Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Renewable Energy Solutions (RES) - anon.

Log Cyngor Adran 51 - Section 51 Advice Log
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

The Planning Inspectorate - anon.

Advice on the Programme Document.
Please see attached.

RWE Renewables UK Solar and Storage Limited - anon.

Advice on the Programme Document.
Please see attached.

Beacon Fen Energy Park Limited - anon.

Planning Inspectorate comments on the Programme Document
Please see attached.

Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 4 - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

East West Railway Company Limited - anon.

Planning Inspectorate comments on the Programme Document
Please see attached.

The Planning Inspectorate - anon.

Section 51 Advice Log.
Please see attached.

Fosse Green Energy Limited - anon.

Section 51 Advice Log.
Please see attached.

Southern Water Services Limited - anon.

Section 51 Advice Log.
Please see attached.

Southern Water Services Limited - anon.

Section 51 Advice Log.
Please see attached.

Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 4 - anon.

Members of the public have submitted their views on the applicant's Adequacy of Consultation Milestone document and adequacy of consultation generally and has asked the Planning Inspectorate whether it can be taken into account?
Please see attached.

Members of the public - anon.

Members of the public have submitted their views on the applicant's Adequacy of Consultation Milestone document and adequacy of consultation generally and has asked the Planning Inspectorate whether it can be taken into account?
Please see attached

Members of the public - anon.

Section 51 Advice Log.
Please see attached.

Frodsham Solar Ltd - anon.

Section 51 Advice Log.
Please see attached.

Frodsham Solar Ltd - anon.

Section 51 Advice Log.
Please see attached.

Green Hill Solar Farm Limited - anon.

Section 51 Advice Log.
Please see attached.

Green Hill Solar Farm Limited - anon.

Log Cyngor Adran 51 - Section 51 Advice Log
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

Uniper UK Limited - anon.

S51 Advice
Please see attached.

BSSL Cambsbed 1 Limited - anon.

S51 advice
See attached

BSSL Cambsbed 1 Limited - anon.

Log Cyngor Adran 51 - Section 51 Advice Log
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

The Planning Inspectorate - anon.

Log Cyngor Adran 51 - Section 51 Advice Log
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

Lightsource bp - anon.

Review of Programme Document.
Please see attached.

The Planning Inspectorate - anon.

Section 51 advice regarding the Programme Document submitted by Anglian Water and Cambridge Water.
Please see attached.

Anglian Water and Cambridge Water - anon.

Section 51 advice regarding the Programme Document submitted by Anglian Water and Cambridge Water.
Please see attached.

Anglian Water and Cambridge Water - anon.

Review of Programme Document.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission - anon.

S51 advice
See attached

Goodman Real Estate (UK) Limited - anon.

Section 51 Advice Log.
Please see attached.

Rosefield Energy Farm Limited - anon.

Review and comments on the Programme Document
Good demonstration of compliance with the Planning Act 2008: Pre-application stage for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects Guidance. The Applicant will be aware that one of the mandatory components of the new pre-application service (for all service tiers), as set out in the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: 2024 Pre-application Prospectus, is demonstrating regard to advice. As such this should be clearly reflected in the application documents. The Applicant must ensure that the Programme Document (PD) is hosted and maintained on the Applicant’s website. Whilst the PD sets out that the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) will be developed ahead of Statutory Consultation, it would be helpful if the dates were listed in the table setting out the submission timeframe. Whilst the Inspectorate acknowledges that key milestones are some time in the future ie statutory consultation in Quarter 1 2025, draft document review in Q4 2025, and submission in Q2 2026, it would be helpful if these timeframes could be narrowed, and the updated PD published, in due course. It is not clear from the PD whether the Applicant has allowed time for a further period of targeted/full consultation, after the statutory consultation has been undertaken. Given the linear nature of the project the Inspectorate advises the Applicant to consider whether a further consultation period prior to submission would be necessary and if so, add possible timescales to the PD. It would be helpful if the PD could provide approximate timescales for future project update meetings with the Inspectorate. It would also be helpful to list any meetings with key stakeholders to enable those parties to deploy resources effectively.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET)

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission - anon.

Section 51 Advice Log.
Please see attached.

Planning Inspectorate - anon.

Section 51 Advice Log.
Please see attached.

Aldbrough Hydrogen Storage Limited - anon.

Section 51 Advice Log.
Please see attached.

Planning Inspectorate - anon.

S51 advice
Please see attached

Rosemary Lewis

Review of Programme Document.
Please see attached.

Planning Inspectorate - anon.

Section 51 Advice Log.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Section 51 Advice Log.
Please see attached.

Planning Inspectorate - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Rosefield Energy Farm Limited - anon.

Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

Droves Solar Farm Limited - anon.

Section 51 Advice Log.
Please see attached.

Photovolt Development Partners - SolarFive Ltd - anon.

Section 51 Advice Log.
Please see attached.

Photovolt Development Partners - SolarFive Ltd - anon.

Section 51 Advice Log.
Please see attached.

Photovolt Development Partners - SolarFive Ltd - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Cadent Gas Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Cadent Gas Limited - anon.

Inception Meeting - To introduce the project, the applicant’s intended pre-application programme for the pre-application stage and Programme Document, and what work and studies are required for the preparation of the application.
Please see attached.

Island Green Power, Arup and Pinsent Masons - anon.

Please see attached.
View advice to RWE Renewables UK Solar and Storage Limited

RWE Renewables UK Solar and Storage Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

National Grid Electricity Transmission - anon.

Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

SSE Hydrogen Developments Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting - Objectives
Please see attached

Kingsway Solar Farm Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting - Objectives
Please see attached

Kingsway Solar Farm Limited - anon.

I am presently dealing with a pre-application enquiry within our Borough for a solar farm (up to 50MW capacity) and battery energy storage system (40MW capacity). My query is whether the scheme is classified as a nationally Significant Infrastructure Project as their combined capacity is 90MW?
The Planning Inspectorate does not have the power to give a legally binding interpretation on whether the proposed development would be classed as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. Only the courts can determine the interpretation of legislation. It is for the developer to decide whether or not to apply for an order granting development consent, taking its own independent legal advice. The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is only able to decide whether development consent is required for a project, under section 55 of PA 2008, once an application has been formally submitted. However, you may find that the thresholds set out in section 15 of the Planning Act 2008 and The Infrastructure Planning (Electricity Storage Facilities) Order 2020 to be of relevance to your query. The Infrastructure Planning (Electricity Storage Facilities) Order 2020 Explanatory Memorandum sets out the intention of the order.

Fylde Borough Council - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Renewable Energy Solutions (RES) - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Renewable Energy Solutions - anon.

How will the Examination be arranged so that all such disputed impacts can be identified, and then discussed?
Dear Mr Lewis Thank you for your email. In response to your question in the penultimate paragraph, the arrangements for the examination will be a matter for the Examining Authority once they are appointed. Please see below links to Planning Inspectorate advice to assist you further: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and the people and organisations involved in the process - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) - This advice contains further information about the Examining Authority and their role: “The Examining Authority is responsible for examining the NSIP application and making a recommendation to the Secretary of State on whether development consent should be granted. They will look at balancing the country’s needs and the applicant’s proposed project with the likely impacts on the local area, listening carefully to the views of communities, statutory parties and others. Following the examination, the Examining Authority must submit a recommendation report to the Secretary of State setting out its main findings, conclusions and recommendations in relation to the NSIP application. The report will have specific regard to whether the proposed development is in accordance with any designated National Policy Statement and will take account of any submitted Local Impact Report and any other prescribed or relevant matters that might be important to the Secretary of State’s decision. After an application has been submitted and accepted by the Planning Inspectorate an Examining Authority will be appointed. The Examining Authority is made up of either a single independent planning inspector or a panel of up to five inspectors who are employed by the Planning Inspectorate. The appointment will be made after considering the nature, scale and complexity of the case.” Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: The stages of the NSIP process and how you can have your say - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) – This advice contains further information about the Examining Authority’s Initial Assessment of Principal Issues: “The Examining Authority will read all the application documents and relevant representations and make an ‘Initial Assessment of Principal Issues’ (IAPI). This is the Examining Authority’s first thoughts about the main issues that might be involved in the examination of the application. The IAPI must be completed within 21 days after the deadline for receipt of relevant representations. Although the Examining Authority will identify the main matters for examination, they will still consider other important and relevant matters or topics which may arise during the examination. See paragraph 013 of the government’s guidance on the Pre-examination stage for further information about the IAPI and why it is important that relevant representations are as comprehensive as possible. The IAPI will normally be discussed at the preliminary meeting.”

Begbroke & Yarnton Green Belt Campaign - Giles Lewis

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Morgan Offshore Wind Limited and Morecambe Offshor - anon.

Project Update Meeting Note - Please see attached.
Project Update Meeting Note - Please see attached.

Doggerbank Offshore Wind Farm Project 4 Projco Ltd - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached

Thames Water Utilities Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Thames Water Utilities Limited - anon.

Dear Caroline, I am confused about the approach you are taking here. You have responded to other S51 requests for advice in this matter and published attachments. Could you therefore be more specific about your statement 'Following further consideration of the attachments these do not fall within the remit of s51 of the Planning Act 2008.' Without attachments my request for advice lacks important context. Further, as you know, I have already expressed concern that the original answer you gave to my request for advice did not address the specific query I have and directed me to an answer related to a different query from a different person. My understanding is that S51 "..provides that the Commission may give advice to an applicant, a potential applicant or others about applying for an order granting development consent or making representations about an application or proposed application. Any such advice cannot relate to the merits of any particular application or proposed application. The Secretary of State may make regulations about giving advice for the purposes of securing propriety. In particular, these regulations may provide for the disclosure of requests for advice and any advice by the Commission." para121. In this context 'propriety' could mean conformity to conventionally accepted standards of behaviour or morals, and if so, it is reasonable to expect applicants to make statements that are true and verifiable. In this case the research contained in the attachments suggests that claims made in a meeting with PINS on 19th October 2022, and online (www.pvdp.eu) about retained experience of actually constructing large scale solar capacity is not the case, whereas securing planning for such proposals does appear to be true. PVDP appear to have secured several permissions for large scale solar and sold on the 'investment' prior to build. This must be relevant to a future application given the scale and sensitivity of this proposal as the largest solar farm in Europe. If true, it also questions the credibility of the applicant in respect of competence at this scale, and motivation to build out in the first place. My original query was "The advice I am seeking is to understand how it might be possible to ensure that the Inspectors have access to the most recent and verifiable information, and therefore the accuracy of an applicants claims, when assessing any application that might be lodged." My attachments provided examples of recent and verifiable information, and are fundamental to the credibility of my query. I urge you to reconsider and publish my query with attachments. Finally, could you confirm which information you believe is subject to copyright and intellectual property. I am quite happy to seek permission from copyright holders to publish and/or adjust my own attachment summary to make the same points without breaking copyright.
Dear Anthony, Thank you for your email. You have summarised that the advice you are “seeking is to understand how it might be possible to ensure that the Inspectors have access to the most recent and verifiable information, and therefore the accuracy of an applicants claims, when assessing any application that might be lodged”. If the proposed applicant makes an application for an order granting development consent and if that application is accepted for examination the Examining Authority (the Inspector/s) subsequently appointed will consider all relevant information submitted into the Examination by the Applicant and Interested Parties. I trust my previous correspondence clarifies the process for resubmitting this information at the appropriate time using the Relevant Representation process and making submissions into the Examination. The guidance and advice referred to in my email of 09 August 2024 referring to hyperlinks, intellectual property and copyright is general advice to consider when structuring representations. We would urge you to obtain your own independent legal advice on matters of copyright or other intellectual property rights. The Planning Inspectorate cannot advise you further on this. In reference to your point regarding publication of attachments, it is not the usual policy of the Planning Inspectorate to publish such information during the pre-application stage. We appreciate that in some instances it has occurred, but it is not usual policy. We apologise for any confusion caused by this. For your information and reference Regulation 11 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 provides for the keeping of a written record of any advice given in accordance with and maintaining on a website that is accessible to the public, a record in respect of any advice given in accordance with section 51 of the Planning Act 2008. Kind regards

Anthony Thompson

Dear Caroline, I am confused about the approach you are taking here. You have responded to other S51 requests for advice in this matter and published attachments. Could you therefore be more specific about your statement 'Following further consideration of the attachments these do not fall within the remit of s51 of the Planning Act 2008.' Without attachments my request for advice lacks important context. Further, as you know, I have already expressed concern that the original answer you gave to my request for advice did not address the specific query I have and directed me to an answer related to a different query from a different person. My understanding is that S51 "..provides that the Commission may give advice to an applicant, a potential applicant or others about applying for an order granting development consent or making representations about an application or proposed application. Any such advice cannot relate to the merits of any particular application or proposed application. The Secretary of State may make regulations about giving advice for the purposes of securing propriety. In particular, these regulations may provide for the disclosure of requests for advice and any advice by the Commission." para121. In this context 'propriety' could mean conformity to conventionally accepted standards of behaviour or morals, and if so, it is reasonable to expect applicants to make statements that are true and verifiable. In this case the research contained in the attachments suggests that claims made in a meeting with PINS on 19th October 2022, and online (www.pvdp.eu) about retained experience of actually constructing large scale solar capacity is not the case, whereas securing planning for such proposals does appear to be true. PVDP appear to have secured several permissions for large scale solar and sold on the 'investment' prior to build. This must be relevant to a future application given the scale and sensitivity of this proposal as the largest solar farm in Europe. If true, it also questions the credibility of the applicant in respect of competence at this scale, and motivation to build out in the first place. My original query was "The advice I am seeking is to understand how it might be possible to ensure that the Inspectors have access to the most recent and verifiable information, and therefore the accuracy of an applicants claims, when assessing any application that might be lodged." My attachments provided examples of recent and verifiable information, and are fundamental to the credibility of my query. I urge you to reconsider and publish my query with attachments. Finally, could you confirm which information you believe is subject to copyright and intellectual property. I am quite happy to seek permission from copyright holders to publish and/or adjust my own attachment summary to make the same points without breaking copyright
Dear Anonymous, Thank you for your email. You have summarised that the advice you are “seeking is to understand how it might be possible to ensure that the Inspectors have access to the most recent and verifiable information, and therefore the accuracy of an applicants claims, when assessing any application that might be lodged”. If the proposed applicant makes an application for an order granting development consent and if that application is accepted for examination the Examining Authority (the Inspector/s) subsequently appointed will consider all relevant information submitted into the Examination by the Applicant and Interested Parties. I trust my previous correspondence clarifies the process for resubmitting this information at the appropriate time using the Relevant Representation process and making submissions into the Examination. The guidance and advice referred to in my email of 09 August 2024 referring to hyperlinks, intellectual property and copyright is general advice to consider when structuring representations. We would urge you to obtain your own independent legal advice on matters of copyright or other intellectual property rights. The Planning Inspectorate cannot advise you further on this. In reference to your point regarding publication of attachments, it is not the usual policy of the Planning Inspectorate to publish such information during the pre-application stage. We appreciate that in some instances it has occurred, but it is not usual policy. We apologise for any confusion caused by this. For your information and reference Regulation 11 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 provides for the keeping of a written record of any advice given in accordance with and maintaining on a website that is accessible to the public, a record in respect of any advice given in accordance with section 51 of the Planning Act 2008. Kind regards

Anonymous

Dear Sir or Madam, I feel the need to email in response to your plans for Minster Marshes. In response to your correspondence regarding the changes to your plans, I do not see any radical changes that will help in alleviating the damage to the surrounding area and more over the wildlife. Your plans for the additional foraging habitat for the birds moving inland from Pegwell Bay on land south of of the existing Richborough to Canterbury 400kv overhead line seems to be directing birds to fly directly towards the hazardous pylons which would be disastrous. This is just one of my concerns of which there are numerous. This whole plan is disastrous for wildlife, the environment, the area and the people living within the surrounding area whom this whole project is going to affect. Why can this project not be moved to the far less environmentally damaging area of North Foreland ( K1a ) to site B must be also more cost effective for Sealink as there is no need for the expense of piling. It is located in an area already designated as a business park and in reasonable distance for connecting to the overhead line. I appreciate that we need clean, secure, renewable energy but not at any cost. Nothing will replace or compensate for the loss of this unique and beautiful habitat and terrain. I have 5 grandchildren and I fear that as they grow up they will never know the beauty of the green spaces, wildlife and biodiversity that I have enjoyed in my life. We seem to be on a mission to cover all green spaces in houses, gardens in plastic grass and concrete and places like Minster Marshes into areas devoid of wildlife habitat. I along with my fellow residents of Thanet politely ask that you rethink this whole plan. PLEASE RETHINK SEALINK. Kind Regards
Dear Christine, Thank you for your email. The proposed application for the Sea Link Project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1];data=0502caseadministrationplanninginspectorate.gov.uk2a60ec4dd785417a33fa08dcc8fb11a35878df986f8848ab9322998ce557088d00638606227868801516UnknownTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn00&sdata=kSYbt5KS0rvhptdM9Jg0aPGbplTdJAr3tqxYudM8ZeA&reserved=0. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. We note that you have also sent your email to the developer of the proposed project (National Grid). As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate any comments concerning the merits of the proposed development should be submitted directly to them: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 134 9569. Post: Freepost SEA LINK. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note: [attachment 2];data=0502caseadministrationplanninginspectorate.gov.uk2a60ec4dd785417a33fa08dcc8fb11a35878df986f8848ab9322998ce557088d00638606227868810567UnknownTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn00&sdata=YUWfrVUHvopQUwfaHyoVGkyLQomgXl7Fg35ZahtTRU&reserved=0. You may also find it helpful to subscribe to us to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This can be done by selecting ‘Get Updates’ on the Planning Inspectorate’s project webpage and then entering your email address: [attachment 3]. Kind regards

Christine Ross

Please see attached.
Dear Mark, Thank you for your email. The proposed application for the Sea Link Project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1];data=0502caseadministrationplanninginspectorate.gov.uk175a062480be495fe60708dcc8fb04965878df986f8848ab9322998ce557088d00638606227636823355UnknownTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn00&sdata=TssEgcOLtuaiTneYLWzQajuckNsyYXVOX1LVW7oVY&reserved=0. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. We note that you have also sent your email to the developer of the proposed project (National Grid). As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate any comments concerning the merits of the proposed development should be submitted directly to them: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 134 9569 Post: Freepost SEA LINK. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note: [attachment 2];data=0502caseadministrationplanninginspectorate.gov.uk175a062480be495fe60708dcc8fb04965878df986f8848ab9322998ce557088d00638606227636834532UnknownTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn00&sdata=4cG2aPpeDHu1eJB3yK0aQj0Gc4kuZQ2pfp58bLaBKs8&reserved=0. You may also find it helpful to subscribe to us to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This can be done by selecting ‘Get Updates’ on the Planning Inspectorate’s project webpage and then entering your email address: [attachment 3]. Kind regards

Mark Emmett

Good evening, In response to your amendments to the Sea Link proposals published in July 2024, and in addition to my previous comments to the 2023 public consultation. Unfortunately, there do not seem to be any radical changes to Sea Link’s plans in Kent in regard to the choice of site, Minster Marshes and the cable route through Pegwell Bay Nature Reserve, which is very disappointing. To address some of the changes you highlight;- Permanent Infrastructure; HVDC cable route; The changes you put forward just seem to suit your own purposes; Converter station height; In regard to the converter station site, it seems that NG have finally acknowledged that Minster Marshes (clue in the name) is in fact a flood plain and that NG will therefore need to pile and a build a concrete base thereby raising the height of the converter station by up to 2m. Where will all this aggregate come from? Will it be environmentally sustainable? How will it be transported? Which route? How cost effective would this be - as opposed to using site B instead which is on raised land? How will the increased height affect the landscape and visual impact from each direction? How will the displaced water, which would have been naturally absorbed by the marshland, be calculated and accommodated in order to prevent the potential flooding of nearby towns (e.g. Sandwich); Construction and maintenance access; In line with Thanet District Council and Kent Wildlife Trust, to name just two organisations, I am strongly opposed to the use of the Hoverport which, over the years, has re-wilded with rare flora and fauna. The hoverport is an integral part of the Nature Reserve which has several layers of legal, environmental protection. Contamination of the Nature Reserve by construction materials must be avoided at all costs. Mitigation, enhancement and approach to biodiversity net gain. Your change in order limits has both positive and negative implications but - The addition (requisition) of new land along the river Stour for ‘enhanced environmental measures’ seem somewhat meaningless as it is already natural, green space. I may be wrong but the proposal for additional foraging habitat for birds moving inland from Pegwell Bay on land south of the existing Richborough to Canterbury 400kV overhead line seems to be directing birds in flight directly towards the hazardous pylons which would be disastrous. Extended Working Hours for the Onshore Scheme. Thanet is a tourist destination and Sundays are busy especially through the summer months. By proposing to work on Sundays and Bank Holidays, this would likely have an adverse impact on traffic on already busy roads potentially impacting the area’s tourist economy. The, albeit temporary, loss of PROW will impact on both local people and visitors for an extended period of time when we all acknowledge the importance of getting out into the countryside following the pandemic. Protection of Groundwater Sources. ‘The inclusion of a temporary construction compound (just off Sandwich Road) located within a groundwater Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 1, has the potential for significant adverse effects in relation to hydrogeology. This is concerning as over 75% of Thanet’s drinking water is sourced from groundwater. The whole area is also severely water stressed in terms of drinking water. Archaeology. ‘The proposed construction methodology for the foundations of the Minster Substation and Converter Station has the potential to result in the loss of a relatively large area of potential archaeological and paleo-archaeological deposits, resulting in a significant adverse effect, assuming the deposits are of high value/sensitivity.’ The permanent loss of archaeological artefacts due to the construction of the converter station can never be mitigated and would be a tragedy. Surveys. Whilst I appreciate that NGs wildlife surveys have not yet concluded, there are already some worrying anomalies between NG’s published findings and our own local environmentalist’s recordings. How can we reconcile these differences in order to establish accurate baseline figures? What credence will be given to the local groups’ findings? In conclusion. The bottom line, and we just can’t get away from it, is that this whole project is in totally the wrong place. Yes, we need clean, secure, renewable energy but not at any cost. No amount of mitigation or ‘Biodiversity Net Gain’ will ever compensate for or replace this established and unique habitat and terrain. Thanet generally is becoming rapidly developed, forfeiting farmland, green spaces and biodiversity at an alarming rate. This valuable area, which NG propose tunnelling through and building on, is one of the last local sanctuaries for a plethora of native and visiting wildlife. The cumulative effect of industrial development along the Richborough Way is a real and increasing threat to the continued existence of the nearby Nature Reserve and the incredible diversity of wildlife it supports. By choosing this location NG is committing environmental destruction and are wilfully ignoring the multiple layers of designated protection the area has been awarded. I appreciate that the connection to the grid needs to be east of Kemsley to be effective but the alternative option via North Foreland (K1a) to Site B must be far less environmentally damaging; it’s on higher ground, therefore not at risk of flooding; with no need for expenditure on piling; it’s located in an area designated as a business park and is within reasonable distance for connection to the existing overhead line.Yours faithfully, Natasha Middleditch
Dear Natasha, Thank you for your email. The proposed application for the Sea Link Project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: The stages of the NSIP process and how you can have your say. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. We note that you have also sent your email to the developer of the proposed project (National Grid). As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate any comments concerning the merits of the proposed development should be submitted directly to them: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 134 9569 Post: Freepost SEA LINK It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: How to register to have your say and make a relevant representation - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). You may also find it helpful to subscribe to us to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This can be done by selecting ‘Get Updates’ on the Planning Inspectorate’s project webpage and then entering your email address: Sea Link - Project information (planninginspectorate.gov.uk). Kind regards

Natasha Middleditch

Hello Please see below my comments on the proposed electricity network project between Suffolk and Kent Permanent infrastructure. In the past Thanet has been the victim of developments that have become obsolete almost before work began on them; I fear this proposal bears all the traits of being another scheme that will destroy the area’s identity and become obsolete after a short time. Or worse still will lay the foundation for future development and exploitation of the surrounding area. We are told that there are no other viable options available, but as far as I know, none have been fielded by you, despite alternatives being suggested and it is not clear why this is and the Sufflok site are ones that are suitable. You have stated that waterlogged ground is not suitable for this type of development and yet your proposal is to use marshland. You have suggested that as this is the case, in order to stabilise the converter station, subterranean pillars 20 meters deep will be needed. Where will the aggregate (gravel) come from that will be needed for this? The area where you propose to make land fall is adjacent to a nature reserve that has a Unesco RAMSAR designation; even the land on which the derelict hoverport stands and which you propose to use as construction and maintenance access has become a haven for wild life. There seems to be little account made of the precious ecology in the area, valuable salt marsh and land that supports a great variety of wildlife and flora and that have developed over hundreds of years. This site should be protected as a valuable resource for all. There will also be a loss of agricultural land, which seems to fly in the face of the current move to improve our food security. The proposal dwarfs the surrounding villages and countryside and will destroy much prized leisure / recreational space, adversely affect local businesses, We are told that there are no other viable options, but none have been fielded by National Grid, despite suggested alternatives from the likes of Sir Roger Gale and others. Construction and maintenance work: There would be considerable disruption to traffic through Cliffsend and Minster, both of which are villages whose roads are already under considerable pressure due to the amount of new housing being built. I understand that footpaths will be closed for years With regard to the construction work – the heavy machinery is likely to cause great damage to land that has been sensitively farmed or managed. During the Nemo project (which I understand was another of your schemes) areas of the salt marsh were damaged and have still not recovered. Mitigation, enhancements and approach to biodiversity net gain. There was proposed mitigation for the damage caused during the Nemo project which was not delivered, so I don't have confidence that you will carry out mitigation with any kind of commitment and indeed what historically what happens is that wildlife is expected to move over and over again. What are the enhancements you are proposing? You have already destroyed a Osprey nesting site at the decommissioned Richborough Power station, which would indicate that there is no respect for wildlife at all . Yours sincerely Fran Kimmons
Dear Fran Thank you for your email. The proposed application for the Sea Link Project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: The stages of the NSIP process and how you can have your say. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the developer (National Grid), and we would encourage you to contact them directly: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 134 9569 Post: Freepost SEA LINK It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. If you have not already done so, we advise that you submit your comments to National Grid at the contact details above. Their consultation period was from 8 July - 11 August 2024 but we would still encourage you to contact the Applicant directly. Kind regards Louise Harraway Case Manager

Fran Kimmons

I am writing to you to express my profound objection to the National Grid’s Sea Link proposal at Minster Marshes. This area lies adjacent to land with a SSSI status. The marshes are noted for its wildlife and rich biodiversity which is indigenous to its geographical location. It provides important food and a resting place for many tired migratory birds and it supports a plethora of wild life. Its flora and fauna is unique providing a habitat for many unique birds, many of which are critically endangered and consequently at risk from extinction. The building on any of this land cannot be mitigated against; building upon it will result in the total annihilation of a strategic area which supports a huge biodiversity of life which cannot be provided or substituted elsewhere. The Minster Marshes, as the name suggests, is a natural flood plain which if built upon would create a flood risk to the immediate towns and villages. If the land is concreted over it would increase the risk of flooding as the rain and sea water would have no where to go. Consequently this vastly increased water load would be discharged into the River Stour increasing the risk of flooding with the possibility of it bursting its banks. Climate change is further exacerbating heavy down pours and widespread flooding will create more problems for these geographically low lying areas which are all very much at an increased risk from flooding. This cannot be adequately mitigated against. Are you also prepared to accept responsibility for the wide scale flooding this may cause to people and businesses in towns and villages? Big corporations want profit for their shareholders. And it seems they are prepared to go to it for any lengths. What do your international shareholders understand about a sensitive environment area indigenous to East Kent which supports such a plethora of life from grass snakes to orchids to a variety of birds, many of which are critically endangered, which all call this place home? The truth is the cost to wildlife is simply too big to contemplate. Your proposal to build here is tantamount to ecocide, as it will ensue the total destruction of an important sensitive biodiverse area which provides life to so much wildlife. No one has the right to destroy this or deprive future generations of this natural wild life haven. My question to you is how will you sleep at night and what will you tell your children when you know that you have had a hand in extinguishing life on an unprecedented scale merely for money? Its future lies in your hands now. The question is will you choose money over wildlife and the many animals which live here? You and your shareholders need to rethink this proposal. Donna Garfield
Dear Donna Thank you for your email. The proposed application for the Sea Link Project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: The stages of the NSIP process and how you can have your say. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. We note that you have also sent your email to the developer of the proposed project (National Grid). As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate any comments concerning the merits of the proposed development should be submitted directly to them: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 134 9569 Post: Freepost SEA LINK It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: How to register to have your say and make a relevant representation - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) You may also find it helpful to subscribe to us to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This can be done by selecting ‘Get Updates’ on the Planning Inspectorate’s project webpage and then entering your email address: Sea Link - Project information (planninginspectorate.gov.uk). Kind regards

Donna Garfield

Dear Sir or Madam I am writing in relation to the further consultations on this application and the very significant changes to the original presentation. National Grid SeaLink proposal raises serious concerns. I know the area well but anyone considering the topology will see that the development is on land prone to flooding, it's not known as Minster Marshes for no reason. It is waterlogged all year round and most of the land is only 1 or 2 metres above sea level. National Grids own documentation states that marshland or boggy land is not suitable for these types of projects, as a result this development will raise the height of all structures by 2 metres. The following applications submitted to Thanet District Council in relation to the BESS Plant: F/TH/20/1467, F/TH/21/0305 and F/TH/24/0034, the last of which is still to be determined, demonstrates how difficult the land is for many types of developments where water could create serious concerns. This development has also had to be raised by 2m across the entire site. The initial plans were to use a system of SUDs to manage rainwater which was obviously not possible given the shallow nature of water across the entire area. This demonstrates extremely poor planning and preparation which, I believe, is a thread throughout the project. Raising the ground level for the SeaLink project will require many thousands of tons of aggregate, raising the following concerns: 1. How will this be brought to site? 2. Where will this aggregate be sourced? 3. Will the aggregate be free of all forms of contamination? 4. How will the run off through and over this imported material, not native to the area, impact on the hydrology of ground water and the hydrology of the Marshes, the SSSI, Minster Stream and River Stour? During the members briefing to TDC Councillors the SeaLink Team were asked how the run off will be managed. Initially they said pools or ponds would be created but, when it was explained to them about the water table height their response was that the pools/ponds would be built above ground. The conclusion is that the base of the pools/pond will have to be raised. This, off the cuff, thinking gave no clarity or detail about how much run-off was expected or how the system would cope with climate change - a very low-lying area, already saturated. When pressed about excess run-off Council were told it would be released into the Minster Stream despite the well-known presence of the critically endangered European Eel. Again, no consideration was given to negative impacts from large amounts of run-off or changes in water course pH due to the aggregates upon land and water-based biodiversity. In order to make this marsh-land viable the project has to use 'pile drivers' in attempts to find or create a stable platform to build on. This is flat land where noise and vibrations will carry, not only through the air but through the saturated marsh land. No concern has been expressed for the existing biodiversity or the residents and businesses of Cliffsend and Minster. This proposal will require 1000's of lorry trips to and from the site that will create excessive disruption and require further damage to existing environments. Besides the flooding risks and the range and extent of greatly protected marine and land based environments on and close to the site, SeaLink have no measures to address the very wide range of wildlife and habitat on site and in the area, in particular those with high levels of protection; Grey Herons, Little Egrets and Nightingale for example. The updated plans also seem to mean the cutting of a road through the woodland at the top of Jutes Lane but sadly there seems to be absolutely no mention of how the loss of this valuable mature woodland will be mitigated. Tree coverage in Thanet is 4.4%, one of the lowest in the world and as such the loss of mature woodland needs to be prevented. Given the significance of the area much data is available and continues to be collected by statutory bodies as well as locals with nationally recognised expertise and interest in the area. However, SeaLink has made no efforts to reach out to these organisations/people and so gain a more accurate understanding of the wildlife that exists. The proposed converter site appears to cover a dyke and scrub hedgerow an important area where the ringing of birds takes place on a regular basis, where Brown Hare and Badgers feed, all of which needs to be appropriately mitigated for and prior to any serious work begins, if the DCO is successful. Key areas have been identified but Council members were told this is farmland and an existing strip along the river that will be "enhanced". The implication being that this is not a new area needing mitigation. There was no mention of impacts on the loss of farmland or how the loss of farmland might make the farm unviable. I was relieved to see that TDC's CEO had ruled out the use of the Pegwell Hoverport site due to its proximity and exceptional wildlife, I have observed both Lizard orchids, one of the rarest in the UK and Pyramid Orchids on the site this year. SeaLinks poor planning, preparation and lack of consultation is further demonstrated in their view that the Hoverport site was a brownfield 'post-industrial wasteland' instead of a rich area of increasing biodiversity. The plans have also doubled the marine area, covering almost the whole of Pegwell Bay, a national and international site of marine importance. The reason given was to 'anchor ships', but there was no answer suggesting this expansion was necessary. Of more concern is that any ships entering Pegwell Bay will cause significant damage to the sea beds with obvious pollution from fuel and other waste materials. Though not stated by SeaLink the obvious conclusion is that they intend to dredge the Bay to allow medium and large vessels to navigate the very shallow waters. This form of disruption will cause massive damage to habitats and biosystems as well as marine protection areas. Further damage will be done to Pegwell businesses and those further afield who rely on visitors and tourists, the protected marine and land sites being of particular interest. This said, the SeaLink Team gave no consideration to the thousands of residents who will be prevented from the quiet enjoyment of their home areas. The SeaLink team proposals pay no attention to the 'cumulative impact' of the various developments already operating, approved yet to be built or submitted to Dover District Council, Thanet District Council or Kent Country Council. These are many and varied with some presenting a considerable fire risk. The 249 MWh Bess Plant that is close by represents was approved, the first 2 phases which are now operational and built partly on land with a flood risk level of 2/3 where the base was raised 2m to address this. Lithium battery BESS are an emerging technology. The international BESS trade conference in 2021 reported over 30 significant BESS fires/explosions and we have seen many more since, particularly the Liverpool incident of 2023. The Liverpool site was a 20MWh while ours is far bigger. Therefore one would expect National Grid to be taking account of the various laws and regulations in planning and operating their BESS. Reading their plans it is clear that much of their submission is superficial while a lot is also misleading. I attach guidance published by UK Government earlier this year relating to BESS, one can easily see that National Grid's operation and intentions are far from being legally compliant; I attach my list of questions (sent to the Secretary of State on 8th April 2024 and again on 25th July 2024 following the General Election changes), based on their planning applications, that illustrate how far from compliance, and basic safety, the operation is. BESS fires do not need oxygen to burn making fire fighting extremely difficult for Fire Brigades. Lithium fire experience shows batteries can ignite with no apparent fault in their manufacture making any and all BESS sites a foreseeable risk. The size of the Richborough BESS makes it imperative that robust fire management is in place, but it is not. My attached question document details the following points but I have put them here for ease of reference: o no lithium cell chemical reaction heating detection o no cell cooling system o no fire-fighting arrangements specific to battery failure fires and thermal run-aways o a long and fragile communication chain before Kent F&R are informed of an incident o a many stepped and unclear process before of fire fighters can access the site safely o wind taking toxic smoke over the fire-fighting water tank and access points o the inadequate quantity of water in the fire fighting tank for this site size o no plan for a failed battery cell explosion at the centre of the battery array o no plan for heating from a fire/explosion causing a runaway chain reaction in battery cells in neighbouring containers o no major incident plan to manage population centres, environments and transport at threat from toxic plumes and contaminated fire-fighting water run-off? o no details of UK regulatory compliance o failure to acknowledge BESS industry best practice in planning site operations and emergencies o failure to demonstrate any learning from recent BESS fire and explosion events. The nearby BESS Plant, the Solar Farm, Grid Stability Plant and any future developments require an overall fire management plan. How will fire risk be minimised, how will fire spread be addressed, how are owners and operators of the various developments involved in a shared Fire Risk management plan for the entire Richborough site and beyond. The environment and nearby residential and business properties, towns and villages have to be protected from fire, toxic fumes and toxic water. The proposed site is an area of increased flood risk, to date the land has acted as a large 'sponge', naturally soaking up water in periods of heavy rain and exceptional high tides. The KCC Sandwich Town Tidal Defences document of August 2016 describes this, 'the biggest tidal surge in 60 years hit the east coast on Friday 6 December 2013'.This affected the entire area but water was able to sit and drain naturally with Minster Marshes playing a vital part in avoiding a catastrophic event. The Environment Agency deployed flood defences preventing serious flooding over the course of 3 exceptional high tide and the storm surges. SeaLink covering large parts of the Minster Marshes as well as Richborough with aggregate to raise the land, buildings and other infrastructure which is not porous will prevent the land’s ability to soak contain and drain the water naturally. The excess rain run-off due to the buildings and non-porous aggregates will simply add to this scenario. Add to this a warmer and wetter climate, rising sea levels and associated rise in ground water levels and one sees the combined effects of these developments. The likely outcome of the cumulative impact will be increased flooding on site and adjacent areas putting Minster Village and the Weatherless Sewage Treatment site at greater risk than they already are. In addition, Minster Stream and River Stour will be overwhelmed as these elements discharge into them. This development will result in 4-years of constant disturbance, in what is presently a quiet tranquil place of great biodiversity, close to greatly protected land-based and marine environments as well as Richborough Fort a site of significant heritage and the villages of Cliffsend, Pegwell and Minster. The size and scope of the buildings, above surface pools/ponds, pylons, the existing ones of which have already resulted in the death of over 170 mute swans in a single event, is simply negligent. The structures, sitting in such a low-lying area, will be clear for miles around creating a massive blot on our landscapes. The Sealink Team mentioned the port of Ramsgate and, with their need for considerable amounts of aggregate, this undertaking will have impacts on the people, buildings, roads and businesses of the town, as lorries make their way from the port to the Minster Marshes. The impact on tourism a key economic driver for the area has not been explored at all. 4-years of blocked roads, construction work, restricted areas, footpaths closed, loss of environment to explore will be appalling. In summing up, the Sealink Team could not have picked a more inappropriate place due to its environmental importance, land-based and marine biodiversity, access, potential on site and off site flooding, cumulative impact of a number of development close by, noise, visual impact, migrating bird strikes on pylons, proximity of villages/towns as well as the lack of opportunities for meaningful and appropriate mitigation. Their failure to consider fire safety, chemical management, fire safety and civil contingencies could not have been worse. I am a supporter of the drive for clean energy but this project is a shocking example of the disregard shown for the our delicate environments and communities in a profit led rush by National Grid. Every aspect of this project demonstrates their aim to maximise financial gain over every other consideration. Yours faithfully Garry Saunders FIOSH Ramsgate, Kent.
Dear Garry Thank you for your email. The proposed application for the Sea Link Project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: The stages of the NSIP process and how you can have your say. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. We note that you have also sent your email to the developer of the proposed project (National Grid). As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate any comments concerning the merits of the proposed development should be submitted directly to them: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 134 9569 Post: Freepost SEA LINK It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: How to register to have your say and make a relevant representation - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) You may also find it helpful to subscribe to us to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This can be done by selecting ‘Get Updates’ on the Planning Inspectorate’s project webpage and then entering your email address: Sea Link - Project information (planninginspectorate.gov.uk). Kind regards

Garry Saunders

Hello Please see below my comments on the proposed electricity network project between Suffolk and Kent I am writing to voice my concerns about the environmental and social impact that this project will have on Cliffsend and Minster in Ramsgate. There have been past developments which have caused considerable disruption and destruction within the locality; projects that were deemed necessary at the time, but were then obsolete within a short time. I cite Ramsgate Port as one example. I think that this proposal will destroy the area’s identity and worse still, lay the foundation for future development and exploitation of the surrounding area on the basis that the infrastructure is already in place. You have stated that no other viable options are available, but no other proposals have been made or tested as far as I am aware. The land on which you propose to build is waterlogged for much of the year (therefore not suitable for this type of development) and yet you are proposing to install twenty metre subterranean pillars so that the converter station is stable. Where will the aggregate (gravel) come from that will be needed for this? And this will surely add to the amount of heavy traffic to shift materials needed. Heavy machinery will have a devastating effect on land that has been sensitively managed and damage the roads around the site. During the Nemo project (which I understand was another of your schemes) areas of the salt marsh were damaged and have still not recovered. Where you propose to bring the cables on shore is next to a nature reserve that has a Unesco RAMSAR designation, valuable salt marsh; even the land on which the derelict hoverport stands and which you propose to use as construction and maintenance access has become a haven for wild life. This site should be protected as a valuable resource for all, but this has not even been mentioned in your proposal. Such designations seem to be of little account. Using farmland to provide mitigation seems counterproductive when we are losing such land to house building at a fast rate and the need for food security and self-sufficiency has become more important. The proposal overshadows the surrounding villages and countryside and will destroy much prized leisure / recreational space, adversely affect local businesses, As already stated you acknowledge that there will be considerable disruption to traffic through Cliffsend and Minster, both villages whose roads are already under considerable pressure due to the amount of new housing being built. I understand that you also propose to close footpaths for years. You have proposed mitigation for the damage which will be caused and the loss of habitat, but during the Nemo project mitigation and restoration were promised and not delivered, so I don’t have confidence that you will carry out mitigation with any kind of commitment. What historically happens is that new proposals are made to develop land that was offered as mitigation in a previous scheme and the wildlife is expected to move over and over again. You mention enhancements, but what are they? I understand that when you bought the land on which the old wind turbine once stood, you took the turbine down even though it was a nesting site for Ospreys. Whilst I am in favour of renewable energy I don’t believe that this current scheme is practical and that the level of disruption proposed will have a negative effect on the local community and the wildlife we share this land with. Surely if quality of environment is reduced so does our quality of life. I hope that you will consider these comments seriously Yours sincerely Reverend Joyce Outen
Dear Joyce Thank you for your email. The proposed application for the Sea Link Project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: The stages of the NSIP process and how you can have your say. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the developer (National Grid), and we would encourage you to contact them directly: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 134 9569 Post: Freepost SEA LINK It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. If you have not already done so, we advise that you submit your comments to National Grid at the contact details above. Their consultation period was from 8 July - 11 August 2024 but we would still encourage you to contact the Applicant directly. Kind regards Louise Harraway Case Manager

Joyce Outen

Hello As a resident of Ramsgate, I am appalled at the propsect of the loss of Minster Marches to the National Grid's plans. We are all increasingly aware of how the damage to our environment impact's negatively on the climate and infrastructure of whole areas of urban and rural land. The Sealink Team could not have picked a more inappropriate place due to its environmental importance, land-based and marine biodiversity, access, potential on site and off site flooding, cumlulative impact of a number of developments close by, noise, visual impact, migrating bird strikes on pylons, proximity of villages/towns as well as the lack of opportunities for meaningful and appropriate mitigation.. Please re-visit this plan - as there must be more appropriate places in Kent that could host this project. Bernie Morgan
Dear Bernie Thank you for your email. The proposed application for the Sea Link Project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: The stages of the NSIP process and how you can have your say. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. We note that you have also sent your email to the developer of the proposed project (National Grid). As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate any comments concerning the merits of the proposed development should be submitted directly to them: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 134 9569 Post: Freepost SEA LINK It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: How to register to have your say and make a relevant representation - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) You may also find it helpful to subscribe to us to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This can be done by selecting ‘Get Updates’ on the Planning Inspectorate’s project webpage and then entering your email address: Sea Link - Project information (planninginspectorate.gov.uk). Kind regards

Bernie Pendle

As you know, Sea Link produced a project update document on their plan to reinforce the electricity transmission network between Suffolk and Kent and people were asked to submit comments by 23.59 on 11th August 2024. The Save MInster Marshes Group have complied with their deadline and as a Group it was decided that you ought to be aware of what we said. I have therefore attached a copy of our submission to this email (without the two attachments referred to). Copies have also been sent to the two MPs covering Thanet - Sir Roger Gale and Polly Billington. Peter Lorenzo Chair, Save Minster Marshes Group
Dear Peter Thank you for your email. The proposed application for the Sea Link Project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: The stages of the NSIP process and how you can have your say. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. We note that you have also sent your email to the developer of the proposed project (National Grid). As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate any comments concerning the merits of the proposed development should be submitted directly to them: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 134 9569 Post: Freepost SEA LINK It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: How to register to have your say and make a relevant representation - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) You may also find it helpful to subscribe to us to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This can be done by selecting ‘Get Updates’ on the Planning Inspectorate’s project webpage and then entering your email address: Sea Link - Project information (planninginspectorate.gov.uk). Kind regards

Save Minster Marshes Group - Peter Lorenzo

To the Planning Inspectorate, I have lived in East Kent since 1999, first in Whitstable, now in Ramsgate for nine years. I love the area but have seen and experienced the pressures it suffers from. In Whitstable, we flooded - increased building reducing soak away areas, high tides, torrential rains, inadequate drains and sewers. In Thanet I have watched arable fields disappear, inappropriate developments without solar panels or progressive heating, poor design and no coherent planning. All the major conurbations are blending into each other linked by endless roundabouts. Now, after the NEMO experience and the interminable chaos and long term un-mitigated effect on the Pegwell Bay Ramsar and SSSI wetlands visible to this day, we are facing this proposal which will destroy the only part of ‘wildness’ left in the area. The homes of hundreds of species and migrating birds will be destroyed. Misery will be imposed on Minster, Pegwell and Cliffsend. Chalk river, the Stour and its ecosystems impaired. The integrity and soaking excess water ability of the marsh destroyed…. the list goes on and on. This is a cheap and nasty development hiding behind the ‘green’ banner. I am now copying Becky Wing’s letter, which addresses much more coherently my concerns. Once it’s gone it will take decades to get back. Yours sincerely, Mabelle Peñalver MBACP (Accred) Clinical Supervisor Dear Sir or Madam I am writing to you in relation to the proposed Kent Sealink DCO application following a further round of consultation and what appears to be some very significant changes to the original presentation. This newly published update to the National Grid Sealink proposal has raised a number of further serious concerns. Knowing the area very well and also simply taking a look at any topological map you will see that the development will be based on land prone to flooding. Indeed, it is called the Minster Marshes and as such is waterlogged all year round with most of the land being no higher that 1 or 2 metres above sealevel. A simple drive past or visit demonstrtates how problematic this land will be to build upon. National Grids own documentation clearly states that marshland or boggy land is not suitable for these types of projects and as a result, this development is now forced to raise the height of all stutures by an additional 2 metres. The following applications submitted to Thanet District Council in relation to the a BESS Plant: F/TH/20/1467, F/TH/21/0305 and F/TH/24/0034, the last of which is still to be determined, demonstrates how difficult the land is for many types of developments where water could create serious concerns. This development has also had to be raised by 2m across the entire site, in addition, their initial plans to use a system of SUDs to manage water was not possible. Why would it be given the shallow nature of water across the entire area. The raising of the site for the Sealink project will therefore require many thousands of tons of aggregate, raising the following concerns: 1. How will this be brought to site? 2. Where will this aggregate be sourced? 3. Will the aggregate be free of all forms of contamination? 4. How will the run off through and over this imported material, not native to the area, impact on the hydrology of ground water and the hydrology of the Marshes, the SSSI, Minster Stream and River Stour? During the members briefing to TDC Councillors the Sealink Team were asked how the run off from a building of considerable size and associated infrastructure which is not porous, will be managed. The initial answer was the creation of pools/ponds but when challenged about how this will be achieved given the shallow water, they stated, that these pools/ponds would be built above ground. I am assuming that will also mean the base of these pools/ponds will also need to be raised at least 2 additional metres! Sadly this was not clear and neither was the information relating to the amount of run off that would have to be managed or how the system would cope with climate change in such a low lying area that is already saturated. When asked what would they do with excessive run off, the response was, it will be released into the Minster Stream. They were made aware of the presence of the European Eel, which is critically endangered. Again, no consideration seems to have been given concerning the possible negative impact of larger amounts of water or the potential change in pH due to the inroduction of aggregates upon land and water based biodiversity. It is also very concerning that in order to make this marsh-land viable for this project that there will be, a requirement to use 'pile drivers' in the hope of finding and/or creating a stable platform to build on. This is flat land where noise and vibrations will carry, not only through the air but through the staturated marsh land. There appears to be little concern expressed for the existing biodiversity or indeed the residents and businesses of Cliffsend and Minster, this proposal will require 1000's of lorry trips to and from the site that will create excessive disruption and require further damage to existing environments. The sites location is problematic, not least the real potential for flooding and the range and extent of greatly protected marine and landbased environments, on and close to the site. Sadly, the Sealink Team do not appear to be interested in the widerange of wildlife and habitat on site and in the area, including those with high levels of protection; Grey Herons, Little Egrets and Nightingale for example or indeed residents and businesses. The updated plans also seem to mean the cutting of a road through the woodland at the top of Jutes Lane but sadly there seems to be absolutely no mention of how the loss of this valuable mature woodland will be mitigated. Tree coverage in Thanet is 4.4%, one of the lowest in the world and as such the loss of woodland needs to be seriously acknowledged, considered and mitigated for, better still avoided The loss and impact on wildlife does not seem a key concern for Sealink who appear at best dismissive of it and at worse are failing to undertake prolonged surveys. Given the signifcance of the area, much data is available and continues to be collected by stutory bodies and locals with expertise and interest in the area and yet little attempt by Sealink has been made to reach out to these organisations/people, to gain a more accurate understanding of the wildlife that exists. The proposed converter site appears to cover a dyke and scrub hedgerow an important area where the ringing of birds takes place on a regular basis, where Brown Hare and Badgers feed, all of which needs to be appropriately mitigated for and prior to any serious work begins, if the DCO is successful. Key areas have been identified and at the members briefing they were descirbed as farmland and an existing strip along the river, the latter of which would simply be 'enhauced', so not in fact a new area of mitigation! There was no mention of what the impact would be on the loss of farmland for farming in the area, or indeed how the loss of farmland for mitigation would in itself be mitigated for, or indeed whether the farm would be viable without this land? As a Thanet District Councillor, I was relieved to see that the CEO had ruled out the use of the old Pegwell Hoverport which is another exceptional wildlife site, this summer I was lucky enough to see both Lizard orchids, one of the rarest in the UK and Pyramid Orchids in this location, while walking my dog. Something this development will also mean locals and visitors will not be able to do! I got the feeling that the Sealink Team simply viewed this as somekind of 'industrial wasteland' instead of a rich area of increasing biodiversity! The marine area also seems to have doubled in size as indicated on the plans and now includes almost the entire area of Pegwell Bay, a national and international site of marine importance. When asked why this was needed the response was to 'ankor ships/vessels', there was no comprehensive answer suggesting this expansion was not properly evidenced. The ankoring of ships/vessels also begs the question concerening damage to the seabed and potential pollution from fuel and other waste materials. This bay is frequented by both grey and common seals who are regulars on the River Stour close by and as such Pegwell Bay is not a suitable site for the ankoring of ships/vessels and no information was presented as to what the function of these ships/vessels would be. One area that the SeaLink team and the previous and new proposals seem to pay no attention to is the 'cumulative impact' of the various developments already operating, approved yet to be build or submitted to Dover Distict Council, Thanet District Council or Kent Country Council. These are many and varied with some presenting a considerable fire risk. The 249 MWh Bess Plant that is close by respresents just that, a facility sadly approved, the first 2 phases of which are now operational and built partly on land with a flood risk level of 2/3. Of course the facility has been raised 2m to address this. BESS fires are not easy to put out as the Significant Incident Report of the BESS Fire in Liverpool in 2022 indicates, they are an emerging battery storage technology. This BESS site was just 20MWh and defensive firefighting had to be used for a considerable length of time. As a result, I have two serious concerns relating to the consequences of the cumulative impact of the combined developments at and around the Richborough Site: 1. How will Fire Safety be addressed at the Sealink Site and what assessments if any, will be undertaken to consider the combined Fire Safety across the entire Richborough Site and beyond. For example, if a fire breaks out in the nearby BESS Plant, Solar Farm or Grid Stability Plant, how could this impact on the Sealink facility and how would fire spread be addressed? Have or will these senarios be looked at, have or will this involve the other owners and/or operators of the various developments and will there be a shared Fire Risk management plan for the entire Richborough site and beyond, to ensure the environment and nearby residential and business properties, towns and villages are protected from fire, toxic fumes and toxic water. 2. The proposed site is an area of increased flood risk, to date the land has acted as a large 'sponge', naturally soaking up water in periods of heavey rain and exceptional hightides. I was able to witness this, as described by the KCC Sandwich Town Tidal Defences document August 2016, when 'the biggest tidel surge in 60 years hit the east coast on Friday 6 December 2013'.This affected the entire area but there was room for the water to go, to sit and drain naturally and the Minster Marshes played an important role in helping avoid a catastrphic event. The Environment Agency were also able to deloy flood defences preventing serious flooding over the course of 3 exceptional high tide and the storm serge. The covering of large parts of the Minster Marshes as well as Richborough with aggregate to raise the land, buildings and other infrastructure which is not porous, will create excessive rain run-off, as well as reducing the role of this land in soaking up water naturally. This run-off water will now need to be managed if flooding directly on site and away from the site is to be avoided. Add to this a warmer and wetter climate, as well as rising sealevels, which will also affect ground water levels, as a consequnce of global warming, then it is essential that the combined affect of all developments at and around the Sealink site is properly evaluated. There is real concern that this cumulative impact will result in increased flooding at the site and away from the site, putting Minster Village and the Weatherless Sewage Treatment site at greater risk than they already are, as well as overwhelming the Minster Stream and River Stour, as all developments will be discharging into these. It was also quite alarming at the member's briefing that the Sealink Team appeared to speak in a way that suggested, 'this was a done deal', concern for the impact on the environment was certainly not a key focus and information on the screening out of alternative sites 'glossed over'. This development will result in 4-years of constant disturbance, in what is presently a quiet tranquil place of great biodiversity, close to greatly protected land-based and marine environments as well as Richborough Fort a site of significant heritage and the villages of Cliffsend, Pegwell and Minster. The size and scope of the buildings, above surface pools/ponds, pylons, the existing ones of which have already resulted in the death of over 170 mutt swans in a single event, is simply 'mindblowing'. It will sit in a low-lying area and as a result will be seen for miles. Given also that the Sealink Team mentioned the port of Ramsgate and will have a need for considerable amounts of aggregate, it may also impact on the people of this town, as lorries make their way from the port to the Minster Marshes. The impact on tourism a key economic driver for the area has not been explored at all. 4-years of blocked roads, construction work, restricted areas, footpaths closed, loss of environment to explore has simply not been fully explored. In summing up, the Sealink Team could not have picked a more inappropriate place due to its environmental importance, land-based and marine biodiversity, access, potential on site and off site flooding, cumlulative impact of a number of development close by, noise, visual impact, migrating bird strikes on pylons, proximity of villages/towns as well as the lack of opportunities for meaningful and appropriate mitigation. As a Green Councillor, I should be supporting the drive for clean energy but have found myself shocked and horrified at the disregard shown for the impact on the evironment and communities as well a complete failure to consider cumulative impact of numerous developments in close proximity, or indeed the scoping out of alternative sites and the choosing of cheaper options, for example pylons as opposted to undergrown cables. From the outside looking in, it appears to be somekind of 'green-energy' rush, with little forward planning and collaboration between the various developments on site, indeed, we already have a NEMO connection, why was this project not scoped at the same time as this? I have real concern that the combined development in the area and the fact the area is a floodrisk area, evidenced by the need to raise the hight of buildings and infrastructure, that it is a site that is fast becoming a 'recipe for disaster', that the environement, biodiversity and communities will pay for now and later if there is a serious incident of flooding or fire event. Kind regards Cllr Rebecca (Becky) Wing Central Harbour Ramsgate
Dear Mabelle Thank you for your email. The proposed application for the Sea Link Project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: The stages of the NSIP process and how you can have your say. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the developer (National Grid), and we would encourage you to contact them directly: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 134 9569 Post: Freepost SEA LINK It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. If you have not already done so, we advise that you submit your comments to National Grid at the contact details above. Their consultation period was from 8 July - 11 August 2024 but we would still encourage you to contact the Applicant directly. Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: How to register to have your say and make a relevant representation - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) You may also find it helpful to subscribe to us to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This can be done by selecting ‘Get Updates’ on the Planning Inspectorate’s project webpage and then entering your email address: Sea Link - Project information (planninginspectorate.gov.uk). Kind regards Louise Harraway Case Manage

Mabelle Penalver

I am emailing you to state - Some things are worth more than money!!!! NG has stated in its own publications that marshland or boggy land is not suitable for these types of projects. I object to the proposed convertor station and it's infrastructure due to this very reason. The proposal is short sighted and does not look at the bigger picture. It is crazy that Minster Marshes is even being considered for this destruction, laughingly in the name of 'green energy'. To destroy the Marshes, will be destroying the habitate for many birds, wildlife, fauna and flora, that is already on the Red List! Does the Red List mean nothing to you? You cannot mitigate for this unique habitat, you cannot mitigate for flight patterns and you cannot mitigate for foraging areas. I'm not sure how you can even consider plonking a massive convertor station on the Marshes without it being a complete disaster for everything on the Marshes.... have you chosen this site because it'sthe cheapest option for your billionaire shareholders? The thought that this convertor station also now needs to be built on concrete is even more staggering... where will the excessive run off go? Into the Minster stream I understand... to poison it and whatever wildlife is left? The European Eel, which is critically is endangered? You have no concern of Cliffsend village and it's residents. Huge plant vehicles going backwards and forwards for 4 years, bringing disruption, pollution and noise. What about the old hoverport site? This is a RAMSAR site, SSS1 and National Nature Reserve. This should be respected and considered, not have this destruction impacting on it. Nature has a fine balance. You need to rethink and look at brownfield sites - you need to think differently and respect our area, as we do.... Louise Wetherill
Dear Louise Thank you for your email. The proposed application for the Sea Link Project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: The stages of the NSIP process and how you can have your say. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. We note that you have also sent your email to the developer of the proposed project (National Grid). As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate any comments concerning the merits of the proposed development should be submitted directly to them: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 134 9569 Post: Freepost SEA LINK It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: How to register to have your say and make a relevant representation - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) You may also find it helpful to subscribe to us to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This can be done by selecting ‘Get Updates’ on the Planning Inspectorate’s project webpage and then entering your email address: Sea Link - Project information (planninginspectorate.gov.uk). Kind regards

Louise Wetherill

Dear Sir or Madam I am writing to you in relation to the proposed Kent Sealink DCO application following a further round of consultation and what appears to be some very significant changes to the original presentation. This newly published update to the National Grid Sealink proposal has raised a number of further serious concerns. Knowing the area very well and also simply taking a look at any topological map you will see that the development will be based on land prone to flooding. Ideed, it is call the Minster Marshes and as such is waterlogged all year round with most of the land being no higher that 1 or 2 metres above sealevel. A simple drive past or visit demonstrtates how problematic this land will be to build upon. National Grids own documentation clearly states that marshland or boggy land is not suitable for these types of projects and as a result, this development is now forced to raise the height of all stutures by an additional 2 metres. The following applications submitted to Thanet District Council in relation to the a BESS Plant: F/TH/20/1467, F/TH/21/0305 and F/TH/24/0034, the last of which is still to be determined, demonstrates how difficult the land is for many types of developments where water could create serious concerns. This development has also had to be raised by 2m across the entire site, in addition, there initial plans to use a system of SUDs to manage water was not possible. Why would it be given the shallow nature of water across the entire area. The raising of the site for the Sealink project with therefore require many thousands of tons of aggregate, raising the following concerns: 1. How will this be brought to site? 2. Where will this appregate be sourced? 3. Will the aggrigate be free of all forms of contamination? 4. How will the run off through and over this imported material, not native to the area, impact on the hydrology of ground water and the hydrology of the Marshes, the SSSI, Minster Stream and River Stour? During the members briefing to TDC Councillors the Sealink Team were asked how the run off from a building of considerable size and associated infrastructure which is not porous, will be managed. The initial answer was the creation of pools/ponds but when challenged about how this will be achieved given the shallow water, they stated, that these pools/ponds would be built above ground. I am assuming that will also mean the base of these pools/ponds will also need to be raised at least 2 additional metres! Sadly this was not clear and neither was the information relating to the amount of run off that would have to be managed or how the system would cope with climate change in such a low lying area that is already saturated. When asked what would they do with excessive run off, the response was, it will be released into the Minster Stream. They were made aware of the presence of the European Eel, which is critically endangered. Again, no consideration seems to have been given concerning the possible negative impact of larger amounts of water or the potential change in pH due to the inroduction of aggregates upon land and water based biodiversity. It is also very concerning that in order to make this marsh-land viable for this project that there will be, a requirement to use 'pile drivers' in the hope of finding and/or creating a stable platform to build on. This is flat land where noise and vibrations will carry, not only through the air but through the staturated marsh land. There appears to be little concern expressed for the existing biodiversity or indeed the residents and businesses of Cliffsend and Minster, this proposal will require 1000's of lorry trips to and from the site that will create excessive disruption and require further damage to existing environments. The sites location is problematic, not least the real potential for flooding and the range and extent of greatly protected marine and landbased environments, on and close to the site. Sadly, the Sealink Team do not appear to be interested in the widerange of wildlife and habitat on site and in the area, including those with high levels of protection; Grey Herons, Little Egrets and Nightingale for example or indeed residents and businesses. The updated plans also seem to mean the cutting of a road through the woodland at the top of Jutes Lane but sadly there seems to be absolutely no mention of how the loss of this valuable mature woodland will be mitigated. Tree coverage in Thanet is 4.4%, one of the lowest in the world and as such the loss of woodland needs to be seriously acknowledged, considered and mitigated for, better still avoided The loss and impact on wildlife does not seem a key concern for Sealink who appear at best dismissive of it and at worse are failing to undertake prolonged surveys. Given the signifcance of the area, much data is available and continues to be collected by stutory bodies and locals with expertise and interest in the area and yet little attempt by Sealink has been made to reach out to these organisations/people, to gain a more accurate understanding of the wildlife that exists. The proposed converter site appears to cover a dyke and scrub hedgerow an important area where the ringing of birds takes place on a regular basis, where Brown Hare and Badgers feed, all of which needs to be appropriately mitigated for and prior to any serious work begins, if the DCO is successful. Key areas have been identified and at the members briefing they were descirbed as farmland and an existing strip along the river, the latter of which would simply be 'enhauced', so not in fact a new area of mitigation! There was no mention of what the impact would be on the loss of farmland for farming in the area, or indeed how the loss of farmland for mitigation would in itself be mitigated for, or indeed whether the farm would be viable without this land? As a Thanet District Councillor, I was relieved to see that the CEO had ruled out the use of the old Pegwell Hoverport which is another exceptional wildlife site, this summer I was lucky enough to see both Lizard orchids, one of the rarest in the UK and Pyramid Orchids in this location, while walking my dog. Something this development will also mean locals and visitors will not be able to do! I got the feeling that the Sealink Team simply viewed this as somekind of 'industrial wasteland' instead of a rich area of increasing biodiversity! The marine area also seems to have doubled in size as indicated on the plans and now includes almost the entire area of Pegwell Bay, a national and international site of marine importance. When asked why this was needed the response was to 'ankor ships/vessels', there was no comprehensive answer suggesting this expansion was not properly evidenced. The ankoring of ships/vessels also begs the question concerening damage to the seabed and potential pollution from fuel and other waste materials. This bay is frequented by both grey and common seals who are regulars on the River Stour close by and as such Pegwell Bay is not a suitable site for the ankoring of ships/vessels and no information was presented as to what the function of these ships/vessels would be. One area that the SeaLink team and the previous and new proposals seem to pay no attention to is the 'cumulative impact' of the various developments already operating, approved yet to be build or submitted to Dover Distict Council, Thanet District Council or Kent Country Council. These are many and varied with some presenting a considerable fire risk. The 249 MWh Bess Plant that is close by respresents just that, a facility sadly approved, the first 2 phases of which are now operational and built partly on land with a flood risk level of 2/3. Of course the facility has been raised 2m to address this. BESS fires are not easy to put out as the Significant Incident Report of the BESS Fire in Liverpool in 2022 indicates, they are an emerging battery storage technology. This BESS site was just 20MWh and defensive firefighting had to be used for a considerable length of time. As a result, I have two serious concerns relating to the consequences of the cumulative impact of the combined developments at and around the Richborough Site: 1. How will Fire Safety be addressed at the Sealink Site and what assessments if any, will be undertaken to consider the combined Fire Safety across the entire Richborough Site and beyond. For example, if a fire breaks out in the nearby BESS Plant, Solar Farm or Grid Stability Plant, how could this impact on the Sealink facility and how would fire spread be addressed? Have or will these senarios be looked at, have or will this involve the other owners and/or operators of the various developments and will there be a shared Fire Risk management plan for the entire Richborough site and beyond, to ensure the environment and nearby residential and business properties, towns and villages are protected from fire, toxic fumes and toxic water. 2. The proposed site is an area of increased flood risk, to date the land has acted as a large 'sponge', naturally soaking up water in periods of heavey rain and exceptional hightides. I was able to witness this, as described by the KCC Sandwich Town Tidal Defences document August 2016, when 'the biggest tidel surge in 60 years hit the east coast on Friday 6 December 2013'.This affected the entire area but there was room for the water to go, to sit and drain naturally and the Minster Marshes played an important role in helping avoid a catastrphic event. The Environment Agency were also able to deloy flood defences prevented serious flooding over the course of 3 exceptional high tide and the storm serge. The covering of large parts of the Minster Marshes as well as Richborough with aggregate to raise the land, buildings and other infrastructure which is not porous, will create excessive rain run-off, as well as reducing the role of this land in soaking up water naturally. This run-off water will now need to be managed if flooding directly on site and away from the site is to be avoided. Add to this a warmer and wetter climate, as well as rising sealevels, which will also affect ground water levels, as a consequnce of global warming, then it is essential that the combined affect of all developments at and around the Sealink site is properly evaluated. There is real concern that this cumulative impact will result in increased flooding at the site and away from the site, putting Minster Village and the Weatherless Sewage Treatment site at greater risk than they already are, as well as overwhelming the Minster Stream and River Stour, as all developments will be discharging into these. It was also quite alarming at the member's briefing that the Sealink Team appeared to speak in a way that suggested, 'this was a done deal', concern for the impact on the environment was certainly not a key focus and information on the screening out of alternative sites 'glossed over'. This development will result in 4-years of constant disturbance, in what is presently a quiet tranquil place of great biodiversity, close to greatly protected land-based and marine environments as well as Richborough Fort a site of significant heritage and the villages of Cliffsend, Pegwell and Minster. The size and scope of the buildings, above surface pools/ponds, pylons, the existing ones of which have already resulted in the death of over 170 mutt swans in a single event, is simply 'mindblowing'. It will sit in a low-lying area and as a result will be seen for miles. Given also that the Sealink Team mentioned the port of Ramsgate and will have a need for considerable amounts of aggregate, it may also impact on the people of this town, as lorries make their way from the port to the Minster Marshes. The impact on tourism a key economic driver for the area has not been explored at all. 4-years of blocked roads, construction work, restricted areas, footpaths closed, loss of environment to explore has simply not been fully explored. In summing up, the Sealink Team could not have picked a more inappropriate place due to its environmental importance, land-based and marine biodiversity, access, potential on site and off site flooding, cumlulative impact of a number of development close by, noise, visual impact, migrating bird strikes on pylons, proximity of villages/towns as well as the lack of opportunities for meaningful and appropriate mitigation. As a Green Councillor, I should be supporting the drive for clean energy but have found myself shocked and horrified at the disregard shown for the impact on the evironment and communities as well a complete failure to consider cumulative impact of numerous developments in close proximity, or indeed the scoping out of alternative sites and the choosing of cheaper options, for example pylons as opposted to undergrown cables. From the the outside looking in, it appears to be somekind of 'green-energy' rush, with little forward planning and collaboration between the various developments on site, indeed, we already have a NEMO connection, why was this project not scoped at the same time as this? I have real concern that the combined development in the area and the fact the area is a floodrisk area, evidenced by the need to raise the hight of buildings and infrastructure, that it is a site that is fast becoming a 'recipe for disaster', that the environement, biodiversity and communities will pay for now and later if there is a serious incident of flooding or fire event. Kind regards Cllr Rebecca (Becky) Wing Central Harbour Ramsgate
Dear Rebecca Thank you for your email. The proposed application for the Sea Link Project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: The stages of the NSIP process and how you can have your say. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. We note that you have also sent your email to the developer of the proposed project (National Grid). As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate any comments concerning the merits of the proposed development should be submitted directly to them: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 134 9569 Post: Freepost SEA LINK It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: How to register to have your say and make a relevant representation - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) You may also find it helpful to subscribe to us to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This can be done by selecting ‘Get Updates’ on the Planning Inspectorate’s project webpage and then entering your email address: Sea Link - Project information (planninginspectorate.gov.uk). Kind regards

Cllr Rebecca Wing

Dear Sea Link team. As the elected representative of residents in the area close to the site of your planned converter station, I wish to feed back my concerns about the following issues: • Increased height of the converter station, which is now proposed to be 28 metres. No visual representation of this, and its impact on the landscape as viewed from Minster or any other local vantage points has been provided. • Damage to soil structure from the use of open cable trenches, and impact on the unique marshland habitat and wildlife species. By the nature of the marshland site, it will be necessary to increase the ground height by two metres and to add 20 metre concrete pillars to stabilise it – a clear indication that the site is unsuitable for this use. • It also prompts the question of the many tonnes of aggregate which will be required – where will this be sourced from, will it be free of any contaminants and what will be the impact of runoff through this aggregate, on the hydrology of the marshland, ground water, Minster Stream and River Stour. • I welcome the reduced height and revised location of the pylons in recognition of the threat to birds, but this is an important breeding area, including for endangered species. We therefore need clearer plans for mitigation measures, including for the pylons themselves such as nesting platforms for peregrines, ravens and other birds. • I am glad to see that the former hoverport site will not be made available to National Grid, because this RAMSAR site and National Nature Reserve now features rare flora such as endangered bee and lizard orchids, and is important for over-wintering and migratory birds. Your sincerely, Cllr Abi Smith, Thanet Villages
Dear Cllr Abi Smith Thank you for your email. The proposed application for the Sea Link Project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: The stages of the NSIP process and how you can have your say. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. We note that you have also sent your email to the developer of the proposed project (National Grid). As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate any comments concerning the merits of the proposed development should be submitted directly to them: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 134 9569 Post: Freepost SEA LINK It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: How to register to have your say and make a relevant representation - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) You may also find it helpful to subscribe to us to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This can be done by selecting ‘Get Updates’ on the Planning Inspectorate’s project webpage and then entering your email address: Sea Link - Project information (planninginspectorate.gov.uk). Kind regards

Cllr Abi Smith

Dear Sir/Madam Sea Link Project - Kent Onshore Scheme This letter/email should be accepted as my official objection to National Grid’s Sea Link proposals for the Kent Onshore Scheme at Pegwell Bay and Minster Marshes. As you can see, I am a resident of Minster (in fact am a resident in the area which has received further communication from yourselves as being in an area where my property is likely (highly) to be impacted should this scheme go ahead). In line with the majority of the population, I want the earth to become a cleaner, greener place – but not at the level of destruction the scheme currently out for consultation will achieve. I understand that there are principles which the National Grid has to follow (and indeed note that NG accept the principles/guidance are of relevance); however, NG then has the temerity to assert that the guidelines have not been breached! The siting of the converter stations etc., should not be within designated areas of amenity, scientific or cultural values but this is exactly what is being proposed. The land at Pegwell Bay destroyed by the NEMO project has still to recover some 7 years after it was built. I am greatly concerned about the building of a 28 metre high converter station and sub-station (obviously NG have failed to provide any sketches of this monstrosity despite these being requested). This is an increase of some 2 metres on the original plans sent out for consultation – the reason for this is that the proposed converter station is being built on a marsh and, guess what, marshes are wet – so an additional 2 metre high platform with 20 metre deep pillars to stabilise the building! How can building on marshland even have been conceived as a good plan? I have been trying to find a comparable building height to try and visualise this and it has come to my attention that Dover Castle Keep (which I am familiar with) stands at 25.3 metres. That is obscene and will be visible for miles around (and not in a good way)! Estimates are that this whole scheme will take 4 years to complete – have you even considered for a moment what the impact this will have on the residents (human and wildlife) of the area – the noise, the dust, the traffic? I understand that the hours of work are also to be increased (can’t wait) – not sure if anyone has actually visited Thanet but it is a tourist destination and practically impossible to get around during the weekend anyway with the increased numbers of people visiting the area (that plus the additional traffic from the construction being undertaken in the area). I understand that there is a plan to use the old hoverport hand standing to store materials – this area has, over the course of many years, become a nature reserve with endangered bee and lizard orchids now found there amongst the many plants and insects/reptiles in increasing numbers. The hoverport is also a RAMSAR site and National Nature reserve and is used by over-wintering and migratory birds. The level of disruption that this will cause the residents of Cliffs End (many of whom were completely in the dark about your proposals) cannot be overstated. We have been made aware that Thanet District Council have refused the use of the hoverport; however, who are TDC against the might of the NG? Sad to say, I would not be confident (given the process so far) that NG would even accept this decision – there are a number of missing mentions of RAMSAR and SSSI designated area in the new documentation. Minster Marshes and Pegwell Bay have an abundance of wildlife and any building there would destroy habitats which have existed for hundreds of years. Pegwell Bay is also a RAMSAR site but this seems to have been ignored by NG! It is my understanding that the marsh is home to 147 species of birds, 19 of which are on the Red List. There is a lack of clarity in the environmental assessment document (no doubt made so huge so as to make it practically impossible to understand) – and whilst I understand that NGs wildlife surveys are not yet 100% complete, there do seem to be some worrying anomalies between your findings and those of local environmentalists. There are species missing (or NG are saying there are none) when independent counts have been carried out. You say that the requisition of new land along the River Stour will allow for ‘enhanced environmental measures’ is somewhat misleading (and meaningless) as it is already just that – a natural, unspoiled green space. I would urge NG to explore the possibility of other sites and have the environment (and protection/mitigation of the same) at the forefront of any decisions. I have no doubt that none of our concerns will be listened to or taken into account; however, at least I can say that I tried. Yours faithfully Alana S Smith
Dear Alana Thank you for your email. The proposed application for the Sea Link Project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: The stages of the NSIP process and how you can have your say. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the developer (National Grid), and we would encourage you to contact them directly: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 134 9569 Post: Freepost SEA LINK It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. If you have not already done so, we advise that you submit your comments to National Grid at the contact details above. Their consultation period was from 8 July - 11 August 2024 but we would still encourage you to contact the Applicant directly. Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: How to register to have your say and make a relevant representation - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) You may also find it helpful to subscribe to us to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This can be done by selecting ‘Get Updates’ on the Planning Inspectorate’s project webpage and then entering your email address: Sea Link - Project information (planninginspectorate.gov.uk). Kind regards

Alana Smith

Dear Sir/Madam, I am the Kent County Councillor for Ramsgate, I have represented the Ramsgate Division since May 2017. The division is comprised of 7 wards, and 43,000 people. Many people have contacted me across the division and from Pegwell Bay Area, with deeply held concerns about this project and the damage and disruption it will cause. It will damage and impair the local environment, our biodiversity, including rare birds, animals and plants, it will degrade the amenities of the beach, the foreshore and the sea. The build phase which will continue until at least 2030, this will negatively impact and blight the lives of those living closest to the development. These views, are I repeat, deeply held and to date I have not received a sufficiently detailed or robust response that allays my concerns. I am also concerned that the project may overrun. Key concerns:- 1. The volume of traffic bringing in building materials including aggregates will be a negative impact on peoples health and well-being. What will be done to ameliorate this? 2. How will the integrity and habitat of the Marshes, the SSSI, the Minster Stream and the River Stour be protected and safeguarded for the future? What percentage of the overall budget has been ring-fenced for these vital protections? 3. With regard to safeguarding the biodiversity the mitigation must occur before any building or further development of supporting infrastructure. Please demonstrate how you intend to ensure this? Kind regards Cllr Karen Constantine.
Dear Karen Thank you for your email. The proposed application for the Sea Link Project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: The stages of the NSIP process and how you can have your say. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the developer (National Grid), and we would encourage you to contact them directly: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 134 9569 Post: Freepost SEA LINK It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. If you have not already done so, we advise that you submit your comments to National Grid at the contact details above. Their consultation period was from 8 July - 11 August 2024 but we would still encourage you to contact the Applicant directly. Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: How to register to have your say and make a relevant representation - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) You may also find it helpful to subscribe to us to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This can be done by selecting ‘Get Updates’ on the Planning Inspectorate’s project webpage and then entering your email address: Sea Link - Project information (planninginspectorate.gov.uk). Kind regards

Karen Constantine

Dear Sir/Madam I am writing this in relation to the proposed Kent Sealink DCO application. I am deeply concerned and object to the completely unsuitable location of the Minster marshes for this proposed converter station to built upon. This is an area of marshland a flood plain it is also an incredibly important and densely rich wildlife area , with high recorded numbers of birds and mammals on the red list for endangered species. The proposed course for open trench cables will also go directly through an area designated as sssi, and will be absolutely and irreversibly devastating to this extremely important wildlife habitat. I don't feel sufficient surveys have been undertaken. This location has been opted for because it is the cheapest but will be the most costly environmentally. To bring green energy which is supposed to be working with the environment. I would like to add that I am a resident in Richborough, Sandwich, along the bank of the river stour, I am extremely concerned for the increased risk of flooding. The river already over the past two years floods on high spring tides. I fear this risk will vastly increase with construction of converter station. The railway runs very closely to the banks of the river stour here, so will be increased risk of damage and interruptions for national rail. They have already needed to reinforce the bank and build a flood defence wall. Which I do not believe will stand up to an increased and higher level of flooding. I would like to know why other Brownfield far more suitable locations have not been chosen? There is also now to be an increase of height by two metres for the entire sight. This will require vast amounts of aggregate. On top of the already vast amounts needed. I am very concerned for pollution to the area as well as increased flood risk. I would like to know what type of aggregate will used and its source? The route for all the construction vehicles and vehicles bringing tons of aggregate , the local roads and terrain is not designed for this heavy vehicle use? To conclude I am in agreement for the need of green energy but I feel the construction of a converter station at this proposed site on the Minster Marshes is at a far too greater cost to the local natural environment. It will have a detrimental and irreversible impact that no amount of mitigation could ever solve. I please ask you to re think sea link. Kind Regards Karen Crennell Local resident.
Dear Karen Thank you for your email. The proposed application for the Sea Link Project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: The stages of the NSIP process and how you can have your say. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the developer (National Grid), and we would encourage you to contact them directly: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 134 9569 Post: Freepost SEA LINK It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. If you have not already done so, we advise that you submit your comments to National Grid at the contact details above. Their consultation period was from 8 July - 11 August 2024 but we would still encourage you to contact the Applicant directly. Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects: How to register to have your say and make a relevant representation - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) You may also find it helpful to subscribe to us to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This can be done by selecting ‘Get Updates’ on the Planning Inspectorate’s project webpage and then entering your email address: Sea Link - Project information (planninginspectorate.gov.uk). Kind regards

Karen Crennell

In a public meeting on December 2nd 2022, I asked the CEO of Blenheim Estate (the landowner of 95% of the land on which Botley West Solar Farm is proposed) what due diligence had Blenheim completed in respect of Photovolt Development Partners GmbH (“PVDP”) and their ability to deliver such a large and complex project. He was dismissive of my question, and as a result I was concerned enough to start researching both Blenheim Estate and PVDP, in terms of their respective capability and experience in this specialist area. The attached summary indicates a very disturbing disparity between the solar site development claims being made by PVDP to PINS and the press (to support their credentials as experienced in building large scale solar power stations) and their actual experience. I noticed that this is particularly true in respect of the statement made to PINS during the 19 October 2022 Inception Meeting. In addition to the summary, I have attached two reference papers. These have been accessed from open source material available through online research. The advice I am seeking is to understand how it might be possible to ensure that the Inspectors have access to the most recent and verifiable information, and therefore the accuracy of an applicants claims, when assessing any application that might be lodged. Context is important and the context of my query is the assertion in the very first meeting of PVDP with PINS on 19th October 2022 made by PVDP that they have delivered solar farms of scale previously, where in fact it would appear that they divested of the largest of the approved schemes they have secured, before actually building them. This is relevant in that it needs to be clarified; a) have PVDP actually got the experience they claim they have, particularly in this instance where they are proposing a scheme that would be significantly larger than any other scheme they have received permission for previously. b competence is critical given that the proposed scheme is so large that it would be the largest in Europe, and c) where, if they are planning to sell the investment having secured permission but not actually built Botley West, we are not aware of whom we might actually be dealing with in respect of the delivery of a NSIP.
Dear Anthony, Section 51 Advice is published in accordance with Planning Act 2008 (legislation.gov.uk). This advice will be published alongside your original query as soon as practicable. If an application by Photovolt Development Partners (PVDP) on behalf of SolarFive Ltd ('the Applicant') is forthcoming it will be examined through the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. However, the Applicants proposal is still at the Pre-application stage of the process, and the Planning Inspectorate does not have a formal role in receiving representations about the scheme at this time. Until an application is formally made to the Planning Inspectorate any comments about the proposal should be sent directly to the Applicant. If you have not already done so, we would encourage you to send the comments comprised within your email to the Applicant. If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate a 28 day period will commence within which a suite of tests will be applied to the application and a decision made (on behalf of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)) about whether or not the application is of a standard that is satisfactory to be examined. If the application is formally accepted, one or more Inspectors will be appointed as an Examining Authority (ExA) to conduct a 6 month examination of the application. It is at this stage that you can use the Relevant Representation form to raise the matters in your correspondence shared with us to date, for the attention of the ExA to consider during the Examination. Please see our advice pages for further information about participating in an examination, in particular the suite of advice under Advice Note 8. Following the examination the ExA will report to the relevant Secretary of State (SoS), being the SoS for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero who will make the final decision about whether or not development consent will be granted for the scheme. In relation to your point about the transfer of benefit, Applicants are advised to give careful consideration to the terms of the transfer Article they include in their draft Development Consent Order (DCO) so as to ensure that it reflects how they envisage the NSIP being operated post-consent. Section 156 of the PA2008 provides that a DCO has effect for the benefit of the land and all persons for the time being interested in the land; although this is subject to any contrary provision made in a DCO. DCOs usually include an Article setting out who enjoys the benefit of the DCO and terms for the transfer of the benefit of any or all of the provisions of the DCO, including any consent that may be required. You may wish to subscribe to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate: Get updates | Botley West Solar Farm (planninginspectorate.gov.uk)

Anthony Thompson

Draft documents review
Please see attached.

Photovolt Development Partners (PVDP) - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

RWE Generation UK plc - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Anglian Water Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Anglian Water Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Fenwick Solar Project Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Teeside Flexible Regas Port Limited - anon.

A possible solar NSIP.
The Applicant gave an overview of the project, which comprised of a solar farm and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS), with an estimated export capacity, of up to 350MW. The site comprised of some 545 hectares in the East Midlands. The Applicant advised that there are a number of other planned and consented solar projects in the area. The Applicant explained that a Grid Supply Point is currently being proposed by National Grid (NG), outside of the Development Consent Order (DCO) process. Discussions are ongoing with NG in relation to the Grid connection. The Inspectorate advised that an Examining Authority is likely to seek further clarification on the grid connection in due course. The Applicant highlighted the cable corridor crossing of a listed bridge, watercourse, and level crossing. The Inspectorate highlighted the need to enter early discussions with the host Local Authority, Historic England, Environment Agency and Network Rail in relation to these matters. The Applicant confirmed that from early studies, the majority of the site is Grade 3 agricultural land. The Applicant also highlighted nearby conservation areas and wildlife sites. Various environmental survey work has been undertaken to date and further work is shortly planned. The Applicant explained that negotiations remain ongoing with all landowners and legal matters expected to be shortly completed. However, the DCO may include compulsory acquisition powers for some stretches of the cable route. Finally, the Applicant confirmed that it is likely to undertake non-statutory consultation in Q2/Q3 2024, which would run in parallel to the proposed EIA scoping timescales. The Inspectorate advised the Applicant to avoid overlapping timescales for these matters, if possible, to avoid confusion for statutory parties. The Applicant intends to submit the DCO application for examination in Q1/Q2 2025.

Anonymous

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Teeside Flexible Regas Port Limited - anon.

Hi, I would like to object to all plans for the Minster Converter Station. Having lived in the area (Ramsgate) for 10 years and walked and fished the area I have a high knowledge of the wildlife in the area. This area is a bird highway giving millions of birds an area for rest on journeys coming south from the continent and north from East Anglia. This area is a floodplain and a marsh. The area is a few miles from SSSI areas home to vast quantities of wildlife species who use the marshes. The whole area from Stodmarsh to Pegwell bay should be a protected area for wildlife. These reasons alone highlight the stupidity and complete lack of concern for the environment that is simply unbelievable. I highly object to all plans. Regards, Graham Warnock
Dear Graham, Thank you for your email below, which was forwarded to us as it appears to refer to the proposed Sea (South East Anglia) Link project. The proposed application for the Sea Link Project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the developer (National Grid), and we would encourage you to contact them directly: Email:[email protected] Telephone: 0808 134 9569 Post: Freepost SEA LINK. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. The developer’s statutory consultation period was from 24 October 2023 to 18 December 2023, however they have opened up another period of targeted consultation which will run from 8 July – 11 August 2024. Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 2]. You may also find it helpful to subscribe to us to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. This can be done by selecting ‘Get Updates’ on the Planning Inspectorate’s project webpage and then entering your email address: Sea Link - Project information (planninginspectorate.gov.uk). If you have any other questions, or if Sea Link was not the proposed development you were referring to in your email, please let us know. Kind regards, Louise Harraway, Case Manager

Graham Warnock

I wonder if you can help with this query Should Green Gen wish to access land to perform surveys etc, under what legislation should this be done? As Green Gen have yet to secure an iDNO licence, does this alter in any way the legislation they can use? Many thanks Jonathan
Dr Dean, In response to your question about which legislation an applicant seeking development consent can use to gain access to land, the Planning Inspectorate’s advice regarding this matter is addressed in the ‘Section 53: Rights of entry FAQs’ on the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. The Planning Inspectorate cannot provide legal advice on what powers to enter land are available to the applicant in the absence of an Independent Distribution Network Operator (IDNO) licence, therefore you may wish to seek your own independent advice on this matter. If you have specific queries around the timescales for Green GEN Cymru's application for an IDNO licence from Ofgem, we would encourage you to contact Green GEN Cymru directly: [email protected] Kind regards Emma Emma Cottam | Senior EIA Advisor

Dr Jonathan F Dean

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Lighthouse Green Fuels Limited (The Applicant) - anon.

Draft Document Feedback
Please see attached

North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Uniper UK Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

RWE - anon.

Cyfarfod Diweddariad y Prosiect
Gweler ynghlwm

Uniper UK Limited - anon.

Chyfarfod diweddaru'r prosiect - Project update meeting.
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached.

Lightsource bp - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Morgan Offshore Wind Limited and Morecambe Offshor - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

One Earth Solar Farm (“The Applicant”) - anon.

Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation.
Please see attached.

Pegasus Group - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

East West Railway Company Limited - anon.

I write in relation to an instruction we have received on a proposed solar farm application in England which we believe should be consented through the Town and Country Planning Act (1990), but I thought it would be prudent to check with PINs whether it may qualify as an NSIP project first, given PINs are in effect ‘gatekeepers’ for the NSIP regime. We have been guided by NPS EN3 which confirms “3.10.44 From the date of designation of this NPS, for the purposes of Section 15 of the Planning Act 2008, the maximum combined capacity of the installed inverters (measured in alternating current (AC)) should be used for the purposes of determining solar site capacity.” “3.10.45 The capacity threshold is 50MW (AC) in England and 350MW (AC) in Wales.” The technical specification of the site shows there would be 16 inverters each with a power of 3.125 kVA, equating to 50 MW AC capacity. I have also checked the grid offer and this is 49.99 MW. I’ve concluded fairly unequivocally that the lawful process is therefore the TCPA1990 process rather than the NSIP process, however I would be grateful for your view on this before we go any further. Could you please confirm that this project would not be an NSIP project and should instead be consented by the Local Authority? Many thanks
Dear Mr Grubb, I believe you may have already received a response from our NI Enquiries mailbox, however since this has been passed to me by my colleague Ewen (I partially hold responsibility for overseeing solar casework in National Infrastructure) allow me to provide a further response to your query for completeness. As you will be aware, under section 14(1)(a) of the Planning Act 2008, as amended (PA 2008), the construction or extension of a generating station is defined as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (‘NSIP’). Section 15 of PA 2008, amongst other things, provides that the construction or extension of an onshore generating station in England is within section 14(1)(a) only if the generating station, when constructed or extended, is expected to have a capacity of more than 50 megawatts. Development consent for development that is or forms part of a NSIP must be sought through the NSIP regime, as provided for by PA 2008, rather than under other legislation including, where relevant, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (see section 31 of the PA 2008). An application for such a project would be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in accordance with the process outlined on the National Infrastructure Planning website. It is for the developer to ensure it follows the correct planning route, taking its own legal advice if appropriate and advice from the relevant planning authority. If the decision is taken to submit an application to the relevant local authority, the authority will need to satisfy itself in turn, as to whether or not the proposal can be considered and determined by the planning authority under any regime other than the development consent regime provided for by the PA 2008. It should be noted that, under section 160 of PA 2008, it is an offence if a “person carries out, or causes to be carried out, development for which development consent is required at a time when no development consent is in force in respect of the development”. Please note that the Planning Inspectorate does not have the power to give a legally binding interpretation on such matters. Only the Courts can provide a definitive interpretation of legislation. The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is only able to decide whether an application for an Order granting development consent can be accepted for examination, under section 55 of PA 2008, once an application has been formally submitted. This email should not be taken as providing any view on which is the appropriate consenting regime for these proposals, nor should any advice given in this email be taken to pre-judge any future decisions that may be made by, or fetter any discretion of, the Secretary of State in relation to these proposals. Please note that the Inspectorate has a statutory duty to record and make publicly available any advice, such as this, given under s51 of the PA 2008 about applying for an Order granting development consent; or making representations about an application, or a proposed application for a development consent order. I trust this is helpful, Kind regards

Mr Grubb - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Photovolt Development Partners (PVDP) on behalf of - anon.

Dear Sir, Please accept this email as our strong wish that the above is re run given the woeful shortfall in accurate and detailed information displayed by PVDP currently. All errors and omissions need to be corrected and addressed with proper and appropriate detail and objectivity. PVDP have displayed arrogance in the extreme with the "glaced" misleading visuals; inability to answer important technical concerns and questions (through lack of their own knowledge/experts one can ony assume?) and their generalised and oblique responses. Surely their incredible shabby responses to bona fide concerns raised by "us" must alarm and alert the Inspectorate and those party to approving their very presence in our all too depleting food/land resources? Please can this entire shambolic application of PVDP finally be quashed completely and allow our valuable resources and much loved countryside to be used for our community for food and bio diversity of species etc. Yours faithfully, D Day (please respond by post (this email address is not reliably nor easily accessed)).
Please see attached

Mr Day

Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation.
Please see attached.

Southern Water Services Limited - anon.

Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation.
Please see attached.

Renewable Energy Solutions (RES) - anon.

Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation.
Please see attached.

Elements Green Trent Limited - anon.

Please see attached
Please see attached

Naomi Kretschmer

Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation.
Please see attached.

Rosefield Energy Farm Limited - anon.

Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation
The Infrastructure Planning (Miscellaneous Provisions (MP)) Regulations 2024 came into force on 30 April 2024 and amend the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure (APFP)) Regulations 2009. The transitional provisions at Regulation 4 of the MP Regulations 2024 confirm that the recently amended APFP Regulations do not apply to any proposed application for an order granting development consent where the applicant has started to consult under Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 before 30 April 2024. The Inspectorate is contacting you as it understands that consultation under Section 42 for the Aldbrough Hydrogen Storage had not commenced prior to 30 April 2024. The Inspectorate would like to inform you that as the scoping opinion request for Aldbrough Hydrogen Storage was received prior to 30 April 2024, the list of consultation bodies notified and consulted by the Planning Inspectorate before adopting the scoping opinion (as set out in the ‘Regulation 11 list’ provided to the Applicant as per Regulation 11(1)b of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)) Regulations 2017), will not reflect the recent amendments to the APFP Regulations. The Applicant is therefore advised to review the transitional provisions in Regulation 4 of the MP Regulations 2024, together with the amendments to the APFP Regulations, and consider whether any new or different consultation bodies should be included in the consultations for the project. Please be aware that it is the responsibility of the Applicant to ensure their consultation fully accords with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 and associated regulations and guidance. The Regulation 11 list has been compiled by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State in its duty to notify the consultation bodies in accordance with Regulation 11(1)(a) of the EIA Regulations and, whilst it can inform the Applicant’s own consultation, it should not be relied upon for that purpose.

Equinor New Energy Limited - anon.

Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation.
Please see attached.

Lighthouse Green Fuels Limited - anon.

Section 51 advice regarding draft application documents submitted by Beacon Fen Energy Park Limited.
Please see attached.

Beacon Fen Energy Park Limited - anon.

Rheoliadau Cynllunio Seilwaith (Darpariaethau Amrywiol (MP)) 2024 - Ymgynghoriad Adran 42 - Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation.
Gweler y Atodiad - See Attached

Green Gen Cymru - anon.

Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation.
Please see attached.

Xlinks 1 Limited - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Oxfordshire Rail freight Ltd - anon.

Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation.
Please see attached.

Teesside Flexible Regas Port Limited - anon.

Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation.
Please see attached.

RWE Renewables UK Solar and Storage Limited - anon.

Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation.
Please see attached.

RWE Generation UK plc - anon.

Rheoliadau Cynllunio Seilwaith (Darpariaethau Amrywiol (MP)) 2024 – Ymgynghoriad Adran 42 - Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation.
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached.

Uniper UK Limited - anon.

Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation.
The Infrastructure Planning (Miscellaneous Provisions (MP)) Regulations 2024 came into force on 30 April 2024 and amend the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure (APFP)) Regulations 2009. The transitional provisions at Regulation 4 of the MP Regulations 2024 confirm that the recently amended APFP Regulations do not apply to any proposed application for an order granting development consent where the applicant has started to consult under Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 before 30 April 2024. The Inspectorate is contacting you as it understands that consultation under Section 42 for the LionLink Multi-Purpose Interconnector has not commenced prior to 30 April 2024. The Inspectorate would like to inform you that as the scoping opinion request for the LionLink Multi-Purpose Interconnector was received prior to 30 April 2024, the list of consultation bodies notified and consulted by the Planning Inspectorate before adopting the scoping opinion (as set out in the ‘Regulation 11 list’ provided to the Applicant as per Regulation 11(1)b of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)) Regulations 2017), will not reflect the recent amendments to the APFP Regulations. The Applicant is therefore advised to review the transitional provisions in Regulation 4 of the MP Regulations 2024, together with the amendments to the APFP Regulations, and consider whether any new or different consultation bodies should be included in the consultations for the project. Please be aware that it is the responsibility of the Applicant to ensure their consultation fully accords with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 and associated regulations and guidance. The Regulation 11 list has been compiled by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State in its duty to notify the consultation bodies in accordance with Regulation 11(1)(a) of the EIA Regulations and, whilst it can inform the Applicant’s own consultation, it should not be relied upon for that purpose.

National Grid Interconnector Holdings Limited - anon.

Rheoliadau Cynllunio Seilwaith (Darpariaethau Amrywiol (MP)) 2024 – Ymgynghoriad Adran 42 - Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation.
Gweler y Atodiad - See Attached

Lightsource BP - anon.

Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation
The Infrastructure Planning (Miscellaneous Provisions (MP)) Regulations 2024 came into force on 30 April 2024 and amend the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure (APFP)) Regulations 2009. The transitional provisions at Regulation 4 of the MP Regulations 2024 confirm that the recently amended APFP Regulations do not apply to any proposed application for an order granting development consent where the applicant has started to consult under Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 before 30 April 2024. The Inspectorate is contacting you as it understands that consultation under Section 42 for the North Humber to High Marnham Project had not commenced prior to 30 April 2024. The Inspectorate would like to inform you that as the scoping opinion request for the North Humber to High Marnham Project was received prior to 30 April 2024, the list of consultation bodies notified and consulted by the Planning Inspectorate before adopting the scoping opinion (as set out in the ‘Regulation 11 list’ provided to the Applicant as per Regulation 11(1)b of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)) Regulations 2017), will not reflect the recent amendments to the APFP Regulations. The Applicant is therefore advised to review the transitional provisions in Regulation 4 of the MP Regulations 2024, together with the amendments to the APFP Regulations, and consider whether any new or different consultation bodies should be included in the consultations for the project. Please be aware that it is the responsibility of the Applicant to ensure their consultation fully accords with the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 and associated regulations and guidance. The Regulation 11 list has been compiled by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State in its duty to notify the consultation bodies in accordance with Regulation 11(1)(a) of the EIA Regulations and, whilst it can inform the Applicant’s own consultation, it should not be relied upon for that purpose.

National Grid Electricity Transmission

Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation.
Please see attached.

One Earth Solar Farm - anon.

Post Scoping advice regarding s42 consultation.
Please see attached.

RNA CAMBSBED1 Ltd - anon.

Please see Attached.
Please see Attached.

Begbroke and Yarnton Green Belt Campaign - Giles Lewis

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Elements Green Trent Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Green Hill Solar Farm Limited - anon.

Request confirmation that a proposed solar farm should not be determined as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project
The Planning Inspectorate does not have the power to give a legally binding interpretation on whether the proposed development would be classed as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. Only the courts can determine the interpretation of legislation. It is for the developer to decide whether or not to apply for an order granting development consent, taking its own independent legal advice. You may wish to refer to section 15 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008) which sets out the thresholds for a project. The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is only able to decide whether development consent is required for a project, under section 55 of PA 2008, once an application has been formally submitted.

Pegasus Group - anon.

Please see attached
Please see attached

Rosemary Lewis

Dear Gina (if I may), Many thanks for your prompt reply of 26 April. We understand that our requests for advice and your replies will be published on your website. I am pleased to note from your email that: "The availability of funding is a matter which is explored by Examining Authorities during examinations if an application is accepted for examination." So far the potential applicant has not included any information in respect of the availability of funding in any of the documents it has produced. Nor has PINS indicated, as far as we are aware, when such information should be produced or in what form it should be made available. C-POW has information on this matter which can be made available to the Examining Authority when appropriate. We will continue to update this information until it is needed and, if granted Interested Party status, will be happy to explain it in whatever form is helpful. I would be grateful, therefore, if you would provide advice about how the Examining Authority intends to deal with information in respect of "the availability of funding". Best wishes, Andrew Rein
Good afternoon Mr Rein, Thank you for your email below, contents of which are noted. Gina is on leave so I thought I would take this opportunity to introduce myself, I have recently taken over as case manager for the project. Regulation 5 (2)(h) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 requires applicants to submit additional information regarding funding where a proposed order would authorise the compulsory acquisition of land or an interest in land or right over land. This is often in the form of a funding statement, which would be supplied as part of the suite of application documents. All application documents will be published on the project page if the application is accepted for examination. The Planning Act 2008 Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land explains that any application for a consent order authorising compulsory acquisition must be accompanied by a statement explaining how it will be funded. The timing of the availability of funding is also likely to be a relevant factor. These are matters that the Examining Authority will be examining, amongst other matters, when considering whether the legislative tests to authorise compulsory acquisition, in s122 of the Planning Act 2008 are met. It is open to you to raise any concerns on the availability of funding in your Relevant Representation (RR), in due course, if the application is accepted for examination. It is also open to you to make these concerns directly to the Applicant, should you wish. I trust that Gina’s previous email provided an overview on how to make a RR at the appropriate time. However please do not hesitate to contact us nearer the time if you have any questions about how to make a submission. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects - Advice Note Eight: overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) I hope this information is helpful, but should you have any other queries, please feel free to contact the project mailbox. As before, we will publish this information and your query on the project page, to fulfil our duty to publish all advice given on the project webpage under s51 of the Planning Act 2008. Kind regards Caroline Hopewell

Campaign to Protect Old Woodstock - Andrew Rein

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Xlinks 1 Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

NNB Generation Company (HPC) Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Teesside Flexible Regas Port Limited - anon.

Dear Mr Morrison, I sent a request for advice to Mr George Harrold believing him to be the case officer for this matter but I received the automated response below. I'd be most grateful if you could ask the current case officer to respond to my request for advice, which is as follows: The Campaign to Protect Old Woodstock (C-POW) has been following the progress of of the Botley West Solar Farm (BWSF) through the DCO process. We are currently considering whether to apply to be an "Interested Party" (IP) at the appropriate time. In order to assist us to decide this, and what role to play if granted IP status, we would appreciate advice in respect of the scope of the Examination. As information has become available we have become increasingly concerned about the ability and suitability of the potential applicants to deliver what would (currently) be the largest solar farm in the UK, if a DCO were to be granted. SolarFive Ltd appears to be what is generally described as a "shell company". It was incorporated in May 2020, seemingly with the sole purpose of promoting BWSF. It publishes only abridged accounts, the most recent of which, for the year ended December 2022, show negative shareholder funds. It has only one director, Mr P.Gerstmann, shown in Companies House filings to be German. It appears to lack both the funds and appropriate corporate governance to undertake a scheme of this scale. Photovolt Development Partners (PVDP) is a company registered in Germany. Mr P Gerstmann is also a director of this company. Although it claims on its website to have "robust finances" there is currently no way of verifying this or its management and governance. Its latest filed accounts are for 2020 and show inadequate resources. It also claims to have been involved in the development of large scale solar farm projects elsewhere in the world, but provides no details of those projects which allow these claims to be verified. At best, PVDP's suitability and ability to undertake this scheme is not proven. Given this background, C-POW believes the Examination should investigate the ability and suitability of these organisations to implement BWSF from construction through its management for 40 years and then to its removal. Presumably, the commitment to remove the solar farm would require adequate financial guarantees to be in place at the time the DCO is granted. Such guarantees would need to be given by a company with appropriate financial credibility, otherwise they and the commitment to remove would be meaningless. We suggest that all this might be described as the "Deliverability" of the scheme, but PINS may use another descriptor for matters such as this. We would, therefore, be grateful for advice as to whether this matter ("Deliverability") will be investigated and reported on by the Examiners and, if so, whether C-POW might, if granted IP status, be allowed to present the evidence it is collecting on this matter. I look forward to hearing from you. Best wishes, Andrew Rein (Treasurer)
Good morning Mr Rein, Thank you for your email, the contents of which are noted. Unfortunately, George Harrold has now left the Planning Inspectorate. I would like to introduce myself as Case Officer for Botley West Solar Farm. I wish to inform you that the Planning Act 2008 does not set out eligibility criteria that an applicant must meet in order to be able to make an application for an order granting development consent. Furthermore, if an applicant seeks powers for compulsory acquisition in a draft Development Consent Order (DCO) submitted with such an application, the Planning Act 2008: guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land sets out the requirements in respect of funding. The availability of funding is a matter which is explored by Examining Authorities during examinations if an application is accepted for examination. You may wish to contact the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) with your concerns. Government guidance relating to such matters and how to contact OFSI can be found at the following link [attachment 1] However, you will appreciate that the Planning Inspectorate cannot advise you on this and I would urge you to obtain independent legal advice to investigate your options in this regard. Should the application be accepted for Examination, the Campaign to Protect Old Woodstock (C-POW) will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation, within which C-POW will be able to raise any concerns with the Application. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 2] The Planning Inspectorate has a duty to publish all advice given on the project webpage under s51 of the Planning Act 2008. Therefore, we will publish this advice, alongside your enquiry, on the Botley West webpage in due course. You may find it helpful to subscribe to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Kind regards, Gina Shorland

Campaign to Protect Old Woodstock - Paul Morrison

Please see attached
Please see attached

Rosemary Lewis - anon.

Project Update Meeting with feedback on the Applicants' draft documents.
Please see attached.

RWE Renewables UK Ltd - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Gatroben Developments 2 Limited - anon.

Dear Mr Harold I am writing to you about concerns that you have raised with the PVDP but which appear to have been ignored. Firstly, I refer to your advice note to PVDP dated 24 January 2024 I quote from your note: “The Applicant sought advice about plan scaling due to the size of the Proposed Development site, informing that it was including an overarching plan of 1:25000, with insets of a 1:2500 scale. The Inspectorate advised that plan scales should align with the requirements of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009, and referred the Applicant to Section 12 ‘Scale of plans and drawings’ of Advice Note 6. The Applicant discussed whether ‘interactive plans’ of the Proposed Development may be used to aid users to zoom in to see greater detail than provided with a PDF due to pixelation. The Inspectorate advised that it is unable to host digital plans at the current time as part of the application submission.“ I would like it to be noted that, in the Statutory Consultation which ended on 8th February 2024, PVDP failed to provide ANY maps at the required scale of 1:2,500. The best scale used for the master plans was 1:10,000 ie one quarter of the required size (with most other maps at a scales ranging from 1:65,000 to 1:100,000) and too small to identify many key items of infrastructure eg fencing, cameras, inverters, substations, security lights, tracks, construction compounds, etc. Your advice note goes on to say; “The Inspectorate advised that it is unable to host digital plans at the current time as part of the application submission. The Applicant informed that it would produce a suite of ‘other drawings’ which would include indicative detail to ensure appropriate detail was secured in the DCO.” I assume this means that you are expecting the applicant to provide hard copy maps at a scale of 1:2,500 when they submit their DCO and ES later this year. Please can you confirm this? I understand that I can register as an interested party when PVDP have submitted their application but my question is, how do I view these revised plans and 1:2,500 maps? Will hard copies of the maps be available for viewing at the Inspectorate’s office? If not, can the applicant be required to display them publicly at a repeat consultation since full consideration of the plans was denied to me at the statutory consultation 30 Nov 23 - 8 Feb 24 Secondly, I refer to your advice note to PVDP dated 13 September 2023 The Inspectorate advised that the development on the green belt and the very special circumstances which the Applicant considered relevant must be clearly addresses in the application and was likely to be a key examination matter. The applicant confirmed it would be including a section about consideration of alternatives within the PEIR. …… Areas should be considered in relation to the infrastructure and location of the site, to show the impact on the environment has been kept to a minimum. The PEIR included NO justification of the “very special circumstances for development on Green Belt” The only “consideration of alternatives” was “doing nothing”, NO investigation of nearby brownfield sites Additionally, much other vital information was completely missing from the PEIR and the number (18) and quality of photomontages was totally inadequate. The response of PVDP’s spokesman, Mark Owen-Lloyd, when challenged at the Statutory Consultation about this was to say that “absolutely everything would be included in the ES when the DCO application is made.” So, as with the maps, I would also like to know where and how I can access this information in hard copy form once the DCO and ES application has been submitted Finally, I note from your January meeting notes that “The Applicant and the Inspectorate to schedule the next update meeting for post- statutory consultation in late February”. Has this happened yet and when will the notes appear on the section 51 advice on the PINS website? I look forward to receiving your answers to my questions. With thanks Yours sincerely Rosemary Lewis Resident of Church Hanborough, Oxfordshire
Dear Rosemary, Many thanks for your email, which addresses a number of concerns regarding the proposed Botley West Solar Farm application. In respect of your feedback on the developer’s consultation, please note that the Planning Inspectorate does not formally consider feedback on the adequacy of a developer’s statutory pre-application consultation until an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) has been received. If you have concerns about the developer’s pre-application consultation, you should contact the developer - Photovolt Development Partners (PVDP) on behalf of SolarFive Ltd - in the first instance to enable them to address the issues: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 175 3085 If you have contacted the developer but you are not satisfied that they have, or will, take account of your comments, you can make your comments to the relevant local authority. The Planning Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ view on the adequacy of the developer’s consultation when the application is submitted. Further information about the pre-application consultation process can be found here: [attachment 1] Regarding the availability of plans and other documents during pre-application consultation, Regulation 4 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 (APFP Regulations) sets out that the developer must make available the documents, plans and maps showing the nature and location of the Proposed Development for inspection free of charge on a website maintained by or on behalf of the developer. It may be that developers also choose to make a physical suite of application documents available at one or more deposit locations, however this is not a legislative requirement. In terms of requirements regarding the size/ scale of plans, please note that the APFP Regulations set out such requirements, however this applies to the documents that form part of the DCO application which is yet to be submitted. As such, I would advise that any feedback regarding the plans used for pre-application consultation should again be addressed to the developer in the first instance. Developers will only submit physical suites of DCO application documents to the Planning Inspectorate if specifically requested to by the Planning Inspectorate, but if accepted for Examination, the DCO application documents would be available to all parties to inspect free of charge on the Planning Inspectorate’s website, and it is also customary for the Planning Inspectorate to publish information regarding locations where the application documents can be viewed electronically for those who cannot easily access a computer. If parties wish to request hard copies of DCO application documents following the submission of the application, such a request would need to be made to the developer at that time, who may charge a fee. Finally, a note of the meeting held between the developer and the Planning Inspectorate following the developer’s statutory consultation exercise has now been published on the project webpage, and you will see from this note that the Applicant has been advised that it should thoroughly demonstrate regard to the concerns raised by parties during its statutory consultation. Kind regards George Harrold Case Manager

Rosemary Lewis

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

RWE Generation UK plc - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Equinor New Energy Limited - anon.

We are landowner’s and an affected party as defined under S.59(4) the PA2008 on the proposed Grimsby to Walpole National Grid Electricity Transmission project. I am writing to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) at this early stage for two reasons; Firstly as well as being a landowner, I am a Chartered Surveyor who advises a number of Acquiring Authorities as I specialise in NSIP applications as a CPO practitioner. I therefore have experience with the appropriate use of Statutory Powers and advise on such. We received a letter from Dalcour Maclaren (DM) which I attach titled “request for non-intrusive surveys”. The letter is dated 13th March 2024, and confirms the deadline for our consent to their request for non-intrusive surveys is the 5th April 2024. However, on the 25th March we received a separate Legal Notice dated 22nd March 2024 pursuant to S.174 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (S.172-179 of the HPA 2016). This notice was served on us via recorded delivery. I would like to report to the Planning Inspectorate what I deem to be a blatant abuse of the use of Statutory Powers by National Grid at their disposal at this early stage, which I consider to have been used unlawfully and prematurely; this is nothing short of a one sided unprovoked use of aggression by a Statutory Undertaker which brings the entire industry into disrepute. It is bad practice and I urge PINS to advise those representing National Grid on this scheme on their duty to consult, and attempt to obtain consent(s) by all voluntary means available to them, and at the very least through reasonable endeavours during the pre application process under the PA 2008. It is my understanding that the use of powers should always be the exception rather than the rule, where all other avenues have been exhausted. Furthermore, NG should also be encouraged to attempt to obtain consent for all similar surveys by agreement. DM should be advising NG not to fire directly at affected persons who have not yet responded; given that at the time of the correspondence we are still 14 days before their own imposed deadline of the 5th April. My agents Tony Dale and Charlotte Martinson of DDM inform me that I am not an isolated case, and that DM have already served notice on a significant number of landowners prior to their confirmed deadline on this scheme, which is beyond belief and completely unacceptable under the circumstances, at this very early stage in proceedings. I question DMs conduct in this. Besides three generic letters in relation to non intrusive survey access, DM on behalf of NG have not attempted in any other way to consult us, or provide information on surveys or timings of such to either our agents DDM (who represent a number of landowners on the scheme), or ourselves. DM on behalf of NG have not taken any other reasonable steps whatsoever beyond lazy mass mail merges. In this instance DM have not undertaken any form of diligent inquiry to confirm the correspondence address for the survey requests is correct. Perhaps this is because NG in this instance deem themselves to be above the planning regime, and do not intend to honour the deadlines set out by their own appointed agents DM? I consider this to be unacceptable given that as an example, I am currently in contact (see attached letters) with David Jones of DM who is a project manager on this scheme, and whilst we have not specifically addressed surveys in correspondence to date; I have not objected to the scheme or further stated my intention to obstruct or refuse access for non intrusive surveys. I am very amenable and currently trying to proactively arrange a meeting to discuss the scheme with David Jones and NG, and had planned on discussing non intrusive survey access logistics across our working farm at the meeting, prior to this letter. Therefore serving notice on us at this stage is a blatant abuse of the Statutory Powers. Whilst the wording on using S.172 – S174 is limited and open to interpretation, the recent case in Sawkill vs Highways England (2020) has demonstrated its effectiveness vs S.53 of the PA2008, or schedule 4 under the Electricity Act 1989 where access is required. S.174 is widely regarded as being robust and timely within the industry but it is respected as being a measure taken as a last resort, which is also my experience. National Grid have breached these terms unequivocally. Even if PINS deem this use to be lawful, it is in my opinion not in the sprit of engaging with landowners, and again I urge PINs to remind NG of their responsibilities under the PA 2008 during the process. Secondly, I attach “2325-1 NG Land development” which is a landowner payments schedule in circulation in 2011. I am disappointed that the annual payment National Grid are offering landowners for access for over 30 different non intrusive survey types in 2024 remains at £250. I used to work on behalf of National Grid on the Hinkley C Connection project between 2011 and 2016, and National Grid were offering the same sum of £250 for surveys then. This was over 13 years ago. Based on indexation I suggest the equivalent payment rate should be increased to £400 per landowner for the annual period of non intrusive surveys; to reflect the principle of equivalence across the board in 2024. I trust that as the Planning Inspectorate, you have the jurisdiction to recommend NG increase their rate of payment on offer to landowners who consent to non-intrusive surveys to this level in order to reflect a proportionate level of compensation to the damage and disturbance caused. Finally, you will also note on page 2 that the schedule states “whilst voluntary agreement is always sought…” How ironic by their own conduct that this is not the case. I trust you will consider and respond to the two points I have raised as going concerns.
Thank you for your email and raising these matters with the Inspectorate. It is a matter for individual applicants to decide how they pursue access for surveys, including what legislation they rely on. The Inspectorate’s jurisdiction is limited to administration of the Secretary of State’s powers under section 53 of the Planning Act as set out in the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects - Advice note Five: Section 53 – Rights of Entry (Planning Act 2008). We do not have any powers in relation to the application of s174 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and are therefore unable to advise on the reasonableness or otherwise of National Grid’s actions, however we will make National Grid aware of the concerns you have raised.

David Spilman

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

National Grid Electricity Transmission - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Sir, I would like to add to the request that the planning application for this solar development should be re-examined in public.
Dear Mr Wood Many thanks for your below email concerning the proposed Botley West Solar Farm project. Please note that this project is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. This means that the developer’s application for a Development Consent Order has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Once the developer has finalised its application and submitted it to the Planning Inspectorate, the Inspectorate will have 28 days to decide whether the application is of a suitable standard to be examined. If the application is accepted for examination, there will be a six-month examination period, in advance of which you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a Relevant Representation comprising your views on the proposed development. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about the process can be found in the following link to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1].

Brian Wood

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

National Highways - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

EPL 001 Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Renewable Energy Solutions (RES) - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Photovolt Development Partners (PVDP) on behalf of - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached

Springwell Energy Farm Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

H2 Teesside Limited - anon.

Draft Documents Feedback
Please see attached.

Tillbridge Solar Limited - anon.

Lastly, since out meeting, the Project has been reviewing our approach to the Information to Support Appropriate Assessment (ISAA) and I would like to seek the Inspectorate’s view. The ISAA will form one document for the application, however, we feel there is merit in presenting it 3 parts (and 3 files due to file size): • Part 1 of the ISAA would provide an overview of the HRA in general, background information and methodologies; • Part 2 would present the assessment on SACs; & • Part 3 would present the assessment of SPAs. It is our view that this format will make producing it and reviewing it easier, for example, habitats and mammals aspects will be in Part 2, and all ornithology aspects will be in Part 3. We consider that this approach will make the report easier to download and review. There would be clear cross referencing across the 3 parts. If the Inspectorate has any concerns or questions concerning this approach, we would be happy to schedule a short Teams call to discuss, if easier.”
Thank you for your query relating to the Applicant’s approach to the Information to Support Appropriate Assessment (ISAA). In relation to the proposed structure of the ISAA, the proposed approach to split up the document to reduce file size sounds reasonable. However, we would urge you to avoid duplication between documents as much as possible and make best use of cross referencing

Flotation Energy and EnBW/bp - anon.

Lastly, since out meeting, the Project has been reviewing our approach to the Information to Support Appropriate Assessment (ISAA) and I would like to seek the Inspectorate’s view. The ISAA will form one document for the application, however, we feel there is merit in presenting it 3 parts (and 3 files due to file size): • Part 1 of the ISAA would provide an overview of the HRA in general, background information and methodologies; • Part 2 would present the assessment on SACs; & • Part 3 would present the assessment of SPAs. It is our view that this format will make producing it and reviewing it easier, for example, habitats and mammals aspects will be in Part 2, and all ornithology aspects will be in Part 3. We consider that this approach will make the report easier to download and review. There would be clear cross referencing across the 3 parts. If the Inspectorate has any concerns or questions concerning this approach, we would be happy to schedule a short Teams call to discuss, if easier
Thank you for your query relating to the Applicant’s approach to the Information to Support Appropriate Assessment (ISAA). In relation to the proposed structure of the ISAA, the proposed approach to split up the document to reduce file size sounds reasonable. However, we would urge you to avoid duplication between documents as much as possible and make best use of cross referencing

Flotation Energy and EnBW/bp - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Anglian Water Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Anglian Water Limited - anon.

Advice on Examination Fees
Please see attached

Total Energies and Corio Generation - anon.

Advice on Examination and venue options
Please see attached

Total Energies and Corio Generation - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Professor Alex D Rogers

Advice given in regards of targeted s42 consultation and the Book of Reference
Please see attached

Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Cory Environmental Holdings (CEHL) - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Lime Down Solar Park - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Stantec - anon.

Inception Meeting
Please see attached

Teesside Flexible Regas Port Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting
See Attached

National Highways - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

Draft Document Review
Please see attached

JBM Solar - anon.

Inception Meeting
Please see attached

Green Hill Solar Farm Limited - anon.

EAP Components Advice
Please see attached

JBM Solar - anon.

Cyfarfod Diweddaru ynglyn â’r Prosiect - Project Update Meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

Mona Offshore Wind Limited - anon.

During the examination of an NSIP does an Interested Party have a statutory right to present during the examination, and if so, which regulation permits this?”
There are rights to participate in the Examination afforded to those with a status such as Interested Party status through a number of provisions. Some of the following provisions may be of relevance to your query: Section 91 (3) of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) provides that a person with Interested Party status (subject to the Examining Authority's powers of control over conduct of the hearing) is entitled to make oral representations about the issue inder discussion at Issue Specific Hearings. Section 92 (4) of PA2008 provides that the applicant and each affected person is entitled to make oral representations (subject to the Examining Authority's powers of control over conduct of the hearing) at a Compulsory Acquisition Hearing. Section 93 (3) provides that each Interested Party is entitled (subject to the Examining Authority's powers of control over conduct of the hearing) to make oral representations about the application at an Open Floor Hearing. The Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 and the Planning Act 2010 make provision for certain parties to be invited and participate in the Preliminary Meeting during the Pre-Examination Stage, make Written Representations and in the case of section 96 of PA2008 for representations not made orally to be made in writing.”

Jonathan Dean

Project Update Meeting
See Attached

Total Energies and Corio Generation - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Ridge Clean Energy Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Flotation Energy and EnBW/bp - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached

Southern Water - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Photovolt Development Partners (PVDP) on behalf of - anon.

Draft document review and project update meeting
Please see attached

Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting
See Attached

bp EnBW - anon.

EAP Components Advice.
Please see attached.

Total Energies and Corio Generation - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Pease see attached meeting note.

Cadent Gas Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

East West Railway Company Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Xlinks 1 Limited - anon.

Request confirmation that a proposed development should not be determined as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project.
The Planning Inspectorate does not have the power to give a legally binding interpretation on whether the proposed development would be classed as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. Only the courts can ultimately determine the interpretation of legislation. It is for the developer to decide whether or not to apply for an order granting development consent, taking their own independent legal advice. It should also be noted that the Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is only able to decide whether development consent is required for a project, under section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), once an application has been formally submitted.

The Mineral Planning Group Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

RWE - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

FVS Dean Moor - anon.

I live in [REDACTED] where Europe's largest Solar Farm Proposal (Botley West Solar Farm 1,350 MWp has just launched its statutory NSIP consultation. I have read the booklet that was delivered to households in the area. And I have consulted the documents placed in local public libraries and materials on the Botley West Website. I see from the PINS website that you have rules that govern the accessibility of documents to the general public: their reading level, HTML formatting and navigational tools. Do these guidlelines apply also to developers when they produce materials for public consultation? Might you have a template for guidance to developers when they submit materials? Or are there existing models or modelling of NSIP consultation documents written in plain English to which you can direct me.
The Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 6 sets out best practice in terms of application document presentation (including matters of accessibility), however this relates to the presentation of Development Consent Order (DCO) application documents rather than a developer's pre-application consultation material. Developers are often referred to Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Notes and other published best practice during the pre-application stage, however ultimately the Planning Inspectorate cannot be prescriptive in terms of how developers administer their pre-application activities, including consultation exercises. If you have comments about the accessibility of the Developer's pre-application consultation documents, or any other matters regarding the adequacy of the Developer's pre-application consultation, at this stage you should direct them to the Developer in the first instance. The contact details we hold are as follows: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 175 3085 If you have already contacted the Developer with your comments and you are not satisfied that the Developer has, or will, take account of them, then you may wish to submit your comments to the relevant local authority. The Planning Inspectorate will request the relevant local authorities’ views on the adequacy of the Developer’s consultation when the application is submitted, and local authorities can consider the concerns of the local community as part of their adequacy of consultation representation.

Helen Barr

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England - anon.

Inception Meeting Note
Please see attached

Renewable Energy Solutions (RES) - anon.

Project update Meeting
See attached

Gatroben Developments 2 Limited - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Villages Against Solar Threat (VAST) - anon.

Weston Parish Council comments Solar Farm in Newark & Sherwood Notts - 18 December 2023
Please see attached

Weston Parish Council - anon.

Various representations about the merits of the Proposed Development received by the Planning Inspectorate during the Applicant’s statutory consultation.
Please see attached.

Various enquirers - anon.

Comments on Draft Documents.
Please see attached.

Total Energies and Corio Generation - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

Thames Water - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

Thames Water - anon.

Inception Meeting
Please see attached

Connah's Quay Low Carbon Power (CQLCP) Project - anon.

Nodyn cyfarfod sefydlu - Inception meeting note
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

Uniper - anon.

Project Update Meeting - 12 December 2023 - Log of Advice provided to Representatives of Tillbridge Solar Farm Limited at Project Update Meetings between 11 July 2022 and 12 December 2023
Please see attached

Tillbridge Solar Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Interconnector Holdings Limited - anon.

Feedback on the Applicants draft Policy Compliance Document.
Please see attached.

Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Cory Environmental Holdings Limited (CEHL) - anon.

Project Update Meeting
See Attached

RWE Renewables UK Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Environment Agency and Surrey County Council - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

EPL 001 Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Low Carbon - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

RWE Generation UK plc - anon.

Meeting between the Applicant and the Planning Inspectorate following the Applicants withdrawal of the Application. The note also includes the s51 issued to the Applicant following its withdrawal of the DCO Application.
Please see attached.

Gloucestershire County Council - anon.

Draft Documents Feedback.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Frodsham Solar Ltd - anon.

Dear Sealink I live at 6 Church Road Friston IP17 1PU. We have had to sit through the DCO for EA1N EA2 and Sizewell C were no consideration being given to their cumulative impact or that of other emerging energy projects. All these projects including the other emerging ones were and continue to be submitted as independent DCO applications without any consideration to integration to minimise their impact on the countryside. NG proposed and has approval for a massive substation at Friston as part of the DCO for EA1N and EA2 surely NG would have known of the Sealink project at the time and it should have disclosed these proposals and at least considered the potential for amalgamation. An integrated Masterplan should have been produced for the myriad of energy projects both emerging and approved in this precious part of East Anglia. Instead, we are faced with a deliberately deceptive planning strategy, ignoring the local population, which abuses the DCO process seeking to get these projects approved as individual submission without the opportunity of considering their cumulative impact or possible integration. I sincerely hope that the Inspectorate will force the developers of these emerging projects in this part of East Suffolk to submit an integrated Masterplan prior to allowing these to proceed to their DCO examinations unlike what was allowed to happen for EA1N and EA2. As it stands, I would like to record my objection to the Sealink proposals currently being consulted on . Yours faithfully Luigi Beltrandi
Dear Luigi, Thank you for your email. The proposed application above is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the developer and we would encourage you to contact National Grid directly. We note that you have also sent your message to [email protected], which is National Grid’s (the developer’s) point of contact email address. We advise you to submit any queries relating specifically to the proposed Sea Link project to this address. The developer’s period of statutory consultation is currently ongoing (24 October – 18 December 2023) for views to be submitted on the proposed development. It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at this stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the application for development consent for Sea Link be accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 2]. If you have any questions concerning the planning application process for nationally significant infrastructure projects, please let us know. I hope you found this helpful. Kind regards,

Luigi Beltrandi

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Ltd - anon.

Project Update meeting.
Please see attached.

H2Teesside Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Ridge Clean Energy Ltd. - anon.

Resourcing update.
Please see attached.

Gatwick Officers Group - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached

Springwell Energy Farm Limited - anon.

Inception Meeting Note.
Please see attached.

Xlinks 1 Limited - anon.

Relevant Representation process.
Please see attached.

Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.

Documents for review.
Please see attached.

East Yorkshire Solar Farm Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Lighthouse Green Fuels Limited - anon.

Early Adopter Programme Draft Documents Response
Please see attached

Total Energies and Corio Generation - anon.

Inception meeting note
Please see attached

Thames Water - anon.

Inception meeting note
Please see attached

Thames Water - anon.

Draft docs feedback table - FINAL
See attached

Indaver Rivenhall Ltd - anon.

Project inception meeting
Please see attached meeting note.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Equinor New Energy Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Five Estuaries Ltd - anon.

The Inspectorate attended an online Steering Group for the Morgan Generation Assets and Mona Offshore Wind Projects.
Please see attached.

Morgan and Mona Steering Group - anon.

Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

The Planning Inspectorate - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Applicant - anon.

Draft Documents for review
Please see attached

Oaklands Solar Farm Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

FVS Dean Moor - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Fenwick Solar Project Limited - anon.

Cyfarfod Diweddaru ynglyn â’r Prosiect - Project Update Meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

Mona Offshore Wind Limited - anon.

Dear Emily Davies, We thank you for the clarity in the detailed response. PINS may appreciate our view, that the documented evidence of the many shortcomings of this Application does not tally with the subjective evaluation in Section 55 checklist; nor the Section 51 Advice PINS offered to the Applicant on 7 Sept 2023. At the same time, we feel extending the pre- Examination period is still warranted to deal effectively with the many outstanding issues before going into the Examination, including the serious matters that PINS raised in the s51 Advice Letter. You now point us to the Planning Act and offer guidance on a Judicial Review. May we ask if the Planning Inspectorate can offer S51 Advice on Section 108 of the PA2008 " suspension during review of national policy statement" which is applicable in the Rampion 2 case. [attachment 1] It is not feasible to offer Relevant Representations without the NPS being settled. This is a highly time sensitive Section 51 Advice request in view of the advice you offer on a Judicial Review and the 6-week timeframe that must include exchanges around a pre-Action Protocol Letter and a potential remedy. We feel that suspension of the Rampion 2 Examination now during review of the national policy statement, as wisely provided in the Planning Act, is a much preferred as well as obvious and appropriate remedy for the many problems with this Application, rather than a Judicial Review as we have previously stated we would hope to work together rather than against to ensure the best outcome for all. Respectfully yours, Secretary Protect Coastal Sussex On behalf of PCS Co-Chairs: Chris Lee, Aldwick Melanie Jones, Middleton on Sea Lawrence Haas, Littlehampton Meera Smethurst, Cowfold
Good afternoon, Thank you for your e-mail below. Current Pre-examination Status of the Application Firstly, your comments about extending the pre-examination period, which support those made by some Local Authorities during the Adequacy of Consultation responses, are noted, and have been seen by the Examining Authority (ExA). It is for the ExA to set a date for the Preliminary Meeting (PM), the close of which will trigger the start of the Examination. It is important to note that no date has been set at this stage as we are still within the Relevant Representation period. After the close of that period, the ExA will review the representations, the application and any other information received to determine the main issues to be considered and the structure of the Examination, including an appropriate start date. Guidance on the examination of applications for development consent is available on the Inspectorate’s website. All parties will be notified of the PM date in due course when the ExA issues its letter inviting parties to the PM, under Rule 6 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010. As you say, s108 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) provides the Secretary of State (SoS) with a power to suspend examination of an application whilst a national policy statement (NPS) is reviewed. That is ultimately a matter for the SoS to consider and this is not delegated to the ExA. As such, it is open to you to make submissions directly to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on this matter. Status of the National Policy Statements S104(3) of the PA2008 specifies that, where applicable, the SoS must decide the application in accordance with any relevant NPS (except to the extent that one or more of the exceptions specified in that section applies). The SoS DESNZ has decided to conduct a review of the 2011 Energy NPS EN-1 to EN-5 under s6 of the Act. However, they have not decided to suspend those statements during the review period under s11 of the Act. Hence, the current suite of energy NPS’ (EN-1 – EN6, which came into force in July 2011), remain as the designated policy for the purposes of s104. However, emerging draft NPSs are potentially capable of being ‘important and relevant’ under s104(2)(d). This is explained in the consultation document for the draft energy NPS’ which sets out the transitional arrangements and specifies ‘The Secretary of State has decided that for any application accepted for examination before designation of the updated energy NPSs, the original suite of energy NPS should have effect. The amended energy NPSs will therefore only have effect in relation to those applications for development consent accepted for examination after the designation of the updated energy NPSs. However, any emerging draft energy NPSs (or those designated but not having effect) are potentially capable of being important and relevant considerations in the decisionmaking process. The extent to which they are relevant is a matter for the relevant Secretary of State to consider within the framework of the Planning Act and with regard to the specific circumstances of each development consent order application’. Relevant Representations In terms of making a Relevant Representation (RR), as indicated in our previous response, we would strongly encourage you to submit one by the deadline of Monday 6 November 2023. A valid RR would ensure that you become an Interested Party (IP) which gives you the right to fully participate in the Examination, both in writing and orally at Hearings. Parties that do not make a RR, and do not become IPs, do not have an automatic right to participate; their participation is solely at the discretion of the ExA. The Inspectorate has prepared a series of Advice Notes to assist parties in engaging in the NSIP process. Advice Note 8.2 provides information on how to register to participate in an Examination. Section 6 of the Advice Note sets out what an RR must contain. Section 6.5 specifies ‘A Relevant Representation should relate to the application. It must include a summary of points which you agree and/or disagree with about the application, highlighting what you consider to be the main issues and impacts’. Section 6.7 specifies ‘Once the Examination has started, you can continue to rely on the Relevant Representation you submitted in order to register as an Interested Party or you can submit a further written representation by the deadline that will be set out in the Examination Timetable. This can expand on the matters included in your Relevant Representation’. As such, IPs will have the opportunity to expand on RRs with a Written Representation (WR) when the Examination is underway; a deadline for receipt of the WR will be set in the examination timetable which will be set by the ExA under Rule 8 of the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010. In addition to AN8.2, you may find the remainder of the AN8 series of assistance in providing more information about the NSIP process. As per our previous response, a copy of your e-mail, and this response, will be published as section 51 advice on the Rampion2 project page. We hope this is of assistance. Kindest,

Protect Coastal Sussex - anon.

Resourcing update.
Please see attached.

Crawley Borough Council - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET)

Meeting Note
Please see attached.

JBM Solar Ltd - anon.

Cyfarfod Cyn-Cwmpasu - Pre-Scoping Meeting
Gweler y Atodiad - See Attached

Lightsource bp - anon.

Dear Emily Davies Community Groups, MPs and residents, are surprised and disappointed at the decision taken by the Planning Inspectorate under delegated authority, to accept the Rampion 2 Wind Farm off the Sussex Coast for Examination. This was especially unexpected when taking into consideration the very limited conditions offered in the S51 Advice to the Applicant, and the documented breaches of the Developer’s own Statement of Community Consultation. We appreciate the S51 Advice issued 7 September does pick up on some concerns raised on the lack of respect for the prescribed use of the ‘Rochdale Envelope’ as the basis for pre-application consultation and statutory comment on the likely extent and significance of impacts. The preferred development the Applicant announced in fact steps well outside the “worst case” envelope formally consulted, even accounting for flexibility in applying the Envelope method as in PINS Advisory Note Nine. We draw your attention to the S51 advice letter indicating “the Inspectorate considers there remains inconsistency with regards the quantum of WTGs sought by the Order. The DCO states “no more than/must not exceed” 90 in total, yet no assessment of that number forms part of Chapter 15 of the Environmental Statement (seascape, landscape and visual impact assessment), where it appears that only 65 WTGs have been assessed”; and “It is therefore unclear what is considered as the worst-case scenario.” See footnote 1. The Applicant in effect has failed (spectacularly, we argue) to consult on the Preferred Development proposed in its Application, well beyond what is reasonable as flexibility in defining a "worst case". Considering the DCO process has front-loaded consultations only, this is quite a concerning matter. The most concerning aspect is that the “worst case” as it may be re-defined will not have been the subject of formal consultation by the Public or statutory consultees. The Applicant in effect failed to consult on the preferred development proposed in its Application. Considering the DCO process has front-loaded consultations only, it is a relevant and important matter as the NPSs all stress the need to ensure that the significant effects of a Proposed Development have been properly assessed. There are also clearly documented failings of the SoCC which have been identified by directly affected communities that also remain - and require resolution, as well as being identified by our area MPs. We would direct you to Andrew Griffith’s website for example. [attachment 1] [attachment 2] Given the circumstances, we are now exploring the possibility of a Judicial Review of the Acceptance Decision applying under the Aarhus Convention on the Environment to seek a reasonable remedy. However, even if that were permitted by the Courts, we would still much prefer a collaborative approach, in the manner that communities previously suggested in adopting a Conditional Approval. It is our understanding that within PINS Advisory Notes it is stated that the Examining Authority may decide whether AoC concerns can be taken into account both during the Pre-Examination and Examination stages. We fully expect affiliates of Protect Coastal Sussex (PCS) will raise AoC concerns in a Relevant Representation to inform the ExA and request consideration of an appropriate remedy. Statutory Consultees such as Horsham District Council (HDC) have also commented on the need to take time to address residual AoC concerns and the resulting large number of unanswered questions from both statutory consultees, and members of the public. For reference, HDC quotes herewith: “Therefore, only if the Application is accepted will HDC be able to review the full suite of Application documents and make a considered and informed judgement. However, this will require extensive resourcing to review and comment within a constrained timescale. With substantial and complex work still to be done, there may not be adequate opportunity for the Examining Authority to undertake its work fully in six months from the Preliminary Meeting.” “Accordingly, should the Application be accepted HDC requests that PINS, as Examining Authority, ensures adequate time is allowed to address these matters in Pre-examination before formal commencement of the Examination, in using its discretion in setting a date for the Preliminary Meeting and maintaining dialogue with HDC and the Applicant to enable progress to be made. HDC considers this would be beneficial to the Applicant and the Examining Authority.” (Footnote 2) We hope therefore, that this is something PINS could look at positively, specifically helping to facilitate rather than oppose the beneficial actions that we proposed for Conditional Acceptance, like the current S51 Advice does though in a limited manner. For interest and information only, we attach a copy of the Press Release offering our public response to the Acceptance decision. The Press Release sets out a positive way forward for affiliates to register as Interested Parties to make specific representations that we believe will contribute towards a more efficient Examination and raise confidence in this DCO outcome in coastal and inland communities. Media coverage of the community reaction may also be seen here: [attachment 3] Recognising this is outside the remit of PINS and the Examination, again for interest and information only, we also attach a 2-page summary of the Protect Coastal Sussex consultation response to the National Energy Policy update exercise that closed mid-June 2023 now being considered within Government, which we have shared directly with the relevant Parliamentary Committees and Ministers. We very much hope that important NPS amendments are made to address clear policy inconsistencies, and specifically to avoid the acceptance of wind farms that do not respect the Government’s own Offshore Energy Strategic Environmental Assessment (OESEA) advice, to thus avoid local social and ecological harms and this stress, disruption and division of local communities. Yours sincerely Secretary Protect Coastal Sussex On behalf of PCS Co-Chairs: Chris Lee, Aldwick Melanie Jones, Middleton on Sea Lawrence Haas, Littlehampton Meera Smethurst, Cowfold
Good afternoon, Thank you for your email below raising your concerns about the Planning Inspectorate’s decision to accept the Rampion 2 project for Examination. Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) sets out the criteria for deciding whether the application should be accepted for examination: • whether the application is one for an order granting development consent; • whether the Applicant has complied with Chapter 2 of the Act (pre-application consultation); • whether the application is of a standard that the Secretary of State considers to be satisfactory. The Inspectorate carried out a comprehensive review of the submitted application during the acceptance stage and the conclusions are fully set out in the Section 55 Checklist. As you will see from the checklist, the Inspectorate sought views of host and neighbouring Local Authorities on the adequacy of the pre-application consultation. Please be assured that the responses, together with responses from other parties, were fully considered when reaching the conclusion that the Applicant had met the statutory consultation duties set out in sections 42, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 of the PA2008. The Adequacy of Consultation Responses have been published on the project page. As indicated in the Section 55 checklist, and the advice issued to the Applicant under s51 of the PA2008, the Inspectorate highlighted some observations and documents which the Inspectorate considered should be reviewed and updated by the Applicant, to assist all parties involved in the Examination. The Inspectorate does not consider that any of these matters individually, or cumulatively, led the application to not be of a satisfactory standard to proceed to examination. It should be noted that any advice issued by the Inspectorate under s51 of the PA2008 is advice only; it is not legally binding. As you will be aware, the opportunity for parties to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation is live; running until 23.59 on Monday 6 November 2023. We would encourage you to register as an Interested Party to submit your representations on the Proposed Development, including any concerns about the information submitted by the Applicant; this will enable you to fully participate in the Examination, both in writing and orally at Hearings. In conclusion, whilst your concerns about the acceptance decision are noted, there is no mechanism under the PA2008 to revisit an acceptance decision; this can only be overturned by way of a successful Judicial Review. As such, the Inspectorate’s position remains as that set out in the s55 checklist and s51 advice. However, it is open to you to seek your own independent legal advice on this matter. Please note that in accordance with s51 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), the e-mail below, and a copy of my response will be published to the project webpage. I am sorry if this information is not the response you were hoping for. If you have any further queries in relation to the above or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kindest,

Protect Coastal Sussex - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Ridge Clean Energy Ltd - anon.

Advice to the applicant on the Health Impact Assessment.
Please see attached

Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.

Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

Meridian Solar Farm Ltd. - anon.

Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

Kingsway Solar Farm Ltd. - anon.

Project Update Meeting note - 26 September 2023
Please see attached

National Highways - anon.

Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Cory Environmental Holdings Limited (CEHL) - anon.

Meeting Note
Please see atttached

Hampshire Water Transfer & Water Recycling Project - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

David Rogers

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

David Rogers

Project update and draft documents feedback review
Please see attached

National Highways - anon.

Project update and draft documents feedback review.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

RNA CAMBSBED1 Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Pleas see attached.

Cadent Gas Limited - anon.

Log of Advice provided to Representatives of JBM Solar at Project Update Meetings between 10 February 2022 and 18 September 2023.
Please see attached.

JBM Solar - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

East West Railway Company Limited - anon.

Log of Advice provided to Representatives of East Yorkshire Solar Farm Limited (a Boom Power company) at Project Update Meetings between 20 July 2022 and 15 September 2023.
Please see attached.

East Yorkshire Solar Farm Limited - anon.

Meeting Note
Please see attached.

Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

Draft Documents feedback.
Please see attached.

Chrysaor Production (UK) Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Photovolt Development Partners - SolarFive Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Fosse Green Energy Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Gloucestershire County Council - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Russ Tucker

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Russ Tucker

Advice regarding the process of scoping and preparing the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for Dogger Bank South Offshore Wind Farms, and the transboundary procedure under Regulation 32 of the Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations 2017
Please see attached

The Dutch Ministry of IWM - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

EPL 001 Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Stop Botley West - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Stop Botley West - anon.

I am writing on behalf of the Friends of Crossness Nature Reserve (a Local Nature Reserve adjacent to the proposed Cory Decarbonisation Project). We appreciate we are beyond the date of the Scoping review for this project. We shall register as interested parties at the time of the DCO. Myself, as representative of the Friends group, along with the Thames Water Nature Reserve Manager (copied in this email) have had a number of liaison meetings with representatives of Cory over recent years on two of their previous projects (Data Centres and Riverside Energy Park (REP2) – the latter being an NSIP Project). In April this year we were invited by Cory to an early briefing of their latest proposed project – a Decarbonisation plant. We were horrified to learn that as a matter of course – they intended to land grab parts of the designated nature reserve for this project. I understand discussions are taking place between them and Thames Water. Apart from being very concerned that at a time when nature is in crisis and the UK is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world, a valuable nature reserve is once again under threat and cannot understand why the Secretary of State is allowing it. However, the main point of this email is to bring to your attention something we believe you should be aware of. I was away for much of late April/May hence not being able to respond to the Scoping Report. It has recently been brought to our attention that Cory undertook a local Community consultation. See attachments. What concerns us is that whilst Cory stated their intention to continue a dialogue with the Reserve Manager and the Friends, neither of us were given notice of this public consultation. There are over 600 members of the Friends Group, most of whom would have been interested in this consultation. Not only were we not informed, we can find no evidence of where these meetings were publicised, either through local notices, local newspapers or any other forum. We have asked our Cory contacts for a meeting with the Friends group which they have agreed to. Whilst writing to all 600+ members inviting them to the meeting, we asked if any knew of or had attended the public meetings – not one single member confirmed they knew of it. We wonder if this should be followed up as it seems to us this consultation was not properly and widely publicised to the immediate and wider community for whom the nature reserve is an invaluable retreat from the urban environment most live in. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards Ralph Todd (On behalf of the Friends of Crossness Nature Reserve)
Dear Ralph, Thank you for your email setting out your concerns regarding the nature reserve and the Applicant’s (Cory Environmental Holdings Limited) recent non-statutory consultation exercise. Before adopting a Scoping Opinion, the Planning Inspectorate, under the terms of Regulation 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations), has a duty to consult: • a body prescribed under section 42(1)(a) of the Planning Act 2008 (duty to consult) and listed in column 1 of the table set out in Schedule 1 to the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 where the circumstances set out in column 2 of that table are satisfied in respect of that body; • each authority that is within section 43 of the Planning Act 2008 (local authorities for purposes of section 42(1)(b)); and • if the land to which the application, or proposed application, relates or any part of that land is in Greater London, the Greater London Authority. The Planning Inspectorate also has a duty to notify certain bodies under Regulation 11 of the EIA Regulations of their duty under the Regulations to make available to the Applicant information they possess which is considered relevant to the preparation of the Environmental Statement. These legal duties are what the recent consultation by the Inspectorate was based upon and we do not contact any additional parties. Under the criteria set out above, Friends of Crossness Nature Reserve is not a consultation body for the purposes of EIA Scoping. The Applicant has their own duty to undertake a wide consultation to inform their Application under the Planning Act 2008. Non-statutory consultation is a voluntary process undertaken by the Applicant and is not defined within the Planning Act 2008. The Applicant must undertake statutory consultation in the form prescribed in the Planning Act 2008 and the EIA Regulations prior to making an application. The Applicant’s consultation report to be submitted with its application will need to demonstrate how consultation responses have been taken into account. Once an application is submitted, the Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, has 28 days (known as the “acceptance stage”) to decide whether the application meets the required standards to proceed to examination including whether the Applicant’s consultation has been adequate. During the acceptance stage the Inspectorate will also ask whether the relevant local authorities think the Applicant’s pre-application consultation was adequate before we decide whether or not to examine the application. A relevant local authority is the county and district, or unitary local authority(s) in which the development is located (in this case, the London Borough of Bexley), and the neighbouring local authorities. You can tell your local authority if you think there is anything they should include in their adequacy of consultation representation. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. We would advise you to forward your comments (including any comments on the EIA Scoping Report) to the Applicant if you have not already done so ([email protected]). It is important that the Applicant is made aware of any comments at the pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. We note your reference to the Secretary of State “allowing” parts of the nature reserve to be acquired for the Proposed Development. To clarify, the project is currently in the pre-application phase and an Inspector (as part of the Examining Authority) is not appointed until after an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) has been submitted and accepted for Examination. Following an Examination of the project and a recommendation from the Examining Authority, the decision on whether or not to grant development consent would then be made by the relevant Secretary of State. The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes that you may find useful, which are available on the National Infrastructure Planning website: Advice notes | National Infrastructure Planning (planninginspectorate.gov.uk). In particular, our Advice Note Seven provides information on the Scoping process. Advice Note Eight provides an overview of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and the various opportunities for you to participate in the process, including Advice Note 8.2 about how to register to participate in an Examination. We will publish your comments, together with our response, on the Cory Decarbonisation project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website (section 51 advice tab): Cory Decarbonisation Project | National Infrastructure Planning (planninginspectorate.gov.uk) I hope that this assists, but if you have any questions then please let us know. Kind regards Case Team

Friends of Crossness Nature Reserve - anon.

Has another request for info been issued by the PI recently on the Norwich to Tilbury Pylons please. Another village has sent me a copy of a reponse they have sent to Briston but Aldham Parish Council in Essex have not seen it – im wondering if it has gone to Suffolk again?
The Planning Inspectorate has not issued any further consultation letters since the statutory scoping notification and consultation exercise, undertaken in November/ December 2022. We are aware the Applicant is currently undertaking a public consultation, which may be what the other village has responded to. The consultation runs from Tuesday 27 June until Monday 21 August 2023. As this consultation exercise is being run by the Applicant, we do not hold details of the bodies the Applicant has contacted; however when the Scoping Opinion was adopted in December 2022 we provided the Applicant with a list of the consultation bodies notified by the Planning Inspectorate and their contact details, as required by the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. This list included the contact details for Aldham Parish Council in Essex. In any case, we would encourage Aldham Parish Council to review the Applicant’s consultation materials and submit any response via the Applicant’s feedback form (available at the link above), or via the Applicant’s project email address: [email protected]. The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes that you may also find useful, which are available on the National Infrastructure Planning website. In particular, Advice Note Eight provides an overview of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and the various opportunities for you to participate in the process, including Advice Note 8.2 about how to register to participate in an Examination.

Aldham Parish council - anon.

Has another request for info been issued by the PI recently on the Norwich to Tilbury Pylons please. Another village has sent me a copy of a reponse they have sent to Briston but Aldham Parish Council in Essex have not seen it – im wondering if it has gone to Suffolk again?
The Planning Inspectorate has not issued any further consultation letters since the statutory scoping notification and consultation exercise, undertaken in November/ December 2022. We are aware the Applicant is currently undertaking a public consultation, which may be what the other village has responded to. The consultation runs from Tuesday 27 June until Monday 21 August 2023. As this consultation exercise is being run by the Applicant, we do not hold details of the bodies the Applicant has contacted; however when the Scoping Opinion was adopted in December 2022 we provided the Applicant with a list of the consultation bodies notified by the Planning Inspectorate and their contact details, as required by the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. This list included the contact details for Aldham Parish Council in Essex. In any case, we would encourage Aldham Parish Council to review the Applicant’s consultation materials and submit any response via the Applicant’s feedback form (available at the link above), or via the Applicant’s project email address: [email protected]. The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes that you may also find useful, which are available on the National Infrastructure Planning website. In particular, Advice Note Eight provides an overview of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and the various opportunities for you to participate in the process, including Advice Note 8.2 about how to register to participate in an Examination.

Aldham Parish council - anon.

Please see attached
Please see attached

West Bergholt Parish Council - anon.

Please see attached
Please see attached

West Bergholt Parish Council - anon.

Queries on Component 5 and Component 6 of the Policy Compliance Document (PCD)
Please see attached.

Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

Various representations about the merits of the Proposed Development.
The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, your first point of contact should be the developer, and we would encourage you to contact them directly with your comments: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 175 3085 It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the application be accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a Relevant Representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time.

Various enquirers - anon.

Various representations about the merits of the Proposed Development.
The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, your first point of contact should be the developer, and we would encourage you to contact them directly with your comments: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 175 3085 It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the application be accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a Relevant Representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time.

Various enquirers - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

David Rogers

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

David Rogers

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Nigel Pearce

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Nigel Pearce

Requirement for new Scoping Request I attach a plan that shows the cable route (blue line) included in the Scoping Request submitted in July 2022. This plan also now shows the current proposed route (red corridor). Please let us know whether a new Scoping Request is required. Trial Trenching Archaeology Departments now regularly require in addition to the qualified desk-top assessments and geo-physical surveys, intrusive trial trenching pre-determination. Geophysical surveys are used that fully cover the redline area and inform any potential areas of interest that could be mitigated for. The trial trenching is normally carried out by large 360 degree track excavators due to the level of excavation needed. It seems on average, a requirement of at least 1 trench per hectare measuring 20m in length X 2m width and 1 meter + in depth. Both the movement between trenches, the trench itself and area for the spoil (subdivided between top-soil & base layer) causes damage to the land including planted crops and disturbs any ‘potential’ subsurface archaeology present on the site. Given that there are known mitigation measures (eg. archaeological watching brief or use of concrete footings rather than driven, narrow piles to fix the solar panels on the site), is it necessary to conduct trial trenching as a pre-determination measure, rather than applying a planning condition to conduct these intrusive works post determination, but prior to construction (thereby ensuring that the disturbance only occurs if the site secures a planning permission)?
Regarding the requirement for a new scoping request, we suggest that this is a matter for the project to decide. Noting that requesting a scoping opinion is a voluntary rather than a mandatory requirement, what benefit do you think would be conferred by having a new scoping opinion for the environmental statement? Would the changes to the cable route result in a materially different project to the proposal which received a scoping opinion, to the extent that the scope of the environmental statement also needs to change? Concerning your trial trenching query, we recommend that this is a matter to be discussed with your archaeological consultants and the relevant local authorities to reach agreement if possible on the extent of any intrusive investigations and trial trenching prior to the submission of the DCO application. We advise that the environmental statement should include a rationale for the approach taken to deliver a robust assessment.

Ridge Clean Energy - anon.

Project Update Meeting
See attached

Indaver Rivenhall Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Springwell Energy Farm Limited - anon.

Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

EDF Renewables - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Ridge Clean Energy Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports - anon.

Advice on production of Design Approach Document.
Please see attached.

JBM Solar - anon.

Please see attached. Good morning, Following on from our meeting at the start of July, we have used our ETGs to inform those stakeholders initially that we are part of the Early Adopters programme and that as part of this we will be producing some additional documentation in advance of our DCO Application. Should we need to engage any additional non-ETG stakeholders we will follow up with them separately. We, the Applicant, understand that the PADSS are consultee owned and authored, with Outer Dowsing being responsible for retrieving final versions of the preapplication PADSS from the consultees and combining them into a single PADSS document for submission which will accompany the DCO application. I believe we would benefit from a follow up meeting with The Inspectorate’s Outer Dowsing Project team and any other relevant people to discuss: 1. engagement with consultees 2. the level of detail required in the design approach document which we need to submit, a. We submitted a design principle document at PEIR which we will update for DCO Application. b. It would be helpful for us to understand the requirements for the design approach document, the level of detail required, etc. so we can ensure this is provided 3. the project compliance document. Our understanding is that this would be the consultation compliance checklist but please confirm? Please can we find a suitable time to discuss the above points so the Outer Dowsing Project team can begin works. I am conscious our programme is for DCO Application submission to be finalised and ready for submission at the end of this year, which is less than 5 months away so we are keen to ensure the documents are drafted to meet your requirements. Many thanks,
Please see attached.

Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind - Beth Travis

Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination.
Please see attached.

Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Inception meeting
Please see attached

JBM Solar Ltd

Project Update Meeting
See attached

Flotation Energy - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached

EDF - anon.

Project Update Meeting - Please see attached
Please see attached

bp/EnBW - anon.

Project Update Meeting with feedback on the Applicant’s draft documents - 21 July 2023
Please see attached

National Highways - anon.

Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

PS Renewables (PSR) - anon.

Project Update Meeting
See attached

Oaklands Farm Solar Limited - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached.

Rampion Extension Development Limited - anon.

Update Meeting
Please see attached

Cory Environmental Holdings Limited (CEHL) - anon.

Outreach to discuss the DCO Process
Please see attached

MPs and stakeholders - anon.

Project update meeting between applicant and pins.
See attached.

National Highways - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

John Webley

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

John Webley

I would be grateful if you could advise on whether PINS are ok with handling a covering letter to a Joint Authority AoC response which includes the electronic signatures of ten senior officers from each of the ten Local Authorities. We had heard this may be an issue.
Please see attached.

James Freeman

I strongly object to the plans for Gatwick expansion using a the conversion of the emergency runway approach. It will have a serious adverse effect on the environment and the well being of humans and animals alike . The associated infrastructure development will add serious congestion to an already bursting road network. I am fully against the said proposals.
Please see attached.

Alex Maidment

I strongly object to the plans for Gatwick expansion using a the conversion of the emergency runway approach. It will have a serious adverse effect on the environment and the well being of humans and animals alike . The associated infrastructure development will add serious congestion to an already bursting road network. I am fully against the said proposals.
Please see attached.

Alex Maidment

I would be grateful if you could advise on whether PINS are ok with handling a covering letter to a Joint Authority AoC response which includes the electronic signatures of ten senior officers from each of the ten Local Authorities. We had heard this may be an issue.
Please see attached.

James Freeman

The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) attended the initial Steering Group meeting for the Dogger Bank D Wind Farm, held via Teams on 12 July 2023. The meeting focused on the Applicant’s proposed Evidence Plan Process, approach and draft programme. The Applicant also provided a project update, an overview of key project milestones, and set out its general approach to addressing matters raised in the Inspectorate’s Scoping Opinion.
The Applicant explained it was keen to ensure minimal overlap with other Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) submissions, to assist with resourcing of the Steering Group. The Inspectorate advised that each Project Page on the National Infrastructure Planning website indicates the likely submission date for the DCO application. The Inspectorate also publishes Section 51 advice minutes for all NSIPs, which are likely to include additional information such as Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) submission dates. The Applicant asked the Inspectorate what their view was on Principal Areas of Disagreement Summary Statements (PADSS) and if they would be useful for Dogger Bank D. The Inspectorate advised that PADSS may be requested by Examining Authorities, noting that PADSS have been trialled on selected Examinations (e.g the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine and the Lower Thames Crossing projects), but that this is not yet standard practice. PADSS are also being piloted at the pre-application stage by some Applicants who are participating in the Early Adopters Program. Statements of Common Ground are still likely to be required. Discussions in the meeting included whether the proposed number of Expert Topic Group (ETG) meetings (particularly for some topics e.g. ornithology) was comparable with other offshore wind farm NSIPs. Natural England provided a comment stating Hornsea 4 Offshore Wind Farm had a larger number of ETGs for some topics (e.g. ornithology) rather than the currently allocated maximum of five. Advice from the Inspectorate is that Steering Group meetings tend to be held quarterly, but may increase closer to key dates such as post-PEIR/ before DCO application. The ETGs are usually more frequent, but the number is likely to vary depending on the complexity of matters to discuss/ number of matters outstanding and will depend on the length of time until planned DCO application submission. Effort should be made to agree the number of ETGs with Natural England and other participants. In addition to the Hornsea 4 meeting programme, there are various published examples of the Evidence Plan documents provided with DCO applications (containing details of the programme of meetings), which the Applicant may wish to review. These include: Sheringham Shoal and Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm Extension Projects: [attachment 1] Hornsea 3 Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 2] Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 3]

Gatroben Developments 2 Limited - anon.

The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) attended the initial Steering Group meeting for the Dogger Bank D Wind Farm, held via Teams on 12 July 2023. The meeting focused on the Applicant’s proposed Evidence Plan Process, approach and draft programme. The Applicant also provided a project update, an overview of key project milestones, and set out its general approach to addressing matters raised in the Inspectorate’s Scoping Opinion.
The Applicant explained it was keen to ensure minimal overlap with other Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) submissions, to assist with resourcing of the Steering Group. The Inspectorate advised that each Project Page on the National Infrastructure Planning website indicates the likely submission date for the DCO application. The Inspectorate also publishes Section 51 advice minutes for all NSIPs, which are likely to include additional information such as Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) submission dates. The Applicant asked the Inspectorate what their view was on Principal Areas of Disagreement Summary Statements (PADSS) and if they would be useful for Dogger Bank D. The Inspectorate advised that PADSS may be requested by Examining Authorities, noting that PADSS have been trialled on selected Examinations (e.g the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine and the Lower Thames Crossing projects), but that this is not yet standard practice. PADSS are also being piloted at the pre-application stage by some Applicants who are participating in the Early Adopters Program. Statements of Common Ground are still likely to be required. Discussions in the meeting included whether the proposed number of Expert Topic Group (ETG) meetings (particularly for some topics e.g. ornithology) was comparable with other offshore wind farm NSIPs. Natural England provided a comment stating Hornsea 4 Offshore Wind Farm had a larger number of ETGs for some topics (e.g. ornithology) rather than the currently allocated maximum of five. Advice from the Inspectorate is that Steering Group meetings tend to be held quarterly, but may increase closer to key dates such as post-PEIR/ before DCO application. The ETGs are usually more frequent, but the number is likely to vary depending on the complexity of matters to discuss/ number of matters outstanding and will depend on the length of time until planned DCO application submission. Effort should be made to agree the number of ETGs with Natural England and other participants. In addition to the Hornsea 4 meeting programme, there are various published examples of the Evidence Plan documents provided with DCO applications (containing details of the programme of meetings), which the Applicant may wish to review. These include: Sheringham Shoal and Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm Extension Projects: [attachment 1] Hornsea 3 Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 2] Thanet Extension Offshore Wind Farm: [attachment 3]

Gatroben Developments 2 Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

East Yorkshire Solar Farm Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting - 11 July 2023
Please see attached.

Tillbridge Solar Limited - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Hannah Rogers

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Southern Water - anon.

Dear Sirs Please may I ask if Bilsby Parish Council could be included on the Outer Dowsing consultation process taking place in Lincolnshire.
Dear Madeline Hoad Thank you for your email. This application above is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] As this application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the developer and we would encourage you to contact them directly to make your Parish Council’s views known: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0808 175 2970 Website: [attachment 2] It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. The developer is currently carrying out its consultation which is running until Friday 21 July 202. Information and consultation documents can be found here [attachment 3] Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 4] You may find it helpful to subscribe to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Thank you Tracey Williams Case Manager Team Leader

Bilsby & Farlesthorpe Parish Council - Madeleine Hoard

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Total Energies and Corio Generation - anon.

See attached
See attached

Associated British Ports - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Total Energies and Corio Generation - anon.

“As you are aware, the ten Gatwick local authorities are working collectively on the Northern Runway Project. With regard to Adequacy of Consultation (AoC), the authorities propose to submit a joint representation with a covering letter signed by the ten authorities. In addition, separate AoC representations may be made by individual authorities to address local issues. I am writing on behalf of the joint authorities’ Steering Group seeking clarification on a few matters, as follows: • Is there a requirement for host or neighbouring authorities to submit an AoC representation? I note that your letter of 14 June 2023 states that authorities will be ‘invited’ to submit representations, which suggests that it is not mandatory. • If an authority does not wish to submit an individual AoC representation, does it need to submit anything in response to the invitation i.e. should it just submit a short letter referring to support for the joint representation or is its signature on the covering letter sufficient?”
“For context, an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoC) is a representation specifically as to whether an applicant has complied, in relation to the proposed application, with: • its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) relating to consultation and publicity; • its duty to consult a relevant local authority about the preparation of the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) (whether the Applicant had regard to the local authority’s comments on the draft SoCC); and • the commitments set out in the SoCC in terms of undertaking the Pre-application consultation in compliance with the stated consultation methodology. As to your first question, it is not mandatory for a host or neighbouring local authority to submit an AoC under the PA2008, however it is very much encouraged as the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to any comments it receives from host and neighbouring local authorities in deciding whether to accept an application for Examination. As to your second question, an AoC can be submitted jointly or individually, however it should not be necessary to submit more than one AoC per local authority. If there are any local issues put forward by specific authorities, you may wish to include these in an appendix to the joint AoC, however please note that local authorities are not being asked for views on the merits of the application at this stage, and views about compliance with the statutory duties outlined in the bullet point list above will not prejudice a local authority’s in principle objection to/ support of the application (or any part of it). The signature of the relevant local authority will be sufficient evidence that they are party to the joint AoC, and we will not require individual letters to confirm this; however, I would suggest that each signatory is copied into the email submitting the joint AoC to the Planning Inspectorate for clarity and completeness.”

West Sussex County Council - anon.

As you are aware, the ten Gatwick local authorities are working collectively on the Northern Runway Project. With regard to Adequacy of Consultation (AoC), the authorities propose to submit a joint representation with a covering letter signed by the ten authorities. In addition, separate AoC representations may be made by individual authorities to address local issues. I am writing on behalf of the joint authorities’ Steering Group seeking clarification on a few matters, as follows: • Is there a requirement for host or neighbouring authorities to submit an AoC representation? I note that your letter of 14 June 2023 states that authorities will be ‘invited’ to submit representations, which suggests that it is not mandatory. • If an authority does not wish to submit an individual AoC representation, does it need to submit anything in response to the invitation i.e. should it just submit a short letter referring to support for the joint representation or is its signature on the covering letter sufficient?
For context, an Adequacy of Consultation Representation (AoC) is a representation specifically as to whether an applicant has complied, in relation to the proposed application, with: • its duties under sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) relating to consultation and publicity; • its duty to consult a relevant local authority about the preparation of the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC) (whether the Applicant had regard to the local authority’s comments on the draft SoCC); and • the commitments set out in the SoCC in terms of undertaking the Pre-application consultation in compliance with the stated consultation methodology. As to your first question, it is not mandatory for a host or neighbouring local authority to submit an AoC under the PA2008, however it is very much encouraged as the Planning Inspectorate must have regard to any comments it receives from host and neighbouring local authorities in deciding whether to accept an application for Examination. As to your second question, an AoC can be submitted jointly or individually, however it should not be necessary to submit more than one AoC per local authority. If there are any local issues put forward by specific authorities, you may wish to include these in an appendix to the joint AoC, however please note that local authorities are not being asked for views on the merits of the application at this stage, and views about compliance with the statutory duties outlined in the bullet point list above will not prejudice a local authority’s in principle objection to/ support of the application (or any part of it). The signature of the relevant local authority will be sufficient evidence that they are party to the joint AoC, and we will not require individual letters to confirm this; however, I would suggest that each signatory is copied into the email submitting the joint AoC to the Planning Inspectorate for clarity and completeness.

West Sussex County Council - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Cadent Gas Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Gloucestershire County Council - anon.

Project Update Meeting / Update on the Early Adopters Programme
See attached

Byers Gill Solar - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports - anon.

The Inspectorate attended an online Steering Group for the Morgan Generation Assets and Mona Offshore Wind Projects. The meeting provided a project update, details of an updated methodology for the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), and an overview of key responses to the recent statutory consultation. The Applicant also outlined its proposed approach to the cumulative effects assessment (CEA) for the Morgan Generation project and requested any comments on the approach.
The Inspectorate advised that the CEA is undertaken on the basis of applicable worst case scenarios for the Proposed Development and other development, taking into account the information available at the time of assessment. The Inspectorate confirmed it had no further comments on the CEA at this stage.

Morgan and Mona Steering Group - anon.

Dear Sir, I wrote to you on 13th February 2023 regarding further inadequacies of the consultation which has taken place with the residents of Cowfold regarding the Rampion 2 proposals. Attached was a document challenging Rampions ‘Promoting Rampion 2 consultations with Cowfold 2021-22' letter. It now appears that Cowfold Parish Council have revised their original statement regarding communications between Rampion and the Parish Council (see attached document). Their denial of receiving any more than the residents themselves was originally made to members of the public at Parish Council meetings in December 2022 and January 2023 and reiterated in the attached email form the parish clerk. This means that Rampion are correct in their statement that the scoping report was received, that Donna Everest attended zoom meetings and that a poster was placed on the Council noticeboard in 2021 (however it was the only poster, and on display at a time when most people were still making only essential journeys). However, it does not alter in any way the main points the parish council raised in public letters to Rampion, nor does it exonerate Rampion from any of the other inadequacies of consultation we highlighted in the critique, or the body of evidence we have sent to the Planning Inspectorate and WSCC. Also, it is Rampion's responsibility to communicate the consultation to the public, not that of the parish council It also confirms our view that almost nobody in the parish was aware of the proposals in 2021 as the only correspondence they have listed from residents in the first round of consultation was from the owner of Oakendene himself. Yours faithfully Meera Smethurst CowfoldvRampion
Good afternoon Ms Smethurst, I hope you are well. I am the case manager on this project currently and firstly wanted to introduce myself. I took over this project last month and have spent some time going through your emails and concerns regarding the proposals and consultation. I know you have spoken to my colleague, Caroline, who advised you to raise all concerns with the Applicant in the first instance. I can see that most emails with PINs copied in have been raised with either the Local Authority (LA) or the Applicant. Regarding the email you forwarded below, I would like to clarify the advice you have been given. The project mailbox is open for your concerns and resident concerns regarding a scheme. However, given that this project is still in the pre application stage, which is entirely driven by the Applicant, concerns should be made directly to the Applicant and LA. By contacting both the Applicant and LA your concerns may form part of the LA’s adequacy of consultation response (AoCR), which is submitted to us during the acceptance stage. PINs are unable to comment on or consider representations prior to submission, hence our recommendation to contact the applicant and LA. However, after reading through your emails, I note your frustrations and ongoing concerns with the project and understand you have been copying us in for completeness. Comments have been filed and will be available to the Examining Authority in due course. If the application is accepted for examination, there will be an opportunity for the public to register as Interested Parties and make a Relevant Representation on the Proposed Development. As you may be aware, we have a series of Advice Notes on our website and you may find Advice Notes 8 – 8.6 helpful in providing more information on the Planning Act 2008 stages and processes. In the meantime, you are able to continue to copy this mailbox into correspondence you deem necessary, but I stress the importance of directing your concerns and comments to both the LA and Applicant during the pre-application stage. I trust this clarifies any confusion and apologise for responses being delayed. If you require anything further, please use this mailbox and either myself or one of my team will pick it up. Kindest, Emily Davies Case Manager

Cowfold Parish Council - anon.

Lower Thames Crossing Draft Site Inspections Itinerary. Please see attached.
Please see attached.

The Planning Inspectorate - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Flotation Energy and EnBW/bp - anon.

Merton Council queried whether it could be included in correspondence from the Planning Inspectorate regarding the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation.
Section (“s”) 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (“PA2008”) requires the Planning Inspectorate (“the Inspectorate”) to have regard to any adequacy of consultation representations (“AoCR”) received from local authority consultees when reaching its conclusion under s55(3)(e) regarding whether an applicant has complied with Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the PA2008; compliance with Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the PA2008 being a prerequisite for an application to be accepted for Examination. In this context, a ‘local authority consultee’ is an authority that has been consulted by an applicant about a proposed application under s42(1)(b) of the PA2008 due to being within the definition of a ‘local authority’ set out under s43 (a “prescribed local authority”). It is unclear whether the Applicant, Gatwick Airport Limited, consulted with Merton Council during its statutory consultation, and the Inspectorate is only required to take into account AoCRs from prescribed local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept an application for Examination. This does not preclude Merton Council from submitting an AoCR, however it would be at the discretion of the Inspectorate as to how this was accounted for. It may be the case that AoCRs from non-prescribed local authorities are not material to any conclusion reached under section 55(3)(e), and comments from non-prescribed bodies may be summarised in documentation published following the Acceptance stage rather than reflected verbatim. Notwithstanding this, it appears that you may also be a representative of the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames, which is a prescribed local authority in relation to this proposed scheme and will be invited to submit an AoCR following receipt of the application.

Merton Council - anon.

Merton Council queried whether it could be included in correspondence from the Planning Inspectorate regarding the adequacy of the Applicant’s Pre-application consultation.
Section (“s”) 55(4)(b) of the Planning Act 2008 (“PA2008”) requires the Planning Inspectorate (“the Inspectorate”) to have regard to any adequacy of consultation representations (“AoCR”) received from local authority consultees when reaching its conclusion under s55(3)(e) regarding whether an applicant has complied with Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the PA2008; compliance with Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the PA2008 being a prerequisite for an application to be accepted for Examination. In this context, a ‘local authority consultee’ is an authority that has been consulted by an applicant about a proposed application under s42(1)(b) of the PA2008 due to being within the definition of a ‘local authority’ set out under s43 (a “prescribed local authority”). It is unclear whether the Applicant, Gatwick Airport Limited, consulted with Merton Council during its statutory consultation, and the Inspectorate is only required to take into account AoCRs from prescribed local authorities when deciding whether or not to accept an application for Examination. This does not preclude Merton Council from submitting an AoCR, however it would be at the discretion of the Inspectorate as to how this was accounted for. It may be the case that AoCRs from non-prescribed local authorities are not material to any conclusion reached under section 55(3)(e), and comments from non-prescribed bodies may be summarised in documentation published following the Acceptance stage rather than reflected verbatim. Notwithstanding this, it appears that you may also be a representative of the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames, which is a prescribed local authority in relation to this proposed scheme and will be invited to submit an AoCR following receipt of the application.

Merton Council - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Dean Moor Solar Farm Limited - anon.

The enquirer expressed an intention to register as an Interested Party in respect of the scheme, and requested further details.
Please see attached.

Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions - anon.

The enquirer expressed an intention to register as an Interested Party in respect of the scheme, and requested further details.
Please see attached.

Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions - anon.

Cyfarfod Sefydlu - Inception Meeting
Gweler y Atodiad - See Attached

Lightsource BP - anon.

Project Update Meeting - 15 June 2023
See attached

Chrysaor Production (UK) Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

H2 Teesside Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Lighthouse Green Fuels Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Inception Meeting note - 8 June 2023
Please see attached

National Highways - anon.

Draft Document Feedback
Please see attached

Rampion Extension Development Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting 05 June 2023
See Attached

Immingham Green Energy Terminal - anon.

A request for advice was made by telephone. 1. As part of the Examination for the A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme a document has been published on the Planning Inspectorate’s website regarding an objection to the sale of a property. However, there is no objection. Please explain how the document 9.8 Status of Negotiations Compulsory Acquisition Schedule has been published giving false information. 2. Can the Inspectorate provide the name of specific authors of documents submitted on behalf of applicants? 3. Who is the Secretary of State’s representative for this process, and how is information provided to them. 4. If information is provided to the Inspectorate is this passed to the applicant and how does that happen? 5. How can I have my say in an examination?
1. During examinations applicants may be required to submit documents. For example, documents regarding updates on the status of compulsory acquisition negotiations. The document referred to in the query allows the Examining Authority (ExA) to see the progress of negotiations being made by the Applicant on specific property and land. Information submitted by applicants or other persons is published on our website. It is not removed from the website as the published documents are an evidence trail of information provided to the examination. Applicants and other parties can provide new information, updated documents or comments on published documents at deadlines; these deadlines are set out in the timetable for each examination. If a person does not agree with the contents of a document they may submit comments at the next available deadline. The next available deadline for the A12 is 12 June 2023. People with property which would be impacted if the project were to go ahead can attend Compulsory Acquisition Hearings. One is being held virtually on 27 June 2023, participants will need to register by emailing: [email protected]. 2. The Inspectorate does not hold information regarding the authors of documents submitted on behalf of applicants. 3. The Planning Inspectorate is the Secretary of State’s representative for the examination of applications under the Planning Act 2008. All enquiries regarding a specific application must be submitted to the relevant case team to be included in the examination. The team provides the information to the ExA. When information, which is material to the examination, is provided to the ExA they will make a decision as to whether to accept the information into the examination. The Case Team will confirm when this has happened and provide a link to the document published on our website. 4. All information which is accepted into an examination must be publicly available. The documents are published on the website, for everyone, including the applicant, to access. 5. People whose land would be impacted by a project, if a Development Consent Order was granted, and those who registered can submit information at examination deadlines and request to attend hearings. The dates are published on the National Infrastructure webpage for each application. This is a link to the list of applications - [attachment 1] and a link to the webpage for the A12 scheme [attachment 2]

Nathan Wacey

See attached

EPL 001 Limited - anon.

For the Attention of Developers and The Planning Inspectorate In response to the current notices for the proposed projects listed below, I am pleased to submit this objection to the developers. This is also addressed to the Planning Inspectorate for their attention and response, regarding the application of the principles of the Rochdale Envelope. My concerns relate to the geographical extent of the proposed wind farms and the adverse impact on navigation. -Mona Statutory Notice -Morgan Offshore Generation Assets Statutory Notice -Morecambe Offshore Generation Assets Statutory Notice -Morgan and Morecambe Transmission Assets Adverse Impacts on Navigation My objection regarding the adverse impacts of the above proposed developments on navigation refers in particular to the Isle of Man's lifeline ferry services. The Planning Inspectorate's website for Morgan Offshore Generation Assets, 10 October 2022, records the following communication from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. ''... I want to raise an early concern that (1) the three projects present concerns to safe navigation in the area and (2) I believe that separate planning applications would not provide a full representation of the impacts because of the risks they present cumulatively which probably most concern the MCA and other navigational stakeholders.'' The documents for the current proposals appear to show that the geographical extents of the schemes have not materially changed since the MCA expressed their concerns. Despite communications between the shipping interests and developers, I understand that the boundaries for the areas proposed for development remain a matter of concern for shipping operators, including the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company. Geographical Extent of Proposed Wind Farms Past experience shows that it is legitimate and reasonable to question the derivation of the geographical extent of the licence areas and of the actual development areas to be occupied by each of the proposed wind farms. The Crown Estate appears to define the licence areas with scant regard for navigation, and expects developers to thrash it out themselves. For example, the former (and subsequently abandoned) Rhiannon offshore wind farm licence area extended into and obstructed the established defined separated shipping lanes round Anglesey. Also, the Estate's defining Mona and Morgan as contiguous would clearly have resulted in a very major obstacle to navigation. The licence development areas are not set in stone, for example as demonstrated by the developer proposing to adopt less than the full licence area for development of Mona. A Request For More Information on Wind farm Extent and Layout Currently, there is free navigation over the whole area of the proposed wind farms. The custodian of the sea bed, the Crown Estate, has issued licences intended to allow developers to close off areas of the seas surface to navigation. Yet, it is the shipping interests who have been expected to justify their requirements for safe navigation. For an equitable balance between wind farms and shipping operation, it is now appropriate and not unreasonable to request that the developers justify the development areas actually needed. It is not adequate that they make reference to the development areas as ''maximum.'' Development of Wind Farms Proposals It appears that the geographical extents for licence and development were based initially on nominal capacity densities (MW/km^2) for which there is extensive data for the British Isles and Europe. Subsequently, with the increasing data now available, the developers should now be able to provide more detail of their design parameters and proposals. Unfortunately, past experience elsewhere was that developers claimed that there were too many variables under consideration. Was their reluctance to provide details until as late as possible intended to put objectors at a disadvantage? Even though the developers may not have finalised design, it is reasonable to expect that they are now able to address and resolve fundamental inputs such as turbine specific power and Irish Sea wind data. Thus, they are able to narrow down their choices and become much more specific as to the actual layout pattern and area required. For example, the documents state the minimum number (higher power) and maximum number (lower power) of wind turbines in each development, which indicates the chosen range of turbine capacities and rotor sizes. It would be misleading to suggest that there are too many variables to be more specific at this stage, as some variables cancel each other. For example, the area required for development is largely independent of rotor size (diameter). (The turbine power generated is proportional to the square of the rotor diameter. The wind turbine spacing is expressed as a multiple of rotor diameter, and thus the density of wind turbines is inversely proportional to the square of the rotor diameter. Thus to obtain the power capacity per unit area, the turbine power is multiplied by the density, and the diameters squared cancel out.) Application of Rochdale Envelope. The Rochdale Envelope (National Infrastructure Planning Advice Note 9) allows a degree of flexibility to address uncertainties. For offshore wind farms it notes (para 4.5) that these may include type and number of turbines. Para 4.12 refers to ''robust worst case scenario(s), '' which for offshore wind farms presumably includes overall geographical area for development. Notwithstanding this 'flexibility,' it now appears reasonable to request the developers to justify the actual development areas which they need. To give one specific example, what is the justification for the northern-most corner of Morgan to project apparently unnecessarily into the Douglas - Heysham shipping route? John Pennington, Retired civil engineer, formerly FICE
Dear Mr. Pennington, Thank you for your email. I apologise for the delay in reply. The proposed applications above are currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the applications have not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Your first point of contact should be the developer and we would encourage you to contact them directly: Morgan Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets Website for consultation: [attachment 2] Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 915 2493 (Option 1) Mona Offshore Wind Farm Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 860 6263 Morecambe Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets Email: [email protected] Telephone: 01224 548642 Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms Transmission Assets Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 915 2493 (Option 3) It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the applications be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party on each project by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on each project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 3] Shipping and navigation have been identified as aspects to be assessed in the environmental statements of all of the above projects and will be part of the evidence that each Examining Authority will consider during the Examination of each project. We will consider appropriate locations for hearings for each project once each application has been accepted for Examination. You may find it helpful to subscribe to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. You can do that on each project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website.

John Pennington

For the Attention of Developers and The Planning Inspectorate In response to the current notices for the proposed projects listed below, I am pleased to submit this objection to the developers. This is also addressed to the Planning Inspectorate for their attention and response, regarding the application of the principles of the Rochdale Envelope. My concerns relate to the geographical extent of the proposed wind farms and the adverse impact on navigation. -Mona Statutory Notice -Morgan Offshore Generation Assets Statutory Notice -Morecambe Offshore Generation Assets Statutory Notice -Morgan and Morecambe Transmission Assets Adverse Impacts on Navigation My objection regarding the adverse impacts of the above proposed developments on navigation refers in particular to the Isle of Man's lifeline ferry services. The Planning Inspectorate's website for Morgan Offshore Generation Assets, 10 October 2022, records the following communication from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. ''... I want to raise an early concern that (1) the three projects present concerns to safe navigation in the area and (2) I believe that separate planning applications would not provide a full representation of the impacts because of the risks they present cumulatively which probably most concern the MCA and other navigational stakeholders.'' The documents for the current proposals appear to show that the geographical extents of the schemes have not materially changed since the MCA expressed their concerns. Despite communications between the shipping interests and developers, I understand that the boundaries for the areas proposed for development remain a matter of concern for shipping operators, including the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company. Geographical Extent of Proposed Wind Farms Past experience shows that it is legitimate and reasonable to question the derivation of the geographical extent of the licence areas and of the actual development areas to be occupied by each of the proposed wind farms. The Crown Estate appears to define the licence areas with scant regard for navigation, and expects developers to thrash it out themselves. For example, the former (and subsequently abandoned) Rhiannon offshore wind farm licence area extended into and obstructed the established defined separated shipping lanes round Anglesey. Also, the Estate's defining Mona and Morgan as contiguous would clearly have resulted in a very major obstacle to navigation. The licence development areas are not set in stone, for example as demonstrated by the developer proposing to adopt less than the full licence area for development of Mona. A Request For More Information on Wind farm Extent and Layout Currently, there is free navigation over the whole area of the proposed wind farms. The custodian of the sea bed, the Crown Estate, has issued licences intended to allow developers to close off areas of the seas surface to navigation. Yet, it is the shipping interests who have been expected to justify their requirements for safe navigation. For an equitable balance between wind farms and shipping operation, it is now appropriate and not unreasonable to request that the developers justify the development areas actually needed. It is not adequate that they make reference to the development areas as ''maximum.'' Development of Wind Farms Proposals It appears that the geographical extents for licence and development were based initially on nominal capacity densities (MW/km^2) for which there is extensive data for the British Isles and Europe. Subsequently, with the increasing data now available, the developers should now be able to provide more detail of their design parameters and proposals. Unfortunately, past experience elsewhere was that developers claimed that there were too many variables under consideration. Was their reluctance to provide details until as late as possible intended to put objectors at a disadvantage? Even though the developers may not have finalised design, it is reasonable to expect that they are now able to address and resolve fundamental inputs such as turbine specific power and Irish Sea wind data. Thus, they are able to narrow down their choices and become much more specific as to the actual layout pattern and area required. For example, the documents state the minimum number (higher power) and maximum number (lower power) of wind turbines in each development, which indicates the chosen range of turbine capacities and rotor sizes. It would be misleading to suggest that there are too many variables to be more specific at this stage, as some variables cancel each other. For example, the area required for development is largely independent of rotor size (diameter). (The turbine power generated is proportional to the square of the rotor diameter. The wind turbine spacing is expressed as a multiple of rotor diameter, and thus the density of wind turbines is inversely proportional to the square of the rotor diameter. Thus to obtain the power capacity per unit area, the turbine power is multiplied by the density, and the diameters squared cancel out.) Application of Rochdale Envelope. The Rochdale Envelope (National Infrastructure Planning Advice Note 9) allows a degree of flexibility to address uncertainties. For offshore wind farms it notes (para 4.5) that these may include type and number of turbines. Para 4.12 refers to ''robust worst case scenario(s), '' which for offshore wind farms presumably includes overall geographical area for development. Notwithstanding this 'flexibility,' it now appears reasonable to request the developers to justify the actual development areas which they need. To give one specific example, what is the justification for the northern-most corner of Morgan to project apparently unnecessarily into the Douglas - Heysham shipping route? John Pennington, Retired civil engineer, formerly FICE
Dear Mr. Pennington, Thank you for your email. I apologise for the delay in reply. The proposed applications above are currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the applications have not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Your first point of contact should be the developer and we would encourage you to contact them directly: Morgan Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets Website for consultation: [attachment 2] Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 915 2493 (Option 1) Mona Offshore Wind Farm Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 860 6263 Morecambe Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets Email: [email protected] Telephone: 01224 548642 Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms Transmission Assets Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 915 2493 (Option 3) It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the applications be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party on each project by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on each project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 3] Shipping and navigation have been identified as aspects to be assessed in the environmental statements of all of the above projects and will be part of the evidence that each Examining Authority will consider during the Examination of each project. We will consider appropriate locations for hearings for each project once each application has been accepted for Examination. You may find it helpful to subscribe to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. You can do that on each project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website.

John Pennington

For the Attention of Developers and The Planning Inspectorate In response to the current notices for the proposed projects listed below, I am pleased to submit this objection to the developers. This is also addressed to the Planning Inspectorate for their attention and response, regarding the application of the principles of the Rochdale Envelope. My concerns relate to the geographical extent of the proposed wind farms and the adverse impact on navigation. -Mona Statutory Notice -Morgan Offshore Generation Assets Statutory Notice -Morecambe Offshore Generation Assets Statutory Notice -Morgan and Morecambe Transmission Assets Adverse Impacts on Navigation My objection regarding the adverse impacts of the above proposed developments on navigation refers in particular to the Isle of Man's lifeline ferry services. The Planning Inspectorate's website for Morgan Offshore Generation Assets, 10 October 2022, records the following communication from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. ''... I want to raise an early concern that (1) the three projects present concerns to safe navigation in the area and (2) I believe that separate planning applications would not provide a full representation of the impacts because of the risks they present cumulatively which probably most concern the MCA and other navigational stakeholders.'' The documents for the current proposals appear to show that the geographical extents of the schemes have not materially changed since the MCA expressed their concerns. Despite communications between the shipping interests and developers, I understand that the boundaries for the areas proposed for development remain a matter of concern for shipping operators, including the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company. Geographical Extent of Proposed Wind Farms Past experience shows that it is legitimate and reasonable to question the derivation of the geographical extent of the licence areas and of the actual development areas to be occupied by each of the proposed wind farms. The Crown Estate appears to define the licence areas with scant regard for navigation, and expects developers to thrash it out themselves. For example, the former (and subsequently abandoned) Rhiannon offshore wind farm licence area extended into and obstructed the established defined separated shipping lanes round Anglesey. Also, the Estate's defining Mona and Morgan as contiguous would clearly have resulted in a very major obstacle to navigation. The licence development areas are not set in stone, for example as demonstrated by the developer proposing to adopt less than the full licence area for development of Mona. A Request For More Information on Wind farm Extent and Layout Currently, there is free navigation over the whole area of the proposed wind farms. The custodian of the sea bed, the Crown Estate, has issued licences intended to allow developers to close off areas of the seas surface to navigation. Yet, it is the shipping interests who have been expected to justify their requirements for safe navigation. For an equitable balance between wind farms and shipping operation, it is now appropriate and not unreasonable to request that the developers justify the development areas actually needed. It is not adequate that they make reference to the development areas as ''maximum.'' Development of Wind Farms Proposals It appears that the geographical extents for licence and development were based initially on nominal capacity densities (MW/km^2) for which there is extensive data for the British Isles and Europe. Subsequently, with the increasing data now available, the developers should now be able to provide more detail of their design parameters and proposals. Unfortunately, past experience elsewhere was that developers claimed that there were too many variables under consideration. Was their reluctance to provide details until as late as possible intended to put objectors at a disadvantage? Even though the developers may not have finalised design, it is reasonable to expect that they are now able to address and resolve fundamental inputs such as turbine specific power and Irish Sea wind data. Thus, they are able to narrow down their choices and become much more specific as to the actual layout pattern and area required. For example, the documents state the minimum number (higher power) and maximum number (lower power) of wind turbines in each development, which indicates the chosen range of turbine capacities and rotor sizes. It would be misleading to suggest that there are too many variables to be more specific at this stage, as some variables cancel each other. For example, the area required for development is largely independent of rotor size (diameter). (The turbine power generated is proportional to the square of the rotor diameter. The wind turbine spacing is expressed as a multiple of rotor diameter, and thus the density of wind turbines is inversely proportional to the square of the rotor diameter. Thus to obtain the power capacity per unit area, the turbine power is multiplied by the density, and the diameters squared cancel out.) Application of Rochdale Envelope. The Rochdale Envelope (National Infrastructure Planning Advice Note 9) allows a degree of flexibility to address uncertainties. For offshore wind farms it notes (para 4.5) that these may include type and number of turbines. Para 4.12 refers to ''robust worst case scenario(s), '' which for offshore wind farms presumably includes overall geographical area for development. Notwithstanding this 'flexibility,' it now appears reasonable to request the developers to justify the actual development areas which they need. To give one specific example, what is the justification for the northern-most corner of Morgan to project apparently unnecessarily into the Douglas - Heysham shipping route?
Dear Mr. Pennington, Thank you for your email. I apologise for the delay in reply. The proposed applications above are currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the applications have not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Your first point of contact should be the developer and we would encourage you to contact them directly: Morgan Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets Website for consultation: [attachment 2] Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 915 2493 (Option 1) Mona Offshore Wind Farm Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 860 6263 Morecambe Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets Email: [email protected] Telephone: 01224 548642 Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms Transmission Assets Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 915 2493 (Option 3) It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the applications be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party on each project by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on each project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 3] Shipping and navigation have been identified as aspects to be assessed in the environmental statements of all of the above projects and will be part of the evidence that each Examining Authority will consider during the Examination of each project. We will consider appropriate locations for hearings for each project once each application has been accepted for Examination. You may find it helpful to subscribe to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. You can do that on each project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website.

John Pennington

For the Attention of Developers and The Planning Inspectorate In response to the current notices for the proposed projects listed below, I am pleased to submit this objection to the developers. This is also addressed to the Planning Inspectorate for their attention and response, regarding the application of the principles of the Rochdale Envelope. My concerns relate to the geographical extent of the proposed wind farms and the adverse impact on navigation. -Mona Statutory Notice -Morgan Offshore Generation Assets Statutory Notice -Morecambe Offshore Generation Assets Statutory Notice -Morgan and Morecambe Transmission Assets Adverse Impacts on Navigation My objection regarding the adverse impacts of the above proposed developments on navigation refers in particular to the Isle of Man's lifeline ferry services. The Planning Inspectorate's website for Morgan Offshore Generation Assets, 10 October 2022, records the following communication from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. ''... I want to raise an early concern that (1) the three projects present concerns to safe navigation in the area and (2) I believe that separate planning applications would not provide a full representation of the impacts because of the risks they present cumulatively which probably most concern the MCA and other navigational stakeholders.'' The documents for the current proposals appear to show that the geographical extents of the schemes have not materially changed since the MCA expressed their concerns. Despite communications between the shipping interests and developers, I understand that the boundaries for the areas proposed for development remain a matter of concern for shipping operators, including the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company. Geographical Extent of Proposed Wind Farms Past experience shows that it is legitimate and reasonable to question the derivation of the geographical extent of the licence areas and of the actual development areas to be occupied by each of the proposed wind farms. The Crown Estate appears to define the licence areas with scant regard for navigation, and expects developers to thrash it out themselves. For example, the former (and subsequently abandoned) Rhiannon offshore wind farm licence area extended into and obstructed the established defined separated shipping lanes round Anglesey. Also, the Estate's defining Mona and Morgan as contiguous would clearly have resulted in a very major obstacle to navigation. The licence development areas are not set in stone, for example as demonstrated by the developer proposing to adopt less than the full licence area for development of Mona. A Request For More Information on Wind farm Extent and Layout Currently, there is free navigation over the whole area of the proposed wind farms. The custodian of the sea bed, the Crown Estate, has issued licences intended to allow developers to close off areas of the seas surface to navigation. Yet, it is the shipping interests who have been expected to justify their requirements for safe navigation. For an equitable balance between wind farms and shipping operation, it is now appropriate and not unreasonable to request that the developers justify the development areas actually needed. It is not adequate that they make reference to the development areas as ''maximum.'' Development of Wind Farms Proposals It appears that the geographical extents for licence and development were based initially on nominal capacity densities (MW/km^2) for which there is extensive data for the British Isles and Europe. Subsequently, with the increasing data now available, the developers should now be able to provide more detail of their design parameters and proposals. Unfortunately, past experience elsewhere was that developers claimed that there were too many variables under consideration. Was their reluctance to provide details until as late as possible intended to put objectors at a disadvantage? Even though the developers may not have finalised design, it is reasonable to expect that they are now able to address and resolve fundamental inputs such as turbine specific power and Irish Sea wind data. Thus, they are able to narrow down their choices and become much more specific as to the actual layout pattern and area required. For example, the documents state the minimum number (higher power) and maximum number (lower power) of wind turbines in each development, which indicates the chosen range of turbine capacities and rotor sizes. It would be misleading to suggest that there are too many variables to be more specific at this stage, as some variables cancel each other. For example, the area required for development is largely independent of rotor size (diameter). (The turbine power generated is proportional to the square of the rotor diameter. The wind turbine spacing is expressed as a multiple of rotor diameter, and thus the density of wind turbines is inversely proportional to the square of the rotor diameter. Thus to obtain the power capacity per unit area, the turbine power is multiplied by the density, and the diameters squared cancel out.) Application of Rochdale Envelope. The Rochdale Envelope (National Infrastructure Planning Advice Note 9) allows a degree of flexibility to address uncertainties. For offshore wind farms it notes (para 4.5) that these may include type and number of turbines. Para 4.12 refers to ''robust worst case scenario(s), '' which for offshore wind farms presumably includes overall geographical area for development. Notwithstanding this 'flexibility,' it now appears reasonable to request the developers to justify the actual development areas which they need. To give one specific example, what is the justification for the northern-most corner of Morgan to project apparently unnecessarily into the Douglas - Heysham shipping route? John Pennington, Retired civil engineer, formerly FICE
Dear Mr. Pennington, Thank you for your email. I apologise for the delay in reply. The proposed applications above are currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the applications have not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Your first point of contact should be the developer and we would encourage you to contact them directly: Morgan Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets Website for consultation: [attachment 2] Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 915 2493 (Option 1) Mona Offshore Wind Farm Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 860 6263 Morecambe Offshore Wind Farm Generation Assets Email: [email protected] Telephone: 01224 548642 Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms Transmission Assets Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 915 2493 (Option 3) It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the applications be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party on each project by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on each project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 3] Shipping and navigation have been identified as aspects to be assessed in the environmental statements of all of the above projects and will be part of the evidence that each Examining Authority will consider during the Examination of each project. We will consider appropriate locations for hearings for each project once each application has been accepted for Examination. You may find it helpful to subscribe to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. You can do that on each project page of the National Infrastructure Planning website. Kind regards, Josh.

John Pennington

See attached

Springwell Solar Farm - anon.

Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

Boom Power - anon.

See attached

Fosse Green Energy Limited - anon.

See attached

Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.

I am delighted to hear that there will now be a review of the offshore alternative to East Anglia Green proposals set out by National Grid, but having studied the terms of the National Grid ESO review I am in full agreement with the conclusions of the ESN Pylons Action Group and very worried that its scope will be far too narrow. The scoping document still refers to the Norwich to Tilbury link: I believe that this narrow scope will lead to a suboptimal onshore solution, and it is therefore essential that the scope is extended to include all the wind farms currently expecting to land power in East Anglia as well as connectors and interconnectors. In short, it must have similar scope to the review which you have already published in December 2020 and cover options for a coordinated offshore grid. I support the positions taken in this briefing note [redacted]. I would add that the review needs to ignore any existing wind farm connection agreements if they are still subject to planning permission. The planning system needs to serve the wider public interest, and cannot be subservient to individual contracts. The benefits should dramatically outweigh any contractual costs given your previous work published in December 2020 but, if not, then that is a commercial risk knowingly entered into by the parties to the contracts when they executed the agreements prior to obtaining planning permission. Finally, the review needs to make a realistic assessment of timescales for delivery. It should consider the scale of local opposition to the onshore Pylons and Overhead proposals and previous experience with projects such as HS2. Local Opposition to East Anglia Green is extremely strong amongst the population, parish- , city- , county-councils as well as all MPs in the area. Just one year in to the process the Statutory Consultation for East Anglia Green has already been delayed by – I estimate – a year, and a leading Planning KC has issued a strongly worded opinion highlighting legal deficiencies in the process which National Grid ET are following, warning that subsequent stages will be ‘infected’. I suspect that a coordinated offshore grid will be significantly quicker to deliver in practice, an important point if the nation’s net zero targets are to be met.
Dear Sir/ Madam, Thank you for your email which has been received by the Planning Inspectorate. The proposed East Anglia Green Energy Enablement (GREEN) application is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found at the following link to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, your first point of contact should be the developer, National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET). It is important that the developer is made aware of any comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the application be accepted for Examination in due course, it will be possible to register as an Interested Party by submitting a Relevant Representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 2]. You may also find it helpful to subscribe to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Kind regards, The East Anglia GREEN Case Team

Various enquirers

Section 3.3.60 of the Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) reads: “subject to any legal requirements, the urgent need for CNP Infrastructure to achieving our energy objectives, together with the national security, economic, commercial, and net zero benefits, will in general outweigh any other residual impacts not capable of being addressed by application of the mitigation hierarchy” Section 4.1.3 reads: “Given the level and urgency of need for infrastructure of the types covered by the energy NSPs set out in part 3 of this NPS, the Secretary of State will start with a presumption in favour of granting consent to applications for energy NSIPs”. These proposals are in direct conflict with other policies in the Electricity Act and in National Policy Statements and risks causing untold and unnecessary harm to the environment and to communities. Electricity Act 1989 duties on National Grid include: • Section 38 and Schedule 9 – duty to have regard to the desirability of … conserving flora, fauna, geological or geophysical features of special interest, and or protecting building s and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest. Preservation of ecological resources (Schedule 9). • Shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect on …any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects. National Policy Statement EN-1 says, in paragraph 3.7.10 that: “…in most cases, there will be more than one technological approach by which it is possible to make such a connection or reinforce the network (for example, by overhead line or underground cable) and the costs and benefits of these alternatives should be properly considered as set out in EN-5 before any overhead line proposal is consented.” These proposals are therefore incompatible with, and contradictory, to other policies and legal requirements for the construction of transmission infrastructure. Further, the proposed wording is incompatible with the aims of the NSIPs action plan, because it will not deliver better, faster, fairer, greener and more resilient infrastructure and projects approved which rely upon this wording are likely to meet significant legal challenge. I object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed wording. ALL relevant matters should be weighed in the planning balance and the appropriate outcome driven by that balance. It is unacceptable to attempt to make such sweeping and damaging changes to policy. These sections would prevent appropriate and necessary challenge and serve only to ensure that bad proposals are rapidly approved. PRESUMPTION TO OVERHEAD LINES (OHL) AND PYLONS The Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-5) includes presumptions that OHL and Pylons should be used to transmit electricity and goes to length in section 2.9 to set out that they will be acceptable in all but extremely rare circumstances. To date the majority of electricity in England has - broadly speaking - been generated by burning coal in the Midlands and North, transporting it north-south through pylons to the denser population areas in the south. In such circumstances OHL and Pylons were a natural starting point. The majority of generation was in the centre of our land mass and there was no real alternative to overhead line and pylons. However, in a future world where the significant proportion of our electricity will be generated offshore through wind power this no longer makes sense. It is self-evident that if the power is being generated offshore and not near to existing OHL, a presumption in favour of OHL to transmit it will be the wrong starting point! As demonstrated by ESO in their December 2020 paper the establishment of a coordinated offshore grid would be approximately £6Bn cheaper when the costs of all parties are summed than their 'counterfactual' example of radial connections to shore supported by onshore pylons. ESO sets out that a coordinated offshore grid results in less use of cable both offshore and onshore and thereby result in less damage in both settings, AND results in a cheaper and MORE RESILIENT grid. OHL’s are highly damaging to habitats and bird strikes into power lines are a major killer acknowledged in the NPS’s. OHL’s are less resilient in extreme weather than underground cables or sub-sea grids. OHL's cause significant damage to landscape, archeology and cultural heritage including the settings of AONB (even when the pylons are outside of the AONB), scheduled monuments and listed buildings. Forcing pylons upon communities without genuine alternatives is not fair. A contentious system in which communities are not presented with options, and in which the one option they are presented is driven by a faulty presumption that OHL and Pylons are the right answer, will be slower than a fair system with fully evidenced alternatives as communities will inevitably mount significant legal challenge. The presumption in favour of OHL's and Pylons is: (i) Outdated, and not fit for a world in which by 2050, according to National Grid ESO in 2020, the UK will need to have a total of 83 Gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind power connected to the grid. (ii) Un-necessary. The electricity is already offshore and is typically not required anywhere near the point at which it would be brought onshore to connect with OHL and Pylons (which do not themselves yet exist and which have no planning approval). As demonstrate by ESO there are better ways to bring the power to where it is needed. (iii) Harmful. It drives the design process at National Grid ensuring that they always commence from an overhead design without any other consideration and even when other options would be better. The assumption that each wind-farm will connect back to shore radially and that power will be transported over land by pylons leads to significant increases in cost, time to approve, time to build, increased damage to landscape, seascape, and cultural heritage. (iv) will drive delays as pylons and OHL do not readily achieve consent amongst the population due to the damage they cause. (v) Incoherent in policy terms, given the requirement also in NPS’s to look at alternatives and Electricity Act 1989 duties on National Grid. As you can see, a presumption in favour of OHL and Pylons will not lead to the best outcomes for anyone. National Grid ESO said, of this growth, “One of the challenges to delivering the ambition in the timescales required will be ensuring that the offshore and onshore transmission network enables this growth in a way that is efficient for consumers and takes account of the impacts on coastal communities and the environment.” I believe that to ensure better, faster, fairer, greener and more resilient transmission infrastructure, which is the goal of the NSIP’s Action Plan: - paragraph 2.11.13 of Draft EN-5 should be changed to read: 'a full range of options must be considered and presented to stakeholders, taking Treasury Green Book[3] principles into account, so that the optimum solution for consumers, communities and the environment is arrived at'. - other references to presumption in favour of OHL should be removed entirely. - a presumption in favour of coordination for offshore projects must be added. - finally, all NPS’s should insist upon compliance with Treasury Green Book guidance. As a separate matter, your hard copy questions includes question 7: “Draft EN5 includes a strong starting presumption for overhead lines for electricity networks developments outside nationally designated landscapes, which was consulted on in 2021. Do you agree?” This is however missing from the online response form. The outcome of the consultation is likely to be biased against those who reject the inclusion of the presumption in favour. As you can see from our response above, we very much reject this proposal. In order to achieve a fair and balanced outcome it must be acknowledged that the current consultation is faulty and it must be re-started.
Dear Sir/ Madam, Thank you for your email which has been received by the Planning Inspectorate. The proposed East Anglia Green Energy Enablement (GREEN) application is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found at the following link to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, your first point of contact should be the developer and we would encourage you to contact National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) directly: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 151 0992 It is important that the developer is made aware of any comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Additionally, any queries relating to national policy should be addressed to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, rather than the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination in due course, it will be possible to register as an Interested Party by submitting a Relevant Representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 2]. You may also find it helpful to subscribe to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Kind regards, The East Anglia GREEN Case Team

Various enquirers

Section 3.3.60 of the Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) reads: “subject to any legal requirements, the urgent need for CNP Infrastructure to achieving our energy objectives, together with the national security, economic, commercial, and net zero benefits, will in general outweigh any other residual impacts not capable of being addressed by application of the mitigation hierarchy” Section 4.1.3 reads: “Given the level and urgency of need for infrastructure of the types covered by the energy NSPs set out in part 3 of this NPS, the Secretary of State will start with a presumption in favour of granting consent to applications for energy NSIPs”. These proposals are in direct conflict with other policies in the Electricity Act and in National Policy Statements and risks causing untold and unnecessary harm to the environment and to communities. Electricity Act 1989 duties on National Grid include: • Section 38 and Schedule 9 – duty to have regard to the desirability of … conserving flora, fauna, geological or geophysical features of special interest, and or protecting building s and objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest. Preservation of ecological resources (Schedule 9). • Shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect on …any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects. National Policy Statement EN-1 says, in paragraph 3.7.10 that: “…in most cases, there will be more than one technological approach by which it is possible to make such a connection or reinforce the network (for example, by overhead line or underground cable) and the costs and benefits of these alternatives should be properly considered as set out in EN-5 before any overhead line proposal is consented.” These proposals are therefore incompatible with, and contradictory, to other policies and legal requirements for the construction of transmission infrastructure. Further, the proposed wording is incompatible with the aims of the NSIPs action plan, because it will not deliver better, faster, fairer, greener and more resilient infrastructure and projects approved which rely upon this wording are likely to meet significant legal challenge. I object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed wording. ALL relevant matters should be weighed in the planning balance and the appropriate outcome driven by that balance. It is unacceptable to attempt to make such sweeping and damaging changes to policy. These sections would prevent appropriate and necessary challenge and serve only to ensure that bad proposals are rapidly approved. PRESUMPTION TO OVERHEAD LINES (OHL) AND PYLONS The Draft Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-5) includes presumptions that OHL and Pylons should be used to transmit electricity and goes to length in section 2.9 to set out that they will be acceptable in all but extremely rare circumstances. To date the majority of electricity in England has - broadly speaking - been generated by burning coal in the Midlands and North, transporting it north-south through pylons to the denser population areas in the south. In such circumstances OHL and Pylons were a natural starting point. The majority of generation was in the centre of our land mass and there was no real alternative to overhead line and pylons. However, in a future world where the significant proportion of our electricity will be generated offshore through wind power this no longer makes sense. It is self-evident that if the power is being generated offshore and not near to existing OHL, a presumption in favour of OHL to transmit it will be the wrong starting point! As demonstrated by ESO in their December 2020 paper the establishment of a coordinated offshore grid would be approximately £6Bn cheaper when the costs of all parties are summed than their 'counterfactual' example of radial connections to shore supported by onshore pylons. ESO sets out that a coordinated offshore grid results in less use of cable both offshore and onshore and thereby result in less damage in both settings, AND results in a cheaper and MORE RESILIENT grid. OHL’s are highly damaging to habitats and bird strikes into power lines are a major killer acknowledged in the NPS’s. OHL’s are less resilient in extreme weather than underground cables or sub-sea grids. OHL's cause significant damage to landscape, archeology and cultural heritage including the settings of AONB (even when the pylons are outside of the AONB), scheduled monuments and listed buildings. Forcing pylons upon communities without genuine alternatives is not fair. A contentious system in which communities are not presented with options, and in which the one option they are presented is driven by a faulty presumption that OHL and Pylons are the right answer, will be slower than a fair system with fully evidenced alternatives as communities will inevitably mount significant legal challenge. The presumption in favour of OHL's and Pylons is: (i) Outdated, and not fit for a world in which by 2050, according to National Grid ESO in 2020, the UK will need to have a total of 83 Gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind power connected to the grid. (ii) Un-necessary. The electricity is already offshore and is typically not required anywhere near the point at which it would be brought onshore to connect with OHL and Pylons (which do not themselves yet exist and which have no planning approval). As demonstrate by ESO there are better ways to bring the power to where it is needed. (iii) Harmful. It drives the design process at National Grid ensuring that they always commence from an overhead design without any other consideration and even when other options would be better. The assumption that each wind-farm will connect back to shore radially and that power will be transported over land by pylons leads to significant increases in cost, time to approve, time to build, increased damage to landscape, seascape, and cultural heritage. (iv) will drive delays as pylons and OHL do not readily achieve consent amongst the population due to the damage they cause. (v) Incoherent in policy terms, given the requirement also in NPS’s to look at alternatives and Electricity Act 1989 duties on National Grid. As you can see, a presumption in favour of OHL and Pylons will not lead to the best outcomes for anyone. National Grid ESO said, of this growth, “One of the challenges to delivering the ambition in the timescales required will be ensuring that the offshore and onshore transmission network enables this growth in a way that is efficient for consumers and takes account of the impacts on coastal communities and the environment.” I believe that to ensure better, faster, fairer, greener and more resilient transmission infrastructure, which is the goal of the NSIP’s Action Plan: - paragraph 2.11.13 of Draft EN-5 should be changed to read: 'a full range of options must be considered and presented to stakeholders, taking Treasury Green Book[3] principles into account, so that the optimum solution for consumers, communities and the environment is arrived at'. - other references to presumption in favour of OHL should be removed entirely. - a presumption in favour of coordination for offshore projects must be added. - finally, all NPS’s should insist upon compliance with Treasury Green Book guidance. As a separate matter, your hard copy questions includes question 7: “Draft EN5 includes a strong starting presumption for overhead lines for electricity networks developments outside nationally designated landscapes, which was consulted on in 2021. Do you agree?” This is however missing from the online response form. The outcome of the consultation is likely to be biased against those who reject the inclusion of the presumption in favour. As you can see from our response above, we very much reject this proposal. In order to achieve a fair and balanced outcome it must be acknowledged that the current consultation is faulty and it must be re-started.
Dear Sir/ Madam, Thank you for your email which has been received by the Planning Inspectorate. The proposed East Anglia Green Energy Enablement (GREEN) application is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found at the following link to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, your first point of contact should be the developer and we would encourage you to contact National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) directly: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0800 151 0992 It is important that the developer is made aware of any comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Additionally, any queries relating to national policy should be addressed to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, rather than the Planning Inspectorate. Should the application be accepted for Examination in due course, it will be possible to register as an Interested Party by submitting a Relevant Representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 2]. You may also find it helpful to subscribe to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Kind regards, The East Anglia GREEN Case Team

Various enquirers

I am delighted to hear that there will now be a review of the offshore alternative to East Anglia Green proposals set out by National Grid, but having studied the terms of the National Grid ESO review I am in full agreement with the conclusions of the ESN Pylons Action Group and very worried that its scope will be far too narrow. The scoping document still refers to the Norwich to Tilbury link: I believe that this narrow scope will lead to a suboptimal onshore solution, and it is therefore essential that the scope is extended to include all the wind farms currently expecting to land power in East Anglia as well as connectors and interconnectors. In short, it must have similar scope to the review which you have already published in December 2020 and cover options for a coordinated offshore grid. I support the positions taken in this briefing note [redacted]. I would add that the review needs to ignore any existing wind farm connection agreements if they are still subject to planning permission. The planning system needs to serve the wider public interest, and cannot be subservient to individual contracts. The benefits should dramatically outweigh any contractual costs given your previous work published in December 2020 but, if not, then that is a commercial risk knowingly entered into by the parties to the contracts when they executed the agreements prior to obtaining planning permission. Finally, the review needs to make a realistic assessment of timescales for delivery. It should consider the scale of local opposition to the onshore Pylons and Overhead proposals and previous experience with projects such as HS2. Local Opposition to East Anglia Green is extremely strong amongst the population, parish- , city- , county-councils as well as all MPs in the area. Just one year in to the process the Statutory Consultation for East Anglia Green has already been delayed by – I estimate – a year, and a leading Planning KC has issued a strongly worded opinion highlighting legal deficiencies in the process which National Grid ET are following, warning that subsequent stages will be ‘infected’. I suspect that a coordinated offshore grid will be significantly quicker to deliver in practice, an important point if the nation’s net zero targets are to be met.
Dear Sir/ Madam, Thank you for your email which has been received by the Planning Inspectorate. The proposed East Anglia Green Energy Enablement (GREEN) application is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found at the following link to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, your first point of contact should be the developer, National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET). It is important that the developer is made aware of any comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. Should the application be accepted for Examination in due course, it will be possible to register as an Interested Party by submitting a Relevant Representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 2]. You may also find it helpful to subscribe to receive email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Kind regards, The East Anglia GREEN Case Team

Various enquirers

Cyfarfod Cychwynnol - Inception Meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

Bute Energy & Green GEN Cymru - anon.

Inception Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET)

See attached

National Highways - anon.

Enquiry in relation to a high security control centre. Section 14 of the 2008 Planning Act sets out the projects which may be considered to be NSIP and the above development does not appear to be included, and therefore I believe that it should not be treated as a NSIP. However, their definition (NSIP vs CNI) is quite similar so it is a little confusing to me and I was also told that plans showing the location of important rooms (i.e. server rooms) should be redacted if published in the public domain. Therefore, I would appreciate if you could confirm whether a project classed as CNI should not be treated in the same way than NSIPs are when trying to secure planning permission
Development consent under the PA2008 is required for development to the extent that the development is or forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project. It is the responsibility of the potential applicant to seek their own legal advice on whether a proposed development is or forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project. The Planning Inspectorate does not give legal advice on such matters. However, it may be useful to know that the Secretary of State may give a direction for development to be treated as development for which development consent is required under section 35 of PA2008. In relation to your question seeking clarification on ‘whether a project classed as Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) should not be treated in the same way than NSIPs are when trying to secure planning permission’ you may wish to seek your own legal advice.

Panos Konidaris

Enquiry in relation to a high security control centre.   Section 14 of the 2008 Planning Act sets out the projects which may be considered to be NSIP and the above development does not appear to be included, and therefore I believe that it should not be treated as a NSIP. However, their definition (NSIP vs CNI) is quite similar so it is a little confusing to me and I was also told that plans showing the location of important rooms (i.e. server rooms) should be redacted if published in the public domain. Therefore, I would appreciate if you could confirm whether a project classed as CNI should not be treated in the same way than NSIPs are when trying to secure planning permission.  
Development consent under the PA2008 is required for development to the extent that the development is or forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project. It is the responsibility of the potential applicant to seek their own legal advice on whether a proposed development is or forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project. The Planning Inspectorate does not give legal advice on such matters. However, it may be useful to know that the Secretary of State may give a direction for development to be treated as development for which development consent is required under section 35 of PA2008. In relation to your question seeking clarification on ‘whether a project classed as Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) should not be treated in the same way than NSIPs are when trying to secure planning permission’ you may wish to seek your own legal advice

Panos Konidaris

See attached

Prologis UK Ltd - anon.

PEIR update Meeting.
Please see attached.

North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Anglian Water Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Anglian Water Limited - anon.

The Examination of the Sparkford to Ilchester scheme raised the issue of examining alternatives presented by local communities. National Highways argued that proposed changes to the scheme that were substantial material changes or that were changes to the substance of the Application should not be accommodated within the examination process. National Highways conceded that the determination of what is or what is not a material change ultimately lay with the Examining Authority. However, that Examining Authority chose not to examine the alternatives presented by local communities. It is well recorded that during the consultations for the Sparkford to Ilchester scheme local communities presented detailed proposals for alternatives to the scheme design that aimed to eliminate or at least markedly reduce the many adverse impacts of the scheme. National Highways chose not to explore, analyse or develop these community proposals in any depth and ultimately rejected them and used the arguments summarised above to prevent any rigorous examination of the proposals during the DCO process. After the 2019 Sparkford to Ilchester examination, the issue of examining alternatives was tested in 2021 in the High Court following the judicial review of the Stonehenge scheme. The Court decided that the Examining Authority had failed to properly take alternatives into account and as a result the Secretary of State could not properly assess the alternatives. The issue of alternatives arises in the A358 Taunton to Southfields Scheme. Local communities have proposed changes to the design to reduce the adverse impact of the scheme on the well being, health and safety of local communities. Local communities also challenge the adopted design standard as it results in a build of unnecessary scale to achieve the stated scheme objectives. A more compact design would reduce the impact of the scheme on the ecology, landscape and carbon footprint. National Highways refuses to undertake a rigorous examination of these proposals. Moreover, National Highways is not undertaking a safety risk assessment in accordance with the legal requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act, 1974. During the upcoming examination of the A358 Scheme the Community of Parishes asks the Examining Authority to adhere to the ruling of the High Court and insist alternatives to the submitted design are fully considered and recommendations presented in your report to the Secretary of Sate. We would appreciate confirmation that this policy is now adopted within the Planning Inspectorate. Please also see attachment.
Please see attachment.

Robert Burrough

Project Update Meeting 3 May 2023
See attached

Tillbridge Solar Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports - anon.

See Attached
See Attached

Oaklands Solar Farm Limited - anon.

See attached

EPL 001 Limited - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

SASES - Michael Mahony

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

SASES - Michael Mahony

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

SASES - Michael Mahony

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

SASES - Michael Mahony

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Enso Green Holdings D Limited - anon.

Inception Meeting Note - 27 April 2023
Please see attached

Elements Green Trent Ltd - anon.

Please see attached
Please see attached

Marc Vlessing

Please see attached
Please see attached

Marc Vlessing

Please see attached
Please see attached

Marc Vlessing

Please see attached
Please see attached

Marc vlessing

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

EDF Energy - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

RWE - anon.

Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

Elgin Energy and Pegasus Group - anon.

Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

Elgin Energy and Pegasus Group - anon.

Draft Document Feedback
Please see attached

Rampion Extension Development Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

National Grid Interconnector Holdings Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
See attached

Outer Dowsing Offshore Wind Farm - anon.

Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination.
Please see attached.

Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.

Please see attached
Please see attached

BDB Pitmans LLP on behalf of DFDS - anon.

The Infrastructure Planning (Application: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Schedule 1 sets out pre-application statutory consultees. A number of these organisations no longer exist. Who should applicants now deal with instead of: 1. The Regional Planning Body 2. Strategic Health Authority 3. Regional Development Agency 4. Health Protection Agency – (suggest this would now be UK Health Security Agency, the successor to Public Health England, which in turn replaced the Health Protection Agency?) I can’t see anything in your advice notes on this so any advice you can give would be much appreciated.
The version of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications, Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 available on legislation.gov.uk, managed by the National Archives, is showing this legislation as originally made and changes have been made since that time. Some of these changes to relate to your query. I hope the following information provides a clear answer to your query: • The Regional Planning Body. The entry for this consultee was revoked from the legislation through the Infrastructure Planning (Prescribed Consultees and Interested Parties etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 [SI 2013/522]. • The relevant Strategic Health Authority. The entry for this consultee was substituted in the legislation through the Infrastructure Planning (Prescribed Consultees and Interested Parties etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 [SI 2013/522]. It appears from the latest copy of the legislation that the following was substituted in place of the Relevant Strategic Health Authority, “The National Health Service Commissioning Board and the relevant clinical commissioning group”. • The relevant Regional Development Agency. The entry for this consultee was revoked from the legislation through the Infrastructure Planning (Prescribed Consultees and Interested Parties etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 [SI 2013/522]. • Health Protection Agency. The entry for this consultee was substituted in the legislation through the Infrastructure Planning (Prescribed Consultees and Interested Parties etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 [SI 2013/522] and then further substitution was made through the Infrastructure Planning (Prescribed Consultees and Interested Parties etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 [SI 2021/978]. Therefore, this entry is now listed as “United Kingdom Health Security Agency, an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care”. The above should not be read to be legal advice and you may wish to seek further guidance

Office for Health Improvement and Disparities at t - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Equinor / SSE / ERM - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports - anon.

See attached

Michael Mahony SASES - anon.

Please see attached

Michael Mahony, SASES - anon.

Please see attached

Michael Mahony SASES - anon.

Please see attached

Michael Mahony SASES - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Cadent Gas Limited - anon.

See attached

EPL 001 Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

East West Railway Company Limited - anon.

Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination.
Please see attached.

The Planning Inspectorate - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.

A letter, dated 22 March 2023, to London Resort Company Holdings (the applicant for the London Resort project) from Lee Rowley MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Local Government and Building Safety, was copied to the Planning Inspectorate in relation to the London Resort project. The application for a Development Consent Order was withdrawn by the applicant on 28 March 2022.
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has requested that this letter be published on the National Infrastructure Planning website.

Department for Levelling, Housing and Communities - Lee Rowley MP

New Environmental Information.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Chrysaor Production (U.K.) Limited - anon.

Various Enquiries by Susan Davies; Nick Hazle; Daniel and Beth Bisley; Mark Panton; Ian Redman; Hilary Gilbert; Linda Moore; Diane Playford; Kerry Fine; Chris Barnett; Hazelle Woodhurst; Paul Sherrington; Jane Harle
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the proposed Rampion 2 Offshore Windfarm application. The proposed application by Rampion Extension Development Limited is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process and an application for Development Consent has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. We are expecting the application to be submitted to the Inspectorate around Spring 2023. Although this may slip. Following on from the Applicant’s targeted onshore cable route consultation which ran from 18 October 2022 to the 29 November 2022 the Applicant has just commenced a further 30 day period of targeted consultation. This consultation presents a potential alternative to a section of our onshore cable route. This is focussed on a 3km (approx) section in the South Downs, north of Patching. The link to the consultation can be found here [attachment 1] This consultation is open from 24 February to 27 March 2023. If you have not already done so you can continue to make you views known about this project directly with the Applicant via the following contact details: [email protected] or by writing to Rampion 2 Wind Farm, RWE Renewables UK, Greenwood House, Westwood Way, Coventry CV4 8PB. You may find Planning Inspectorate Advice note 8 useful which provides advice aimed at the local community to assist them in understanding and engaging in the developer’s pre-application consultation Advice Note 8.1: Responding to the developer's pre-application consultation. Please note that the pre-application consultation process is entirely led by the Applicant; the Planning Inspectorate has no involvement in it. The Applicant is responsible for ensuring that it complies with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation, which are set out in the Planning Act 2008. However, when an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, an assessment is made on whether the application is of a satisfactory standard to proceed to an examination. One key element of this assessment is to check whether the Applicant has fulfilled its statutory consultation duties. To help make an informed decision on this matter the Inspectorate writes to all host and neighbouring Local Authorities for their views on the adequacy of the consultation. If you have concerns about the adequacy of the consultation carried out by the Applicant, we advise that you get in contact with West Sussex County Council, any comments you make to them can be taken into consideration when we then ask local authorities for an Adequacy of Consultation Response during the acceptance stage of the process. If the application is subsequently accepted for Examination, parties can register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation for the appointed Examining Authority to consider. Further information can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination The appointed Examining Authority will make an initial assessment of the issues arising from the submitted application as well as from the Relevant Representations received, which will inform its Examination of the proposed development. To assist parties in understanding the Planning Act 2008 process, the Planning Inspectorate has prepared a suite of Advice Notes. The Advice Note 8 series provides an overview for members of the public of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. These Advice Notes are available to view on the National Infrastructure Planning website here; [attachment 2] You may wish to note that the Planning Inspectorate has set up a Project Page for this project. All documents received and issued during the course of the Examination if the project is accepted will be published to this page. I hope this information is of assistance.

Various Enquiries

Project inception meeting
Please see attached.

Low Carbon - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Southern Water Services Limited - anon.

Project update Meeting
See attached

Gatroben Developments 2 Limited - anon.

The Scoping Application for this DCO should not be accepted because the Scope is lacking in a large amount of detail. From the Drawings submitted in Volume II Part I it is clear that areas that will have a significant impact on the Scheme DCO footprint are missing. Significant land take for activities such as Pipe Storage Areas (Pipe Dumps) Plant and Equipment Laydown areas, Project office compounds, fabrication areas, HDD pipe strings layout areas and accesses to and from the working pipeline corridor are all missing. These areas will require significant Environmental assessment for both the temporary and permanent impacts as with the rest of the pipeline corridor. Additionally if these areas are not included in the Scope the powers granted under any DCO application to NGC will be missing for these areas and will be open to challenge in the future. Clearly there is a lot of work still to be carried out to determine the Application Scope. I'd also like to make a point regarding the Applicant’s proposal to carry out detailed Ecology surveys post DCO decision and within the Pre-Construction phase. This is wholly not acceptable because inevitably the surveys will not be carried out fully (because of inevitable timeline pressures) and will not be open to the same level of scrutiny that will be carried out within the DCO process. This would set a dangerous precedence which again may be open to challenge post DCO award. The above points gives concern as to the level of the Applicant’s competence.
The Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) considered that the Applicant’s Scoping Report provided the necessary information to inform a request under Regulation 10(3) of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations 2017). A Scoping Opinion was adopted by the Planning Inspectorate on 20 May 2022. As part of the pre-application discussions with the Applicant, their approach to ecological assessment was discussed in a meeting with the Planning Inspectorate on 7 October 2022. This included consideration of a late scoping consultation response from Natural England. A note of that meeting is available on our website in accordance with section 51 of the Planning Act 2008: [attachment 1] In order for a Development Consent Order application to be accepted for Examination (at a later date), the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the Environmental Statement meets the minimum requirements of the EIA Regulations 2017. As the Humber Low Carbon Pipelines application has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, we would encourage you to contact the Applicant (National Grid Carbon Limited) directly with any comments on the Proposed Development. Email: [email protected] The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes that you may find useful, which are available on the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. In particular, our Advice Note Seven provides information on the Scoping process. Advice Note Eight provides an overview of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and the various opportunities for you to participate in the process.

Anonymous - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached

Applicant & Anglian Water - anon.

Meeting held to provide document feedback on documents received on 31 January 2023
Please see attached.

Anglian Water - anon.

Project update meeting regarding consultation.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project Update Meeting - 8 March 2023
See attached

Five Estuaries Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

Planning Inspectorate's advice following the Applicants withdrawal of the Application.
Please see attached.

Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Indaver, Essex County Council and Braintree Distri - anon.

Meeting between the Applicant and the Planning Inspectorate following the Applicants withdrawal of the Application. Including, Appendix A - Request for signposting Information, including the Applicants response and Appendix B - s51 advice issued to the Applicant following its withdrawal of the DCO Application.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports - anon.

Following on from my email and response from Ryan below I thought it would be an opportunity to contact you directly regarding the setting up of a further meeting to discuss logistics for the examinations before we get into the detail for each individual examination when it will become more difficult to look holistically at the process. As you know Cottam and Gate Burton have now been submitted and accepted by PINS and I have received the PINS ‘notification letter’ that West Burton will be submitted on 10th March. So, there is now certainty that these projects will progress to examination, more so than when we met last September. Having spoken to Officers at West Lindsey District Council and representatives from Low Carbon there is certainly a desire to have a further meeting. Also the feedback from the local community is that they would like some certainty about how the applications can be examined in a way that enables the cumulative impacts from all the projects to be looked at in the round rather than at three separate examinations. So I believe that there is good justification to have a further meeting as soon as practically possible to enable all parties to set out their position and hopefully an agreement can be reached which can also be communicated to the local communities who are currently very concerned that the applications will only be assessed in isolation
See attached

Lincolnshire County Council - Neil McBride

Following on from my email and response from Ryan below I thought it would be an opportunity to contact you directly regarding the setting up of a further meeting to discuss logistics for the examinations before we get into the detail for each individual examination when it will become more difficult to look holistically at the process. As you know Cottam and Gate Burton have now been submitted and accepted by PINS and I have received the PINS ‘notification letter’ that West Burton will be submitted on 10th March. So, there is now certainty that these projects will progress to examination, more so than when we met last September. Having spoken to Officers at West Lindsey District Council and representatives from Low Carbon there is certainly a desire to have a further meeting. Also the feedback from the local community is that they would like some certainty about how the applications can be examined in a way that enables the cumulative impacts from all the projects to be looked at in the round rather than at three separate examinations. So I believe that there is good justification to have a further meeting as soon as practically possible to enable all parties to set out their position and hopefully an agreement can be reached which can also be communicated to the local communities who are currently very concerned that the applications will only be assessed in isolation.
See attached

Lincolnshire County Council - Neil McBride

Following on from my email and response from Ryan below I thought it would be an opportunity to contact you directly regarding the setting up of a further meeting to discuss logistics for the examinations before we get into the detail for each individual examination when it will become more difficult to look holistically at the process. As you know Cottam and Gate Burton have now been submitted and accepted by PINS and I have received the PINS ‘notification letter’ that West Burton will be submitted on 10th March. So, there is now certainty that these projects will progress to examination, more so than when we met last September. Having spoken to Officers at West Lindsey District Council and representatives from Low Carbon there is certainly a desire to have a further meeting. Also the feedback from the local community is that they would like some certainty about how the applications can be examined in a way that enables the cumulative impacts from all the projects to be looked at in the round rather than at three separate examinations. So I believe that there is good justification to have a further meeting as soon as practically possible to enable all parties to set out their position and hopefully an agreement can be reached which can also be communicated to the local communities who are currently very concerned that the applications will only be assessed in isolation
See attached

Lincolshire County Council - Neil McBride

Following on from my email and response from Ryan below I thought it would be an opportunity to contact you directly regarding the setting up of a further meeting to discuss logistics for the examinations before we get into the detail for each individual examination when it will become more difficult to look holistically at the process. As you know Cottam and Gate Burton have now been submitted and accepted by PINS and I have received the PINS ‘notification letter’ that West Burton will be submitted on 10th March. So, there is now certainty that these projects will progress to examination, more so than when we met last September. Having spoken to Officers at West Lindsey District Council and representatives from Low Carbon there is certainly a desire to have a further meeting. Also the feedback from the local community is that they would like some certainty about how the applications can be examined in a way that enables the cumulative impacts from all the projects to be looked at in the round rather than at three separate examinations. So I believe that there is good justification to have a further meeting as soon as practically possible to enable all parties to set out their position and hopefully an agreement can be reached which can also be communicated to the local communities who are currently very concerned that the applications will only be assessed in isolation
See attached

Lincolnshire County Council - Neil McBride

Project Update Meeting - 1 March 2023
Please see attached

Tillbridge Solar Limited - anon.

See attached Meeting Note
See attached Meeting Note

North Falls Offshore Wind Farm Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Oaklands Farm Solar Ltd - anon.

Inception Meeting
Please see attached

Frodsham Solar Limited - anon.

Meeting requested by the Planning Inspectorate.
Please see attached meeting note.

Anglian Water Services Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Gatroben Developments 2 Limited - anon.

The Inspectorate attended an online Steering Group for the Morgan Generation Assets and Mona Offshore Wind Projects. The meeting provided further details on the site selection, baseline survey progress and ornithological Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) assessment methodology. The Inspectorate provided the advice noted below.
• The Inspectorate noted that in previous offshore wind farm examinations there have been extensive discussions on ornithological assessment methodology, including displacement and mortality rates and apportioning figures. It advised that these be agreed with Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and Natural England (NE) as early as possible in pre-application stage to reduce the risk of them leading to potential Examination issues. If agreement cannot be reached, the Inspectorate advised the Applicant to submit alternative versions of the assessment using the parameters preferred by each party as it is probable that this would otherwise be sought during an Examination. • The Inspectorate would expect any impact pathway taken forward to appropriate assessment to be considered in light of conservation objectives, in line with the requirements of the Regulations. However, the Inspectorate accepts, in principle, that the level of detail required may vary depending on the European site/qualifying feature/impact pathway. It is sensible to seek a proportionate approach to the assessment. • The Inspectorate recommends that the Applicant includes within their application a demonstrable agreement with NRW/NE that the ornithological surveys adequately took into account the potential effects of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza on the baseline populations.

Morgan and Mona Steering Group - anon.

Mynychodd yr Arolygiaeth Grwp Llywio ar-lein ar gyfer Prosiectau Asedau Generadu Morgan ac Ynni Gwynt Alltraeth Mona. Darparodd y cyfarfod fanylion ychwanegol am ddethol safle, cynnydd arolygon sylfaenol a methodoleg asesu adaregol yr Asesiad Rheoliadau Cynefinoedd (HRA). Rhoddodd yr Arolygiaeth y cyngor a nodir isod. The Inspectorate attended an online Steering Group for the Morgan Generation Assets and Mona Offshore Wind Projects. The meeting provided further details on the site selection, baseline survey progress and ornithological Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) assessment methodology. The Inspectorate provided the advice noted below.
• Nododd yr Arolygiaeth y bu trafodaethau helaeth ynglyn â methodoleg asesu adaregol mewn archwiliadau blaenorol o ffermydd gwynt alltraeth, gan gynnwys dadleoli a chyfraddau marwolaethau a ffigurau dosrannu. Cynghorodd y dylid cytuno ar y rhain gyda Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru (CNC) a Natural England (NE) cyn gynted â phosibl yn ystod y cam cyn-ymgeisio er mwyn lleihau’r perygl y gallent arwain at broblemau posibl yn yr Archwiliad. Os na ellir cytuno, cynghorodd yr Arolygiaeth yr Ymgeisydd i gyflwyno fersiynau amgen o’r asesiad gan ddefnyddio’r paramedrau a ffefrir gan bob parti, gan ei bod yn debygol y byddai hyn yn cael ei geisio yn ystod yr Archwiliad fel arall. • Byddai’r Arolygiaeth yn disgwyl i unrhyw lwybr effaith sy’n symud ymlaen i asesiad priodol gael ei ystyried yng ngoleuni amcanion cadwraeth, yn unol â gofynion y Rheoliadau. Fodd bynnag, mae’r Arolygiaeth yn derbyn, mewn egwyddor, y gallai faint o fanylion sy’n ofynnol amrywio yn dibynnu ar y safle Ewropeaidd/nodwedd gymwys/llwybr effaith. Mae’n synhwyrol ceisio dull cymesur o asesu. • Mae’r Arolygiaeth yn argymell bod yr Ymgeisydd yn cynnwys cytundeb gyda CNC/NE yn ei gais sy’n dangos bod yr arolygon adaregol wedi rhoi ystyriaeth ddigonol i effeithiau posibl Ffliw Adar Pathogenig Iawn ar y poblogaethau sylfaenol. • The Inspectorate noted that in previous offshore wind farm examinations there have been extensive discussions on ornithological assessment methodology, including displacement and mortality rates and apportioning figures. It advised that these be agreed with Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and Natural England (NE) as early as possible in pre-application stage to reduce the risk of them leading to potential Examination issues. If agreement cannot be reached, the Inspectorate advised the Applicant to submit alternative versions of the assessment using the parameters preferred by each party as it is probable that this would otherwise be sought during an Examination. • The Inspectorate would expect any impact pathway taken forward to appropriate assessment to be considered in light of conservation objectives, in line with the requirements of the Regulations. However, the Inspectorate accepts, in principle, that the level of detail required may vary depending on the European site/qualifying feature/impact pathway. It is sensible to seek a proportionate approach to the assessment. • The Inspectorate recommends that the Applicant includes within their application a demonstrable agreement with NRW/NE that the ornithological surveys adequately took into account the potential effects of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza on the baseline populations.

The Planning Inspectorate - anon.

To update PINS, please note that the Council continues to discuss with NH the PPA that it is willing to offer with regards to its LTC DCO submission. In the meantime all engagement on the LTC DCO has had to be suspended pending review of budgets through the independent financial review process. We would appreciate PINS guidance on a couple of matters: 1) Please could you clarify whether PINS /ExA is able to legally compel a LA to provide representation (however minimal) through the DCO Examination process and if so if it is minded to do so with Thurrock? We note that Slough appear to be in a similar situation on a DCO and that there has been (unsubstantiated) suggestion that PINS may take legal action to force them to do so. Any explanation you could provide setting out the PINS position on LTC would be most helpful. 2) If the independent commissioners appointed to oversee Council finances determined that Thurrock Council was not able to afford to make effective representation would the DCO process go ahead without the engagement of the most seriously affected Local Authority, and would the Examination process be considered fair and appropriate? 3) Due to the exceptional circumstances, is it possible for the LTC DCO process to be suspended whilst crucial funding matters are considered noting the delays are seriously impeding the Council’s ability to engage in a fair process and conversely advantage to the applicant? How would the Council go about making such a request for a delay?
Thank you for your emails regarding the current situation at Thurrock Council. To answer your questions: The ExA cannot compel anyone to participate in an examination, although it obviously would be advantageous for all host authorities to be actively involved. Legal representation is not a requirement to enable effective participation in an examination, although we can understand that it is considered preferable by the Council. The process is intended to be primarily a written process. The application has been validly made and there is a statutory obligation on the Examining Authority to examine the application within the set timescales and to provide the SoS with the recommendation report. Any request to delay or suspend the DCO process should be submitted formally by Thurrock Council to the ExA including the length of delay sought, reasons to explain the request for delay and the specific length of delay requested, along with how the ability of the Council to participate would be better at the end of the specified term. In making a procedural decision in relation to a request to delay the start of the examination the ExA must keep in mind the wording at paragraph 45 of the Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent. Although it refers to Applicants, we consider it would be equally applicable to any party making such a request. The ExA would need to consider any prejudice that may be caused by either route, and the views of the applicant and other parties may also be sought and considered. Any such request must be from a person(s) who is authorised to make such a request on behalf of the Council.

Thurrock Council - Colin Black

To update PINS, please note that the Council continues to discuss with NH the PPA that it is willing to offer with regards to its LTC DCO submission. In the meantime all engagement on the LTC DCO has had to be suspended pending review of budgets through the independent financial review process. We would appreciate PINS guidance on a couple of matters: 1) Please could you clarify whether PINS /ExA is able to legally compel a LA to provide representation (however minimal) through the DCO Examination process and if so if it is minded to do so with Thurrock? We note that Slough appear to be in a similar situation on a DCO and that there has been (unsubstantiated) suggestion that PINS may take legal action to force them to do so. Any explanation you could provide setting out the PINS position on LTC would be most helpful. 2) If the independent commissioners appointed to oversee Council finances determined that Thurrock Council was not able to afford to make effective representation would the DCO process go ahead without the engagement of the most seriously affected Local Authority, and would the Examination process be considered fair and appropriate? 3) Due to the exceptional circumstances, is it possible for the LTC DCO process to be suspended whilst crucial funding matters are considered noting the delays are seriously impeding the Council’s ability to engage in a fair process and conversely advantage to the applicant? How would the Council go about making such a request for a delay?
Thank you for your emails regarding the current situation at Thurrock Council. To answer your questions: The ExA cannot compel anyone to participate in an examination, although it obviously would be advantageous for all host authorities to be actively involved. Legal representation is not a requirement to enable effective participation in an examination, although we can understand that it is considered preferable by the Council. The process is intended to be primarily a written process. The application has been validly made and there is a statutory obligation on the Examining Authority to examine the application within the set timescales and to provide the SoS with the recommendation report. Any request to delay or suspend the DCO process should be submitted formally by Thurrock Council to the ExA including the length of delay sought, reasons to explain the request for delay and the specific length of delay requested, along with how the ability of the Council to participate would be better at the end of the specified term. In making a procedural decision in relation to a request to delay the start of the examination the ExA must keep in mind the wording at paragraph 45 of the Planning Act 2008: Guidance for the examination of applications for development consent. Although it refers to Applicants, we consider it would be equally applicable to any party making such a request. The ExA would need to consider any prejudice that may be caused by either route, and the views of the applicant and other parties may also be sought and considered. Any such request must be from a person(s) who is authorised to make such a request on behalf of the Council.

Thurrock Council - Colin Black

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

O.C.O Technology Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.

The enquirer queried whether Section 172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and Schedule 4 Paragraph 10 of the Electricity Act 1989 could be used to gain access to land in the course of preparing a Development Consent Order application.
The Planning Inspectorate has a duty, under s51 of the Planning Act 2008, to provide advice about applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) and making representations about an application, or a proposed application, for such an order. Those seeking to apply for a DCO or those seeking to make a representation in relation to a DCO application should have regard to our advice contained within our suite of Advice Notes accessible on our website: [attachment 1]. In response to your specific question about whether an applicant seeking development consent can use s172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (as amended by the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017) instead of s53 of the Planning Act 2008 to gain access to land, the Planning Inspectorate’s advice regarding this matter is addressed in Section 6 of the ‘Section 53: Rights of entry FAQs’ on the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 2]. The Planning Inspectorate cannot provide legal advice, therefore any questions you raise that require interpretation beyond the advice contained in our FAQ advice should be appropriately directed to those that are able to do so.

Jonathan Dean

Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

Firma Energy Ltd and Ib Vogt UK Ltd - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

London Luton Airport Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Flotation Energy - anon.

Guidance on Relevant Representations
Please see attached

General - anon.

Guidance on Relevant Representations
Please see attached

General - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

National Highways - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Rampion Extension Development Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Various Enquiries by Sheena Nasim; Alan Sutton; David O’Connor; Tim Facer; Claire Van Schalkwyk; Carole Wham; Julian Thorpe; Nick Allen; Richard Clifford; Shane Colvin; Sue Davies; Steve Reading; Meera Smethurst
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the proposed Rampion 2 Offshore Windfarm application. The proposed application by Rampion Extension Development Limited is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process and an application for Development Consent has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. We are expecting the application to be submitted to the Inspectorate around Spring 2023. Although this may slip. As you may be aware, the Applicant has recently carried out a further round of statutory consultation (targeted Onshore Cable Route Consultation) which ran from 18 October 2022 to the 29 November 2022. The deadline for consultation responses has passed however, if you have not already done so you can continue to make you views known about this project directly with the Applicant via the following contact details: [email protected] or by writing to Rampion 2 Wind Farm, RWE Renewables UK, Greenwood House, Westwood Way, Coventry CV4 8PB. Planning Inspectorate Advice note 8 provides advice aimed at the local community to assist them in understanding and engaging in the developer’s pre-application consultation Advice Note 8.1: Responding to the developer's pre-application consultation Please note that the pre-application consultation process is entirely led by the Applicant; the Planning Inspectorate has no involvement in it. The Applicant is responsible for ensuring that it complies with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation, which are set out in the Planning Act 2008. However, when an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination, an assessment is made on whether the application is of a satisfactory standard to proceed to an examination. One key element of this assessment is to check whether the Applicant has fulfilled its statutory consultation duties. To help make an informed decision on this matter the Inspectorate writes to all host and neighbouring Local Authorities for their views on the adequacy of the consultation. If you have concerns about the adequacy of the consultation carried out by the Applicant, we advise that you get in contact with West Sussex County Council, any comments you make to them can be taken into consideration when we then ask local authorities for an Adequacy of Consultation Response during the acceptance stage of the process. If you email provides your comments on the merits of the Proposed Development, which the Applicant is seeking during this consultation if you have not already done so, it is important that you make these comments directly to the Applicant. In view of the above please note that your e-mails to the Inspectorate will be filed but no further action will be taken on them If the application is subsequently accepted for Examination, parties can register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation for the appointed Examining Authority to consider. Further information can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination The appointed Examining Authority will make an initial assessment of the issues arising from the submitted application as well as from the Relevant Representations received, which will inform its Examination of the proposed development. To assist parties in understanding the Planning Act 2008 process, the Planning Inspectorate has prepared a suite of Advice Notes. The Advice Note 8 series provides an overview for members of the public of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. These Advice Notes are available to view on the National Infrastructure Planning website here; [attachment 1] You may wish to note that the Planning Inspectorate has set up a Project Page for this project. All documents received and issued during the course of the Examination if the project is accepted will be published to this page. I hope this information is of assistance.

Various Enquiries

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

If National Grid want to access land for surveys etc, which Act should they gain this under? I assume the Planning Act (2008) While they may have rights of access under other Acts, can they use these Acts for the purpose of a DCO under PA(2008)? If they do gain access under other Acts, is the data and information still valid for a DCO under PA(2098)?
For context, the proposed application is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. Further information about the process can be found at the following link to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. If a developer proposes to make a Development Consent Order (DCO) application under the PA2008, it may apply for authorisation from the Secretary of State under section (s) 53 of the PA2008 for a right to enter land owned by third parties. This must be for specified purposes in connection with a proposed Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project; ie ‘surveying and taking levels’ (s53(1) of the PA2008), and/ or in order to facilitate compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and/ or the Habitats Directive (s53(1), s53(1A) and s53(3A) of the PA2008). Please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note Five: Section 53 – Rights of Entry (Planning Act 2008) for more information. We are not able to comment on the other unspecified legislation you have referred to, beyond s53 of the PA2008. However, please refer to section 6 of the ‘Section 53: Rights of entry FAQs’ on the National Infrastructure Planning website which addresses alternative powers regarding access to land: [attachment 2]. The acceptability and adequacy of data and information forming part of the DCO application is not formally considered by the Planning Inspectorate until the point at which an application is submitted. The approach to identifying and gathering data and information (including surveys) is a matter for the developer to consider when preparing its DCO application. As the East Anglia Green Energy Enablement (GREEN) application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, your first point of contact at this stage should be the developer, National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET), and we would encourage you to contact NGET directly with any specific queries about its Pre-application activities: [email protected].

Jonathan Dean

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Please see attached
Dear Mr King, Thank you for your letter dated 6 December 2022 in relation to the proposed Stonestreet Green Solar project. An application for this project has not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. Until the application is submitted, your first point of contact should be the Developer. I would therefore encourage you to contact EPL 001 Limited directly. It is important that the Developer is made aware of your comments at the pre-application stage of the process, to enable them to consider these points before finalising their proposals and submitting the application to the Planning Inspectorate. The Developer can be reached in the following ways: By email: [email protected] By phone: 08081 698335 If you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to also write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments may be considered by the local authority when sending the Planning Inspectorate its representations on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties which will be taken into account when deciding whether the application can be accepted for Examination. The Planning Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 1] The following Advice Notes may be particularly relevant: Advice Note 8: ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’. Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’ Advice Note 8.3: ‘Influencing how an application is Examined: the Preliminary Meeting’ If an application is submitted and if then, subsequently accepted there will be an opportunity for anyone with an interest in the project to register in the form of a ‘Relevant Representation’. Anyone who makes a Relevant Representation will become an ‘Interested Party’ and will be able to participate in the Preliminary Meeting and the Examination of the application. Please be assured that all Interested Parties with an interest in the proposed development, its potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website. I hope you find the above information useful Kind regards Sarah Norris Sarah Norris Case Manager – National Infrastructure Planning The Planning Inspectorate Helpline: 0303 444 5000 Mobile: 07458014454 Email: [email protected] Web: [attachment 2] Please note that the contents of this email and any attachments are privileged and/or confidential and intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of this email and its attachments, you must take no action based upon them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error and then delete this email from your system. Recipients should note that e-mail traffic on Planning Inspectorate systems is subject to monitoring, recording and auditing to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. The Planning Inspectorate has taken steps to keep this e-mail and any attachments free from viruses. It accepts no liability for any loss or damage caused as a result of any virus being passed on. It is the responsibility of the recipient to perform all necessary checks. The statements expressed in this e-mail are personal and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the Inspectorate. DPC:76616c646f72

Mr King

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

EPL 001 Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Oaklands Farm Solar Ltd - anon.

Draft Document Feedback
Please see attached

Ecotricity (Heck Fen Solar) Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

East Yorkshire Solar Farm Limited - anon.

Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

EDF Renewables - anon.

See attached

Gloucestershire County Council - anon.

Planning Inspectorate Draft Document Response
See Attached

Gloucestershire County Council - anon.

Local authority out-reach meeting.
Please see attached.

Gatwick Officer Group - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Indaver Rivenhall Ltd - anon.

Response to questions raised
Please find below my response to the two questions you raised at the meeting. - Draft document feedback on the ES chapter We discussed where you might record any changes made after our feedback on the draft ES chapter. There is no statutory requirement for you to demonstrate how you responded to our feedback on the draft documents and it is for you to decide how you might want to reflect this. The NSIPs where we have provided feedback on draft documents have not referred to it in the final documents submitted for acceptance, or haven’t gone into any detail about what the advice was on the draft document or how it had been addressed. Unlike the scoping stage we do not recommend Applicants include a table to demonstrate how they have responded. Outline Risk Management / Outline Safety Management Plan Following our discussion I looked at what other solar projects that we are currently involved with as NSIPs are proposing, and the following information may be of help with respect to how these Applicants have addressed fire risks and water requirements in consultation with the Fire and Rescue Authorities: Mallard Pass Solar Project Consultation report LDA Report Template (planninginspectorate.gov.uk)‘ A Battery Safety Management Plan is not required as battery storage is not being considered in the final design of the Proposed Development. Health and Safety onsite would be managed by the contractor during construction and decommissioning to mitigate the risk of fire in line with legislative safety requirements such as the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the CDM Regulations 2015. The oCEMP includes measures that prohibit the burning of waste material onsite. The Proposed Development therefore is not expected to have a significant effect on the environment due to the risk of a major accident occurring as a result of fire during construction and decommissioning’.‘The operational phase of the Proposed Development would involve routine maintenance and servicing of equipment to ensure the safe operation of equipment. Fire equipment and notices will also be provided onsite for the availability of personnel and would be regularly inspected and serviced in accordance with Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The oOEMP sets out details on the measures incorporated into the design to minimise any fire risks. No significant effects are anticipated following implementation of mitigation measures. For more information, please see Chapter 15: Other Environmental Topics, of the ES, [EN010127/APP/6.1] (Wildfires).’ Little Crow Solar Park Consultation Report EN010101-000207-Document Ref 4.1 LC REP CONSULTATION REP.pdf (planninginspectorate.gov.uk)Humberside Fire & Rescue: ‘It is required to provide adequate access for firefighting. The route and hardstanding should be constructed to provide a minimum carrying capacity of 24 tonnes. Adequate provision of water supplies for firefighting appropriate to the proposed risk should be considered’. Applicant: ‘The existing access provision will be upgraded. Passing bays will also be introduced along the access track and would be appropriate to accommodate HGV and fire fighting vehicles alike. A localised water mains runs within the order limits, running parallel with the access track, and provides provision of water supplies should it be necessary’. ES Appendix 4.7 Online Safety Battery Management PlanEN010101-000245-Document Ref 7.14 LC TA4.7 Outline Battery Safety Management Plan.pdf (planninginspectorate.gov.uk) Sunnica Energy Farm Volume 7 7.6 Outline Battery Fire Safety Management Plan SEF_7.6_Outline Battery Fire Safety Management Plan (planninginspectorate.gov.uk) See in particular Table 3: Statutory Consultation Requirements, and Table 12: Proposed List of Risk Mitigation Methods (RMM 17, RMM 18 and RMM 19). In particular, RMM19 may be of interest due to the remote location of the BESS compounds and limited availability and supply of water which proposes use of water tanks. Longfield Solar Farm EN010118-000874-DL3 - ECFRS Initial Consultation Response Longfield Solar Farm.pdf (planninginspectorate.gov.uk) Statement of Common Ground with Essex Fire & Rescue Service Report Longfield Solar Farm 2020-09-30 (planninginspectorate.gov.uk)7.6 Outline Battery Safety Management Plan (BSMP) (planninginspectorate.gov.uk) Consultation Report EN010118-000632-The Applicant - Consultation Report - Updated version.pdf (planninginspectorate.gov.uk) Table 3-13: Key topics raised by consultees during the non-statutory consultation and the Applicant’s response may be of interest.

Ecotricity (Heck Fen Solar) Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Ecotricity (Heck Fen Solar) Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

BP/EnBW - anon.

Chyfarfod diweddaru'r prosiect - Project update meeting.
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached.

BP/EnBW - anon.

The Applicants request for further advice and PINS Response to queries
Please see attached.

Boom Power - anon.

Please see attached
Please see attached

RWE - anon.

Project update meeting
Please see attached

Anglian Water - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

RWE Renewables UK Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

The Environment Agency and Surrey County Council - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

JBM Solar - anon.

How are the cumulative impacts of each wind farm (Morgan, Mona and Morecambe) to be taken into account, if each wind farm is considered separately?
With regard to your query about cumulative impacts, the Applicants for these projects have advised that they are going to undertake environmental impact assessments which will be reported in an environmental statement for each project. The environmental statement for each project will include an assessment of cumulative effects (as they are required to do by the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017). Each project will therefore have to provide an assessment of cumulative effects with other developments which it could interact with. Advice Note Seventeen on our website explains the general advice the Planning Inspectorate gives on undertaking cumulative effects assessment. The environmental statement for each project will be submitted as part of their applications for Development Consent Orders; if the application is accepted then the effects of each project, including the cumulative effects, will be part of the evidence that the Examining Authority (the panel of Inspector(s)) consider during the Examination of the project before making their recommendation to the Secretary of State. The Applicants for each project and for the Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms Transmission Assets have each requested a scoping opinion from the Secretary of State. The scoping opinion provides advice on the topics and assessments which should be reported in the environmental statement. As part of the process of drafting the opinion, applicants submit a scoping report – shipping and navigation and effects on other sea users have been identified as aspects to be assessed in the environmental statements. The Planning Inspectorate which acts on behalf of the Secretary of State, is required to consult various bodies including the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Trinity House, Natural Resources Wales and the Marine Management Organisation and to take their advice into account when drafting the scoping opinion. The advice from these bodies is appended to the scoping opinion. The process the Inspectorate go through when drafting the scoping opinion is described in more detail in Advice Notes Three and Seven on our website. Please note that this is separate from the statutory consultation process which applicants are required to undertake themselves. The environmental statements are required by the EIA Regulations referred to above to be based on the most recent scoping opinion, unless the project is materially different from the project described in the scoping report. You may find it of interest to read the scoping opinions and scoping reports (the scoping opinions may not make much sense unless read in conjunction with the scoping reports).

John Pennington

How are the cumulative impacts of each wind farm (Morgan, Mona and Morecambe) to be taken into account, if each wind farm is considered separately?
With regard to your query about cumulative impacts, the Applicants for these projects have advised that they are going to undertake environmental impact assessments which will be reported in an environmental statement for each project. The environmental statement for each project will include an assessment of cumulative effects (as they are required to do by the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017). Each project will therefore have to provide an assessment of cumulative effects with other developments which it could interact with. Advice Note Seventeen on our website explains the general advice the Planning Inspectorate gives on undertaking cumulative effects assessment. The environmental statement for each project will be submitted as part of their applications for Development Consent Orders; if the application is accepted then the effects of each project, including the cumulative effects, will be part of the evidence that the Examining Authority (the panel of Inspector(s)) consider during the Examination of the project before making their recommendation to the Secretary of State. The Applicants for each project and for the Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms Transmission Assets have each requested a scoping opinion from the Secretary of State. The scoping opinion provides advice on the topics and assessments which should be reported in the environmental statement. As part of the process of drafting the opinion, applicants submit a scoping report – shipping and navigation and effects on other sea users have been identified as aspects to be assessed in the environmental statements. The Planning Inspectorate which acts on behalf of the Secretary of State, is required to consult various bodies including the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Trinity House, Natural Resources Wales and the Marine Management Organisation and to take their advice into account when drafting the scoping opinion. The advice from these bodies is appended to the scoping opinion. The process the Inspectorate go through when drafting the scoping opinion is described in more detail in Advice Notes Three and Seven on our website. Please note that this is separate from the statutory consultation process which applicants are required to undertake themselves. The environmental statements are required by the EIA Regulations referred to above to be based on the most recent scoping opinion, unless the project is materially different from the project described in the scoping report. You may find it of interest to read the scoping opinions and scoping reports (the scoping opinions may not make much sense unless read in conjunction with the scoping reports).

John Pennington

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Oaklands Solar Farm Limited - anon.

Council Advice Meeting.
Please see attached.

Somerset County Council - anon.

We are the umbrella community campaign group for residents along the 180km route of East Anglia GREEN. On 16 June we submitted an 80-page technical response to the non-statutory consultation. It detailed numerous environmental and legal issues. With it we submitted a legal opinion from Charles Banner KC and a survey completed by 2,500 people. Our petition, calling for an integrated offshore grid instead of overhead lines, has been signed by 22,000 people. We will be participating at every stage of the process as the DCO progresses through the system. We have prepared, in consultation with Mr Banner, a submission to this East Anglia GREEN scoping report consultation, which I attach. It sets out, in particular, our concerns that the legal deficiencies set out by Mr Banner relating to the non-statutory consultation have now infected the scoping report. The result is that an Environmental Statement which is produced from this scoping report will also be deficient. These are real and serious concerns and although we are aware that the consultation is targeted at statutory consultees we request that our submission be considered by the Inspector and published on the portal. We look forward to hearing from you.
Before adopting a Scoping Opinion, the Planning Inspectorate, under the terms of Regulation 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations), has a duty to consult: • a body prescribed under section 42(1)(a) of the Planning Act 2008 (duty to consult) and listed in column 1 of the table set out in Schedule 1 to the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 where the circumstances set out in column 2 of that table are satisfied in respect of that body; • each authority that is within section 43 of the Planning Act 2008 (local authorities for purposes of section 42(1)(b)); and • if the land to which the application, or proposed application, relates or any part of that land is in Greater London, the Greater London Authority. The Planning Inspectorate also has a duty to notify certain bodies under Regulation 11 of the EIA Regulations of their duty under the Regulations to make available to the Applicant (National Grid Electricity Transmission) information they possess which is considered relevant to the preparation of the ES. These legal duties are what the recent consultation by the Inspectorate has been based upon and we do not contact any additional parties. Under the criteria set out above Essex Suffolk Norfolk Pylons is not a consultation body for the purposes of EIA Scoping and therefore we are not able to take your comments into account in the Scoping Opinion. The Applicant has their own duty to undertake a wide consultation to inform their Application under the Planning Act. I encourage you and your membership to make your comments on the Scoping Report available to the Applicant if you have not already done so, or via your local councils and/or parish councils, who are consultation bodies for the purposes of the regulations. I thought it would be useful to clarify some points in your response: • An Inspector (as part of the Examining Authority) is not appointed until an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) has been submitted and accepted for examination. • Non-statutory consultation is a voluntary process undertaken by the Applicant and is not defined within the Planning Act 2008. The Applicant must undertake statutory consultation in the form prescribed in the Planning Act 2008 and the EIA Regulations prior to making an application. The Applicant’s consultation report to be submitted with its application will need to demonstrate how consultation responses have been taken into account. • An Environmental Statement (ES) will accompany the application. This will need to meet the legal requirements of the EIA Regulations and will follow the issue of a Scoping Opinion and statutory consultation in respect of Preliminary Environmental Information. The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes that you may find useful, which are available on the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. In particular, our Advice Note Eight provides an overview of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and the various opportunities for you to participate in the process.

Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk Pylons - anon.

We are the umbrella community campaign group for residents along the 180km route of East Anglia GREEN. On 16 June we submitted an 80-page technical response to the non-statutory consultation. It detailed numerous environmental and legal issues. With it we submitted a legal opinion from Charles Banner KC and a survey completed by 2,500 people. Our petition, calling for an integrated offshore grid instead of overhead lines, has been signed by 22,000 people. We will be participating at every stage of the process as the DCO progresses through the system. We have prepared, in consultation with Mr Banner, a submission to this East Anglia GREEN scoping report consultation, which I attach. It sets out, in particular, our concerns that the legal deficiencies set out by Mr Banner relating to the non-statutory consultation have now infected the scoping report. The result is that an Environmental Statement which is produced from this scoping report will also be deficient. These are real and serious concerns and although we are aware that the consultation is targeted at statutory consultees we request that our submission be considered by the Inspector and published on the portal. We look forward to hearing from you.
Before adopting a Scoping Opinion, the Planning Inspectorate, under the terms of Regulation 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations), has a duty to consult: • a body prescribed under section 42(1)(a) of the Planning Act 2008 (duty to consult) and listed in column 1 of the table set out in Schedule 1 to the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 where the circumstances set out in column 2 of that table are satisfied in respect of that body; • each authority that is within section 43 of the Planning Act 2008 (local authorities for purposes of section 42(1)(b)); and • if the land to which the application, or proposed application, relates or any part of that land is in Greater London, the Greater London Authority. The Planning Inspectorate also has a duty to notify certain bodies under Regulation 11 of the EIA Regulations of their duty under the Regulations to make available to the Applicant (National Grid Electricity Transmission) information they possess which is considered relevant to the preparation of the ES. These legal duties are what the recent consultation by the Inspectorate has been based upon and we do not contact any additional parties. Under the criteria set out above Essex Suffolk Norfolk Pylons is not a consultation body for the purposes of EIA Scoping and therefore we are not able to take your comments into account in the Scoping Opinion. The Applicant has their own duty to undertake a wide consultation to inform their Application under the Planning Act. I encourage you and your membership to make your comments on the Scoping Report available to the Applicant if you have not already done so, or via your local councils and/or parish councils, who are consultation bodies for the purposes of the regulations. I thought it would be useful to clarify some points in your response: • An Inspector (as part of the Examining Authority) is not appointed until an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) has been submitted and accepted for examination. • Non-statutory consultation is a voluntary process undertaken by the Applicant and is not defined within the Planning Act 2008. The Applicant must undertake statutory consultation in the form prescribed in the Planning Act 2008 and the EIA Regulations prior to making an application. The Applicant’s consultation report to be submitted with its application will need to demonstrate how consultation responses have been taken into account. • An Environmental Statement (ES) will accompany the application. This will need to meet the legal requirements of the EIA Regulations and will follow the issue of a Scoping Opinion and statutory consultation in respect of Preliminary Environmental Information. The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes that you may find useful, which are available on the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1]. In particular, our Advice Note Eight provides an overview of the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and the various opportunities for you to participate in the process.

Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk Pylons - anon.

In relation to post-submission, we have a specific question at this stage about process. Our understanding was that the post-acceptance/pre-examination stage would take three months but GAL has suggested that it determines how quickly the application moves to the examination stage. We also understand that GAL will publish a S56 notice giving 28 days’ notice (is this a minimum?) for Relevant Representations to be submitted. Is there a deadline after acceptance when PINS would expect GAL to publish the S56 notice? If not, this would suggest that GAL could prolong the pre-examination phase indefinitely. Also, we understand that S58 requires GAL to inform the Secretary of State (SoS) that the S56 notice has been served. Again, is there a deadline after serving the S56 notice that GAL would have to inform the SoS under S58, which presumably triggers the request for local authorities to submit their Local Impact Reports under S60. Lastly (and understanding that your answers to the above questions are relevant), if GAL’s submission is accepted by the end of April 2023, when would the Preliminary Meeting likely take place? In July 2023 (i.e. three months after acceptance) or would PINS delay until after the summer holidays, so in September 2023?
In respect of your question regarding the length of the Pre-examination stage, please note that this stage starts from the day after the issuing of an Acceptance decision, and finishes on the day that the Preliminary Meeting is concluded. There is no statutory timeframe for this stage, and its length is applicant-driven to some extent, in that an applicant would determine when the Relevant Representation period opens; however, the (former) Department for Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) Examination Guidance states that ”the Secretary of State’s expectation is that, in most cases, [the preliminary meeting] should take place within a period from six weeks to two months from receipt of the relevant representations” (paragraph 40). In response to your query about section 56 notices, an applicant’s section 56 notice would need to provide a period of at least 30 days for Relevant Representations to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, on the assumption that the Proposed Development is Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development. The minimum timeframe is 28 days only for projects that are not EIA development. As mentioned above, the start of the Relevant Representation period is applicant-driven, and the Planning Inspectorate does not have the power to compel an applicant to issue its section 56 notice and start the Relevant Representation period within a certain timeframe; however, the DCLG Examination Guidance states “Rarely, applicants may wish to delay the start of the examination of an accepted application. Such a delay may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances, but should be kept to the minimum period necessary. This will limit the risk that the application, including pre-application consultation and environmental information, will no longer be sufficiently current to form the basis of an examination” (paragraph 45). You have also queried whether there is a deadline by which an applicant must issue its section 58 certificate, which certifies compliance with section 56 of the Planning Act 2008. Regulation 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 confirms that the section 58 certificate must be provided to the Planning Inspectorate within the period of 10 working days following the end date of the Relevant Representation period. The Examining Authority will subsequently determine the date for submission of Local Impact Reports. It is common for this date to be confirmed in the Rule 6 letter (the notification of the Preliminary Meeting, incorporating a draft Examination Timetable), and then again in the Rule 8 letter (the final Examination Timetable) following the Preliminary Meeting.” Regarding your final question, the date of the Preliminary Meeting will depend on several factors, including the dates for the Relevant Representation period, and various logistical and procedural considerations. The date of the Preliminary Meeting is confirmed by way of a Procedural Decision in the Rule 6 letter from the Examining Authority appointed during the Pre-examination stage, and therefore is it not possible to determine the date ahead of this decision being made. Nevertheless, the DCLG Examination Guidance (as referred to above) provides an indication of what is considered to be a suitable length of time for the Preliminary Meeting to take place after the Relevant Representation period has closed under normal circumstances.

Gatwick Officers Group - anon.

In relation to post-submission, we have a specific question at this stage about process. Our understanding was that the post-acceptance/pre-examination stage would take three months but GAL has suggested that it determines how quickly the application moves to the examination stage. We also understand that GAL will publish a S56 notice giving 28 days’ notice (is this a minimum?) for Relevant Representations to be submitted. Is there a deadline after acceptance when PINS would expect GAL to publish the S56 notice? If not, this would suggest that GAL could prolong the pre-examination phase indefinitely. Also, we understand that S58 requires GAL to inform the Secretary of State (SoS) that the S56 notice has been served. Again, is there a deadline after serving the S56 notice that GAL would have to inform the SoS under S58, which presumably triggers the request for local authorities to submit their Local Impact Reports under S60. Lastly (and understanding that your answers to the above questions are relevant), if GAL’s submission is accepted by the end of April 2023, when would the Preliminary Meeting likely take place? In July 2023 (i.e. three months after acceptance) or would PINS delay until after the summer holidays, so in September 2023?
In respect of your question regarding the length of the Pre-examination stage, please note that this stage starts from the day after the issuing of an Acceptance decision, and finishes on the day that the Preliminary Meeting is concluded. There is no statutory timeframe for this stage, and its length is applicant-driven to some extent, in that an applicant would determine when the Relevant Representation period opens; however, the (former) Department for Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) Examination Guidance states that ”the Secretary of State’s expectation is that, in most cases, [the preliminary meeting] should take place within a period from six weeks to two months from receipt of the relevant representations” (paragraph 40). In response to your query about section 56 notices, an applicant’s section 56 notice would need to provide a period of at least 30 days for Relevant Representations to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, on the assumption that the Proposed Development is Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development. The minimum timeframe is 28 days only for projects that are not EIA development. As mentioned above, the start of the Relevant Representation period is applicant-driven, and the Planning Inspectorate does not have the power to compel an applicant to issue its section 56 notice and start the Relevant Representation period within a certain timeframe; however, the DCLG Examination Guidance states “Rarely, applicants may wish to delay the start of the examination of an accepted application. Such a delay may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances, but should be kept to the minimum period necessary. This will limit the risk that the application, including pre-application consultation and environmental information, will no longer be sufficiently current to form the basis of an examination” (paragraph 45). You have also queried whether there is a deadline by which an applicant must issue its section 58 certificate, which certifies compliance with section 56 of the Planning Act 2008. Regulation 10 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 confirms that the section 58 certificate must be provided to the Planning Inspectorate within the period of 10 working days following the end date of the Relevant Representation period. The Examining Authority will subsequently determine the date for submission of Local Impact Reports. It is common for this date to be confirmed in the Rule 6 letter (the notification of the Preliminary Meeting, incorporating a draft Examination Timetable), and then again in the Rule 8 letter (the final Examination Timetable) following the Preliminary Meeting.” Regarding your final question, the date of the Preliminary Meeting will depend on several factors, including the dates for the Relevant Representation period, and various logistical and procedural considerations. The date of the Preliminary Meeting is confirmed by way of a Procedural Decision in the Rule 6 letter from the Examining Authority appointed during the Pre-examination stage, and therefore is it not possible to determine the date ahead of this decision being made. Nevertheless, the DCLG Examination Guidance (as referred to above) provides an indication of what is considered to be a suitable length of time for the Preliminary Meeting to take place after the Relevant Representation period has closed under normal circumstances.

Gatwick Officers Group - anon.

Project inception meeting.
Please see attached.

Equinor New Energy Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Enso Green Holdings D Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Southern Water Services Limited - anon.

Project Inception Meeting - 15 November 2022
Please see attached

H2Teesside Project - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Cottam Solar Project Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Boom Power - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Five Estuaries Ltd - anon.

Project Update Meeting
See Attached

National Highways - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Gloucestershire County Council - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

O.C.O Technology Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Gate Burton Energy Park Ltd - anon.

Draft document review.
Please see attached.

London Luton Airport Limited - anon.

Dear Inspectorate, I live near the proposed Medworth EFW site. Could you please advise as to what would happen if under the new PM national planning, environmental or other relevant law is changed during the examination of the Medworth proposal. Clearly changes that may influence representations would be important to the likes of myself and I would appreciate your advice.
Thank you for your email of the 12 October regarding the Medworth Energy from Waste project in which you enquire what would happen if under the new Prime Minister national planning, environmental or other relevant law is changed during the Examination of the proposal. Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. Examining Authorities must make their recommendations after Examination in accordance with the government’s National Policy Statements (NPSs); except in specified circumstances including where the adverse impacts of a Proposed Development would outweigh its benefits (see s104 of the Planning Act 2008 for further information). The NPSs are produced by government and undergo a democratic process of public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny before being designated (i.e adopted). Other policies may also be relevant and important matters which the Examining Authority will consider. The Planning Inspectorate is impartial and does not comment on government policy. However, as explained above Examining Authorities do make their recommendations within the framework provided by NPSs, as required by the Planning Act 2008. The Decision on whether an application is consented or not will ultimately be made by the relevant Secretary of State (SoS) after receiving the recommendation from the Examining Authority. The relevant SoS is the minister with responsibility for the area of government business that an application relates to. For example for this application the SoS for the Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy makes the final decision. The relevant SoS has three months from when the Recommendation Report is submitted in which to make a their decision. If the relevant NPS has not been designated, Section 105 of the Planning Act 2008 sets out what the SoS must have regard to in making their decision where a relevant NPS is not designated. This includes any matter that the SoS thinks is important and relevant to the Secretary of State’s decision. This could include a draft NPS, if one exists. For more information see the National Policy Statements page. [attachment 1] On a general point, a decision maker for an application for a Development Consent Order may take into account any matter they consider to be important or relevant. This may include any emerging national plan, policy or emerging local plan or policy document. It is for the decision maker to decide how much weight to attach to that document. To date we note that you have not submitted a relevant representation. We would encourage you to please make sure that you register as an Interested Party and submit a summary of what you agree with and/ or disagree with in relation to the application [attachment 2] by the Deadline of 23:59 on 15 November 2022. Further information about taking part in the Examination process can be found on our website where there are a suite of Advice Notes. Advice Note 8 provides an Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others. [attachment 3] Please do not hesitate to contact us again if you have any queries by emailing the Inspectorate’s Medworth project mailbox [email protected]

Dr M G Little

Section 51 advice to the Applicant. Please see attached.
Please see attached.

The Planning Inspectorate - anon.

For Attn of The Planning Inspector Good Afternoon, Burton by Lincoln Parish Council have been advised of the above planning projects which are to come before the Planning Inspectorate. The Parish Council are concerned about the nature of these applications and the impact that they will have on the area. We therefore would wish the attached document be put before the Planning Inspector for their consideration when dealing with these applications. As the same concerns relate to all applications as they are similar in nature, we would forward it in relation to all in one email rather than individual responses. We trust that this approach is acceptable. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to be in contact. Kind regards.
Thank you for your email. The Planning Inspectorate administers the Planning Act 2008 process prior to the relevant Government department making the final decisions on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) applications. As the solar NSIP applications proposals are still at the pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process, we strongly advise you to provide your comments on the proposals directly to the Applicants, at this stage. Responding to an Applicant’s pre-application consultation is the best way to influence a proposal, as the Applicant has a duty to have regard to responses to statutory pre-application consultation, ahead of submitting their application to the Planning Inspectorate. I note from your correspondence that ‘The Parish Council are concerned about the nature of these applications and the impact that they will have on the area’. Applicants of projects of this scale are required to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and produce an Environmental Statement (ES). As part of the EIA process, the Applicant is required to undertake a cumulative effects assessment. National Policy Statements provide the primary basis for making NSIP decisions. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) states at paragraph 4.2.5 that: ‘When considering cumulative effects, the ES should provide information on how the effects of the applicant’s proposal would combine and interact with the effects of other development (including projects for which consent has been sought or granted, as well as those already in existence)’. EN-1 can be found on this link: [attachment 1] It is likely that a draft form of the cumulative effects assessment will be, or has been published by the Applicant at the pre-application stage for comment, as part of their statutory consultation (within their Preliminary Environmental Information report). For more information on cumulative effects assessment, I have provided a link to the Planning Inspectorate’s advice note 17: [attachment 2] Each NSIP application can be found under the ‘Projects’ section of our website: [attachment 3]. You can sign up for email updates on the individual project specific webpages for any application you are interested in. To ensure your views are read by an Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party for each application at the appropriate stage. If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently accepted to proceed to examination, you will have the opportunity to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority. To do this, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time for each NSIP application you are interested in. You will have a minimum of 28 days to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project specific webpage. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 4] I hope you have found the above information to be helpful.

Burton by Lincoln Parish Council - anon.

For Attn of The Planning Inspector Good Afternoon, Burton by Lincoln Parish Council have been advised of the above planning projects which are to come before the Planning Inspectorate. The Parish Council are concerned about the nature of these applications and the impact that they will have on the area. We therefore would wish the attached document be put before the Planning Inspector for their consideration when dealing with these applications. As the same concerns relate to all applications as they are similar in nature, we would forward it in relation to all in one email rather than individual responses. We trust that this approach is acceptable. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to be in contact. Kind regards.
Thank you for your email. The Planning Inspectorate administers the Planning Act 2008 process prior to the relevant Government department making the final decisions on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) applications. As the solar NSIP applications proposals are still at the pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process, we strongly advise you to provide your comments on the proposals directly to the Applicants, at this stage. Responding to an Applicant’s pre-application consultation is the best way to influence a proposal, as the Applicant has a duty to have regard to responses to statutory pre-application consultation, ahead of submitting their application to the Planning Inspectorate. I note from your correspondence that ‘The Parish Council are concerned about the nature of these applications and the impact that they will have on the area’. Applicants of projects of this scale are required to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and produce an Environmental Statement (ES). As part of the EIA process, the Applicant is required to undertake a cumulative effects assessment. National Policy Statements provide the primary basis for making NSIP decisions. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) states at paragraph 4.2.5 that: ‘When considering cumulative effects, the ES should provide information on how the effects of the applicant’s proposal would combine and interact with the effects of other development (including projects for which consent has been sought or granted, as well as those already in existence)’. EN-1 can be found on this link: [attachment 1] It is likely that a draft form of the cumulative effects assessment will be, or has been published by the Applicant at the pre-application stage for comment, as part of their statutory consultation (within their Preliminary Environmental Information report). For more information on cumulative effects assessment, I have provided a link to the Planning Inspectorate’s advice note 17: [attachment 2] Each NSIP application can be found under the ‘Projects’ section of our website: [attachment 3]. You can sign up for email updates on the individual project specific webpages for any application you are interested in. To ensure your views are read by an Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party for each application at the appropriate stage. If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently accepted to proceed to examination, you will have the opportunity to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority. To do this, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time for each NSIP application you are interested in. You will have a minimum of 28 days to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project specific webpage. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 4] I hope you have found the above information to be helpful.

Burton by Lincoln Parish Council - anon.

For Attn of The Planning Inspector Good Afternoon, Burton by Lincoln Parish Council have been advised of the above planning projects which are to come before the Planning Inspectorate. The Parish Council are concerned about the nature of these applications and the impact that they will have on the area. We therefore would wish the attached document be put before the Planning Inspector for their consideration when dealing with these applications. As the same concerns relate to all applications as they are similar in nature, we would forward it in relation to all in one email rather than individual responses. We trust that this approach is acceptable. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to be in contact. Kind regards.
Thank you for your email. The Planning Inspectorate administers the Planning Act 2008 process prior to the relevant Government department making the final decisions on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) applications. As the solar NSIP applications proposals are still at the pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process, we strongly advise you to provide your comments on the proposals directly to the Applicants, at this stage. Responding to an Applicant’s pre-application consultation is the best way to influence a proposal, as the Applicant has a duty to have regard to responses to statutory pre-application consultation, ahead of submitting their application to the Planning Inspectorate. I note from your correspondence that ‘The Parish Council are concerned about the nature of these applications and the impact that they will have on the area’. Applicants of projects of this scale are required to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and produce an Environmental Statement (ES). As part of the EIA process, the Applicant is required to undertake a cumulative effects assessment. National Policy Statements provide the primary basis for making NSIP decisions. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) states at paragraph 4.2.5 that: ‘When considering cumulative effects, the ES should provide information on how the effects of the applicant’s proposal would combine and interact with the effects of other development (including projects for which consent has been sought or granted, as well as those already in existence)’. EN-1 can be found on this link: [attachment 1] It is likely that a draft form of the cumulative effects assessment will be, or has been published by the Applicant at the pre-application stage for comment, as part of their statutory consultation (within their Preliminary Environmental Information report). For more information on cumulative effects assessment, I have provided a link to the Planning Inspectorate’s advice note 17: [attachment 2] Each NSIP application can be found under the ‘Projects’ section of our website: [attachment 3]. You can sign up for email updates on the individual project specific webpages for any application you are interested in. To ensure your views are read by an Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party for each application at the appropriate stage. If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently accepted to proceed to examination, you will have the opportunity to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority. To do this, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time for each NSIP application you are interested in. You will have a minimum of 28 days to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project specific webpage. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 4] I hope you have found the above information to be helpful.

Burton by Lincoln Parish Council - anon.

For Attn of The Planning Inspector Good Afternoon, Burton by Lincoln Parish Council have been advised of the above planning projects which are to come before the Planning Inspectorate. The Parish Council are concerned about the nature of these applications and the impact that they will have on the area. We therefore would wish the attached document be put before the Planning Inspector for their consideration when dealing with these applications. As the same concerns relate to all applications as they are similar in nature, we would forward it in relation to all in one email rather than individual responses. We trust that this approach is acceptable. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to be in contact. Kind regards.
Thank you for your email. The Planning Inspectorate administers the Planning Act 2008 process prior to the relevant Government department making the final decisions on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) applications. As the solar NSIP applications proposals are still at the pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process, we strongly advise you to provide your comments on the proposals directly to the Applicants, at this stage. Responding to an Applicant’s pre-application consultation is the best way to influence a proposal, as the Applicant has a duty to have regard to responses to statutory pre-application consultation, ahead of submitting their application to the Planning Inspectorate. I note from your correspondence that ‘The Parish Council are concerned about the nature of these applications and the impact that they will have on the area’. Applicants of projects of this scale are required to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and produce an Environmental Statement (ES). As part of the EIA process, the Applicant is required to undertake a cumulative effects assessment. National Policy Statements provide the primary basis for making NSIP decisions. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) states at paragraph 4.2.5 that: ‘When considering cumulative effects, the ES should provide information on how the effects of the applicant’s proposal would combine and interact with the effects of other development (including projects for which consent has been sought or granted, as well as those already in existence)’. EN-1 can be found on this link: [attachment 1] It is likely that a draft form of the cumulative effects assessment will be, or has been published by the Applicant at the pre-application stage for comment, as part of their statutory consultation (within their Preliminary Environmental Information report). For more information on cumulative effects assessment, I have provided a link to the Planning Inspectorate’s advice note 17: [attachment 2] Each NSIP application can be found under the ‘Projects’ section of our website: [attachment 3]. You can sign up for email updates on the individual project specific webpages for any application you are interested in. To ensure your views are read by an Examining Authority, you will need to register as an Interested Party for each application at the appropriate stage. If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and subsequently accepted to proceed to examination, you will have the opportunity to make comments about the merits of the Proposed Development to an appointed Examining Authority. To do this, you will need to register as an Interested Party by making a Relevant Representation at the appropriate time for each NSIP application you are interested in. You will have a minimum of 28 days to register as an Interested Party and can do so on the project specific webpage. For more information about how and when you can have your say, please see our Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination: [attachment 4] I hope you have found the above information to be helpful.

Burton by Lincoln Parish Council - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports - anon.

General discussion on submission following previous discussion in October 2020.

Thames Crossing Action Group - anon.

Project update meeting - Draft document feedback
Please see attached.

Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

East West Railway Company Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Chrysaor Production (U.K.) Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project Inception Meeting
See attached meeting note

Photovolt Development Partners (PVDP) - anon.

Meeting - Educational Session on the NSIP Process. Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Parish and District Councils - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

I am writing to raise a query on the potential examinations for the three offshore wind farm projects being proposed in the Irish Sea - Morgan, Morecambe and Mona. The three projects are currently working on their Navigation Risk Assessments (Hazard Identification workshops are being held next week) and whilst their applications to PINS are still a long way off, I wanted to raise an early concern that (1) the three projects present concerns to safe navigation in the area and (2) I believe that three separate planning examinations would not provide a full representation of the impacts because of the risks they present cumulatively which probably the most important concern for MCA and other navigational stakeholders. Is there scope within the examination/decision-making process for assessing the potential impacts of all three projects in one examination or does it confine us to three examinations?
It is for the Applicants to decide when to submit their applications, therefore with different submission dates and different applicants there is little scope for combined Examinations or hearing sessions. I would suggest you contact the Applicants and raise your concerns with them. As all three projects are in the pre-application stage the MCA have the opportunity to provide clear advice to the Applicants on how to assess cumulative effects robustly.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

National Grid Carbon (NGC) - anon.

Inception Meeting - 05 October 2022.
Please see attached.

Anglian Water Limited - anon.

Inception Meeting - 05 October 2022.
Please see attached.

Anglian Water Limited - anon.

Meeting note including comments and advice regarding draft Application documents
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited

Project Update Meeting - 30 September 2022.
Please see attached.

Low Carbon, Island Green Power, and Tribus Energy - anon.

Project Update Meeting - 30 September 2022.
Please see attached.

Low Carbon, Island Green Power and Tribus Energy - anon.

Project Update Meeting - 30 September 2023.
Please see attached.

Low Carbon, Island Green Power and Tribus Energy - anon.

Project Update Meeting - 30 September 2022.
Please see attached.

Low Carbon, Island Green Power, and Tribus Energy - anon.

Project Meeting Note
Please see attached

Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council and Kent Cou - anon.

Project Meeting Note
Please see attached

Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council and Kent Cou - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project update meeting and comments on draft documents
Please see attached.

Anglian Water Services Limited - anon.

Tripartite Meeting Part Two.
Please see attached.

National Highways and some Local Authorities - anon.

Tripartite Meeting Part One.
Please see attached.

Some Local Authorities impacted by the scheme - anon.

Tripartite Meeting Part Two
Please see attached.

National Highways and some Local Authorities - anon.

Tripartite Meeting Part One.
Please see attached.

Some Local Authorities impacted by the scheme - anon.

Please see attached
Please see attached

O.C.O Technology Limited

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

Associated British Ports (ABP)

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Gatwick Airport Limited (GAL) - anon.

During the meeting between the Applicant and the Planning Inspectorate on 16 September 2022, the Applicant queried how socio-economic effects from diminution in property value had been addressed through scoping for other similar projects. Please note that a meeting note of the meeting held on 16 September 2022 has been published on the s51 advice tab of the project webpage
In response to your query about property values, I had a look at Heathrow and Luton and whilst for Luton, the topic of property prices has not [been] addressed through scoping, Heathrow had mentioned providing financial compensation to households to reduce any adverse effects. The Inspectorate requested that the ES demonstrates how this reduces adverse effects. I would recommend looking at guidance as I said, both for human health and for socio-economics as hopefully this can provide some sort of steer. Here is a link to the Heathrow Scoping Opinion and Scoping Report page on our website: [attachment 1];amp;stage=1&filter1=Environmental+Impact+Assessment+Scoping Ultimately, the Inspectorate requires the ES to provide evidence sufficient to support the Applicant’s position on the matter and where possible, methodologies should be agreed with the relevant consultation bodies and supported by appropriate guidance

Gatwick Airport Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting including Draft Documents feedback.
Please see attached.

SSE Slough Multifuel Limited - anon.

Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Ventures - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

National Grid Interconnector Holdings Limited - anon.

Draft document review and project update meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

West Burton Solar Project Limited & Cottam Solar Project Limited

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

West Burton Solar Project Limited & Cottam Solar Project Limited

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Five Estuaries Ltd - anon.

Project Inception Meeting
Please see attached

National Highways - anon.

Further to my earlier mail of 16th August and your kind response, it is noted that we are now subject to a further delay on the process of Registering an Interest. Your information box now states that we can expect this process to begin early October 2022. I will not raise the issue of working from home, but will ask who is responsible for this further delay, MVV or Planning, and how reliable is this new extended date? Furthermore, is there a deadline in your protocol for Registering an Interest to proceed? As you can imagine the good citizens of Wisbech are justifiably concerned by this project hanging over their heads and frustrated by the procrastination exhibited by certain parties. Many thanks for your prompt response
Thank you for your email. The registration form to become an Interested Party should be available on our website in early October. We currently cannot give a specific date as the date the relevant representation period is open is generated by the Applicant when they issue and publicise their notification under s56 of the Planning Act 2008. For your information, under s56 of the Planning Act 2008 the Applicant has a duty to publicise an accepted application in the manner prescribed in Regulation 4 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms And Procedures) Regulations 2009. This publication must set the deadline for the receipt of Relevant Representations by the Planning Inspectorate which must be a period of at least 30 days following the date when the notice was last published in the local newspaper. When we receive this information from the Applicant we will publish the dates within which you can register and submit your comments on our website as soon as possible. The best way to find out when registration is open is to sign up to receive email updates for this particular project. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 1] Hope you find the above information useful.

WisWIN - Wisbech Without Incineration - Tom Howlett

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Southern Water - anon.

If an Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Opinion issued by the Inspectorate asks for surveys that had not been requested by Statutory Consultees and are felt to be unnecessary by the Developers Ecological Advisors, how can this be challenged?
An issued Scoping Opinion cannot be amended and therefore suitable argumentation for exclusion would need to be included in the Environmental Statement. In the event that this does not adequately justify exclusion it is possible that the Environmental Statement would not be seen to be adequate and not be accepted.

Stantec on behalf of the applicant - Ben Lewis

Project update meeting for Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms
Please see attached.

Flotation Energy, Cobra, bp, EnBW - anon.

Response to questions raised during the Project Update Meeting on 31 August 2022
Following on from our meeting on Heckington Fen Solar on 31st August, I can confirm that we don’t have any other general policy advice to give you on the approach you should take in your discussions with Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) about the area of coverage of trial trenching, but we would advise that your team continue liaising with LCC’s archaeologist on this matter over the difficulties you are having over access to land for trenching in the proposed cable route red line boundary areas pre submission and any possible solutions. The national policy position on archaeological investigations is set out in the overarching National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy (EN-1) and the draft NPS for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3). These do not specify any percentage area requirements for archaeological excavation such as for trial trenching. The need to meet a certain level of coverage of trial trenching is not in itself something that would necessarily make the ES inadequate or would be an acceptance issue. Although we do not encourage survey data to be submitted after acceptance, the possibility of this is not ruled out and trial trenching could be carried out in the pre examination period for those areas where information may be missing at submission, should this be considered necessary. For acceptance we would be looking at the methodology used to justify the ES conclusions and mitigation if appropriate. Where there is missing trial trench data a ‘worst case scenario’ should be assumed and any appropriate mitigation agreed with LCC, if possible. With respect to your other enquiry about whether the responses to the PEIR for Mallard Pass Solar would be published by the Applicant and/or the local authority/stakeholders, there is no requirement for these responses to be published. I hope that this is of help, but don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions on any of the above.

Ecotricity - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Ecotricity - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Grid - anon.

Morning, Will we be automatically notified of the 30 day registration period? Do we need to register & do we need to submit a skeleton of our argument at this stage? I want to understand when you will request information from us to enable us to factor in Committees and notify staff who will be working on the response.
Thanks for your email. The proposed development falls partly within your council’s jurisdiction. This means that you do not have to register, as you are automatically included within the process. However, you may wish to outline your arguments at an early stage, if so, then you would use the registration form. The registration form will be available on our website around the end of September, unfortunately we can’t give a specific date as it is generated by the Applicant when they issue their notifications. The best way to find out when registration is open is to sign up to receive email updates, you might want to add shared mailboxes or colleagues. [attachment 1];email= [attachment 2] Once we have the list of people or organisations who have registered to take part we will send out the draft timetable. This is likely to be in November. The letter will also include an invitation to the Preliminary Meeting where the draft timetable, and other elements laid out in the letter, will be discussed. That meeting is approximately six weeks after the letter is sent, so in December or January. After that the Examination will begin. As a local authority you also have the opportunity to set out your arguments in a Local Impact Report, the deadline is usually a few weeks after examination starts. I hope this is helpful. If you would like to read more about the process please refer to Advice Note two: The role of local authorities in the development consent process. [attachment 3]

Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Please see attached correspondence
Thank you for your letter of 12 August 2022 on behalf of your client Fountain Frozen Limited (attached). Please accept our apologies for the delay in replying. As you are aware, the Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility application was accepted for Examination on the 2 August 2022. Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) states that an application can be accepted provided: • it is an application for an order granting development consent; • that development consent is required for any of the development to which the application relates; • the Applicant has, in relation to a proposed application that has become the application, complied with Chapter 2 of Part 5 (pre-application procedure); and • that the application (including accompaniments) is of a standard that the Secretary of State considers satisfactory. When making the decision to accept the application the following was considered: • The Consultation Report received with the application • Any Adequacy of Consultation Representations received by the Planning Inspectorate from a local authority consultee. • The extent to which the Applicant has had regard to government guidance. The Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State, has decided that the Application has met the required Acceptance tests in Section 55 of the Planning Act 2008, which includes a decision that the Applicant has met its statutory pre-application consultation requirements under the Planning Act 2008. In your letter you have raised concern about the information contained within the Applicant’s Consultation Report. Advice Note 14: Compiling the Consultation Report clarifies the purpose of the Consultation Report, which is to explain how the Applicant has complied with the pre-application consultation requirements set down in the PA2008. [attachment 1] Following Acceptance, we have entered the Pre-examination stage when you and your client will be able to submit comments on the application. Your comments must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on our website. We expect the registration period to open on 30 August for a minimum of 30 days within which you can register and submit your comments on our website. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 2] You may also wish to subscribe to the project page and receive email updates on the project website. I hope you have found this reply helpful and do not hesitate to get in contact if you have any further queries and send those queries to the project mailbox which is monitored each working day.

on behalf of Fountain Frozen Limited - Fraser Dawbarns LLP

Meeting with BDB Pitmans & DFDS
Please see note and presentation attached.

BDB Pitmans on behalf of DFDS

Diweddariad ar y Prosiect - Project Update Meeting
Gweler ynghlwm - Please see attached

Liverpool Bay CCS Limited - anon.

I refer to your email below [regarding the adequacy of consultation], which has been circulated to various colleagues here at the Council. There has been a delay in responding to this, owing to various colleagues being on annual leave. I do not know if a response has been supplied to you, however I have a draft response ready which I can send to you. Please can you let me know if you have already received a response, and if not, I will have it sent straight away. Kind regards, Chris
Dear Mr Stanek Thank you for your email, As you may already know, the Planning Inspectorate accepted the Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility project for Examination on the 3 August 2022. One of the requirements under s42 of the Planning Act is to ensure that the Applicant carried out adequate consultation. It is for that reason that your Authority was contacted. As the project has already been Accepted for Examination, the Case Team cannot accept any Adequacy of Consultation responses. You will be able to submit your comments on the project as a ‘Relevant Representation’ and register as an Interested Party. Your comments must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage at the appropriate time (likely to start on 30 August for four weeks). [attachment 1] More on how to become an Interested Party can be found in Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination. [attachment 2] Additionally, your LPA can also have their say through a Local Impact Report, more of which can be found in Advice Note 1: Local Impact Reports. [attachment 3] We appreciate you taking the time to write back. Just as a reminder, please remember to cc the project mailbox ([email protected]) as this is monitored daily.

Hertfordshire County Council - Christopher Stanek

Submission Received from Stephen Barclay MP during the Acceptance Period
Please see The Inspectorate's response attached

Rt Hon Stephen Barclay MP

Hi there, Please advise if working from home has a detrimental impact on your ability to process planning applications. It seems that there is rather an erratic processing element in your consideration. The timescale for considering the Medworth application was short and now the process for registering as interested party appears to be elongated. Your comments are valued.
Thank you for your email of 16 August 2022. Please note that our project mailbox is monitored during standard office hours Monday to Friday and we aim to respond to any queries promptly. As you are aware, the Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility application was accepted for Examination on 2 August 2022. You will be able to submit your comments as a ‘Relevant Representation’ and register as an Interested Party. Your comments must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Please note that we will publish the dates within which you can register and submit your comments on our website (likely to start on 30 August). Registration is open for a minimum of 30 days. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 1] You may also find it useful to refer to the suite of Advice Notes and other information on the National Infrastructure website which provide information about the National Infrastructure process and the various stages and timing of those stages. You may find it helpful to also subscribe to receive email updates on the project website. I hope you find the above information useful.

Tom Howlett

I understand that PINS has accepted the Medworth application. Are you able to tell me when we should expect the start date letter, detailing the stages on when we will be expected to respond?
As you already know, the Planning Inspectorate accepted the application for Examination on the 2 August 2022. Once the Applicant has published and notified people of an accepted application (through means such as their website , notifications to statutory parties and notices in the local media), the Planning Inspectorate has approximately three months to prepare for the Examination. During this Pre-examination stage, you will be able to register to become an Interested Party on the application by making a Relevant Representation. You will be able to submit your comments as a ‘Relevant Representation’ and register as an Interested Party. Your comments must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. We will publish the dates within which you can register and submit your comments on our website (likely to start on 30 August). Registration will be open for a minimum of 30 days. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 1] After the RR period is over a Rule 6 letter, appointing the Examining Authority and an Invitation to the Preliminary Meeting will be published and issued to statutory parties and interested parties. This will include a draft Examination Timetable. This letter is normally issued around the three month period from the date of publication of the notification of acceptance. You may also find it useful to refer to the suite of Advice Notes and other information on the National Infrastructure website which provide information about the National Infrastructure process and the various stages and timing of those stages. You may also find it helpful to also subscribe to receive email updates on the project website. Just as a reminder, please remember to send all emails to the Medworth mailbox ([email protected]) as this is monitored daily.

Borough Council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk and West Norfolk

Developer Introduction and Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

JBM Solar - anon.

phone enquiry
Thank you for your phone enquiry on 15 August. Please note that we will publish the dates within which you can register and submit your comments on our website (likely to start on 30 August). Registration is open for a minimum of 30 days. You may find it helpful to subscribe to receive email updates on the project website. For further guidance on how to register to participate in an Examination please see [attachment 1] I hope you find the above information useful.

WisWIN - Wisbech Without Incineration - Virginia Bucknor

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached meeting note

Environment Agency and Surrey County Council

Comments on the draft Statement of Community Consultation
Please see attached

Total Energies and Corio Generation - anon.

BDB Pitmans contacted the Planning Inspectorate (on 21st June and 12th July): to explain that they are acting for DFDS and that DFDS object to the project and are concerned that this wasn’t reflected in the recent note published on the project webpage from a meeting held between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicant. They confirmed that DFDS has contacted the Applicant with their comments on the proposal. (Please find their statutory consultation response attached.)
The Planning Inspectorate advised that DFDS should continue to engage directly with the Applicant at the pre-application stage, to ensure the Applicant is fully aware of their views and to enable the Applicant to have regard to their comments when finalising their proposal and application.

BDB Pitmans on behalf of DFDS

The Council has received two separate planning applications on directly adjacent sites for two 49.9MW solar farms. They have been submitted by the same agent, on behalf of different companies logged as the applicant (but with the same address), but the same overall landowner and are both 49.9MW Solar Farms. The sites are directly next to one another (see attached picture of the combined areas) and if considered together they would exceed the threshold for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. The applications have been validated by the LPA separately but we are unsure whether this is the right procedure we should follow as cumulatively they both would exceed the NSIP threshold. Please could you offer us any advice as a matter of procedure please?
Thank you for your query of the 30 June 2022 regarding the two proposed solar PV sites, located at Hockerton Road, Caunton in the area of Newark and Sherwood District Council. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying. As you will be aware, under section 14(1)(a) of the Planning Act 2008, as amended (PA 2008) the construction or extension of a generating station is defined as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (‘NSIP’). Section 15 of PA 2008, amongst other things, provides that the construction or extension of an onshore generating station in England is within section 14(1)(a) only if the generating station, when constructed or extended, is expected to have a capacity of more than 50 megawatts. Development consent for development that is or forms part of a NSIP must be sought through the NSIP regime, as provided for by PA 2008, rather than under other legislation including, where relevant, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (see section 31 of the PA 2008). An application for such a project would be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in accordance with the process outlined on the National Infrastructure Planning website. If a developer decides to submit an application to the relevant local authority, the Council will need to satisfy itself, taking its own legal advice if appropriate, as to whether or not any proposal can be considered and determined by the planning authority under any regime other than the development consent regime provided for by the PA 2008. It should be noted that, under section 160 of PA 2008, it is an offence if a “person carries out, or causes to be carried out, development for which development consent is required at a time when no development consent is in force in respect of the development”. It will of course be for the developer who proposes to construct the generating station to decide whether or not to apply for an order granting development consent, taking their own independent legal advice. Please note that the Planning Inspectorate does not have the power to give a legally binding interpretation on such matters. Only the Courts can provide a definitive interpretation of legislation, and, so far as we are aware, to date there has been no case law on this point under the PA 2008 regime. The Planning Inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is only able to decide whether an application for an order granting development consent can be accepted for examination, under section 55 of PA 2008, once an application has been formally submitted. Looking at the information provided, the developer asserts that the solar PV installations on the two sites will operate independently of each other and this is indeed pertinent to considering whether the sites can be considered as different generating stations. Important considerations may include whether the solar parks will share a connection to the Distribution Network Operator (DNO) and whether a shared capacity agreement has been negotiated with National Grid. Other material considerations that may inform whether these are separate generating stations are related to the environmental impact of the proposals, if the development requires an Environmental Impact Assessment. In particular, we note that the two sites, are immediately adjacent to each other and are likely to be viewed as a single solar park in landscape and visual terms. It may also be pertinent in environmental terms if they are constructed at the same time by the same contractor and how the construction impacts are therefore assessed and mitigated. Another consideration may also be whether all of the sites are operated by the same entity and the maintenance regime(s) for the installation(s). This email should not be taken as providing any view on which is the appropriate consenting regime for these proposals, nor should any advice given in this letter be taken to pre-judge any future decisions that may be made by, or fetter any discretion of, the Secretary of State in relation to these proposals. Please note that the Inspectorate has a statutory duty to record and make publicly available any advice, such as this, given under s51 of the PA 2008 about applying for an order granting development consent; or making representations about an application, or a proposed application for a development consent order. If you wish to seek any further advice in relation to the NSIP planning regime and these proposals, please contact us again.

Newark and Sherwood District Council - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

Mallard Pass Solar Farm Limited - anon.

Log of Advice provided to Representatives of the host Local Authorities through Meetings between 10 September 2021 and 5 May 2022.
Please see attached.

Local Authorities - anon.

Dear Planning Inspector, I am writing to submit comments on the Medworth Energy from Waste Project. They are as follows: As the Member of Parliament for South West Norfolk, a constituency bordering the proposed Medworth Energy from Waste project in Wisbech, my constituents have expressed concerns over the consultation conducted by the company. Specifically, constituents feel limited notice was provided and that with the consultation undertaken during a period of closure due to the Covid-19 pandemic, no serious public discussion was able to take place. I therefore encourage the planning inspectorate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to consider these concerns before accepting the application. Liz Truss MP Good afternoon, I am emailing today regarding the submission of comments for the planning inspectorate regarding the Medworth Waste Site in Wisbech. We are unsure where we need to place these comments, and consequently we are emailing Liz’s comments to this email address. If this is not the protocol, can you please send us the link where we can do this? Please get back to us to confirm whether we are doing the right thing in emailing you to get Liz’s comments forward and public, or if we must seek another route. Best wishes, Jacob Reeder - Constituency Assistant Office of the Rt. Hon Elizabeth Truss MP
Dear Ms Truss and Mr Reeder (Office of the Rt. Hon Elizabeth Truss MP) Thank you for your enquiry of 3 August requesting information on the process of submitting documents relating to applications for Development Consent Orders, and on 4 August commenting on the Applicant’s pre-application consultation. The Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility application was accepted for Examination on 2 August 2022. You will find the acceptance letter on the project website. [attachment 1] You will be able to comment on the application once the Applicant has notified the public, either in writing or as a published notice, of the accepted application. We will publish the dates within which you can register and submit your comments on our website. Registration is open for a minimum of 28 days. You may find it helpful to subscribe to receive email updates. You may wish to see further guidance on how to register to participate in an Examination. [attachment 2] I hope you find the above information useful.

Office of the Rt. Hon Elizabeth Truss MP - Liz Truss

Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

Gatroben Developments 2 Limited - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

SSE Slough Multifuel Limited - anon.

Log of Advice provided to Applicant (National Highways) through Project Meetings between 17 September 2020 and 31 May 2022.
Please see attached

National Highways

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

West Burton Solar Project Limited & Cottam Solar Project Limited

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

West Burton Solar Project Limited & Cottam Solar Project Limited

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

London Resort Company Holdings - anon.

Inception Meeting Note
Please see attached

Prologis, Lichfields - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Inception Meeting
Please see attached.

Boom Power - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Oxfordshire Rail freight Ltd - anon.

Dear Planning Inspectorate After paying a visit to your website and reading the key points discussed at a meeting that you held with National Highways on 20 May 2022, and after reviewing the online scoping document/diagram, it prompted me to write this email to you and attach my document, entitled, ‘Arundel solution: The Truth’. I appreciate that these meetings maybe normal events leading up to an ‘Applicants’ DCO submission, and that the merits of any scheme will not be considered until at least the pre-examination stage after submission, but given there are discussions at these meetings - albeit at a high-level - about aspects of the proposal and on aspects that the ‘Applicants’ documents need to make clear, I felt it only appropriate that you would want to ensure that there was some balance provided for these pre-submission discussions and information made available on your website. If you choose not to read my report ahead of the pre-examination stage - which will be very disappointing and worrying with respect to procedural fairness - please at the very least publish my document on your web-site. This way it can be made available for all interested parties as we wait for National Highways to submit their A27 Arundel solution proposition. I will, of course, make a separate ‘Relevant Representation’ at Development Consent Order (DCO) submission time. Kind regards
Dear Mr Hammond, Thank you for your e-mail in relation to the proposed A27 Arundel Bypass project on 19 July 2022. Please accept our apologies for the delayed response to your e-mail. The A27 Arundel Bypass project is currently in the Pre-Application stage. The developer has indicated that an application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in Summer/Autumn, 2022. Please note that the Pre-application consultation process is led by the developer, and the Planning Inspectorate’s role at this stage of the process is to provide advice to Applicants and others under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), which we have a duty to publish. The developer is responsible for ensuring that it complies with the legislative requirements surrounding consultation, which are set out in the PA2008. This includes a legal requirement for the developer to consult with Statutory Bodies, affected communities and persons with an interest in the land. Your e-mails provide your comments on the merits of the Proposed Development, which the developer is seeking during pre-application. As such, if you have not already done so, it is important that you make these comments directly to the developer. For further information, please see our advice note 8.1 on Responding to the developers pre-application consultation. In particular, paragraph 7.4 which explains how you can raise any concerns about the developer’s pre application consultation. As you may be aware, the developer has recently carried out its public consultation. It is understood, from the developer’s website, that the deadline for consultation responses was 8 March 2022 at 23:59pm. You can make general enquiries about this with the via the following contact details: Phone: 0300 123 500 Email: [email protected]. When an application is formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, an assessment is made on whether it is of a satisfactory standard to proceed to Examination. One key element of this assessment is to check whether the Applicant has fulfilled its statutory consultation duties. In order to help make an informed decision on this matter the Inspectorate writes to all host and neighbouring local authorities for their views on the adequacy of consultation carried out. You can contact the local authority if you are concerned that the Applicant has not complied with its duties in relation to consultation under the PA2008. The Applicant is also statutorily required to demonstrate in its submitted application where they have shown regard to responses received during their period of statutory consultation. If the Application is accepted for Examination, you will be able to register as an Interested Party and make a Relevant Representation; Please read our Advice Note 8.2 on How to Register to participate in an Examination for further information. Once an Examining Authority is appointed, it will make an initial assessment of the issues arising from the submitted application as well as from the Relevant Representations received, which will contribute to the Examination of the proposed development. In order to assist parties in understanding the Planning Act 2008 process, the Planning Inspectorate has prepared a suite of Advice Notes, which are available on our website. The Advice Note 8 series provide an overview of the examination of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects for members of the public. Hopefully you will find these of assistance. You may wish to note that the Planning Inspectorate has set up a project page for the A27 Arundel Bypass project where documents received and issued during the course of the Examination will be published. Hopefully this e-mail is of assistance but if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us. Your correspondence will be kept on file and a copy of this advice will be published on the project specific webpage under the section 51 advice tab. While common practice is for documents such as the one you submitted, to be submitted as part of a relevant representation, we do appreciate that other documents have been published on the website as part of our Section 51 advice responses for the A27 Arundel Bypass project. Therefore, I can confirm that we will be publishing our response to you and your document in due course. There will be a slight delay while we double check the document (and any additional embedded documents) to ensure that any redactions are applied as appropriate. In particular this is to ensure GDPR compliance. Our Case Administration Team will endeavour to complete this as quickly as possible. Kind Regards

Peter Hammond

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Equinor - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

Alfanar Energy Limited - anon.

Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

Alfanar Energy Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Highways England - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports (ABP) - anon.

Thank you for your email and attachments. The proposed application above is currently at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] The Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the application has not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the developer and we would encourage you to contact National Highways directly: Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0300 123 5000 It is important that the developer is made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the application. The developer’s consultation period was from 23 January 2017 to December 2021 however we would still encourage you to contact National Highways directly Should the application be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 2]
Attached to this email you will find a series of reports, (listed below). These reports have been commissioned by The Messing and Inworth Action Group to detail the issues associated with National Highways Plan for Junction 24 feeder roads, and the Main Alternative (to that plan). As you should be aware, the Main Alternative is fully supported by MIAG, the Parish Council, Essex County Council (at all levels), and our Parliamentary representative, Ms Priti Patel. We are providing these reports now, as early as it has been practical to do so, so that NH may consider all the relevant material before submitting a Development Consent Order to the Planning Inspectorate. You are urged to read them carefully. We then expect NH to fully engage, as has been repeatedly promised but not arranged, with the primary stakeholders, including MIAG, on all matters related to Junction 24, including the Main Alternative. This must be ahead of any DCO submission. We continue to seek a solution to the Junction 24 plans, and the Main Alternative is now demonstrably that. The full list of reports attached hereto is: Report on Technical Aspects of Junction 24; Report on Alternative Route - The Main Alternative; Inworth Roundabout Design Check; In accordance with your own guidelines we look forward to hearing from you within ten days.

Messing and Inworth Action Group Limited - Andrew Harding

Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

Tillbridge Solar Limited - anon.

Project Inception Meeting.
Please see attached.

RNA Energy - anon.

Report on the condition of surrounding roads.
Please see attached.

Messing Action Group - Andrew Harding

Response from Messing-Cum-Inworth Parish Council to the virtual meeting and the Supplementary Consultation.
Please see attached.

Mary Lindsay

Thank you for your response in May. MVV have since advised our Councils that they would be submitting their proposal today - Monday 6th July. All councils have formally objected to their proposal - Cambridgeshire County Council and Norfolk County Council, Fenland District Council and King's Lynn Borough Council. Nothing has yet been published either on MVV's website or yours. When will their submission be available to review by the public? Also during the 30 day consideration period by the Planning Inspectorate, will you be visiting Wisbech? Your advice appreciated.
Thank you for your enquiry in regard to the Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility Nationally Significant Infrastructure project. Please be informed that the Applicant has indicated that it will be submitting the Application later this week. The Planning Inspectorate aims to publish the NSIP Application for development consent with all its associated documentation on the National Infrastructure website as soon as practicable after its receipt (including the Consultation Report). However, please note that it is the Applicant’s decision whether they agree to this, so they may decide to have the Application documents published only if the Application is accepted for Examination. In this instance, the Applicant has not agreed to publishing the Application documents during the Acceptance period. The statutory timetable for the Acceptance of an application is 28 days, beginning with the day after the date of receipt of the application. The Inspectorate must consider whether the Application and its supporting documents are satisfactory and capable of being examined within the statutory timescale. During Pre-examination and/or the Examination period the Examining Authority will carry out a site inspection. This can be Unaccompanied and/or Accompanied, and is up to the discretion of the Examining Authority. You may wish to read more about the Examination of an application, the hearings and site inspections in Advice Note 8.5 The Examination: hearings and site inspections. [attachment 1] I hope you find the above information useful.

WisWIN - Wisbech Without Incineration - Virginia Bucknor

Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

London Luton Airport Limited

We noted in some correspondence that PINS advised that MVV Medworth’s consultation summary may not be able to be made public. Council officers will need to circulate all the information on the application to elected members who may wish to publicise all aspects of the NSIP, and therefore I wondered if you are able to give any indication on whether this would be the case and if so, why? It has been suggested that this might just be a matter of the timing of getting documents uploaded to the PINS webpage for the NSIP and if so, it may be that MVV Medworth make this information public themselves. Noting the 14 day response time given on Adequacy of consultation, we are looking to front load as much work as possible so I’d be grateful for any information or advice you can provide on this point.
In response to your query, as to why the Consultation Report may not be in the public domain during the Acceptance period and must not be shared with Third Parties, please note the following information. As you are aware our letter sent to you on the 12 May 2022 states that ‘the Consultation Report may not be in the public domain so please do not share the version that we send to you with any third parties’. I can provide an explanation for the reasoning behind this. As indicated in paragraph 15 of the Planning Inspectorate’s Advice Note Two: [attachment 1] the role of local authorities in the development consent process, with the agreement of the Applicant, the Planning Inspectorate will publish the NSIP application for development consent with all its associated documentation on the National Infrastructure website as soon as practicable after its receipt (including the Consultation Report). However, it is the Applicant’s decision whether they agree to this, so they may decide to have the application documents published only if the Application is accepted for Examination. Therefore, it is up to he Applicant whether to opt to have all the Application documents published during the Acceptance period. You may wish to explain to your council members that the ‘Acceptance stage’ for NSIP applications is similar to the checking and validation process that a local authority would carry out in respect of a planning application. Given the statutory status of the pre-application stage in the NSIP process, the Planning Inspectorate also has a role to check that the pre-application consultation undertaken by the Applicant was in accordance with the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008), including the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). The Inspectorate must also consider whether the Application and its supporting documents are satisfactory and capable of being examined within the statutory timescale. The statutory timetable for the Acceptance of an application is 28 days, beginning with the day after the date of receipt of the application. As soon as possible after receipt of the application, the Planning Inspectorate will then invite the host and neighbouring local authorities to submit an Adequacy of Consultation representation (AoC). The Planning Inspectorate must have regard to any comments it receives from host and neighbouring authorities in deciding whether or not to accept an application The Inspectorate will be seeking the Adequacy of Consultation representation from the relevant local authorities, including Cambridgeshire County Council within 14 calendar days of the request. To enable this the local authorities will be sent an electronic link to the Consultation Report. It is important to note that a local authorities positive view about an Applicant’s compliance with these statutory duties will not prejudice a local authority’s objection in principle to the Application or any part of it. As at this stage the local authorities are not being asked for views on the merits of the Application. For further information on the NSIP process your council members may wish to view our suite of Advice Notes [attachment 1] and Frequently Asked Questions [attachment 3] I hope you find the above information helpful to explain to your council’s members. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to get in contact.

Cambridgeshire County Council

Good evening, We as members of the local community being affected by large scale solar have found it necessary to form the "Seven Thousand Acres" action group in direct response to the proposals from "Island Green Power" with its Cottam and West Burton solar projects and "Low Carbon" with its Gate Burton energy park. In total around 1500 mw of solar panels and batteries to be sited in rural Lincolnshire and across the border into Nottinghamshire. Planning will be submitted later this year for these projects. Like most people we are all for renewables and green energy, but not at any cost. There needs to be a fair trade off with the loss of food producing land and the impact on rural communities. Intermittent solar power on this scale and all in one region is not a fair trade off. These developments would cover 7000 acres of farmland all within 7 miles of each other! This would totally transform and dominate our landscape. (See attached map which shows the intensity of these proposals) These vast expanses of glass and steel at a height of up to 15 feet, along with the toxic batteries would industrialise our countryside forever. No one area of our Nation should be subject to this shocking intensity of solar development. People’s lives and homes will be severely impacted by the current proposals and many feel all is lost if this goes ahead. This is unnecessary and totally avoidable. Dumping all these solar farms on us would definitely not be "Levelling up" the Country! We have little faith and confidence in the planning process that will decide these projects, when decisions about these are being taken outside of the local community. Food security is as equally important as energy security therefore using good quality agricultural land for this purpose is counterproductive. There needs to be a properly thought-out strategy and a more balanced planning process for these land hungry projects. Starting with the identification of brownfield sites, such as former power stations, airfields, landfill sites and rooftops etc.. Not merely a blatant land grab from large landowners! Not until these options are exhausted should we be using thousands of acres of productive farmland for a relatively small amount of intermittent electricity. We hope this new wave of giant solar farms are not a "done deal" and a democratic and fair process can be followed so we do the right things in the right places. Finally. If the Government feels we can indeed spare our agricultural land for these projects? Then at the very least people's homes and property should be protected? Kind regards, 7000 Acres.
Good afternoon, Thank you for your emails. Many apologies for the delay in replying. The three proposed applications are currently all at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] I’m afraid that the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the applications have not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the developers. It is important that the developers are made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. All three projects currently have open consultation periods. Cottam and West Burton consultation periods close on Wednesday 27 July 2022: [attachment 2] and [attachment 3]. Gate Burton consultation period closes on Friday 5 August 2022: [attachment 4] Should the applications be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Please note that you will need to register separately on each of the three applications to be an Interested Party for all three applications. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 5] You may find it helpful to subscribe to receive automatic email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate – links to sign up are below. Cottam: [attachment 6];email= West Burton: [attachment 7];email= Gate Burton: [attachment 8];email= Kind regards,

7000 Acres - anon.

Good evening, We as members of the local community being affected by large scale solar have found it necessary to form the "Seven Thousand Acres" action group in direct response to the proposals from "Island Green Power" with its Cottam and West Burton solar projects and "Low Carbon" with its Gate Burton energy park. In total around 1500 mw of solar panels and batteries to be sited in rural Lincolnshire and across the border into Nottinghamshire. Planning will be submitted later this year for these projects. Like most people we are all for renewables and green energy, but not at any cost. There needs to be a fair trade off with the loss of food producing land and the impact on rural communities. Intermittent solar power on this scale and all in one region is not a fair trade off. These developments would cover 7000 acres of farmland all within 7 miles of each other! This would totally transform and dominate our landscape. (See attached map which shows the intensity of these proposals) These vast expanses of glass and steel at a height of up to 15 feet, along with the toxic batteries would industrialise our countryside forever. No one area of our Nation should be subject to this shocking intensity of solar development. People’s lives and homes will be severely impacted by the current proposals and many feel all is lost if this goes ahead. This is unnecessary and totally avoidable. Dumping all these solar farms on us would definitely not be "Levelling up" the Country! We have little faith and confidence in the planning process that will decide these projects, when decisions about these are being taken outside of the local community. Food security is as equally important as energy security therefore using good quality agricultural land for this purpose is counterproductive. There needs to be a properly thought-out strategy and a more balanced planning process for these land hungry projects. Starting with the identification of brownfield sites, such as former power stations, airfields, landfill sites and rooftops etc.. Not merely a blatant land grab from large landowners! Not until these options are exhausted should we be using thousands of acres of productive farmland for a relatively small amount of intermittent electricity. We hope this new wave of giant solar farms are not a "done deal" and a democratic and fair process can be followed so we do the right things in the right places. Finally. If the Government feels we can indeed spare our agricultural land for these projects? Then at the very least people's homes and property should be protected? Kind regards, 7000 Acres.
Good afternoon, Thank you for your emails. Many apologies for the delay in replying. The three proposed applications are currently all at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] I’m afraid that the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the applications have not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the developers. It is important that the developers are made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. All three projects currently have open consultation periods. Cottam and West Burton consultation periods close on Wednesday 27 July 2022: [attachment 2] and [attachment 3]. Gate Burton consultation period closes on Friday 5 August 2022: [attachment 4] Should the applications be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Please note that you will need to register separately on each of the three applications to be an Interested Party for all three applications. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 5] You may find it helpful to subscribe to receive automatic email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate – links to sign up are below. Cottam: [attachment 6];email= West Burton: [attachment 7];email= Gate Burton: [attachment 8];email= Kind regards,

7000 Acres - anon.

Good evening, We as members of the local community being affected by large scale solar have found it necessary to form the "Seven Thousand Acres" action group in direct response to the proposals from "Island Green Power" with its Cottam and West Burton solar projects and "Low Carbon" with its Gate Burton energy park. In total around 1500 mw of solar panels and batteries to be sited in rural Lincolnshire and across the border into Nottinghamshire. Planning will be submitted later this year for these projects. Like most people we are all for renewables and green energy, but not at any cost. There needs to be a fair trade off with the loss of food producing land and the impact on rural communities. Intermittent solar power on this scale and all in one region is not a fair trade off. These developments would cover 7000 acres of farmland all within 7 miles of each other! This would totally transform and dominate our landscape. (See attached map which shows the intensity of these proposals) These vast expanses of glass and steel at a height of up to 15 feet, along with the toxic batteries would industrialise our countryside forever. No one area of our Nation should be subject to this shocking intensity of solar development. People’s lives and homes will be severely impacted by the current proposals and many feel all is lost if this goes ahead. This is unnecessary and totally avoidable. Dumping all these solar farms on us would definitely not be "Levelling up" the Country! We have little faith and confidence in the planning process that will decide these projects, when decisions about these are being taken outside of the local community. Food security is as equally important as energy security therefore using good quality agricultural land for this purpose is counterproductive. There needs to be a properly thought-out strategy and a more balanced planning process for these land hungry projects. Starting with the identification of brownfield sites, such as former power stations, airfields, landfill sites and rooftops etc.. Not merely a blatant land grab from large landowners! Not until these options are exhausted should we be using thousands of acres of productive farmland for a relatively small amount of intermittent electricity. We hope this new wave of giant solar farms are not a "done deal" and a democratic and fair process can be followed so we do the right things in the right places. Finally. If the Government feels we can indeed spare our agricultural land for these projects? Then at the very least people's homes and property should be protected? Kind regards, 7000 Acres.
Good afternoon, Thank you for your emails. Many apologies for the delay in replying. The three proposed applications are currently all at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] I’m afraid that the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the applications have not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the developers. It is important that the developers are made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. All three projects currently have open consultation periods. Cottam and West Burton consultation periods close on Wednesday 27 July 2022: [attachment 2] and [attachment 3]. Gate Burton consultation period closes on Friday 5 August 2022: [attachment 4] Should the applications be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Please note that you will need to register separately on each of the three applications to be an Interested Party for all three applications. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 5] You may find it helpful to subscribe to receive automatic email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate – links to sign up are below. Cottam: [attachment 6];email= West Burton: [attachment 7];email= Gate Burton: [attachment 8];email= Kind regards,

7000 Acres - anon.

Good evening, We as members of the local community being affected by large scale solar have found it necessary to form the "Seven Thousand Acres" action group in direct response to the proposals from "Island Green Power" with its Cottam and West Burton solar projects and "Low Carbon" with its Gate Burton energy park. In total around 1500 mw of solar panels and batteries to be sited in rural Lincolnshire and across the border into Nottinghamshire. Planning will be submitted later this year for these projects. Like most people we are all for renewables and green energy, but not at any cost. There needs to be a fair trade off with the loss of food producing land and the impact on rural communities. Intermittent solar power on this scale and all in one region is not a fair trade off. These developments would cover 7000 acres of farmland all within 7 miles of each other! This would totally transform and dominate our landscape. (See attached map which shows the intensity of these proposals) These vast expanses of glass and steel at a height of up to 15 feet, along with the toxic batteries would industrialise our countryside forever. No one area of our Nation should be subject to this shocking intensity of solar development. People’s lives and homes will be severely impacted by the current proposals and many feel all is lost if this goes ahead. This is unnecessary and totally avoidable. Dumping all these solar farms on us would definitely not be "Levelling up" the Country! We have little faith and confidence in the planning process that will decide these projects, when decisions about these are being taken outside of the local community. Food security is as equally important as energy security therefore using good quality agricultural land for this purpose is counterproductive. There needs to be a properly thought-out strategy and a more balanced planning process for these land hungry projects. Starting with the identification of brownfield sites, such as former power stations, airfields, landfill sites and rooftops etc.. Not merely a blatant land grab from large landowners! Not until these options are exhausted should we be using thousands of acres of productive farmland for a relatively small amount of intermittent electricity. We hope this new wave of giant solar farms are not a "done deal" and a democratic and fair process can be followed so we do the right things in the right places. Finally. If the Government feels we can indeed spare our agricultural land for these projects? Then at the very least people's homes and property should be protected? Kind regards, 7000 Acres.
Good afternoon, Thank you for your emails. Many apologies for the delay in replying. The three proposed applications are currently all at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 process. Further information about the process can be found in the link below to the National Infrastructure Planning website: [attachment 1] I’m afraid that the Planning Inspectorate is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it has been submitted and accepted for Examination. As the applications have not yet been formally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate your first point of contact should be the developers. It is important that the developers are made aware of your comments at the Pre-application stage to enable them to consider the points raised before finalising their proposals and submitting the applications. All three projects currently have open consultation periods. Cottam and West Burton consultation periods close on Wednesday 27 July 2022: [attachment 2] and [attachment 3]. Gate Burton consultation period closes on Friday 5 August 2022: [attachment 4] Should the applications be accepted for Examination you will be able to register as an Interested Party by submitting a relevant representation. This must be submitted on the ‘Registration and Relevant Representation form’ which will be made available on the project webpage of the National Infrastructure Planning website at the appropriate time. Please note that you will need to register separately on each of the three applications to be an Interested Party for all three applications. Further information about registering as an Interested Party can be found in the Planning Inspectorate’s ‘Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination’ which can be found here: [attachment 5] You may find it helpful to subscribe to receive automatic email notifications for key events that occur after an application has been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate – links to sign up are below. Cottam: [attachment 6];email= West Burton: [attachment 7];email= Gate Burton: [attachment 8];email= Kind regards,

7000 Acres - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Corio Generation and Tota lEnergies - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

Anglian Water Services Limited - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached .

Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination
Please see attached

The North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park Limited - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

David Jarvis Associates, OCO Technology Limited and SECNewgate

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Grid Carbon (NGC) - anon.

Advice following issue of decision to accept the application for examination.
Please see attached.

Drax Power Limited - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Grid Electricity Transmission - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

National Grid Ventures (NGV) - anon.

Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached.

HyNet North West Hydrogen Pipeline - anon.

Adolygiad o'r ddogfennau ddrafft a chyfarfod diweddaru'r prosiect – Draft documents review and project update meeting
Gweler yr atodiad - Please see attached

Liverpool Bay CCS Limited - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

National Highways - anon.

General discussion of the application and re-submission

Kent County Council - anon.

Draft Documents Feedback and Project Update Meeting
Please see attached

Equinor - anon.

Project Update Meeting
Please see attached.

Southern Water Services Limited - anon.

Please see attached.
Please see attached.

Associated British Ports (ABP) - anon.

Discussion on Trial Trenching Requirements
Please see attached.

Island Green Power and Low Carbon - anon.

Discussion on Trial Trenching Requirements
Please see attached.

Island Green Power and Low Carbon - anon.

Discussion on Trial Trenching Requirements
Please see attached.

Island Green Power and Low Carbon - anon.

Project update meeting.
Please see attached.

BP/EnBW - anon.