Confirmation sought on whether the gas connection supply pipeline is integral to the power station proposal and constitutes one NSIP.
Confirmation sought on whether the pylon sealing end compounds can be defined as integral development to the Overhead Line NSIP.

Further to our meeting with you on Tuesday 5 March 2013 please see our response below to the points/questions that came out of the meeting.
Q.1) In the meeting you sought confirmation on whether the gas connection supply pipeline is integral to the power station proposal and constitutes one NSIP and whether it should be included in the redline boundary?
As discussed in our meeting it is for the applicant to decide whether the gas connection pipeline is integral to the power station NSIP and to include it the DCO. Once you have decided on the route or route(s) of the Gas connection the red line boundary of the DCO should include the route option(s) and have informed your Environmental Statement.
Q.2) You asked whether we could confirm whether the pylon sealing end compounds can be defined as integral development to the Overhead Line NSIP and you note that Annex A of DCLG Guidance on Associated Development provides a list of examples of the types of development that may qualify as Associated development and that ?sealing end compounds? is one of those indicated.
At this stage in the process we have minimal information on the location and size of the sealing end compounds to be able to comment. Nevertheless, it is for the applicant to decide whether the sealing end compounds should be included as integral to the electricity connection NSIP. When you draft your DCO you will need to justify each component of the development and explain why you think it is integral to the DCO and not associated development. At the moment the application is at the pre-application stage. As the application evolves you will need to provide information on what ?sealing compounds? are and where they will be located. It would be useful if you could indicate when this information is forthcoming.
As you have already highlighted in paragraph 3.5.1 of your Legal Opinion the Localism Act 2011 has removed the reference to the SoS having regard to the Associated Development guidance when deciding if a component of the scheme is or isn?t associated development.
Q.3) In paragraph 1.10 of your Legal Opinion you refer to correspondence you have received from Wrexham County Borough Council (WCBC) that states that all ?significant elements? of the proposal, including the gas supply line should be grouped in a single DCO and considered as a whole under the PA 2008.
You may wish to seek a view from WCBC on whether they view any components of the application as associated development.
Q.4) In paragraphs 4.5.5 to 4.5.8 of your Legal opinion you refer to text from the Secretary of State?s Scoping Opinion that is consistent with your interpretation of the various components of the scheme. The text states that ?the energy centre will require a pipeline connecting it to the NTS to obtain gas. It will also require connections to National Grid?s electricity network. And these connections will be included in the DCO?.
May I clarify that this information is actually taken from your Scoping Report (paragraphs 1.5 and 1.31) and was not the SoS expressing a view on your proposal. The text was used to provide a summary of the proposal.