The developer sent the IPC a draft copy of their SoCC. The comments the IPC gave are below.

Further to the copy of your draft SoCC sent on 13 May 2011, please find the following advice. This is advice for the purposes of section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (the Act) and is not intended to be prescriptive. It is for applicants to determine the content of their applications. The decision on whether or not to accept an application under section 55 of the Act will be taken by a Commissioner who has had no involvement at the pre-application stage for this proposal. All advice the Commission provides at this stage does not prejudice or pre-judge the decision of the Commissioner. As always we would recommend that you seek your own legal advice on which you can rely.
>
>There are some factual matters below which you may wish to address.
>
>* Part 1 of the draft SoCC states that '?the application will be determined by the UK's Infrastructure Planning Commission?'. This will only be the case if a relevant National Policy Statement (NPS) has been designated. Otherwise, the application will be determined by the relevant Secretary of State, in this case the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
>
>* Part 2 of the draft SoCC refers to the DCLG Guidance on pre-application consultation but it does not refer to IPC Guidance Note 1, which is also statutory guidance published under s.50 of the Act to which applicants must have regard. The reference in this part to '?previous?.community consultation in 2006/7..' should make it clear that this was informal consultation rather than formal statutory consultation of the local community under s.47 of the Act.
>
>* Part 3 of the draft SoCC refers to the site being '...located on the periphery?' of one of the TAN 8 areas but then states that it is situated about 7km east. Our understanding is that the site is actually outside one of the TAN 8 areas rather than being on its periphery and the reference to it being about 7km east would support this. We would suggest that this should be clarified.
>
>* Part 4 of the draft SoCC states that 'following examination of the application, the IPC will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State who will decide whether you grant planning permission?. This is only the case if no relevant NPS has been designated. If a relevant NPS has been designated then under current legislation the appointed IPC decision maker will make the decision. This should also refer to grant of any 'development consent order' rather than 'planning permission'. In this part of the draft SoCC you interpret section 104 of the Act stating 'The IPC is required to make its decision in accordance with National Policy Statements?'. Section 104 subsections (4) to (8) of the Act also sets out exceptions to this, which the draft SoCC does not cover.
>
>* Part 4 of the draft SoCC refers to the '?.required documentation such as the Transport Management Plan and technical specifications'. In fact neither of these documents is required to be submitted with an application for development consent, although applicants may submit them under Regulation 5(2)(q) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications:Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (the APFP Regulations). It is also stated that 'the NPS on energy is currently under review'. In fact, the relevant draft revised National Policy Statements in relation to Energy infrastructure (EN1, overarching energy NPS and EN3 renewable energy NPS) are currently undergoing Parliamentary scrutiny. The SoCC should make this clear.
>
>* Part 5 of the draft SoCC refers to a requirement to produce an ES. Please see our advice below in relation to Regulation 10 of the EIA Regulations. The SoCC needs to make it clear that the ES will, amongst other matters, include descriptions of the those aspects of the environment that are likely to be significantly affected by the proposed development and of the likely significant effects on the environment. Part 5 as drafted also states >?Once the application is submitted to the IPC Mynydd Y Gwynt Ltd will again consult with the public and statutory consultees on all the application information, including the ES?. There are no requirements for the applicant to consult on 'application information' or otherwise once the application is submitted. If any submitted application is accepted for examination, the Commission will write to the applicant to notify them. The applicant is then required to publish a notice which amongst other matters must give a deadline for persons to make representations to the IPC. Where relevant this would allow persons to register as an interested party with the IPC.
>
>* In part 7of the draft SoCC (summary) reference is made to '?the website?'. This presumably means the project website, a link to which is provided below. If so, this should be made clear so that there is no confusion with, for example, the IPC website which also contains information on this proposed project. Reference is also made to 'all consultation communications' being bilingual. It is not though stated whether any of the draft application documents will be provided in Welsh and if so which. This should be clarified.
>
>* In part 8 of the draft SoCC reference is made organisations called PAVO and CAVO. These organisations are not otherwise described and their potential relevance to the process under the Act is not explained. This should be clarified. The spatial extent of the proposed transportation consultation zone is not specified. It is also unclear to us why Llangurig and Ponterwyd have been specifically identified and included in the proposed 'inner zone'.
>
>There are some particular areas of legislation and guidance below that do not appear to have been fully addressed.
>
>* Regulation 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (the EIA Regulations) requires you to set out in the SoCC whether the development is EIA development. The draft SoCC does not appear to explicitly do this, instead in part 5 referring to the requirement to submit an Environmental Statement (ES). Whilst there is a requirement under Regulation 5(2)(a) of the APFP Regulations to submit an ES in respect of EIA development, the SoCC does still need to comply with Regulation 10 of the EIA Regulations.
>
>* Regulation 10 of the EIA Regulations also requires applicants, where it is EIA development, to set out how they intend to publicise and consult on the preliminary environmental information (PEI). We note that in part 7 of the draft SoCC it is stated that the technical documents will include PEI, and reference is made in part 5 to this being made available but no specific details are given as to how this is to be publicised and consulted upon. No details are given as to what the PEI will comprise.
>
>* In the draft SoCC you set out specific dates for consultation. You may wish to consider any implications should you not be able to, for whatever reason, comply with these dates.
>
>* You should refer to paragraph 29 of the IPC guidance note 1, which states: "The SOCC should provide sufficient detail of the project, referring to both positive benefits to the local community that would result from the development and to the issues which could be considered negative elements of the NSIP so as to encourage participation in the process. The scale of the proposal should be described.". The SoCC does not appear to set out any potential negative elements from the scheme.
>
>* >You should note that sections 37(4) and 50 of the Planning Act allow the IPC to publish guidance about applications for development consent orders and how to comply with pre-application procedures respectively and IPC Guidance Notes 1 and 2 have been published under these powers. Applicants must have regard to DCLG and IPC Guidance about pre-application procedure (s.50(3)). Under section 55 of the Act we may accept an application only if we conclude among other things that the applicant has complied with the pre-application procedures in Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Act. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the IPC must have regard to the extent to which the applicant has had regard to the guidance issued under s.50 (s.55(4)(c)). Applicants must give reasons for each respect in which guidance given under s.37(4) has not been followed (s.55(3)(d)). >
>
>Given the very limited time available to review the documents, this is as comprehensive a check of the document on matters of process as we have been able to carry out.