Meeting to discuss and provide feedback from the Examination of the
application for the North Wales Wind Farms Connection project.
See attached meeting note

SP Energy Networks - anon.

Request to delay Written Representation deadline in response to delayed submission of Option B.
The Examining Authority has requested, by 1 September 2015, written representations on the North Wales Wind Farms Connection proposal as submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This is Deadline 1 of our published examination timetable.

The applicant have informed us that they intend to provide an Option B proposal, to be examined alongside the extant Option A. This proposal has not yet been received, or accepted, by the Planning Inspectorate. If and when such an alternative is received, the Examining Authority will consider if it is appropriate to consider it. If they decide to accept the alternative option, they will write to interested parties and ask for representations on it.

The applicant has indicated that Options A and B are to be considered alongside each other; Option B, if and when submitted, would not supersede Option A. Therefore interested parties should continue to provide written representations on Option A as per the examination timetable.

Various Interested Parties

Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

Pylon The Pressure - Dyfrig Hughes

Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

Iwan Jones

Correspondence received during the acceptance period.
Letter attached

Joanne Morris

I write on behalf of Denbighshire County Council regarding the adequacy of consultation request for the project above.

Firstly, can you confirm if the adequacy of consultation request has been sent to only the local authorities, or have letters also been sent to relevant town and community councils? The reason I ask is we have been sent a number of letters from a community council, a local pressure group and the local MP which all relate to the consultation process, and I just wanted to confirm whether or not other interested parties also have the opportunity to comment directly to PINS on this matter.

If it is only the local authorities who have been invited to comment, we would be intending to append these letters to our response to ensure you have all relevant information to assist your decision on whether or not to accept the application.
The adequacy of consultation requests have been sent to the host and neighbouring local authorities, as set out in s55(4)(b) and defined in s55(5) of the Planning Act 2008. This does not include community councils, the Assembly or parliamentarians. In deciding whether to accept the application, the Secretary of State must have regard to the adequacy of consultation representation from the local authority.

You are welcome to append supporting information to your representation such as letters received, but it would be helpful to include interpretation of this material. DCLG Guidance ([attachment 1]) discusses the Adequacy of Consultation Report (paragraphs 85-89).

Denbighshire County Council - Denise Shaw

I wish to complain against SPEN 's conduct of the pre-application consultation for the North Wales Wind FArms Connection. The process failed to consult adequately and it did not have due regard to consultees' responses to earlier stages of the consultation and had misleading information. I believe it was flawed and therefore not valid.
Following stage 1 of the consultation and according to SPEN 's figures, the majority of respondents favoured the Blue Route and the Green route was the least favoured. Despite this the north section of the Green route was selected as the 'preferred route corridor' for stages 2 and 3 of the consultation.
They 'Hafod route' appeared in the stage 3 consultation, , and appeared as SPEN's preferred option. But this route was based on feedback given by just 3 consultees in the stage 2 consultation. This compares with 14 respondents to have the the (green corridor as their preference, 29 preferred the Red,and 85 preferred the Blue.
At no point were consultees asked to comment or suggest alternative route outside these corridors, yet by selecting the Hafod route as the preferred route SPEN accepted a route outside the scope of stages 1 and 2. Introducing the Hafod Route for the first time at stage 3 SPEN has contravened its own Routeing Methodology.

I hope you will investigate this complaint regarding the flaws, misrepresentation and errors of SPEN's pre application consultation regarding the connections of the North WAles wind farms.
Thank you for your email in relation to the proposed North Wales Wind Farms Connection. You have written to us to express concerns about the developer?s pre-application consultation for this project.

The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, makes the decision about whether or not to accept an application for examination. The Secretary of State has 28 days from the date of submission on 20 March 2015 to decide whether the application meets the required standards to proceed to examination. This will include an assessment of whether the applicant has complied with all the relevant pre-application procedures including having regard to consultation responses.

The requirements that must be satisfied in order for an application to be accepted for examination are set out in s55 of the Planning Aact 2008. S55(4) of PA 2008 states that in making its decision about whether or not to accept an application the Secretary of State must have regard to (amongst other things) any adequacy of consultation representation received from a local authority consultee. For this reason, once an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, we invite the host and neighbouring local authorities to submit a representation about whether the applicant has complied with its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48 of the PA 2008. Under the legislation there is no provision for parties other than the relevant local authorities to make adequacy of consultation representations to the Planning Inspectorate. You may wish to send your email to the local authorities to allow them to incorporate your view into their adequacy of consultation representation.

As you have submitted representations directly to the Planning Inspectorate about the developer?s pre-application consultation, these will be made available to the decision maker, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, when considering the decision about whether or not to accept the application under s55 of the PA 2008. It will be for the Secretary of State to decide the weight to give the views expressed in your correspondence based on the individual facts of the case.

Alys Owen

I have been copied on the attached 30th September 2014 correspondence from Pylon the Pressure Group and am concerned about the issues raised therein.

I would therefore be grateful if you could give this your attention and copy me on your response.
Please find attached a response to your email, with the Planning Inspectorate?s response to Pylon The Pressure Group.

Mark Isherwood AM

Meeting to review draft documents
Minutes attached

SP Manweb - Clare Duffy

Draft Habitats Regulations Assessment No Significant Effects Report and Draft Environmental Statement submitted for comment.
attached

SP Manweb - Claire Duffy

I?m looking to discuss SP Manweb?s approach to our Book of Reference and Consultation Report following our due diligence check on the s42 PILs list and the BOR. We have identified three minor inconsistencies.
We discussed the inconsistencies between the current BoR and the s42 PIL consultees. As we agreed, re-running the statutory consultation would reduce the risk to acceptance, but SPM may submit the application without this at their own risk. If this approach is taken, the Planning Inspectorate recommend that identified discrepancies are fully explained with mitigation measures. One such measure, which I did not suggest on the phone, is to write to the affected parties (where appropriate to personal circumstances) outlining the situation and how they can protect their interests. If you do write to these parties, please record this in the consultation report.

SP Manweb - Claire Duffy

I write at the request of the Members of Llanrhaeadr yng Nghinmeirch Community Council who recently met.

The Members of the Community Council would like to voice our concerns that the Community Council was not consulted and given the right for consultation to the recent Wind Farms Planning Applications within Clocaenog Forest together with the "Cumulative Effect" to the residents of the Llanrhaeadr Community Council due to the various Wind Farms and Associated Planning Application which the Members feel is not acceptable.

Also a vast number of residents and businesses did not receive (together with the Community Council) details of the consultation process from Scottish Power either.

I shall be grateful if you would kindly acknowledge this email please.

Yours sincerely.

Mr Gwyn Davies,
Clerk to Llanrhaeadr Community Council.
Mr Davies,

I am writing in regard to your email of complaint dated 7 February 2015 in relation to the developer?s pre-application consultation. I assume from your description that you are referring to the potential North Wales Wind Farm Connection project by SP Manweb, please do correct me if this is inaccurate. Your correspondence will be kept on file and will be made available to the decision maker during the acceptance stage of the process.

Once the application has been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, a decision must be made within 28 days as to whether or not the application can be accepted for examination (known as the ?acceptance stage?). Part of this assessment will consider whether the applicant has followed the pre application procedure in accordance with chapter 2 part 5 of the Planning Act 2008 as amended (?PA 2008?).

I would suggest that you send your concerns to the developer, in line with the DCLG guidance, as the pre-application stage is the best time to influence a project through direct contact with the developer.

You may wish to also send your letter of complaint to the relevant local authorities, in this case Conwy County Borough Council and Denbighshire County Council, who can consider this information as part of their adequacy of consultation representation. An adequacy of consultation representation is a representation from a relevant local authority about whether the developer complied, in relation to a proposal, with their duties under sections 42 (duty to consult), 47 (duty to consult the local community) and 48 (duty to publicise) of the PA 2008.

I would also like to refer you to the Planning Inspectorate?s Advice Notes which can be found on the National Infrastructure Planning Portal website; I have provided links to the following Advice Notes as these may be of particular interest to you:

Advice Note 8.1: How the process works
[attachment 1]

Advice Note 8.2: Responding to the developer's pre-application consultation
[attachment 2]

I hope this information has been of use to you, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any further questions.

Llanrhaeadr Community Council - Gwyn Davies

Content of an email received by the Planning Inspectorate from Mr Bibby below:

Dear Sirs,

A)In the event of an electricity pylons and cables being erected above ground can you please let us know what statutory compensation provisions (and associated legislation) would apply in respect of easement granted (pursuant to powers conferred for such infrastructure development by virtue of the Planning Act 2008) :

1) Where such equipment is located on the claimant?s property.
2) Where such equipment is located on neighbouring land but adjacent to the claimant?s property (e.g dwellings) .

B)What is the minimum distance that apparatus (in respect a 132 KV line) can be sited in respect of residential property
Response from the Planning Inspectorate below:

Dear Mr Bibby

Thank you for your email of 6 February 2015.

In regard to claims for compensation, this is a matter dealt with outside of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) process. The issue of compensation will arise in the event that the development consent is granted, and the applicant implements the Development Consent Order (DCO). However, the adequacy of funding to meet any likely compensation future liabilities arising from the implementation of the DCO, and any mechanisms proposed by the applicant to secure the funding, are issues which would be considered by the Examining Authority as part of the examination.

There are opportunities for affected persons to make submissions on the application itself during the pre-examination and examination stages of the process. Please see the following advice notes for your information:

Advice Note 8.1: How the process works
[attachment 1]

Advice Note 8.5: Participating in the examination
[attachment 2]

The Department for Communities and Local Government has issued guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land; you may wish to view this for further information therefore I have provided a link to it here:

[attachment 3]

In regard to the second part of your email, the National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks Infrastructure (EN-5) at paragraph 2.2 includes references to the factors that influence applicants when selecting proposed sites/routes. You can view EN-5, amongst the other National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure here:

[attachment 4]

I hope you find this information helpful, should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

Eifion Bibby

Members of the Pylon the Pressure group, which I chair, are concerned about the advice given to SP Manweb in relation to the North Wales Wind Farm Connection:

[attachment 1]

Specifically: "The Planning Inspectorate does not normally require the inclusion of original consultation responses in the application documents."

We are concerned that without the Planning Inspector having full sight of all consultation responses, the applicant may be selective in choosing how it "demonstrates regard had to themed responses".

While we accept that consultation responses can be requested under APFP Reg 5(5), we consider it more appropriate, transparent and comprehensive, for the Planning Inspector to have sight of all original consultation responses.
Thank you for your email of 12 January 2015 regarding the advice given to SP Manweb by the Planning Inspectorate on 5 December 2014, in relation to the North Wales Wind Farms Connection.

Your interpretation of APFP Reg 5(5) is correct, the Planning Inspectorate can request sight of all responses to the consultation carried out under Part 5 of the Act. Section 37(7) of the Planning Act 2008 is also relevant to the production of the Consultation Report.

The Inspectorate treats all applications fairly and consistently, following our published advice notes. The advice given on 5 December 2014 is in accordance with legislation and PINS Advice Note 14. Please see following link to Advice Note 14; [attachment 2]

At the point of acceptance of an application Local Authorities will have sight of the Consultation Report and can inform the Inspectorate if they deem it inaccurate, in the form of their Adequacy of Consultation response. If you have concerns about the developer?s consultation, we suggest that you inform the Local Authority to ensure they consider them as part of their Adequacy of Consultation response.

Pylon the Pressure group - Dyfrig Hughes

I would like to agree the scale for plans pursuant to APFP Reg 5(2)(l). Advice Note 6 states that such plans should be of a scale no smaller than 1:2,500. For the plans of statutory and non-statutory sites or features (both habitats and nature conservation and historic or scheduled monuments sites) we are proposing a scale of 1:10,000. This allows those sites adjacent to the proposed development to be shown ? a smaller scale removes those sites from the plans. We do not have any statutory sites directly affected by the proposed development.

There appears to be some variation between how developers prepare these plans and I wanted to confirm that you are happy with a 1:10,000 scale for those plans described above only. As you will have seen from our submitted land and works plans, these will be at a much smaller scale because of the detail shown.

I have attached a draft example plan. Please note that we are yet to revise this to include further information in the title reference, scheme name, scale bar, document reference number, version number and north arrow.
Thank you for checking, we think that your approach is very helpful. The draft plan provided is sufficiently legible to be accepted. When the application is submitted please explain, perhaps in the covering letter, any divergence from the APFP requirements.

SP Manweb - Claire Duffy

Meeting
Meeting note attached

SP Manweb - Claire Duffy

Request to review draft documents
Attached

SP Energy Networks - Claire Duffy

Teleconference
Meetign note attached

SP Manweb - Claire Duffy

Please see attached document comprising a complaint from Professor Hughes on behalf of 'Pylon The Pressure Group' regarding the Applicant's pre-application consultation.
Please see the second attached document comprising the Planning Inspectorate's response to Professor Hughes' complaint.

Dyfrig Hughes

Meeting held between the Planning Inspectorate and SP Manweb in relation to the proposed North Wales Wind Farms Connection project.
Note of meeting attached.

Claire Duffy

Project update meeting held on 27 February 2014 regarding the SP Manweb North Wales Wind Farms Connection project and the Mid Wales Connections Project.
Please see attached meeting note.

SP Manweb

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

SP Manweb

General Project update for the North Wales Wind Farms Connection Project

Claire Duffy

Meeting held between Scottish Power Energy Networks and the Planning Inspectorate on 26 February 2013.
Meeting Note attached

Scottish Power Energy Networks (SPEN)

Update on the following proposals:
- Mid Wales Electricity Connections EN020008
- Warrington West Realignments EN020012
- North Wales Wind Farms Connection EN0200014
Please see attachment

Claire Duffy