Meeting to discuss proposed non-material amendments to the Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm Order 2013
Please see attached meeting note

RWE Innogy UK Limited

Meeting to discuss lessons learnt and identify areas for improvement
Please see attachment

RWE Npower Renewables

Concerns and queries about enforcement responsibilities for the application.
Please see attachment.

Bryan Dugdale

Can you please tell me how we can access a copy of the inspectors report to the secretary of state on brechfa forest west.

I am aware that the normal process for any planning inquiry is that the inspectors report is made available to the general public at the same time as it is submitted to the Secretary of State for a final decision. Therefore I expect given the emphasis on having a "Policy Commitment to Openness and Transparency" according to the IPC website that a copy of the report will be made available to all those who submitted representations.

Jillie Gardiner
Dear Ms Gardiner,
In reply to your email yesterday.
The Inspector's recommendation report will not be published until the Secretary of State's (SoS) decision is made. All Interested Parties will be alerted when it is published on our website. As our Advice Note 8:1 [attachment 1] explains:
"The Examining Authority?s recommendation and the Secretary of State?s decision
The Examining Authority must prepare a report on the application to the relevant Secretary of State, including a recommendation, within 3 months of the end of the examination. The Secretary of State then has a further 3 months to make the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
All interested parties will automatically be notified of the Secretary of State?s decision. You will also be able to view the decision, and reasons given for making it, on the National Infrastructure portal."
The Department for Communities and Local Government's normal practice in Planning Inquiries and Appeals is the same as that for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, which is not to release an Inspector's report before the SoS' decision has been published.
Yours sincerely

Yours sincerely
Stella Perrett

Assistant Case Officer

Jillie Gardiner

Will the Examining Authority accept and take into consideration my letter submitted to PINS post close of examination?
I can confirm now that submissions received after an examination has closed (during the recommendation stage) will not be taken into account within an Examining authority's report to the Secretary of State. The Planning Inspectorate will, however, hold your email letter of 15 October 2012 until the end of the recommendation stage and then send it separately to the relevant Secretary of State, immediately following the submission of Mr Macey's recommendation report. It is then for the Secretary of State to decide whether or not to take your letter into consideration.

Claire Dugdale

I have been looking at the Advice Note 8.1 v4 and have read through the following excerpt. I have been advised that the Examining Authority's Report and Recommendation will NOT be made public, even after the Secretary of State's decision, and that only the S of State's decision and reasons will be available to the public.

Is this correct? That Mr Macey's report will not be made public?
We are responding to your email of 20 October regarding a section of our Advice note 8.1 - (it is in version 3 on the website.):
?The Examining Authority?s
recommendation and the Secretary of
State?s decision
The Examining Authority must prepare
a report on the application to the
relevant Secretary of State, including a
recommendation, within 3 months of the
end of the examination. The Secretary of
State then has a further 3 months to make
the decision on whether to grant or refuse
development consent.
All interested parties will automatically be
notified of the Secretary of State?s decision.
You will also be able to view the decision,
and reasons given for making it, on the
National Infrastructure portal?

You can be assured that the Examining Authority?s report will be published, after the decision is made.
You can for example see the Examining Authority's reports on two other cases recently decided by the Secretary of State for Transport on our website:

Ipswich Rail Chord :
[attachment 1]

and North Doncaster Rail Chord:
[attachment 2]

As the Examining authority?s report is only a recommendation, and the Secretary of State makes the decision, it cannot be published prior to the decision.
The section of our Advice Note that you quote does not mention the publication of the Inspector's report one way or another.
It would certainly clarify this point if it did, and I have asked our website designers to include a mention of it in that section.

Caroline Evans

Advice re 'object' in context of Planning Act 2008 process
Further to our telephone conversation on 26 September 2012, I've set out below the key points regarding statutory parties' (for example, CCW's) ability to 'object' under the Planning Act 2008 (2008 Act) regime if they become an interested party during the examination of an application for development consent.
It would, of course, be possible for such bodies to also raise their concerns about a proposed application with developers at the pre-application stage, for example in their responses to s.42 consultation, and to inform the Planning Inspectorate of these concerns.
Relevant statutory parties' role under the 2008 Act, during examinations, is to participate in the examination and let the Examining Authority (ExA) know what their views are on the merits and impacts of a proposed scheme. This could be in their relevant and written representations, in response to ExA questions, through statements of common ground with applicants, and in oral representations at any hearings.
The 2008 Act does not contain any powers for any statutory bodies to issue a holding objection as bodies such as CCW can do under the TCPA 1990. In other words their role is purely 'advisory' in relation to a DCO application and the decision made on it, although they may still be the decision maker in relation to any other consent or licence that an applicant may require in connection with a particular proposal.
In expressing their views to an ExA on a DCO application a statutory party need not make a judgement on whether they consider an application should be granted or refused. This judgement is ultimately for the relevant Secretary of State to make, as decision maker, after they receive the report of recommendation from the ExA. However, this does not preclude a statutory party from letting an ExA know what their views are on whether an application should be granted or not.
In the interest of clarity, in helping matters to be examined within the statutory deadlines, and to avoid any 'surprises' at the decision stage, it would seem helpful if statutory parties could be as clear as possible in expressing their views on an application. This may therefore include them being explicit and clear on whether they consider that impacts/issues raised on an application are so severe (and/or proposed mitigation is insufficient and/or unsecured etc.) that unless specific points are addressed they are advising the ExA to recommend refusal. In this context statutory parties could use terms such as 'object' or 'oppose' as an expression of their assessment of the severity of the situation.
At the same time it is important that should a statutory party state in their representation that it 'objects' to or 'opposes' a proposal then it should provide sufficient reasons for this stance which the ExA can then consider and/or explore.
I hope this advice is helpful and clarifies the situation for you and CCW.

Sarah Wood

Would you be able to clarify the following for me?

1) Regarding a representation published on the website from Chris Davies of Mid and West Wales Fire, could you please either publish alongside this representation, or send a copy to me, of the letter to which Mr Davies has responded? It is difficult to contextualise the representation without this.

2) Could you confirm whether interested parties will get a chance to see the final version of the DCO before the examination period closes? The last draft had a number of track changes, and also queries raised by the Examiner, to which interested parties were invited to respond.
In answer to your questions below, Mr Davies refers to the Building Regulations 2012 'Approved Document B 2010' - section 16 Vehicle Access. This is a publicly available document and is free to down load from the planning portal. Here's a link for your ease of reference: [attachment 1]

You also ask whether the final version of the DCO will be published for comment before the examination period closes. The examination timetable does not provide for a further revised draft DCO to be issued and as far as I am aware the Examining Authority does not intend to issue a further revised draft DCO.

I understand that you've also raised a query on 16 August regarding whether or not the Examining Authority can rely on the MoD having covered their interests fully in their representation of 5 January 2012 and whether it can be concluded that this supersedes their earlier representations to the applicant. As an interested party the MoD (represented through the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)) has had numerous opportunities to make their case to the examination of the Brechfa Forest Wind Farm application examination. The Planning Inspectorate has also spoken to and emailed representatives of the DIO on several occasions to ensure that DIO officers are aware of the relevant deadlines and are able to submit any further representation they may wish to make. To date no further submission has, however, been received from the DIO. Once the examination is closed it will be for the Examining Authority to consider all the material that has been submitted and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State within 3 months of the examination closing.

Claire Dugdale

With regards Grwp Blaengwen's response to the new draft DCO.
The comments made on behalf of Grwp Blaengwen on the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) dated 9 August 2012 contain on page 4 a question about a possible future draft DCO. For the avoidance of doubt, please be advised that the examination timetable does not provide for a further revised draft DCO to be issued and as far as we are aware the Examining Authority does not intend to issue a further revised draft DCO.

Grwp Blaengwen

Having read the latest section of representations, I wanted to ask if any of you would be able to clarify something for me.


I note that the proposed Section 106 is now the subject of a possible unilateral agreement, between RWE and the landowner.


RWE list the landowner as the Welsh Government (represented by the FCW?) but do not make any mention of the private landowner of the land on which the proposed access track is to be constructed.


Does this mean that the area under the Section 106, for the purposes of the proposed HMP, does NOT include the access track and is environs within its definition of "site"?


I hope that someone can assist me with this query,
I can clarify that neither The Planning Inspectorate nor the Examining Authority have been involved in the S106 negotiations between Carmarthenshire County Council and the Applicant.

The Inspectorate has no indication of the likely content of any S106 undertaking other than from what has been submitted by the parties and what was discussed at the hearing on 12 July - all of which information is publicly accessible on the Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm project page of the National Infrastructure portal located at the following address:

[attachment 1]

Claire Dugdale

Information required about the timetable after examination.
The enguirer was informed that there will be 3 months for recommendation and a further 3 months for the Secretary of State to make a decision, following receipt of the recommendation from the ExA. The caller was advised that any further information about the 2008 process can be found on our website.

Welsh Assembly Member - Russell George

Could you please clarify something for me? I am slightly confused by the wording of Rule 16 in the context of your answer. Would the Examining Authority be able to make a site visit accompanied by only ONE interested party (i.e. to a private address/ land), as long as he informed other interested parties of his intentions? This appears to be what you are saying, but I am a little unsure as Rule 16 seems to only relate to accompanied visits for ALL interested parties.). I would appreciate if you could clarify this issue for me.
Rule 16(1) only applies to unaccompanied site visits. In other words, for a visit to be unaccompanied, and for Rule 16(1) to apply, no Interested party can be present.

Rule 16(2), in combination with rule 16(3) and (4), governs accompanied visits to any site to which the application relates - ie including private properties . If an Examining Authority chooses to make such an accompanied site visit it has to notify all Interested Parties of "the date, time and place at which it proposes to make the inspection".

Rule 16(4) enables the Examining Authority to proceed with an accompanied site visit if he/she so wishes, even if other Interested Parties are not present or represented on the chosen date and time.

It is at the Examining Authority's discretion whether or not to permit any other Interested Party to attend an accompanied site visit. However, for the Examining Authority to be able to visit any private property he/she needs the permission of the owner of that property/site.

Bryan Dugdale

Please see attached letter.
Dear Mr Edwards,

As the examination of the Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm application is still on-going the Department of Energy and Climate Change forwarded us your letter to them of 6 August (see attached).

Given that you are registered as an interested party in the examination of this application we were wondering whether you would like to submit a representation along the lines set out in your constituents' letter to the Examining Authority ?

As you may be aware, the Examining Authority?s letter of 25 July issued the Examining Authority's draft Development Consent Order (DCO) for comment along with further questions and a revised timetable. The deadline for comments on the draft DCO and for responses to the further questions is the 9 August 2012 . The deadline for comments on any of the material submitted for the 19 July 2012 deadline is the 20 August.

If you would like to make a representation on the Examining Authority's draft DCO or submit a response to the further questions asked, please do so by the 9 August. Similarly, if you would like to submit any comment(s) on any of the submissions for the 19 July deadline, please do so by 20 August. The submissions for the 19 July deadline can be found on the Brechfa Forest West project page of the infrastructure planning portal by clicking on the representations tab and then the hearings filter button.

You may also wish to advise your constituents that as long as they are registered as an interested party in this application, they can make a submission to any of these remaining steps in the examination timetable. The Examining Authority will take all such representations from interested parties into account, if the Planning Inspectorate receives such representations by the relevant deadline. Anyone not registered as an interested party can still make a submission. However, in this case it is at the discretion of the Examining Authority whether or not to accept the submission for the examination of the application.

In relation to your concern about the developers for Brechfa Forest West having failed to consult the MOD under section 42 of the Planning Act I can advise you that there is no duty on developers at the pre-application stage to consult with the MOD under s42. The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 which set out at schedule 1 the prescribed bodies which a developer must consult under s42(a) does not include the MOD.

However, the MOD registered as an interested party for this application after it was accepted by the IPC (now PINS) for examination. The MOD's relevant representation can be viewed on the Brechfa Forest West project page of the Infrastructure planning portal by clicking on the representations tab and then the 'relevant representations' filter button (enter 'ministry of defence' in the search field).

As the email we received from DECC did not include your constituents' letter which you refer to in your letter, I'm unable to address any points that may have been raised in them.

I hope this information is helpful.

yours sincerely

Simone Wilding

Jonathan Edwards

Email dated 05 July 2012
We have today received a copy of a letter sent to Richard Jones of CCC dated 15th November 2011 with a slightly larger map.This confirms our concerns regarding the proposed removal of our boundary hedge. Please can you forward to us how your investigations into this matter are progressing.

Email dated 10 July 2012
After further investigation it appears that the letter sent to Richard
Jones of CCC dated 15th November 2011 with a plan differs from the copy sent to
me.The slightly larger map which was sent to me has our hedgerow
removal on it, however the original with the letter did not. I am unsure if it was posted to me by the applicant or your department. I understand this is being investigated and I would be gratefull of an update.
I confirm receipt of your emails of 5 and 10 July 2012.

As you know you have requested clarification with regards to the plans showing the hedgerows at the Open-floor hearing at Brechfa on 11 July (and also re-iterated at the Issue-specific hearing on the DCO). The applicant has acknowledged that what they have so far submitted is not entirely accurate. RWE have undertaken to provide the correct plans by the 19 July 2012.

You have also requested an update on how the Examining Authority's investigations into this matter are progressing. Details of the examination timetable have been published (see his letter of 18 June on our web site) and as an interested party you will be notified if there are any changes to the timetable. Once the examination is closed the Examining Inspector will make his recommendation to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then has 3 months to decide whether or not to grant development consent for the proposed application. Once the Secretary of State has made his decision this will be published alongside the Examining Authority's report.

Jennifer Harrison

I was wondering when the deadline for written submissions to the hearing of the above is meant to be in by and what is the correct e mail address for submission. I know it is the 19th July but not sure of the deadline time.
If you are sending in your submission by email then any time on the 19 July is fine.

If you're sending it in hard copy, please post it sufficiently in advance for us to definitely receive it by the 19 July.

Verona Evans

Please could you clarify an issue from yesterday?s Issue Specific Hearing.

I recall that Mr. Macey had indicated that he must be in possession of a signed S.106 agreement before he sends his recommendation off to the Secretary of State. If we are to assume he has until November to do this can we also assume then that he can be furnished with the signed S.106 at this time in readiness to be submitted with his recommendation?

This seems at odds with the date he later set for the submission of the final signed S.106 ? i.e. 9th August 2012. Can you clarify the two positions?
I think you are right that he has referred to needing to provide the signed s106 agreement with his recommendation. However, once he has closed the examination he will not be in a position to receive any further material. This is why he has clarified later on in the hearing that he must have the final, signed s106 agreement by the 9th August. The very latest by when he must close the examination is the 14 September (see examination timetable).

Carmarthenshire County Council - Richard Jones

Thank you for your correspondence dated the first instant, which refers to a revised timetable for the Brechfa Forest West examination.

Given your comments in your last letter, I was surprised to learn of your change of plan for site inspections. Your recent letter refers to "safety" issues at "some" of the sites. This I acknowledge could be the case at some venues, but not all. It seems unreasonable and unfair not to conduct any accompanied visits on this premise.

Your repetition of the warning that visits provide no opportunity to question the merits of the application suggests to me that you would expect this challenge, and therefore it is being used as a reason not to visit private addresses.

I am sure your decision will be questioned by those minded to seek Judicial Review, but in any case I wish to formally extend an invitation to you to visit my home. You can contact me on the day of your visits, and I will guarantee complete anonymity and confidentiality. I am qualifies to make formal risk assessments should you need to have one. I can guarantee absolute cordiality as I am sure all other local interested parties could.

On another matter, could you confirm if an assessor with relevant technical knowledge will be appointed to advise you at the hearing on noise?This is given the complexity and array of evidence, which is likely to be brought by interested parties and their expert advisers.
As you may be aware from the email I sent your wife yesterday, I can assure you that site inspections are being undertaken as part of the examination of this application. You may also be aware that Mr Macey made reference to some areas he has visited in his introductory remarks at the hearings on noise and on transport and local access. He also explained in response to an invitation in the hearing on noise that he cannot undertake confidential visits to individual properties. The recordings of these hearings are available on the Brechfa project page of the infrastructure planning portal in the hearings section.

Rule 16 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 requires that where an Examining Authority decides to make a site visit with an Interested Party present all Interested Parties need to be notified of this visit.

I'm afraid that I cannot say any more at this time. It is the responsibility of Mr Macey as the Examining Inspector to determine how he conducts the examination.

I can confirm that an assessor with relevant technical knowledge was not present at the Issue Specific Hearing 20 June 2012 and that an assessor with this knowledge has not been appointed as part of the examination of the Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm application. The Planning Inspectorate does, however, have an Environmental Services Team who support all Examining Authorities (including Mr Macey) on environmental issues.

The email to Mrs Dugdale can be viewed at: [attachment 1];ipcadvice=747fcfe447

Bryan Dugdale

( Email dated 4 July 2012)

Dear Sirs,

I am writing in respect of a letter which I sent to you for the attention of Mr Macey on the 6th June. This was regarding the site visits as part of the examination on the Brechfa West proposal.

I was wondering if you would be able to; a) let me know if this letter was received, and b) if it was received, when I might receive a reply?

I note from your website this morning that a letter from Jonathan Edwards MP on a similar matter has received a reply. The response he has received does not appear to answer his concerns, and likewise it does not address the questions I raised in my letter. The response appears to focus on the issue of the site visits being accompanied or unaccompanied. This does not address the concern that he, or I, have raised regarding a refusal to conduct either unaccompanied or accompanied visits to private residences.

I therefore look forward to receiving a reply to my questions, clarifying the issues directly.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs Claire Dugdale

( Email dated 6 July 2012)

Dear Ms Wilding,

Thank you for your reply.

I am glad that Mr Macey still has the opportunity to apply flexibility to his examination.

I have listened to the recordings, and I was present at both of the hearings mentioned. Whilst he did state he had a reasonable familiarity with the area, and he mentioned he had walked a local footpath, he was not specific as to where and when these visits took place. Given that under Rule 16 of the procedures he is obliged to make interested parties aware of where and when visits are planned, I assume this same rule can be applied to the visits to public locations that have already taken place. I would be grateful if you could send me, and interested parties, a copy of this information, detailing the locations, routes and times.

In closing, I would look forward to receiving this before next week's hearings. As in the current timetable, there is no opportunity for a specific hearing- either issue specific or site visit- on landscape and visual impact, the open floor hearings on Wednesday are the last opportunity for this issue to be discussed. It would therefore save time if this information was available in advance.

Kind regards,

Mrs Claire Dugdale
Dear Ms Dugdale,

Thank you for your emails of 6 June and 4 July 2012. I apologise for the delay in responding and can confirm that we have received these.

The main reason for not responding any earlier was that I had hoped to be able to give you a more specific answer to the queries you had raised. I can assure you that Mr Macey has not yet made a final decision as to whether or not to visit any private properties. Should he decide that a visit of certain private properties is necessary then the consent of the owners of these properties will be sought and all Interested Parties made aware of his plans as required by rule 16 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010.

With regards to letting Interested Parties know where he has visited on his unaccompanied site visits, I do know that Mr Macey made reference to some areas he has visited in his introductory remarks at the hearings on noise and on transport and local access. He also explained in response to an invitation in the hearing on noise that it would not be appropriate for him to undertake confidential visits to individual properties. The recordings of these hearings are available on the Brechfa project page of the infrastructure planning portal in the hearings section.

I'm afraid that I cannot say any more at this time. It is the responsibility of Mr Macey as the Examining Inspector to determine how he conducts the examination and how he will report on it. His report will, of course, be published when the Secretary of State announces his decision on the application, and it will be for Mr Macey to explain his conclusions and how he has reached them.

yours sincerely

Simone Wilding

Claire Dugdale

(Email dated 6 June 2012)

Dear Mr Macey,

I write with regards your recent letter (1st June), where you inform interested parties of a change to the examination timetable.

I would like to express my disappointment and dismay to read that you will no longer be undertaking an accompanied site visit as part of your examination. I am slightly shocked by your decision, given that you have expressed your intention to do so at a number of points thus far in the examination process, and also that you invited interested parties to submit suggestions of where they thought would be useful for you to consider making a visit to.

In your previous letter of the 28th May, you state that you had considered the possibility of an issue specific hearing in relation to visual impact and landscape being held, but that you had decided that the written evidence that had been submitted to you by this point would be better supplemented by a site visit.

It would seem that you have changed your stance on this issue in a period of 3 days. Given that no further written responses should have been received in this time period, I am left at odds to wonder what caused you to change your approach to this particular element of the examination.

Your letter of the 1st June seems to suggest that you had concerns over safety. Whilst I can appreciate that certain parts of the site may have presented safety issues should a large number of people be present at them, this should not be an issue at any site which is publicly accessible, and would have not been an issue at private addresses if people had been given a timed itinerary of the day. I presume that you have completed risk assessments of all of the sites you considered, including the ones you now state you will visit unaccompanied? Given that I am qualified to make risk assessments, I would be interested to see these.

Secondly, your letter states there is no need to have accompanied site visits, as the sites you propose to visit are publicly accessible, or relatively adjacent to publicly accessible land. This can only lead me to assume that you will not be making any visit to private property- be it land or residential- as part of your examination. If this is indeed the case, then I am very concerned about the credibility of your examination. Given the quantity of evidence that has been submitted through the written representations- both from those in support and those objecting to the proposal- I find it hard to see how you are going to make a balanced, impartial and informed analysis of any evidence related to residential visual impact (and indeed noise impact) without visiting residential properties. I would be interested to know how you propose to assess the information that has been presented to you in written form- as from a balanced perspective- one could say that it sits in favour of those objecting to the proposal.

Given the case law presented to you as part of the written representations (such as Gorsedd Bran), and the recent decision made in the High Court regarding Slipe Drove in Hemsby, and also the recent report which has been produced for the Senedd Plenary Committee regarding noise and wind turbines, I would of thought that you would have considered that there was no substitute for specific site visits.

There appears to be no context for your reminder regarding the purpose of an accompanied site visit, given that there is now no longer one occurring. I can only presume that this was a factor in your decision to not invite interested parties to accompany you, or to visit private addresses. Given the impeccable behaviour of those who attended the preliminary hearing, and the tone of the written submissions, this appears to be somewhat insulting to interested parties, in that there is almost an assumption that the site visits would have been used as an opportunity for unsolicited lobbying of yourself.

Whilst I may have to accept that you will maintain your position on this matter, even though it may be something that I may wish to challenge at a later date, I do not see any reason why you cannot inform interested parties of the sites that you intend to visit. I would not expect you to release the timings of your visit/s, but I think that as this is a public enquiry, that your considerations should be published so that people can make their own judgements about the probity of your examination. As part of this, it might also be useful to include those sites which were visited as part of the unaccompanied site visit/s made by yourself in the week of the preliminary hearing.

I believe you have received correspondence from my husband regarding an invitation to visit our home, and I would like to reiterate his sentiments here.

I look forward to your reply, and for your responses in relation to the questions and concerns I have raised above.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Claire Dugdale



(Email dated 4 July 2012)

Dear Sirs,

I am writing in respect of a letter which I sent to you for the attention of Mr Macey on the 6th June. This was regarding the site visits as part of the examination on the Brechfa West proposal.

I was wondering if you would be able to; a) let me know if this letter was received, and b) if it was received, when I might receive a reply?

I note from your website this morning that a letter from Jonathan Edwards MP on a similar matter has received a reply. The response he has received does not appear to answer his concerns, and likewise it does not address the questions I raised in my letter. The response appears to focus on the issue of the site visits being accompanied or unaccompanied. This does not address the concern that he, or I, have raised regarding a refusal to conduct either unaccompanied or accompanied visits to private residences.

I therefore look forward to receiving a reply to my questions, clarifying the issues directly.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs Claire Dugdale
Dear Ms Dugdale,

Thank you for your emails of 6 June and 4 July 2012. I apologise for the delay in responding and can confirm that we have received these.

The main reason for not responding any earlier was that I had hoped to be able to give you a more specific answer to the queries you had raised. I can assure you that Mr Macey has not yet made a final decision as to whether or not to visit any private properties. Should he decide that a visit of certain private properties is necessary then the consent of the owners of these properties will be sought and all Interested Parties made aware of his plans as required by rule 16 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010.

With regards to letting Interested Parties know where he has visited on his unaccompanied site visits, I do know that Mr Macey made reference to some areas he has visited in his introductory remarks at the hearings on noise and on transport and local access. He also explained in response to an invitation in the hearing on noise that it would not be appropriate for him to undertake confidential visits to individual properties. The recordings of these hearings are available on the Brechfa project page of the infrastructure planning portal in the hearings section.

I'm afraid that I cannot say any more at this time. It is the responsibility of Mr Macey as the Examining Inspector to determine how he conducts the examination and how he will report on it. His report will, of course, be published when the Secretary of State announces his decision on the application, and it will be for Mr Macey to explain his conclusions and how he has reached them.

yours sincerely

Simone Wilding

Claire Dugdale

CCC asked
- whether they could bring a noise expert along to the hearing on noise;
- whether there would be cross-examination of witnesses;
- by when they needed to submit additional evidence in relation to the section 106 agreement.
PINS advised that the Examination Procedure Rules 2010 (rule 14(9)) allow Interested Parties to ask any other person to represent them at the hearing. It is therefore for CCC to decide who they want to be represented by at the hearing including whether or not to bring an expert on noise along.

The Examination Procedure Rules 2010 (rule 14(1) and (5)) provides that the Examining authority shall preside at any hearing and shall determine the procedure at the hearing hearings. Without prejudice to the Examining Authority's discretion as to the conduct of the hearing, these are usually held in an inquisitorial manner. In other words the Examining Authority asks the questions he considers necessary to ask in order to adequately examine all the issues he has identified. As indicated in Mr Macey's letter of 28 May, he intends to allow those at the hearings to comment on responses of other parties where in his view this is likely to add value. He may have to revise this approach if it appears not to be helping the conduct of the examination. As part of this he may also consider allowing cross examination if he thinks this necessary for the adequate testing of any representation; or to ensure that an interested party has a fair chance to put their case.

Concerning the additional evidence in relation to the section 106 agreement requested by the ExA at the transport & local access hearing it would be best if this could be submitted together with the summaries of cases presented at the hearings. However, should CCC find it impossible to achieve this, the it would be helpful if the requested evidence could be submitted by Friday COP or Monday lunchtime at the very latest. This would enable PINS to publish it on the web-site and send out to the public display locations together with the other material received for the 28 June deadline.

Carmarthenshire County Council - Richard Jones

See MP's letter of 7 June 2012 attached
See Letter from NID dated 27 June 2012 attached

Jonathan Edwards

Who can speak at hearings? What can be raised at hearings?
Can anyone and/or an Interested Party make a written sbmission after the deadline set for these in the examination timetable having passed?
To keep you in the picture, James Smith called me yesterday afternoon and I explained the situation to him as follows:

He himself is not registered as an Interested Party, which means that he can only speak at the hearings or make written submissions on his own behalf if the Examining Authority, Mr Macey, allows him to do so.

If you, as the registered representative of the Brechfa Forest Energy Action Group, (as the registered Interested Party) allow him to speak on behalf of the group, then he has the right to speak at the hearings. However, at Issue-specific hearings (ie the hearings that have just taken place) the agenda is set by the Examining Authority. In other words it is at the Examining Authority's discretion whether or not to allow the introduction of new issues that he hasn't already set out in his agenda.

At Open-floor hearings on the other hand, Interested Parties have the right to raise any issue they consider relevant to the examination of the application - subject to the Examining Authority's control of the hearing. For the Brechfa Forest West application the Open floor hearings are scheduled for the 11 July 2012 - see the web-site for the details: [attachment 1].

The paragraph from the CLG guidance on the examination of projects particularly relevant here is paragraph 102:
Rule 14 of the Procedure Rules requires that oral submissions must be based on an interested parties? relevant or written representation. This is to ensure that the hearing can focus primarily on the matters for which it has been arranged, as set out in paragraph 100. However, subject to the Examining authority?s discretion as to the conduct of the hearing, rule 14 does not prevent someone from referring to matters not included in their written representation where it is relevant to the issues under consideration at the hearing, or to the examination more generally.

As the deadlines for the submission of written representations and responses to questions set in the timetable in relation to this application are now passed, it would be at the discretion of the Examining Authority to decide whether or not to accept any written submissions which are not a summary of the case put at the hearing at this point in time. This would be the case whether anything is submitted by someone not registered as an Interested Party, by an Interested Party, or on behalf of an Interested Party. However while the examination is still on-going, the Examining Authority could, if they felt it necessary, ask further written questions and introduce further deadlines for written submissions which would then make it possible for Interested Parties to make written representations. You can find the current examination timetable appended to the letter issued on 18 June 2012 and displayed on our web-site: [attachment 2]

I can acknowledge that we have received the document that you sent us this morning and will let you know shortly whether or not the Examining Authority is accepting it to take into consideration as part of the examination.

I would be grateful if you could also forward this email to James Smith as I don't have his email address to hand. He might find it useful to see the advice set out in writing and some of it expanded on with references to the relevant paragraphs in the guidance.

Caroline Evans

Can an interested party also reply to rule 17 questions directed to another interested party?
Interested parties may respond at their discretion to any of the listed questions should they wish to do so. The deadline for responses to the additional rule 17 questions is Tuesday 19 June 2012. If responses are not received by the 19 June 2012 the Examining Authority may disregard them.
The deadline for the written summaries of any case put at any of the hearings on 30 and 31 May 2012 and the applicant's final draft DCO is the 13 June 2012.

MMO - Alan Gibson

What are the opportunities for further written comments on this application ? If relevant new information emerges after the relevant deadline in the examination timetable, is there a mechanism for this still to be considered during the examination?
The deadline for comments on written representations passed on the 25 May 2012. Further opportunities for submitting representations to the Examining Authority (ExA) are set out in the examination timetable, a revision of which was issued on 1 June 2012. This includes several issue specific and open floor hearings and corresponding deadlines for the submission of summaries of interested parties' case put at one or more of these hearings. It is also possible for an interested party to submit a written representation to a relevant hearing if it is unable to attend that hearing.
The final opportunity for written comments in the examination timetable as it stands are the comments on the Examining Authority's draft DCO which is due to be issued on 26 July 2012.

If any new information is submitted after the relevant deadline has passed it is at the discretion of the Examining Authority whether or not to accept it.

Once the deadline for responding to the last step has passed (ie 9 August) the Examining Authority will consider whether he has all information necessary. If not he can issue a revised timetable asking further questions or requesting further information to be submitted. If he has all information he can close the examination. Once the examination is closed no further information can be submitted by Interested Parties. The latest date by which the Brechfa Forest West examination must close is the 14th September.

DIO at MOD - Jon Wilson

Mr Griffiths requested to attend Issue Specific and Open-Floor Hearings in respect of the Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm. A request was also made to present evidence in the form of a PowerPoint presentation.
Dear Mr Griffiths,

Please take this email as confirmation of your attendance at the Ecology Issue Specific Hearing being held on 21 June; and the Open-Floor Hearing on 11 July. I have noted the items you wish to speak on.

I can also confirm your attendance at the Noise Issues Specific Hearing being held on 20 June and the item you wish to speak on. I also note that you wish to speak on behalf of an organisation of which you are not registered as a designated speaker for. Although we are able to accommodate for other speakers on behalf of organisations, it will benefit proceedings at the hearings if the registered person (Joanne Jessop) can confirm that you will be speaking solely on behalf of the organisation (the Interested Party) on the aforementioned issues. Please ensure this is received by the Inspectorate as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, we will be unable to accommodate for any presentations during any of the hearings - this is at the request of the Examining authority. Reference is given to how hearings will be conducted within the recently published Rule 17 letter of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010. I have included a relevant extract for your convenience:

'It may also assist if I give some advance indication of how I propose to conduct the hearings. If you have asked to speak you will be expected to summarise very briefly the key points you wish to make, with the expectation that these be based on your earlier representations. The method of examination will be inquisitorial in nature. Therefore if you speak at a hearing, particularly an issue specific hearing, you should expect to be questioned on what you say. I propose to allow those at the hearings to comment on responses of other parties where in my view this is likely to add value.

I may have to revise this approach if it appears not to be helping the conduct of the examination. At the open-floor hearings I also propose to set a time limit for each individual who wishes to speak to ensure that all who wish to speak have a chance to do so. Your oral representation should focus on issues in your earlier written representations and not repeat points made by others. Furthermore, you can rely on my having read your relevant and written representations and therefore do not need to repeat what you have already submitted in writing. Please see Advice Note 8.5 ?Participating in the Examination? on the national infrastructure web-site for further information on how hearings are conducted.'

Below are a few links which I'm sure will aid you in getting to the Waunifor Centre (Cedar Hall), Maesycrugiau, Nr Pencader, SA39 9LX:

[attachment 1]

[attachment 2];hl=en-GB#101742357928379306160/about

Emyr Griffiths

Please can you advise the status of the original registration statements for this application.

It has come to our notice that several individuals who registered their objections to this application and gave their reasons in the 500 word limit allowed and now listed under "Relevant Representations" on the website, did not go on and submit any "Written Representations" as they thought their original comments were sufficient. Our query comes as someone has said that if they had not gone on to a "Written Submission" then their original registration and reasons are not then paid any regard to by the Inspector, during the Examination as they could be deemed as having changed their minds.

We would be grateful if you could clarify this point - confusion may be through the different processes used in planning applications going through a local authority.
If someone has submitted a relevant representation on a particular application they become an interested party for that application. This brings with it certain rights during the examination of that application including for example to submit written representations, speak at an open-floor hearing, receive notifications about procedural decisions etc.

If an interested party doesn't use one or more of these rights that doesn't affect their entitlements as an interested party. Also the Examining Authority will still take their relevant representation into consideration whether or not they submit further representations during the examination or not.

Caroline Evans

I believe that as Interested Parties my husband and I are permitted to attend the hearings and site visit that have been planned to take place during June, without registering - having only to register if we should like to speak at any of them, is that correct? It is our intention to attend them all - calving permitting - however, it is unlikely that we should wish to speak because there are far more knowledgeable people attending than we, and we have told Mr. Macey of our concerns in our representations. Nevertheless, it did ocurr to me that it is possible that something may be discussed in the hearing that we should like to comment on; if that does happen would it be permissible for us to send an e-mail the following day?
As Interested Parties you are able to attend the site visit and all Open Floor and Issue Specific Hearings. If you wish to attend any Hearing, it would be helpful if you could inform the Brechfa Forest West case team of your intention to attend even if you do not wish to speak. This aids organisation of the venue and provides an estimated number of attendees. Early next week we will therefore be writing again to all Interested Parties confirming the details of all hearings to be held and requesting Interested Parties to indicate whether they wish to attend any hearings (and if so which) and if they wish to speak at any hearing to let us know what they will want to speak about.

If your situation changes and you are unable to attend this will not affect your rights as an Interested Party.

Please see the attached Advice Note 8.5 for further information regarding Participating in the Examination

[attachment 1]

With regards to your question on whether you may make written comments on issues discussed at a hearing after that hearing has taken place, I would refer you to the timetable set out in the Rule 8 letter and revised on 10 May 2012: [attachment 2];%20rule%2017.doc.pdf. It includes deadlines for the submission of the written summaries of any case put at any hearings to the Examining Authority as follows:

Issue Specific Hearings: 28 June 2012; and
Open Floor Hearings: 19 July 2012.

The written summaries will then be published on our web-site as soon as practicable after receipt of the summaries on the Brechfa Forest West project page for all Interested Parties to see. In the light of all documents in front of the Examining Authority by then (ie all up to this point in time duly submitted documents in relation to the examination of this application) the Examining Authority will then issue a final draft Development Consent Order by 26 July. Interested Parties can then comment on this final draft DCO until the 9 August 2012.

It is at the discretion of the Examining Authority to decide whether or not take into consideration any submissions received outside the timescales set in the examination timetable.

Kay Hamza

At the public meeting in Carmarthenshire, the inspector considering the application by Npower to build a windfarm in the western side of Brechfa Forest mentioned the opportunity for applications for costs.

Can you please confirm if the process / grounds for application and the application form is the same as that published on the inspectorate website for planning appeals where an application has behaved in an unreasonable manner. If not, can you please supply a copy of the information on the grounds for application and a copy of the application form.
Dear Ms Gardiner,

thank you for your email dated 22 May 2012 - I have the following information for you which I trust will be of use:

Information on the process and grounds upon which to make an application for costs can be found on the National Infrastructure Directorate - The Planning Inspectorate's website at the following address:
[attachment 1]

I would also recommend reference to the 'Awards of costs policy' which provides for, in detail, how an application for an award of costs will be treated and examples of unreasonable behaviour. It also gives examples of good practice which will help avoid the risk of other parties obtaining an award - the policy can be found on the same page.

I note your reference to the Planning Inspectorate's costs application form for planning appeals. I would recommend that if you do intend on submitting a claim for costs to the National Infrastructure Directorate - The Planning Inspectorate that you do so on the same form, but make it clear that the application is in relation to a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project and amend where applicable.
if you have any further queries on the above, please feel free to contact us.

Gillie Gardiner

Mr Reed inquired whether the Carmarthenshire Tourist Assocation (CTA) could make representations at the Open floor hearing for the Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm and how they should go about this.
As the Carmarthenshire Tourist Association (CTA) is registered as an Interested Party for the Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm application the CTA is entitled to speak at an Open floor hearing of which there are likely to be two: one at Brechfa Village Hall in the morning of the 11 July and one near Pencader in the afternoon of the 11 July 2012. A letter to confirm the issues on which hearings are being held as well as date, time and place of all hearings, including the open-floor hearings will be issued on Monday 28 May to all interested parties including the CTA.
If they wish to speak at any of the hearings they are requested to send us a summary of what they're proposing to raise in advance of the hearing by the deadline which will be communicated in the letter of 28 May 2012. The deadline is likely to be set for the 8 June 2012.

Carmarthenshire Tourist Associat - George Reed

Ms Maddock-Jones explained that CCW had nothing further to add on the ExA's Rule 17 question 3 (QA3 in letter of 10 May) and whether the ExA could withdraw this question.

Ms Maddock-Jones further enquired about whether their attendance at the hearings is required as she is unable to attend on the 21 June.
The Examining Authority has reviewed CCW's response to the ExA's written question by the set deadline of 25 April and felt it necessary to ask the additional question. There is no mechanism for him to withdraw the question asked without writing to all Interested Parties again and therefore it is very unlikely that he would agree to such a course of action. If CCW feel they have nothing further to add they can say this in their response and/or simply refer to where in their initial response they have already answered the additional questions.

It is for CCW to judge whether or not they consider CCW needs to be represented at the hearing, to be able to respond to any of the matters raised by other Interested Parties; and who in their organisation would be best placed to do that.

Countryside Council for Wales - Karin Maddock-Jones

The caller sought an explanation of the ExA's letter sent on 10 May 2012 and whether there are any specific steps she has to take in response to it.
The Planning Inspectorate explained that the letter contains the revised examination timetable which the Examining Authority has issued to all interested parties including further details of likely hearings and requests for further information. The revised timetable re-affirms the deadline for all interested parties to send in any comments on anything that has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the 25 April in relation to the Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm application and published on the project's page on the national infrastructure portal.

She may also wish to answer any of the Examining Authority's additional questions also included in the letter at Annex B - even if they are in the first instance directed at another interested party.

Interested Parties who wish to speak at either an open-floor or issue-specific hearing should notify the Examining Authority by the 25 May of their wish to do so.

J Hare

CCW are having difficulty with the applicant's proposed SOCG and are finding it difficult to agree the SOCC by the deadline stated in the R8 letter (25 April). Can the deadline be extended, what will happen if CCW misses the deadline?
If a document is received after the stated deadline in the examination timetable indicated in the R8 letter it is at the ExA's discretion to decide whether or not to consider the document. CCW will therefore wish to consider whether they can put forward their position in relation to the emerging draft statement of common ground by the stated deadline.
The next deadline in the examination timetable (25 May 2012) is for all interested parties to submit their comments on the representations received to date on the application - including any statement of common ground - or emerging statement of common ground submitted by the 25 April. While the timetable does not include any express requirement for the submission of a statement of common ground for the 25 May deadline, there is nothing to stop the applicant and other interested parties to continue working on agreeing (a) statement(s) of common ground in areas where this has not yet been possible to date.

CCW - Sarah Wood

Whether or not to include published policy documents (as eg National Policy Statements) to which they refer in their written representations akin to providing a core documents list for public enquiry under the TCPA regime and whether there is any published guidance on this matter.
This would be a judgement for the applicant to make as there is no formal guidance on this. Everything that is submitted to us in representations we will need to reproduce and send a copy to the public display locations. She may wish to consider whether it would be sufficient to simply provide the web-site address where documents they refer to can be viewed.

Eversheds - Lucie Jackson

See attachment of email correspondence

Francis Jones

With regards an inconsistency between the Rule 8 letter and Annex A. The letter states that 21st- 23rd June are the reserved dates for issue specific hearings, whilst Annex A states that its 19th-21st June.

These dates are subject to confirmation at a later date (or may not be used at all) but can it be confirmed which of the two is intended to be the reserved dates?
The dates in the Annex of the Rule 8 letter (ie 19-21June) are the correct ones that we want people to reserve. A letter about this will be sent to all Interested Parties, by 11 May 2012 (the deadline set in the Annex of the Rule 8 letter).

Unless the Examining Authority otherwise directs, the applicant must also publicise the hearings in accordance with Rule 13 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 and this notice would be published on the Planning Inspectorate's website.

RWE - Bethan Thomas

Telephone enquiry requesting advice on Statements of Common Ground.
Apologies for the delay in getting back to you with further advice on Statements of Common Ground following on from our telephone conversation on 23 February 2012. The term ?statement of common ground? is defined in secondary legislation, known as the 'Examination Rules', which at para 2 defines it as "a written statement prepared jointly by the applicant
and any interested party, which contains agreed factual information about the application": [attachment 1]

Guidance on Statements of Common Ground is provided within the CLG Guidance on examinations at para 63 onwards: [attachment 2]

An example of a SOCG from the examination of the Rookery South Energy from Waste facility is available here: [attachment 3]. As discussed, there is no set format for a SOCG so this should be seen as just one way of presenting such a document.

Carmarthenshire County Council - Richard Jones

Enquirer asks if it will be possible for the IPC to release copies of the relevant representations to RWE npower renewables in order that they can start to prepare for the preliminary meeting and subsequent examination?
Reply says we have looked into the request for sending copies of the relevant responses received ahead of the extended deadline for the HPA expiring on the 13 February 2012, but unfortunately we will not be able to send the representations ahead of the general publication date. An early sight of the representations would provide an unfair advantage over other parties, and would also create a considerable administrative demand on our resources, particularly on cases where there is a significant amount of relevant representations (in the past this total has exceeded ten thousand).
In accordance with Rule 21(1) 'Availability and Inspection of Representations and Documents' of The Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010, copies will be made available for inspection and will be published on our website, after the period for the submission of such representations has passed, as digital text (transcribed where submitted in hardcopy). We expect to publish the relevant representations for the Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm application on 14 February 2012.

Bethan Thomas

Where can an explanation in layman's terms of 'relevant representation' be found and where in the Act is it defined ?
The glossary on the IPC's web-site provides a plain English explanation (see
[attachment 1])


The 2008 Planning Act (PA 2008) states at s102 (4): "A representation is a relevant representation for the purposes of subsection (1) to the extent that?

(a)it is a representation about the application,
(b)it is made to the Commission in the prescribed form and manner,
(c)it is received by the Commission no later than the deadline that applies under section 56 to the person making it,
(d)it contains material of a prescribed description, and
(e)it does not contain?
(i)material about compensation for compulsory acquisition of land or of an interest in or right over land,
(ii)material about the merits of policy set out in a national policy statement, or
(iii)material that is vexatious or frivolous"

The Interested Parties Regulations, Reg 4 further defines a relevant representation.

S56 (4) PA 2008 states: The applicant must, when giving notice to a person under subsection (2), notify the person of the deadline for receipt by the Commission of representations giving notice of the person's interest in, or objection to, the application.

Richard E Jones

Whether or not the relevant representation period for the HPA needs to be extended as the HPA contacted RWE on 12 January stating that they appear not to have received any documents regarding this stage of the consultation.
It is for the developer to decide whether or not they can confidently certify under s58 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) that they have notified all prescribed bodies in carrying out their duties under s56(2)(a) PA 2008. RWE may therefore wish to seek legal advice on this matter.

RWE - Bethan Thomas

Thank you for arranging the drop in session at Pencader on Jan. 6th '12. The
location was much more convenient for the residents of Gwyddgrug and Alltwalis. We appreciated how
pleasant and helpful the staff were, and the procedure needed to register was explained adequately.


But on reflection I do feel apprehensive following that evening as no record was taken of the points and queries raised by residents ....... I appreciate that it would have been difficult to take a written record, but in this day and age of advanced technology we would have felt happier if our viewpoints and the responses had been recorded.


We would expect all I.P.C. representatives to have familiarized themselves with the area concerned -
and would have at least known that a development of ten turbines ( 110 mtrs. the biggest in Wales
so far) became operational in the area just 2 years ago, and that the site would share boundary lines with the proposed Brechfa forest west wind power station. The problems caused by the Alltwalis power station are still unresolved, which explains our great concern about the cumulative effect of such industrialisation of our beautiful countryside; particularly with two other developments having been applied for with Carmarthenshire County Council simultaneously.( 70 turbines altogether - including the existing ten!)


It is imperative that site visits and meetings with local people take place in the early stages of the examination period - desk top analysis would be inadequate in this instance. It is important that the existing Alltwalis wind power station and location of turbines should be included in all maps of the area. (They have not been included in RWE Npower newsletters or maps)
Thank you for your email and comments concerning the recent outreach event held at Pencader.

With regard to your concern that no record was taken of the points and queries raised by residents: As we had explained at the event, IPC staff are barred by law from engaging in discussions about the merits of an application. We therefore have emphasised repeatedly that people need to put anything that they would like the Examining Authority to take into consideration in the examination of this case into their representation. It is for the residents themselves to set out in their representations any impact they feel the proposal will have on themselves and the local area. The purpose of the outreach events is for the IPC to advise on how to make a relevant representation and to explain the 'IPC process'. Please be aware that the opportunity to make a relevant representation which registers an individual as an interested party closes on 18 January 2012. This also means that any hard copy representation form must be received by the IPC by the 18 January 2012.

Your second point which raises the cumulative effect of other potential and existing developments in the area also relates to the merits of the application and is a matter for the Examining Authority to assess as part of the examination process. Whether a site visit is required and the form it should take is for the Examining Authority to decide following the Preliminary Meeting. Interested Parties can make submissions on this and other matters relating to how the application is to be examined at the Preliminary Meeting.

These points are explained in greater detail in the IPC Advice Notes 8.1 - 8.5 which you may have picked up at the outreach event. These are also available from the IPC?s website (please see the link below) or I can send you a hard copy in the post if you would find that helpful.

[attachment 1]

Aneurin Davies

Registering as an interested party.
See attachment

Jonathan Edwards MP

Mr Williams called to ask if the deadline of 18 January 2012 for registration as an interested party to the Brechfa examination applied to Llanllewddog Community Council.
Llanllewddog is a host or neighbouring community council to the Brechfa proposal.

The IPC explained that prescribed consultees, including host and neighbouring community councils, are automatically afforded the status of an ?interested party? for the purposes of applications submitted to the IPC. These organisations do not need to register formally by submitting a relevant representation in order to make their views known during the examination. The IPC is, however, inviting prescribed consultees to send us a relevant representation in order to inform the examining authority?s initial assessment of issues ahead of the Preliminary Meeting, in accordance with section 88 of the Planning Act 2008.

Llanllewddog Community Council - Elfyn Williams

I met the Case Officer Owain George at the Drop In last Friday in Brechfa - he was helpful with info on Registration, but I didn't get his e-mail address tho I will try the obvious as an addressee.

Apparently someone local said that she had heard that Community Councils in the area of the development will be consulted by the IPC - do they therefore have to Register like the rest of us if they want to make a representation during the Examination.

I need to know rather urgently as our local Community Council meet tomorrow night and they need to know.
'The relevant community councils' are a statutory party as defined in The Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2010 (Interested Parties Regs) which makes them an interested party for the purposes of the Planning Act 2008 process. This means that a community council which is identified by the IPC as a 'relevant community council' for the purposes of a particular application will receive all the correspondence being sent to interested parties.

IPC Advice Note 3, which is available on our website ([attachment 1], explains how we identify parish/community councils: "The IPC will identify as relevant, the parish/community council in which the proposed NSIP and any associated development will be located (termed parish/community council ?B?) and the neighbouring parish/community councils which share a boundary which the ?B? parish/community council (termed parish/community council ?A?)."

The IPC is, however, also inviting prescribed consultees to send us a relevant representation in order to inform the examining authority?s initial assessment of issues ahead of the Preliminary Meeting, in accordance with s.88 of the Planning Act 2008.

Caroline Evans

So just to clarify,

The Community Council areas directly concerned are

B

Llanfihangel Rhos y Corn,
Llanfihangel ar Arth
Llanllawddog Community Council

A - sharing boundaries with the above.

Table1
Organisation
Llanfynydd Community Council
Llangadog Communty Council
Llanegwad Community Council

Llanllawddog Community Council
Llanllwni Community Council
Llanpumpsaint Community Council
Llansawel Community Council

Llanybydder Community Council
Manordeilo and Salem Community Council

So from what you say, these Community Councils do not have to Register like us the public? That they will automatically have the right to submit Representations during the Examination process.

Can you confirm that I have this absolutely right? If it isn't then I have some urgent phoning to do.
As you were hoping to get a swift response, I've tried to call you earlier and left a message on your answer machine.

We have not yet compiled our final list of statutory parties for this case and I can therefore not confirm whether or not the community councils set out by you below will be identified by the IPC as statutory parties on this case.

However, I've asked my colleague to compare these against our preliminary list of statutory parties for the Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm Application. As our preliminary list contains all the community councils listed by you below, except Llangadog Community Council and Manordeilo and Salem Community Council, it would appear likely that all those listed bar Llangadog Community Council, and Manordeilo and Salem Community Council will be identified as statutory parties for this case.

As we have not yet undertaken the final checks on this list, there may still be some change to this preliminary list in the process of finalising it and you should therefore not take this as a confirmation that all those listed bar Llangadog Community Council, and Manordeilo and Salem Community Council will be identified as statutory parties for this case.

Brechfa Forest Energy Action Grp - Caroline Evans

Mr Jones asked who makes the decision on whether a component of the proposal is associated development (i.e. subordinate to the NSIP) or if it forms part of the NSIP because it is integral to the development. Specific mention was made to the access tracks which leads to the body of the proposed wind farm.
As you are aware, s115(4) denotes that associated development in Wales is limited to surface works, boreholes or pipes associated with underground gas storage by a gas transporter in natural porous strata. At the pre-application stage, onus is on the developer to consider the legislation and guidance carefully before deciding if development is associated or integral to the NSIP.
It is worth studying the applicants Explanatory Memorandum (EM), a document forming part of the application made to the IPC, which describes their reasoning behind the inclusion of integral components which form the NSIP.

The enquirer asked if the Council could dispute the applicants reasoning?

Any concerns relating to the application can be raised when making a relevant representation. The Examining authority will assess the significance of the issues raised and establish if further exploration on matters should be discussed during the examination of the application. Ultimately, it is for the Examining authority to assess the application and information presented to them to decide whether development is associated development.

Carmarthenshire County Council - Richard Jones

Outreach events were held at Carmarthen and Brechfa 14 December 2011 and at Carmarthen, Brechfa and Pencader 06 January 2012
Please see the attached meeting note and PowerPoint presentation

Simone Wilding

How and until when can a relevant representation be made on this application and what happens afterwards?
The period to register with the IPC and make a representation on the Brechfa Forest West Wind
Farm application opened on 7 December 2011 and will close on 18 January 2012. Any individual or organisation who registers and makes a valid representation to the IPC will become an interested party for the purposes of this application. This will give you the opportunity to take part in the examination process. Interested parties also receive correspondence from the IPC at key stages in the process and notification of the decision. In order to register with the IPC you need to complete the ?registration and relevant representation? form, which can be found at the Brechfa Wind Farm page of the IPC?s website:
www.independent.gov.uk/infrastructure.

At this stage it would a summary of what you agree or disagree with on the application is sufficient and will be very helpful to the Examining authority for its initial assessment of issues which it needs to publish within 21 days of the close of the relevant representation period.

Dyfed Archeological Trust - Charles Hill

Do statutory parties need to register an interest in order to become interested parties?
No. Statutory parties, as defined in regulation 3 of the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2010, are interested parties for the purposes of the examination regardless of whether or not they submit a relevant representation. We nevertheless encourage such bodies to submit a relevant representation where appropriate as it will assist the Examining authority in making their initial assessment of the issues.

Forestry Commission Wales - Chris Botting

The enquirer indicated that community representatives had requested a meeting with the IPC to discuss the pre-application community consultation process and queried the process.
As discussed, the IPC has now accepted the application under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008. The acceptance letter, and the acceptance checklist which sets out the Commission's consideration of the legislative requirements at acceptance can be viewed on the Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm Project page on the IPC's web-site. The IPC is now organising outreach events, which are open to all members of the public and can either be attended individually or the community group as a whole. The purpose of these non-statutory events is to meet with local people in an informal atmosphere to explain the process and provide advice about registering as an interested party to make a representation about the application. However, we are unable to discuss the merits of the scheme at these events; the merits will be considered by the examining authority.

Jilina Gardiner

Please see attached documents

Rhodri Glyn Thomas

Please see attached documents

Jonathan Edwards

Q1) As I understand it we can register with the IPC before 18th January 2012 to make representation at examination stage. This however isn?t strictly necessary as we will be consulted as a relevant authority

Q2) From the 18th January the IPC has 3 weeks to appoint a commissioner to determine the application then has a minimum of 3 weeks to set a date for the Preliminary Meeting.

Q3)This takes us to the end of February 2012 so the meeting is likely to be held sometime between mid March and the end of March.

Q4) We will be invited to attend the Preliminary meeting and this will set out the precise timescale for the submission of our LIR.

Q5) The 6 month examination period commences the day after the Preliminary meeting?

Q6) As a minimum we will have 28 days from this date to submit a LIR, however this maybe extended following any request for the same at the Preliminary Meeting due to Committee date issues arising in part from the general timing of Committee dates and the purdah period.

Q7) The Council has its last planned Committee on the 1st March 2012 and you have helpfully suggested that a draft or skeleton LIR be presented at that time to members to assist with any timing issues. Members can also be verbally updated at this time regarding the date of the Preliminary Meeting and the draft timetable for the examination process.
Q1) Correct. Swansea City Council is an interested party in this application by virtue of sharing a boundary with Carmarthenshire County Council (where this application is located). While you therefore don't need to register during the relevant representation period to become an interested party, you may still wish to consider whether or not to submit a representation at this stage depending on whether or not there are aspects of the application that you agree or disagree with. If so, we would encourage you to send these to us during the relevant representation period (preferably using the on-line registration form), so that it can be taken into account by the Examining authority in undertaking the initial assessment of issues.

Q2) From the day after the 18th January the developer has 10 working days to certify to the IPC compliance with their duty under s56 of PA 2008. Once the IPC has received this certificate our chair, Sir Michael Pitt, can appoint the Examining authority (ExA) for the application (ie a single commissioner or panel of commissioners). The ExA has 21 days from the end of the relevant representation period (ie the 18th January in this case) to undertake its initial assessment of issues and to notify all interested parties of this. In the same letter we usually notify the interested parties of the date of the Preliminary Meeting. We have to give at least 21 days notice (from the day after the letter is received) of the Preliminary Meeting taking place.

Q3) According to my calculations the Preliminary Meeting could also be early March - if only the minimum notice of the Preliminary Meeting was given or the ExA did not require the full 21 days to undertake its initial assessment of issues and sent the letter slightly earlier than 21 days from the end of the relevant representation period. This letter will also contain the date for the Preliminary Meeting, a draft timetable for the examination which will also include a suggested date for the submission of the LIRs.

Q4) Yes - see also above.

Q5) No. The 6 month examination period commences on last day of the Preliminary meeting.

Q6) The ExA sets the timetable for the examination 'as soon as practicable' after the Preliminary Meeting. This includes the deadline for the submission of the LIRs. A draft timetable with the proposed deadline for the submission of the LIRs will also be included in the ExA's letter advising interested parties of its initial assessment of issues. The legislation does not specify a minimum amount of time that the ExA should allow for the submission of the LIR. However, CLG guidance for the examination of applications states at paragraph 61: "The Secretary of State considers that normally the local impact report should be received by the Examining authority within a six week period starting from the day following the end of the preliminary meeting (...)". In case you aren't already aware - CLG guidance for Local Authorities has a section on Local Impact Reports (section 10) and the IPC has published an advice note (Advice Note 1) on the production of LIRs which is available on our website: [attachment 1]

Q7) You will have received the ExA's initial assessment of issues, the date for the Preliminary Meeting and the draft timetable for the examination of the application by the 8 February. How you intend to handle the production of the LIR is up to your authority to decide. For further information please refer to CLG guidance for Local Authorities (section 10) and the above highlighted Advice Note.

Swansea City Council - Richard Jones

Advice regarding s56 Notification
It would be helpful to point out that when you give notice of the acceptance of the application, under section 56(2)(d) of the Planning Act 2008, to Category 3 persons (as defined in section 57(4)), you will need to ensure that you notify each Category 3 person, rather than each property.

RWE - Bethan Thomas

Ms Gardiner wrote on behalf of the Cambrian Mountain Initiative to raise its members concerns regarding the perceived ineffectiveness of the developer's pre-application community consultation associated with the application for developmet consent for the proposed Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm.
On 4 November 2011 the above application was received by the IPC which had 28 days to determine whether or not the application would be accepted for examination.
On 30 November 2011 the IPC made its decision that the provisions set out in s.55(3)(a) ? (e) of the Planning Act 2008 had been satisfied by the developer, and therefore accepted the application for examination.
When making this decision the IPC considered, amongst other matters, comments from the relevant local authorities regarding the adequacy of the pre-application consultation and publicity undertaken by the developer. The ?Section 55 Acceptance of Applications Checklist? for this application has been published to the IPC website and is available to view here: [attachment 1]
In light of the acceptance of the application for examination, the public will shortly be invited to register as an interested party in this application by completing the ?Registration and Relevant Representation form? and returning it to the IPC before the registration deadline. The period within which the public can register with the IPC and make a representation on the application opens on 7 December 2011 and closes on 18 January 2012. More detailed representations will then be invited from interested parties during the examination stage.

Cambrian Mountain Initiative - Jillina Gardiner

Please see attached letter which concerns queries about the relevant representations process
Thank you for your letter dated 23 November which was received by The Planning Inspectorate Customer Services team 25 November 2011. Your letter has been forwarded to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) as correspondence relating to a nationally significant infrastructure project.

The Localism Act 2011 abolishes the Infrastructure Planning Commission and transfers its functions to the Planning Inspectorate. A national infrastructure directorate will be formed within the Planning Inspectorate to examine applications for nationally significant infrastructure projects and make recommendations to the Secretary of State who will be the decision-maker. The abolition of the IPC and the creation of a National Infrastructure Directorate within The Planning Inspectorate will take place in April 2012 until that time all correspondence relating to nationally significant infrastructure projects will be handled by the IPC. We would like to reassure you that the expertise and processes of the IPC will be retained and that the IPC is working closely with the Planning Inspectorate to ensure a seamless transfer.
The IPC is unable to register your comments on this application until the appropriate time in the application process which I have explained below:

If the application for Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm is accepted for examination, the public will be notified by the applicant of the opportunity to submit a ? Registration and Relevant Representation? form to the IPC. This also needs to include a summary of what you agree and/or disagree with in the application. By completing the 'Registration and Relevant Representation form' and ensuring it is complete and received by the IPC before the deadline set by the developer you will be registered as an 'interested party'. More detailed representations can then be made during the examination stage in the form of a written representation and will provide you with an opportunity to request or to speak at a hearing.

Grwp Blaengwen - Janet Dube

RWE has applied to the IPC for wind turbines in the forest near here - Brechfa Forest West. We have attended RWE and IPC meetings and consultations locally. We commented on the draft Environmental Impact assessment earlier this year and received RWE's response to that shortly before they told us they had applied to the IPC. We didn't find RWE's consultation or response satisfactory.
We have been told that we can write to the IPC to comment on the consultation, but the information on the IPC website suggests otherwise,.... according to that, we are not invited to register an interest until after the application is accepted.
Will you please tell me, will the IPC receive comments on the RWE consultation, written by me on behalf of the group I represent here?
Thank you for your email dated 18 November 2011 setting out your views on the above proposal. Your comments have been noted.

The above application was received by the IPC on 04 November 2011 and is currently at the acceptance stage of the process. During this stage the IPC has 28 days to determine whether or not the application can be accepted for examination. The deadline for this acceptance decision is 2 December 2011.

When making this decision, the IPC will consider, amongst other matters, comments from the relevant local authorities regarding the adequacy of the pre-application consultation and publicity undertaken by the developer. The deadline for receipt of these comments was 17 November 2011.

If the application is accepted for examination, the public will be notified by the applicant of the opportunity to register and submit a ?Relevant Representation? to the IPC with a summary of their comments. More detailed representations can then be made during the examination stage.

For further information on how to get involved in the process, please visit the ?Legislation and advice? section of the IPC website, where you can view Advice note 8 which provides information on the process. The IPC website can be viewed at the following address: www.independent.gov.uk/infrastructure Please contact the IPC helpline on 0303 444 5000 if you wish to receive a hard copy of this Advice note or email: [email protected]

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us at the email provided.

Janet Dube

The query regarded how to register an objection to the Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm application
Application for a Development Consent Order for the proposed Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm, Carmarthenshire, Wales

Thank you for your email dated 17 November 2011 setting out your views on the above proposal. Your comments have been noted.

The above application was received by the IPC on 04 November 2011 and is currently at the acceptance stage of the process. During this stage the IPC has 28 days to determine whether or not the application can be accepted for examination. The deadline for this acceptance decision is 2 December 2011.

When making this decision, the IPC will consider, amongst other matters, comments from the relevant local authorities regarding the adequacy of the pre-application consultation and publicity undertaken by the developer.

If the application is accepted for examination, the public will be invited by the applicant to register their interest and submit a ?Relevant Representation? to the IPC with a summary of their comments. More detailed representations can then be made during the examination stage.

For further information on how to get involved in the process, please visit the ?Legislation and advice? section of the IPC website, where you can view Advice note 8 which provides information on the process. The IPC website can be viewed at the following address: www.independent.gov.uk/infrastructure Please contact the IPC helpline on 0303 444 5000 if you wish to receive a hard copy of this Advice note or email: [email protected]

Robert Jones

Should an adequacy of consultation representation include an assessment of the developer having regard to views expressed during the course of their consultation (under s49 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008))?
In general, it is for the relevant parties to determine the content of their adequacy of consultation representation. However, s55(5) of PA 2008 defines an adequacy of consultation representation as "a representation about whether the applicant complied [...] with the applicant?s duties under sections 42, 47 and 48". Thus, whilst any comments beyond this will be made available to the s55 Commissioner(s), they are not required by statute to have regard to them in deciding whether or not the relevant duty has been met.

The Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) guidance for Local Authorities (section 7) provides some guidance about what to include in adequacy of consultation representations. In particular, paragraph 51 states:

"It will be for the local authority concerned to decide what it wishes to include in any ?adequacy of consultation? representations, but it is our intention that this will not be used to focus on the merits of the application itself. The purpose of ?adequacy of consultation? representations is to assist the IPC in deciding whether or not to accept an application for further examination ? and it is at this later stage that issues about the merits of the application will be looked at."

Karen Maddock-Jones

Request to clarify what documentation relating to Planning Obligations would need to be submitted as part of any application
The Act amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 so that development consent obligations can be entered into in connection with an application for an order granting development consent (s174 of the Act). Development consent obligations do not form part of the draft Order but they are important because they will affect the overall impact of a proposed development on the local area.

Promoters should agree at least the heads of terms of any development consent obligation with the relevant local authority before an application is submitted. Ideally a fully drafted agreement (or unilateral undertaking) which has been consulted upon and referred to in the consultation report should be included with the application. It is important that the local authority is able to take into account any development consent obligations in its local impact report and therefore the earlier the obligations can be produced and agreed the more robust the local impact report is likely to be.

Carmarthenshire County Council - Richard Jones

What to include in an adequacy of consultation response.
Following on from our telephone conversation this morning, I've had another look into what guidance there is on submitting adequacy of consultation responses. Please note that the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) guidance for Local Authorities contains guidance about this in section 7. In particular, paragraph 51 states:

"It will be for the local authority concerned to decide what it wishes to include in any ?adequacy of consultation? representations, but it is our intention that this will not be used to focus on the merits of the application itself. The purpose of ?adequacy of consultation? representations is to assist the IPC in deciding whether or not to accept an application for further examination ? and it is at this later stage that issues about the merits of the application will be looked at."

Camarthenshire County Council - Richard Jones

Letter to inform relevant local authorities of imminent submission of the Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm application to the IPC, and to inform them that the IPC will be writing to the relevant local authorities once the application has been received with an invitation to make an 'adequacy of consultation representation'.
Please see the attached letter sent to the following local authorities-

Carmarthenshire County Council
Ceredigion County Council
Pembrokeshire County Council
City and County of Swansea
Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
Powys County Council

Local Authorities - As Listed

comments on the draft Development Consent Order (DCO)
Please see attached letter on draft DCO and attached Meeting Note

S Collings

Many thanks for these details and clarification on the acceptance stage. As promised some of my thoughts and interpretations on how I see CCCs role at the application acceptance stage. I welcome further clarification.

A large proportion of CCC's S.42 response relates to the lack of information submitted by the applicant that would allow us to make an adequate assessment of the scheme. Take site access for example, we did not have any technical drawings relating to the bellmouth access into the site, visibility splays, road widening areas etc with the Draft ES. The omission of these would then make examination difficult. In the event that the formal submission does not include these details then I would argue that this is a valid point for the examiners to take into account. So do I take it we can flag up areas where there is a lack of information which would then prejudice the examiners in their decision making process?

Also another recurring theme in the Draft Environmental Statement relating to Brechfa West was a lack of investigation of alternatives especially relating to site access and grid connection. The assessment of alternatives is fundamental to the EIA Directive. On this basis do we bring these matters to the IPC's attention at the acceptance stage i.e. failure to follow process / legislation?

Does the advice you've quoted below from CLG guidance also relate to consultees such as CCW?

My interpretation of the advice from CLG is that we assess everything other than merits of the scheme and identify areas which are lacking , have been omitted or fail to follow process / legislation to the attention of the examiners. I envisage that much of our assessment will be cross referencing our Section 42 response with the revised ES submitted by RWE Npower.

On this basis I am conscious that a link to the Environmental Statement on your website would not be practical. Hard copies of the ES would allow for more efficient cross examination of issues given the limited timescale that will be available. I envisage that CCW would have the same concerns. Is this something the IPC can insist upon or is it up to Npower? If it is the latter I very much doubt Npower will be forthcoming in providing us with copies. Please could you clarify how the information will be presented at the assessment stage?
As I explained on the phone last week, the IPC when deciding whether or not it may accept an application, it must amongst other matters, have regard to any representations received from any local authority (LA) consultee about the adequacy of the consultation and publicity undertaken by the developer at the pre-application stage (s55(4)(b) 2008 Planning Act (PA 2008)). The IPC therefore only invites LA consultees (including the local authority within whose area a scheme is located and the neighbouring local authorities) to submit an ?adequacy of consultation representation?.

The IPC invites LAs to let the commission know whether the authority considers that the developer has complied, in relation to the application, with the following duties:
- Duty to consult (section 42 of PA 2008)
- Duty to consult the local community (section 47 of PA 2008)
- Duty to publicise (section 48 of PA 2008)
In requesting the 'adequacy of consultation representation' we provide LAs only with a link to the applicant's consultation report. The Environmental Statement (ES) which a developer submits with an application, is not made available to the LAs at this stage - neither in hard copy nor electronically.

As stated in the CLG guidance for local authorities and highlighted in my previous email, it is for the LA concerned to decide what it wishes to include in any
?adequacy of consultation? representations. We would, however, expect the focus to be on whether the developer has complied with chapter 2 of part 5 of PA 2008, not the merits of the application. In drafting the adequacy of consultation response your authority will therefore need to consider whether the issues you're referring to in its view mean that the developer has or has not fulfilled its duty under chapter 2 of part 5 of PA 2008. You may also wish to note that there is no requirement on the developer in the legislation to publish the draft ES at pre-application .

If and when an application is accepted for examination all application documents (including the ES) are published on the IPC web-site at the same time as the developer notifies all prescribed persons and publishes the notification of the accepted application. The notice must also specify a deadline (at least 28 days from the day after the notification is received) by when relevant representation must be made to the IPC. During the specified time the LA can raise any issues with regards to the merits of the application and/or any of the application documents - including the ES.

I hope this answers your questions.

Carmarthenshire County Council - Richard Jones

Request for guidance on the adequacy of consultation responses.
The Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) guidance for Local Authorities contains guidance on adequacy of consultation responses (section 7). In particular, paragraph 51 states:

"It will be for the local authority concerned to decide what it wishes to include in any ?adequacy of consultation? representations, but it is our intention that this will not be used to focus on the merits of the application itself. The purpose of ?adequacy of consultation? representations is to assist the IPC in deciding whether or not to accept an application for further examination ? and it is at this later stage that issues about the merits of the application will be looked at."

Richard Jones

Whose responsibility is it to discharge/approve requirements and when should the wording be agreed?
There are no express provisions in the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) or related secondary legislation dealing with which body should approve/discharge requirements.

The absence of such prescribed provisions under the PA2008 regime means that applicants have the opportunity to draft and statutory consultees suggest requirements on the basis of who they consider is the most appropriate body to discharge individual requirements and make a case to the Examining authority (and the decision maker) as to why the DCO should be made in this form.

As you know, the suggested requirements in the Infrastructure Planning (Model Provisions) Order 2009 (MPO) are drafted on the basis of the IPC discharging these, usually following consultation with another body such as a LPA. Since the MPO is not mandatory (see s38(3) of PA2008), applicants could though draft their DCOs on the basis that requirements are to be discharged by other bodies such as a LPA rather than the IPC.

Applicants should though have regard to relevant guidance published by DCLG and the IPC. IPC guidance note 2 (paragraph 20) states that the model provisions "are intended as a guide for applicants in drafting orders, rather than a rigid structure." Applicants should though explain in the explanatory memorandum (ExM) "if and why any provisions in the draft order diverge from the model provisions" (DCLG application form guidance, paragraph 20).

Paragraph 70 of the DCLG Guidance for Local Authorities advises that local authorities should recommend to the applicant and the IPC appropriate requirements "including any subsequent approvals to be delegated to local authorities for decision". The implication of this being that the discharge of requirements (other than those relating to the marine environment) will generally be dealt with by local authorities rather than the IPC.

Paragraph 71 of the DCLG guidance for local authorities refers to the Government's intention to amend the MPO with regards to discharging requirements. However, the Government has since announced that it will be revoking rather than amending the MPO. The intention is that DCLG Guidance dealing with this matter will probably be published at the same time as revocation of the Model Provisions.

s.120(5) of the PA2008 allows a DCO to apply, modify or exclude a statutory provision. This could, for example, include the appeal procedure provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It is for applicants in the first instance to draft requirements, and other provisions, in their draft DCOs. The IPC is therefore unable to provide you with any model provisions beyond those contained in the MPO. You may though wish to look at draft DCOs in respect of accepted applications for development consent on the IPC website.

Notwithstanding which body(s) is to discharge requirements, our advice is that applicants should be engaging with relevant local authorities, highway authorities and other statutory consultees at the pre-application stage, as part of their s.42 consultation, in order, amongst other matters, to identify what requirements those consultees consider may be necessary and if possible agree the wording of these before an application for development consent is submitted.

Carmartheshire County Council - Richard Jones

Do the same 6 tests from Circular 11/95 apply to requirements that are included in the DCO?
There is no specific guidance on the use of requirements under the Planning Act 2008. The IPC consider that circular advice on planning conditions (currently DoE Circular 11/95, including the 6 tests for conditions set out in paragraph 14 of the circular) and relevant case law is of relevance to the use of requirements. However, the IPC cannot provide a definitive view on this matter, as this is for the courts to decide if any requirements were legally challenged.

Government also consulted on revised Guidance to replace Circular 11/95 between December 2009 and March 2010, and we understand that consultation responses are currently being considered by Government.

Carmarthenshire CC - Richard Jones

Is a design and access statement required to be submitted with an application for a nationally significant infrastructure project?
I can confirm that a design & access statement is not a mandatory document to be submitted with an application for a nationally significant infrastructure project. The prescribed application documents can be found in regulation 5 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009. Design and Access Statements are not listed as mandatory application documents. Some developers have found them to be a useful means of presenting the relevant information and have submitted them nevertheless. Examples can be found on our website.

RWE Npower - Bethan Thomas

The following persons sent copies to the IPC of their feedback correspondence to RWE NPower Renewables in regard to section 47 consultation which has been carried out for Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm.

An acknowledgment letter (with advice notes 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3) was sent to the following:

Mrs E Davies, D M Jones, Mr & Mrs Davies, Mr E J Davies, Mr K Davies, Mr M Evans, Mr A Evans, Mr M Evans, Mr J Evans, Mrs V Evans, Mrs Y Griffiths, Mr H Dale, Mrs L Davies, Mrs A Evans, Mr & Mrs E Griffiths, Mr & Mrs P Hobbs, Mrs L Chesshire, Mr & Mrs Harris.
View the letter here - [attachment 1]

E Davies

Another statutory consultee, the Wales Resilience Forum, contacted us to say that they don't wish to be consulted. Did you receive any similar correspondence from them when you sent the Reg 9 notification?

The Wales Resilience Forum/ Head of Emergencies & Security Branch (both the same on the list but according to the email it looks like they're seperate entities) was the address provided by the IPC for the 'Relevant Local Resilience Forum'. Please note that when we made enquiries about the appropriate person to consult in this category, we concluded that it should be the Dyfed LRF Partnership Team- also on the Reg 9 list. We did, of course, write to both.
Thank you for informing us about the response you received dated 23 March 2011 from the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) in relation to the Wales Resilience Forum and the Head of Emergencies and Security.

We have considered this matter further and conclude that neither the Wales Resilience Forum nor the Head of Emergencies and Security is a 'relevant local resilience forum' . Hence, neither is a prescribed consultee for the purposes of s.42(1)(a) of the Planning Act 2008 and Regulation 3 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009, nor is either a consultation body for the purposes of Regulation 2(1) of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009. We will be amending our 'Regulation 9 consultee list' accordingly.

In light of the response from WAG we are not presently proposing to consult either the Wales Resilience Forum nor the Head of Emergencies and Security on a non-statutory basis. In any event, we note that 'the Welsh Ministers' are a consultee for both s.42 and any EIA scoping consultation. Therefore, any comments that either the Wales Resilience Forum or the Head of Emergencies and Security might wish to make in future could be made in response to any further s.42/ EIA scoping consultation of the Welsh Ministers.

RWE Npower - Bethan Thomas

Are there opportunities for LAs to secure contributions through agreements under Section 174 of the Act for monitoring DCOs? Do the same limitations apply to S.174 agreements as to S.106 agreements?

How does the NSIP regime deal with statutory nuisance?
The need for any s.174 contributions should be discussed between the Local Authority and the applicant at the pre-application stage. Any financial contributions to Local Authorities should be made through development consent obligations. The 2008 Planning Act amends the 1990 TCPA so that development consent obligations (in effect s.106 obligations) can be entered into in connection with an application for an order granting development consent (s.174 of the Act). Whether it is appropriate for a Local Authority to seek s.174 obligations in relation to a particular proposed development would be one of the considerations which the Local Authority would need to consider in making their consultation response under s.42 of the Act and in drawing up their Local lmpact Report under s.60. The s.174 obligations do not form part of the draft order but are important as they will affect the overall impact of a proposed development on a local area. An agreement setting out the development consent obligations would need to be completed before the end of the examination process in order to be taken into account by the Examining Authority. As a minimum the Heads of Terms of such an agreement would need to have been agreed prior to submission of the application and for these to be submitted as part of the application documents. The Local Planning Authority remains the party who will enforce such obligations and would potentially be the beneficiary of financial contributions lawfully offered and sufficiently related to the development. (See also IPC Guidance Note 2, para 25 [attachment 2].

Concerning statutory nuisance:
An application for a DCO must be made in the prescribed form (set out in Sch 2 of the Applications : Prescribed Forms and Procedure Regulations). This requires the applicant to submit a statement on whether or not the development proposed engages one or more of the matters set out in s79 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and if so how the applicant proposes to mitigate or limit them. (See also IPC Guidance Note 2 para 28 [attachment 2].

Carmarthenshire County Council - Richard Jones

The Local Authority has noticed that RWE missed off three visual montages which are part of the draft Environmental Statement (ES) from publishing on their website. I.e. these had been included in the hard copy ES that were on display at various local access points but not provided on the appllicant's consultation website. He was therefore wondering whether there is anything in the regulations that required RWE to exactly replicate all their hard copy consultation documents on their website.
So far he has drawn the discrepancy to the attention of RWE who have told him that they have now put the previously missing montages on the web and also asked him whether there's anything else that he thought they needed to do in order to make good the oversight. Could the IPC provide advice on this matter.
Further to our telephone conversation earlier this week, just to confirm and expand the advice I have given you with regards to RWE missing off a number of visual montages from publishing on their consultation website although they are part of the hard copy draft ES consultation document displayed at various local access points. I understand that you have already pointed out this omission to RWE who have since up-loaded those documents to their website to bring it in line with the hard copy consultation material. Given the relevance of this advice to the applicant's pre-application consultation, I'm also copying this email to Bethan Thomas of RWE.

As whether or not an applicant has complied with the obligations set out in the Planning Act 2008 (the Act) and relevant secondary legislation and had regard to the statutory guidance on consultation under the Act is an acceptance decision under s.55(e), the IPC cannot advise on what (if anything) is required in this case. This would be providing advice on the merits of a case and prejudicing the acceptance decision. It is for the applicant to be satisfied, taking their own legal advice, that they have complied with the requirements of Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Act (pre-application procedure).

S.42 requires the applicant to consult all prescribed consultees (as per Infrastructure Planning (Applications Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009 (APFP Regs) reg 3 and schedule 1) . The applicant may therefore also want to consider whether the omission has any implications for the consultation carried out under s.42.

S.47(7) requires the applicant to consult the local community in accordance with the proposals set out in the Statement of Community Consultation (SOCC), after having sought the relevant local authority's advice on the SOCC. Again, it is for the applicant to demonstrate in the consultation report that the community consultation carried out accords with the published SOCC. Para 62 of the CLG Guidance on pre-application consultation sets out suggestions for consulting using a range of methods and highlights that these "are not intended to be exhaustive or compulsory".

S.55(4) sets out what the Commission must have regard to in reaching its decision on whether or not the applicant has complied with the pre-application procedure set out in the Act, namely the applicant's consultation report, any adequacy of consultation representation received from a local authority consultee, and the extent to which the applicant has had regard to any guidance issued under s.50 of the Act.

In commenting on the applicant's consultation report at acceptance stage your authority will therefore have the opportunity to express any views about the omission of the documents from the applicant's consultation website for part of the consultation period and how the applicant has subsequently responded to addressing any potential impacts of the omission. If you have any particular view about this, it would therefore seem reasonable to express this to the applicant at this stage, to give the applicant the opportunity to take your views into account in deciding whether or not anything else is required to address the issue.

Carmarthenshire County Council - Richard Jones

Mr Hewer has concerns that the proposal of Brechfa West Wind Farm has health implications and the consultation has not been performed to an adequate standard, he felt that the consultation events held previously were intimidating. He also explained that he could not get hold of the developer.
Prompted by Mr Hewer's further phone call to the IPC helpline on 15th March raising very similar points as on the 8th March I returned his call to ensure that he has received my letter dated 9th March 2011 and that he understands the advice notes enclosed. I reiterated that at this stage (pre-application) the IPC cannot get involved in project related consultation and advised him again that he should submit his concerns to the project promoter. I advised him to write a letter to the address given on the letter sent to him last week and that by law RWE must take into account all comments made during the consultation period. I also informed him of an event on Saturday 19th March at Llanllwni Church Hall 12pm to 5pm, which he could attend if he would prefer to speak to the developer. Finally I advised him that he could have a look at RWE's project website for the consultation documents and feedback forms.

John Hewer

We are told by our MP that the planning decision on the RWE Npower Renewables application for wind turbines, named Brechfa Forest East, due to come to you this summer, will be decided, after the IPC process, by the UK Minister for Communities and Local Government.
Can you please confirm, or not, that this is the case?
Thank you for your query which I presume relates to Brechfa Forest West which is due to be submitted to us this summer. Brechfa Forest East on the other hand we understand has been submitted to Carmarthenshire County Council (as it's below the threshold for nationally significant infrastructure projects).

Under the current system either the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change or the IPC will decide whether or not to grant a Development Consent Order for the Brechfa Forest West proposal. The Government is publishing National Policy Statements (NPSs) relating to the types of infrastructure that the IPC examines. These provide the framework within which the IPC will make its recommendations or decisions on applications for development consent. NPSs are considered by Parliament before being formally adopted for use or ?designated?. If a relevant National Policy Statement(s) is designated, the IPC will make the decision within a maximum period of 3 months. If a relevant NPS(s) has not yet been designated, the relevant Secretary of State will be the decision maker. The IPC will submit a report of recommendation to the Secretary of State for consideration who will then have up to a further 3 months to issue the decision. At present, none of the NPSs have yet been designated.

With regard to who will determine nationally significant infrastructure projects such as Brechfa Forest West in future, the Coalition Government is bringing forward new legislation that will change the decision making process. It is anticipated that this change will take effect in April 2012. The legislation needed to make this change, the Localism Bill, is currently before Parliament. If the relevant provisions in the Localism Bill become statute and are brought into force they would also, amongst other matters, provide that the decision-maker in all cases would be the Secretary of State.

For energy applications the relevant Secretary of State will be the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. If this happens by the time that the Brechfa Forest West application has been examined by the IPC and reached the decision stage, the IPC will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change who will then take the decision. Since the Brechfa Forest West application is not due to be submitted to the IPC until the summer of this year, it would seem likely for the Localism Bill to have been enacted by the time it reaches the decision stage and consequently for the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to be the decision maker.

Consideration of the Brechfa Forest East proposal by the County Council will not be affected by these changes.

Janet Dube

I have concerns over the development of a wind farm proposed near my house, specifically the health implications for myself. I have never heard of the IPC and would like to know who you are and how I can tell you my views. The developer has started consultation but I am not impressed at how they have undertaken the consultations so far.
See Letter - [attachment 1]

John Hewer

Further to our receipt of the Reg 9 list, I wanted to make you aware that DPTAC have written back to me in response to the S42 consultation letter that I sent them. They have stated that they are not able to provide views on these types of documents and have requested that DPTAC is removed from our list and database. Have you received a similar letter?

As they are included on the Reg 9 list I don't feel I am able to remove them from my database so until I hear otherwise from the IPC, I will unfortunately have to continue bothering them with correspondence that they do not wish to receive.
If a statutory consultee writes to you in response to your s.42 consultation letter asking to be taken off your consultation list, and you decide to omit them from any further rounds of pre-application consultation that you may undertake, you should explain clearly why they have been omitted in your consultation report. If however the further rounds of consultation relate to changes to the project they should be included.

As statutory consultees, they will, however, still need to be notified under s.56 in accordance with the requirements of the Act, if and when the application has been accepted.

RWE Npower Renewables - Bethan Thomas

Submission of the draft ES to the IPC, and the decision not to request a scoping opinion from the IPC.
You recently submitted a s.46 notification to us and as part of the notification you included a draft Environmental Statement (ES). Whilst we are interested to see the draft ES please note that under Section 51(2) of the Planning Act 2008 the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) cannot give advice about the merits of a particular application, or proposed application. Therefore we cannot review the draft ES provided as part of the s.42 consultation material.

We note that you have previously stated you do not intend to request a Scoping Opinion from the IPC. We fully recognise that there is no statutory obligation for you to do so but the decision whether or not to request a Scoping Opinion from the IPC should be taken based on your own specialist advice. As a general point the IPC highlights the importance of explaining clearly within the ES why certain topics are not covered by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (scoped out). This is of particular importance where issues were raised by key statutory consultees and not specifically confirmed as being scoped out within a Scoping Opinion under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) 2009 regs (EIA regs), for example, alternatives and air quality.

The IPC will need to come to a view about whether the final ES when submitted contains all necessary information. In doing this the IPC will need to consider the ES taking into account Regulation 12 at acceptance and Regulation 17 (EIA regs) during examination.

RWE Npower Renewables - Bethan Thomas

Whether the list of prescribed persons under S42(a) needs to be the same as the list of 'prescribed consultees' for EIA purposes (issued under Reg 9) and which public gas transporters and relevant statutory undertakers to consult.
The bodies the IPC write to and list under EIA Reg 9 is the same as the IPC would consult in preparing a Scoping Opinion.
As per regulation 3 of the Infrastructure Planning: Applications Prescribed Forms and Procedures Regulations 2009 (APFP Regulations ): The list of prescribed consultees for S.42(a) is set out in in column 1 of the table in schedule 1 APFP Regulations.Column 2 of that table defines the circumstances when particular categories of consultees need to be consulted.
Regulation 9(1) of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (EIA Regulations) requires the IPC to notify 'the consultation bodies' when it receives a notification from an applicant under EIA Regulations 6(1)(b) or 6(2)(b). Reg 2 (1) of the EIA Regulations defines 'the consultation bodies' as
"(a) a body prescribed under section 42(a) (duty to consult) and listed in column 1 of the table set out at Schedule 1 to the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (a) where the circumstances set out in column 2 are satisfied in respect of that body;
(b) each authority that is within section 43 (local authorities for purposes of section 42(b));and (...)"

In other words the table in schedule 1 APFP Regulations is the starting point for determining the consultation bodies for both the IPC's Reg 9 list and the applicant's consultation under S.42 (a). However, as IPC advice note 3 ([attachment 1] goes on to explain "in some cases, the Commission must exercise discretion in deciding which bodies should be consulted by adopting a "relevance test" and/or by deciding whether certain circumstances apply (the "circumstances test")". Advice Note 3 then goes on to explain in detail how the IPC applies the relevance and circumstances test and identifies statutory undertakers etc. In addition, the advice note sets out "a limited category of bodies, not prescribed by the APFP, who will be consulted by the Commission before adopting a scoping opinion". (This equally applies to Reg 9 lists).
The IPC has therefore issued guidance specifically about the point on whether or not the applicant's list of S42 consultees needs to be identical to the IPC's list of consultees in the IPC Guidance Note 1 ([attachment 2]
"Paragraph 21: When meeting their statutory pre-application obligations under s42 of the Act applicants must make diligent inquiry, carry out their own investigations and take legal advice as appropriate. Applicants may nonetheless find it helpful to recognise and understand the approach taken by the IPC when meeting the IPC?s own obligations under the EIA Regulations (see the relevant advice note). The IPC has undertaken a careful review of the consultation bodies prescribed under s42(a) of the Act and considers that its approach to identifying those consultation bodies is reasonable and proportionate.
Before accepting an application for examination the IPC must conclude that the applicant has complied with Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Act (pre- application procedure). If applicants identify and consult fewer consultation bodies (as part of their s42 obligations) than the IPC consults in relation to a scoping opinion request a clear explanation should be provided when the application is submitted. This will assist the IPC to reach a conclusion about whether or not to accept the application(12).
Paragraph 22: The consultation report will enable applicants to flag and explain any differences between the IPC?s consultation under the EIA Regulations(13) and their own s42 consultation. Differences may arise as a result of additional information becoming available to promoters as part of their due diligence exercise which was not available to the IPC when identifying consultation bodies or because promoters have, on the basis of additional information, properly exercised judgment and reached a different decision. This should be made clear in the consultation report."
(12) In accordance with s55(3)(e) of the Act
(13) IPC scoping opinions include a list of consultation bodies consulted before adopting the scoping opinion. The IPC is also required to inform the applicant, under regulation 9(1)(b) of the consultation bodies notified.

Concerning your query regarding public gas transporters and relevant statutory undertakers:
As per our Advice Note 3 'Scoping Opinion Consultation' ([attachment 3] - p.4) 'statutory undertaker' has in the APFP Regs the same meaning as S127 of the Planning Act 2008 and the meaning given by S8 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. Public gas transporters are deemed statutory undertakers for the purposes of the Acquisition of Land Act (p.6 of IPC Advice Note 3) due to the Gas Act 1995 Schedule 4 para 2 (1).
Schedule 1 of the APFP Regs defines relevant as: "'relevant' in relation to a body, shall mean the body which has responsibility for the location where the proposals may or will be sited or the body which has responsibility for an area which neighbours that location".
P.6 of the IPC's Advice Note 3 further explains how the Commission applies this to the identification of relevant public gas transporters in compiling the list of consultation bodies which it must consult before adopting a Scoping Opinion:
"The licence conditions of public gas transporters do not, in every case, limit operations to a specific geographical area. Taking a cautious approach, the Commission will consult all public gas transporters whose licence covers Great Britain. This is done on the basis that it is not possible to identify which transporter "has responsibility for the location where the proposals may or will be sited" or "has responsibility for an area which neighbours that location".
In other words, the Commission includes public gas transporters on its list of consultation bodies to consult before adopting a Scoping Opinion for all types of NSIPs.

RWE Npower - Bethan Thomas

Can local authority insist on an extension to the applicant's S.42 consultation? The 5 April consultation deadline does not allow the council enough time to take their response through the authority's committee cycle and make any subsequent amendments afterwards.
As long as the applicant is providing at least the statutorily prescribed minimum period of 28 days from the day following the receipt of the S.42 consultation documents, there is no obligation on the applicant to extend the consultation period in view of committee cycles. As indicated in IPC Advice Note 1 on Local Impact Reports: "Local authorities should ensure any necessary internal authorisation processes are in place to meet the timetable. It is entirely a matter for local authorities to determine whether or not an LIR requires approval by Members and in what form."
The same principle applies to local authorities' other contributions to the NSIP process. For example at acceptance stage local authorities typically have around 10 working days to respond to the IPC on the applicant's consultation report advising on its adequacy.

Carmarthenshire county Council - Richard Jones

At an IPC outreach meeting in Brechfa Church Hall last aututmn, I undertstood the officer to say that highways decisions can be heard seprarately from the rest of an application to the IPC. The RWE/ IPC environment proposals are now out for consultation and we need to know how the decisions about highways alterations would or will be made.
Whether or not alterations to highways need to be included in a development consent order for a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) in Wales depends on whether the proposed works are integral to the NSIP or not. Development Consent under the 2008 Planning Act ('the Act') is required for development that is or forms part of an NSIP (s.31 of the Act).

At acceptance and during examination the Commissioner(s) need to consider whether any works are integral to the proposed NSIP or would constitute associated development and in doing so must have regard to the DCLG Guidance on Associated Development. The Guidance states at paragraph 10 that development should not be treated as associated development if it is actually an integral part of the NSIP and that the decision maker must decide on a case by case basis as to whether elements should be treated as associated development. The Commissioner(s) must look carefully at the facts available and the information provided by the applicant in the Explanatory Memorandum to be submitted with the application. It is for applicants to justify whether a particular element of a proposed NSIP can be considered to be integral to the NSIP and therefore what constitutes development for which consent is sought under the Act and to express and explain their conclusion in the Explanatory Memorandum.

In Wales only development associated with underground gas storage facilities that meet all the criteria in s.17(3) of the 2008 Planning Act (?the Act?) can be incorporated in a DCO as associated development (s.115 (2) and (4)).

Another consideration is whether highways works can be included in a development consent order (DCO) as a 'delegated authorisation': The Infrastructure Planning (Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2010 (in conjunction with S.150 of the Act) lists consents and authorisations which may only be included in a DCO if the normal decision making body agrees. The intention in drafting the list for Wales was to ensure that no devolved consent should be included in a draft DCO without the agreement of the relevant consenting body in Wales , as is set out in the Explanatory Memorandum to Infrastructure Planning Regulations SI 102-106 ([attachment 1]).

Numbers 25 and 26 of part 2, schedule 1 of the Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions Regulations relate to:

?25. An order for the regulation of traffic under section 1, 9, 14, 15, or 22BB of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (?);

26. An order under section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (order authorising stopping up or diversion of highway)?.

In principle this therefore provides the opportunity for promoters to request certain highway related alterations to be included within the DCO. However, as highlighted in the Explanatory Memorandum to Infrastructure Planning Regulations SI 102-106 at paragraph 7.28: "this provision should only be used with the agreement of the relevant consenting body who will be able to advise as to what protections and conditions should be included in the order. Ministers made firm commitments during the passage of the Bill through Parliament that this power would only be used if contained in the promoter's draft order, and was therefore subject to the pre-application requirements set out in Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Act". Paragraph 7.30 of the Explanatory Memorandum further states "these Regulations are not intended to imply that it would be appropriate in any particular case for the requirement for a certain consent to be removed, nor are they intended to imply that a consenting body will ever agree to the removal of a requirement."

The IPC is fully committed to an open and co-ordinated working relationship in Wales and has agreed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG). The MoU states at paragraph 26 that:

"The IPC will seek to ensure that prospective applicants and other parties are aware from the outset of the particular ways in which the infrastructure planning system applies in Wales . (?) Early engagement will be vital between Welsh decision-making bodies, scheme promoters and other consultees about s150 consents that may be proposed for inclusion in the development consent order, rather than being under the control of the normal decision-maker. Early engagement by the applicant with the relevant Welsh decision-making body will also ensure that the body is fully informed of case circumstances before deciding whether to allow the s150 consent to be included in an order."

In other words, where a s.150 consent could be included in the DCO because it is listed in part 2 of schedule 1 of the Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions Regulations, it is for the promoter to decide whether they would prefer to include this consent in their DCO and to seek their own legal advice on this. Where they would like to include a s.150 consent they need to seek the agreement of the normal decision making body (e.g. the Welsh Ministers, or the National Parks Authority, or the local authority depending on the consent sought) before they can do so. It is for the normal decision making body to decide whether or not to allow the requested s.150 consent to be integrated into the DCO or to retain it for their own determination. See also IPC Guidance Note 2, paragraph 22 which highlights: "(...) The Explanatory Memorandum supplied to the IPC by the promoter should identify the authorisation, the reasons why the promoter is following this route and should state how close the promoter is to achieving consent of the authority concerned. Where a promoter is seeking separate authorisations or licences these should be separately listed in the application submitted to the IPC (see CLG Application form guidance)."

In summary, unless proposed highways alterations are either integral to the proposed NSIP or fall under a consent listed in part 2 of schedule 1 of the Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions Regulations and the normal consenting body agrees, they cannot be included in a development consent order (DCO) in Wales .

If other consent(s) for operations in connection with a proposed NSIP application are required, applicants need to indicate this on the application form (box 24) which asks applicants to list other consents / licences required under other legislation. Paragraph 47 of the CLG Application form guidance states about this: "Where the proposed development will also require other consents, licences, permits, etc, to enable it to be constructed and / or operational, and for which the Commission is not the authorising body, then the applicant must list and briefly describe these in Box 24. Reference should be given to any that have already been applied for, and a copy enclosed of any that the applicant may already be in the possession of. Such other consents could be required for controlling pollution, for example."

Janet Dube

I would be grateful for the views of the Commission on the following points:-
(i)
that Works No?s 1 to 7 may be considered to be an integral element of the proposed generating station and may be incorporated within the description of the authorised development for the purposes of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Order; and
(ii)
that Works No?s 8 and 9 should be subject to a separate application for planning consent.

Is the Western Mail a national newspaper for the purposes of regulation 4 of the IPA Applications regulations?

See Eversheds letter [attachment 1]
At acceptance stage the Commissioner will need to be satisfied that the test in s55 3 (c) is met i.e. that development consent is required for any of the development to which the application relates. Consent is required for development that is or forms part of an NSIP (s.31).

In Wales only development associated with underground gas storage facilities that meet all the criteria in s.17(3) of the 2008 Planning Act (?the Act?) can be incorporated in a DCO as associated development (s.115 (2) and (4)).

See the whole response at the following link [attachment 2]

Eversheds - Stephen Collings

I have heard through the grapevine that RWE is going to be in Brechfa Village on Thursday and Friday 17 and 18 February - do you know if there a public event planned? We have not heard anything from RWE about Brechfa Forest West development, apart from the local shop being told that the ES will be brought to them for public display soon in a few days. Is it usual for the ES to be published at this stage? Has their application been accepted?
The IPC is not involved in applicants' pre-application consultation phase. I would therefore ask that you contact the applicant directly to find out details on their public consultation beyond what they have published in their Statement of Community Consultation directly from them. The contact for this project is as follows:

Bethan Thomas
RWE npower renewables
Unit 22: Technium
Central Avenue
Baglan Energy Park
Port Talbot
SA12 7AX
Phone: 01639 816180
Email: [email protected]

With regard to the Environmental Statement, Regulation 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 requires applicants to set out in their Statement of Community Consultation how they intend to publicise and consult on the preliminary environmental information. The Statement of Community Consultation relevant to this case is available on RWE's web-page.

The proposed Brechfa Forest West wind farm application has not yet been submitted to the IPC for acceptance. When an application has been submitted and if it is accepted, the developer is required to notify the relevant parties of the accepted application and publish a notice under s.56 (7) and Regulation 9 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 to ensure that it is widely publicised that an application has been accepted and how people can register to have their say as part of the examination process. Therefore, you should be made aware of the acceptance of the proposed Brechfa Forest West wind farm application once the proposal reaches this stage.

Brechfa Forest Energy Action Gro - Caroline Evans

Training seminar with Elected Members and Local Authority Staff to discuss the Planning Act 2008 process and the role of the Local Authority
A note of the seminar is available at the following link:

[attachment 1]

Carmarthenshire County Council

Requests a view on whether in the context of the intended application for the Brechfa West Wind Farm scheme the Western Mail is a national newspaper for the purposes of regulation 4 of the IPA Applications regulations.
The purpose of s48(1) of the 2008 Planning Act and Reg 4 of the IPA Applications regulations is to ensure that an application is widely publicised, not just within the area in which the project is located. National newspapers such as the Times and Telegraph have the widest circulation (whether a project is in England or Wales) and it would therefore seem wise to publish in such a UK national newspaper to ensure maximum publicity. There is nothing to prevent the applicant also publishing in a Welsh newspaper such as the Western Mail if they wish

Eversheds - Stephen Collings

When registering as an Interested Party, will it be possible for people to do this in any way other than in writing/ email/ filling in the online form)? Does the IPC have any plans to accept verbal representations by phone?
Anyone who is not a statutory party and wishes to take part in the examination process of a Nationally Significant infrastructure Project (NSIP) needs to register with the IPC using the prescribed registration form.
This is because of the definition of interested party which includes in s.102(1)(e) "the person has made a relevant representation". S.102 (4) further specifies that "a representation is a relevant representation for the purposes of subsection (1) to the extent that (...) (b) it is made to the Commission in the prescribed form and manner (...)".

The 'form and manner' is prescribed in regulation 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties) Regulations 2010 (Interested Parties Regulations) including the information that a registration form must include. Regulation 2 (1) of the Interested Parties Regulations defines registration form as '(...) the form supplied by and obtained from the Commission for the purpose of making a relevant representation and referred to in the notices and publicity given in accordance with regulations 8 and 9 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications and Procedure) Regulations 2009(j);'.

In other words, the Act requires that relevant representations are made using an IPC form. As our advice note 8 ([attachment 1]) explains, this can either be done on-line, or a hard copy can be requested and then sent back to us through the post. However, if anyone sends in a form which would be invalid (e.g. because it is incorrectly filled in or unclear hand writing etc) we would call that person and address with them all the necessary points to make it a valid relevant representation. In such cases we always need to send back the amended registration form to the sender in order to verify that what we have understood is what they meant to say. This amended form (with or without further comments from the sender) then needs to be returned back to us so that the representation can be registered as a relevant one.

Once registered, however, interested parties have the right to request to speak at an open-floor hearing.

RWE npower - Bethan Thomas

Whether or not as part of pre-application community consultation promoters can require people to submit their comments in writing.
As you?re no doubt aware S. 50 (3) of the 2008 Planning Act (the Act) requires applicants to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State and the IPC about how to comply with the requirements of chapter 2 of the Act (pre-application procedure). Particularly relevant to your query is the CLG Guidance ?Planning Act: Guidance on Pre-application Consultation? (2009) and the IPC Guidance Note 1. None of the guidance documents explicitly state how applicants should be prepared to receive consultation comments. Instead the CLG Guidance sets out the principles and objectives that consultation should fulfil ? of which I have drawn out and summarised those which seem most relevant to your query:

Para 16 ?(?) a community involvement process should ensure that people: (i) have access to information; (ii) can put forward their own ideas and feel confident that there is a process for considering ideas; (iii) have an active role in developing proposals and options to ensure local knowledge and perspectives are taken into account; (iv) can comment on and influence formal proposals; (v) get feedback and be informed about progress and outcomes;
Consultation should be fair and reasonable for promoters as well as communities. To ensure that it is fair to all parties, promoters should be able to demonstrate that the consultation plan is proportionate to the impacts of the project in the area that it affects (para 54);
For effective consultation promoters need to take an inclusive approach which ensures that different groups have the opportunity to participate and are not disadvantaged in the process (para 60);
Promoters should actively engage (para 63) with communities and consult using a range of methods in addition to written consultation in order for the consultation to be more effective at reaching different communities (para 62);
It is important that consultees respond in good time to promoters (para 79);
?Promoters should therefore be able to demonstrate that they have acted reasonably in fulfilling the requirements of s.49 of the Act, to take account of responses to consultation and publicity? (para 88);

In summary, the guidance doesn?t specifically prevent you from limiting consultation responses to written comments ? as long as you can still demonstrate that your consultation nevertheless complies with the requirements of the Act and the principles and objectives set out in the guidance. You may also want to informally consult with Carmarthenshire County Council on this issue as they may have relevant experience to assist you in this decision. For example, they may be able to advise on providing different and appropriate written response opportunities in the area (like email, letters, ?comment cards at exhibitions?, drawing on plans etc). Furthermore, given the Local Authority?s role in formally commenting to the IPC on the adequacy of pre-application community consultation at acceptance, you may therefore wish to discuss with them how they would view such an approach.

As I explained on the phone, at acceptance the IPC must be satisfied that the pre-application consultation was compliant with the requirements of the Act and that guidance has been followed - or where it has not been followed there are good, clearly explained reasons for it. Para 86 of the CLG guidance on pre-application sets this out in detail.

You should also bear in mind that S. 47(7) of the Act places a statutory duty on the applicant to carry out pre-application consultation as proposed in the SOCC. You should therefore ensure ? and may want to seek legal advice on this matter - that what you do in the community consultation is in line with what you indicated in your SOCC, fulfils the requirements of chapter 2 of the Act and that you can demonstrate you have taken account of the relevant guidance.

RWE - Bethan Thomas

Outreach meeting to introduce the IPC and application process under the Planning Act 2008.
Please follow the links to the full meeting note and the presentaion given at the outreach event

[attachment 1]

[attachment 2]

Local residents Stakeholders

Whether or not a rights of way diversion order can be included in a development consent order (DCO) for NSIP in Wales
The Infrastructure Planning (Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2010 ([attachment 1]) (in conjunction with S.150 of the 2008 Planning Act) lists consents and authorisations which may only be covered by an order granting development consent (rather than being dealt with by the normal decision making body) if that body agrees. Part 2 of the Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions Regs is specific to Wales and lists at number 27 "an order under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (footpaths, bridleways or restricted byways affected by development; orders by other authorities)". The intention in drafting the list for Wales was to ensure that no devolved consent should be included in a draft DCO without the agreement of the relevant consenting body in Wales, as is set out in the Explanatory Memorandum to Infrastructure Planning Regulations SI 102-106 ([attachment 2]). At paragraph 7.28 the latter states: "this provision should only be used with the agreement of the relevant consenting body who will be able to advise as to what protections and conditions should be included in the order. Ministers made firm commitments during the passage of the Bill through Parliament that this power would only be used if contained in the promoter's draft order, and was therefore subject to the pre-application requirements set out in Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Act". Paragraph 7.30 of the Explanatory Memorandum further states "these Regulations are not intended to imply that it would be appropriate in any particular case for the requirement for a certain consent to be removed, nor are they intended to imply that a consenting body will ever agree to the removal of a requirement."
The IPC is fully committed to an open and co-ordinated working relationship in Wales and has recently agreed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU: [attachment 3]) between the IPC and the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG). This also states at paragraph 26 that:
"The IPC will seek to ensure that prospective applicants and other parties are aware from the outset of the particular ways in which the infrastructure planning system applies in Wales. (?) Early engagement will be vital between Welsh decision-making bodies, scheme promoters and other consultees about s150 consents that may be proposed for inclusion in the development consent order, rather than being under the control of the normal decision-maker. Early engagement by the applicant with the relevant Welsh decision-making body will also ensure that the body is fully informed of case circumstances before deciding whether to allow the s150 consent to be included in an order."

In summary it is for the promoter to decide as to what they would want to include in their DCO and to seek their own legal advice on this. Where they would like to include S.150 consents (as for instance a RoW diversion order) they need to seek the agreement of the normal decision making body (i.e the local authority in the case of a RoW diversion) before they can do so. It is for the normal decision making body to decide whether or not to allow the requested S150 consent to be integrated into the DCO or to retain it for their own determination.

Carmarthenshire County Council - Richard Jones

To visit the proposed Brechfa Forest West Wind Farm site and to discuss the IPC outreach event
Follow link for meeting notes.
[attachment 1]

Various Stakeholders - anon.