Please can you confirm if the diversion and undergrounding of 10x 11kV lines is included within the dDCO and if so, has the developer undertaken consultation in relation to this?

Page 22 of the Explanatory Memorandum under ?Schedule 1? refers to ?Associated Development?.

Is the developer intending on submitting the response from Welsh Government regarding the undergrounding of the 132kV line with the application?

In regard to (i) to (xiii) in works numbers 1, 2 and 3, can the developer include reference that all such works are within the scope of the EIA (if they are). See Advice Note 15 paragraph 20.1. Also, are these works justified within the Explanatory Memorandum?

Lara Flynn Osborne Clarke

Request to review draft consultation report
Attached

Western Power Distribution - David Kenyon

Query regarding the timing of Crown consent.
The DCLG Guidance on procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land provides advice on the timing of Crown consent in regard to s135(1) and (2) at Annex B on the following link: [attachment 1]

The advice is for consent to be obtained prior to the application being submitted. If this is not possible, it is advised that an ?in principle? decision should be provided at this stage, including an indication of any outstanding issues for the applicant to address prior to submission. The final decision on Crown consent should, at the latest, be provided prior to the close of the examination. However if the Secretary of State decides to make changes to a DCO, the Crown authority will be consulted and invited to give final consent.

Welsh Government - Mr Nicholas

Draft Habitats Regulations Assessment No Significant Effects Report for comment
Please find attached the Planning Inspectorate?s comments on your draft No Significant Effects Report (NSER). As you will see, we have identified a number of gaps and have come across a few issues that we feel should be addressed in the NSER prior to the DCO application. We understand that NRW and CCC are also reviewing the draft NSER and welcome this approach. We recommend that sufficient time be given to take into account any comments received from NRW and CCC prior to the submission of the DCO application.

Western Power Distribution - David Kenyon

Meeting held between the Planning Inspectorate and Western Power Distribution (South Wales) plc to discuss the proposed Brechfa Forest Electricity Connection project.
Meeting note attached

Western Power Distribution

Meeting held between the Planning Inspectorate and Western Power Distribution (South Wales) plc to discuss the proposed Brechfa Forest Electricity Connection project.
Meeting note attached.

Western Power Distribution

Meeting held between the Planning Inspectorate and Western Power Distribution (South Wales) plc to discuss the proposed Brechfa Forest Electricity Connection project.
Meeting note attached.

Western Power Distribution

Meeting held between the Planning Inspectorate and Western Power Distribution (South Wales) plc to discuss the proposed Brechfa Forest Electricity Connection project.
Meeting note attached.

Western Power Distribution

Meeting held between the Planning Inspectorate and Western Power Distribution (South Wales) plc to discuss the proposed Brechfa Forest Electricity Connection project.
Meeting note attached.

David Kenyon

Request to be kept fully up to date with developments with regard to the proposal to develop a twin wooden pole 132kV overhead line connecting the proposed wind farms at Brechfa Forest West, Brechfa Forest East and Bryn Llewelyn.

Jonathan Edwards AS/MP

Notes from a meeting held between Western Power Distribution and the Planning Inspectorate on 23 January 2013.
Attached.

Western Power Distribution Western Power Distribution

Notes from a meeting held between Western Power Distribution and the Planning Inspectorate on 23 January 2013
See attached

Western Power Distribution Western Power Distribution